Is nuclear energy "green" energy?

That probably would not be a very effective dispersal mechanism. Spent fuel is difficult to vaporize or pulverize, true?

If the US just can't bear to use more nuclear power then we can certainly place a few thousand square miles of Solar collectors in the Southwest and build a couple million wind turbines instead. The energy storage necessary for load leveling will be expensive. And of course much of the rest of the world will go ahead and use nuclear power anyway.

 

At the velocity and mass involved, the fuel bundles would be easily enough pulverized. The resultant jet fuel fireball would also serve to effectively spread the particles over a wide area

 

We have proved we can't trust the soviets. Do you honestly believe that there isn't enough insanity in the world to try to do some of the scenarios you both describe?

I am not worried in the next generation, but what happens in ten generations when this stuff is sitting in some long forgotten cavern and some latter day Osama says, "Hey this would be a great way for suicide bomber go out with a bang!" Folks who think like this are not particularly concerned about the short (or long term) effects on their person.

As I suggest, I don't have as much faith in folks as you seem to. 10,000 years is a long time in human history.

As for Richard's comment: Clearly we need to do more, but the single biggest thing we need to do is learn to do with less. (and that doesn't mean going back to the cave, it means being smarter with the energy we do use, rather than

Icarus
.

Icarus

 

i am sorry that i cannot accept nuclear. i applaud the French for using a no emission option for their power needs, but i think its just a bit premature to say that they have effectively managed their waste when the time frames involved are so long.

the greatest impediment to meeting our energy needs is this "all in one" solution we debate over. too many outside interests who have a technology that does very well, but usually in one area only.

oil; great for portability, energy density, public acceptance, and infrastructure (since its already there) and that is a big big plus. employs a millions to support it. we will ignore the drawbacks

nuclear; clean, efficient, 24/7 proven technology.


renewables; hate to swim upstream , so we will just do the negatives on this one

low power output, availability not guaranteed, has to be built, too many regulatory issues to overcome, not enough political (iow, MONEY!!) backing, etc. not the greatest option in dense urban areas due to space requirements (we will conveniently ignore the grassroots movement for smaller personal wind generators in the heart of San Francisco)

but all this we already know and know very well. what is the best case timeframe for a nuclear plant put on the table today? 3 years? (ya maybe, but it will take more than that just to get thru the paperwork)

what is our needs? solar still needs advancement, wind is the best bet i think. great advances in turbines, very low investment (granted, low power as well, but decentralizing power is a no-brainer... problem is the current centralized power options have ALL THE MONEY and as we all know, if you have money, you can create need, IQ and public opinion)

as Jayman pointed out, we cannot ignore ANY power option that fits even a small segment of society. so i am only advocating that we simply level the energy playing field

take away the advantages oil and coal currently have. put a little money into renewables as part of a "catch up" donation that the hydros have received in the past.

to be honest with ya, there is a lot of press on being green, but in reality the efforts dont really match the amount words on the subject

 

Which is why strict controls are necessary until the waste products can be safely reburned/transmuted and dealt with. The Russians proved they can't even be trusted with anything more complex than a can opener.

Like their thermoelectric lighthouses

Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators - Bellona

Most radioactive sources significant enough to be useful for a dirty bomb, will probably kill whoever tries to use it

Which is why we MUST reburn and subject the actinides and transuranics to transmutation!

Where did you get the idea I have faith in people? Won't you agree it's absolutely insane to leave spent fuel bundles in swimming pools?

It's irrelevant if you are against nuclear energy. Doing nothing - which is what we have done up to this point - is FAR worse than attempting to deal with the problem.

Even first-cycle reprocessing can reduce the *volume* of waste by 80%. Will you agree that is at least a *start?* To reburn the remaining with thorium, will result in transmutation to thorium isotopes, which have half lives FAR less than the uranium isotopes generated during the initial fuel cycle

 

While I do not agree that what you said is true, does it really matter? The piles of waste are already here, adding more nuclear power sites will just give more choices of where to crash the jetliner it does not really make it easier to do. A jetliner is a dangerous item in the wrong hands, would it not do more damage to a crowded stadium of 30,000?

 

Damage and fear is all relative, isn't it? The fact is, those swimming pools of spent fuel rods are a tempting target for terrorism

This report was presented to congress

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/rs21131.pdf

see pages 4-5

 

Maybe if you use a larger font...

Tom

 

:frusty:

I received this in the inbox today

The Daily Utah Chronicle - Global warming unstoppable

Makes sense: build one nuclear power plant PER DAY; or, global genocide

 

In that case they'll have to be stored in reinforced concrete buildings and not quonset huts. We'll manage.

 

Until some latter day Osama comes along and finds some abandoned concrete bunker,,,,,,

Let's stop making the stuff now, and look to real alternatives!

Icarus

 

No, we will not manage.

First of all, it will cost tens of billions of dollars to build new reinforced storage facilities. Most of that cost will actually be in safely moving the intensely radioactive spent fuel bundles, and decommissioning the intensely radioactive old swimming pools

Second, due to mandatory permitting process, it could take a decade or longer to even start construction. Possibly 2 decades, a long time to be vulnerable

Third, in the meantime, we have those spent fuel bundles just sitting there, with nothing being done to take care of the waste products

In other words, we'll do what we've become expert at: nothing

Ok, fine, I agree. I propose every nuclear power plant on earth be shut down first thing tomorrow morning. Problem solved!

Except .... what do we do with those intensely radioactive spent fuel bundles already sitting in giant swimming pools?

Oh right, we do nothing ...

 

Jay,

You lack of logic is astounding. It does not follow that by suggesting that we go forward by not building new nuke facilities that ergo we should do nothing with the existing waste.

It also doesn't follow that by suggesting that we "shut down all the nuke plants now" equates to solving the problem,,

What I am suggesting, is IF we agree that Nuke waste is an serious issue, and IF we agree that we are either not doing enough to clean it up or handle it safely for it's deadly life, (and I think we all agree on those issues!) then a prudent plan going forward would be to work to limit our potential to produce more, AT LEAST until we have solved the technical and the human issues.

It seems that you are suggesting that because we are in a deep hole, the first solution is to dig faster and deeper. This sounds more like a George W. solution than one from you! I concede that Nukes offer the possibility of producing large quantities of energy without release of CO2, but to think that it would come from Nukes "free" of other environmental issues is just naive.

Icarus

 

Really?

Every time I have suggested we MUST clean up the waste, I have received blanket statements that we can't make any more of it

Believe it or not, I actually AGREE that we cannot and should not make any more of the waste! But we also have to do something with the current inventory of waste

There are no "ifs" regarding whether or not nuclear waste is a serious issue. It is a deadly serious issue! The "prudent" thing to do is to transmutate and reburn the waste immediately.

Instead, we appear to have our panties in a tight knot, whining, but doing SFA about the original problem. I don't believe in digging a deeper hole, I believe in trying to figure out how to safely fill in the hole without killing myself in the process

By now, as an engineer, I should be used to this. Evidently, I am not.

Oh, and never, EVER confuse me with dubya.

Ever

 

My apologies to you Jay, I seemed to get the notion that you were advocating an increase in the use of Nukes as a way of solving CO2 emissions.

I think we agree more than we disagree, and I wasn't comparing you to GWB, only the notion (incorrect on my end it seems) that you WERE advocating more use of Nukes.

Icarus

 

Why is "green energy" called "green"?

 

...psst...jayman...I heard that in his drinking days, Dubya had a thing for an irresistable little ewe. :gossip: I'm jus' sayin'...

 

Baaaaa?

Um, what happened to the sheep smillie

 

My apologies for losing the thread here. I meant to comment on the storage of the waste remaining at the very end of fuel cycles that include breeding and reprocessing, not what to do with unused fuel after abandoning nuclear power. There's always *something* left over that has to be sequestered for some length of time, true? Or is there a combination of transmutation processes that burns up everything?

 

Yes, there is always something left over. Even with the limited reprocessing the French do, they have handily reduced their waste by 80%. That is very significant

A combination of reprocessing, transmutation, and thorium fuel cycles can reduce both conventional nuclear waste, and weapons grade plutonium, to a significant degree in a CANDU fuel cycle

Thorium

This document, pages 13-19 especially

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf

For an open cycle, once-through, the use of mixed thorium with spent uranium fuel, results in 30 times less radioactive and thermal activity over the longest half-lives

For a closed cycle, with extenstive thorium cycle reprocessing, in the end you have dramatically reduced waste streams, with the longest lived isotope being U-232 with a half life of 69 years. The most abundant isotope from closed-cycle thorium reburn is Th-228, which is an intense alpha-emitter but with a half life of 2 years

Unfortunately, even lab-scale research in this field is exotically expensive. However, if we can "justify" hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up criminally mismanaged banks, car companies, and investment firms, we *should* be able to cough up $2-3 billion for needed research in this area