Why is the developed world turning away from Nuclear Energy?

[Jeff7]

You didn't read what I wrote, did you? 😛

I specifically stated that would be the LEAST IDEAL solution - preferably getting this shit into orbit by means of a "space elevator" concept. We have the time and space to wait until we can come up with a more reliable means of launching things into orbit, so thus why I'd suggest hoarding it all until we can do that.

Because yeah, exploding launch vehicles, errant rockets, failed boosters, it all can and has happened, and that would result in one hell of a contamination mess.

Why I didn't just quote myself right there, I have no idea. :\

Or we wait until these super-awesome GenIII designs see the light of day, and reprocess that waste into usable fuel and really suck the energy out of it.

 

[Gintaras]

Because they're fucking retarded retards. Hopefully Americans can turn their mindset around. We need more nuke facilities powering our states.

I think, you already have TOO MUCH uranium in your head just by saying that....

 

[SparkyJJO]

Switching from highway to rail transportation of goods and raising gas taxes so everyone dumps their SUV daily commuter would be a good start.

No.

 

[destrekor]

Or we wait until these super-awesome GenIII designs see the light of day, and reprocess that waste into usable fuel and really suck the energy out of it.

I think we'll see the space elevators first, at this rate. 😉

:biggrin:

 

[Jeff7]

I think we'll see the space elevators first, at this rate. 😉

:biggrin:

Yeah. :\
This is the same public, and the same political body, which didn't want meat to be irradiated because it would magically turn the food radioactive, or else give us Hulk beef. Then you wouldn't measure it by pounds or alternators, but by GeV.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

No.

Why no? People who use SUVs to drive to work everyday by themselves is such a waste of gas.

 

[zanejohnson]

umm DUH we need to be using that big light bulb in the sky.

 

[crownjules]

umm DUH we need to be using that big light bulb in the sky.

Easier said than done. Current technology is not nearly efficient enough at converting sunlight into energy we can use.

Cross-posting this from P&N in a thread about Obama and gas prices:

Further evidence for this shift was provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in a 2010 review of world oil prospects. In preparation for its report, the agency examined historic yields at the world’s largest producing fields -- the “easy oil” on which the world still relies for the overwhelming bulk of its energy. The results were astonishing: those fields were expected to lose three-quarters of their productive capacity over the next 25 years, eliminating 52 million barrels per day from the world’s oil supplies, or about 75% of current world crude oil output. The implications were staggering: either find new oil to replace those 52 million barrels or the Age of Petroleum will soon draw to a close and the world economy would collapse.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1755..._here_to_stay/

Paints a pretty stark picture if we don't wean ourselves off oil. Solar and wind aren't at levels that can do more than supplement other sources of energy. Nuclear is the only proven option we can go with at present time. If solar becomes a viable source to power our nation then we switch to it at that point in time. But we can't wait for technology to develop to meet our needs because it may be too late for us.

 

[Modelworks]

suggests that because of the exceptional power output of nulcear power plants that they are more suseptable to a failure if the grid fails. This is because the power plant is also quite dependent on the grid and is a fundamental reason why the Japanese nuclear power plant failure was so extreme. The grid died, and they ran out of diesel fuel to maintain the cooling system. A very in a nut shell explanation, but makes sense.

I never understood that about nuclear plants before. I do not know that this is fact, but the IEEE is not known for publishing technical bullshit.

The new reactors like the ones being built now in the USA do not need electrical power at all to shut down and do not need even a single person to do the process.
http://ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/station_blackout_home/passivecorecooling.html

The reactors in Japan were using 30+ year old technology.

 

[Modelworks]

Paints a pretty stark picture if we don't wean ourselves off oil.

I don't worry about the energy from oil being replaced with something else. What concerns me is all the other stuff that comes from oil, asphalt for roads, tires for cars, everything made from plastic, even some medicines have oil as an ingredient in the process.

 

[destrekor]

Why no? People who use SUVs to drive to work everyday by themselves is such a waste of gas.

Sometimes these people own such vehicles for legitimate purposes (hauling cargo, towing, family/X-number passengers on large trips, sometimes even vehicle capabilities/handling/off-road performance)... do you dare suggest everyone who wants such a vehicle must own TWO vehicles (that they have access to daily, not counting a husband/wife/partner's vehicle that is used daily by said individual) simply to avoid being such a statistic?


Not everyone wants a gas-sipping, terribly performance, weak handling vehicle, and cannot afford to have such a vehicle in addition to their vehicle of choice.

Some people would be better off and get by just as well with a good hatchback or even a lesser-capable SUV/crossover/ similar vehicle with cargo/pax space... that much I agree with. But many simply have such a vehicle for necessity (even if that function is rarely utilized).

 

[destrekor]

I don't worry about the energy from oil being replaced with something else. What concerns me is all the other stuff that comes from oil, asphalt for roads, tires for cars, everything made from plastic, even some medicines have oil as an ingredient in the process.

Sooner or later we'll reach cost-efficiency (and overall efficiency in general) in regards to completely fabricating molecular structures that are needed. i.e. true synthetics. For some purposes, we can, but some molecules (more specifically: some molecular arrangements) are a little out of reach in terms of efficiency.

Hopefully we can get there before we hit any sort of industrial crisis, ignoring energy value.

It'd be great if, in the event we are to reach a crisis point before we can become sufficient with our own means, we're at least developed enough to begin "extraterrestrial" hydrocarbon mining projects.

 

[bononos]

I think I head it on a T.E.D. talk or in an IQ2 debate about nuclear energy but I cannot remember.

As other posters have said. Thorium reactors produce less waste and have a shorter half life. Breeder reactors can be used to reduce the amount of current waste that you have. Passively safe designs exist to make nuclear even safer than it already is and it is currently miles safer than any other form of energy production.

Gen 4 Very High Temperature reactors can be used as part of the process to generate hydrogen fuel cells which means you can move away from oil usage.

The 1.5(or 2-3 as the poster above calculated) swimming pools of waste may sound very little but its only referring to the pure nasty stuff and probably not when its properly packaged for long term storage and disposal. But its a great soundbite that will stun an uninformed layman. The vast Yucca mountain site which had a capacity of 70tons(probably referring to the 'real' waste capacity) which is more than 1.5 olympic swimming pools is unable to cope with the amounts of US nuclear waste in the near/medium term. The lone reprocessing center in US got shutdown after generating billions in env damage after a few short years so that route is also dodgy.

The current US solution of putting them here and there and in military munitions is considered temporary by the nuclear agency which doesn't seem very reassuring. So at the end of it all, the US does not yet have a permanent solution.

I'll read up on Thorium but I don't expect a light at the end of the tunnel. Nuclear/Thorium energy depends on a large amount of upfront costs/resources and the net savings don't seem to be all that large, not to mention the dependence on govt guarantees when things go sour.

 

[alkemyst]

whats funny here is people in this thread want solar, and people in another thread about timezones want to have people working on one clock/timezone.

it's funny.

 

[Bubbaleone]

From the Nuclear Energy Institute (http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/nuclearwasteamountsandonsitestorage/):

Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. The nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,000 - 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year.

Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 65,200 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep.

That would be 945,000 cubic feet of high-level radioactive waste, weighing 143,741,419.6 pounds currently in storage.

Add to that another 5,070,632.9 pounds of high-level radioactive waste, accumulating every year that current reactors continue to operate.

And..Hey! We will be building a High-Level Radioactive Waste storage facility in your neighborhood, real soon!

 

[destrekor]

From the Nuclear Energy Institute (http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/nuclearwasteamountsandonsitestorage/):

That would be 945,000 cubic feet of high-level radioactive waste, weighing 143,741,419.6 pounds currently in storage.

Add to that another 5,070,632.9 pounds of high-level radioactive waste, accumulating every year that current reactors continue to operate.

And..Hey! We will be building a High-Level Radioactive Waste storage facility in your neighborhood, real soon!

hmm. You use large numbers (fear mongering tactic?), when it can be (and imagine that, it was even done for you in the quoted material) easily summed up in a small picture that represents quite a little in reality.

football field, seven yards deep - sounds unbelievably massive, I cannot imagine how we could ever dream of handling that! And future, similar production! oh, and waste reduction through consumption in newer reactors... wait a minute. :hmm:

 

[Bubbaleone]

hmm. You use large numbers (fear mongering tactic?), when it can be (and imagine that, it was even done for you in the quoted material) easily summed up in a small picture that represents quite a little in reality.

football field, seven yards deep - sounds unbelievably massive, I cannot imagine how we could ever dream of handling that! And future, similar production! oh, and waste reduction through consumption in newer reactors... wait a minute. :hmm:

Click the link...figures and quote are straight from the NEI website. All I did was convert football field, yards, and metric tons into cubic feet and pounds. Sum that up in a "small picture" any way you want.

 

[destrekor]

Click the link...figures and quote are straight from the NEI website. All I did was convert football field, yards, and metric tons into cubic feet and pounds. Sum that up in a "small picture" any way you want.

And for what reason did you choose certain numbers of others?

Most people see large numbers in these situations, and gasp.

A football field seven yards deep, on the other hand, seems like a pittance. (because, indeed, it is).


I didn't say you created false numbers. I said you manipulated readers with fear-mongering tactics.

Most people have little visual and dimensional understanding of massive scales... when you get into hundreds of thousands of anything, I too have that issue - and I am a very visual, very aware person in terms of realistic quantities and scale and what we can and cannot do with such.

 

[waggy]

Why no? People who use SUVs to drive to work everyday by themselves is such a waste of gas.

ok so you want to Tax suv's? or gas? or large vehicles?

What about the fact most goods are transported by large trucks? you ok with the cost of EVERYTHING going higher?

ok so you want to tax SUV's/Trucks (not 18 wheeler types)? what about farmers? ranchers? disabled (btw you do know Full size vans are considered trucks?), schools etc?

what about people that really need such vehicles?


I DO admit i wish people would stop buying SUV's and Trucks for everyday vehicles when theyd on't need them. I used to be able get a full size truck cheap. now they are so damn expensive its nuts. I don't want to throw shit in the back of a 30k truck..heh

saying increase tax's or gas prices efects more then most people think

 

[Bubbaleone]

And for what reason did you choose certain numbers of others?

Most people see large numbers in these situations, and gasp.

A football field seven yards deep, on the other hand, seems like a pittance. (because, indeed, it is).


I didn't say you created false numbers. I said you manipulated readers with fear-mongering tactics.

Most people have little visual and dimensional understanding of massive scales... when you get into hundreds of thousands of anything, I too have that issue - and I am a very visual, very aware person in terms of realistic quantities and scale and what we can and cannot do with such.

Not "hundreds of thousands"...Billions. And any sane person should gasp. If you consider a stark look at reality to be "fear-mongering" you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

~144 Billion pounds of nuclear waste scares the Hell out of me..and that's just the U.S...now think about all the other nations that have been creating nuclear waste for the last 40 years.

A lot of people before me have obviously crunched these numbers, and reached the same conclusion. I think it's a pretty damn good reason to stop using nuke plants as quickly as possible.

The OP asked AT members why we think so many countries are starting to back away from nuke plants. This was my reply, and my opinion.

.

 

[rcpratt]

This is the best article I've seen yet on why the US nuclear renaissance has slowed down. And that's really the only reason except for politics.

The facts in the article are plentiful and accurate, with the exception of the values for cost per kW that he gives for natural gas and nuclear. Everything I've seen here indicates natural gas having a slim margin on nuclear in that regard. Too bad people don't realize that $3 natural gas won't last.

 

[AeroEngy]

This is the best article I've seen yet on why the US nuclear renaissance has slowed down. And that's really the only reason except for politics.

The facts in the article are plentiful and accurate, with the exception of the values for cost per kW that he gives for natural gas and nuclear. Everything I've seen here indicates natural gas having a slim margin on nuclear in that regard. Too bad people don't realize that $3 natural gas won't last.

Nuclear could be significantly cheaper if we moved away from current water based designs.

For example a thorium LFTR operates at near atmospheric pressure so you don't need huge thick steel containment. You also don't need the gigantic concrete outer containment building to catch all of the radioactive steam in case of a leak ... again because there is no high pressure super heated water to flash off during a leak. The end results is a much smaller and cheaper plant.

The fuel cost would also be much cheaper since you can eliminate the costly enrichment process (This is also true for an IFR type of design). The cost to store & manage wastes would also be significantly less since the volume of waste would be several orders of magnitude smaller.

Also regarding waste a properly configured breeder reactor could operate on spent fuel rods from current reactor designs. Is essence that would reduce the current waste storage issues.

It really seems like a win-win ... if the government would un-ban the IFR/breeder designs.

 

[joejoe666]

Isin't India a leader in thorium based reactors? don't they have a reactor up and running and building more?

i believe China started developing it too?

 

[Joepublic2]

Why no? People who use SUVs to drive to work everyday by themselves is such a waste of gas.

Because, the modern standard of living that everybody here enjoys (you have a computer etc.) is built on cheap energy, mainly from hydrocarbons. Nuclear (if it's done correctly) is a great option along with some other things like thermal solar, high altitude wind, algae bio-diesel and deep well geothermal. Coal is cheap but it thrashes the environment. All that artificially raising gas prices is going to do is hurt the economy by making everything cost more, and would hurt the poor the most (not everybody can afford a new gas sipping hybrid).

 

[bradley]

Fukushima Radioactive Ocean Impact Map
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsbsaCO3vHg