Why is nuclear power such an emotive issue?

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: amddude
I heard recently that all the waste we've created in the US since 1950 wouldn't even fill a high school gym...I don't think we really generate THAT much.

Actually it is thousands of times more than that.
We are currently finishing up on the Yukka Mountain storage facility to store waste. We already have so much waste that it will be completely filled.

Err where did you see anyone say it would be completely filled?

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Why is it the same people that hail nuclear are the same ones that don;t want the waste in their state let alone when you ask people that are in favor of nuclear how about we build one in your city then all of a sudden they don;t want it?

If you can get one put in my city, I will support it and put money towards it.

The wealth of a country can be correlated to its energy consumption based on past studies and so for those that are worried about the US falling behind, these are the things we can do to stay ahead.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Paperdoc
I'm ambivalent about nuclear power, but not because I fear a Chernobyl cataclysm. I want to know how the wastes are going to be stored safely. Some of those have high levels of gamma radiation output with a half-life of 10,000 years, meaning that the storage site must be secure for about 100,000 years. We have absolutely no engineering experience pertinent to creating such a design, and of course it's not possible to build and test. So we are really operating on faith and, more recently, desperation. As in, 50,000 years from now will our species be damaged by radioactive wastes, or by freezing in the dark? Or maybe that choice of disaster scenarions happens sooner.

The most attractive solutions to disposal of waste that cannot be reprocessed further is long term geologic storage. There are rock formations that have been stable for two billion years inside the Canadian Sheild for example that would do quite nicely. Australia and Russia also have geologies that would contain the waste for FAR longer than required.

Another option is to bore into a seabed subduction zone and let the crust bury it for us and eventually end up in the mantle.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Paperdoc
I'm ambivalent about nuclear power, but not because I fear a Chernobyl cataclysm. I want to know how the wastes are going to be stored safely. Some of those have high levels of gamma radiation output with a half-life of 10,000 years, meaning that the storage site must be secure for about 100,000 years. We have absolutely no engineering experience pertinent to creating such a design, and of course it's not possible to build and test. So we are really operating on faith and, more recently, desperation. As in, 50,000 years from now will our species be damaged by radioactive wastes, or by freezing in the dark? Or maybe that choice of disaster scenarions happens sooner.

We cant test the viability of containers and consult hundreds of experts from every scientific field to find a good place to store the waste.

If we did all that we would... oh wait, Yucca Mountain.

Yucca is an imperfect solution in my opinion. The repository and casks would probably remain intact for the time required but I'd be happier if it was in a more secure geology.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: amddude
I heard recently that all the waste we've created in the US since 1950 wouldn't even fill a high school gym...I don't think we really generate THAT much.

I believe that is right. The total amount of waste by volume is very small when you think about it. If we enriched our waste it would be even less.

 

[SlickSnake]

Leak contaminates 100 in France - 4th nuclear accident in 2 weeks.

Yea, it's completely safe. It's perfectly normal to glow in the dark if you live in France.

The problem with nuclear power is all the little spills and mishaps each plant has on a yearly basis. And the vast majority of them you never hear about. You never hear about close calls or anything else regarding poor maintenance or mistakes, unless a major accident occurs in the US. It is all very closely guarded.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Leak contaminates 100 in France - 4th nuclear accident in 2 weeks.

Yea, it's completely safe. It's perfectly normal to glow in the dark if you live in France.

The problem with nuclear power is all the little spills and mishaps each plant has on a yearly basis. And the vast majority of them you never hear about. You never hear about close calls or anything else regarding poor maintenance or mistakes, unless a major accident occurs in the US. It is all very closely guarded.

From the story:

a dose smaller than 1/40th of the regulation limit

Obviously France should scrap their reactor fleet immediately.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Leak contaminates 100 in France - 4th nuclear accident in 2 weeks.

Yea, it's completely safe. It's perfectly normal to glow in the dark if you live in France.

The problem with nuclear power is all the little spills and mishaps each plant has on a yearly basis. And the vast majority of them you never hear about. You never hear about close calls or anything else regarding poor maintenance or mistakes, unless a major accident occurs in the US. It is all very closely guarded.

From the story:

a dose smaller than 1/40th of the regulation limit

Obviously France should scrap their reactor fleet immediately.

No shit, I mean seriously. Our coal plants probably fart more than that out in an hour.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Why is it the same people that hail nuclear are the same ones that don;t want the waste in their state let alone when you ask people that are in favor of nuclear how about we build one in your city then all of a sudden they don;t want it?

I am all for nuclear power and they are welcome to store the waste in my state, county, even next door as long as they do it properly.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Leak contaminates 100 in France - 4th nuclear accident in 2 weeks.

Yea, it's completely safe. It's perfectly normal to glow in the dark if you live in France.

The problem with nuclear power is all the little spills and mishaps each plant has on a yearly basis. And the vast majority of them you never hear about. You never hear about close calls or anything else regarding poor maintenance or mistakes, unless a major accident occurs in the US. It is all very closely guarded.

From the story:

a dose smaller than 1/40th of the regulation limit

Obviously France should scrap their reactor fleet immediately.

My point stands. You would most likely not hear about any of those accidents in the US. You hear about them in France because, well, it's socialist France. In the US it is far to politicized and the corporations just sweep little mishaps like these under the rug and hope you don't notice the fish in the river have 2 heads.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Leak contaminates 100 in France - 4th nuclear accident in 2 weeks.

Yea, it's completely safe. It's perfectly normal to glow in the dark if you live in France.

The problem with nuclear power is all the little spills and mishaps each plant has on a yearly basis. And the vast majority of them you never hear about. You never hear about close calls or anything else regarding poor maintenance or mistakes, unless a major accident occurs in the US. It is all very closely guarded.

From the story:

a dose smaller than 1/40th of the regulation limit

Obviously France should scrap their reactor fleet immediately.

My point stands. You would most likely not hear about any of those accidents in the US. You hear about them in France because, well, it's socialist France. In the US it is far to politicized and the corporations just sweep little mishaps like these under the rug and hope you don't notice the fish in the river have 2 heads.

The NRC keeps a pretty good eye on the commercial operators. They won't hesitate to shut down the reactor for as long as they see fit and fine the crap out of the operator if they are not in compliance.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: amddude
I heard recently that all the waste we've created in the US since 1950 wouldn't even fill a high school gym...I don't think we really generate THAT much.

Actually it is thousands of times more than that.
We are currently finishing up on the Yukka Mountain storage facility to store waste. We already have so much waste that it will be completely filled.

Err where did you see anyone say it would be completely filled?

On discovery where they were showing its construction.

By 2010 in the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, its 77,000-ton capacity will be filled by existing spent fuel awaiting shipment. That's not counting another 9,900 tons that will have accumulated in the meantime from license extensions.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Leak contaminates 100 in France - 4th nuclear accident in 2 weeks.

Yea, it's completely safe. It's perfectly normal to glow in the dark if you live in France.

The problem with nuclear power is all the little spills and mishaps each plant has on a yearly basis. And the vast majority of them you never hear about. You never hear about close calls or anything else regarding poor maintenance or mistakes, unless a major accident occurs in the US. It is all very closely guarded.

From the story:

a dose smaller than 1/40th of the regulation limit

Obviously France should scrap their reactor fleet immediately.

My point stands. You would most likely not hear about any of those accidents in the US. You hear about them in France because, well, it's socialist France. In the US it is far to politicized and the corporations just sweep little mishaps like these under the rug and hope you don't notice the fish in the river have 2 heads.

Of course. Because investigative reporters hate doing guaranteed ratings blockbusters like exposés on the nuclear power industry. I mean, there's no way a reporter could possibly make his name by blowing a story like that.

You've obviously not grown up near a nuclear plant. The local media has stories almost every other month about something or other happening at the plant I grew up near. And you know what? They're all FUD.

ZV

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Why is it the same people that hail nuclear are the same ones that don;t want the waste in their state let alone when you ask people that are in favor of nuclear how about we build one in your city then all of a sudden they don;t want it?

I am all for nuclear power and they are welcome to store the waste in my state, county, even next door as long as they do it properly.

Radioactive waste leaks into aquifer in France

That's the problem. Even when they try to do it properly, this is what can happen. France gets nearly 80% of their power from nuclear reactors. And they are tiny compared to the US. Imagine just how many constant mishaps would occur if we got 80% of our power from nuclear here. We would need at least 10 times the reactors they use in France to achieve this. And the toxic and radioactive result would be horrendous, including the crazy amount of waste generated.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Leak contaminates 100 in France - 4th nuclear accident in 2 weeks.

Yea, it's completely safe. It's perfectly normal to glow in the dark if you live in France.

The problem with nuclear power is all the little spills and mishaps each plant has on a yearly basis. And the vast majority of them you never hear about. You never hear about close calls or anything else regarding poor maintenance or mistakes, unless a major accident occurs in the US. It is all very closely guarded.

From the story:

a dose smaller than 1/40th of the regulation limit

Obviously France should scrap their reactor fleet immediately.

My point stands. You would most likely not hear about any of those accidents in the US. You hear about them in France because, well, it's socialist France. In the US it is far to politicized and the corporations just sweep little mishaps like these under the rug and hope you don't notice the fish in the river have 2 heads.

Of course. Because investigative reporters hate doing guaranteed ratings blockbusters like exposés on the nuclear power industry. I mean, there's no way a reporter could possibly make his name by blowing a story like that.

You've obviously not grown up near a nuclear plant. The local media has stories almost every other month about something or other happening at the plant I grew up near. And you know what? They're all FUD.

ZV

You can't run a story when you don't know it happened and the plant workers are fired for going public. And that only happens in major events.

The fact of the matter is there are even plants built over fault lines in California that are not earthquake proof. And how about a tornado striking a plant? Or some other natural disaster or calamity? If the control of the plant is interrupted for any reason, even a prolonged power failure, you have a major disaster that is going to be imminent.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Leak contaminates 100 in France - 4th nuclear accident in 2 weeks.

Yea, it's completely safe. It's perfectly normal to glow in the dark if you live in France.

The problem with nuclear power is all the little spills and mishaps each plant has on a yearly basis. And the vast majority of them you never hear about. You never hear about close calls or anything else regarding poor maintenance or mistakes, unless a major accident occurs in the US. It is all very closely guarded.

From the story:

a dose smaller than 1/40th of the regulation limit

Obviously France should scrap their reactor fleet immediately.

My point stands. You would most likely not hear about any of those accidents in the US. You hear about them in France because, well, it's socialist France. In the US it is far to politicized and the corporations just sweep little mishaps like these under the rug and hope you don't notice the fish in the river have 2 heads.

Of course. Because investigative reporters hate doing guaranteed ratings blockbusters like exposés on the nuclear power industry. I mean, there's no way a reporter could possibly make his name by blowing a story like that.

You've obviously not grown up near a nuclear plant. The local media has stories almost every other month about something or other happening at the plant I grew up near. And you know what? They're all FUD.

ZV

You can't run a story when you don't know it happened and the plant workers are fired for going public. And that only happens in major events.

The fact of the matter is there are even plants built over fault lines in California that are not earthquake proof. And how about a tornado striking a plant? Or some other natural disaster or calamity? If the control of the plant is interrupted for any reason, even a prolonged power failure, you have a major disaster that is going to be imminent.

Let me guess, you also believe 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Xavier434]

If we are going to go Nuclear then I am ok with that, but we need to do it properly. We need to not only use the best of the best technology to maximize efficiency, safety, and minimize waste but we also need to continuously dump a lot of money to advancing the best that we have to come out with things that are better. Dumping what we got at Yucca is not a good solution. I am confident that we can do a lot better than that. However, I am not sure how confident I am that we are willing to spend the money on doing better than what the best currently has to offer. I would feel a lot more confident if such research and development were funded and progressing at a more rapid pace along with contracts being signed which ensure continuous funding and progress for a long time before we build a lot more plants and truly go Nuclear. If we are going to do it, then we might as well do it right.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Why is it the same people that hail nuclear are the same ones that don;t want the waste in their state let alone when you ask people that are in favor of nuclear how about we build one in your city then all of a sudden they don;t want it?

Screw Nevada, I say they should take one for the team and we should start putting wastes in the Yucca Mountain at least temporarily.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Why is it the same people that hail nuclear are the same ones that don;t want the waste in their state let alone when you ask people that are in favor of nuclear how about we build one in your city then all of a sudden they don;t want it?

I am all for nuclear power and they are welcome to store the waste in my state, county, even next door as long as they do it properly.

Enjoy that plummeting property value. And being forced to evacuate your home whenever there is an incident or when they perform a drill.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Dumping what we got at Yukka is not a good solution. I am confident that we can do a lot better than that. However, I am not sure how confident I am that we are willing to spend the money on doing better than what the best currently has to offer.

It's honestly more political than monetary. The best solution for the waste would be to reprocess the spent fuel rods. This would lower their half-life and the level of radioactivity they would produce once we we're done using them. But, the United States made the decision a long time ago that doing so was risky for fear of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

This of course ignores the fact that Japan and Europe reprocess spent fuel-rods

 

[DomS]

The ironic thing is that coal power plants emit more radiation than nuclear power plants. When the coal is combusted it releases thorium and other radioactive chemicals into the air. There's a radius around those plants that is just carpeted with radiation.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Leak contaminates 100 in France - 4th nuclear accident in 2 weeks.

Yea, it's completely safe. It's perfectly normal to glow in the dark if you live in France.

The problem with nuclear power is all the little spills and mishaps each plant has on a yearly basis. And the vast majority of them you never hear about. You never hear about close calls or anything else regarding poor maintenance or mistakes, unless a major accident occurs in the US. It is all very closely guarded.

From the story:

a dose smaller than 1/40th of the regulation limit

Obviously France should scrap their reactor fleet immediately.

My point stands. You would most likely not hear about any of those accidents in the US. You hear about them in France because, well, it's socialist France. In the US it is far to politicized and the corporations just sweep little mishaps like these under the rug and hope you don't notice the fish in the river have 2 heads.

Of course. Because investigative reporters hate doing guaranteed ratings blockbusters like exposés on the nuclear power industry. I mean, there's no way a reporter could possibly make his name by blowing a story like that.

You've obviously not grown up near a nuclear plant. The local media has stories almost every other month about something or other happening at the plant I grew up near. And you know what? They're all FUD.

ZV

You can't run a story when you don't know it happened and the plant workers are fired for going public. And that only happens in major events.

The fact of the matter is there are even plants built over fault lines in California that are not earthquake proof. And how about a tornado striking a plant? Or some other natural disaster or calamity? If the control of the plant is interrupted for any reason, even a prolonged power failure, you have a major disaster that is going to be imminent.

Let me guess, you also believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Let me guess, you think the multi trillion dollar Air Force did a spectacular job protecting our skies and buildings during 911? Even though they couldn't even protect the Pentagon? Or didn't you notice that little fact?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Leak contaminates 100 in France - 4th nuclear accident in 2 weeks.

Yea, it's completely safe. It's perfectly normal to glow in the dark if you live in France.

The problem with nuclear power is all the little spills and mishaps each plant has on a yearly basis. And the vast majority of them you never hear about. You never hear about close calls or anything else regarding poor maintenance or mistakes, unless a major accident occurs in the US. It is all very closely guarded.

From the story:

a dose smaller than 1/40th of the regulation limit

Obviously France should scrap their reactor fleet immediately.

My point stands. You would most likely not hear about any of those accidents in the US. You hear about them in France because, well, it's socialist France. In the US it is far to politicized and the corporations just sweep little mishaps like these under the rug and hope you don't notice the fish in the river have 2 heads.

Of course. Because investigative reporters hate doing guaranteed ratings blockbusters like exposés on the nuclear power industry. I mean, there's no way a reporter could possibly make his name by blowing a story like that.

You've obviously not grown up near a nuclear plant. The local media has stories almost every other month about something or other happening at the plant I grew up near. And you know what? They're all FUD.

ZV

You can't run a story when you don't know it happened and the plant workers are fired for going public. And that only happens in major events.

The fact of the matter is there are even plants built over fault lines in California that are not earthquake proof. And how about a tornado striking a plant? Or some other natural disaster or calamity? If the control of the plant is interrupted for any reason, even a prolonged power failure, you have a major disaster that is going to be imminent.

As a matter of fact, Davis-Besse WAS hit by a tornado. In fact, it was a direct hit. The news made a huge deal out of it. You know what actually happened? The reactor shut down as it is designed to do and every safety feature performed exactly as designed resulting in absolutely zero issues. From the news reports though, you'd think it was a half-second from going Chernobyl.

ZV

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Leak contaminates 100 in France - 4th nuclear accident in 2 weeks.

Yea, it's completely safe. It's perfectly normal to glow in the dark if you live in France.

The problem with nuclear power is all the little spills and mishaps each plant has on a yearly basis. And the vast majority of them you never hear about. You never hear about close calls or anything else regarding poor maintenance or mistakes, unless a major accident occurs in the US. It is all very closely guarded.

From the story:

a dose smaller than 1/40th of the regulation limit

Obviously France should scrap their reactor fleet immediately.

My point stands. You would most likely not hear about any of those accidents in the US. You hear about them in France because, well, it's socialist France. In the US it is far to politicized and the corporations just sweep little mishaps like these under the rug and hope you don't notice the fish in the river have 2 heads.

Of course. Because investigative reporters hate doing guaranteed ratings blockbusters like exposés on the nuclear power industry. I mean, there's no way a reporter could possibly make his name by blowing a story like that.

You've obviously not grown up near a nuclear plant. The local media has stories almost every other month about something or other happening at the plant I grew up near. And you know what? They're all FUD.

ZV

You can't run a story when you don't know it happened and the plant workers are fired for going public. And that only happens in major events.

The fact of the matter is there are even plants built over fault lines in California that are not earthquake proof. And how about a tornado striking a plant? Or some other natural disaster or calamity? If the control of the plant is interrupted for any reason, even a prolonged power failure, you have a major disaster that is going to be imminent.

Let me guess, you also believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Let me guess, you think the multi trillion dollar Air Force did a spectacular job protecting our skies and buildings during 911? Even though they couldn't even protect the Pentagon? Or didn't you notice that little fact?

Seeing as you obviously have NO idea about the DoD in general. I recommend the 9/11 commission report as a starter.

Our military has ALWAYS been outward looking when it comes to aerial threats. Our systems have been designed that way. The military never continuously monitored commercial flights. Especially not in the volume that fly everyday above our heads.

So yes, it was a complete failure of our defense system because we didn't believe that an attack from the air would ORIGINATE from our own airspace.

So why don't you answer the question. Are you a 9/11 truther?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Dumping what we got at Yukka is not a good solution. I am confident that we can do a lot better than that. However, I am not sure how confident I am that we are willing to spend the money on doing better than what the best currently has to offer.

It's honestly more political than monetary. The best solution for the waste would be to reprocess the spent fuel rods. This would lower their half-life and the level of radioactivity they would produce once we we're done using them. But, the United States made the decision a long time ago that doing so was risky for fear of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

This of course ignores the fact that Japan and Europe reprocess spent fuel-rods

I do not believe we ignore that fact. We just do not want to increase the risk by following suit which I am fine with. You are correct that this is a political issue surrounded by controversy, but I believe that ending the controversy can be achieved if we are willing to put our money where our mouth is. The way I see it is that there are ways to improve what we got such as the processes and procedures regarding the spent fuel rods. We just need to spend the money and time coming up with ways that are more efficient and are more acceptable. I realize a lot of people are already happy with what we got laid out in front of us to go Nuclear, but many are not satisfied and there is no question that we can do a lot better with enough time and money. We will never reach a point of satisfying everyone and that is fine, but we can do better. The juice will be worth the squeeze so I say let's do it and let's do it right.

The only doubt in my mind that makes me believe that perhaps this is not the best way to approach the situation is the possibility of squeezing out more juice by spending that money and time elsewhere on other new potential solutions and/or improvements to other current solutions. I am not anywhere close to having the knowledge or expertise to make a truly educated conclusion on that matter though.