Nuclear Power Plants

[Chino]

I'm sure you are all aware of what is going on in Japan right now, and that a NPP exploded the other day. Every news channel I have stopped on this morning has been debating whether nuclear power is really a smart investment. Where do you guys stand on this. IMO, nuclear power hasn't gotten enough funding. If half the money we spent on maintaining ties with the Saudis went toward nuclear R&D, we would not be entering this energy crisis. I think to shift away from nuclear power is a really stupid move.

[GuineaPig]

I think more funding is necessary for nuclear power plants.  It's the only clean stopgap between our modern technology and the decades before fusion reactors become feasible.

[zerogravityfat]

I am very hopeful of the nuclear fusion reactors, I think they are going to solve all our problems eventually.

[XJDenton]

Fusion will solve our problems in 30 years (like for the last 60 years). Problem is we have around 5 to find a new power source for the interim period.

[pogoowner]

We should be building nuclear plants all over the place. It just doesn't make any sense not to.

[kári]

We should be building nuclear plants all over the place. It just doesn't make any sense not to.

Then what about the waste?

[orcus116]

The amount of nuclear waste that is produced is far more insignificant than a normal person would imagine it is. I'm 100% behind nuclear power as it's the most efficient energy source that we currently have with the least environmental impact.

[Chino]

We should be building nuclear plants all over the place. It just doesn't make any sense not to.

Then what about the waste?

Its nothing compared to the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

We should be building nuclear plants all over the place. It just doesn't make any sense not to.

Then what about the waste?

Its nothing compared to the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere.

The difference there is that we're not actually sure yet if CO2 has negative consequences for the environment. In fact, recent research seems to suggest the CO2 concentration doesn't have anything to do with climate change. We do know for sure that nuclear waste is very damaging to the environment.

[Chino]

We should be building nuclear plants all over the place. It just doesn't make any sense not to.

Then what about the waste?

Its nothing compared to the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere.

The difference there is that we're not actually sure yet if CO2 has negative consequences for the environment. In fact, recent research seems to suggest the CO2 concentration doesn't have anything to do with climate change. We do know for sure that nuclear waste is very damaging to the environment.

I'm not sure if you could ever "prove" CO2 has negative consequences. The best we can do is try and be pretty damn sure. Based on the data we have today, there is pretty solid evidence for it. Green house gases have turned Venus into a furnace, and the lack of green house gases turned mars into a refrigerator. One can at least conclude that the existence of green house gases has some kind of affect on the state of a planet. We can't prove CO2 levels have negative effects, but why even risk it.

[wkiml]

i say we just blow them all up

[In The Name Of Rudess]

Based on the data we have today, there is pretty solid evidence for it.

Well, I haven't seen it yet.

Now whether we can prove CO2 levels have negatives effects or not may be disputed, but why even try taking the risk.

I don't think you realize just how much money and effort it costs to lower CO2 levels.

Also, you say using nuclear energy is bad, but you don't provide an alternative. Research and development, sure, but where are we going to get our power from until they find a new source of energy?

[LearningToLive]

Now whether we can prove CO2 levels have negatives effects or not may be disputed, but why even try taking the risk.

I don't think you realize just how much money and effort it costs to lower CO2 levels.

Also, you say using nuclear energy is bad, but you don't provide an alternative. Research and development, sure, but where are we going to get our power from until they find a new source of energy?

He is not against the use of Nuclear Power Plants. Re-read the OP. Also, the thinking that you have here is the entire source of our environmental problems today. All people care about is the cost of things in the short term. This tunnel vision way of thinking is the whole reason we are so behind and in an energy crisis.

The best way to reduce CO2 is not to modify our current energy infrastructure but to invest in alternative energies alltogether.

[ddtonfire]

Concerning the situation with the nuclear power plants in Japan; here's a good article posted by my friend who is a nuclear engineering student:

https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/#com-head

[In The Name Of Rudess]

He is not against the use of Nuclear Power Plants. Re-read the OP.

I get the impression that he's against nuclear power plants in their current form, since he says they should put a lot of money in nuclear R&D.

Also, the thinking that you have here is the entire source of our environmental problems today. All people care about is the cost of things in the short term. This tunnel vision way of thinking is the whole reason we are so behind and in an energy crisis.

Great. Let's think about the long-term and shut down all our factories and power plants and stop driving our cars.

Seriously, I see your point, but it's unrealistic. I think it's more tunnel vision on your end. Of course I would prefer a good long-term solution, but we can't just stop using energy until we find one.

The best way to reduce CO2 is not to modify our current energy infrastructure but to invest in alternative energies alltogether.

Indeed. But no-one is going to do that. Remember, we're in a capitalist society. Profit is all that matters.

And, before you say anything else about CO2, check this out: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-DVD/dp/B000WLUXZE

[Chino]

I don't think you realize just how much money and effort it costs to lower CO2 levels.

This is the worst argument for this debate. The research for the technology is going to have to be done regardless if it is bad for the environment not. Let's pretend that CO2 from fossil fuels help the planet. We are still going to run out eventually. At some point in time, we will need to look elsewhere for an energy source. The potential prolonging of the existence of our species is worth the price.

Lets pretend 100 years from now, it is infact concluded that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has got way out of control, and is infact going to cook the Earth. We discover that the severe damage is already done, and will take the planet thousands of years to rebalance itself. I don't want to be part of the generation that said as a whole, why worry about it, there's no concrete evidence. And at the very least, it does not hurt to know all areas of science, it will be worth it in time to understand and harness every bit of everything nature has given us to use at our disposal.

[Implode]

I totally agree with Chino.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

I don't think you realize just how much money and effort it costs to lower CO2 levels.

This is the worst argument for this debate. The research for the technology is going to have to be done regardless if it is bad for the environment not. Let's pretend that CO2 helps the planet. We are still going to run out eventually. At some point in time, we will need to look elsewhere for an energy source. The potential prolonging of the existence of our species is worth the price.

Yes, I agree. I never said that it's a bad idea to exploit new sources of energy. It's just that in the mean time the money and effort that's being spent on lowering CO2-levels would be better spent at researching new energy sources.

[Chino]

I get the impression that he's against nuclear power plants in their current form, since he says they should put a lot of money in nuclear R&D.

I'm not against it at all. I said it hasn't gotten enough funding. In the last 30 years, if we spent half the money we spent on trying to get every bit of energy out of a drop of oil we could, and instead invested in nuclear research, we'd be in a lot better place.

Great. Let's think about the long-term and shut down all our factories and power plants and stop driving our cars.

Seriously, I see your point, but it's unrealistic. I think it's more tunnel vision on your end. Of course I would prefer a good long-term solution, but we can't just stop using energy until we find one.

No one here suggested we shut down the facotires and stop driving until we come up with a solution. Obviously the way we live would have to remain the same until we have finished researching and perfecting. It's just like people still have cars that get 20 miles to the gallon, while a new similar one gets 40. Technology advances, and the people catch up.

Indeed. But no-one is going to do that. Remember, we're in a capitalist society. Profit is all that matters.

What, is nuclear energy going to be free? People will profit on nuclear power in the future.

[rumborak]

A question here: Aren't there ways of building plants that don't have runaway meltdowns? I was under the impression there are inherently safe power plants.

rumborak

[TL]

Nuclear power is a great option.
Modern reactors are actually quite safe. The risk associated with them is lower than ever, and in newer reactors, the by-products are 100% safe after just a few years (as opposed to around 100 years with much older reactors). In relation to the environment, they're completely green, and after the initial cost of manufacturing the plant itself, the fuel price to energy output ratio actually makes it quite cost effective.

France basically has energy independence thanks to nuclear power.

[bosk1]

Yes, but...it's still France.

[GuineaPig]

Indeed. But no-one is going to do that. Remember, we're in a capitalist society. Profit is all that matters.

And, before you say anything else about CO2, check this out: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-DVD/dp/B000WLUXZE

lol

I wouldn't mind having a debate on this in P/R, but not in this thread.

[Dublagent66]

A question here: Aren't there ways of building plants that don't have runaway meltdowns? I was under the impression there are inherently safe power plants.

rumborak

There are.  Nuclear power is very safe.  The issue is, how many of them are subjected to earthquakes and tsunamis?  At the same time?

[El Barto]

A question here: Aren't there ways of building plants that don't have runaway meltdowns? I was under the impression there are inherently safe power plants.

rumborak

There are.  Nuclear power is very safe.  The issue is, how many of them are subjected to earthquakes and tsunamis?  At the same time?

And even in this case, they've still managed to prevent a major meltdown.  They've got a huge mess to clean up, but it'll certainly be manageable.

Concerning the situation with the nuclear power plants in Japan; here's a good article posted by my friend who is a nuclear engineering student:

https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/#com-head

Excellent write-up.  I'd already done some reading up on BWR's, but his was a nice description with some good cutaways. 

[kári]

I don't think you realize just how much money and effort it costs to lower CO2 levels.

This is the worst argument for this debate. The research for the technology is going to have to be done regardless if it is bad for the environment not. Let's pretend that CO2 from fossil fuels help the planet. We are still going to run out eventually. At some point in time, we will need to look elsewhere for an energy source. The potential prolonging of the existence of our species is worth the price.

Lets pretend 100 years from now, it is infact concluded that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has got way out of control, and is infact going to cook the Earth. We discover that the severe damage is already done, and will take the planet thousands of years to rebalance itself. I don't want to be part of the generation that said as a whole, why worry about it, there's no concrete evidence. And at the very least, it does not hurt to know all areas of science, it will be worth it in time to understand and harness every bit of everything nature has given us to use at our disposal.

But you do want to be part of the generation that said as a whole, why worry about the nuclear waste, there's concrete evidence it is extremely harmful to our planet but it's cheap?
We should keep nuclear power to a minimum. Find a good balance between power from fossil fuels and nuclear power until we find a better one.
The CO2 damage is already done. If we keep doing what we're doing for another 100 years or we completely stop using fossil fuels, it's not going to make a difference. The amount of nuclear waste we produce will.

[TL]

But you do want to be part of the generation that said as a whole, why worry about the nuclear waste, there's concrete evidence it is extremely harmful to our planet but it's cheap?
We should keep nuclear power to a minimum. Find a good balance between power from fossil fuels and nuclear power until we find a better one.

Except that with most new reactor designs, nuclear waste isn't really a problem, because after a few years, it becomes completely harmless. Yes, it was a problem with old plants, where the waste had to be contained somewhere for decades or more, but that just isn't the case with more modern designs.

The CO2 damage is already done. If we keep doing what we're doing for another 100 years or we completely stop using fossil fuels, it's not going to make a difference. The amount of nuclear waste we produce will.

You don't actually think this, do you? There isn't some maximum amount of damage fossil fuels can do. Their effects are going to keep compounding as long as we're using them. If anything, the argument would be that what we do doesn't matter all that much because China is going to keep using fossil fuels excessively for decades to come.

The best combination for the time being is nuclear and hydro for as much as possible, with wind/solar/etc here and there, and fossil fuels only when absolutely necessary.

[kári]

But you do want to be part of the generation that said as a whole, why worry about the nuclear waste, there's concrete evidence it is extremely harmful to our planet but it's cheap?
We should keep nuclear power to a minimum. Find a good balance between power from fossil fuels and nuclear power until we find a better one.

Except that with most new reactor designs, nuclear waste isn't really a problem, because after a few years, it becomes completely harmless. Yes, it was a problem with old plants, where the waste had to be contained somewhere for decades or more, but that just isn't the case with more modrn designs.

Source? I don't see how radioactive material can become "harmless", the radiation has to go somewhere...

The CO2 damage is already done. If we keep doing what we're doing for another 100 years or we completely stop using fossil fuels, it's not going to make a difference. The amount of nuclear waste we produce will.

You don't actually think this, do you? There isn't some maximum amount of damage fossil fuels can do. Their effects are going to keep compounding as long as we're using them. If anything, the argument would be that what we do doesn't matter all that much because China is going to keep using fossil fuels excessively for decades to come.

Of course there isn't a maximum amount, but my point is that the "process" has "started" and whether we keep doing what we do or stop emitting CO2 (which we can't, because we breathe), the difference is going to be miniscule.

[Chino]

Of course there isn't a maximum amount, but my point is that the "process" has "started" and whether we keep doing what we do or stop emitting CO2 (which we can't, because we breathe), the difference is going to be miniscule.

We have pumped enough CO2 in the air over the last 100 years to the point where we can observe changes all over the globe. Imagine 200 years, or even 300. What we have done can be fixed, if we don't change it soon we are in deep shit. CO2 over time will leak out of the atmosphere and into space, we need to keep ourselves and check and not pump out more per year than escapes. The amount of CO2 humans exhale would easily be consumed by plant life. I know this because animals have been making CO2 as a by product since they emerged.

[rumborak]

And even in this case, they've still managed to prevent a major meltdown.  They've got a huge mess to clean up, but it'll certainly be manageable.

That still remains to be seen. One reactor has its fuel rods exposed to the open, which means there is no cooling for that reactor. They're far from being in the clear.

BTW, I accidentally watched some CNN news yesterday about this, and the verbiage of the news host was appalling. First he commented the pictures of the wreckage as "amazing, amazing pictures", and then he asked a reporter on the ground to give him a "play by play" of what he experienced.

rumborak

rumborak

[kala1928]

So us fins are reacting to all this with a very calm collective manner.

apteekki = pharmacist
jodi = iodine (pills)



People stormed the pharmacies in fear of a nuclear fallout and some ran out of iodine pills. Also, its election this or next month (shows how much I care) and a lot of the politicians have taken the situation into their anti-nuclear energy campaign with stupid blanket statements such as (quoted from a blog) "Allthough this situation does not affect Finland nor could it ever happen in Finland we still have to change our nuclear policies (to anti-)".

Sigh, our country is still so backwater in so many ways.

[adameastment]

Nuclear will be the only way eventually, thats pretty much a fact. I don't think there is enough solar/wind power that will power the whole planet... We need something that is stable, and something that has a definite failsafe. In the UK, it's not much of a problem, the most seismic activity we have is when a sparrow farts.

I'm all for it!

[TheVoxyn]

And even in this case, they've still managed to prevent a major meltdown.  They've got a huge mess to clean up, but it'll certainly be manageable.

That still remains to be seen. One reactor has its fuel rods exposed to the open, which means there is no cooling for that reactor. They're far from being in the clear.

BTW, I accidentally watched some CNN news yesterday about this, and the verbiage of the news host was appalling. First he commented the pictures of the wreckage as "amazing, amazing pictures", and then he asked a reporter on the ground to give him a "play by play" of what he experienced.

rumborak

That's just one of the many appaling reactions I have heard from Americans. Not to be generalizing, but some people in the US need to take their head out of their ass.

[ricky]

the word "nuclear" has a tendency to alter people's perceptions.

[MetalManiac666]

Not only is the Fukushima incident bad because of the possible effects of the radiation, etc., it's also fueling the misconceptions many have about nuclear power.  Nuclear power needs to play more of a role in our energy needs.

The best combination for the time being is nuclear and hydro for as much as possible, with wind/solar/etc here and there, and fossil fuels only when absolutely necessary.

This.