Nuclear Power

[Mithos Y]

It's apparent that we're undergoing a nuclear renaissance right now. So I'm curious; what are your thoughts on nuclear power? Do you still think of Chernobyl or its lesser-known cousin Three-mile Island when you think nuclear?

I'm applying for a nuclear engineering program this year, so obviously I'm biased on this. I want to know what you think though.

[Ichihara Asako]

Modern reactors are very safe. There's zero chance of another Chernobyl happening with them. Thus in that regard, I think it's great. The main concern is the disposal of waste. Though there's been some excellent progress on that in recent years, too. If managed properly, I think nuclear power is a great thing. It's cleaner than coal, and has huge energy output for a fairly small facility.

People like to say 'green' energy is the way to go, but to get equal power out of solar panels and wind turbines you'd need massive amounts of land, which has its own ecological impacts. All has to be balanced up, and in that regard I think nuclear is great. However I think solar should be used much more widely than it is... if the roofs of every building in a city were made of solar panels, it could probably power itself.

But then, a nuclear plant can power numerous cities in a relatively small facility with a far lesser build/setup cost. So, yeah. Pretty much any way you look at it, nuclear power is good. Shame it has such a stigma attached to it, really.

[Mithos Y]

The way I see it, solar panels are geared more towards civilian applications. You can see a whole bunch on cottages now.

Nuclear power *does* have a very large energy output. I think it was that one ton of uranium can produce 40,000,000 KwH of energy. You'd need 16,000 tonnes of coal or 80,000 barrels of oil to produce that much energy. And uranium is abundant in nature too, being the 48th most common element (which is more than what can be said for fossil fuel).

I'm glad to see people supporting nuclear power. I think people are just starting to realize its great potential, as evident in the recent surge of investments in uranium stocks and nuclear power plants.

[Xellos-_^]

i don't mind it myself as long as the proper safeguards are in place with surprise inspections every 3 months to make sure those safeguards are being follow.

like it or not, we are going to need to used Nuclear energy. Despite what the eco-wakos like to think. Green energy isn't enough to power this world as it is and the world in the future will need even more as 3rd world countries develope.

[hikaru2895]

to Ichihara Asako:
it's not a stigma, it's the science... and the realities of terrorism and of the American Construction industry...

to Mithos Y:
Look up Chalk River, that's in your neck of the wood. American President Jimmy Carter, while an Ensign at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, helped with the cleanup there.

Instuctions: "Grab one of the four ends of the tarp and run with it for 10 seconds, then run for the door! and don't even get a dental x-ray during the next year!" How will I will i find it? "Just head for the melted metal glowing bright blue!"

So President Jimmy Carter wasn't just an aw shucks dumb peanut farmer from the South, he was a Navy-trained Nuclear Engineer, he was honorably discharged from the US Navy after serving as a Reactor Officer on board a nuclear submarine...

He decided that the US would not allow nuclear fuel to be reprocessed for commercial purposes. So without the Plutonium, the fuel is very expensive, there is no fuel cycle, like France uses. Japan sends it's fuel to France for reprocessing...

The main worry, even back then, 20 years ago when he made the decision, was plutonium being stolen to be used by terrorists... and there would need to be a thousand tons of plutonium in transit on any given day to supply the "Plutonium Ecomomy". Jimmy Carter decided this was too great a risk. This decision was made by a US Navy trained nuclear engineer, not just by a stupid peanut farmer from Georgia...

Also over twenty years ago, there were problems with the South Texas Nuclear Project. An inspector of the construction was beaten by the construction workers and put in the hosiptal, they almost beat him to death, because he wouldn't pass thier shoddy work... Eventually the company was allowed to finish the work, but a new General Contractor was chosen to supervise the work... I trust the American Construction Industry to build me a house, but not a nuclear reactor...

The high safety of early American nuclear reactors? They were supervised by the US Navy. Admiral Rickover had one of his trained officers, personally known by him, on the job 24/7 to make sure everything was done by the book...

I'd trust the Military to build and operate civilian nuclear power plants in the US, but not the American civilian sector... ("And the construction contract goes to the lowest bidder"... "And the workers operating the plant are paid the lowest possible wages...")

Also, please see news from a couple of days ago about a nuclear worker having a pipe bomb in his truck...

scary scary...

[Ichihara Asako]

I think that says more about the US, than nuclear power. But I'll remain civil and hold my tongue on that. ^_^

[Aoie_Emesai]

hikaru2895 - so you're more worried about the safeguard of the product being used to create the energy rather than the industry itself, eh?

In reguards to that, my opinion is - Personally I don't care if the industry is prospering or not. I'm more worried about the disposal of the spent rods after it's been used. Or I guess they can always go to the opposite end of the chart and try their ways with fusion, cleanest form of energy conversion.

Originally Posted by Ichihara Asako

I think that says more about the US, than nuclear power. But I'll remain civil and hold my tongue on that. ^_^

More money is spent on foreign affair rather than domestic affairs >.<

[FullMetal Alchemist]

Originally Posted by Mithos Y

It's apparent that we're undergoing a nuclear renaissance right now. So I'm curious; what are your thoughts on nuclear power? Do you still think of Chernobyl or its lesser-known cousin Three-mile Island when you think nuclear?

I'm applying for a nuclear engineering program this year, so obviously I'm biased on this. I want to know what you think though.

Three-mile Island was one of the few things I thought of upon the word nuclear. I also thought of Hiroshima, I have no clue why. The last thing, bright green glowing liquid. Nuclear power, in my opinion, I'm not quite sure if we will need it or not in the future. Those nuclear plants kind of scare me. They say that they are safe and all, but what if something was to happen with terrorism?

[Ichihara Asako]

Originally Posted by FullMetal Alchemist

They say that they are safe and all, but what if something was to happen with terrorism?

You do realise that thoughts like that, are exactly what terrorism is about? People freaking over things due to a 'what if...' situation. That means the terrorists win. You can't ignore the reality of current global power needs, available technology and viability, just because some group of punks 'might' do something 'bad' related to it.

[FullMetal Alchemist]

Originally Posted by Ichihara Asako

You do realise that thoughts like that, are exactly what terrorism is about? People freaking over things due to a 'what if...' situation. That means the terrorists win. You can't ignore the reality of current global power needs, available technology and viability, just because some group of punks 'might' do something 'bad' related to it.

Yes, that is true. But besides the fact of terrorism, I think that those nuclear plants are safe.

Then there is false terrorism, or terror threats. Someone who would say somthing in the act of terrorism, that would put a scare out. Then all of that extra high security.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Ichihara Asako

There's zero chance of another Chernobyl happening with them.

There should have been zero chance of chernobyl happening at all. It required a string of mistakes on the part of the operators. Unless you can remove the potential of human error, the chance of another chernobyl is 100%.

That said, I support nuclear power. While an incident like chernobyl is a high impact event, things like that won't happen often. I'm sure a lot more people die each year from illness related to pollution caused by coal burning plants, but there's really no way to prove it. Nuclear power is currently the cleanest method we have to generate electricity on a large scale. Unless solar and wind power become more efficient, or we develop viable fusion reactors, it's the best option we have to continue to meet our ever growing energy needs.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Ichihara Asako

You do realise that thoughts like that, are exactly what terrorism is about? People freaking over things due to a 'what if...' situation. That means the terrorists win. You can't ignore the reality of current global power needs, available technology and viability, just because some group of punks 'might' do something 'bad' related to it.

If you say that "terrorists might do something bad - we shouldn't use the technology" then you're correct, the terrorists have "won." Knowing there's some crazed idiot (or worse, a whole pack of them) seeking to make the biggest mess possible, I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with taking it into account when discussing nuclear power. More security measures and safety systems should be put into place, if possible.

I support nuclear power, because even aside from the spent fuel rods, it's cleaner than the alternative - that being coal-fired plants. Growing up, I lived within a 10-mile radius of a nuclear power plant. I hear that in Hawaii they'd have tsunami drills and such; for us, we had weekly tests of the nuclear fallout alarm. Supposedly, if you were "lucky enough" to live within the 5 mile radius, you'd die instantly. The rest of us were screwed - too close to be able to do anything, but far enough to live and suffer with the radiation for a while

China has been working on a new type of nuclear reactors, called "pebble bed reactors." I haven't looked into it recently. When I did read about it, it seemed that it'd greatly reduce the risk of problems from the reactor, among other benefits.

[Ichihara Asako]

Pebble beds are hardly new, but they're not widely in use, I think China has the only operating one at the moment. They were tossed around as a decent approach for a while but scrapped by most. There are a lot of different types though, best read about on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reactor_types the articles of each type should explain who uses what. Plus has all the usual useful wiki links explaining anything you're unsure of. Such a wonderful resource. Gotta love the modern internet. So much easier than digging through encyclopaedias and dedicated magazines and technical documents. ^^;

[Kensuke]

While solar, wave and wind energy are the most "clean" energy sources, they can't match nuclear energy's raw power, in terms of megawatts. So while it has its problems and risks, I support it. There are four reactors in my country now, plus fifth under construction.

Of course I would prefer fusion energy instead of fission, but we have to wait at least until 2050 for them. The ITER experimental reactor that is under construction is designed to produce 500 Megawatts, from half of gram of deuterium/tritium mixture!

[Zaris]

I've no problem with nuclear power so long as there is the means to get rid of the waste. In twenty years' time, when we perfect space travel to the point where we can send rockets and shuttles into orbit without a problem, we can simply dispose our trash by means of the Sun incinerating it into harmless molecules. Not to say that it's okay to toss our trash around like idiots in the here and now.

I still think, however, that geothermal energy is an underused source of power. But you won't be seeing plants like those along the coast of California, will you.

[Ice Climbers]

My opinion on this issue is that with the energy crisis ensuing in the world, nuclear power is definite going to be big in the future as it creates relatively large amounts of power with little space. However, that is not to say that certain precautions need to be taken to ensure its safety. Overall, however, i think it is a viable way of energy and we should expand more on it (If nuclear fusion is made possible, then it would really be a "clean" source of energy)

[Mithos Y]

Originally Posted by FullMetal Alchemist

Three-mile Island was one of the few things I thought of upon the word nuclear. I also thought of Hiroshima, I have no clue why. The last thing, bright green glowing liquid. Nuclear power, in my opinion, I'm not quite sure if we will need it or not in the future. Those nuclear plants kind of scare me. They say that they are safe and all, but what if something was to happen with terrorism?

I was afraid you were going to say The Simpsons there for a second. To be fair, the bigger threat probably comes from nuclear proliferation by a country rather than terrorists. Because then we'd have to get into the whole issue with international sanctions and the whole "who has the right to do what" debate.

Those are some very interesting things there, hikaru2895. In all honesty though charging the military with looking after civilian power plants seems like a waste of their resources. A federal crown corporation would suffice; the government still has a hand in it and we'd leave job opportunities open.

Nice, Kensuke. I have to start investing in fusion. I might live just long enough to see it happen.

[Kang Seung Jae]

We need more nuclear plants.


As for solar/wind, I say no to them when it comes to mass production, since they actually produce about the same amount of CO2 in their lifetime as coal power plants.

[Vexx]

I've studied reactors for several decades (almost decided to major in nuke eng) but the fundamental problem remains: what to do with the waste output. Even the reprocessing and modified reactors have the issue.

In the Big Picture, nuclear reactors are a transient solution.... a stop-gap until we figure out a long term solution for power generation that applies to large populations.

That said, I figure one could make career plans assuming they were going to be around for a few decades.

And I'm getting really really tired of the "terrorism" canard or the "spooky nuclear" clueless. The buggers have some real issues economically and with life cycle engineering concerns -- no need to make shit up about them.

Solar panels require some nasty stuff during production -- though there is some promising research into nano-tech for converting sunlight into electricity.

I don't know where Kang Seung Jae is getting his data on wind technology, some references on how a spinning prop produces CO2? Ocean thermal and tidal generation has some possibilities.

ALL energy systems have some plusses and minuses ... a nice spread and mix of them reduces the overall impact of any one set of minuses --- only simple minds (e.g. guys in suits ) keep going for "one solution for all problems".

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Vexx

ALL energy systems have some plusses and minuses ... a nice spread and mix of them reduces the overall impact of any one set of minuses --- only simple minds (e.g. guys in suits ) keep going for "one solution for all problems".

Though, the level of minuses may depend on the country employing that technology. And, nuclear technology in the hands of careless people may cause much more damage than the expected. Risky but not many people would care.

And, going for one solution, well, not every country has the choice to go for many solutions.