the Nuclear Question

Nuclear power may be safe, but the waste isn't, and it is criminal to saddle future generations ad infinitum with deadly problems we create. Besides, nuclear power is centralized and therefore will benefit a chosen few investors while making the majority keep paying the corporations who have been empowered to become abusive to the average Joe. Better for the majority in the long run to advance decentralized renewable power resources.

 

Renewable fusion in the form of solar power is far safer, is decentralized (can be placed on top of every church, school, home and business) and generated minimal or easily controlled waste. In contrast is fission that contaminates everything and generates radioactive waste that must be supervised for 500,000 years or more.

If you think and act short-term (least cost, first use), then fission nuclear appears reasonable. If you think and act long-term (least cost, end use), then renewables such as fusion make more sense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 21 2006, 08:09 AM) [snapback]289955[/snapback]</div>

So, there is no way that spent nuclear fuel can ever be disposed of or redirected. Ever? That is a very dark view and condemnation of the abilities of our future engineers. Humankind HAS fugured out how to do a lot of things once considered impossible before.

As to the second part, I still pay SDG&E for electric power transmission no matter where it originates, and will do so for the long and foreseeable future. Cost to me is the same whether it is a new and modern nuclear plant or a new and modern fossil-fuel fired plant; in fact the former is more likely cleaner for your grandchildren.

Decentralized power works nicely if you have 40 acres with nothing to restrict you; most of us have to suffer building code restrictions and CC&Rs, so that turbine and PV network won't work for us.






<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Jul 21 2006, 08:43 AM) [snapback]289968[/snapback]</div>

I was not aware that anyone had succeeded with fusion?

Uh, and where do I buy and license this fusion device for my barn? Is it available now, or is it 10 years away?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 21 2006, 09:49 AM) [snapback]289971[/snapback]</div>

I think he's talking about the Sun. It's a pretty well tested fusion device.

I would rather see us use nuclear power in the short run over coal during that same time. Coal emits more radioactive particles than a nuclear power plant of similar size. Nuclear does use more water per kilowatthour, which could definitely be an issue in the west. Pebble bed Reactors (don't know how far out these are) sound like a solution to many of the typical nuclear power problems.

Long term nuclear still isn't renewable so we'll have to keep working on the same issues. I'd just be happy to keep lowering the carbon foot print of our power generation.

Distributed energy generation makes a lot of sense and you don't have to generate excess power all of the time for it to be a solution. Using it to reduce the amount of imported power is still a very viable option.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 21 2006, 08:49 AM) [snapback]289971[/snapback]</div>

FOLKS, here is the difference between neocons and progressives. The world is all about the individual neocon. Progressives look to the future of everyone.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 21 2006, 09:47 AM) [snapback]289998[/snapback]</div>

So tell me, oh lord and self-appointed assayer of all that is written, what part of my statement and questions led YOU to condemn ME?

All that I said was that the TRANSMISSION of power, however it is generated, is of little consequence(or cost difference) to me.

AND, it is NOT illegal for private enterprise to profit for their efforts; that wind turbine ain't free and neither is the photovaltaic array.

I live in a state that for whatever reason, cannnot for the life of it figure out how to write an energy law that actually allows me to decide where my energy comes from. If you do, more power to you; I am stuck with an overbearing State regulated system that seems to work against honest efforts at alternate power.

And lastly, I have voted for far more so-called 'progressives' than 'neocans'

 

I thank you for posting this article. I had no idea (maybe I should be embarrassed) that the majority of nuclear waste can be recycled. This alters my views on this form of energy. I am aware that we have a tremendous disposal problem. I don't like the idea of having truck loads of the waste traversing our country to make their Yucca. These vehicles would probably by going through or near major cities and I think it presents too big of a threat. We can't even keep our airlines, borders, etc. secure. In reading this, it looks like 3% of the spent fuel is hazardous. Is the other 97% of the spent fuel inert?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jul 21 2006, 11:26 AM) [snapback]290046[/snapback]</div>

It's not inert - it's fuel. The reprocessed uranium goes back into fuel rods to be put back in reactors. Think about it -- if the uranium has a half life measured in millions of years, then it can't be "used up" in 30 or 50 years in a reactor. It gets converted to other isotopes which then get reprocessed, separated, and used again.

Nuclear power is much disparaged by the community which should be promoting its use. Its one of the reasons I often wonder about the motivations of my brothers in the green movement. Are we trying to reduce carbon footprint or trying to get rid of capitalist dogs?

 

Well isn't this all silly. So we have a form of recycable energy that is virtually non-polluting (hazardous maybe, but non polluting) and we are not using it to it's capacity but looking for ways to "dispose" of it safely at Yucca or under the ocean floor. At the very least, this should be recycled for use in our existing plants. Now I need to write some letters :angry:

I do still favor renewable, alternative types of energy because they are obviously safer....I'm not sure I'd be comfortable residing next to a nuclear power plant.

 

I think there's still too much of a fear factor for the general population to accept nuclear power with open arms. Chernobyl wasn't that long ago, nuclear power plants make great terrorist targets, and the waste problem has not been solved, despite our best efforts to sweep it under the rug. I don't think it's a matter of 're-educating' the public. I think there are enough legitimate concerns with nuclear fission to make other alternatives to petroleum the wiser choice.

 

I work at a nuclear plant and I have been at the Yucca site (as well as the nearby Nuclear test site when it was in use).

Too many people express an opinion about how unsafe they are without knowing what they are talking about. We can withstand the same hit that the world trade centers took, we are so redundant that the Control Room can be lost and we can still shut down.

If you really want to worry about something....visit you local chemical plant.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(km5er @ Jul 22 2006, 12:09 PM) [snapback]290268[/snapback]</div>

Okay. I am confused.

A typical fission nuclear reactor does this:

U-235 => lots of power + waste

waste = 2% U-235, 95% U-238, 1% Plutonium-239

Question #1. That is 98%. What is the other 2% waste?

You can have reverse feeder reactors that run off Plutonium, they run off a combination of Plutonium and U-235.

They generate 2% U-235, and a little P-239, and a bunch of U-238.

You can use the U-238 for depleted Uranium shells.

AND you can use the U-238 to create "feeder" reactors, that generate some power and lots of plutonium.

You can alternatively let the U-238 sit for a few years, and end up with some P-239.

With lots of plutonium, you can create Plutonium reactors.

Everything gets used except. You'll generate so much U-238 you'll not know what to do with it.

Only, P-239 is some really nasty stuff, so is U-235, and U-238.

Technically speaking, I think you can re-use *everything* off a nuclear power plant. The only issue is so much U-235 gets generated, that I don't think we can use it all, or know what to do with it all.

Question #2. Is there any process, we can use to use up the U-238 and end up with something that isn't nasty?


Jimmy

 

While it makes sense to use all of the renewable resources that we can, please recognize, fellow Prians, that they can never, never replace all of the energy that we consume in the form of fossil fuels, which will run out some day. This is a very serious issue. We need options, nuclear power is one of them.

 

The waste products of concern are elements like Iodine, Cesium, Strontium, Xenon, and Barium. When an atom of Uranium is split, it releases energy and neutrinos. The fragments of the atom become other elements, some of which are highly radioactive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lil Mo @ Jul 21 2006, 10:12 PM) [snapback]290321[/snapback]</div>

Last time I checked the Sun bathes the earth in more energy in one hour than the entire world uses in one year. A "solarized" area 102 miles sq would provide enough energy to run the US using current PV technology. Obviously there are storage issues and the like but I'm using this to illustrate the fact that the earth absorbs a monstrous amount of energy from the sun everyday.

I think somewhere around 2% of that solar energy ends up as wind energy. Some of that can be harvested by turbines and some via wave energy devices. Then there's tidal and geothermal energy. Biomass/gas are also players along with waste to energy (I suppose you could lump that in with biogas, but there's also ethanol/butanol/bio diesel to be extracted from the waste so maybe not).

Mind you, I'm not talking down nuclear. I think that it could be used to buy us some time if we used it to replace coal fired power generation. However, as Dave pointed out, it's still a finite resource and won't solve our problems long term.