Nuclear power

A lot of countries in the world (likely including the one you live in) rely in part on nuclear power, but it's a controversial power source. (What isn't?) There are a lot of arguments that are pro- an anti-nuclear power.

On the pro-side:

• It doesn't pollute like coal, oil, and other fossil fuels
• Consistent power source compared to solar, wind, etc.

On the anti-side:

• Nuclear waste is a problem to store and disasters (Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) are especially devastating
• Possible misuse and/or nuclear material falling into the wrong hands

There are, of course, many other issues that affect how people feel about this issue. So how do you feel about nuclear power?

It's difficult to argue against with the exception of mentioning the freak accidents that occurred in Chernobyl and Fukushima. Ultimately it's the best way of gathering energy if you don't factor in these horrific incidents. I think ultimately it's worth the risk since fossil fuels are destroying more of the world than a nuclear reactor could manage and alternative sources aren't reliable enough at this point in time.

The UK has just got new plans for a nuclear plant through Chinese investment I believe and I'm fully supportive of that potential economic benefit. Similar to bobandbill's post below, we're unlikely to be hit by a natural disaster and I imagine the plants are well regulated here.

So long as the oversight and regulations are there to keep a watchful eye on nuclear facilities, I would advocate for increased usage. It's also important to note that those accidents are freak, worst-case-scenario ones. You protect against cutting corners with very rigid rules & regulations that are enforced by an agency with teeth, so to speak. Yes, disposing of that waste is troublesome, but again, with proper oversight and whatnot to ensure that radioactive waste isn't stored anywhere close to population centers, freshwater sources, or large wildernesses of value, like a national park per say, then the risk is minimized a bit. Still there, but its really the best we can do. Unless you want to start jettisoning nuclear waste into space.

I'm for using it, but I don't think it'll easily happen over here in Australia. Which is a same, we're an ideal place for it. We have a lot of uranium that we sell to other countries, and yet we're largely free of a lot of natural disasters. Earthquakes? Barely anything, not near tectonic plates. Tsunamis? Considering the size of the country which is mostly just desert... Cyclones? Only in the far north. Bushfires are the only problem, and again, we have the desert regions for that. Waste of our natural resources imo. And if one wants to argue the misuse of nuclear products... well, if we're not going to use it, we're just going to sell it to other countries who will use it anyways, so that doesn't fix that problem.

Let's also not forget that technology has improved significantly since those two stations where disasters occurred were originally built.

A lot of plants from the 1950s have stored high-level nuclear waste in giant cylinders in the Marshall Islands, contained in a sort of matryoshka doll fashion. That was back when nuclear waste was very awkward to handle – this was before they got the hang of properly conducting nuclear fission. It's merely a matter of time before the waste in those cylinders leak out onto the island and eventually into the ocean.

I am firmly against nuclear fission. However, I am all-for the developmental power of nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is wasteless, efficient, and thousands of times more powerful than nuclear fission. The only problem is it is a lot less researched than fission is, which is why it hasn't been implemented very much.

I'm on the fence myself. I like that it creates less air and water pollution, though uranium mining can be damaging to the environment like regular mining. Big disasters are rare, but it seems like there isn't very good regulation over it. Fukushima happened in part because there was little proper oversight and bad plans in case of a disaster. So while nuclear plants aren't usually faced with extreme weather and other potential dangers, when they are some aren't going to be properly prepared for worst-case scenarios like Fukushima wasn't.

So yeah, like bobandbill said, the technology has improved a lot, but there are still a lot of old plants out there. The US, for instance, has some that are just like the Fukushima ones. Not very encouraging.

Accidents happen solely because companies cut corners on safety and maintenance. Regulate nuclear better and this won't be an issue. And even if every accident was as bad as Chernobyl (and they're not, mentioning Fukushima or Three Mile in the same breath as Chernobyl is incredibly misleading, they were both far less disastrous) and if the number of accidents was many times higher, it still wouldn't be nearly as bad for the environment or for public health as coal is. I think people sorely underestimate just how bad the stuff that comes out of coal power is.

That said, I think Thorium is the future.

twocows said:

That said, I think Thorium is the future.

Click to expand...

Thorium is BOSS. And tons of it can be found in your own backyard.

I, personally, like Thorium to act as a main battery per se, with Algae as addendum energy. Like on cars, for example, thorium would act as the car's main power source while algae would fuel it.

I think as soon as we nail cold fusion we'll be laughing.

But for the time being I hate that people are bringing up worst case scenarios about fission. Chernobyl and that were poorly planned to begin with, who would seriously consider placing a reactor anywhere threatened by earthquakes now that we know these things?

Also waste can now be neutralised and used in glass. So there's that.

Nuclear fission is wasteful, but that's about it. It's so much better than Coal, Oil, and natural gas. However, nuclear fusion is the future. Wind, and solar can suck it as far as I'm concerned. They suck for more massive scales of power distribution (good for individuals though...).

I'm really interested in dense plasma focus for fusion technology.

Bit of a lesson here:

Chernobyl was caused by poorly maintained facilities.

Fukushima was just plain bad planning, anyone should know that sea water is the worst coolant possible in something that has a lot of metal and needs to keep moving parts moving.

I'm strictly against nuclear power. The risk that something could happen "might" be very low but if something happened, the consequences would be too devastating. Look at Fukushima and Chernobyl. What if there was a plane crashing into a nuclear power plant?

Also, what about nuclear waste? Where shall we put it? It has to be stored somewhere where it can stay over hundreds of years to come. It used to be thrown into the sea but fortunately, this has been forbidden since 1993.

Also, nuclear power "seems" cheap but in reality, it simpy isn't. Most people don't know that nuclear power plants are not properly covered by insurance. If they were, they'd be a lot more expensive.

I really can't understand people who are in favor of it. There are a lot better ways to produce environmentally friendly power. Solar power, wind power and of course hydro-electric power. Especially when countries are close to the sea, they could make use of the water around them.

LaVida said:

I'm strictly against nuclear power. The risk that something could happen "might" be very low but if something happened, the consequences would be too devastating. Look at Fukushima and Chernobyl. What if there was a plane crashing into a nuclear power plant?

Also, what about nuclear waste? Where shall we put it? It has to be stored somewhere where it can stay over hundreds of years to come. It used to be thrown into the sea but fortunately, this has been forbidden since 1993.

Also, nuclear power "seems" cheap but in reality, it simpy isn't. Most people don't know that nuclear power plants are not properly covered by insurance. If they were, they'd be a lot more expensive.

I really can't understand people who are in favor of it. There are a lot better ways to produce environmentally friendly power. Solar power, wind power and of course hydro-electric power. Especially when countries are close to the sea, they could make use of the water around them.

Click to expand...

You may want to read back and see that using those as examples is relatively stupid. Compared to coal, the risk and danger is millions of times lower, so is the waste. Smoke from the coal plants released today will impact the global environment for thousands of years.

Did you actually read my post?

Nowhere did I say that I'd prefer to use coal. Both coal and nuclear power should be abolished. There are countries like Norway which neither use coal nor nuclear power. In my opinion, all countries (especially those who are surrounded by sea) should take that as an example.

Using what as example is "relatively" stupid? Fukushima, Chernobyl? A terrorist attack (e.g. a plane crashing into a nuclear power plant?)

I don't see why those would be "stupid" examples. Especially in the case of Fukushima, it is clearly shown that even in advanced countries like Japan, accidents like these aren't impossible.

Smoke from the coal plants released today will impact the global environment for thousands of years.

Click to expand...

And that is a reason to be in favor of nuclear power? There are less dangerous/polluting methods to produce power, you know.

One does not simply abolish anything. Actors will do what is in their self-interest, and the perception of cost and benefit and even the calculation will change depending on who you are. For this reason, people will continue to invest in hydrocarbon and other fossil fuels - easily accessed reserves are diminishing, making harder-to-access reserves more the costs, and the technology required to tap those harder-to-access reserves become more developed and cheap over time. It seems to me that reliance on fossil fuels will continue at least into the near future, as technology for extracting shale gas is developing and people figure out how much environmental damage is worth exploiting the tech.

There are good reasons to invest in nuclear energy. The fuel itself is cheap, although the start-up costs are high, but the technology is still developing and the resources will approach renewability through breeder reactors. As a reactor, it's reliable and only down for downtime. And fission is efficient - it doesn't take a lot of fuel to create a lot of energy. We can even "compare" this with renewables.

For example, the world's largest constructed wind farm is the London Array, offshore and has a 630 MW capacity, upgradeable to 1000 MW, and began construction in 2011. It costs approx $3 billion USD. There is a nuclear complex in Ontario, Canada that is one of the world's largest, and generates up to 6-7000 MW which first came online in 1977. It cost $14.4 billion CAD. Now I don't know what the exchange rate is between CAD and USD from 1977, and clearly inflation will bloat the price by maybe 2 or 3x. What I'm demonstrating here is that the largest wind energy complexes don't even approach the amount of power supplied by nuclear reactors. Same goes for solar parks.

I've only compared two cases, but I wish to draw a point to the big picture which is that nuclear energy is at the same time an "old" technology but is also experiencing innovation. Renewables on the other hand require a lot of space - which requires adequate sites - and doesn't turn out a lot of energy for what is now a high price.

And in response to your critique on KittenKoder's point on environmental damage, you really have to put it in perspective. At the end of the day, nuclear power doesn't release emissions. There's environmental damage that goes on in construction, but then again construction happens everywhere. Sure, there are less polluting ways to produce energy, but there also more efficient and less expensive ways of producing energy as well.

I'm really happy to live in a country where all politicians are against nuclear power. I can't grasp why people would want to have nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power plants may not release emissions. But the nuclear waste in itself is polluting. Again, where do you suggest to store nuclear waste? There's no permanent repository.

Did you ever come across the thought that there might be accidents? Nuclear power plants are operated by people. And people make mistakes. The consequences of said mistakes have a huge influence on people's lives and nature in general. Take Chernobyl as example. Nobody has been able to live in the area around it since 1986. And nobody will be for the next 1000 years.


If there were several Chernobyls in the world, where would we all live? BlahISuck, do you live close to a nuclear power plant? What if there was an accident like with Chernobyl and you'd have to leave your home forever. Do you really think that producing energy is really worth such a high price?

And minor problems at nuclear power plants are common. As they're minor, they don't have any big consequences and are not mentioned in the news normally. But minor problems may develop into bigger ones if people make mistakes.

Also, it's not true that producing energy with nuclear power plants is less expensive. It's just that nuclear power plants are not completely covered by insurance. If they were, producing energy by using nuclear power plants would be too expensive to be taken into account.

By the way, using water is a very efficient way to produce energy. Norway produces 99% of its energy by hydropower plants. I'm sure other countries could pull this off as well.

Using nuclear power plants is irresponsible. For nature and for future generations.

LaVida said:

I'm really happy to live in a country where all politicians are against nuclear power. I can't grasp why people would want to have nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power plants may not release emissions. But the nuclear waste in itself is polluting. Again, where do you suggest to store nuclear waste? There's no permanent repository.

Click to expand...

It's not polluting in the way that carbon emission contribute to climate change, nor in the way that carbon byproducts lead to smog and air pollution. While storage of waste is an issue, there just isn't that much of it. And at least you can and must store all the waste. Waste can be reprocessed before disposal, which removes some of the radiation, but governments can skimp on that because it can be expensive. In any case, nuclear waste is being stored for the long term all over the world. I don't know where personally, because I'm not an expert, but it's clearly happening. We should have more engagement not less, to bring the best experts to the subject so they can make the best decisions, as well as pressuring governments to let them know that it's worth spending that extra money on tighter regulations.

LaVida said:

Did you ever come across the thought that there might be accidents? Nuclear power plants are operated by people. And people make mistakes. The consequences of said mistakes have a huge influence on people's lives and nature in general. Take Chernobyl as example. Nobody has been able to live in the area around it since 1986. And nobody will be for the next 1000 years.

Click to expand...

Something "might" happen, but you have to question further than that and ask just exactly how often "might" means. Surely equating "might" with "will" is oversimplifying the issue. As to your point on Chernobyl, I'm not sure if Chernobyl-type plants are still in use after what happened. There are new designs involving new technologies being developed every day, and there are international organizations involving many countries that decide how high the standards should be.

LaVida said:

If there were several Chernobyls in the world, where would we all live? BlahISuck, do you live close to a nuclear power plant? What if there was an accident like with Chernobyl and you'd have to leave your home forever. Do you really think that producing energy is really worth such a high price?

Click to expand...

Yes, I do. It's a fifteen minute drive. And the fact of the matter is that there /aren't/ several Chernobyls in the world. People who design the plants and make nuclear policy do have risk assessments, and it's a risk that they end up taking. However, that's the very reason that your "what if" is a "what if". We've had several accidents in the past, but nothing major. And producing energy in general is worth a high price. That's why energy costs are increasing all over the world, there's just ever-growing demand for it.

LaVida said:

And minor problems at nuclear power plants are common. As they're minor, they don't have any big consequences and are not mentioned in the news normally. But minor problems may develop into bigger ones if people make mistakes.

Click to expand...

While that's true, it doesn't really tell us anything. All big problems come from small problems. Not all small problems turn into big problems.

LaVida said:

Also, it's not true that producing energy with nuclear power plants is less expensive. It's just that nuclear power plants are not completely covered by insurance. If they were, producing energy by using nuclear power plants would be too expensive to be taken into account.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're talking about. In Canada there are laws that require plant operators to provide insurance. The US has a tiered insurance system. Besides, accidents happen so rarely that federal governments don't see a problem with intervening - although, of course, they have to. Anyways, since these operators are paying insurance, the consumer is paying that cost as well so there's no invisible "surcharge" unless there is an accident, then it wouldn't be invisible at all.

LaVida said:

By the way, using water is a very efficient way to produce energy. Norway produces 99% of its energy by hydropower plants. I'm sure other countries could pull this off as well.

Click to expand...

That's the problem. Hydroelectric dams require viable sites to pull off. Or you could be like China and create the Three Gorges Dam, not only the largest hydroelectric, but the the largest power station ever ^^ Norway also sells a boatload of oil to other countries, in particular to those who couldn't pull this off.

LaVida said:

I'm really happy to live in a country where all politicians are against nuclear power. I can't grasp why people would want to have nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power plants may not release emissions. But the nuclear waste in itself is polluting. Again, where do you suggest to store nuclear waste? There's no permanent repository.

Did you ever come across the thought that there might be accidents? Nuclear power plants are operated by people. And people make mistakes. The consequences of said mistakes have a huge influence on people's lives and nature in general. Take Chernobyl as example. Nobody has been able to live in the area around it since 1986. And nobody will be for the next 1000 years.


If there were several Chernobyls in the world, where would we all live? BlahISuck, do you live close to a nuclear power plant? What if there was an accident like with Chernobyl and you'd have to leave your home forever. Do you really think that producing energy is really worth such a high price?

And minor problems at nuclear power plants are common. As they're minor, they don't have any big consequences and are not mentioned in the news normally. But minor problems may develop into bigger ones if people make mistakes.

Also, it's not true that producing energy with nuclear power plants is less expensive. It's just that nuclear power plants are not completely covered by insurance. If they were, producing energy by using nuclear power plants would be too expensive to be taken into account.

By the way, using water is a very efficient way to produce energy. Norway produces 99% of its energy by hydropower plants. I'm sure other countries could pull this off as well.

Using nuclear power plants is irresponsible. For nature and for future generations.

Click to expand...

Why do you spread propaganda? Norway gets 40% from fossil fuels and about 20% from nuclear. That leaves 40% for hydro. Those figures are from 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway
All sources cited.

@ BlahIsuck
I guess, we both have our opinions on this matter which will not change no matter what haha But it's nice to discuss with you.

It doesn't matter if they're using advanced technology for new plants. They will never be completely save. And even if the risk is only 0,1%, for me, the risk is still too high bearing possible consequences in mind. About Chernobyl: The accident didn't happen because of outdated technology. The plant's operators were doing tests and turned off several safety mechanisms. The accident couldn't have happened if the plant had been operated normally. A communication error eventually led to the catastrophe.. The exact same could happen with both old and new plants.

As I said, I live in Europe and there aren't any permanent repositories. They keep looking for one but haven't had any success.Personally, I've never of one anywhere

Sorry Im on a stupid tablet, Ill continue my post later

Well yeah, I didn't mean to say outdated technology exclusively. The design of a power plant involves much more than just technology, it also involves designing the role of the workers and protocols - especially for crisis situations. It's like how the rules of the road were created - when cars were first invented, there weren't any. No speed limits or traffic lights or anything like that. Eventually communication errors created accidents and something had to be done, hence the rules we have today. Are traffic lights breakthrough technologies? No, but there are new protocols that we follow, like right-of-way at a four-way stop to avoid crashing into each other. Of course automobile accidents still happen. But will they happen like they did at the turn of the 20th century? of course not. A similar learning process comes out of accidents like what happened at Chernobyl. Not only does technology improve, but the safety procedures and training also improve. Systems design is a very important part of engineering in general, not exclusively in relation to power plants, so it isn't something one can brush to one side.

What I'm describing here isn't a difference of opinion. It's how the world works. Where we do differ is whether you think it's enough or not.