Why is nuclear power such an emotive issue?

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
SlickSnake, how can you even compare drug companies to nuclear power?

Let's examine why that comparison is stupid.

1) Drug Companies often conduct very limited human trials, and in most cases they have no idea what the drug could do. Frankly, the human body is very poorly understood. If we could design drugs to do exactly what we want without side effects, we would. Unfortunately, we just don't have that capability yet.

2) Nuclear energy is based on nuclear physics. Nuclear physics, as far as fission power is concerned, is COMPLETE. We know exactly what is going on, exactly how to prevent meltdowns under any circumstance, and exactly how to design an efficient nuclear power station that can withstand not only internal malfunctions, but external disasters as well (natural or otherwise). We know how to effectively remove and store waste so that it will be harmless within a few hundred years, and significant scientific research is being conducted to reduce this number even further.

The two are incomparable. Our understanding of one subject (nuclear power) is vastly superior to our understanding of the other.

In the meantime, while we sit on our hands, our old nuclear power plants are still running! They are much less efficient! They use much more fuel and produce much more waste of a far more dangerous quality than modern nuclear power designs would permit!

There is literally NO reason for us to prevent the construction of new nuclear power plants. In the meantime, we're building more coal power plants. WTF? How can so many people in this country be so damn STUPID?

I am comparing how they juggle the facts to support what they are selling, not comparing the 2 LITERALLY. I thought that was obvious.

And there is a finite amount of both coal and uranium. In fact there is a lot more coal than uranium to be had for power uses. We have hundreds of years of coal we can use. Uranium, not so much. And not only that, there is currently a supply shortage, to boot.

Lack of fuel may limit U.S. nuclear power expansion

And this tidbit stating we will be out of uranium by 2016 with the current rate of consumption.

No leading-role for nuclear power in preventing the greenhouse effect

"According to the April 1992 report "Perspektiven der Brüter-technik" ("Perspectives of the Breeder Technology") from the Nuclear research center at Karlsruhe (Germany), the uranium resources world-wide were estimated to be 6.4 million tonnes. This is about 2,880 EJ energy. To compare: the estimate for resources of fossil fuels is at 35,700 EJ (4,800 EJ natural gas, 5,700 EJ oil and 25,200 EJ coal). A 1,000 Megawatt light water reactor annual needs 180 tonnes uranium: with a 70% scenario, there is a need for 4.4 million tonnes of uranium until the year 2010. From 2010 on there is the need -- when the nuclear capacity is stabilized at 70% -- for an annual 0.43 million tonnes. The now known resources will be exhausted in the year 2016. In that year the contribution of nuclear power in slowing down the CO2 emissions will have risen up to 35%, in comparison with the 4% in the IAEA assumed scenario. The contribution will go down to zero, unless new uranium resources are found and exploited, or a large system with breeder reactors and a fitting infrastructure of reprocessing factories and so on is established within 20 years."

So this pretty much puts this nuclear power debate to bed, don't you think? Why build new reactors, if the fuels running out?

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: 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.

So the question is: Do you want to have a 0.0000001% of glowing green and dying (nuclear) or a 0.1% chance of getting cancer (coal)?

I'll take the nuclear power plant, thank you

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Why is nuclear power such an emotive issue?

Because despite what DiTech commercials might say, people are stupid.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I live near a reactor. It has been there for the last 20 years. The issue I have with reactors is waste and transporting that waste. Even if you recycle it, 200 years is a very long time to have to store something. I do not think nuclear fission is the solution, fusion maybe. I think that geothermal would be a much better option overall.

Put it deep under a mountain in a desert that already has almost no living life. Oh wait, we're trying to do that, but for some reason environmentalists hate that idea... wtf? Where else are we going to put the waste?

You are asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is "What else can we do with the waste?"

Yucca is not a good solution. Investing a bunch of money and time to discover much more efficient ways to handle the waste is right way to go. Now is not the time to be irresponsible and jump the gun just because we think that there might not be any serious consequences. I am all for Nuclear, but there is a right way to go about this idea before we dive in head first. We just need to be patient and willing to spend the money to do it properly. I am confident that we are fully capable of doing so.

 

[PingSpike]

We should burn the waste, obviously. Its not even waste if you can burn it for energy...and 200 years is a hell of a lot more managable then 10,000.

 

[Gunslinger08]

People are generally scared of nuclear power because they don't understand it. Imagine if someone ran a Superbowl commercial explaining that anyone with a basement is probably exposed to radiation everyday.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
We should burn the waste, obviously. Its not even waste if you can burn it for energy...and 200 years is a hell of a lot more managable then 10,000.

Yes, and that is wonderful that we can reduce it to 200 years, but how much waste will be produced in 200 years time if we decide to go Nuclear? Furthermore, even if we do go Nuclear, how long does everyone really want to rely on it? We know there are better solutions out there. We just have not mastered them yet.

Perhaps a smart way to make the move to Nuclear is not only refine our technology and sciences behind it, but also have the government enforce reasonable time lines and funding towards moving away from Nuclear into something which results in zero emissions at the same time. That way, we can at least be guaranteed that there will be some serious and continuous pushing towards our true goal while also enjoying long lasting power in a controllable environment while pushing for it. If we can work towards both, then let us guarantee it. I see no good reason not to do it that way.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
People are generally scared of nuclear power because they don't understand it. Imagine if someone ran a Superbowl commercial explaining that anyone with a basement is probably exposed to radiation everyday.

Or worse yet - all lightbulbs are known to emit radiation. There'd probably be widespread panic and rioting.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

The size of the tornado would be the key there. A tornado of a small F1 scale might do little damage. But wait until an F2 or greater hits it.

It was an F2

F2 is 113-157 mph and says "Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated."

I kinda doubt it was an F2 and the reactor and out buildings supporting it like the control room was untouched. Sounds more like an F1 hit it, if it was REALLY a direct hit as claimed. Remember these ratings are only speculative and made after the tornado has struck. It might have been an F2 prior to hitting the reactor, but had diminished in strength before it actually hit it. Or it could have increased in strength after it hit. Either way they would still call it an F2.

Senate report states F2 tornado and that it was a direct hit on Davis-Besse.

Link.

a Fujita Tornado Damage Scale F2 tornado, which directly hit the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, with winds of 113 to 157 miles per hour (June 1998)

The switchyard was damaged and all external power was severed. Both the turbine building and the administrative building had their roofs torn off, with extensive flood damage to the second floor of the administrative building. The reactor shut down automatically and diesel backup generators maintained power to safety systems as designed.

You're out of straws to grasp at.

ZV

And if those diesel backup generators failed or were flooded, what then? Unless they restored power to it very quickly. And if power lines are down for miles from a tornado, you have no power. And if the main emergency shutdown safety systems were damaged or failed, the power would not have mattered, would it? I'm hardly grasping at straws here. And if they had to make major repairs to the cooling system or other safety systems controlling the rods, could they have been made in time using only robotics? I pretty much doubt it. And you won't find many volunteers to run through the radioactive areas to make emergency rod mechanism repairs manually and die as a result of extreme radiation exposures, either. All the automated safety stuff is just great, until its no longer working. And even redundancy is no guarantee of no failures in some natural disaster, either. If both redundant safety systems go down, that's it.

Oh for pete's sake. What if you have a heart attack? What if your roof falls in? What if you have a car accident where the seatbelt fails, the airbag fails, and you get ejected from the car and run over by an elephant that escaped from the zoo?

You're throwing out "what if's" that are statistically so unlikely you might as well consider the odds of the sun going nova as well.

ZV

 

[LtPage1]

Reactors are very safe, they make zero economic sense, and there is no solution (nor is there an idea for a solution) to deal with the waste that's remotely workable.

/thread. Do a little research before shouting down anyone who understands nuclear power as a crazy NIMBY-nik.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Reactors are very safe, they make zero economic sense, and there is no solution (nor is there an idea for a solution) to deal with the waste that's remotely workable.

/thread. Do a little research before shouting down anyone who understands nuclear power as a crazy NIMBY-nik.

You actually brought up something which I am not familiar with. That is, how much does it cost to maintain these plants as opposed to what we are spending on our other plants such as coal? Are we going to see any big increases in expense that we will each need to pay our part for? I realize it will cost a lot of money to build them, but that is not what I am referring to. Does anyone know and have sources to site with reliable info?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Reactors are very safe, they make zero economic sense, and there is no solution (nor is there an idea for a solution) to deal with the waste that's remotely workable.

/thread. Do a little research before shouting down anyone who understands nuclear power as a crazy NIMBY-nik.

You actually brought up something which I am not familiar with. That is, how much does it cost to maintain these plants as opposed to what we are spending on our other plants such as coal? Are we going to see any big increases in expense that we will each need to pay our part for? I realize it will cost a lot of money to build them, but that is not what I am referring to. Does anyone know and have sources to site with reliable info?

Our existing reactor fleet produces electricity near $0.058 kWh according to the last government statistics I'm aware of. There was an MIT study in 2004 that placed the cost at $0.067 per kWh though I could see this as having been reduced as us nuclear capacity factors have risen to above 92% in the last few years.

Coal generation is around $0.042 per kWh and NG upwards of $0.056 (or much more depending on the NG market).

The cost of new nuclear power is estimated from $0.042 to $0.067 depending on how it is implemented.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Yes, nanny dear, whatever you say.

Some people just enjoy rubbing others noses in their self righteous opinions all while ignoring the obvious fact they are also acting like a whiny little spoiled brat about it in the process.

My opinion is no more invalid after your initial thread crap towards me than it was before hand. And on top of that, I don't give a crap what you or any other pro nuclear power thread troll here thinks about my opinion about nuclear power.

Obviously people feel strongly about it, which explains why the thread topic is titled like it is. And the facts about nuclear power safety are about as factual as the people who try to sell you on nuclear power want them to be, like it or not. Just like the drug companies will claim a drug is safe and it won't kill you, that is until enough people die from it that they have to pull it from the market.

lol. This is your rebuttal? Honestly? I'll just use basics here; you said IF it were an F2, I provided proof that it WAS an F2 (along with other natural disasters). Then you said, but what if if if if and then used improper procedure as an argument against. I simply said you could use that same argument toward anything (thus the fallacy). Now you throw what amounts to be a tantrum and then say that the facts that anyone who supports NPPs uses are merely propaganda and can't be used since they support NPPs in the first place? Are you serious? That doesn't, once again, scream fallacy to you? Then, you bring in drug companies to compare? ... wow.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Reactors are very safe, they make zero economic sense, and there is no solution (nor is there an idea for a solution) to deal with the waste that's remotely workable.

/thread. Do a little research before shouting down anyone who understands nuclear power as a crazy NIMBY-nik.

[/quote]

I'm also curious as to what you mean by zero economic sense? Seems like K1052's numbers put the costs around the same until we have any other hard numbers. Do you just mean that since it's not cheaper than fossil fuels and the waste is essentially impossible to dispose of then there is less sense to it? I guess one could argue that the planet pollutes less than a fossil fuel plant (the pollutant is contained and stored .. so here it's really sketchy/based on opinion). I would think the main argument for NPPs is the cleaner day to day operation, and the fact that fossil fuels will not exist for another century.

 

[Steve]

Nice going dug, see what you've started?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Steve
Nice going dug, see what you've started?

It could be worse - Moonbeam isn't here yet.
He seems convinced that humanity is going to retroactively erase itself from existence, and then their time-zombies will go murder puppies for the hell of it, if we use nuclear power.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: BudAshes
You guys are missing another big deal with nuclear power plants. They produce an incredible amount of heat waste that requires huge amounts of water to cool down.

Water is a renewable resource. I'm really not too worried about this; at worst, a few saline plants on the coast can be powered by nuclear power and would provide enough fresh cooling water to keep the plant running indefinitely.

Or you can use synthetic coolant. Whatever

Furthermore, the number of coal power plants required to produce the same amount of electricity are going to produce a lot more heat. I'd be willing to bet that nuclear power produces less heat than coal for the same electrical output (or at least a similar amount).

LOL. Wow. Just wow. I normally sit back and read, but feel I must comment on this, especially since no one else has.

The whole point of nuclear (and many other types of power plants) is to produce steam, which in turn drives a steam generator. How is steam made? Well, you take a massive heat source, such as a uranium bundle, and cool it with water. The water then turns to steam....

The steam turns the steam turbine, goes through a condensor, and gets turned into steam again...

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

The size of the tornado would be the key there. A tornado of a small F1 scale might do little damage. But wait until an F2 or greater hits it.

It was an F2

F2 is 113-157 mph and says "Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated."

I kinda doubt it was an F2 and the reactor and out buildings supporting it like the control room was untouched. Sounds more like an F1 hit it, if it was REALLY a direct hit as claimed. Remember these ratings are only speculative and made after the tornado has struck. It might have been an F2 prior to hitting the reactor, but had diminished in strength before it actually hit it. Or it could have increased in strength after it hit. Either way they would still call it an F2.

Senate report states F2 tornado and that it was a direct hit on Davis-Besse.

Link.

a Fujita Tornado Damage Scale F2 tornado, which directly hit the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, with winds of 113 to 157 miles per hour (June 1998)

The switchyard was damaged and all external power was severed. Both the turbine building and the administrative building had their roofs torn off, with extensive flood damage to the second floor of the administrative building. The reactor shut down automatically and diesel backup generators maintained power to safety systems as designed.

You're out of straws to grasp at.

ZV

And if those diesel backup generators failed or were flooded, what then? Unless they restored power to it very quickly. And if power lines are down for miles from a tornado, you have no power. And if the main emergency shutdown safety systems were damaged or failed, the power would not have mattered, would it? I'm hardly grasping at straws here. And if they had to make major repairs to the cooling system or other safety systems controlling the rods, could they have been made in time using only robotics? I pretty much doubt it. And you won't find many volunteers to run through the radioactive areas to make emergency rod mechanism repairs manually and die as a result of extreme radiation exposures, either. All the automated safety stuff is just great, until its no longer working. And even redundancy is no guarantee of no failures in some natural disaster, either. If both redundant safety systems go down, that's it.

Oh for pete's sake. What if you have a heart attack? What if your roof falls in? What if you have a car accident where the seatbelt fails, the airbag fails, and you get ejected from the car and run over by an elephant that escaped from the zoo?

You're throwing out "what if's" that are statistically so unlikely you might as well consider the odds of the sun going nova as well.

ZV

:thumbsup:

And as I pointed out earlier, in the case of catastrophic meltdown, the containment structure should prevent widespread radiation exposure. Even if all the safety systems failed and full-blown meltdown occurred, the fallout should be contained in the building. They've even looked at all kinds of contingencies, for example, terrorists crashing a plane into the containment structure. Based on what I've read, plane vs. 10 ft of concrete is no match, the structure can take a lot of abuse.

I'd feel very safe next to a nuclear power plant. IMO people should be much more concerned about the waste issue than meltdown.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: BudAshes
You guys are missing another big deal with nuclear power plants. They produce an incredible amount of heat waste that requires huge amounts of water to cool down.

Water is a renewable resource. I'm really not too worried about this; at worst, a few saline plants on the coast can be powered by nuclear power and would provide enough fresh cooling water to keep the plant running indefinitely.

Or you can use synthetic coolant. Whatever

Furthermore, the number of coal power plants required to produce the same amount of electricity are going to produce a lot more heat. I'd be willing to bet that nuclear power produces less heat than coal for the same electrical output (or at least a similar amount).

LOL. Wow. Just wow. I normally sit back and read, but feel I must comment on this, especially since no one else has.

The whole point of nuclear (and many other types of power plants) is to produce steam, which in turn drives a steam generator. How is steam made? Well, you take a massive heat source, such as a uranium bundle, and cool it with water. The water then turns to steam....

The steam turns the steam turbine, goes through a condensor, and gets turned into steam again...

No, it is a valid point. The heat produced needs a sink. That condenser, in order to turn the steam into water, must absorb a lot of heat from the water. That heat is absorbed by a coolant, usually water from a local sink, such as a lake or river. If the sink isn't large enough, its temperature will gradually begin to rise, which will affect local wildlife

As for running desalinization plants for fresh cooling water.....I don't think that'd be a concern, or even be remotely cost effective. As far as I know, desalinization is fairly expensive, so producing fresh water just as a coolant would drastically increase a power plant's operating costs. It'd probably be easier to use simply use the salt water as a coolant, and then dump it back out into the ocean.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

No, I prefer my 911 shrouded in lies and deceit, like you do.

So I guess the Air Force was just struck dumb by all those commercial flights flying unscheduled zigzag courses all over the US even after one hit the WTC, huh? If they had bothered to scramble fighters after the first plane hit, chances are at least one WTC tower would still be standing.

Or here's a real stretch. Why not scramble fighters after they realize commercial planes are flying zigzags off course BEFORE they hit a building? Those fighters could have shot those planes down before they hit those buildings, if they scrambled them into the air after they realized 4 were off course.

And how about building 7 that just mysteriously collapsed after minimum fire damage? I guess they just don't build them like they used to. All that cheap illegal labor for construction has a higher price after all, huh?

Truth or not? Make up all the stupid excuses for it you want to, they are still whitewash stupid excuses.

You need to stop posting. You believe utter nonsense and you're not even a "free thinker" like all the "truthers" claim to be. You're merely regurgitating the same lines they do.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Maybe if someone who was properly qualified WAS in control of the A.F. on 911, that wouldn't have happened. How is that hindsight? WTF do you think we spent trillions of dollars on the A.F. for, "tag, your it!" games in the air?

No, they would have said, "tag, you're it!". They can spell.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: elmer92413
Because people are ignorant, not stupid, but ignorant.
And until we take the time to properly educate people we will always have this problem not just with this but in many things in life.

..beyond that, eco-theists are against anything that expands human development. they also loath hydro-electric for the same reason..save the fish excuses. eco-theists will use alarmist seculation supported by willing accomplices in the media to forward their KOOK ideology and dictate lifestyle.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
It'd probably be easier to use simply use the salt water as a coolant, and then dump it back out into the ocean.

Godzirra? GODZIRRA!!

IIRC, that's what the nuke plant at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon do. At San Onofre, local surfers say the water is a few degrees warmer than the surrounding water, and is blamed for a host of marine environmental problems, including the near total wipeout of the local kelp forest. SoCalEdison is building an artificial reef off San Clemente, designed to help offset the environmental damage done by the hot water discharged by their San Onofre plant.

"The San Onofre nuclear plant is "the most destructive marine industrial facility ever built," said Mark Massara, statewide director of the Sierra Club's coastal programs. The 2,200-megawatt plant is the region's largest power source, serving as many as 1.5 million households at any time.

"This reef is really just the tip of the iceberg in terms of trying to restore the marine resources that this plant had destroyed," Massara said. "My only regret is that they're not doing a lot more."



Didja know that Kahleeforneeya had a minor nuk-u-ler "disaster"?

"The Santa Susana Sodium Reactor Experimental (SRE) was a small sodium-cooled experimental reactor built by Southern California Edison and Atomics International at Santa Susana, near Moorpark in Ventura County. It came on line in April 1957, began feeding electricity to the grid on July 12, 1957, and closed February 1964. This reactor used sodium rather than water as a coolant and produced a maximum of about 7.5 megawatts (electric). It was considered as the country's first civilian nuclear plant. On July 26, 1959, the SRE suffered a partial core meltdown. Ten of 43 fuel assemblies were damaged due to lack of heat transfer and radioactive contamination was released. The plant has subsequently been dismantled.

 

[Elstupido]

I am a huge fan of nuke plants, the only real downfall is what to do with the waste, as has been said before. Solve that problem and we are golden.

Hydro is really something that we should use more of. Nothing at all wrong with dams, mankind has been building dams from the very beginning, and the earth hasn't destroyed itself from it.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Godzirra? GODZIRRA!!

IIRC, that's what the nuke plant at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon do. At San Onofre, local surfers say the water is a few degrees warmer than the surrounding water, and is blamed for a host of marine environmental problems, including the near total wipeout of the local kelp forest. SoCalEdison is building an artificial reef off San Clemente, designed to help offset the environmental damage done by the hot water discharged by their San Onofre plant.

"The San Onofre nuclear plant is "the most destructive marine industrial facility ever built," said Mark Massara, statewide director of the Sierra Club's coastal programs. The 2,200-megawatt plant is the region's largest power source, serving as many as 1.5 million households at any time.

"This reef is really just the tip of the iceberg in terms of trying to restore the marine resources that this plant had destroyed," Massara said. "My only regret is that they're not doing a lot more."

....

That sounds like poor thermal engineering. They should have been able to calculate the increases in temperature, based on the outgoing temperature of the coolant, vs water flow in the area.