McCain calls for 45 new Nuclear Reactors

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BansheeX

Senior member
Sep 10, 2007
348
0
0
Originally posted by: Hafen
While I think Nuke reactors will be part of an energy policy, I don't think we can just plan on building enough of them to dig us out of the hole. Its ignoring all the cons of nuke plants.

As said, the supply of ore isn't unlimited, and 2nd of all, we haven't figured out what to do w/ the waste. That's a pretty big F'ing deal. Nevada will have to be drugged before they open the repository, and even then the issue of collection and transport isn't anywhere near solved. Also, people don't want plants near them, rational fear or not. Building at least 1 per state =huge lawsuits and delays.

Also, power from nukes is expensive. Elect prices will go up vs other types of plants. Lastly, don't forget about terrorism. Again, is everybody going to be ready to build tens of terror rich targets all over the country? More protests and lawsuits.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I hear from nuclear proponents that Uranium is in ten-thousand year supply and thorium will be usable after that. And modern nuclear plants are some of the strongest, most well-guarded places on earth. I can't remember how many feet of reinforced concrete the walls are but suffice it to say, a 747 wouldn't do much provided they could even hijack one these days.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: BansheeX
Originally posted by: Hafen
While I think Nuke reactors will be part of an energy policy, I don't think we can just plan on building enough of them to dig us out of the hole. Its ignoring all the cons of nuke plants.

As said, the supply of ore isn't unlimited, and 2nd of all, we haven't figured out what to do w/ the waste. That's a pretty big F'ing deal. Nevada will have to be drugged before they open the repository, and even then the issue of collection and transport isn't anywhere near solved. Also, people don't want plants near them, rational fear or not. Building at least 1 per state =huge lawsuits and delays.

Also, power from nukes is expensive. Elect prices will go up vs other types of plants. Lastly, don't forget about terrorism. Again, is everybody going to be ready to build tens of terror rich targets all over the country? More protests and lawsuits.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I hear from nuclear proponents that Uranium is in ten-thousand year supply and thorium will be usable after that. And modern nuclear plants are some of the strongest, most well-guarded places on earth. I can't remember how many feet of reinforced concrete the walls are but suffice it to say, a 747 wouldn't do much provided they could even hijack one these days.

What is Thorium?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,169
136
Originally posted by: BansheeX
Originally posted by: Hafen
While I think Nuke reactors will be part of an energy policy, I don't think we can just plan on building enough of them to dig us out of the hole. Its ignoring all the cons of nuke plants.

As said, the supply of ore isn't unlimited, and 2nd of all, we haven't figured out what to do w/ the waste. That's a pretty big F'ing deal. Nevada will have to be drugged before they open the repository, and even then the issue of collection and transport isn't anywhere near solved. Also, people don't want plants near them, rational fear or not. Building at least 1 per state =huge lawsuits and delays.

Also, power from nukes is expensive. Elect prices will go up vs other types of plants. Lastly, don't forget about terrorism. Again, is everybody going to be ready to build tens of terror rich targets all over the country? More protests and lawsuits.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I hear from nuclear proponents that Uranium is in ten-thousand year supply and thorium will be usable after that. And modern nuclear plants are some of the strongest, most well-guarded places on earth. I can't remember how many feet of reinforced concrete the walls are but suffice it to say, a 747 wouldn't do much provided they could even hijack one these days.

IIRC, it is a minimum of 4 foot thick heavy steel reinforced concrete and a 1 inch steel pressure liner. That's just to get into the containment not to mention the reactor itself is behind a high strength steel pressure vessel about a foot thick.

The only things that would be of any signifigant concern would be the engines and landing gear, which have the most mass. The rest of the aircraft would hardly put a scratch on the structure. Containment buildings are also cylindrical so a lot of the force would be deflected around the sides.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous... :confused:
Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

TMI and Chernobyl really aren't comparable. TMI resulted in a negligible release to the environment though the reactor iteslf was destroyed. The containment building (mandated for every reactor in the US) worked quite well despite the operator errors and control problems that damaged the unit.

Chernobyl got and still gets a lot of airplay. I don't know where you've been. There are also the minor details that the US operates no reactors of the Chernobyl type (RBMK), that the reactor operators didn't have a good understanding of their plant, that the same operators violated every safety rule they had, and the total lack of a containment structure which would have kept the core from blowing itself into the Ukrainian night sky.
Yes, it got lots of airplay. People love to hear about death and destruction. But the specific comment I made about the nuclear cloud being mentioned but then not followed up is how I remember it. Maybe it turns out that nuclear fallout isn't really dangerous after all. And I haven't thought or heard of chernobyl for years before I started reading this thread yesterday.

Again, my post was in response to the comment that nuclear power plants aren't dangerous. I don't know how anybody can state this with a straight face. This doesn't mean that the danger can't be managed but there is danger.

There is danger in me crossing the street or taking a sip of water out of the cup on my desk. On a relative basis western civilian nuclear power plants are very safe.
I was going to suggest the safety analogy to airlines but think biological research is more appropriate. If there is a plane crash, zero to a few hundred might die - end of tragic story. If there is an accident with a deadly virus, the affects could be long lasting - much like nuclear power. This shouldn't scare us away from biological research.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: Darwin333
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The nuclear energy folk promise they will clean up their mess and they never have and never will. It's all great theory and leave the mess for our kids. Any nuclear projects should contain a genealogy of all supporters into the future so that future generations can exterminate their descendents. We need real nuclear accountability.

what "messes" are you referring to?

"Nuclear power is not a clean energy source: it produces both low and high-level radioactive waste that remains dangerous for several hundred thousand years. Generated throughout all parts of the fuel cycle, this waste poses a serious danger to human health. Currently, over 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste and 12 million cubic feet of low level radioactive waste are produced annually by the 103 operating reactors in the United States. No country in the world has found a solution for this waste. Building new nuclear plants would mean the production of much more of this dangerous waste with no where for it to go." Make sure it goes in your back yard and your neighbors vote and agree.

On site dry cask storage works remarkably well. It would be great to have a single location to store the dry casks but you have the entire NIMBY thing.

Yup, although they were only supposed to be temporary solutions ;)

While 2000 metric tons of waste per year may sound like a lot, uranium is very dense. The volume which this waste occupies is thus pretty small. All the nuclear waste a power plant generates in 40 years of operation can be stored in casks on a pad about the size of 1/2 a football field.

As for the 12 million cubic feet of low-level waste...well that is mostly tools, clothing, disposable stuff like tape and towels. Most of these items are not radioactive at all. They just have to be disposed of as low-level waste because they COULD be SLIGHTLY contaminated, or they are mixed with other items which are radioactive. Low level waste can be stored in barrels in a warehouse or just chuck them in the ground. Their activity is so low it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from background radiation.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Problem is, there isn't enough fissionable material on earth to fuel current energy needs for much more than 50 or so years.

We need fusion energy. However, for the short term, Fission is fine.

Patently absurd.

There is enough fertile and fissionable material on earth to fuel 100% of humanity's energy needs, assuming continuing growth, for BILLIONS of years. I don't think you understand how much energy is contained in heavy nuclei, and how common they are in the Earth.
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous... :confused:
Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

TMI and Chernobyl really aren't comparable. TMI resulted in a negligible release to the environment though the reactor iteslf was destroyed. The containment building (mandated for every reactor in the US) worked quite well despite the operator errors and control problems that damaged the unit.

Chernobyl got and still gets a lot of airplay. I don't know where you've been. There are also the minor details that the US operates no reactors of the Chernobyl type (RBMK), that the reactor operators didn't have a good understanding of their plant, that the same operators violated every safety rule they had, and the total lack of a containment structure which would have kept the core from blowing itself into the Ukrainian night sky.
Yes, it got lots of airplay. People love to hear about death and destruction. But the specific comment I made about the nuclear cloud being mentioned but then not followed up is how I remember it. Maybe it turns out that nuclear fallout isn't really dangerous after all. And I haven't thought or heard of chernobyl for years before I started reading this thread yesterday.

Again, my post was in response to the comment that nuclear power plants aren't dangerous. I don't know how anybody can state this with a straight face. This doesn't mean that the danger can't be managed but there is danger.

There is danger in me crossing the street or taking a sip of water out of the cup on my desk. On a relative basis western civilian nuclear power plants are very safe.

Agreed. Not to minimize the Chernobyl casualties, but just to put things in perspective:

"[Chernobyl] exposures to people all over the world ... will eventually, after about fifty years, reach 60 billion millirems, enough to cause about 16,000 deaths...

16,000 deaths [are] caused every year by air pollution from coal-burning power plants in the United States alone.

Everything we do involves risk...There are dangers in every type of travel, but there are dangers in staying home--25 percent of all fatal accidents occur there. There are dangers in eating--food is one of the most important cause of cancer and of several other diseases--but most people eat more than is necessary. There are dangers in breathing--air pollution probably kills 100,000 Americans each year, inhaling radon and its decay products is estimated to kill 14,000 a year, and many diseases like influenza, measles, and whooping cough are contracted by inhaling germs...There are dangers in working--12,000 Americans are killed each year in job-related accidents, and probably ten times that number die from job-related illnesses--but most alternatives to working are even more dangerous. There are dangers in exercising and dangers in not getting enough exercise. Risk is an unavoidable part of our everyday lives."




 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: BassBomb
I work in the Nuclear sector for this term (4 months) and I do NOT think it is a feasible solution for the US at this point.

The main people who can build reactors get their ass reamed by regulatory body in the United States (which are much more strict than in Canada).

With the debt you have right now, it would be extremely difficult to undertake the possibility of 45 new reactors.

Not to mention how long it takes to build and commission plants. He would be well out of office before they would even be running, likely leaving problems for the next guy (like the War).

As for waste, an average CANDU plant over its life cycle (which I believe is 20-30 years) will produce enough waste to cover a soccer field, 1 metre thick. This is not that much but people are scared of it. Plants would normally remain in remote locations anyways.

Nuclear plants would have the problem of the lifecycle and refurbishment too. Our company is heading the Bruce Power refurbishment/restarts here and it takes quite a long time to get an old reactor running again. So that being said, once all these nuclear reactors have reached EOL and US relies on them for power, they will likely want to re-use them which will take even more time and money to procure.

I do not think this is a solution to the situation while they are in debt. If they were not in the War in Iraq which took the bulk of thier money, it would have been a good idea

I actually DO work for the nuclear industry, for a power company, that happens to be planning to build a new reactor in the next couple years. We are not "getting our asses reamed" by the NRC. They have a new streamlined process for licensing which is working out just fine so far.

Yes, it does take several years to license and build new plants at the present, mainly because it is restarting a new industry. If dozens of new reactors are ordered, there will be a turn-key process which will speed up the process considerably. Besides, just because building them may be slow, doesn't mean we shouldn't build them at all. The fact that they take years to put into operation should be an incentive to start as soon as possible! Otherwise, in 10 years, we'll just be wishing we started 10 years earlier (just like with oil drilling in ANWR, thank you very much Clinton).

The US government's debt has nothing to do with how private energy companies decide to build power plants. The energy industry has not been nationalized (yet. (exception-TVA)).
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"No country in the world has found a solution for this waste.

Let's see... there is Deep Geologic disposal, High-efficiency IFR reactors, Actinide Burning Fusion reactors, Isotope transmutation & recycling...

No solutions, hm?

I told you the nuclear folk are jokers. They have millions of answers and none of them ever see the light of day. Nuclear waste proposals are there and have always been there to allow the nuclear industry to build nuclear reactors lulling the public into the assumption the waste will be cleaned up while the real intention is always to have that clean up passed to the next generation. Swine only shit. They never wipe their asses. Clean up is costly and earns no profit.

We nuclear folk are not jokers. Its the politicos like yourself which hold us back from providing our customers with cheap, plentiful, clean, safe energy.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
It's weird what's going on with nuclear energy in the western world. Some nations are cutting back, others are expanding. It doesn't make sense.

It does when you realize that most of the nuclear power plants in the western world are designed/built/operated by a single corporate entity, Westinghouse (subsidiary of Toshiba group).

I've no objections to nuclear power. It is clean, has an excellent safety record, and tremendous potential. My objection with building new plants is the horrendous corruption that always occurs along with. Building a nuclear power plant is a multi-billion dollar operation that takes years to complete, and there are ALWAYS cost overruns, delays, and many times plants have been built and then never operated, all at taxpayer cost.
Anyone thinking that this promise will do anything to effect the current price of oil is going to have another thing coming.

There are actually five major nuclear plant companies. Westinghouse, Areva (AKA Framatome), GE, AECL (CANDU), and whatever the Russians call their nuclear agency.

Again, the energy sector in the US is composed of private companies. Cost overruns are not payed by tax payers. They are payed by stock holders. Those cost overruns are usually caused by environmentalist groups.

I don't recall anyone claiming that building nuclear plants would reduce the cost of oil.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: Taejin
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The nuclear energy folk promise they will clean up their mess and they never have and never will. It's all great theory and leave the mess for our kids. Any nuclear projects should contain a genealogy of all supporters into the future so that future generations can exterminate their descendents. We need real nuclear accountability.

what "messes" are you referring to?

"Nuclear power is not a clean energy source: it produces both low and high-level radioactive waste that remains dangerous for several hundred thousand years. Generated throughout all parts of the fuel cycle, this waste poses a serious danger to human health. Currently, over 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste and 12 million cubic feet of low level radioactive waste are produced annually by the 103 operating reactors in the United States. No country in the world has found a solution for this waste. Building new nuclear plants would mean the production of much more of this dangerous waste with no where for it to go." Make sure it goes in your back yard and your neighbors vote and agree.

This is where you're wrong.

The low level radiation produced by nuclear power does NOT last several hundred thousand years.

The high level radioactive waste produced by newer nuclear power plants are designed to last a couple thousand years.

Also, kWh vs kWh, coal produces MORE radioactive waste than nuclear waste does. Go look it up. I did a bunch of research on nuclear vs coal power plants, and I was very surprised to find supporting scientific articles (yes, I can vet scientific articles, since I'm a senior year biochemistry and chem engineering major) that discussed the uranium and thorium in coal. The thorium and uranium in coal is released into the air, unlike nuclear waste, which is concentrated and maintained.

Basically, it comes down to this: we either lower our usage of electricity, or we get more nuclear waste, no matter what we do. If we can both agree that electricity usage is going to go nowhere but up, then we should probably pick the method that allows us to actually keep an eye on the radioactive waste, instead of burning it and releasing it into the air, where we can just 'forget it'.

I think there is some confusion about the nature of radioactivity and radioactive waste.

The half-life of a nuclide is a statistical measure for how long it will take for half of the atoms to disintegrate. The shorter the half-life, the faster the substance will decay away. The longer the half-life, the slower it decays.

A substance that has a very long half-life decays so slowly that is not dangerous. For a substance to be dangerous, like high-level waste, it has to release its radioactivity quickly. So in other words, the more dangerous a radioactive substance is, the faster it will disappear.

Nuclear spent fuel is dangerous because it is a mix of high-level and medium level waste (low level waste is generally used to refer to contaminated trash, like towels, tape, tools, etc). If you reprocess spent fuel, you can remove the short-lived isotopes and let them decay away safely in a few years or decades. The long-lived isoptopes, by their nature, aren't dangerous, and can even be recycled to make new nuclear fuel.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous... :confused:
Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

TMI and Chernobyl really aren't comparable. TMI resulted in a negligible release to the environment though the reactor iteslf was destroyed. The containment building (mandated for every reactor in the US) worked quite well despite the operator errors and control problems that damaged the unit.

Chernobyl got and still gets a lot of airplay. I don't know where you've been. There are also the minor details that the US operates no reactors of the Chernobyl type (RBMK), that the reactor operators didn't have a good understanding of their plant, that the same operators violated every safety rule they had, and the total lack of a containment structure which would have kept the core from blowing itself into the Ukrainian night sky.
Yes, it got lots of airplay. People love to hear about death and destruction. But the specific comment I made about the nuclear cloud being mentioned but then not followed up is how I remember it. Maybe it turns out that nuclear fallout isn't really dangerous after all. And I haven't thought or heard of chernobyl for years before I started reading this thread yesterday.

Again, my post was in response to the comment that nuclear power plants aren't dangerous. I don't know how anybody can state this with a straight face. This doesn't mean that the danger can't be managed but there is danger.

There is danger in me crossing the street or taking a sip of water out of the cup on my desk. On a relative basis western civilian nuclear power plants are very safe.

Agreed. Not to minimize the Chernobyl casualties, but just to put things in perspective:

"[Chernobyl] exposures to people all over the world ... will eventually, after about fifty years, reach 60 billion millirems, enough to cause about 16,000 deaths...

16,000 deaths [are] caused every year by air pollution from coal-burning power plants in the United States alone.

Everything we do involves risk...There are dangers in every type of travel, but there are dangers in staying home--25 percent of all fatal accidents occur there. There are dangers in eating--food is one of the most important cause of cancer and of several other diseases--but most people eat more than is necessary. There are dangers in breathing--air pollution probably kills 100,000 Americans each year, inhaling radon and its decay products is estimated to kill 14,000 a year, and many diseases like influenza, measles, and whooping cough are contracted by inhaling germs...There are dangers in working--12,000 Americans are killed each year in job-related accidents, and probably ten times that number die from job-related illnesses--but most alternatives to working are even more dangerous. There are dangers in exercising and dangers in not getting enough exercise. Risk is an unavoidable part of our everyday lives."
I was with you until you started with the platitudes.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
It's weird what's going on with nuclear energy in the western world. Some nations are cutting back, others are expanding. It doesn't make sense.

It does when you realize that most of the nuclear power plants in the western world are designed/built/operated by a single corporate entity, Westinghouse (subsidiary of Toshiba group).

I've no objections to nuclear power. It is clean, has an excellent safety record, and tremendous potential. My objection with building new plants is the horrendous corruption that always occurs along with. Building a nuclear power plant is a multi-billion dollar operation that takes years to complete, and there are ALWAYS cost overruns, delays, and many times plants have been built and then never operated, all at taxpayer cost.
Anyone thinking that this promise will do anything to effect the current price of oil is going to have another thing coming.

There are actually five major nuclear plant companies. Westinghouse, Areva (AKA Framatome), GE, AECL (CANDU), and whatever the Russians call their nuclear agency.

Again, the energy sector in the US is composed of private companies. Cost overruns are not payed by tax payers. They are payed by stock holders. Those cost overruns are usually caused by environmentalist groups.

I don't recall anyone claiming that building nuclear plants would reduce the cost of oil.

As I pointed out in an earlier post they won't, the number of new ones purposed by McCain over the time period purposed would only keep the percentage of energy used in the US derived from nuclear power at about the same level or at status quo.

However 20% from nuclear plants is better than nothing.


 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: BansheeX
Originally posted by: Hafen
While I think Nuke reactors will be part of an energy policy, I don't think we can just plan on building enough of them to dig us out of the hole. Its ignoring all the cons of nuke plants.

As said, the supply of ore isn't unlimited, and 2nd of all, we haven't figured out what to do w/ the waste. That's a pretty big F'ing deal. Nevada will have to be drugged before they open the repository, and even then the issue of collection and transport isn't anywhere near solved. Also, people don't want plants near them, rational fear or not. Building at least 1 per state =huge lawsuits and delays.

Also, power from nukes is expensive. Elect prices will go up vs other types of plants. Lastly, don't forget about terrorism. Again, is everybody going to be ready to build tens of terror rich targets all over the country? More protests and lawsuits.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I hear from nuclear proponents that Uranium is in ten-thousand year supply and thorium will be usable after that. And modern nuclear plants are some of the strongest, most well-guarded places on earth. I can't remember how many feet of reinforced concrete the walls are but suffice it to say, a 747 wouldn't do much provided they could even hijack one these days.
Starting to sound like one of those hour long infomercials where they try to make the interviewer look like they're not connected with the product being sold.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Solar, not coal or nuclear.

We need neighborhoods to bid on nuclear. Let the people ask the government to build a nuclear plant in their neighborhood. We'll build millions that way.

The waste we have already made has never been stored properly. Lots of containers are leaking all over the place. Nobody will ever clean up the mess because there's no money to do it with. The real cost of nuclear is always passed to future generations with by lies.

People will welcome solar and fight nuclear to death.

Swing and a miss. The waste commercial nuclear power has generated is stored safely and has never leaked. (You may be thinking of Hanford, the plutonium processing facility run by the DoE.)

There is plenty of money to do whatever we want with the waste. Part of your electricity bill (power company's earnings) go into a waste disposal fund. Strike 2.

The real cost of nuclear is paid for by energy consumers in their electric bill, and by government funding. In other words, it is already paid for as it is created. Future generations will not have to deal with our waste because the waste either a) will have decayed to the point where it is no longer dangerous and b) most likely by then the political climate on energy will have shifted enough to allow for reprocessing. Strike 3, you're outta here.

Seriously, I'm getting tired of your meaningless platitudes and cliche liberal meme's which have been proven time and time again to be demonstrably false. Do you enjoy having your ass handed to you over and over again?
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I think there is some confusion about the nature of radioactivity and radioactive waste.

The half-life of a nuclide is a statistical measure for how long it will take for half of the atoms to disintegrate. The shorter the half-life, the faster the substance will decay away. The longer the half-life, the slower it decays.

A substance that has a very long half-life decays so slowly that is not dangerous. For a substance to be dangerous, like high-level waste, it has to release its radioactivity quickly. So in other words, the more dangerous a radioactive substance is, the faster it will disappear.

Nuclear spent fuel is dangerous because it is a mix of high-level and medium level waste (low level waste is generally used to refer to contaminated trash, like towels, tape, tools, etc). If you reprocess spent fuel, you can remove the short-lived isotopes and let them decay away safely in a few years or decades. The long-lived isoptopes, by their nature, aren't dangerous, and can even be recycled to make new nuclear fuel.
This I did not know.
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Agreed. Not to minimize the Chernobyl casualties, but just to put things in perspective:

"[Chernobyl] exposures to people all over the world ... will eventually, after about fifty years, reach 60 billion millirems, enough to cause about 16,000 deaths...

16,000 deaths [are] caused every year by air pollution from coal-burning power plants in the United States alone.

Everything we do involves risk...There are dangers in every type of travel, but there are dangers in staying home--25 percent of all fatal accidents occur there. There are dangers in eating--food is one of the most important cause of cancer and of several other diseases--but most people eat more than is necessary. There are dangers in breathing--air pollution probably kills 100,000 Americans each year, inhaling radon and its decay products is estimated to kill 14,000 a year, and many diseases like influenza, measles, and whooping cough are contracted by inhaling germs...There are dangers in working--12,000 Americans are killed each year in job-related accidents, and probably ten times that number die from job-related illnesses--but most alternatives to working are even more dangerous. There are dangers in exercising and dangers in not getting enough exercise. Risk is an unavoidable part of our everyday lives."
I was with you until you started with the platitudes.

It's just more quoted text from the source I previously cited, since it's apparent that many here aren't at all motivated in becoming educated on this subject. I agree, the last bit I should have cut out. (It was taken from the closing segment of a PBS Frontline episode, so meant for TV rather than print.)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,237
6,338
126
Nuclear waste isn't safe and neither is fissionable material. A solar cell is safe. Of course a bunch of them can electrocute you. I want them on my roof but I don't want radioactive fall out there.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,169
136
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nuclear waste isn't safe and neither is fissionable material. A solar cell is safe. Of course a bunch of them can electrocute you. I want them on my roof but I don't want radioactive fall out there.

Can we store the waste silicon tetrachloride from solar cell production in your backyard?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
It's weird what's going on with nuclear energy in the western world. Some nations are cutting back, others are expanding. It doesn't make sense.

It does when you realize that most of the nuclear power plants in the western world are designed/built/operated by a single corporate entity, Westinghouse (subsidiary of Toshiba group).

I've no objections to nuclear power. It is clean, has an excellent safety record, and tremendous potential. My objection with building new plants is the horrendous corruption that always occurs along with. Building a nuclear power plant is a multi-billion dollar operation that takes years to complete, and there are ALWAYS cost overruns, delays, and many times plants have been built and then never operated, all at taxpayer cost.
Anyone thinking that this promise will do anything to effect the current price of oil is going to have another thing coming.

There are actually five major nuclear plant companies. Westinghouse, Areva (AKA Framatome), GE, AECL (CANDU), and whatever the Russians call their nuclear agency.

Again, the energy sector in the US is composed of private companies. Cost overruns are not payed by tax payers. They are payed by stock holders. Those cost overruns are usually caused by environmentalist groups.

I don't recall anyone claiming that building nuclear plants would reduce the cost of oil.

Indirectly, I will explain how that could occur.

I would advise building a number of government-maintained thorium-cycle nuclear electric plants, with as full reprocessing as technically possible, to provide the majority of electric power in North America. At the same time, shift as much transportation infrastructure to electric energy as possible. If in 20-25 years we can move to a primarily electric-powered transportation system, the strain on oil should ease considerably, in which case oil should indeed dwindle in price. There are countless upsides to this kind of path.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
There are actually five major nuclear plant companies. Westinghouse, Areva (AKA Framatome), GE, AECL (CANDU), and whatever the Russians call their nuclear agency.

Again, the energy sector in the US is composed of private companies. Cost overruns are not payed by tax payers. They are payed by stock holders. Those cost overruns are usually caused by environmentalist groups.

I don't recall anyone claiming that building nuclear plants would reduce the cost of oil.

Indirectly, I will explain how that could occur.

I would advise building a number of government-maintained thorium-cycle nuclear electric plants, with as full reprocessing as technically possible, to provide the majority of electric power in North America. At the same time, shift as much transportation infrastructure to electric energy as possible. If in 20-25 years we can move to a primarily electric-powered transportation system, the strain on oil should ease considerably, in which case oil should indeed dwindle in price. There are countless upsides to this kind of path.

Aye. That is the likely long-term solution that is closest to reality. Other alternative fuel-sources have major issues IMHO.

Biofuels - Would require massive amounts of land to be used to meet our fuel requirements which would hurt overall food production.
Hydrogen - Requires a large amount of energy just to create the hydrogen fuel. Plus, it would be an immense undertaking to set up the infrastructure necessary to distribute the hydrogen fuel.

I like the path of hybrid -> plug-in hybrid -> full electric. We already have the necessary infrastructure in place. The technology is there too outside of battery capacity. Once the battery capacity issue is solved then the transition will be much easier.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
It's weird what's going on with nuclear energy in the western world. Some nations are cutting back, others are expanding. It doesn't make sense.

It does when you realize that most of the nuclear power plants in the western world are designed/built/operated by a single corporate entity, Westinghouse (subsidiary of Toshiba group).

I've no objections to nuclear power. It is clean, has an excellent safety record, and tremendous potential. My objection with building new plants is the horrendous corruption that always occurs along with. Building a nuclear power plant is a multi-billion dollar operation that takes years to complete, and there are ALWAYS cost overruns, delays, and many times plants have been built and then never operated, all at taxpayer cost.
Anyone thinking that this promise will do anything to effect the current price of oil is going to have another thing coming.

There are actually five major nuclear plant companies. Westinghouse, Areva (AKA Framatome), GE, AECL (CANDU), and whatever the Russians call their nuclear agency.

Again, the energy sector in the US is composed of private companies. Cost overruns are not payed by tax payers. They are payed by stock holders. Those cost overruns are usually caused by environmentalist groups.

I don't recall anyone claiming that building nuclear plants would reduce the cost of oil.

Indirectly, I will explain how that could occur.

I would advise building a number of government-maintained thorium-cycle nuclear electric plants, with as full reprocessing as technically possible, to provide the majority of electric power in North America. At the same time, shift as much transportation infrastructure to electric energy as possible. If in 20-25 years we can move to a primarily electric-powered transportation system, the strain on oil should ease considerably, in which case oil should indeed dwindle in price. There are countless upsides to this kind of path.

But will we would still need far more than just the total of 100 nuclear plants purposed to make that happen right?
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nuclear waste isn't safe and neither is fissionable material. A solar cell is safe. Of course a bunch of them can electrocute you. I want them on my roof but I don't want radioactive fall out there.

Can we store the waste silicon tetrachloride from solar cell production in your backyard?

LOL. Hey Moonbeam, I got a box of mercury-filled "eco-friendly" fluorescent bulbs that your friends gave me a great deal on. Mind if I store those in your backyard also? :D
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
I'm not sure on the total number, perhaps QP can shed some light. Any number 100-1000 is fine, so long as they're secure.