Is nuclear energy "green" energy?

i venture to say that a collaspse of the 3 Gorges Dam would most likely kill tens of millions.

there is a bit of a debate as to other ecological impacts a nuclear plant creates due to its huge appetite for cooling water. changes in water temperatures creates a new host of problems where much warmer than normal water temps create a flourishing environment for normally insignificant plant, algae, bacteria, etc.

and anyone can make an argument that ANY source of unfunded, unbacked and un-initiated power would have an insignificant impact on the power supply.

iow, if someone builds it, people will come. dont build it, then no it will not change anything.

solar and wind stations can be put up very rapidly, in a few months. its will take years to build a nuclear power plant

 

The single biggest problem with nuclear power is it is pushed primarily by those who are trying to avoid solar, wind, and efficiency improvement. That gives it a "faux green" hue. The ones who think we should burn all the fossil fuels we can are also the ones saying the only other option is nuke. That puts many of us into a "none of the above" choice. Nuke is being pushed as a way of avoiding other more effective solutions.

The second major issue is waste. Until the country commits to addressing the long term storage of the waste, nuke is not sustainable and therefore not green. I don't see this as insurmountable, but as yet the country has not had the will to address it.

One of the other ironies I often note is how many of the same folks most vocal about terrorism and such, don't have a problem with throwing up a slew of nuke plants and not having a good secure way to deal with the nuclear waste. Apparently by their logic govt. can't do anything right...other than operate nuke plants.

I would rather see a Manhattan project for fusion, rather than investing 100's of billions in fission facilities. We've dallied on this front for 30 years already, and I do believe we could have had a net energy producing prototype by now.

 

Current fission plants have a problem - a very significant portion of their fuel comes from dismantled nuclear weapons which are running out. In fact, at the current rate of production, there will likely be a Uranium shortage by 2013.

Breeder reactors are not yet technically feasible, either (and won't be by 2013).

Technology Review: Blogs: arXiv blog: The Coming Nuclear Crisis

 

Actually, the CANDU reactor, which uses "heavy" water as a moderator, was designed to be a breeder. It was envisioned that only the initial fuel load would be natural - or lightly enriched - uranium.

CANDU Reactors

Subsequent fuel loads would be reprocessed fuel and thorium, which is far more plentiful than uranium.

We have to do far more with spent fuel. The current practice of storing the spent fuel in giant swimming pools is pretty dumb

 

Yeah, but the water's warm, come on in!

 

sorry, but waste of this or waste of that is still waste. wind and solar have neither. very cheap infrastructure, much more scalable, etc. many put it as a niche solution because they do not want to make it mainstream. charge storage technology is improving. why not make solar and wind the main source and other fuels as peak demand power only.

in the Pacific Northwest, hydro is king, but coal is still used, but peak only. put in more wind and solar and reduce the coal from 30% to 10%.

 

Nuclear power is a loser at least until you can proof to me that waste material can either be made safe, or that it can be safely stored until it it safe.

That said, if you believe that we can bury waste in geologically stable environs for multiple millenia without some nut job trying to break in and get it out for nefarious purposes I think you have a pretty limited view of human nature!

We can't even keep some stuff secure for generation, much less hundreds of generations, and so, I think it criminal that we would burden our children's children's children's,,,,,children with potentially deadly waste so that we can continue our profligate ways. Can you say selfish? can you say insane?

Icarus

 

You know the big problem with wind and solar is ...
... it doesn't involve the mining industry.

Who do we think is pushing nuclear?

 

I take an extremely suspicious and dim view of human nature, trust me on that.

I really don't think "out of sight and out of mind" is a solution. We must effectively reprocess the spent bundles.

Unfortunately, we as a society can't even have a calm, reasoned discussion of spent bundle reprocessing. As a result, we have these giant swimming pools full of glowing spent bundles

Though I have to admit that Cherenkov radiation does have that pretty glow

 

personally i think we should take the spent fuel and put it at the bottom of one of those humonguous mining pits and toss a few yards of concrete on top and bury it. with a half mile of gravel on top, i bet it be ok

 

Um ..... no, it would not be ok

 

It is not the technology that I don't trust, (although I don't trust it very much) it is the human nature that I don't trust!

As for Burritos point, I agree that the effect of unchecked carbon is going to be (IS) a disaster, but to solve one catastrophic problem with one that poses a huge KNOWN problem is, as I suggested selfish, and insane.

It would just allow us to continue to life high on the hog, at the expense of others, in this case future generations.

Icarus

 

I thought that's what the OP meant when he referred to nuclear energy as green. I thought to myself "Well, more of a pretty blue glow..."

Tom

 

Is this qualitatively any different than any other thermal plants, e.g. coal, oil, gas, or biomass?

I know there is a quantitative difference, in that nukes tend to be on the lower end of the thermal efficiency scale, causing them to put out more waste heat than the more modern fossil fuel plants.

Solar photovoltaics need a lot more silicon fab plants to get the production capacity we need for any major changeover, and that capacity won't be built in a few months. I don't know how fast solar thermal capacity can be built.

Shhh! Don't tell the French. If they hear this, their power grid might collapse overnight.

Are there any humongous mining pits that don't have aquifers beneath?

 

It typically takes years to get production capacity up and running. Right now, there is a bit of a production glut with the poor economy - panel prices have dropped significantly in the last year.

Thin-film PV panels will be the wave of the future since the cost to produce them is much lower and manufacturing capacity is faster to bring on line.

Solar thermal is primarily mirrors, tubes and turbines. All fairly standard parts that can be brought online fairly rapidly. More work is needed to reduce the water consumption of solar thermal plants. Air cooled solar thermal plants need further cost reductions to be more cost competitive.

And just how many breeder reactors do they have? Breeder reactors may not have a fuel problem, but they do have other significant issues.

 

The French have something like 58 plants which develop 90% of their electrical power.

Breeder is a relative term. It's usually used along with the word "fast", as in a fast breeder reactor. All nuclear reactors breed some form of radioactive material. At issue is how fast and how usable. In the case of France, all of their spent fuel is reprocessed, which is economical and reduces the amount of long term radioactive waste.

Tom