| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| Nuclear Power One of Several Green Weapons Against Global Warming |
| 2004-06-03 |
| I found this after a reading a piece of alarmist claptrap in a Savanah Georgia newspaper about how nuclear power was really bad and what you should do is put solar panels on your roof, which amongst other things ignores the fact that the bulk of domestic electricity consumption occurs at night. The MIT study of the future of nuclear power, as summarized by Jim Dawson, (Physics Today, December 2003, page 34) states that "the management and disposal of high−level radioactive spent fuel from the nuclear fuel cycle is one of the most intractable problems facing the nuclear power industry throughout the world." In reality, it is a problem that exists only in people’s minds. For the first 20 years or so of operation, a power plant stores spent fuel underwater in a small pool. When the pool becomes full, the older fuel—for which much of the radioactivity has decayed away—is removed from the water and stored in dry casks on site. An area the size of a football field is adequate for storing the spent fuel from hundreds of years of a power plant’s operation. Considering the huge number of kilowatt hours that are produced, the problem should be regarded as insignificant, rather than "intractable." The spent fuel is valuable and should be kept in a manner that allows easy retrieval. It still holds about 97% of the original potential energy but may be even more valuable for the fission products it contains. To give one example, rhodium, a platinum metal, makes up about 2% of the fission products, and the price of rhodium fluctuates between the price of gold and 10 times that. Rhodium has many uses and would replace platinum in many applications if the price could be reduced to a more reasonable value. Fresh fission−product rhodium contains traces of isotopes with half−lives of 2.9 and 3.3 years. It is just a matter of time until these radioactivities decay to negligible levels. The material in US spent fuel is worth billions of dollars and gets more valuable every day as the shorter−lived activities decay away. |
| Posted by:Phil B |
| #20 Here's what I never see the environmentalists talking about. Any type of energy generation on a large scale is going to have repercussions. The solar power you are using to power your appliances would otherwise have gone into the earth or somewhere and had some effect, which it will not now have. The wind that is turning your wind mill will not reach the destination it would originally have reached. On a small basis, that might not matter. On a large basis, I'll bet it's going to mess some stuff up. I'm not saying it couldn't work; I'm just saying there's going to be a downside and I don't see that downside being considered by the proponents of these methods. And large-scale wind farms in England have been causing lots of health problems for people living near them. |
| Posted by: Kathy L 2004-06-03 9:46:05 PM |
| #19 Phil B: Ahhh, good point. But that just goes to show that the good Lord meant for us all to live in isolated double-wides! |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2004-06-03 7:58:56 PM |
| #18 SM, I know that if you have the space and expertise you can make solar and wind work on a local scale, especially if you can't or don't want connection to the grid. I have spent time in northern Australia where large distances and sparse population means solar + batteries is a good option, but you still need a generator when you have cloud for a few days. Since solar can only work for less than half the time (and far less than than half in a lot of places) you need a truly massive power storage infrastructure - Think a million trailers full of batteries for an average city, which the greenies completely ignore. That is what I meant by a joke. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-06-03 5:24:39 PM |
| #17 The cooling tower produces water vapor - "a green house gas." |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-06-03 4:53:13 PM |
| #16 there are many spills, leaks and minor accidents at reactors.Easy to find info on the net, it's not just Chernobyl you know. I'm too lazy, could you please provide a link? And what about the spills, thrills, leaks and accdents? Were there any adverse biological affects from these events? What sort of spills and leaks are we talking about? A packing leak on a high pressure coolant injection pump? Yawn. (Isolate the leak/spill, secure ventilation, conduct surveys, wipe up the spill or paint the spill with removable paint(it works really), bag/tag it, show your friends, properly dispose of the bag, more surveys, remove the barriers, get on with life, net biological damage...Zip Zays Zpaz.) And that is the story, you say spill/accident to define nuclear power as bad. That is not the standard for decision making. The standard is biological damage to individuals in the public and damage to property. And what is the net amount of damage to the public from the use of nuclear power in the western world? Diddly P. Squat. If it is Carnage you want Anon1, then I suggest you spend some time cleaning up accidents sites on the highways. Shall we all give up driving because of the bloody mayhem on our highways? Please, Anon, can I get a copy of the antiseptic bubble you live in. I feel so dirty or should I say contaminated. Radiation causes cancer? Holy smokes, I'm giving up bananas, too much radiaoacitve Potassium. They may not be technologically superior to us, they may be backwards by our standards. That doesn't give us the right to foist radioactive waste on them I guess we should not foist automobiles on them either. Nuclear power has severe problems the main one being it is too expensive due to hidden (ie: uncosted) health, disposal and environmental costs Links please. Costs please. I feel so ignorant. |
| Posted by: Zpaz 2004-06-03 12:49:32 PM |
| #14 Im fond of Alas Babylon. Used to be required reading for 10th grade Floridians. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-06-03 10:30:59 AM |
| #13 I agree with Bulldog (I think). Most of the true believer anti-nuke people I know are deep down anti progress. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-06-03 9:46:26 AM |
| #12 I guess we're doomed. Time for On The Beach, The Last Ship, This is the Way the World Ends, eh? |
| Posted by: .com 2004-06-03 9:29:22 AM |
| #11 For 'blue' and 'red' in the post above, replace with 'right' and 'left' to make sense for US readers. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-06-03 8:26:26 AM |
| #10 That was me. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-06-03 8:24:57 AM |
| #9 Anon1 may be an unreconstructed 'blue' greenie, but she isn't a 'red' greenie. Her posting history makes that clear. There are still a huge number of people, like Anon1, who have an irrational aversion to nuclear power, but attitudes do seem to be changing swiftly in a more sensible direction. I suspect it's only a matter of time before Anon1 'sees the light' on this issue. (Sees the throbbing green glow?) |
| Posted by: Anonymous5105 2004-06-03 8:24:07 AM |
| #8 Anon1 simply has not read the article, but is spouting the standard line. I have talked to people at the local nuclear power plant, and they told me the problem is a people problem, not a technical problem. People like Anon1 CREATE the problem, then declare that the problem they created is innate to nuclear power. His felt need to make multiple postings, rapid fire, one after another, reflects a desperation to make sure technical solutions are NOT considered. For instance, the security issue surrounding nuclear plants perfectly reflects his personal view that we should not be proactive, but react only after terrorists strike us first. He posits a ludicrous and suicidal methodology to fight the war on terror in one forum, then turns around and admits that that same suicidal methodology is inadequate and presents that as an argument that nuclear facilities are vunerable. His solution? give up. Yield. Lie down. Don't fight back. Listen to HIM, dismantle what HE tells you, and let him BE OUR MASTER. F*ck him. It appears that waste from a nuclear plant is UNLIKE waste from a fossil fuel plant. In a fossil plant, if you burn twice as much fuel, you get twice as much waste. it turns out that the amount of long lived waste in a nuclear plant is dependent on the power level, NOT ON HOW LONG OR HOW MUCH YOU FISSION. The same processes that split the uranium atoms also split nuclear waste atoms at the same rate! The amount of really long term and dangerous materials from each load of nuclear fuel, I've read, amounts to several pounds. I was told that it is possible to take the waste from 20 reactors operating in 2002, process it out, put it in a separate reactor in 2003, operate with it for 2004, and by 2005 find that the amount of waste left amounts to ONE reactor's worth: the process of fission burned away to nothing the waste from the other 19 reactors. This is called nuclear incineration, and is the secret to dealing with nuclear waste that people like anon1 either want us to ignore, or whose ignorance prevents them from seeing. it is obvious that the incinerator must be run by the government. Plutonium? Turns out that plutonium is created during the fission process in the presence of U-238, and accounts for more than half of the power production of a nuclear plant. I was told it could be blended back into fresh fuel, but because of its chemically poisonous nature, it would require changing the way nuclear fuel is currently assembled (by hand, not machine). I'm with Aussie Mike: Anon1 is a leftie pining for the good old days, and forgets the atrocious environmental record of the soviets, right along with the atrocious human rights violations and murders of tens of millions of people. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-06-03 7:57:06 AM |
| #7 Geez, Anon1. Firstly there isn't definite evidence of global warming. Secondly, even if there were it may not be due to human activity. If we put our minds to it could we actually influence global temperatures? This isn't certain by any means with current or near future tech. Unfortunately the USA decided to have NASA instead of a space program. We are roughly in agreement on this. Yep, there are accidents at nuclear reactors People get run over by trucks at the loading bay, drop things on their feet etc . These are defined as "nuclear accidents" Causes cancer, yes in high doses. Low doses?nobody really knows. The natural cancer rate is so high, likewise defects. Take a look at www.jerrypournelle.com for last week. The article "proof hormesis works?" No, low level effects aren't necessarily cumulative. The body has repair mechanisms. Detection of spills, easy use a radiation counter. There are lost of nasty chemicals which have far higher carcinogenic and mutagenic potential than radioactivity, which are far harder to detect. These things can have half lives of effectively forever. Waste disposal? Reprocess and what is left is less radioactive than the rock you mined it from in 500 to 600 years. Using the late unlamented USSR as an example is a bad idea. Gangster government is unlikely ever to be any good at anything except killing people. The sites you mention are probably weapons producing reactor sites from Stalin's days. He really didn't care. A well run civilian nuclear program doesn't have to be like that. |
| Posted by: Aussie Mike 2004-06-03 7:32:05 AM |
| #6 Phil, Acceptance of nuclear power as an alternative to oil puts the greenies out of business and they know it. They can no longer espouse socialist proposals and they can no longer wreck the American economy with regulations. These leftwingers are really long on 'alternatives' to 'fossil fuels'; they want the government to subsidize these 'technologies', and when the technology turns out to be too expense, or not ready for the open maket, they blame government and demand more money, never willing to admit these 'alternatives' would have been put into production and widespread use were there enough profits involved in doing so. In other words: greenies are a buncha yammering losers who are unable to get a clue about markets and about socialism. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-06-03 7:20:49 AM |
| #5 And, natural gas - still reliant on imports from unstable places and massive infrastructure costs solar - Passive solar works really well in high sunshine places. Solar panels are a joke that consume more energy than they produce in most places. wind - questionable energy economics, i.e. they consume more energy than they produce and extremely unreliable. geothermal - Despite 40 years of research it hasn't taken off. Ergo its not feasible except in limited locations. wave - all attempts at wave tidal and tidal energy never reached economic i.e. net energy producing, viability hydro - limited potential and huge environmental consequences ethanol/methane- These are not primary energy sources and require more energy to produce than they deliver - as a rule of thumb twice as much. Hence they are a good way of increasing oil imports. My apologies to Rantburgers (and Fred) for using up bandwidth on this dingbat, but its important to understand we are funding both the terror and the WoT, and the way out is energy independance. I did find out something interesting today which is that the Lawrence Livermore laboratories have developed a carbon fuel cell that runs on coal. Just possibly the energy Killer-app. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-06-03 7:03:34 AM |
| #4 This has nothing to do with Global Warming and everything to do with energy security and not funneling trillions of dollars to nutball Islamofreaks. A few days ago I asked you why if nuclear power was such a failure, the world's largest producer of nuclear energy (France) is also the worlds largest exporter of electricty, and as far as I can recall has never had a serious nuclear incident. In fact it must be at least 20 years since the last serious nuclear incidence. In the mean time 100,000s have died as a result of burning fossil fuels(respiratory diseases, pollutants, fires, explosions, etc.). And BTW, I realize science is not generally a strong point of greenies, but it is not possible to increase the total amount of radiation emitted by any material (short of nuclear fusion which can). All you can do over a short period is increase (or decrease) the amount of radiation released , resulting in a decrease in radiation released over the longer term. I realize the fact that nuclear power actually decreases the amount of radiation released into the environment is a difficult concept for greenies, but it is none-the-less true. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-06-03 6:44:42 AM |
| #3 One last point: It is absolutely untrue that the waste problem is insignificant as this article claims. Just because the spent fuel rods don't take up much physical space doesn't mean anything. The risk is in how radioactive they are. They are so radioactive that machines have to be used to move them, humans cannot go near them. They are extremely dangerous and remain so for hundreds of thousands of years. It would be extremely ignorant and shortsighted to think that just because you can guarantee the security of the storage facility for the next 60-100 years that means the problem is over. You are simply foisting it onto future generations. There are areas of land (ex-reactor sites) in the old USSR that are so radioactive as to be deemed uninhabitable for thousands of years. They used to have fences, warning signs and guards preventing people from entering these sites. Of course with the collapse of the old soviet union, nobody wants to pay the wages of these guards anymore. Signs come down and don't get replaced. you want that for future generations of Americans? Over time the whole reactor takes on radiation and becomes a waste hazard, not just the fuel rods. |
| Posted by: Anon1 2004-06-03 4:37:38 AM |
| #2 forgot to add: in today's world a nuke reactor is a security hazard. If 9/11 had flown planes into reactors instead of the towers and the pentagon, you would have had 3 chernobyls in mainland USA. After Chernobyl, the downsyndrome rate quadrupled in IRELAND because the wind was blowing west over Europe. Do you know how far away Ireland is from Chernobyl???? Imagine the thousands upon thousands who have had their lives filled with grief from cancer and birth defects all over Europe by Chernobyl and multiply that and apply it to the US in the event of terrorist strikes on a reactor. |
| Posted by: Anon1 2004-06-03 4:32:02 AM |
| #1 I don't know why people keep posting Nuclear "solutions" to global warming 1) global warming cannot be stopped now: it's too late to do anything about it! Forget Kyoto, just keep burning oil and coal and deal with the problems as they come to hand. There is considerable debate actually about whether it will even cause a problem at all, or whether humans really are the cause of it. 2) Nuclear power has severe problems the main one being it is too expensive due to hidden (ie: uncosted) health, disposal and environmental costs. Those costs get foisted onto the government and us the taxpayers. environmental: there are many spills, leaks and minor accidents at reactors. Easy to find info on the net, it's not just Chernobyl you know. health: radiation causes cancer. It causes defects. the effects are cumulative. Once it gets into the environment it cannot easily be cleaned up. Increasing the background radiation increases the cancer rate. This means the taxpayer pays more for health care/disability care for those who can't afford it. disposal: nuclear waste is dangerous for thousands of years. It is hard to find a good storage site for it. Nobody wants it in their back yard for good reason. Even if you find a good site, there is no guarantee that the warning signs you put there will still be there in 1000 years. In fact there is no guarantee society as we know it will be around in 5,000 years. But humans will probably still be around. What a stupid idea to lump those future generations, all distantly related to us, with cancer-causing waste that they don't know about. They may not be technologically superior to us, they may be backwards by our standards. That doesn't give us the right to foist radioactive waste on them. Especially when there are alternatives. Up front costs associated with natural gas/solar/wind/geothermal/wave/hydro/ethanol/methane power may be higher than nuclear on paper. But that is ONLY if you discount the "hidden" costs that are very very high. Nuclear is dead. just accept it isn't the golden power source of the future everyone thought in the 50s. Time to move ON. |
| Posted by: Anon1 2004-06-03 4:28:37 AM |
