Nuclear Power - if you are against it tell me why

[josphII]

first off all recycling/reprocessing plants are very very rare. 0 in the US



<< I am concerned with the nuclear waste, and also, The risk of accidents. Althought the chances for risk is not big, even remote possibilites scares me >>



you shouldnt be scared at all. the odds arents small, they are nil. furthermore even if a sever accident happens the impact on the public will be nil, for example TMI



<< Nuclear power plants generally consume these 1 1/2 ton uranium fuel assemblies in a span of 1 to 2 years >>



your off by quite a bit. a 1 Gigawatt nuclear plant consume 100 metric tons of fuel each year (100,000kg). this amount of waste is insignificant when compared to the mass of the gaseous pollutants release by oil or coal plants

 

[N8Magic]

blahblah99,

That article you posted is complete hype. I know for a fact how well nuclear power installations are guarded. (my relative was chief of security at an installation here in Canada).

All of those points can be debunked by the fact that security measures are already in place to take care of a terrorist threat. In fact, the reactor installations here in Canada now have surface-to-air missiles (since 9/11) to guard them and shoot down any object that poses a immediate threat.

As for ICBM's, they wouldn't get within 1000 miles of the coastline of North America before they were shot down, let alone to a target on the mainland.

Let's be realistic here, shall we?

 

[Czar]

charrison
I´m not sure if I know much about this but... (I read about it in a science magazine and the article was about a recycling pland in Sweeden, just cant find the magazine)
Cleaning up radioactive pollution is done by letting various chemicals absorb some of the pollution. So the radioactive material is put in a giant pool full of water and some other chemicals (i think) anyway, most of the radiation goes to the other material or gets erazed. I think teknisium is one of those chemicals that is used to absorb the radiation but somehow the water gets polluted to with teknisium and this water is dumped in the ocean.
I realy need to find that magazine.

The magazine is called "Lifandi V&iacute;sindi" and is just a translation of a danish magazine which is called same but in danish. "Lifandi V&iacute;sindi" translates to "Living Science" in english.

 

[josphII]

BlahBlah99-

destroying the plant doesnt mean anything. i stopped reading at about number 7. if you destroy the cooling tower or something along those lines then the operators will simply scram the reactor (shut it down) and at that point the risk of the fuel melting (worst case scenario) is nil.

cruise missles, tanks.... im not sure if those can penetrate the reactor vessel. my first thought is no. the reactor vessel is designed to withstand the impact of a 747, and unlike the WTC power plants are not on the 110 story of a building.

can you take the reactor off line? yes
can you disble the power plants abilty to produce power? yes
can you penetrate the reactor vessel? maybe if you have a tank, im not sure

but even if the reactor vessel spontaneously cracks the danger to the public is still nil (people around the plant may be screwed), but radiation doesnt exacly spread like poppy seeds

 

[Czar]

<< Is teknesium the same thing as Einsteinium? >>



Ah, its Technetium-99 (99 Tc).

http://www.gr.is/bok-2/no22.htm
Some info

 

[Bassyhead]

There were actually government tests in which they slammed fighter jets and stuff against an 8 foot thick concrete wall to see what would happen. Saw it on the news. Anyone have a link?

 

[josphII]

<< charrison
I´m not sure if I know much about this but... (I read about it in a science magazine and the article was about a recycling pland in Sweeden, just cant find the magazine)
Cleaning up radioactive pollution is done by letting various chemicals absorb some of the pollution. So the radioactive material is put in a giant pool full of water and some other chemicals (i think) anyway, most of the radiation goes to the other material or gets erazed. I think teknisium is one of those chemicals that is used to absorb the radiation but somehow the water gets polluted to with teknisium and this water is dumped in the ocean.
I realy need to find that magazine.

The magazine is called "Lifandi V&iacute;sindi" and is just a translation of a danish magazine which is called same but in danish. "Lifandi V&iacute;sindi" translates to "Living Science" in english. >>



i can gaurantee you that (in the US anyhow) radioactive water is NOT a byproduct of a nuclear plant or any part of the fuel cycle. The NRC actually has guidlines saying at what level radioactivity water can no longer be dumped back to the environment. i find it hard to believe that their isnt equivalent regulations in europe

 

[StageLeft]

Can't be bothered to get into it but if you must know most of the world's leaders understand that it's a bad thing to use, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[N8Magic]

<< Can't be bothered to get into it but if you must know most of the world's leaders understand that it's a bad thing to use, so I'll leave it at that. >>



Most of the world leaders are also ignorant of the facts. Not to mention that they are in OPEC's hip pocket.

 

[Czar]

<< i can gaurantee you that (in the US anyhow) radioactive water is NOT a byproduct of a nuclear plant or any part of the fuel cycle. The NRC actually has guidlines saying at what level radioactivity water can no longer be dumped back to the environment. i find it hard to believe that their isnt equivalent regulations in europe >>



It is used, Sellafield is not as high tech as it could be. There are ways to do it more cleaner but the modifications on the plant have not been done even though governments of a few countries have pointed it out. Currently there is an signed agreement for France and England to shut down all of its recycling plants by the year 2020, a bit late in my mind. France and England are the only countries that use this methood in Europe I think.

 

[UltraQuiet]

I think we are missing the boat when it comes to nuclear power. We ought to be building lots of these plants here in the states. My understanding is that power companies don't want to build them because construction costs are greater than traditional plants. Very shortsighted of them. Maybe the gov't could help them out some way(tax credits or something). I have no problem with safety, until Aug of this year I had spent the previous 14 years stationed aboard 3 different Trident submarines. I do think that the waste disposal is an issue that needs to be addressed, at least enough to alleviate public concern.

 

[charrison]

josphII,

This is a recycling method, I am not sure that it produces power in the process or just new usuable fuel.

 

[N8Magic]

For those worried about the transport of nuclear waste from the reactor to the disposal/recycling site, check out this link.

Keep in mind that these casks are the ONLY allowed way to transport nuclear waste.

 

[rgwalt]

The reason people are scared of nuclear power is because of Chernobyl and 3-mile island incidents. Coal burning plants put more radioactive waste into the environment per year than nuclear plants. Here is the deal folks... Where are we going to get power from when fossil fuels become too expensive to find/mine/drill for? Solar isn't a practical alternative, and neither is wind power. Hydroelectric is great, but there is only a limited number of places in the US where hydro power can be harnessed. What is left? Fusion is way too far off (uses more energy to sustain the fusion reaction than the reaction releases). Fuel cells are already being used in power plants, and production of hydrogen requires either fossil fuels or electricity, and using electricity to produce hydrogen to produce electricity WILL NOT sustain itself (first and second laws of thermo here).

Again, what is left?!? Nuclear power. Let me know if I'm missing anything here...

Ryan

 

[Czar]

<< josphII,

This is a recycling method, I am not sure that it produces power in the process or just new usuable fuel. >>


I think it just removes most of the radiation.

 

[charrison]

czar,

These plants also produce more fuel in the process.

 

[Czar]

charrison,
good

 

[josphII]

charrison,

there are no reprocessing plants in the US. reprocessing is a good thing though, its just not refined yet. i dotn know about europe but it doesnt matter, its a none issue as far as nuclear power goes

 

[charrison]

linkage

One of the most prevalent myths is that nuclear fission produces large quantities of waste that will be dangerous for thousands of years. This is simply not true.

The longest lived fission products will become stable elements within just a few hundred years.
The longest lived fission product has a half life of about 30 years.
The total amount of waste material is extremely small.
All of the high level waste produced in the United States in the last 30 years could fit onto a single footbal field in a single layer of licensed storage containers.

 

[N8Magic]

It definitely IS a myth.

The average nuclear power plant produces 1 cubic metre of waste per year. This waste decreases in radioactivity by a factor of 1000 in only 10 years. In 500 years, the waste is less radioactive than when it was extracted from the earth as uranium.

 

[BlueApple]

<< Solar isn't a practical alternative, and neither is wind power. >>



I'm not trying to argue with you here, but why aren't they?

 

[charrison]

BlueApple,

cost and reliability.

 

[AmRoD]

<< I am concerned with the nuclear waste, and also, The risk of accidents. Althought the chances for risk is not big, even remote possibilites scares me >>



You have a bigger chance of having a car accident or tripping while your walkin & breaking your neck then having to deal with nuclear waste or a nuclear accident

 

[N8Magic]

<< I'm not trying to argue with you here, but why aren't they? >>



Current methods of extracting energy from these methods (esp. solar) don't give a high enough return for the effort put into it.

 

[Harvey]

josphII -- << you seem to be quite misinformed. the safety record of nuclear power plants is BY FAR the best on any other type of power plants. >>

It is you who is quite misinformed. Please re-read my post. I'm not saying there will be a nuclear power disaster. I am saying that, considering the magnitude of the potential catastrope from of a major failure, anything less than 100% perfection is unacceptable.

Here's info and a map of the affected area from the state of Washington's Dept. of Health regarding radiation from the Hanford facility. Try this from the NEA (Nuclear Energy Association) for info on Chernobyl.

FWIW, since September 11, it has also been confirmed that nuclear plants in the U.S. were not designed with consideration for a direct hit by an airliner.

Starting from present day knowledge and technology, both our financial and security interests are better served by investing in alternative energy sources and conservation, particularly in improving the efficiency of newer designs for all power consuming devices.

Remember, Good planets are hard to find.