Why is the developed world turning away from Nuclear Energy?

[JimmiG]

This.

I don't understand why there is zero movement at least in the US for a thorium breeder. The fuel is more plentiful, wouldn't require expensive uranium enrichment and processing steps, plants could be passively safe and much smaller in scale. It seems like a win-win. Granted there are a few technical hurdles (ex. material properties if using a liquid salt) but they should be surmountable ... if someone was actually working on them.

+1
All that "dangerous radiation" from the nuclear waste is actually untapped energy.

 

[BladeVenom]

When the physical security of a Nuclear Weapons facility is compromised by an 82 year old nun, it doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.

So we should build newer safer reactors then, correct?

How does it make you feel, that most dangerous chemicals aren't guarded at all? In one truck theft, enough cyanide to poison 20 million people was stolen. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/world/truck-full-of-cyanide-is-stolen-in-mexico.html

Stealing a truck is a lot easier than breaking into a nuclear facility, stealing uranium, and building a nuclear bomb.

 

[PingviN]

I'm glad that you don't think that the 83 year old Sister Megan is a threat.

Though, I suspect that the Federal Judge that just convicted her would disagree with you. As would the New York Times that referred to the Sister's actions this way: " ... nuclear experts call the biggest security breach in the history of the nation’s atomic complex, making their way to the inner sanctum of the site where the United States keeps crucial nuclear bomb parts and fuel. “Deadly force is authorized,” signs there read. “Halt!” Images of skulls emphasize the lethal danger."

She did break the law, right? She cut open a fence and entered a restricted area. Then she vandalized the building. That's not being a threat that's being a petty criminal. Why do you think they have those signs? Maybe to make people stay out. A fence is a fence, nothing more, nothing less. You can climb over my fence, it doesn't mean you'll get into my house.

The fact that it's called "the biggest security breach in the history of the nation’s atomic complex" should tell you how secure the critical areas are.

When the physical security of a Nuclear Weapons facility is compromised by an 82 year old nun, it doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.

It wasn't though. She got through a fence, past some (I assume) unmanned watch towers and dummy/not working sensors and cameras. She didn't get to the reactor or anything remotely critical. She got through a fence.

Nor, does the news that a pair of security guards were wounded by an accidental weapons discharge on the anniversary of Sister Megan's break in make me feel warm and fuzzy either.

How is this a threat to the facility itself? I don't think anyone gets all warm and fuzzy about someone getting hurt.

One
How hard would it be to have security effective enough to keep 82 year old nuns from cutting through a series of fences,entering the Protected Area and making their way to the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility, which houses the US's primary supply of weapons-grade uranium?

Two
How hard would it be to hire security contractors that wouldn't wound their colleagues with their accidental weapons discharges?

Three
Is it creditable to think that civilian nuclear power plants have better security than nuclear weapons facilities?

1) Probably not very difficult at all, but the outer layers are not the final line of defense, it's the first. A fence is made to keep someone out, but if you wanna get through a fence, you'll get through a fence. Simple as that.

2) I'm pretty sure these accidents are ridiculously rare.

3) I'm sure you'll get over fences surrounding civilian power plants as well. It's not hard. It's a fence. Get inside the reactor building or pose an actual threat to the reactors integrity and you'll get my attention. Climb a fence and spray paint a wall and I wont care one bit. I know how a fence works, we've had the same retarded discussion here after some Greenpeace-morons breached the fences surrounding one of our plants.

TL;DR: IT'S A GOD DAMN FENCE.

 

[Spungo]

Aren't the 4 new rectors that were approved to be built recently in the U.S basically the same design as the Fukushima plant.

Why is that such a big concern? Remember that Fukushima was taken down after a gigantic earthquake smashed it. Many parts of the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, etc never see disasters like that. Putting a reactor like that where it will get smashed by a tornado is probably a bad idea, but what about areas where nothing happens? How many earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and tropic storms hit areas like inland Alaska or Montana?

In any event, a quick google search says Fukushima was built in 1967. It seems unlikely that the US would use a reactor design that is 46 years old. I don't even think my car has any parts that are 46 years old. Fuel injectors instead of a carb, the tires are a lot better, body is plastic instead of depleted uranium or whatever they used to make old cars, lots of the lights are LED instead of incandescent, and the list goes on.
It would be neat to see the inside of an old nuclear plant. Do the controls look like the instrument panel on a 1967 car? Everything is all faded from sunlight exposure or yellow from smoking next to it. Anything made from plastic or vinyl is all hard and cracked. Big levers for everything and flashing lights everywhere. It probably looks like something out of an scifi movie.

So we should build newer safer reactors then, correct?

You're so silly. I like you, but you're silly. We should ban all research and construction, ensuring that only the most dangerous things are used. We should only use car tires that were around in 1960, we should go back to 1960 car crash standards (ie you die no matter what), we should take the seat belts out of cars, we should insist on using 1960 nuclear reactors. This R smart.

How does it make you feel, that most dangerous chemicals aren't guarded at all? In one truck theft, enough cyanide to poison 20 million people was stolen

You should see the stuff that trains regularly transport through urban areas. All a terrorist needs to do is put an explosive between the rails and detonate it when a train passes over. Trains regularly haul things like giant tanks of ammonia or giant tanks of gasoline. Ironically, transporting nuclear waste is one of the safer things. The material falls on the ground and you pick it up again. Rupturing a tank of pressurized anhydrous ammonia is much much worse.

 

[Spungo]

I actually do live next to a nuclear power plant. And you really don't get it.

When you live as close as I do you get to hear all the stuff that goes on at the plant. The stuff is pretty shocking. Nuclear plants are constantly breaking down. Management appears to be incompetent and lie about everything.

lol. Humans. It's weird how everyone has horror stories from every industry. Example: I worked at McDonalds. We would fill about 6 trays worth of hamburger patties at midnight and serve those until 6am. It seems like humans tend to take a lot of shortcuts. If doing nuclear power, I would want the entire thing handled by computers. Computers are less likely to take shortcuts. IIRC, both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were caused by humans doing something stupid.

 

[preslove]

Because people are scared. Fortunately the UK is building more plants. The message that nuclear power is the safest form of energy generation really needs pushing. Deaths /Twh using nuclear is 0.04 the next best is hydro at 0.1 which is still 2.5x more deadly.

Gen 4 reactors need to have more R&D so we can start building passively safe reactors that can also be used as part of the process to create hydrogen fuel cells. Going forward it is the greenest and safest method to fuel our vehicles and power our homes.

:thumbsup:

It should be noted that a lot of old school environmental activists have been talking about nuclear energy.

The best argument against it is the fact that you have to insure all the waste, which drives the actual costs pretty fucking high. This is, in fact, what killed the US nuclear power industry, after Reagan deregulated the energy industry and removed the expensive government backstops (insurance) for nuclear.