Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics The Energy Forum "Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option For Our Energy Needs?"

Ken, after a period of deep pessimism I have a new found hope in the ingenuity of man to help solve the problems we have created for ourselves.

im even slightly hopeful that the market system will be very useful in helping drive the much needed changes.

interesting about the FBRs. but i doubt nuclear will come anyway near fulfilling our energy needs.

Schlack, I think you, and many other anti nuclear electrical generation opponents, seem to make the assumption that proponents—especially those in the industry itself, are weird, dangerous, and evil people dressed in white lab coats whose main purpose is to design and install technology whose primary purpose is to put us all into extreme peril. Electrical generation is a by product of their primary desire to wipe us from the face of the earth in their nefarious plot to kill us all.

Proponents, on the other hand, take the position that electrical generation comes first and the potential problems can be overcome through a reasoned and disciplined approach. Call it faith based through science. But I am fully aware that a large percentage of the population has an extreme phobia of nuclear power, not the least of which has been exacerbated by the many ridiculous movies, books and articles that have come out since WWII highlighting the “dangers”. Even Mr. Burns, Homer’s nuclear plant boss in the Simpson’s, is portrayed as a Sniveling Lickspittle. It is also unfortunate that humanity seems to always have a propensity to make the worst of the best—i.e. the construction and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Almost anything can be converted into a weapon as we were rudely and shockingly reminded on 9/11.

I am willing to accept the fact that the nuclear power industry is mainly interested in generating a safe source of power for our benefit (and, of course, to make them a huge pile of money) but then again—if you get right down to it—everything is about money—and power—in this case electrical-ha-ha. And, as I have said, there are the many alternatives that need to be pursued, along with conservation and wise use.

And, are there others out there who want to weigh in on this? You “others” have left dear Schlack and I to duke this out alone ‘kicking and a gouging in the mud and the blood and the beer

Sorry Ken, but I feel like im being a bit trolled here.

I post some details about the poor safety record of the nuclear industries in various countries and it somehow gets transmuted into an unfounded fear of mad scientists (perhaps a radioactive mutation?).

Ihe poor safety record is without question. so i would say that peoples fears of radioactivity are not entirely without foundation. That said the nuclear fear was hyped throughout the cold war in the US for political reasons (and control of the mob). I'm not concerned with the irrational fears, rather the real concerns about an inherently dangerous industry.

I Have lived too close to sellafied for too long to be blind to its dangers. the pollution in the Irish sea is without question.

British Nuclear Waste in the Irish Sea

"Sellafield Nuclear Plant is located on the Northwest Coast of England on the Irish Sea. It is a government owned facility that produces about one-fourth of the United Kingdom's energy. Nuclear waste from this facility had turned the Irish sea into one of the most radioactive bodies of water in the world. This pollution threatens the health of the British people as well as inhabitants of Ireland across the Irish Sea. This is a controversial issue because of the environmental degradation of the Irish Sea. This case raises the question of how a country can try to protect it self against invading polution from a neighboring state. "

Radioactive pollution in Solway '100 times higher than expected'

"THE pollution of the Solway Firth by plutonium from the Sellafield nuclear complex is 100 times higher than previously thought -- and it could be moving northwards.

A new study, to be published by University College Dublin, will reveal levels of plutonium in the sediment under the sea far in excess of those highlighted by the government's green watchdog, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa). "


"Faith based through science" to improve such poor safety reassures me not at all. have you anyhting more concrete on safety improvements?

Im going to look into the FBRs to see how much re-cycling of fuel can be done and what effect that will have on the lifespan of the uranium resource. Governments are going to invest in Nuclear power despite anything I post here, so i like to be well read on the subject - unfortunately my scientific knowledge limits me a bit but if you have good - relatively easily digestible info im happy to have a good look.

I would like to engage this debate as it is of great interest to me, but id rather do it properly - with a fair bit of humour if possible! PLease deal with what im actually writing rather than attacking the irrational fears of some unquantified body of people who havent posted here.

Thanks in advance

Schlack

Fast Breeder Reactors

so if i have the theory of this right, the reactor creates more fuels as it goes along and it does this by turning non-fissile uranium-238 into Fissionable plutonium-239.

according to the above article the target ratio is 1.4 so .4 more fuel out as in - eventually. there is no guarantee that that target will be reached - then again it could be surpassed.

this would certainly increase the useable amount of fuel in the world. but by how much i wonder - more on this later.

however there are grave safety concerns:

the coolants - heat transfer mechanisms at the moment are pleasant substances such as Mercury and more dangerously:

"Liquid sodium is used as the coolant and heat-transfer medium in the LMFBR reactor. That immediately raised the question of safety since sodium metal is an extremely reactive chemical and burns on contact with air or water (sometimes explosively on contact with water). It is true that the liquid sodium must be protected from contact with air or water at all times, kept in a sealed system. "

it does sound like a mad scientists playkit!

im admittedly a layman but use of liquid sodium, something which has a violent reaction to two of the most common things in the world sounds like a recipie for disaster. not everywhere - not all at once. especially as the plants age, problems creep in. I understand that gases are being looked at as a substitute but that conjures the nebulous phantom of radioactive gases being released.

also the fuel needs to be re-processed in order for it to be useable. there are a myriad dangers inherent in moving such toxic materials, accidents, terrorism, faulty construction of transportation devices.

as for when it gets to a reporcessing plant ... please see my references to sellafield above.

im not sure the benifits outweigh such risks. im not sure we should be leaving the toxic results as an inheritance for our descendents.

im not sure the investement and effort needed will be worth the results. given the amount of safety precautions that will have to be developed and put in place, and kept in prime working order for numerous plants entire lifetimes im not so sure its worth the effort.

Ken, why such insistence on nuclear power? why so quick do dismiss legitimate safety concerns as irrational fears?

Fast-breeder reactors - a dying breed

this article is from 2001, govt policies may have changed since then but it appears that most govts have turned their backs on FBRs except in India and Russia.

If I have given the impression that there are no legitimate fears and dangers associated with nuclear power I apologize. That was not my intent. Of course there are dangers and problems. My position is that these can be dealt with rationally and safely. And it is not my intent to make you appear to be an irrational fool. I guess I need to start using those smiley faced, and other, icons. So, here we go :/

In your link to Sellafield it says, among other things, the following:

The Sellafield nuclear installation in north-west England produces vital energy to the people of the United Kingdom. It also produces weapons grade material needed for the production of nuclear weapons. For these reasons, Sellafield is an important facility for the U.K. in terms of domestic and security needs. Although Sellafield provides important services for the people and government of the United Kingdom, it has had a detrimental effect on the environment. Since 1952, Sellafield has been dumping radioactive waste into the Irish Sea. This sea is now considered one of the most radioactive bodies of water in the world. Fish, shellfish, and sea plants in the Irish Sea contain substantial amounts of radiation. This is an environmental problem as well as a trade problem. Irish fishermen often catch mutated fish that can not be sold. Also, nuclear waste clean-up facilities that are being developed at Sellafield cost a great deal to finance and are part of growing industry in Great Britain.

Exactly—and please notice that Sellafield produces weapons grade plutonium for nuclear weapons. This is a different can of corn than I was proposing in nuclear power vs. weapons. Nuclear plants for the most part use uranium, not plutonium (although plutonium can be a bi product of the process). But I am not a nuclear scientist so I really cannot fully explain this. Any nuclear scientists out there reading these posts that want to weigh in on this?

Lever the Loch Ness: Sellafield appears to me from your link to be a remnant and product of the cold war. In our neck of the woods we have the Hanford reservation which has similar problems and is a highly polluted site due to the cavalier attitude scientists of the day had towards nuclear waste. This was the time of the atomic bomb race and waste was essentially just dumped into huge metal lined pits as a waste disposal answer, where it remains to this day. There is a huge cleanup effort underway at Hanford but it will take a long time to finish, if indeed it ever does so. I have a friend who worked there for quite awhile and he also tells me of the boondoggle regarding the waste of money being spent there in certain areas that accomplish nothing as far as cleanup, but manage to keep the taxpayer bucks rolling in. The public is often under the impression that if huge amounts of money are thrown at something all will be well. Billions are being spent at Hanford but what really matters is the wisdom on how it is being spent.

In the US we have Yucca Mountain which would make a fabulous waste disposal site —scientifically that is, not politically. Harry Reid, the US senator (and Senate majority leader) from Nevada will in all likelihood put the kibosh on that however, due to it’s suicidal effect on his reelection chances. Because isn’t that the whole purpose after one is elected? To go round and round and round in the circle game? But really—what else is Nevada good for? God, in his infinite wisdom, who, buy the way speaks to me and my good buddy George the 43rd, directly informed me that He designed Nevada specifically for three reasons. Gambling, prostitution, and nuclear waste disposal. Human beings occupy that wasteland at their peril.----Please hold those tomatoes for your salad. They are much too delicious and nutritious to waste on throwing them at me.

And, I am not insisting on nuclear as being the cure all for our energy woes. What I am hoping in nuclear is for it to start replacing coal, dams, and natural gas (for electricity?-you gotta be kidding) as the biggies in electricity production. Alternatives are fine and beneficial, but they will have a difficult time producing the massive amounts of electricity we need now, and in the future. And if I were dictator for life like my good buddy Bush, I would set up a string of nuclear plants specifically dedicated to crack hydrogen from water. This hydrogen would be used to power fuel cells as a replacement for the internal combustion engine. Fuel cells only emit a small amount of water as waste, and as I have mentioned before, no petroleum!! A divorce from the middle east!! It don’t git any better that that---do it?

And this is a first for me--icons--so bear with me.

"Exactly—and please notice that Sellafield produces weapons grade plutonium for nuclear weapons. This is a different can of corn than I was proposing in nuclear power vs. weapons. Nuclear plants for the most part use uranium, not plutonium (although plutonium can be a bi product of the process). But I am not a nuclear scientist so I really cannot fully explain this. Any nuclear scientists out there reading these posts that want to weigh in on this?"

the fast breeder reactors you posted about MAKE plutonium which then has to be re-processed into fuel by plants like sellafield.

"There is a huge cleanup effort underway at Hanford but it will take a long time to finish, if indeed it ever does so. I have a friend who worked there for quite awhile and he also tells me of the boondoggle regarding the waste of money being spent there in certain areas that accomplish nothing as far as cleanup, but manage to keep the taxpayer bucks rolling in. The public is often under the impression that if huge amounts of money are thrown at something all will be well. Billions are being spent at Hanford but what really matters is the wisdom on how it is being spent."

yes Ken but what would change in the future? im am far from convinced by previous actions in this area that the future would be any different.

this appears to negate your point on future use - the problem of clean up remains, its expensive as you so ably pointed out not that effective, apart from appearances sake.

a waste of money i believe, that would be better spent developing the huge infrastructure* needed to cover our energy needs.

what we need to do is compare the costs of developing nuclear plants, the clean up and safety measures to the amount of energy produced, and do the same for renewable sources. then do a risk/benefit analysis. ill have a look tomorrow, someones bound to ahve doe so but to find an in-biased source.......

* perhaps huge infrastructure isnt the sole answer. perhaps small scale neighbourhood electricity generation schemes are a good way to go.

Hydrogen, yes that could be an answer. much better and more cost efficient i think to invest in hydrogen development as opposed to nuclear. so many fewer and less dangerous problems. but still apparently a fair amount of technical difficulties to over come.

have you heard of the air car?

would be bloody marvellous it that worked.

Q: Hydrogen, yes that could be an answer. much better and more cost efficient i think to invest in hydrogen development as opposed to nuclear. so many fewer and less dangerous problems. but still apparently a fair amount of technical difficulties to over come.

Jesus Schlack--do you never sleep? What time is it in my fatherland anyway?

But I digress. A problem with hydrogen is that it takes a massive amount of electricity to produce. That's where the nukes come into play. Nukes producing electricity to crack the hydrogen from water. Think of hydrogen as a battery of sorts. Energy is stored there but it takes energy to produce it.

Now--go to bed.

Sleep is for the weak Ken!

actually I have today off and im basically a night owl!

why do you think that Nuclear is neccessary for producing hydrogen?

Sunlight to Fuel Hydrogen Future

"The photovoltaic cell is old news. The latest way to exploit the sun is through tiny materials that can directly convert sunlight into large amounts of hydrogen.

Hydrogen Solar of Guilford, England, and Altair Nanotechnologies are building a hydrogen-generation system that captures sunlight and uses the energy to break water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The company's current project is a fuel station in Las Vegas that will soon be dispensing hydrogen fuel"

its possible that we could all have hydro generators in our local gas stations. i prefer to think on numerous small scale solutions rather than the big spectaculars! i would have thought that americans in particular would be interested in the freedom of generating ones own energy.

isnt there another problem with hydrogen, the size of the gas. doesnt it need to be turned to liquid in order to be able to easily carry around enough in a car to fuel itself? otherwise it may look a little like this:



seriosuly though, i understood hydrogen when liquified as at a very low temperature and pressurised. again not the best recipie for success in a world where cars crash so often. i think hydrogen may only be safely limited to stationary centres.

The irony in that is by using this technique one is indeed getting hydrogen from nuclear--fusion in this case. It's just that the reactor is "out there" and not here. Others on this board have talked about fusion technology being possible on earth sometime in the future. I have no doubt we will see it sometime, assuming humanity survives long enough.