Nuclear Power
- Thread starter Dr.Love
- Start date
forextrader07
Registered Member
absolutely right.
yeah... yeah sure 
Kernl Sandrs
Registered Senior Member
Well. People are afraid of it for good reasons. For example; If a nuclear reactor were to say, explode, IT WOULD LIKELY BE VERY BAD. Not just for the surrounding biological inhabitants, but for future generations who will not be able to use that area for decades. It's generally safe, though. And we've come fare enough that mishaps are almost completely avoidable. But on the other hand, it produces quite a bit of hazardous waste. It's not eco-friendly, because where are we to put such waste? As of now, we're burying it in tunnels and big pools... Personally I think it would be nice to just blast it off into space on a collision-course with saturn. It's gravity would make quick work of anything coming near it. Although I can't say what effects injecting nuclear waste into a planet would have...The sun, maybe?
meh...
meh...
A well designed nuclear reactor won't explode, and technically more people have died from coal power then nuclear power and nuclear weapons combined.
Its expense is due to sever regulation, many 4th generation reactors design and more present day cassette reactor provide the possibly of much cheaper and still safer nuclear power plants.
Solar thermal can't provide base-line power, the only renewable energy sources that could is geothermal and hydropower if droughts don't occur. As such intermittent power sources like most alternative energy can't provide more then 20-30% of are electric needs (with existing back-up and peak load generators taking the slack) before we would need some kind of grid storage system. Thus we will need base-line power plants for the majority of the grids load.
Some numbers
The four most productive means of generating electricity in the world today are coal, hydro, gas, and nuclear.
In terms of killing people, nuclear rates as third.
Coal burning power stations kill quite large numbers of people, from respiratory illness caused by the air pollution. Estimates run into hundreds of thousands of people per year.
Hydro-electricity kills large amounts of people. To carry water, tunnels are dug - a process that is very unsafe, and leads to numerous fatal accidents. In addition, there are occasional accidents with dams bursting. One in India in the 1960's killed about 10,000 people.
The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that the total number of people killed by nuclear power (mainly from the Chernobyl accident) is 2500. This is way less than coal or hydro.
The four most productive means of generating electricity in the world today are coal, hydro, gas, and nuclear.
In terms of killing people, nuclear rates as third.
Coal burning power stations kill quite large numbers of people, from respiratory illness caused by the air pollution. Estimates run into hundreds of thousands of people per year.
Hydro-electricity kills large amounts of people. To carry water, tunnels are dug - a process that is very unsafe, and leads to numerous fatal accidents. In addition, there are occasional accidents with dams bursting. One in India in the 1960's killed about 10,000 people.
The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that the total number of people killed by nuclear power (mainly from the Chernobyl accident) is 2500. This is way less than coal or hydro.
Isn't hydrogen an option for storage of intermittent energy sources? I've even heard about home units that will take the electricity from your solar panels, windmills, etc. and use it to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen, then when you need the electricity it puts them back together. You can even pump it into your hydrogen car.
The problem I have with nuclear power is that a lot of it gets dumped in places like my home, South Carolina.
The problem I have with nuclear power is that a lot of it gets dumped in places like my home, South Carolina.
invs
That is true in theory, but not possible in practise. There are too many difficulties. For example : in terms of energy, it is enormously wasteful splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. The energy required is massively greater than the energy you get back later from burning the hydrogen. In addition, hydrogen is enormously difficult to store and transport.
Perhaps, with a few decades more development, such a technique may become practical. Just not yet.
That is true in theory, but not possible in practise. There are too many difficulties. For example : in terms of energy, it is enormously wasteful splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. The energy required is massively greater than the energy you get back later from burning the hydrogen. In addition, hydrogen is enormously difficult to store and transport.
Perhaps, with a few decades more development, such a technique may become practical. Just not yet.
It's not really that simple. It takes more electricity to split water than you will generate by putting it back together.
Power generating companies use it as a means to "store" electricity in off peak times. When demand is low, they can't make make any money selling their excess electricity. They buy it at the low rate, use it for electrolyzing water and store the gases until there is a greater demand. Demand increases, price for electricity increases on the market, they run the gases through a fuel cell to generate electricity and they can sell that excess power for a considerable profit.
Hydroelectric dams do pretty much the same thing with the water. When demand is low, they buy the electricity to run pumps to send the water back to a higher storage area. When demand increases, allow the water to flow back down, generating electricity a 2nd time. This time for a considerable mark up.
This is exactly why I do NOT look forward to smart metering. I'm not looking forward to paying market rates for running my microwave when some part of the country is under a massive heat wave.
Grid storage can easily be goggled for details.
Without the severe regulation you would have to add in even more overhead cost for risk - a lot more.electric said:
The regulation saves you money. Lack of it was a major factor in Chernobyl, just for one example, and more Chernobyls would have to be accounted for in any relaxation of the regs.
You are overlooking quite a few dead people - such as a prorated percentage of those killed by the sanctions and invasion of Iraq, political side effects of Iraq's nuclear power program. Several hundred thousand.skeptical said:
You are also failing to include such things as the extra deaths caused by the effects of the evacuation and depopulation of the Chernobyl area, and the consequential impoverishment of the Soviet state.
You are, as well, accepting the status quo infrastructure for your "productivity" numbers - in terms of invested money per kwatt produced (a better measure of "productivity") nuclear ranks last among the established means of producing electricity (behind even solar panels) and this inefficiency is and will always be a major factor in keeping even the marketed death toll (the extreme underestimate you quote above) as low as it is.
Why not? All that is needed is storage, and several kinds are available.
Not with proper design, for example a particle bed reactor or a molten salt reactor would not need a containment dome as they are meltdown impossible designs. The retention of water cooled reactor and blocking of further technological development is what has put nuclear power in a corner.
What this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IQWuXtX_6E
All parts.
A failing of a poorly design and maintained reactor. It is possible to make a turn-key reactor that is meltdown proof if financing could be provided to develop it.
Oh do cite these high deathtolls, lets review exactly how they are calculated and see if they match with other medical studies.
Storage add to the price and no system even in proposal can store more then a few hours of heat, not to mention solar thermal is not viable above certain latitudes.
All designs have their problems, serious and expensive ones.electric said:
No. Fucking irrelevant videos do not replace actual argument.electric said:
So? You have some magic way to prevent bad design, careless operations, and poor maintenance?electric said:
The oil drilling industry needs you. Meanwhile, the rest of us need careful and expensive regulation of nuclear power, including the most expensive aspects such as waste disposal and security.
You don't store the heat, you store the energy. Above certain latitudes - where most people don't live anyway - you either transmit power in (lower loss DC lines, etc) or use some more expensive and dangerous source. So?electric said:
Let's say 500,000 of the casualties from the Iraq sanctions and invasion, calculated by reading the newspaper.electric said:
Last edited:
No they don't, the only problem is financing.
Its documentary the cites scientific experiments and fact. Your clearly ignorant to the nature of the debate at present so this should provide a good overview, watch it.
Well first a good design alleviate the other two, and a good design is also the only thing that has any economic chances in the future, so the magic is call economics.
The the nuclear waste in the world couldn't fill a Superbowl stadium to the first row seats, nuclear waste is not nearly as serious ad poblem as people make it out to be. While pollution for Oil and other fossil fuels is causing damage to the environment for centuries to come.
Impractical, Thermal storage is far cheaper and more efficient then storing the energy post electricity generation, all that is needed is tanks storing molten salt.
Completely rebuild our electric grids, oh what a grand idea. While we are at it why don't we build cities under the ocean.
The french have the cheapest electricity in all of Europe, I wonder why? And I wonder how many french people have died from the dangerous and scary nuclear industry?
Iraqis? I'm talking about death via nuclear power directly here!
Iceaura is stretching way beyond the bounds permitted by rational debate in ascribing the deaths of the war in Iraq to nuclear power. It might be possible to call those deaths a result of the grab for Iraqi oil, but not nuclear.
On costs. The data I have date back to 2005, so may not be quite the same today. However, in relative terms, they are probably not too different today.
Costs of the major sources of power, across the United States, are shown as nationwide averages, in American cents per kilowatt.
Hydroelectricity 5.8
Coal burning 6
Nuclear 7.5
Wind 10
Solar cell 25
These averages are across the life of the power plant. Most of the cost of nuclear power is the cost of commissioning and decommissioning. The cost of nuclear fuel is only 10% of the total generating cost.
On costs. The data I have date back to 2005, so may not be quite the same today. However, in relative terms, they are probably not too different today.
Costs of the major sources of power, across the United States, are shown as nationwide averages, in American cents per kilowatt.
Hydroelectricity 5.8
Coal burning 6
Nuclear 7.5
Wind 10
Solar cell 25
These averages are across the life of the power plant. Most of the cost of nuclear power is the cost of commissioning and decommissioning. The cost of nuclear fuel is only 10% of the total generating cost.
kmguru
Staff member
Cost of nuclear power in America is high due to American citizen's "Fear Factor".
This includes nuclear use certification for pencils and highly paid nuclear power plant design, construction and quality people.
The nuclear loop is a very small part of the whole plant including the steam turbines and generators - the same one that is used in a fossil plant. Yet the cost is very high due to over regulation for these items. But this can not be changed as the interested parties will say, this process has been working fine for a long time, no need to change.
This includes nuclear use certification for pencils and highly paid nuclear power plant design, construction and quality people.
The nuclear loop is a very small part of the whole plant including the steam turbines and generators - the same one that is used in a fossil plant. Yet the cost is very high due to over regulation for these items. But this can not be changed as the interested parties will say, this process has been working fine for a long time, no need to change.
kmguru
Staff member
More about coal power plants:
First, coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is a source of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to human health and may be largely responsible for acid rain. Second, although not as well known, releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring radioactive materials--mainly, uranium and thorium.
....They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article.
The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.
Coal ash is composed primarily of oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, magnesium, titanium, sodium, potassium, arsenic, mercury, and sulfur plus small quantities of uranium and thorium.
Link
While it is very small like 1-4 ppm of Uranium and Thorium each in the coal, if you burn a million ton of coal, what happened to those Uranium and Thorium? Think about that.
First, coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is a source of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to human health and may be largely responsible for acid rain. Second, although not as well known, releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring radioactive materials--mainly, uranium and thorium.
....They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article.
The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.
Coal ash is composed primarily of oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, magnesium, titanium, sodium, potassium, arsenic, mercury, and sulfur plus small quantities of uranium and thorium.
Link
While it is very small like 1-4 ppm of Uranium and Thorium each in the coal, if you burn a million ton of coal, what happened to those Uranium and Thorium? Think about that.
No. Life is too short to attempt to argue an issue like this via video feeds.electric said:
See, you say obviously ridiculous things like that and expect me to watch long videos of similar bs.electric said:
The Hanford decommissioning alone is more than that, by volume.electric said:
And it doesn't matter - the stuff is not dangerous because it's big and heavy.
So? If as you say that only works for a few hours, then we use something else. You were the one objecting to thermal storage.electric said:
Socialized power production.electric said:
Besides, they don't. http://www.swivel.com/workbooks/25737-Electricity-prices-for-households-in-Europe.
Before, you were talking about respiratory deaths from burning coal without capturing the hazardous smoke. Well, I am talking about the costs and problems of relying on nuclear power for electricity, including those from spreading nuclear power plants all over the landscape.electrical said:
It's how the invasion was sold, it's how the sanctions were justified - Saddamskeptical said:
possessed the ability to make nuclear weapons, and that was what made him the imminent danger to us all that required military blockade and assault.
Power programs were the basis, justification, and cover, for India's and Pakistan's nukes - and Libya's attempts, North Korea's program, and so forth.
The point was that the claim of only 2500 deaths from nuclear power, most of them from Chernobyl, is oblivious to the point of nonsense - especially as a predictor of risk from a huge expansion of nuke power capability worldwide.
The solar number is obviously wrong - there are working thermal plants at half that. They must be talking about last generation solar panels on house roofs or something. The other numbers seem to be universally overlooking various costs - the nuclear number cannot be based on an "average" cost of decommissioning and waste handling, for example, because essentially none of the waste in the US has been handled yet, nor have any plants been completely decommissioned.skeptical said: