Nuclear Power: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
The reason why I'm posting this is because I have a student job at a big German company, and I'm in a branch of it that builds power plants all around the world. The section responsible for nuclear plants was sold a while ago, mostly because of the uneasiness in the broad public towards nuclear power (bad PR, you know), to a French company.
It seems that in France, it is not a subject to such public dispute than in Germany. Of course, I could be mistaken there.
I am starting this thread because I'm interested in other people's opinions towards the subject, and thought it would be a nice controversial discussion topic- these tend to liven up things here. I will voice my own opinion later on.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION (Optional Reading)
I think a controversial subject such as this can not be properly discussed without people knowing the complete background. Therefore, I will try to cover all important aspects objectively and to an adequate level of completeness.

How Nuclear Energy Works
A nuclear power plant works with precisely the same principles as any other power plant does. Steam is produced that drives steam turbines. The steam turbines' movement is translated into energy.
The big differences between power plants are the ways the steam is produced. Coal plants produce it by burning coal, gas plants by burning gas, hydro plants produce the turbine movement with flowing water and so on.
A nuclear power plant has got a special way of producing steam. Uranium atoms are being shot at with neutrons. The Uranium atoms split, releasing neutrons which collide with further atoms. This is the nuclear chain reaction, which goes on. This produces a lot of heat energy, which turns into steam. If uncontrolled, the energy released is so immense that it can level entire cities- an atomic bomb. However, nuclear power plants use fuel rods to control the reaction. However, these can be used only once, are being burnt out and become infested with a lot of radioactivity, which was released by the Uranium atoms.

The Benefits Of Nuclear Energy
Nuclear Energy has a lot of benefits. First of all, it is very much more efficient than any fossil fuel (coal, gas, oil); a nuclear chain reaction produces much more energy than, say, burning coal does. This means that one nuclear power plant can provide energy to many more households than a coal plant can. Also, the burning of fossil fuels produces atmospheric pollution. The effect of burning coal ranges from "simple" air pollution to atmospheric damage, such as the ozon hole.
Other types of power plants, such as hydroelectric dams, are not as friendly to the environment as a first glance would suggest. While these do not cause any environmental pollution, they require very much space. Also, they create artificial lakes, which tend to mess up the existing local eco-system. Huge areas are being flooded, destroying natural habitats (and also potential or existing settling grounds for people). River life is practically non-existent around such a dam.
Nuclear Energy does not produce any atmospheric pollution. The only emission they produce is water steam, from the cooling towers, which serve to cool down the reactors. They also do not take up as much space or destroy the eco-system or any of that.

The Problems Of Nuclear Energy
The main problem of nuclear energy is the high ratio of radioactivity that is being set free. Radioactivity exists everywhere in the world, but the concentration is usually so low that it is completely unnoticeable. The grade of radioactivity set free in relation with nuclear energy is so high that it does not only exceed the natural concentration by completely unimaginable relations, it also does considerable harm to the environment. Plants, animals and human beings exposed to a high grade of radioactivity can develop many symptoms, from unfertility to cancer to immediate death, depending on the level of concentration. The effects are usually disastrous, but sometimes very difficult for anybody to actually recognise.
Nuclear plants are usually well shielded to prevent any form of radioactivity from entering the environment, but measurements have shown that the grade of radioactivity in the environment of a nuclear power plant are usually much higher than the average normal concentration. Also, in many countries, as for example Russia or North Korea, the level of security is not so high, so radioactivity is actually set free to the environment.
The biggest problem is the presence of the burnt out fuel rods. They are simply garbage, because they have become useless, but due to the immensely high radioactivity, they just can't be thrown away. Attempts to create storage facilities are always very controversial, mostly because they are often not considered safe, and the local residents are particularly afraid of radioactivity that could be coming from these facilities.
Another problem with nuclear power plants is that the chain reactions can get out of control (Nuclear meltdown). The risk of this happening is absolutely minimal, borderlining zero, and most power plants are absolutely safe in these regards, but the effect of only one chain reaction getting out of control can be devastating; the power plant can explode, and radioactivity is distributed way beyond the territory the plant is situated in. The effects of the Chernobyl disaster were felt in all of Europe, and even Iceland measured a higher than normal concentration of radioactivity.

End of story. Thanks for listening. Goodnight, children.
 
Nuclear is the way of the future. Oil will run out, solar and wind power is unreliable, but nuclear is safe, effective, and cheap.

Without going into too much technical detail, let me just say that you can't compare Chernobyl to a modern WESTERN nuclear reactor.

The model used in Chernobyl (and still in use in parts of Eastern Europe) is called the RBMK, and had design flaws which stopped the cooling rods from being inserted when it got too hot.
All Western reactors, on the other hand, use a completely different method of cooling. It is a matter of simple laws of conservation of mass and motion that make these systems impossible to meltdown like Chernobyl. Contrary to what you claim, they release no radioactive material into the atomsphere on a regular basis - it is collected as waste (disposing of that waste is a big problem, I admit. Read up on Yucka Mountain.)


I don't have time to fully explain all this right now ::
But my thesis advisor wrote his PhD dissertation on Chernobyl, so we've doine alot of talking on this subject. (if you're interested, it's available for download Here)
 
[!--quoteo(post=132869:date=Mar 24 2006, 04:03 PM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Mar 24 2006, 04:03 PM) [snapback]132869[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Nuclear is the way of the future. Oil will run out, solar and wind power is unreliable, but nuclear is safe, effective, and cheap.
[/quote]
Nuclear may well be the way of the future but not bog-standard fission plants like what was in Chernobyl and in other places in the world.
Scientists at present are trying to design a fusion reactor which should be safer and produces little (or no) radioactive waste. Basically they are trying to recreate the effect of the sun but only on earth, which is not an easy task. They have to get hydrogen deuterium and tritium molecules to fuse together to release energy whilst maintaining them inside enormous pressures, temperatures and avoid contact with any matter.

I'm not an expert on the topic but that above knowledge (much simplified) is aquired from my GCSE physics lessons. The only problem is that the reactors built so far don't work because even tiny dust particles will prevent the reaction. The first proper reactor shall be built in the south of France but it could take over 50 years to get the hitches sorted. By that time global warming will probably have taken over us all anyway :: Maybe Iron Maiden should write a "social consience" epic song on the matter? [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":P\" border=\"0\" alt=\"tongue.gif\" /]

EDIT: Here is a link to the site of ITER where you can read more about the fusion reactor programme [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\";)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"wink.gif\" /]
 
Fusion is currently impossible to create sustainable reactions with, however. Fission will become the way of the future. I believe we'll end up turning a lifeless orbital body such as Mercury or Venus into a disposable wasteground for our radioactive waste - or just possibly shoot it into the sun.

I'm not joking - radioactive waste disposal is going to be a huge project and there's nowhere on earth anyone wants it...
 
THe biggest problem with waste disposal isn't finding a safe place to put it - there're plenty of uninhabited areas (such as the Sahara, Outback, the Rockies, etc.)

The real problem is how do you put a permanant warning in front of the disposal site? The waste stays deadly for something like 100,000 years; in that amount of time, assuming we haven't wiped ourselves out, how do we know if the warning signs we use today (i.e. skull and crossbones, radioactive symbol, etc.) will carry the same meaning?
One suggestion is to take the waste into space, and fling it into the sun. This makes alot more sense than one might think, since the sun is a giant ball of radiation anyway. The pnly problem is, of course, getting the stuff into space without risking contamination of Florida and half the Caribbean if an accident happens during liftoff.
 
[!--quoteo--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]take the waste into space, and fling it into the sun.[/quote]

If the sun is basically a giant ball of radiation, then won't that make the sun bigger? My science teacher said that the sun is going to burn out and while it is it will expand an eventually collide with and destroy the Earth. So wouldn't that be like putting wood in a fire? Plus it would most likely increase temperature a considerable amount.
 
[!--quoteo(post=132914:date=Mar 25 2006, 02:04 AM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Mar 25 2006, 02:04 AM) [snapback]132914[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
The only problem is, of course, getting the stuff into space without risking contamination of Florida and half the Caribbean if an accident happens during liftoff.
[/quote]
Well, it's not so tough as you think. Like you said, there's plenty of places that are uninhabited. A launchsite there would be the best option. Plus, containers can be created that are explosion-proof - consider an atomic bomb, the isotope is encased in metal that can't be destroyed in a rocket or bomb or aircraft explosion. Yes, it will leak radiation, but not to catastrophic extent.
 
[!--quoteo(post=132915:date=Mar 24 2006, 10:23 PM:name=slave to the power of death)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(slave to the power of death @ Mar 24 2006, 10:23 PM) [snapback]132915[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
If the sun is basically a giant ball of radiation, then won't that make the sun bigger? My science teacher said that the sun is going to burn out and while it is it will expand an eventually collide with and destroy the Earth. So wouldn't that be like putting wood in a fire? Plus it would most likely increase temperature a considerable amount.
[/quote]


The sun's volume is 1,300,000 times that of earth, with a density so great it'd make our heads implode. The entire thing is a bunch of chain reactions collapsing in on themselves.
The sun is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to the sun. If all the uranium on the planet Earth were enriched and used in nuclear production and the waste then thrown into the sun at the same time, not even our most sensitive instruments could measure the difference.
Christ, if the entire Earth were a pot of nuclear waste and it was tossed into the sun, it'd scarcely register.
 
Plus, the explosion of the sun is schedueled for a couple of billion years from now...


Anyway, I believe that if the power plants are well designed, and the creators have safety in their mind at every step, nuclear power is a risk worth taking. We just can't keep on using coal and oil to power up everything...

One alternative that I, myself think is worth doing, is decomposing water into H and O, by running electricity through it. Then, by burning the hydrogen, (mixing it with Oxigen) you get heat, which can be then used to do whatever you want (power up your car, create more electricity).
The good things about this is that the only emmision is water, and that hydrogen burns at high temperatures. For some reason, though, I hear it's almost impossible to acheive... ::
 
[!--quoteo(post=132920:date=Mar 25 2006, 03:19 AM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Mar 25 2006, 03:19 AM) [snapback]132920[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
The sun is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to the sun.
[/quote]

Liking the Hitchhikers Guide reference. DON'T PANIC!
 
[!--quoteo(post=132930:date=Mar 25 2006, 01:23 PM:name=Black Ace)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Black Ace @ Mar 25 2006, 01:23 PM) [snapback]132930[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
One alternative that I, myself think is worth doing, is decomposing water into H and O, by running electricity through it. Then, by burning the hydrogen, (mixing it with Oxigen) you get heat, which can be then used to do whatever you want (power up your car, create more electricity).
The good things about this is that the only emmision is water, and that hydrogen burns at high temperatures. For some reason, though, I hear it's almost impossible to acheive... ::
[/quote]
This plan sounds impossible because it defies the conservation of energy. If we use electricity to electrolyse the water, then burn the hydrogen and generate electricity... we are creating energy. If the water can be used over and over again producing electricity each time, we are creating energy which defies the laws of physics. The plan does sound logical but I don't see how it can work ::
 
[!--quoteo(post=132914:date=Mar 24 2006, 07:04 PM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Mar 24 2006, 07:04 PM) [snapback]132914[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
THe biggest problem with waste disposal isn't finding a safe place to put it - there're plenty of uninhabited areas (such as the Sahara, Outback, the Rockies, etc.)
[/quote]
Hey! I live very close to the Rockies. Don't be suggesting that people dump that waste in my backyard. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":P\" border=\"0\" alt=\"tongue.gif\" /]
 
Launching the crap into the sun isn't the worst of ideas. I would support any government starting such a project. I only hope they won't pass a law against leprechauns fucking rabbits underneath a rainbow when they get in power.
 
@ Conor- well who said that laws which were enounced by humans are universal? [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\";)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"wink.gif\" /] [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"^_^\" border=\"0\" alt=\"happy.gif\" /]
 
[!--quoteo(post=132949:date=Mar 25 2006, 08:19 PM:name=Perun)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Mar 25 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]132949[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
I only hope they won't pass a law against leprechauns fucking rabbits underneath a rainbow when they get in power.
[/quote]
That would mean Black Dragon, Hunlord, Silky and I would have our favourite hobby outlawed ::

I suppose firing the radioactive matter into space would be a good idea indeed, especially seeing as that to launch the waste, we can use energy from the plants so I don't think the launches could be such a big problem as space travel is at the present [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\";)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"wink.gif\" /]

EDIT: @ Black Ace - ::
 
[!--quoteo(post=132869:date=Mar 24 2006, 04:03 PM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Mar 24 2006, 04:03 PM) [snapback]132869[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]

Without going into too much technical detail, let me just say that you can't compare Chernobyl to a modern WESTERN nuclear reactor.

[/quote]

Who said the best reactors are WESTERN reactors? As far as I know JAPAN is leading the charge in Nuclear plants because they don't have enough space or raw materials for any other type of dependable power plant.
 
Your point is well taken, Onhell. My bad.

But Japan is just one country and nobody really listens to them anyway, no matter how much sense they make [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\";)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"wink.gif\" /]

There's also a schol of thought in which it is argued that Japan is technologically Western, but socially/culturally unique. Some even say the island nation is the greatest embodiment of Westernism in a technological sense. (I myself don't agree totally, but I thought I'd put it out there).


Japan's early cultural and religious history, after all, bears the marks of Westernization - alot of it was made in China! ::
 
And I'd argue that Japan's culture and technology is concentrated Western rather than anything unique anymore, but...still, its the same technology we use here.
 
[!--quoteo(post=132957:date=Mar 25 2006, 09:47 PM:name=Conor)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Conor @ Mar 25 2006, 09:47 PM) [snapback]132957[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
That would mean Black Dragon, Hunlord, Silky and I would have our favourite hobby outlawed ::

[/quote]

Oi! I refuse to take that disgusting implication about my sexuality lightly, you know! [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\";)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"wink.gif\" /]

Nuclear power may be the future, but it's impractical for many of the countries in the world today. Let's look at the fuel source-Uranium. It's highly radioactive, and so very difiicult to extract and store safely. Then we have the set-costs of a nuclear plant. Just building a safe, useable reactor would be beyond a lot of countries' budgets right now. Okay, once you have the nuclear plant going, it is ludicrously energy-efficient (I think it releases something like 200 times more energy than coal), but the maintenance costs are sky-high. The waste problem is also paramount-you may say 'Fire it into the sun', but even the US doesn't have that kind of space power yet, nor will they for a long time. To get a single space shuttle into orbit is a multi-million dollar operation, and this would be millions of times more technical (even if you sen an unmanned vessel to the deed). All this is on top of the costs already in place from the nuclear set-up; any country looking at nuclear energy, while it is one of the best fuel sources available to us now, is taking a big risk, not least at possible dissention from the 'local yokels' who have a potential Hiroshiman in their back yard [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\";)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"wink.gif\" /]
 
Back
Top