Uranium clean/dirty energy source....

[JJ650]

Originally posted by: techs
Let's make a pro's and cons list:

Cons:
1) Nuclear won't affect the cost of gas or oil.
2) Nuclear costs more than coal, gas and hydroelectric.
3) There is no permanent place to store the highly dangerous waste products.
4) And accident or natural disaster that affects a nuke plant could potentially be the most devastingly destructive event in US history.
5) Nuclear plants could be a prime target for terrorists.
6) Nuclear plants do produce some thermal pollution into the rivers they are sited near to provide cooling water.
7) Nuclear plants do occasionaly emit some radioactivity, though very little.
8) Nuclear planst have more downtime than conventional plants of gas or coal.


Pros:
1) Nuclear plants produce no immeditate air emissions.
2) Nuclear plants have more uptime than wind plants.

Even or unknown:
1) Nuclear plants may or may not have more uptime than hydro plants, which can be affected by droughts.
2) Nuclear plants rely on imported uranium, while gas plants rely on imported gas.

Did I miss anything?

Oh dear lord.

1) It won't increase the cost, which is a positive!
2) a Nuclear reactor plant is a very complex system which is continuously updated and improved upon for safety and efficiency reasons. It is pricey to have safety and efficiency in the same complex, but the power output is worth it.
3) Recycle "waste" byproducts and contain what you cannot reuse.
4) Meaning that a large hydroelectric damn wouldn't cause widespread devestation if a "natural accident" was the catalyst?
5) ANY power production facility is ALWAYS a prime target. As far as safety is concrned, nuclear plants have far greater security than hydroelectric plants for example. Way easier to get close to a dam than a nuclear reactor.
Pure specualtion on your part and very poorly thought out.
6) True. Thermal waste is part of a nuclear facility. It doesn't boil little fishies though.
7) Little as compared to what? Co2 emissions from coal plants?
8) Maintennance is key to a nuclear facility. Would you propose that you lower down times for the sake of safety?

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Hell to the yeah - mine uranium for nuclear reactors and reprocess the thorium for use in breeder reactors. of course, that requires construction of new reactors, which would create jobs and provide a massive boost to our power grid, without being dependent on any type of fossil fuels. jesus christ, who would want that :roll:

:thumbsup:

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: techs
As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

And as for the idiotic (yes, IDIOTIC) statement that France is energy independent, they are 100 percent NOT. They only use nuclear for electricity. And they have to import uranium to run their nuke plants. Plus import oil and gas for their cars and heating (no, they don't heat with electricity). So as opposed to Germany which mines it own coal for its electricity and imports oil and gas for cars and heating, France is in exactly the same position. OR rather Germany is in a better position. They use their own coal while France imports uranium.

And would I rather put up with the health effects of burning coal and natural gas which can cause some illnesses as I get older, than risk contaminating a very large portion of America and killing possibly tens of millions within weeks, I will have to go with continued burning of coal and natural gas. Though I would like to spend just a little more money to clean up coal emissions as much as is cost effective.

the ignorance in the third paragraph is overwhelming

 

[coloumb]

Alas - thanks to the constant fear bombs from the media - the largest obstacles to Nuclear energy - Chernobyl incident, Terrorism, and Corporate Greed.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: coloumb
Alas - thanks to the constant fear bombs from the media - the largest obstacles to Nuclear energy - Chernobyl incident, Terrorism, and Corporate Greed.

And regulatory....

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: techs
As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

And as for the idiotic (yes, IDIOTIC) statement that France is energy independent, they are 100 percent NOT. They only use nuclear for electricity. And they have to import uranium to run their nuke plants. Plus import oil and gas for their cars and heating (no, they don't heat with electricity). So as opposed to Germany which mines it own coal for its electricity and imports oil and gas for cars and heating, France is in exactly the same position. OR rather Germany is in a better position. They use their own coal while France imports uranium.

And would I rather put up with the health effects of burning coal and natural gas which can cause some illnesses as I get older, than risk contaminating a very large portion of America and killing possibly tens of millions within weeks, I will have to go with continued burning of coal and natural gas. Though I would like to spend just a little more money to clean up coal emissions as much as is cost effective.

you are calling people idiots and claiming that nuclear will kill " tens of millions within weeks"?

a Chernobyl in new reactors is very nearly impossible. new reactors have containment buildings, water systems that are gravity fed and do not conduct military experiments in them like Chernobyl. we also train the people who run them, unlike russia.

pot.. meet kettle...

btw: i am licensed by the NRC to handle radioactive sources ie.. i have lots of training.

Worst case scenarios using Indian Point Nuclear Power plant just north of New York City. And the tens of millions are the actual deaths within a year.

And a new Chernobyl type accident is not "very nearly impossible". Geez, every day bridges fail, computer networks crash, pipes burst, etc. It is the height of hubris to think that it is very nearly impossible for a nuke plant to fail and fail spectactulary.
Heck, try Engineering Disasters on the History Channel for the barest fraction of how completely unforseen events cause spectacular disasters in some of the most well understood engineering practices. Then remember a nuke plant is like a 100 times more complicated.

WTF is your point? Nuclear reactors *can* cause deaths? Here's your for finding that out.

Guess what though, there are plenty of non-nuclear disasters that killed more people than all nuclear reactors in the US combined (and take out Chernobyl and I might say the world).

Chernobyl was operator error, NOT the system error. For a US nuclear reactor to go critical or have issues like Chernobyl, are virtually impossible. Is there a risk? Definitely. Then again, theres a risk that when you get out of bed you'll break a leg that will cause internal bleeding and you'll die. Do you avoid getting out of bed all day for fear of death?

Grow up. The risks of nuclear power are very minimal, and it's the safest and most efficient way to provide power. Let's get it fucking done.

Chernobyl had massive design flaws. The operator error that caused the accident was just the icing on the cake.

 

[lxskllr]

I think the amount of radioactive material available for mining is pretty limited. Going fully nuclear would just be a bandaid solution. Waste disposal is problematic, and I'm not familiar with the mining techniques, but if it involves moving mountains, I'm not interested.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: lxskllr
I think the amount of radioactive material available for mining is pretty limited. Going fully nuclear would just be a bandaid solution. Waste disposal is problematic, and I'm not familiar with the mining techniques, but if it involves moving mountains, I'm not interested.

do you think coal magically comes out of the ground and leaves the landscape perfectly in tact?

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: lxskllr
I think the amount of radioactive material available for mining is pretty limited. Going fully nuclear would just be a bandaid solution. Waste disposal is problematic, and I'm not familiar with the mining techniques, but if it involves moving mountains, I'm not interested.

do you think coal magically comes out of the ground and leaves the landscape perfectly in tact?

I don't think I said that coal was a good long term solution either. I was specifically thinking of coal when I made that statement ;^)

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: lxskllr
I think the amount of radioactive material available for mining is pretty limited. Going fully nuclear would just be a bandaid solution. Waste disposal is problematic, and I'm not familiar with the mining techniques, but if it involves moving mountains, I'm not interested.

Pretty much any energy source that we can make large-scale use of is going to come from inside the earth. And nuclear fuel is hardly limited - Uranium is one of the most abundant elements on the planet.

 

[lxskllr]

Solar would be better, especially in the cities. All the rooftops are underutilized, and are a perfect place for solar panels. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing deal. Even though it wouldn't(at this time) replace grid power, it would reduce some of the stress on the system, and allow longer intervals between grid upgrades.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Hell to the yeah - mine uranium for nuclear reactors and reprocess the thorium for use in breeder reactors. of course, that requires construction of new reactors, which would create jobs and provide a massive boost to our power grid, without being dependent on any type of fossil fuels. jesus christ, who would want that :roll:

i keep hearing lets go all nuclear, but just how much nuclear material is there? Is it not a finite resource as well?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Adul

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Hell to the yeah - mine uranium for nuclear reactors and reprocess the thorium for use in breeder reactors. of course, that requires construction of new reactors, which would create jobs and provide a massive boost to our power grid, without being dependent on any type of fossil fuels. jesus christ, who would want that :roll:

i keep hearing lets go all nuclear, but just how much nuclear material is there? Is it not a finite resource as well?

Enough to last at least as long as coal/oil/NG. How much is really impossible to quantify because of usage patterns and how much we continually become able to improve and refine the waste product into fuel for reuse.

 

[SilentZero]

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: Hacp
Isn't most uranium non radioactive? So mining won't really affect anybody.

Uranium earth isn't radioactive but the majority of the treehuggers doesn't know that.

Dumbass


Edit: To expand: WTF is uranium earth? All uranium is radioactive. Natural uranium, enriched uranium, depleted uranium, it's all radioactive.

Maybe I'm a dumbass and same go for the University of British Columbia. UBC is where I worked with "uranium earth" during my study there.

Uranium earth is unprocessed mining earth or lightly processed. Raw uranium earth can have 1-10 lbs of uranium per metric ton of earth.

You worked there at age 13? wtf! :laugh:

 

[iGas]

Originally posted by: Hadrian

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: Hacp
Isn't most uranium non radioactive? So mining won't really affect anybody.

Uranium earth isn't radioactive but the majority of the treehuggers doesn't know that.

what you mine is U3O8 (less than 0.5% U235, compared to 10% for reactor grade and 90% for weapons grade), which is not radioactive. There are less than a handful of uranium mining companies, most of them are exploration companies. The mining companies are cameco, denison, uranium one, paladin and ERA. so it's not a big universe of companies that you can invest in. also you have to recognize that permitting for uranium mining takes forever everywhere, especially so in the US. might not be the best place to invest for a neophyte

I have been keeping an eye on CCO, UUU, and LAM. I had some UUU & LAM stocks but I sold it a while back, however I'm thinking of getting back into uranium mining investing because China, Japan, and S. Korea are trying to setup purchasing contracts for Canadian and Australia uranium. And, recently Australia have deregulated its strict uranium mining regulations.

LAM Notice of Intent on La Jara Mesa Project in New Mexico gotten me re-interest in uranium investing, but I'm skeptical of public reaction to such project therefor I asked ATOT opinion on the matter as a way to gauge US public reaction to uranium mining.

 

[OverVolt]

I was researching this for a paper, and to sum things up, if we used uranium as our main fuel source, we would only have enough high-grade ore for ~10-15years. So it's pretty moot.

Once we are out of high-grade ore it got harder to mine the stuff by a magnitude of ~10. Around 1000kg of ore per 1 gram of uranium, or so. So when we run out of oil, then we will be digging up 1000kg of ore to get 1gram of uranium with what? Shovels?

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: techs
As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

As EVs and plug-in hybrids become more plentiful, people are going to put a major strain on the aging US power grid when they charge those vehicles. Converting ICE vehicles to EVs will reduce oil use, but substantially increase the drain on our electricity generation. Nuclear power can provide the necessary power cleanly, and cheaply.

Also, I am not certain about this, but I'm pretty sure a country as large as the US has some uranium we can mine without importing too much foreign supplies.