Nuclear Power and energy use.

[bombus]

Not sure where to ask this, but here goes...

 

It's often said that nuclear power stations do not emit CO2 and so may be able to solve our energy problems with regard to global warming.

 

However, considering that the radioactive stuff is dangerous for at least 100,000 years, and has to be 'dealt with' over this period of time, has anyone ever done the calculations to work out whether more energy is spend dealing with the 'mess' of nuclear power stations over 100,000 years than the ernergy they actually produce in their operational lifetime?

[YT2095]

well it will be Much less to "bury it" or what ever than a station produces for sure, there`s Zero doubt there.

but I`m not over keen on the idea of having that kinda stuff containerized in things that may not last 100,000 years either!

[bombus]

well, that's kinda what I'm alluding to. To do the job properly would take a lot of energy would it not? Even just people monitoring it. Over 100,000 years it could build up!

[YT2095]

I don`t know how much energy it would take to "look after it" when it`s used up, what I DO know is that when it`s Good and usable you get a hell of a lot of energy out!

 

I can`t see the balance being Too far towards the Bad side, I think Nuclear is the way to go for NOW, I think it`s the best Temporary solution until man advances enough and gets something Better

[pioneer]

Nuclear power is a good source of cheap energy. The electricity could also be used for electroysis to make hydrogen for automobles. One of the main problems with nuke power, it is not considered a good investment due to environmental foot dragging. These cost billions to build and can now be tied up in court because a little snail happens to live nearby. The result has been the need to stay with fossil fuels until alternate technology is able to become feasible. Protecting a little snail led to global warming. If they had said, the heck with the snail, we need nuke power, we would not have the potential of a global disaster. It would have only been local.

 

The other problem with nuclear power is the waste. The waste that is generated is not only due to nuclear fuel waste products. Much of it has to do with a wrench, screw driver, or table that got too much radiation. It is not safe ,but it is not in a state where it will explode or anything. As a student scientist, I was fortunate to work at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They had this swimming pool where they could hold such items, under about 20 feet of water. The radiation is shielded by the water. I was eerie walking on the catwalk, over the pool and seeing the stuff glowing with a blue glow, as the radiation interacted with the water. Much of the lower level waste could be contained in pools of water.

 

I remember at that time, thinking, if there ever was a nuclear attack, and you had enough time to get to deep water, if you dove down about 20 feet, you would be shielded from the radiation blast. Then you come to the surface, catch your breath really good, and dive again to avoid the pressure blast. Then come up a second time, look at the wind direction and run up wind. It was just before the Berlin wall and I was mentally preparing to survive, just in case. Nowadays, nuke attack is unlikely. I am sorry if I degressed. I was talking about how water is a radiation shield.

[CPL.Luke]

you guys do realize that the waste naturally occurs in nature right?, why not just put it back into the mines where you got the stuff from and be done with it.

 

besides you seem to be talking about plutonium decay rates, which has a hlaflife of about 30k years. If you make sure to use all of your plutonium for energy this problem is not nearly as extreme. with the waste products decaying after about 5 years.

 

the thing that saddens me about gw is that the standard response is lets all make green energy, however even if you paved over most of the midwest with windmills you wouldn't be able to generate enough power to run the US, green energy sources as they are currently defined will never be able to sustain us. (not to say they can't help). However because of all the hype around them they are now building dozens of new coal plants across the US because the state has to save money after blowing it on the renewables. The net effect is the push for renewables will probably serve to increase greenhouse emisssions. whereas we have the technology to practically produce energy with zero emmissions in clean coal and nuclear.

 

A simple policy of "no power station shall be built in the US which contributes more than x amount of co2 per watt produced. 2 clean coal plants were already built with private money out in the midwest and have been quite succesful, and the new pebble bed reactors are incapable of meltdown.

[insane_alien]

A simple policy of "no power station shall be built in the US which contributes more than x amount of co2 per watt produced. 2 clean coal plants were already built with private money out in the midwest and have been quite succesful, and the new pebble bed reactors are incapable of meltdown.

 

also, the PBR's will have the waste bundled up in nice little bits of sheilding for easy processing.

[swansont]

you guys do realize that the waste naturally occurs in nature right?, why not just put it back into the mines where you got the stuff from and be done with it.

 

That's not quite true and not the whole story, though. The U-235 decay chain takes of order a billion years (on average) to reach stability. The most troublesome fission products are the ones that take 1-10,000 years to decay, and are different nuclides than in the decay chain (i.e. they are nuclides that are lighter than lead) so the waste does not occur naturally. Even if they represent only 1% of the fission products, that would represent a 1000-fold increase in activity. The activity is the relevant factor here.

[bombus]

I'm a bit sit-on-the-fence when it comes to Nuclear Power. The trouble with nuclear power is that it's actually very expensive. If that same amount of money was spent on energy efficiency instead we could start closing power stations!

 

Also, if you drill deep enough it gets very hot. We could spend the money developing geothermal power instead which has none of the problems of nuclear. (not to mention tidal, biomass, solar).

 

Nuclear power should perhaps be a very last option once all other options are exhausted.

 

Nuclear power is a good source of cheap energy. The electricity could also be used for electroysis to make hydrogen for automobles. One of the main problems with nuke power, it is not considered a good investment due to environmental foot dragging. These cost billions to build and can now be tied up in court because a little snail happens to live nearby. The result has been the need to stay with fossil fuels until alternate technology is able to become feasible. Protecting a little snail led to global warming. If they had said, the heck with the snail, we need nuke power, we would not have the potential of a global disaster. It would have only been local.

 

Mmmmm, if the snail is endangered and threatened by a development (of whatever type) then its protection should be considered in any planning application. I think much of the court stuff is usually due to local people protesting!

[nitroglycol]

I can`t see the balance being Too far towards the Bad side, I think Nuclear is the way to go for NOW, I think it`s the best Temporary solution until man advances enough and gets something Better

 

For some places, nuclear may well be the way to go. For others it's not.

 

In addition to the concerns about accidents and waste, there is another major problem with nuclear- it's expensive to build and run a plant, and even getting one up and running takes a long time. The same money could buy huge numbers of windmills and solar panels in much less time.

 

Of course, the major problem with windmills and solar panels is storing the energy (large numbers of batteries are really expensive, and some kinds present significant disposal problems when they reach the end of their service life). However, on a grid that has a lot of hydroelectric plants, you have a ready-made solution- you close the sluices of the dams when you're getting a lot of sun and/or wind, then if you need more power later you can tap the extra head you've been building up while the sluices were closed. So in some places (in Canada, for instance, this should be doable in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, at least) we shouldn't need to build any additional nuclear plants (though there's little point in shutting down existing plants).

 

However, not everywhere has enough hydroelectric capacity for this to work. In places like that, additional nuclear plants may indeed have to be built to meet energy needs without burning significant amounts of fossil fuels.

[ydoaPs]

That's not quite true and not the whole story, though. The U-235 decay chain takes of order a billion years (on average) to reach stability. The most troublesome fission products are the ones that take 1-10,000 years to decay, and are different nuclides than in the decay chain (i.e. they are nuclides that are lighter than lead) so the waste does not occur naturally. Even if they represent only 1% of the fission products, that would represent a 1000-fold increase in activity. The activity is the relevant factor here.

 

How does the civilian world's radioactive waste compare with the Navy's? I know we are SUPER-conservative when it comes to radiation and such, so the vast majority of our waste is "potentially radioactive" and there really isn't a whole lot of contamination in it. Nowhere close to the popculture image of barrels of oozing highly radioactive goo.

[Mr Skeptic]

Not sure where to ask this, but here goes...

 

It's often said that nuclear power stations do not emit CO2 and so may be able to solve our energy problems with regard to global warming.

 

However, considering that the radioactive stuff is dangerous for at least 100,000 years, and has to be 'dealt with' over this period of time, has anyone ever done the calculations to work out whether more energy is spend dealing with the 'mess' of nuclear power stations over 100,000 years than the ernergy they actually produce in their operational lifetime?

 

Nuclear plants may be bad, but coal is worse! Apart from the inevitable C02, coal plants contribute to acid rain, and they release poisonous compounds which never decay! Yes, that means that they will remain for all of eternity (they may be removed from the biosphere, but then radioactive things are also removed from the biosphere which people conveniently forget). Dangerous elements released by burning coal include mercury, arsenic, lead, and uranium. Due to the sheer quantity of coal burned, coal plants actually release more radioactivity than nuclear plants produce. Meanwhile, all radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants are carefully packaged under the watchful eyes of paranoid people. Also, modern reactors are usually built so that they can't possibly go critical (if the coolant dries the reactor stops because the coolant is the neutron moderator).

 

In fact, its the worst things about nuclear plants that go unmentioned. Namely, the ability to use its radiation to produce nuclear weapons.

 

Anyhow, I would rather have a nuclear plant nearby than a coal plant.

 

Here is a random website saying why coal is bad.

[swansont]

How does the civilian world's radioactive waste compare with the Navy's? I know we are SUPER-conservative when it comes to radiation and such, so the vast majority of our waste is "potentially radioactive" and there really isn't a whole lot of contamination in it. Nowhere close to the popculture image of barrels of oozing highly radioactive goo.

 

I'm guessing it's a lot smaller, based on how much power is produced (commercial is ~ 750 Terawatt-hours each year) and the fact that the navy uses a much higher enrichment than commercial plants.