NUKES = FAIL, Mr. President, here's 6 reasons why:

[grahamhgreen]

"1. Length of time to come on stream

Commissioning and building new plants is a time-consuming business (at least twenty years), so they would have little or no impact on cutting emissions over the next twenty years, nor build any resilience in the face of peak oil.

2. Insurance

The insurance industry refuses to underwrite nuclear power, a gap it looks like the government will have to fill, resulting in a huge invisible subsidy for nuclear power.

3. Waste

Nuclear waste is a huge problem. The UK alone has 10,000 tons of nuclear waste, a pile which will increase 25-fold when the existing plants are decommissioned, with no solution in sight other than deep burial. The disposal of nuclear waste requires a great deal of embodied energy, including that in the materials used to maintain the disposal facilities (i.e. concrete and steel). It is often said that nuclear waste has a half-life of 100,000 years…it is worth remembering that Stonehenge was built only 4,000 years ago.

A society in energy descent, dependent on local, lower embodied energy building materials, will struggle to maintain nuclear waste sites with cob blocks and straw bales.

4. Cost

A new programme of nuclear power would be staggeringly expensive. Amory Lovins has calculated that 10 cents invested in nuclear energy could generate 1kwh of nuclear energy, 1.2- 1.7kwh wind-power, 2.2-6.5kwh small co-generation, or 10kwh of energy efficiency. Also, having sufficient money to invest so unwisely assumes an economy which is still growing, an increasingly unlikely prospect.

5. Peak Uranium

At the moment, there are about 60 years’ worth of uranium left. However, if electricity generation from nuclear grows steadily, this figure will fall, to the point where if all the world’s electricity were generated with nuclear, we’d have around 3 years supply left.

6. Carbon Emissions

Nuclear is often said to be a carbon-free way of generating electricity. While that may be true for the actual generation, it is not when the entire process is looked at. The mining, processing, enrichment, treatment and disposal all have significant impacts, equivalent to around one-third those of a conventional- sized gas-fired generating plant."

http://www.alternet.org/environment/116854/6_reasons_why_nuclear_power_can%27t_save_us/

[JDPriestly]

1. K&R

Nuclear waste dumps in a society devastated by man-made or natural disasters -- could mean the end of human life on this planet. Seriously, imagine humans degraded to a primitive state trying to deal with the reality of mysteriously deadly nuclear waste dumps.

We do not know what surprises geographic and climate changes could bring over the next half-century.

Creating nuclear waste dumps is like planting seeds of poison for our distant descendants.

Nuclear energy may be safe now, but will it be safe 500 years from now?

We cannot know.

We do not have the right to jeopardize future generations to that extent for our own comfort.

Nuclear energy is yet another Wall Street gamble that we cannot afford.

[closeupready]

6. Word.

n/t

[One Voice]

2. Just sent letter to him through NIRS email I received, link

to send letter:

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1677

[grahamhgreen]

13. Done! Thnx

[truedelphi]

3. This year SOU announces that we can use our Clean Coal, & our Safe Nuke power.

Next year, SOU may well announce that sun rises in the West and sets in the East.

K & R for your post.

[timeforpeace]

4. Might as well get started so we can deal with these issues.

[zipplewrath]

5. 6 answers

I'm not exactly a big supporter for my own reasons, but I might moderate your concerns a bit this way:

"1. Length of time to come on stream

Commissioning and building new plants is a time-consuming business (at least twenty years), so they would have little or no impact on cutting emissions over the next twenty years, nor build any resilience in the face of peak oil.

The vast majority of the reason for this is the permitting process, which is exacerbated by the critics/opponents. Government does have the power to shorten/streamline this problem.


2. Insurance

The insurance industry refuses to underwrite nuclear power, a gap it looks like the government will have to fill, resulting in a huge invisible subsidy for nuclear power.

Unless of course government bills them for this insurance. It could actually be a revenue stream for the government.

3. Waste

Nuclear waste is a huge problem. The UK alone has 10,000 tons of nuclear waste, a pile which will increase 25-fold when the existing plants are decommissioned, with no solution in sight other than deep burial. The disposal of nuclear waste requires a great deal of embodied energy, including that in the materials used to maintain the disposal facilities (i.e. concrete and steel). It is often said that nuclear waste has a half-life of 100,000 years…it is worth remembering that Stonehenge was built only 4,000 years ago.

A society in energy descent, dependent on local, lower embodied energy building materials, will struggle to maintain nuclear waste sites with cob blocks and straw bales.

The magnitude of this problem is being over stated here. The vast majority of "nuclear waste" doesn't need to be buried. Various methodologies from burning to centrifuge can reduce this down considerably. A large portion of the volume (as oppose to mass) is stuff that is of dubious danger in the first place (gloves, clothing, tools, etc). The truly more hazardous materials can be processed to extract the heaviest of metals that can potentially be used and reprocessed into fuel.

4. Cost

A new programme of nuclear power would be staggeringly expensive. Amory Lovins has calculated that 10 cents invested in nuclear energy could generate 1kwh of nuclear energy, 1.2- 1.7kwh wind-power, 2.2-6.5kwh small co-generation, or 10kwh of energy efficiency. Also, having sufficient money to invest so unwisely assumes an economy which is still growing, an increasingly unlikely prospect.

There is alot of truth here. One slight modification to this however is that much of the costs are "capital" in nature and connected to the issue of how long it takes to build these facilities. Again, government has some capacity to moderate these capital costs by speeding up the construction/permitting process.


5. Peak Uranium

At the moment, there are about 60 years’ worth of uranium left. However, if electricity generation from nuclear grows steadily, this figure will fall, to the point where if all the world’s electricity were generated with nuclear, we’d have around 3 years supply left.

Well, this however presumes there will be no production used from any sort of breeder reactors or from the reprocessing of waste. In most models from advocates for nuclear power, they advocate the use of breeder reactors.

6. Carbon Emissions

Nuclear is often said to be a carbon-free way of generating electricity. While that may be true for the actual generation, it is not when the entire process is looked at. The mining, processing, enrichment, treatment and disposal all have significant impacts, equivalent to around one-third those of a conventional- sized gas-fired generating plant."

However, that presumes that the power they are generating doesn't "replace" power that would otherwise be generated by coal, oil, or gas. If the purpose of building nuclear is to replace coal, it's a carbon reduction. If it is a replacement for wind, then your point has more validity.

[FBaggins]

9. Largely correct... except for #5. "Peak uranium" is ridiculous nonsense.

We are not within a century of reaching Peak Uranium... likely not within MANY centuries.

Changes in the production rate of uranium are entirely demand driven and will likely remain so for a LONG time.

[grahamhgreen]

14. 6 answers to your answers!

1. Length of time to come on stream

The vast majority of the reason for this is the permitting process, which is exacerbated by the critics/opponents. Government does have the power to shorten/streamline this problem.

- I would sumbit that the LAST thing we should do is streamline the regulation and permitting process. We have already had numerous nuclear accidents as well as building code violations during construction that endangers us all. ONE accident like Chernobyl from rushing the regulatory process would further negate the assumption that nuclear power is less expensive than wind, solar, or water. When you add up all of the ancillary costs, and throw in a couple of Chernobyls, and the waste issues, there is no profit for the average citizen.

2. Insurance

Unless of course government bills them for this insurance. It could actually be a revenue stream for the government.

- Not really, because we know if there is ever a disaster, the taxpayer will be left paying for it with their children's health and lives, but our money as well, as evidenced by the banking/AIG insurance bail out.

3. Waste

The magnitude of this problem is being over stated here. The vast majority of "nuclear waste" doesn't need to be buried. Various methodologies from burning to centrifuge can reduce this down considerably. A large portion of the volume (as oppose to mass) is stuff that is of dubious danger in the first place (gloves, clothing, tools, etc). The truly more hazardous materials can be processed to extract the heaviest of metals that can potentially be used and reprocessed into fuel.

- I think most of the waste goes unprocessed, since it is cheaper, I can't see them doing it. Also, the waste lasts for tens of thousands of years - if you add in the cost of the future generations that will have to take care of our mess, it's not economically viable.

4. Cost

There is alot of truth here. One slight modification to this however is that much of the costs are "capital" in nature and connected to the issue of how long it takes to build these facilities. Again, government has some capacity to moderate these capital costs by speeding up the construction/permitting process.

- Again, if we ease up on the regulations on Nuke plants, the next meltdown we have wont be financial - it will be nuclear - literally!


5. Peak Uranium

Well, this however presumes there will be no production used from any sort of breeder reactors or from the reprocessing of waste. In most models from advocates for nuclear power, they advocate the use of breeder reactors.

- The breeders are still mostly theoretical. Wind, water, tidal, solar, and so forth are already viable and there is little doubt to their efficacy. Plus, the more we put into these, the more innovations will occur.

6. Carbon Emissions

- If we get into replacing oil, peak uranium comes even sooner (and some say we've already reached it).

In the end it seems to me that the downside of nuclear is huge, and the upside of renewables is also huge, so I think we should get started down that path, its the high road after all!

[zipplewrath]

26. I'll see your 6....

1. Length of time to come on stream

The vast majority of the reason for this is the permitting process, which is exacerbated by the critics/opponents. Government does have the power to shorten/streamline this problem.

- I would sumbit that the LAST thing we should do is streamline the regulation and permitting process. We have already had numerous nuclear accidents as well as building code violations during construction that endangers us all. ONE accident like Chernobyl from rushing the regulatory process would further negate the assumption that nuclear power is less expensive than wind, solar, or water. When you add up all of the ancillary costs, and throw in a couple of Chernobyls, and the waste issues, there is no profit for the average citizen.

Well, there's a bit of circular logic at work here though. It's expensive because we make it so. It won't work because it's expensive. We make it expensive because it won't work. The reality is that we can make relatively "safe" facilities these days. I would submit that the process for getting this done would start with the design of a "generic" facility, and subject it to all the reviews. It should include the requirements for where one can be built and what infrastructure is required. Once that process is complete, THEN start the permitting for a specific location. Trying to combine the two causes "compromises" in the design to be made based upon expediency instead of technical merit.

2. Insurance

Unless of course government bills them for this insurance. It could actually be a revenue stream for the government.

- Not really, because we know if there is ever a disaster, the taxpayer will be left paying for it with their children's health and lives, but our money as well, as evidenced by the banking/AIG insurance bail out.

Well, your logic presumes an accident. I'd also point out the between mining accidents and coal ash problems, not to mention general air quality problems, the comparative risk isn't all that unfavorable. Of course, a core assumption that needs to be addressed is, what are the plants replacing. If it is coal fired, nuclear looks good. Unless one wants to make the case that it is displacing wind, solar, or other "renewables", nuclear actually will stack up favorably in terms of risk to the population.

3. Waste

The magnitude of this problem is being over stated here. The vast majority of "nuclear waste" doesn't need to be buried. Various methodologies from burning to centrifuge can reduce this down considerably. A large portion of the volume (as oppose to mass) is stuff that is of dubious danger in the first place (gloves, clothing, tools, etc). The truly more hazardous materials can be processed to extract the heaviest of metals that can potentially be used and reprocessed into fuel.

- I think most of the waste goes unprocessed, since it is cheaper, I can't see them doing it. Also, the waste lasts for tens of thousands of years - if you add in the cost of the future generations that will have to take care of our mess, it's not economically viable.

The waste, if processed, does not last that long. And the only reason they do not do it right now, is because it is illegal. (Processing is fairly close in nature to creating "weapons grade" fuel)

4. Cost

There is alot of truth here. One slight modification to this however is that much of the costs are "capital" in nature and connected to the issue of how long it takes to build these facilities. Again, government has some capacity to moderate these capital costs by speeding up the construction/permitting process.

- Again, if we ease up on the regulations on Nuke plants, the next meltdown we have wont be financial - it will be nuclear - literally!

No, it won't. The advocates weren't suggesting a total vacuum of regulation, merely a more streamlined and predictable process. Really, the vast majority of the delay is due to court actions. If we could agree on what had to be done to get approved, it could be much shorter, on the order of 5-7 years. However, it is true that no one has really defined this process.


5. Peak Uranium

Well, this however presumes there will be no production used from any sort of breeder reactors or from the reprocessing of waste. In most models from advocates for nuclear power, they advocate the use of breeder reactors.

- The breeders are still mostly theoretical. Wind, water, tidal, solar, and so forth are already viable and there is little doubt to their efficacy. Plus, the more we put into these, the more innovations will occur.

They are no more "theoretical" than wind or other renewables. Their lack of penetration into the power generation market is due to legislation. And again, you are setting up nuclear as an "opponent" or competition of other renewables. The reality is that the two can work quite well together. A power grid needs something called "base" power for which nuclear is a very good fit.

6. Carbon Emissions

- If we get into replacing oil, peak uranium comes even sooner (and some say we've already reached it).

No, again, your making assumptions about supply that aren't particularly defensible, especially in a context of breeder reactors and waste processing technologies.

In the end it seems to me that the downside of nuclear is huge, and the upside of renewables is also huge, so I think we should get started down that path, its the high road after all!

Your position seems based upon an assumption that nuclear and renewables are competitive in some sense. That really is not naturally true. We can make it be that way, but there is no technological reason for it to be so. Technically speaking, they can be quite compatible and actually in a symbiotic way. As I say, there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about trying to build nuclear facilities, but generally they aren't technical in nature. The primary problem with nuclear is that the world is far from free of war, and economic collapse. As we have seen around the world, countries can quickly go from "stable" to unstable in fairly short order. And nuclear isn't a good idea everywhere, which means it would be seen as a world of "haves and have nots".

[TheWraith]

7. False, and I'll tell you why.

"1. Length of time to come on stream"

This is based simply on pulling a number out of one's ass, based on a few examples in the US where litigation has tied up the licensing process for years. In fact, new plants can be built in 3-5 years, as evidenced by practices in the rest of the world.

"2. Insurance"

No, the insurance industry refuses to underwrite the full cost of a theoretical worst case scenario. They do still insure nuclear plants.

"3. Waste"

A nuclear plant generates about 30 tons of waste per year, all of which is tightly controlled and sequestered, and most of which can be recycled and therefore eliminated. A similarly sized coal fired plant produces about 511,000 tons of waste per year, all of which is dumped either directly into the air or into the environment. Guess which is more toxic.

Furthermore, nuclear waste has a half-life of closer to 600 years, not 100,000. And your assumption that we're going to be going back to living in straw huts is absolutely silly.

"4. Cost

A new programme of nuclear power would be staggeringly expensive. Amory Lovins has calculated"

Amory Lovins is in the employ of Exxon-Mobil, BP, Shell, and pretty much the entire fossil fuel industry. He admits this on his own website. He has a large incentive to minimize the usefulness of nuclear power in ending our usage of fossil fuels, and insisting that we can fix our energy problems just with adding more efficient windows and a couple of wind turbines somewhere out of sight, and don't worry our pretty little heads about gas, oil, and coal.

The fact is that $600 billion dollars spent on new nuclear plants in the US would eliminate our dependence on coal, oil, and gas for electricity, as well as giving substantial room for charging electric vehicles, mostly at night. The same wattage of wind power would cost about $900 billion, and $1.7 trillion for solar.

"5. Peak Uranium"

Every time I hear this nonsense, the number changes, because it's based completely on false information. Even just factoring in the uranium we know we have, without adding new technologies or new reserves, we have about a 400 year supply on hand. If you expand that to include filtering uranium out of seawater, the way that the Japanese are doing, that increases to about 3,900 years.

"6. Carbon Emissions"

By that standard, there's no such thing as carbon-free electricity, because everything has external costs, such as building a dam, erecting a turbine, etcetera. But the fact is that most of those costs are based on the assumption of running things on fossil fuels that don't need to be, like vehicles, etcetera.

[Gregorian]

10. I'd like to see a link for that 600 year half life. I'm not questioning, just curious.

[Javaman]

11. I have a feeling you will be waiting for as long as that supposed half life. nt

[sybylla]

12. No kidding.

And it had better be a damn reputable link as well.

[grahamhgreen]

30. tick tock tick tock...

[FBaggins]

18. A 600 year half life would be a BAD thing

What most of the people who post these long half lives fail to understand is that you WANT a really
long half life (not that you get a choice). it means the stuff isn't particularly radioactive. 600 years would be a problem... You couldn't deal with the stuff the same way.

[grahamhgreen]

20. Rebuttal

"1. Length of time to come on stream"

This is based simply on pulling a number out of one's ass, based on a few examples in the US where litigation has tied up the licensing process for years. In fact, new plants can be built in 3-5 years, as evidenced by practices in the rest of the world.

- But reducing regulations can lead to catastrophic accidents, as evidenced at Chernobyl.

"2. Insurance"

No, the insurance industry refuses to underwrite the full cost of a theoretical worst case scenario. They do still insure nuclear plants.

- Under Price-Anderson, utilities carry $300 million in private insurance - the rest is carried by us. The cost of Chernobyl is in the hundreds of BILLIONS. How much solar/wind/tidal/water power could we develop for that?

"3. Waste"

A nuclear plant generates about 30 tons of waste per year, all of which is tightly controlled and sequestered, and most of which can be recycled and therefore eliminated. A similarly sized coal fired plant produces about 511,000 tons of waste per year, all of which is dumped either directly into the air or into the environment. Guess which is more toxic.

Furthermore, nuclear waste has a half-life of closer to 600 years, not 100,000. And your assumption that we're going to be going back to living in straw huts is absolutely silly.

- Unfortunately most of this waste is not recycled, or tightly controlled and sometimes finds it's way into third-world illicit dumps. If we go to solar/wind/tidal/water, etc, we do not have the wast issue of coal, either.

"4. Cost

A new programme of nuclear power would be staggeringly expensive. Amory Lovins has calculated"

Amory Lovins is in the employ of Exxon-Mobil, BP, Shell, and pretty much the entire fossil fuel industry. He admits this on his own website. He has a large incentive to minimize the usefulness of nuclear power in ending our usage of fossil fuels, and insisting that we can fix our energy problems just with adding more efficient windows and a couple of wind turbines somewhere out of sight, and don't worry our pretty little heads about gas, oil, and coal.

The fact is that $600 billion dollars spent on new nuclear plants in the US would eliminate our dependence on coal, oil, and gas for electricity, as well as giving substantial room for charging electric vehicles, mostly at night. The same wattage of wind power would cost about $900 billion, and $1.7 trillion for solar.

- To me, it seems like spending the extra 300 billion on wind would be well worth the money, as this is only the cost of one nuclear disaster. Plus, if we can throw in a few hydro dams, the cost reduced drastically.

"5. Peak Uranium"

Every time I hear this nonsense, the number changes, because it's based completely on false information. Even just factoring in the uranium we know we have, without adding new technologies or new reserves, we have about a 400 year supply on hand. If you expand that to include filtering uranium out of seawater, the way that the Japanese are doing, that increases to about 3,900 years.

- The Red Book, and most National and International agencies estimate a 100 year supply - AT PRESENT CONSUMPTION LEVELS. http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html

"6. Carbon Emissions"

By that standard, there's no such thing as carbon-free electricity, because everything has external costs, such as building a dam, erecting a turbine, etcetera. But the fact is that most of those costs are based on the assumption of running things on fossil fuels that don't need to be, like vehicles, etcetera.

- I'll give you that, except that the nuclear waste has to be maintained for many years with no benefit....

[upi402]

8. EPIC FAIL FTW!

lawlz

[ddeclue]

15. Nuclear power does NOT have to take a long time to come on line.

The Navy has clearly proven this.

The notion that there isn't enough uranium left is just preposterous given how very little it takes to run a reactor in the first place.

Carbon emissions are a negligible factor in uranium given the amount of energy produced per pound of uranium.

Power estimates provided here are ridiculous too. The U.S. and Russian nuclear navies have proven otherwise. All of our Western allies have proven otherwise as well through a much higher percentage of their power coming from nukes.

Insurance? Everything has risk - every form of power generation does.

This is just another baseless scientifically void anti-nuke attack.

[FBaggins]

19. Of course it wouldn't take that long.

It's a clever (if transparent) ploy. Building a plant NEEDS a long process (for fake "safety" reasons)... But then the long process becomes the reason to not build them at all. The question is who they expect to buy it.

[grahamhgreen]

21. Right, we can build another Chernobyl in just a few months! FAIL

[FBaggins]

24. Lol... Dropping Chernobyl into every nuke conversation just makes you look nutty

No design even close would be built.

The most valid question here is whether you attempt to play on the fears and ignorance of others... Or just displaying your own?

[grahamhgreen]

27. OK, how about the failed Zimmer power plant in Ohio?

Nuclear energy just is not financially viable when you factor in corruption, safety, waste, etc. -

Zimmer Power Station

"Cincinnati Gas and Electric, with two other electric utilities (American Electric Power and Dayton Power and Light), announced the cancellation of the Zimmer nuclear power plant in October 1983. Zimmer's total sunk costs equaled some $1.8 billion; Cincinnati's share amounted to $716 million, which was almost 90 percent of the utility's 1982 net worth.<2>

Originally expected to cost $230 million, when the cost estimate soared to at least $3.4 billion the decision was made in 1984 to convert the plant. (Regulatory delays and high interest rates also contributed to the cost increase.)

The constructor, the Henry J. Kaiser Company, had never built a nuclear power plant before (or since). And the primary owner, Cincinnati Gas and Electric, did its own procurement, awarding contracts for equipment, e.g., for hundreds of valves, with inadequate specifications or QA requirements. Piping welds were not adequately radiographed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Zimmer_Power_Station

While I may agree that it is theoretically possible to build a power plant that is 99% safe, with the level of corruption in all of the upper echelons on American management and government, it is extremely dangerous and possibly disastrous - not worth the gamble when we have such great alternatives!

[FBaggins]

28. The two are at all comparable to you?

You shift from a plant that "failed" catestrohically to a plant that "failed" financially? Did you even take a breath between the two?

What about the many hundreds of plants that have actually been completed and are operating without significant problems? (and BTW... how many of them took 20 years to build?)

While I may agree that it is theoretically possible to build a power plant that is 99% safe

Even what you think is an attempt at fairness/moderation is a widly exagerated falsehood. Nothing close to a mere 99% would be acceptable (they are FAR more reliable than that) and you try to pretend that MAYBE they can get that safe?

[grahamhgreen]

29. They were both disasters waiting to happen...

Which will always happen when skimp on regulations and throw in corruption, and have to get it done quickly.

Then, one catastrophic accident and the whole program is not worthless - you'd have been better off going with renewables form the start.

I think there are only 65 power plants in the US, and one of them was 3-mile island, which had a near melt-down, so my estimate of 99% safety in a best case scenario I feel to be generous!

But, in the end, why even take the risk when we can go hydro, wind, solar and tidal?

Especially when you throw in the risk of a terror attack!

[FBaggins]

33. Did you miss that it WAS NEVER OPENED?

The process worked.

It's as ridiculous as pointing to the empty lot across the street and saying that it proves that homes are unsafe... when the home was never given an occupancy permit because it wasn't up to code. That's proof that the system WORKS... NOT that all homes are death traps.

Which will always happen

Once again hoping that your audience will ignore the many many safely operating reactors out there. Slight of hand really isn't effective as a debating tool.

I think there are only 65 power plants in the US, and one of them was 3-mile island, which had a near melt-down

Tell me... was that intentional deception or simple ignorance on your part? Because there is no third possibility. You can't call it an example of something that was "unsafe" when the safety measures put in to place kept people SAFE.

But, in the end, why even take the risk when we can go hydro, wind, solar and tidal?

Because all of those have risks are well and are nowhere near as afordable or reliable as nuclear power. If someone drowns while fixing a tidal genertor... why isn't that more significant than a "near meltdown" that dosed the average person with no more than a single x-ray's radiation?

[spoony]

43. Indeed, whenever people do that, it just reveals the embarrassing degree

of their own ignorance on the topic.

[Cetacea]

16. Funny how no one talks about Nuclear waste any more...

It's not like the problem has gotten any better in the last ten or so years.

[Echo In Light]

38. +1

[alarimer]

17. There is also NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL

And more offshore oil drilling is something I will NEVER support.

"Clean coal" for sure is bullshit; I am not sure why Obama buys into it.

[Shagbark Hickory]

23. Was I asleep for the past 16 months?

I don't know if I passed out right before the november 2008 presidential election but if so I had the craziest dream that Barack Obama was elected president. And here I must have awoken last night to hear McCain's energy policy coming out of Barack Obama's mouth.

[Shagbark Hickory]

22. Yeah what the fuck was this all about? Didn't McCain lose the election?!? Goddang!

[omega minimo]

25. 7. Public perception

:evilfrown:

[grahamhgreen]

31. 7. Terror attack on a nuclear plant (oops)

[quaker bill]

32. Check out Thorium reactors

While the tests of this technology have just gone beyond the bench phase, the results seem promising. The bench tests indicate that this technology can "burn" what is now the most lethal and long lived components of the nuke waste stream, transmute it into isotopes that are less fissile and have shorter half-lives. It literally eats plutonium.

Beyond that, the straight up thorium designs run sub-critical, which means a nearly zero risk of meltdown, because it only runs if you provide an externally powered source of neutrons. Turn off the accelerator beam, and it just shuts down on its own.

Finally, the byproducts of this nuclear chemistry are isotopes with short half lives that generally cannot be used to produce fission based weapons. Thorium itself is too sparsely radioactive on its own for use as a weapon, as it simply does not go critical. Thorium, while a rare element is reported to be roughly greater than 500 times more abundant than U235, which addresses the immediate supply problem. There is a thorium fuel cycle that can be adapted to many existing reactors. The drawback is that the pure thorium fuel cycle requires brand new equipment designed specifically for it, which exists only on the drawing board.

Current nuclear technology is a mess, with massive deferred costs of waste reprocessing and storage that will have to be absorbed sooner or later. From the papers I have seen, a thorium based fuel cycle is a way to consume the worst elements of the waste and produce considerable energy in the process.

While I did study nuclear chemistry once, I am not a physicist. However, that being said, this stuff seems interesting.

This much I do know through personal experience, coal ash and coal emissions are radioactive, and while mild by nuke reactor standards, each coal plant makes massive quantities of it, and it is stored outdoors not all that far from the public.

[tabasco]

34. I'm all for nuclear power.

It can be made safe and we won't have to destroy any more mountains or belch any more pollution into the air.

[grahamhgreen]

35. What about a terror attack on the plant?

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. Or or or... what if it got hit by an asteroid?

Come on. Tell me you're never going to fly again? Possibility of a terrorist attack on the airplane?

[grahamhgreen]

37. A terror attack on a nuke plant is a real danger; it could kill tens, if not hundreds of thousands.

And we don't need the plants, and unlike asteroids, we build them.

Why would we build something that could kill us when the alternatives are so obvious?

It's another boondoggle for the nuke industry, a dangerous and unecessary one.

[FBaggins]

39. Because you're simply wrong that they're "so obvious"

All of the alternatives have a place in the puzzle, but none of them have the potential for as much/as cheap" power generation.

You've also overstated the danger significantly. Not only are nuclear plants far harder to make a terror strike on, the worst-case scenarios don't involve tens (let alone hundreds) of thousands of deaths.

More importantly... we aren't getting rid of the plants that we currently operate. If terrorists decide that attacking a plant is the way to go... they aren't going to say "oh darn... there aren't any shiny new ones to hit... oh well, I guess we go home now."

So that door is already opened. There is no ADDITIONAL danger.

[grahamhgreen]

40. Chernobyl "Predicted deaths range from 4,000 to half a million" - Guardian, UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/10/chernobyl-nuclear-deaths-cancers-dispute

Hydro is MUCH cheaper than nuclear. Wind is competitive, and solar is, as well; the costs of both of these will come down if we go with them instead of nuclear.

If you add in the costs of one disaster, nuclear is far too expensive to even consider.

There is a much greater additional danger from terrorism, the more plants, the harder they are to protect. Plus, the additional byproducts can be stolen and used for dirty bombs.

Why go with an energy source that will run out, when we can have unlimited energy from renewable sources? makes no sense to me.

[spoony]

42. Okay now I know you're just fearmongering.

Your OP had legitimate arguments, granted they were not your own. But this entire "terror! dirty bomb! chernobyl!" straining is ridiculous. Stick with the positives of renewables, not this 2001 retread rubbish.

[FBaggins]

45. Now you're just being silly

The fact that Chernobyl was a nuclear plant and so are US plants doesn't mean that the risks are the same.

Hydro is MUCH cheaper than nuclear

Large scale hydro plants are incredibly efficient (once the dam is built of course)... but that's a really lousy argument. Unless there are some hidden rivers just being discovered in uncharted parts of Nebraska? There is no ability to substantially increase our hydro power unless we're talking about the ocean... and that isn't as cheap.

Wind is competitive, and solar is, as well

Nope. Not with honest numbers it isn't. And that's even taking into account the fact that nuclear would employ FAR more people (and at attractive salaries). And wind/solar aren't viable as primary power sources (and are pretty ugly)... even in green-friendly areas nobody wants them close by.

There is a much greater additional danger from terrorism

Again... nope. Are you dodging that point? Or is it your assumption that we'll dismantle all existing nuclear plants?

the more plants, the harder they are to protect

That makes no sense. Sorry. In fact, it's easier to account for heightened security concerns at new plants than to retrofit existing ones.

Plus, the additional byproducts can be stolen and used for dirty bombs.

Same response. Is there not enough of the stuff in existence now to get all anyone could need if that were the concern?

Why go with an energy source that will run out

Nuclear is in no danger of "running out". Peak oil is arguable... but Peak Uranium anytime in more than a century is a myth. By that time we have even more options.

[tabasco]

44. They can build walls thick enough to withstand an airplane crash

and put a platoon of infantry on duty at every plant to secure it.

How's that?

Maybe we should all go live underground because the scary terrorists might attack. :scared:

[anonymous171]

41. We can mine the ocean for Uranium you know