Is Nuclear Power Too Dangerous?

[SevenEyedJeff]

I'm thinking of the scenario where the economy completely collapses, and safety precautions at nuclear power plants become inadequate due to workers walking off the job, or possibly a major mistake, negligence, incompetence, or sabotage occurs, resulting in a meltdown. How about an earthquake, or some failure of equipment or structural damage that went unforeseen?

We saw an event happen at Chernobyl in the old USSR around the time of their economic collapse, and couldn't such a thing happen here in the U.S.? Is it worth taking the chance of such a disaster?

Can you lay these fears to rest?

[Reason]

Chernobyl was just stupid.

The Russians didn't build a containment dome.

Just stupid.

[Vessol]

Chernobyl..it was like a nuclear power plant made out of scrap metal.

The powers of the State at work.

I wouldn't mind privately run nuclear power plants.

[awake]

You mean stories like this put out by the oil cartel to destroy technology that competes with them? Notice that this reactor is not government owned? Notice that this story arrived soon after Obama mentioned Nuclear power plant investments? Notice the over all direction of the story that private power production of nuclear power is some how better left to the state and regulation?

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/02/16/bruce-power-nuclear913.html

[Baptist]

I'm not scared of the dangers of nuclear power. However, I would like to figure something out with the waste. In my opinion nuclear power should be private, not run by the state. And make the private companies responsible for any damage they cause to other people's health and property. This means that waste needs to be disposed of in a way that will never harm any people or any property.

[kahless]

I'm thinking of the scenario where the economy completely collapses, and safety precautions at nuclear power plants become inadequate due to workers walking off the job, or possibly a major mistake, negligence, incompetence, or sabotage occurs, resulting in a meltdown. How about an earthquake, or some failure of equipment or structural damage that went unforeseen?

We saw an event happen at Chernobyl in the old USSR around the time of their economic collapse, and couldn't such a thing happen here in the U.S.? Is it worth taking the chance of such a disaster?

Can you lay these fears to rest?

^This. As a side note before we had any regulation the plant by me was built right on an earthquake fault line. There was really no reason to build it there other than for the cheap land.

Storage containment of spent uranium is going to be a problem years from now. Even after the plants close down the containment is not designed to last for ever. With an economic collapse who is going to be bothered with that. This certainly is not an issue with gas or coal years down the road.

[Baptist]

^This. As a side note before we had any regulation the plant by me was built right on an earthquake fault line back in the 40s. There was really no reason to build it there other than for the cheap land.

Storage containment of spent uranium is going to be a problem years from now. Even after the plants close down the containment is not designed to last for ever. With an economic collapse who is going to be bothered with that. This certainly is not an issue with gas or coal years down the road.


Yeah, last semester I read articles about nuclear waste storage problems in France (80% of their power is from nukes).

[Matt Collins]

3 Mile Island was an example of how things are supposed to work. If there is a problem, then the fail-safes kick in and stop any major catastrophe. One of my best friends is a nuclear engineer for the Navy and he explained it to me... Chernobyl resulted because the safety mechanisms were never installed, and those that were had been temporarily disabled.


Nuclear power is safe, clean, efficient, and viable.



.

[wrestlingwes_8]

I tend to think nuclear power isn't the best option for engery we have in the long run. I believe we need to continue to develop nuclear, coal, and natural gas technologies so that we can more cleanly and effectively harness their energy; but also at the SAME time we need to be improving the efficiency and reducing the costs of wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, and tidal forms of energy. All five of these options are completely renewable and would allow us not to depend on foreign countries for them. At the moment however these forms of energy are still quite pricey and are not a huge benefit to the consumer. I strongly believe fossil fuels are not a major driving factor in climate change so I don't think there is an immediate need to switch over to renewable engery resources. We should continue to develop them though because in the long run they will make our environment cleaner and who can argue with that?

[kahless]

3 Mile Island was an example of how things are supposed to work.

I remember it all too clearly and would not say it is how things are supposed to work. They luckily were able to get it under control and avoid a meltdown.
It took them 5 days and they contaminated locations hundreds of miles from the plant with 5 times higher than normal radiation. Besides the mechanical failures, lack of training and incompetence played a role.

[Reason]

they contaminated locations hundreds of miles from the plant with 5 times higher than normal radiation.

I watched a very long documentary about 3 mile island and your quoted sentence above doesn't add up with it at all....

[XNavyNuke]

You mean stories like this put out by the oil cartel to destroy technology that competes with them? Notice that this reactor is not government owned? Notice that this story arrived soon after Obama mentioned Nuclear power plant investments? Notice the over all direction of the story that private power production of nuclear power is some how better left to the state and regulation?

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/02/16/bruce-power-nuclear913.html

They may have gotten 1000 mrem of alpha exposure.

Frustration mounts over alpha rad tests (http://kincardine.siteseer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2451265)


ince the initial discovery of the contamination, alpha radiation detectors and additional shielding have been installed at a number of locations in the plant. But the source said it's another oversight that should have been anticipated and was a factor that led to the issue in the first place.

The source knows of a few individuals who were marked for the initial alpha tests who are all but confirmed to have internal contamination. Workers have been told that some of those who have been exposed could expect to be assigned a radiation dose of 500 millirems (mrem) to the worst case 1,000 mrem. This would represent about one-fifth of the 5,000 mrem dose a worker can receive in a year, or one-tenth of the 10,000 mrem maximum workers can receive in five years.

By comparison, a pack and a half a day smoker gives his lungs a direct exposure to alpha particles of about 1250 mrem per year. The effective dose of a pelvic CT to the ovaries is 2300 mrem. Despite what they teach in journalism school, "exposure" doesn't mean everyone is going to die.

XNN

[pcosmar]

I want one of my own.
http://gizmodo.com/335312/toshiba-builds-personal+sized-micro-nuclear-reactor-huh

[TheState]

Hey guys, I just wanted to pop in on this thread and say I am currently working on my PhD in nuclear engineering at Ohio State and if anyone has any questions about the field, feel free to ask. I am a strong believer in nuclear energy (although I don't like the gov't funding it).

My particular area of study is reactor safety (probabilistic risk assessment).

[HenryAlan]

If you want to stop the oil wars it seems like a good idea to me, almost a paradox really. Iran wants to build a nuclear plant and everyone is losing there mind

[Toureg89]

not anymore dangerous than mining coal or shipping oil across oceans.

[kahless]

I watched a very long documentary about 3 mile island and your quoted sentence above doesn't add up with it at all....

Come on Radiant, you have such love for nuclear power you are willing to ignore history that can be found with a simple web search about 8 to 10 millirem exposures and higher hotspots?


not anymore dangerous than mining coal or shipping oil across oceans.

Yeah right. You could take a bath in oil in the ocean or cover your body with coal and nothing is going to happen to you. You could not say the same with exposure to radiation which depending on the amount would result in a quick death or long term suffering with the surrounding environment contaminated for thousands of years.


Nuclear power is safe, clean, efficient, and viable.
.

Wow, spouting nuclear power industry slogans now Matt? Please do not run for office if you are going to be a shill for industry rather than think independently in recognizing it's strengths and weaknesses. The quotes above are a perfect example of why Nuclear power is dangerous. Ignorance and willing to turn a blind eye to the industries problems so they can put profit before safety.

It is so amazing to read the posts in this forum where conspiracies are seen everywhere but when the nuclear power industry is discussed we suddenly have something that is so perfect and pure that there could not possibly any corruption, incompetence, failures, releases, etc. :rolleyes:

This makes some posters here no better than the sheep that they mock that blindly follow Obama and the Neocons. If we have Ron Paul type momement in the nuclear power industry then maybe I would change my opinion. It is however obvious from the responses here we are far from that.

[Southron]

Why not just use coal?

I have nothing against nuclear power but why bother when we have so much coal available?

I am convinced even if we had the world's largest supply of oil easily obtainable we would try and find something else to use.

[Toureg89]

Yeah right. You could take a bath in oil in the ocean or cover your body with coal and nothing is going to happen to you. You could not say the same with exposure to radiation which depending on the amount would result in a quick death or long term suffering with the surrounding environment contaminated for thousands of years..
i was not comparing the energy sources effects on the body in exposure.

i was comparing the energy methods of extraction and use.

how many American workers have died from radiation poisening from working in a nuclear power plant?

how many times has a nuclear reactor blown up and caused catastrophic damage t nearby people/infrastructure?

i can tell you, oil spills are a nasty and expensive thing to clean up, and cave ins/black lung claims the lifes of dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of americans each year.

http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/coalbystate.asp
some official statistics concerning coal mining deaths.

[XNavyNuke]

Yeah right. You could take a bath in oil in the ocean or cover your body with coal and nothing is going to happen to you. You could not say the same with exposure to radiation which depending on the amount would result in a quick death or long term suffering with the surrounding environment contaminated for thousands of years.

Since you know what that magic exposure dose is for your body you just go ahead and lay down in your black bed....

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/fig3.jpg

or take your bath.

Behaviors of 323Th, 238U, 228Ra and 226Ra on combustion of crude oil terminal sludge (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15050361)


Crude oil terminal sludge contains technologically enhanced naturally occurring radionuclides such as (232)Th, (238)U, (228)Ra and (226)Ra, thus cannot be disposed of freely without proper control. The current method of disposal, such as land farming and storing in plastic drums is not recommended because it will have a long-term impact on the environment.

Only those who can see through the Matrix know which radiation interaction with a cell in their body will start a cancer. For the mundanes I suggest the old "time, distance, shielding" thumbrule.

XNN

[Krugerrand]

I believe this article has been referenced before ... but if this guy it right, nuclear power will quickly become obsolete.

"Ocean Pressure Electric Conversion"
In Mr. Dickson's invention, cold, deep water under tremendous pressure is used to compress air in a cylinder at normal atmospheric pressure. The resulting air pressure is relieved to drive a piston, which then pumps water to the surface to drive a turbine. In many respects, the device resembles a Stirling Engine; but instead of heat, water pressure is used to drive the turbine. Since water pressure is constant, Mr.Dickson says that this new power source is inexhaustible, non-polluting, environmentally benign, and can provide hydroelectric power for most of the world's countries.
http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200902/1234684090.html
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/new-concepts-in-renewable-energy/4441365?productTrackingContext=center_search_resul ts

[SevenEyedJeff]

Does this change RPF'ers view of nuclear energy being safe? Today shows that you never know what could happen, despite all the safeguards.

The poll results taken from Feb. 2010 show 8% saying nuclear power is too dangerous, 82% say it isn't too dangerous, with 10% uncommitted.

[Matt Collins]

Well building a nuclear power plant in an earthquake zone isn't the brightest of ideas.

[ChaosControl]

I'm not sure.
I prefer standard renewable energies, but I also realize they aren't developed enough to provide all our needs, and I certainly want to get off oil ASAP, so.... I don't know.

[CableNewsJunkie]

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

"Even better, Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. The design is based on the lab’s finding that thorium dissolves in hot liquid fluoride salts. This fission soup is poured into tubes in the core of the reactor, where the nuclear chain reaction — the billiard balls colliding — happens. The system makes the reactor self-regulating: When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes — slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl. Any actinide can work in this method, but thorium is particularly well suited because it is so efficient at the high temperatures at which fission occurs in the soup."

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

[tpreitzel]

No, but freer markets would likely lead to more and better options...

[Acala]

Hasn't changed my mind yet, but no harm done yet. Ask me again if this reactor melts down and has a significant radiation leak.

[Zippyjuan]

Nuclear energy is just a very complicated way to boil water to create steam to turn a turbine- as electricity generation has done for over 100 years. In its operation, the reactors have shown themselves to be pretty safe so far. The biggest problem is what to do with the waste produced. That lasts for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Get it too densely stored and it can spontaneously combust. France may get a larger percent of its energy from nuclear power but most people don't realize that the US has the largest number of atomic reactors of any country. France does some recycling but also ships waste to other coutries like Germany and Russia. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-05/world/france.nuclear.protests_1_nuclear-waste-protesters-block-anti-nuclear-protesters?_s=PM:WORLD and they intend to bury some http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100810/full/466804a.html

[HOLLYWOOD]

Here's a nice website to enlighten your knowledge: Science of Conflict Nuclear Power Etc.

http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions/war/nuclearpower.htm

[Icymudpuppy]

Just unload all the waste into the Marianas trench. The critters living the deepest livable parts of that abyss are already some freaky looking things, and even they are miles above the deepest parts. Dense salt water is an excellent radiation shield and is used in every reactor I've had the opportunity to work around.

[Rothbardian Girl]

I would support it 100% if I had a clue what to do with all the waste, and if responsibility were shifted from government and other large corporations to smaller businesses, which have more of an incentive to keep everything on the up-and-up. Just dumping waste somewhere in the ocean is not going to make it go away, no matter how deep and dark it is down there. The best option I could see is burying it inside some mountain somewhere (I think Yucca Mountain was planned for this, then mysteriously dismissed as an option?). Waste disposal is probably going to be expensive, however. There just aren't very easy solutions out there, I guess.

I would prefer to focus on renewable options such as hydrogen fuel cells, which are very expensive and perhaps unwieldy at present but seem to cover all the bases - non-polluting, relatively safe to transport, renewable if using electrolysis, etc. The biggest issue is cost refinement and streamlining things in the design and such, if I'm not mistaken.

Unfortunately, in some situations everything seems to go wrong in terms of glitches, laziness, people not operating the machines correctly, etc... This makes me a little apprehensive about expanding the use of nuclear power. It's obviously a very dangerous thing if not handled correctly, as we've seen in a few incidents before.

[Ray]

Think about how many people have died mining coal and due to pollution from coal compared to how many people have did in nuclear accidents.

[kahless]

Well building a nuclear power plant in an earthquake zone isn't the brightest of ideas.

No different here. I live near one built right on the Ramapo fault line.

[kahless]

Think about how many people have died mining coal and due to pollution from coal compared to how many people have did in nuclear accidents.

You do not hear about the effects of cummulative releases into surrounding communities and what happens to the laborers at these plants. The one I lived next to has a horrible safety record and we have the highest cancer rates in the country.

[Anti Federalist]

Just like anything else, nuclear technology has certain "sunk costs" that may be difficult to perceive at a quick glance.

When everything is working perfectly, it is clean and efficient.

When it goes bad, for whatever reason, it is not.

Then again, you could have just as much potential death and mayhem from a failure of a modern refinery or chemical plant.

The Bhopal, India Union Carbide disaster killed more people than Chernobyl, IIRC.

[MN Patriot]

Every disaster ensmartens people.
Nuclear energy fascinates me, wish I were 18 again and redo college. Not sure I could handle the advanced physics.
Tickling the dragon's tail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tickling_the_Dragons_Tail) would be a good movie title. Also known as criticality accident.

[Fox McCloud]

I have no problem with nuclear power provided that it's not subsidized, at all, by the government; currently, it is---the government pays for the power plant's insurance, which makes it artificially cheap. On top of this, often times, the State governments help finance the plant itself, as it's very expensive to build them.

That said, we also make nuclear power unviable; we're not allowed to recycle nuclear waste here in the US (thanks to Carter, who acted upon the fear that "terrorists could build atomic bombs with it"), which does make it less economically efficient. If we did recycle, I'm sure it'd bring the cost down.

I'm neutral on nuclear power; if its viable in an open market, then go for it...if not, forget it.

[pcosmar]

How about nice, safe Propane.

I could post hundreds of pics and stories. Just google "Propane explosion" and spend hours reading.
http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/newsnow/2007529FARMHOUSE-EXPLOSION.jpg

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't know shit about nuclear power, so I can't say. Cold fusion sounds cool though, hoping they get that working and nuke plants are made obsolete.

The nuclear plants that are acting up in Japan are old, from the sixties, so maybe the newer ones are safer?


How about nice, safe Propane.

I could post hundreds of pics and stories. Just google "Propane explosion" and spend hours reading.


http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/4025415/DAMN-IT-IM-GOING-TO-KICK-YOUR-ASS.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Hank-Hill

[Anti Federalist]

How about nice, safe Propane.

I could post hundreds of pics and stories. Just google "Propane explosion" and spend hours reading.


Cordwood FTW.

[tpreitzel]

How about nice, safe Propane.


;)

Unfortunately, even IF one of the reactors explodes, nuclear power generation is still "safe". NOTHING is ever 100% immune to risk especially in an active seismic region with a very high population density and enduring a 9.1 earthquake. Let me repeat it. Japan has just suffered the consequences of a 9.1 earthquake. Under such circumstances, I'd expect MILLIONS of people dead from the collapsing infrastructure alone, not a nuclear reactor. Sure, future reactors need to be able to better withstand such an onslaught, e.g. a potential 10.0 ... nearly unimaginable in my mind as I can't even recall a 9.0+ earthquake in my lifetime although some have definitely been close. Notice, I can't recall, but there MAY have been a 9.0+ in the past 50 years as I haven't researched it. ...

[sratiug]

I am two classes from a physics degree, whatever that is worth, and the classes I missed have nothing to do with nuclear energy. I do have a physics minor. I say nuclear energy is a waste of time and money, and a major health hazard that is not justifiable. Jefferson rationalized that government debt should be paid off in half a generation. The half life of the products of nuclear fuel production or nuclear reactor disasters are more than half a generation, much, much more.

[tpreitzel]

I suspect when the situation is finally analyzed in detail, nuclear power generation will probably grow worldwide as a result of this extraordinarily powerful earthquake. At this point, we basically have a lot of speculation. If Japan escapes with less than 10k people dead from the collapsing infrastructure and tsunami, it'll be nearly miraculous.

[S.Shorland]

I've read the interviews with Rossi and he doesn't sound like a liar.Levi did another test and it ran for 18 hours producing 17 kw on average from 80 watts in (Just raising the water temperature by 5 degrees to make measurement easy and avoid debates about the dryness of the steam).A Swedish scientist says it is kinematically possible,although highly unlikely.He obviously hadn't heard of an 'intellectual passport' as it turns out but many people are no doubt sending emails to Bologna university telling them about it.If not,we will see when the 1 megawatt plant is turned on in october.http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?282910-Italian-Cold-Fusion

[wildfirepower]

Other forum:

When Chernobyl exploded 100 000 people got cancer all over Europe and Russia over the next 10 years.

As for Chernobyl, facts are this :

* For the 14 years since the disaster 300,000 died in Ukraine alone from the radiation sickness
* The releases contaminated an estimated 17 million people to some degree.
* 143,000 people have been evacuated from contaminated areas of Ukraine
* 600,000 people took part in liquidating effects of the disaster, 100,000 of which already died or are now handicapped
* Cases of leucosis and thyroid cancer exceed average by 2 and 5 times correspondingly among the Chernobyl victims.
* There are 1.8 million people residing on the territories of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, which are still defined as contaminated


I lived in Europe at the time and we definitely had higher leukemia cases as far down as Italy

[One Last Battle!]

I am two classes from a physics degree, whatever that is worth, and the classes I missed have nothing to do with nuclear energy. I do have a physics minor. I say nuclear energy is a waste of time and money, and a major health hazard that is not justifiable. Jefferson rationalized that government debt should be paid off in half a generation. The half life of the products of nuclear fuel production or nuclear reactor disasters are more than half a generation, much, much more.

Most nuclear "waste" can be recycled (it isn't in the States because Jimmy Carter believed some garbage about how it could be reused for nuclear weaponry). That which cannot isn't especially dangerous and there isn't much of it (France produces 80% of its energy through nuclear power, and it can store all of its waste under a table in the Hague).

The REAL problem is that to build a nuclear power plant is very expensive and energy is a very highly regulated sector. As of now, there is no such thing as a private sector nuclear power plant (barring enthusiasts who build small ones in their sheds), only ones built by the government or funded by the government. Oil is still more cost efficient than nuclear.

[wildfirepower]

If there were no Global Warming - we would still be in an Ice Age. Humans didn't cause any of the previous thaws - guaranteed.

I agree, global warming is a natural occurance. As the living creatures on Earth increases/explodes, more water is released from ice-deposit regions due to warm Earth.

If world people do not burn fuel, wood and other substance the Earth will return back to Ice-age. Everyday millions of barrel of oil/petrol is burned, millions of Tons of coal is burned, millions of Tons of wood is burned, millions of Tons of cooking and industrial gas is burned. Think, if millions of Tons of these "fire products/substance" in not burned what would be the temperature of Earth.

There must be Volcanic activity under the Glaciers and Ice-deposit regions of the world because of which world ice is melting.

Heat from big cities cannot travel more than 20 miles or 30 miles. Forget big cities heat reaching Antartica, Siberia, Alaska and other ice-deposit regions of the world.

Global warming is limited/trapped/exists in big cities only. Camp 15 miles outside a big city and you will shiver in the middle of the night. But sleep in open space/ground. Do not sleep inside a tent/camp. There is no global warming in Antartica, Siberia, Alaska and other ice-deposit regions of the Earth. Abandon/leave big cities.

I was travelling by plane and the instrument in the front seat displayed outside temperature as -25 C. This means heat cannot travel more than 1000 or 2000 feet high.

Global warming is a myth. Anyone remember the global cooling fad in the 70's? It's all about money. Politicians have found a scare tactic to inflate their own pockets.

Scientists were recently caught manipulating data since the 90's to create the illusion of global warming. I think George Carlin had it right.

Everybody, set fire to all the waste plastic, waste rubber, waste paper which are lying around for many years and nobody is recycling them. Basically burn all the trash/garbage in the world and create some open and clean space. There is no such thing as global warming.

Global warming is the biggest fraud in human history.

Some 7 billion tonnes of coal is produced worldwide per year which is equal to weight of 14,000 world trade center buildings (9/11).

Worldwide oil production for year 2010 was 30 billions of barrels.

http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/coal-mining/

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/worldoilreservesevol.html

[One Last Battle!]

If there were no Global Warming - we would still be in an Ice Age. Humans didn't cause any of the previous thaws - guaranteed.

I agree, global warming is a natural occurance. As the living creatures on Earth increases/explodes, more water is released from ice-deposit regions due to warm Earth.

If world people do not burn fuel, wood and other substance the Earth will return back to Ice-age. Everyday millions of barrel of oil/petrol is burned, millions of Tons of coal is burned, millions of Tons of wood is burned, millions of Tons of cooking and industrial gas is burned. Think, if millions of Tons of these "fire products/substance" in not burned what would be the temperature of Earth.

There must be Volcanic activity under the Glaciers and Ice-deposit regions of the world because of which world ice is melting.

Heat from big cities cannot travel more than 20 miles or 30 miles. Forget big cities heat reaching Antartica, Siberia, Alaska and other ice-deposit regions of the world.

Global warming is limited/trapped/exists in big cities only. Camp 15 miles outside a big city and you will shiver in the middle of the night. But sleep in open space/ground. Do not sleep inside a tent/camp. There is no global warming in Antartica, Siberia, Alaska and other ice-deposit regions of the Earth. Abandon/leave big cities.

I was travelling by plane and the instrument in the front seat displayed outside temperature as -25 C. This means heat cannot travel more than 1000 or 2000 feet high.

Global warming is a myth. Anyone remember the global cooling fad in the 70's? It's all about money. Politicians have found a scare tactic to inflate their own pockets.

Scientists were recently caught manipulating data since the 90's to create the illusion of global warming. I think George Carlin had it right.

Everybody, set fire to all the waste plastic, waste rubber, waste paper which are lying around for many years and nobody is recycling them. Basically burn all the trash/garbage in the world and create some open and clean space. There is no such thing as global warming.

Global warming is the biggest fraud in human history.

Some 7 billion tonnes of coal is produced worldwide per year which is equal to weight of 14,000 world trade center buildings (9/11).

Worldwide oil production for year 2010 was 30 billions of barrels.

http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/coal-mining/

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/worldoilreservesevol.html

wrong thread

[kahless]

How about nice, safe Propane.

I could post hundreds of pics and stories. Just google "Propane explosion" and spend hours reading.
http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/newsnow/2007529FARMHOUSE-EXPLOSION.jpg

How the hell do you make that kind of comparison. That area is safe for reuse and has not been permanently contaminated with radiation, there is no radioactive waste to deal with and the explosion did not contaminate 1000 square miles with radiation. Depending on the population, hundreds to millions will not develop cancer because of this incident.

[pcosmar]

How the hell do you make that kind of comparison.
It was not a "comparison"
It is a fact that nothing is "safe". I am personally a fan of Hydrogen, but it is still avoided by many due to this,,

http://static.infowars.com/2010/08/i/article-images/hindenburg.jpg

[Fritz Anderson]

There's lots of new technology out there that hasn't been implemented because red tape has prevented the US from building new reactors. See here:

http://www.americandailyherald.com/20110305291/physics/nuclear-scientists-go-back-to-the-future

All energy production is unsafe and has side effects of one sort or another. But we either build new and better generation technology, or we go backwards as a society. Simple as that.

[Rothbardian Girl]

It was not a "comparison"
It is a fact that nothing is "safe". I am personally a fan of Hydrogen, but it is still avoided by many due to this,,

http://static.infowars.com/2010/08/i/article-images/hindenburg.jpg

Agreed, and I would point out that most people do not realize the advancements that have been made since then. I am sure there are ways of devising safer storage tanks for hydrogen that won't explode on impact, if it has not been done already.

I am just not a huge fan of nuclear power in its current incarnation. Someone here has mentioned cold fusion, which I don't know too much about, but I will support anything that makes nuclear power a whole hell of a lot safer.

[wildfirepower]

Some 7 billion tonnes of coal is produced worldwide per year which is equal to weight of 14,000 world trade center buildings (9/11). Worldwide oil production for year 2010 was 30 billions of barrels.
If the world factories would have been working for 12 hours a day only for past 50 to 100 years, then only 50% of world's resources would have been consumed today. The world economy would have easily survived for another 100 years without any problem. There would have been no financial crisis and multi-trillion bailouts for next 100 years and more. The human greed to develop very fast and competition has led to the downfall of world economy ultimately. Example, if there is 200 storey building, you will reach the top of the building by elevator/lift or staircase. If you use elevator you reach the top in 2 minutes and then you have to come down. If you use staircase, you reach the top in 2 hours and then you come down.

All the world factories should be shut down for 12 hours a day. There should be death silence so that everybody and animals can rest in peace and the Earth can cool down for 12 hours a day.

[speciallyblend]

nuclear power is about as safe as neo-cons!!

[TheTyke]

Free the markets, let them decide and develop/refine technology.

I personally think nuclear power is great and most of the negatives are hype. If we'd been permitted to develop it, I think we'd have refined safe, local nuclear energy by now and power would be as cheap as Walmart cell phones... not $120+ a month. And it would do much to alleviate the consequences of poverty.

Why don't we get the government out of the way and find out? :)

[ChristianAnarchist]

I've been against nuclear power for years for several reasons. Nuclear power is not "clean" nor is it "cheap". We can not know the cost of nuclear power because we do not know how to store and dispose of the waste. We cannot factor in the cost of disposal because we have no valid solutions to the problem. Most waste storage is currently on-site but what happens to those "sites" in 50 years? 100 years? Do we have any idea of what those costs are going to be and who is going to pay them?

I always laugh when I hear people talk about "green" energy. ALL energy results in some form of pollution and for the most part, the planet absorbs those waste products without too much effort. Areas of extreme concentration take a longer time to recover, but all past waste sites show improvement over time (Valdez for instance). Mercury is harder to "cure" but time even results in mercury levels dropping to safe levels (after all, mercury came from the ground in the first place). Oh, but some will say "solar" is clean, and it is currently the cleanest that we have, but it too results in "pollution". Solar cells create pollution in the manufacturing phase and the disposal phase, and the cells have a limited life.

All those who think nuclear is "safe" and "clean" should purchase land nearby the reactor site and raise their children there (oh, you prefer the mountains??). . .

[YumYum]

We can not know the cost of nuclear power because we do not know how to store and dispose of the waste. We cannot factor in the cost of disposal because we have no valid solutions to the problem. Most waste storage is currently on-site but what happens to those "sites" in 50 years? 100 years? Do we have any idea of what those costs are going to be and who is going to pay them?

This is a good point regarding property rights. While the argument that someone can do anything with the property they own as long it it doesn't hurt their neighbor may sound good, it doesn't hold water if somebody dumps nuclear waste on their property that leaks out 100 years later.

[One Last Battle!]

I've been against nuclear power for years for several reasons. Nuclear power is not "clean" nor is it "cheap". We can not know the cost of nuclear power because we do not know how to store and dispose of the waste. We cannot factor in the cost of disposal because we have no valid solutions to the problem. Most waste storage is currently on-site but what happens to those "sites" in 50 years? 100 years? Do we have any idea of what those costs are going to be and who is going to pay them?

I always laugh when I hear people talk about "green" energy. ALL energy results in some form of pollution and for the most part, the planet absorbs those waste products without too much effort. Areas of extreme concentration take a longer time to recover, but all past waste sites show improvement over time (Valdez for instance). Mercury is harder to "cure" but time even results in mercury levels dropping to safe levels (after all, mercury came from the ground in the first place). Oh, but some will say "solar" is clean, and it is currently the cleanest that we have, but it too results in "pollution". Solar cells create pollution in the manufacturing phase and the disposal phase, and the cells have a limited life.

All those who think nuclear is "safe" and "clean" should purchase land nearby the reactor site and raise their children there (oh, you prefer the mountains??). . .

Well, you can recycle most nuclear waste (cost efficiently at that), and the rest can be put in a lead box under a table.

[Aratus]

the PACIFIC RIM is being active.
christchurch NZ & then japan
may imply our WEST COAST
is possibly next, and its plants.

[Fox McCloud]

Well, you can recycle most nuclear waste (cost efficiently at that), and the rest can be put in a lead box under a table.

This is precisely what France does.

The reason it doesn't happen in the US is because Carter outlawed recycling of nuclear waste for fear it could be made into atomic bombs.


I've been against nuclear power for years for several reasons. Nuclear power is not "clean" nor is it "cheap". We can not know the cost of nuclear power because we do not know how to store and dispose of the waste. We cannot factor in the cost of disposal because we have no valid solutions to the problem. Most waste storage is currently on-site but what happens to those "sites" in 50 years? 100 years? Do we have any idea of what those costs are going to be and who is going to pay them?

I always laugh when I hear people talk about "green" energy. ALL energy results in some form of pollution and for the most part, the planet absorbs those waste products without too much effort. Areas of extreme concentration take a longer time to recover, but all past waste sites show improvement over time (Valdez for instance). Mercury is harder to "cure" but time even results in mercury levels dropping to safe levels (after all, mercury came from the ground in the first place). Oh, but some will say "solar" is clean, and it is currently the cleanest that we have, but it too results in "pollution". Solar cells create pollution in the manufacturing phase and the disposal phase, and the cells have a limited life.

All those who think nuclear is "safe" and "clean" should purchase land nearby the reactor site and raise their children there (oh, you prefer the mountains??). . .

Which is precisely why the market would likely pick thorium as a use for nuclear fuel.

[Zippyjuan]

Even with recycling, France still has hundreds of tons of nuclear waste to get rid of each year. They have built a big hole to try to store it in http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12837958 and export it to other European countries like Germany http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/11/2010116115735771454.html and Russia. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466

http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/03/france_nuke_was.php

The cost of waste disposal -- hundreds of billions of euros -- is being passed along to ratepayers. High rates aren't the only legacy of 50 years of nuclear power. Citizens and scientists alike are concerned about security, groundwater contamination, and storage.

JE SUIS RADIOACTIF MATERIAL LIFE
Cobalt 60 years
Plutonium 24,000 years
Uranium 238 4 billion years

Storage problems
Highly radioactive materials, such as spent fuel rods, are stored in The Hague and at the Marcoule nuclear facility, on the Rhone River near the southern city of Orange.

The director of the Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA) at the Marcoule facility, Loic Martin-Deidier, recalls the enthusiasm for quickly launching civil and military nuclear programs. At the time, he says, "they weren't thinking 40 years ahead."

Half a century later, nuclear waste continues to grow. Rods from atomic reactors aren't the only waste France has to deal with.

Nuclear reactors and laboratories built during the nuclear boom times are being dismantled. Everything from contaminated parts to rubber gloves must be disposed of. Workers meticulously examine each item using remote-controlled cameras. Color-coded images reveal spots of radioactive contamination on items such as bolts, tools, conveyor belts, clothing, and medical equipment.

Some items can be cleaned. Robots stuff the rest into special barrels for eternal storage.

Every day, about ten shipping containers arrive on trucks at the Soulaines-Dhuys storage facility outside Troyes, in the province of Ardennes, 180 kilometers east of Paris. On board are barrels of waste that isn't radioactive enough to be stored at Marcoule. Every year, 15,000 cubic meters of waste contaminated with uranium, plutonium and tritium arrive here.

The 350-acre site is like an above-ground Yucca Mountain. Construction cranes hover above a hundred bunker-like cement blocks already filled with barrels encased in concrete. In 60 years, the cranes' job will be done, the 400-bunker facility will be full, and the entire facility will be covered with a concrete lid. What then?

The Soulaines-Dhuys site will enter a 300-year surveillance phase. After that, the plan is to observe the site until the stored waste loses its radioactivity.

The initial 300 years is just the beginning. Even moderately radioactive plutonium retains hazardous for 24,000 years. Skeptics wonder if future generations will follow the plan -- or even remember where the site is located.

[Fox McCloud]

Even with recycling, France still has hundreds of tons of nuclear waste to get rid of each year. They have built a big hole to try to store it in http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12837958 and export it to other European countries like Germany http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/11/2010116115735771454.html and Russia. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466

http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/03/france_nuke_was.php

This problem would also be solved with thorium reactors; apparently they're capable of burning off nuclear waste.


From what I can gather thorium is a sort of "dream energy" that's cheap, abundant, extremely safe, and doesn't pose some of the risks that current power plants have.

Apparently 1 ton of thorium has the same energy as 200 tons of uranium....and thorium is more common than uranium.

It's really quite interesting: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/next-generation/the-truth-about-thorium-and-nuclear-power

[angelatc]

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel heads a center-right coalition government that is committed to nuclear power. Her government recently made a controversial decision to prolong the life of the country’s 17 nuclear power plants by an average of 12 years. She will now face renewed pressure to reverse that policy.

Here's the rub though - as long as the government is building nuclear power plants, the government can't be trusted to run nuclear power plants. Every time one breaks down, the story is the same: "It was old, new facilities aren't like that."

But governments have a horrible track record when it comes to maintaining infrastructure. I think it's delusional to believe that politicians will always do whats best for the public safety. Look at our financial situation right now. If we had a nuclear facility that was scheduled to be taken offline as a matter of routine, it would be really easy for a politician to do what Merkel just did - convince the voters that the facility had an excellent record, and therefore did not need to be replaced. Or maintained. Or inspected.

[ChristianAnarchist]

We will soon see how "safe" and "cheap" this power source is. The cost of nuclear power is rising exponentially day by day...

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD40J45zjIM&feature=uploademail

[libertybrewcity]

Hey guys, I just wanted to pop in on this thread and say I am currently working on my PhD in nuclear engineering at Ohio State and if anyone has any questions about the field, feel free to ask. I am a strong believer in nuclear energy (although I don't like the gov't funding it).

My particular area of study is reactor safety (probabilistic risk assessment).
hey, that is really cool.

[libertybrewcity]

We will soon see how "safe" and "cheap" this power source is. The cost of nuclear power is rising exponentially day by day...

people governments find ways to regulate it to extinction. it still remains one of the cheapest energy sources, although it probably the most expensive to build.

[AFPVet]

This problem would also be solved with thorium reactors; apparently they're capable of burning off nuclear waste.


From what I can gather thorium is a sort of "dream energy" that's cheap, abundant, extremely safe, and doesn't pose some of the risks that current power plants have.

Apparently 1 ton of thorium has the same energy as 200 tons of uranium....and thorium is more common than uranium.

It's really quite interesting: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/next-generation/the-truth-about-thorium-and-nuclear-power

Sounds cool!

[acptulsa]

I voted 'yes' as the current technology is too dangerous and leaves much too big a mess. Suppose you do shut a plant down because of old age? Then what? Tear it down and build condos?

Then there's the waste. I think the waste is the whole point we keep this silliness up instead of holding on for such as the new thorium type reactor. Remember, enriched uranium is weapons-grade uranium. And how does it get that way? It's used for energy for a time.

[TheState]

Remember, enriched uranium is weapons-grade uranium. And how does it get that way? It's used for energy for a time.

You don't enrich uranium in a reactor, you can enrich it either in centrifuges or through gaseous diffusion. Now plutonium you make in reactors, but you can't use US power reactors to do that. They are the wrong type.

[acptulsa]

You don't enrich uranium in a reactor, you can enrich it either in centrifuges or through gaseous diffusion. Now plutonium you make in reactors, but you can't use US power reactors to do that. They are the wrong type.

I stand corrected.

Well, in that case, I don't understand it. Unless it's just G.E. patronage at work.

In any case, don't expect private enterprise to take over. No one would underwrite the liability.

[Fire11]

Cost per kilowatt hour of electricity. Source MIT:

Nuclear: $0.08

Coal: $0.06

Gas: $0.07

Projected $/megawatt hour of electricity in 2016

Conventional natural Gas: $75

Conventional Coal: $105

Wind: $102

Nuclear $125

Clean coal: $145

Solar PV: $210

Myth 1: Nuclear power is a cheap alternative to fossil fuels.

Fact 1: Nuclear energy is a very costly business.

Myth 2: The main issue surrounding Nuclear power is safety.

Fact 2: The cost is the main issue.

Bloomberg Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD40J45zjIM

[One Last Battle!]

I stand corrected.

Well, in that case, I don't understand it. Unless it's just G.E. patronage at work.

In any case, don't expect private enterprise to take over. No one would underwrite the liability.

Do you need to?

[acptulsa]

Do you need to?

Stand, understand or expect?

n/m. nota, I guess.

[MelissaWV]

This poll, like so many others, is giving us the finger.

[acptulsa]

This poll, like so many others, is giving us the finger.

Well, we're just a middle of the road kind of a crowd.

Oh, wait....

[Fox McCloud]

Cost per kilowatt hour of electricity. Source MIT:

Nuclear: $0.08

Coal: $0.06

Gas: $0.07

Projected $/megawatt hour of electricity in 2016

Conventional natural Gas: $75

Conventional Coal: $105

Wind: $102

Nuclear $125

Clean coal: $145

Solar PV: $210

Myth 1: Nuclear power is a cheap alternative to fossil fuels.

Fact 1: Nuclear energy is a very costly business.

Myth 2: The main issue surrounding Nuclear power is safety.

Fact 2: The cost is the main issue.

Bloomberg Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD40J45zjIM

I have a feeling this includes subsidies, because wind energy never occurs in the marketplace without subsidies; I'm sorry, but it's not that cheap.

[libertybrewcity]

About 435 nuclear power plants provide 14% of the worlds power.

How many acres of productive farmland will be used to build wind and solar farms?

How many acres of precious rain forest will be cut down to build wind and solar farms?

[MelissaWV]

About 435 nuclear power plants provide 14% of the worlds power.

How many acres of productive farmland will be used to build wind and solar farms?

How many acres of precious rain forest will be cut down to build wind and solar farms?

Not that I believe solar power to be a panacea, but your premise is faulty.

We already have several very large "solar farms" going untapped and running half of every day in the US. Go for a walk in the desert southwest sometime :) Buildings already have rooftops, most of which are just nasty and collecting dust/mold/pigeon droppings. Some have started collecting rainwater for use; it stands to reason that they could just as easily collect solar power for use as well. Hydroelectric and geothermal plants are quite useful when geography permits. Wind farms are quite a problem, I'll agree; they kill off numerous birds, and require a pretty specific set of circumstances to be worthwhile. They are neat when seen from afar, but some us will just never benefit from them.

I think that the solution to the energy crisis is like any other: a hybrid of all the propaganda. Having solar panels on all the buildings will not provide sufficient power for certain big cities, particularly during the summer months. It's just a useful supplement to the power coming in from the local coal-friendly plant. Wind and geothermal and hydro and nuclear are not "clean" entirely, but can also help things along. I don't think nuclear should ever be entirely off the table. I think the proof is in how much power these plants have produced, versus how many accidents have been caused that led to disasters.

[kahless]

About 435 nuclear power plants provide 14% of the worlds power.

How many acres of productive farmland will be used to build wind and solar farms?

How many acres of precious rain forest will be cut down to build wind and solar farms?

Not necessary to use farmland when we have plenty of room on desert land and roof tops. No government hand-out necessary for construction and easily insured. This unlike nuclear power that requires taxpayer subsidies to be build, taxpayer dollars to maintain the storage infinitely and taxpayers handling any disaster since they are uninsurable.

I can also pose the same questions:

How many people will die and individual rights violated as a result of cummulative radiation exposure?
How many generations of Americans will be tax slaves to the government to pay for nuclear power and pay for it's waste?
How many acres of land will be permanently unusable for generations?

I have been posting here since 2007 and rarely have I ever seen anyone for a government subsidies and programs, rightfully so. It is actually somewhat of a sin to defend government funding in these forums or anything that violatees individual rights and private property rights. So it absolutely amazes me that we found a subject where so many are complete hypocrits to the beliefs constantly spouted here.

For some reason we find this one issue where people disregard individual rights and private property rights in favor of forced taxation and involuntary servitude to the state or nuclear engery companies. Sounds like the Neocons are succeeding in transforming this movement.

[raiha]

Well, you can recycle most nuclear waste (cost efficiently at that), and the rest can be put in a lead box under a table.
Cool! Stick it under YOUR gandchild's cradle! Too bad the lead breaks down before the actinides.
The IAEA has stated that one “1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces 33 tons of spent fuel a year.” That’s a lot of nuclear waste that has been building up and continues to build up for onsite above ground storage. But, we don’t have to worry about that now, its an issue for a future generation.

Human beings, whether they be government bureaucrats, multinational corporations, or free market capitalists, will constantly need to watch the, oh so complex ethical dilemma, between compromising ethics and profit. Radioactive emmissions are conveniently invisible, so it is easier to get away with skulduggery. I don't care who you are, calling it is costly, hiding it is not! Humans are humans.

[jmdrake]

Current big government uranium / plutonium producing fusion reactors are too dangerous. But that's not the only option. It's the only option being pushed because:

A) It can be used to create nuclear weapons.

B) It requires big government funding.

C) It requires big government regulation.

There are other nuclear options that don't fit A, B or C.

1) Cold fusion. (Yes. It really does work (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/)).

2) Depleted uranium reactors. (And our government has the nerve to claim this stuff doesn't cause birth defects).

3) Thromium reactors (http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php). Killed by Richard Nixon (http://serialhenry.xanga.com/744184986/thorium-power-could-save-the-planet/) because he only wanted the uranium reactors because of reason A.