Author Topic: Nuclear Power (Read 1039 times)

GtoRA2 · « **on:** January 06, 2003, 01:57:06 PM »

Why is it bad?

Is it not better then coal?

can we get some pros and cons on this?

ra · « **Reply #1 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:05:15 PM »

Nuclear fission is better than coal, or anything else... except for the fact that nuclear power plants can cause radioactive disasters if things go very wrong; and we have no sure way of keeping the spent fuel out of the environment for the thousands of years it takes to lose its dangerous radioactivity. Coal pollutes, but fission has the potential to pollute much worse.

Nuclear fusion would be great if it could be made to work.

ra

beet1e · « **Reply #2 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:17:57 PM »

GTO, ra - hope you don't mind my replying! I know I'm not exactly flavour of 2003 right now

Nuclear power is great! AFAIK cities like Chicago have 50% of their electricity generated by nuclear power. The problem is the nuclear waste. It remains dangerous for thousands of years. Here in Britain, we do have substantial nuclear waste processing capacity, but... people don't like us receiving nuclear waste for processing. Besides, it's expensive to process. It's a case of Supergreen turning Supernimby. By refusing to accept nuclear waste for processing, we increase the likelihood of said waste being dumped on some third world country which does not have the means to process it properly or safely.

I feel about nuclear power as I do about things like a single European currency - great - if it can be made to work.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:24:33 PM »

What is involved in processing the waste?

How much waste gets made?

and why can't we keep it out of the environment?

Why do the Libs here hate it so much?.

midnight Target · « **Reply #4 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:30:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GtoRA2
What is involved in processing the waste?

How much waste gets made?

and why can't we keep it out of the environment?

Why do the Libs here hate it so much?.

This isn't a Lib-Con issue. Radioactive waste stays dangerous for up to 90,000 yrs IIRC in the case of Strontium. Where could you put something for that long and ensure that the seal will never be broken?

I'm not "anti-nuke", just want to ensure that they are as safe as humanly possible.

miko2d · « **Reply #5 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:34:23 PM »

Coal produces enourmous harm and risk which is spread - so it is less perceptible. Nuclear problems are highlighted and publicised.

Humans are ill equipped to evaluate certain risks. They tend to underestimate familiar risks and overestimate exotic ones. People underestimate risk of car travel and overestimate risks of air travel and lightning strike for example.

Politicians just use that fact to manipulate ignorant public opinion.

miko

Sikboy · « **Reply #6 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:36:55 PM »

Quote

It's a case of Supergreen turning Supernimby

lol

-Sik

miko2d · « **Reply #7 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:41:48 PM »

midnight Target: Radioactive waste stays dangerous for up to 90,000 yrs IIRC in the case of Strontium. Where could you put something for that long and ensure that the seal will never be broken?

How does that help thousands of people who die/suffer now from harmfull effects of coal? If civilisation stays on course, the next hundred years will see a lot of change, let alone 90,000 years. Technological challenges faced by ancient egyptians are not that scary to us. If civilisation fails, who cares about some extra radiation?
The population that North America without civilisation could sustain is probably less than 10 million. They will find a lot of "clean" places outside the deserts where the waste is stored.

miko

Wlfgng · « **Reply #8 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:43:35 PM »

most of the time radioactive material is rated in terms of half-life..(you all know already I'm sure) but people tend to forget that the number (half-life) is how long it takes for it do reduce it's radioactivity to half it's current state.
then another X ammount of years (half-life) for it to decay another 50% and so on..

so yeah.. radioactive particles are way worse than pollution from something like coal

Quote

They will find a lot of "clean" places outside the deserts where the waste is stored.

this attitude ignores the fact that this stuff leaches into groundwater, food, etc etc..

nasty stuff, worse than bong-water

miko2d · « **Reply #9 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:46:32 PM »

Wlfgng: so yeah.. radioactive particles are way worse than pollution from something like coal

Coal contains a lot of radioactive scum which is spread around when it's burned/processed - in fact uranium contained in coal posesses more energy than the coal itself.

Pregnant women and children should not eat ocean fish like tuna becasue it now contains too mich mercury. Where do you think it comes from?

miko

Wlfgng · « **Reply #10 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:49:38 PM »

ya' learn something new everyday..

how do the 'radioactive' levels in coal compare to something like the fuel used in nuclear power plants ? Doesn't seem like it'd be that much comparatively speaking

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #11 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:51:04 PM »

Could of very well come from the thousands of barrels of expended uranium rods (or is it plutonium?) that are burried about various countries that have nuclear power plants.

In Oregon (or maybe it was Nevada) they were storing LOTS and LOTS of radioactive material in barrels under ground... most of which were leaking. This was several years ago, but at any rate.. it more than likely eventually made it's way to the ocean...

Radioactive materials are simply not safe at all to store.. not yet anyway... and the waste, we haven't found a safe way to store it either... and there's will be lots of waste if all power plants are nuclear.
-SW

miko2d · « **Reply #12 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:51:23 PM »

Wlfgng: this attitude ignores the fact that this stuff leaches into groundwater, food, etc etc..

We are talking about hypothetical savages remaining after the fall of civilisation. Who cares what happens to them? It's not like any increase in mortality would affect their resulting tiny numbers - they will be limited by scarse food supplies rather than other causes.

Of course if civilisatuion continues to develop at the same pace for few hundred more years, who cares how bad ground water would be? A house would likely be a closed system only requiring energy from the external environment.

miko

miko2d · « **Reply #13 on:** January 06, 2003, 02:57:12 PM »

Wlfgng: ya' learn something new everyday..
how do the 'radioactive' levels in coal compare to something like the fuel used in nuclear power plants ? Doesn't seem like it'd be that much comparatively speaking

I am sorry that I do not have sources handy but you can find plenty of that stuff on the web. I am not really a great fan of nuclear - I'd prefer wind-farms personally - but the coal is just terrible.

You must remember also that a lot of nuclear waste that is currently a problem does not come from nuclear energy production but from manufacturing tens of thousands nuclear weapons during the cold war. The safety requirements for that (and any, for that matter) urgent military production were understandably more relaxed than for comercial business.

France has 80% of electricity produced by nukes. Do they have any problems with it?

miko

J_A_B · « **Reply #14 on:** January 06, 2003, 03:03:27 PM »

Nuclear power plants don't really use nuclear power, not in the same sense that nuclear bombs do.

Nuclear power plants work more or less the same as a coal or gas power plant does except the radioactive material (uranium) heats the water instead. It's not really nuclear power, it's steam power.

J_A_B