Nuclear Power plants - worth the risk?

[whoisjohngalt]

but I think it should be considered in the energy production talks.

I agree 100%, I just think that it shouldn't be build anywhere near populated areas, especially heavily populated areas. Since nothing is 100% guaranteed, I think it's irresponsible to have it in someone's back yard.

How many people were saying that all that housing shouldn't have been build in the areas where Katrina hit. Many said "well, what did you expect, those people who lived there should have known better". It might be all true, but I am pretty sure it didn't make it easier for anyone to loose their home and have their life turned upside down bc "hey, everyone knew it could have happen". At least after Katrina, areas could be rebuild.

After nuclear plant explosion? Not so much.

Lena

[Tiny]

As for storage of nuclear waste - google Yucca Mountain waste repository. It covers alot of the concerns and problems with storing nuclear waste. I don't think there's a good, permanent, safe way to store spent nuclear fuel - and I don't think we're gonna come up with something innovative anytime soon. So that means, whatever 'solution' gets implemented now the next generation or two (20 or 40 or 60 years down the road) is gonna have to deal with AGAIN.
This is part that worries me the most. Sure, we can put the spent rods in containers and keep the containers in 'cooling pools' until we figure out what to do with them - but at some point the containers are gonna degrade OR cooling pool is gonna malfunction or we're simply gonna run out of 'cooling pools'.... what happens then?

[Tiny]

Hydro power can be nice -- but it still sometimes messes with the environment (the dams do atleast). I'm wondering about geothermal power - or some friendly way to tap the inherant temperature changes -- I envision a weird Rube Goldberg type machine with a Stirling Engine feel to it generating energy....

The ocean currents are also very powerful and mostly constant - perhaps there's some way to tap that power without killing off all the wildlife or creating a deadly byproduct....

I'm fond of solar power myself... all those roof tops and vast expenses of parking lots surrounding MalWorts across the country... there has to be some way to effieciently convert all that energy happening when the sun makes electrons do their little dance....

[Tiny]

Anybody know about the work being done to use the 'spent' fuel rods to generate additional energy? I can't remember how it all works - but it's something like the rods heat up water (good old steam) and the steam is used to generate power? Maybe I dreamed that up... it's been along time since I pondered the Nuclear power problems.

[phil5185]

Phil cutting back consumption must be part of the effort.

Yes - and I think that is working well. Patstab has good results. And when we replaced a Heat Pump I was surprised at how much lower the elec bill was.

Nukes have one very important efficiency - the clean energy can also power our cars. Like I said earlier, 45% of pollution is from fossil-burning power plants and another 45% is from fossil-bung cars. If we converted to nuke power and also invented 700-mile batteries (so that you can go on trips and recharge overnite), we would use nuke power to recharge - ie, to power our cars. So - not only do you get rid of the 45% power plant pollution, you also eliminate the car pollution.

[formerexpat]

This is the problem with you and your statements. Just bc YOU want to live next to all kinds of things, doesn't mean we all do. And for you to consider other people "whiners" bc they don't want to follow your path in life is unintelligent, at best.

Which area of the US do you live, Lena - general city area? There is likely a nuclear plant near you. How close is too close for you?

BTW, no Schildi - I don't have the 3rd nipple. ;D

[/size]

[schildi]

Mar 15, 2011 16:34:42 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Anybody know about the work being done to use the 'spent' fuel rods to generate additional energy? I can't remember how it all works - but it's something like the rods heat up water (good old steam) and the steam is used to generate power? Maybe I dreamed that up... it's been along time since I pondered the Nuclear power problems.

Atsiaru, that's how nuclear power plants work in general, very simplified:
Rods collected in bundles are submerged in water inside a pressure vessel. The rods heat up, heating up the water. The rate of heat (the reaction) is controlled with "control rods" which can be lowered or raised into the bundles. The heated water turns into steam, which drives a turbine connected to a generator to create electricity. The water is also used to cool the rods down, and is pumped in and out. Now if the pumps fail (power outage), the rods can heat up uncontrolled, causing a meltdown of the rods. This is kinda what happened in Japan, I believe.
One problem is that you can't "just turn it off". Unfortunately.

Not sure how used up rods could be re-used to do the same?

[schildi]

Mar 15, 2011 18:23:40 GMT -5 @tbird said:

schildi may know more about this than I do, but it depends on the material used. However, for a lot of the material used in nuclear reactors the shelf-life is generally in the thousands of years.

Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=finance&action=display&thread=4708&page=4#ixzz1GiIDRStl


Do they calculate the cost of this containment into their figures on what nuclear energy costs? And if we have so much now - how much would we have if we relied on this energy for 500 years?

clean up at three mile island was close to 1B - and still more to do someday. What was Chernobyl? What will be the cost on this Japanese meltdown?

I'm not seeing this as cost effect - setting aside the human element....

I don't know, but I could imagine that this cost is conveniently neglected. After all, it will most likely hit the tax payer, or how does this work?

[schildi]

Mar 15, 2011 20:23:43 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

Phil cutting back consumption must be part of the effort.

Yes - and I think that is working well. Patstab has good results. And when we replaced a Heat Pump I was surprised at how much lower the elec bill was.

Nukes have one very important efficiency - the clean energy can also power our cars. Like I said earlier, 45% of pollution is from fossil-burning power plants and another 45% is from fossil-bung cars. If we converted to nuke power and also invented 700-mile batteries (so that you can go on trips and recharge overnite), we would use nuke power to recharge - ie, to power our cars. So - not only do you get rid of the 45% power plant pollution, you also eliminate the car pollution.

Phil, now if we would come up with a good way to get rid of the radioactive waste material - then I'd agree.
I think work needs to continue on this, but until there is a (good/clean/safe/financially feasible) way, I'd be very careful with nuclear power. And I'd not call it "clean" or "safe" until then, if that ever happens.

[schildi]

Mar 15, 2011 20:45:33 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

This is the problem with you and your statements. Just bc YOU want to live next to all kinds of things, doesn't mean we all do. And for you to consider other people "whiners" bc they don't want to follow your path in life is unintelligent, at best.

Which area of the US do you live, Lena - general city area? There is likely a nuclear plant near you. How close is too close for you?

BTW, no Schildi - I don't have the 3rd nipple. ;D

[/size][/quote]

Now you ruined my day. And I almost thought we are like brothers, lol.

[973beachbum]

Lena you can't put the power plants away from where people live. The loss of energy as it is put through the transmission lines is just too great.

As far as Nuclear power plants. I live about in between two sites in NJ. And I consider myself a hippy dippy environmentalist who takes clean water and natural spaces very seriously, so keep that in mind when reading the following.

I will take the oldest, dirtiest, spewing black dust and clouds into the air and ground coal fired electric plant any day over a brand new nuclear one!!!!!

The fact that we can't see radiation or feel it's effects on our bodies or environment immediately as we do with the effects of other energy's pollution doesn't make it either clean or safe!

Anyone who doesn't believe me just google Oyster Creek power plant in Toms River NJ plus cancer cluster.

[973beachbum]

"When the nuclear power business first got its start in the 1960s, the Department of Energy (DOE) promised to assume final responsibility for each and every spent nuclear fuel rod. The DOE was supposed to start picking up and parking Big Nuke's hot rods on January 31, 1998. It didn't happen.

Back in the 1960s, nuclear power advocates believed that they could generate electricity "too cheap to meter." The hope was that, by the time the powerplants needed to be shut down, future scientists would have discovered how to store radioactive waste safely for the next 24,000 years.

Forty years later, science still hasn't solved the problem.

With storage pools brim-full, US facilities have been forced to start packing used fuel rods above-ground in "dry cask" storage. The operators of the Maine Yankee nukeplant recently invested $60 million to build a new fuel-rod storage facility. These surface "parking lots" will store uranium-filled rods in two-story-tall casks, stacked in rows. Though fenced in and protected by armed guards, the casks will still be exposed to the open sky. By 2005, there may be as many as 50 such parking lots scattered about the country.

Government geologists have since discovered that Yucca Mountain sits between two active earthquake faults, 12 miles from the epicenter of a 5.6 Richter scale quake that struck in 1992. A 4.4 quake rattled the region in June.

The government admits there could be as many as 900 accidents involving these nuclear shipments over 30 years. Department of Energy officials confide radioactive shipping accidents are "inevitable." "
westgatehouse.com/art110.html

Don't just read the piece it has all the gov and agencies websites listed and linked so you can check the facts. This is only excerpts.

[whoisjohngalt]

Lena you can't put the power plants away from where people live. The loss of energy as it is put through the transmission lines is just too great.

I know, believe me, I know. Still doesn't mean I like it

Lena

[973beachbum]

Mar 16, 2011 7:50:54 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Lena you can't put the power plants away from where people live. The loss of energy as it is put through the transmission lines is just too great.

I know, believe me, I know. Still doesn't mean I like it

Lena

Believe me I agree! DH is a civil engineer and the stories I hear do more than curl my toes.

I still think the terrorists should just spend their money funding nuclear power plant lobbyists to allow old plants to still be used and spent power rods kept in their parking lots like gov sanctioned dirty bombs and stand back and watch us kill ourselves. We don't need any help.

[schildi]

Mar 16, 2011 7:50:54 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Lena you can't put the power plants away from where people live. The loss of energy as it is put through the transmission lines is just too great.

I know, believe me, I know. Still doesn't mean I like it

Lena

What do you consider "long distance"? In the end, it's a matter of cost. Today, we could cost effectively transmit power over thousands (!!!) of miles.
When the voltage is increased, the losses are decreased drastically. A 10x increase in voltage reduces the transmission losses (I*I*R) by a factor of 100. Today, long distance transmission lines use voltages of 110 to over 1,000kV (110,000V to 1,000,000V). Another way is to increase the cross section of the wire, or run multiple lines in parallel.

Distances of 4,000 miles or so are feasible, I believe, even though most likely not used today. If I recall correctly, the longest distance power is actually transmitted today is over 1,000 miles.
And then again, it's a matter of cost. If we are willing to pay a few cents more per kWh, much longer distances would be possible. It's a question of how much a low radiation environment is worth to us ...

[phil5185]

Phil, now if we would come up with a good way to get rid of the radioactive waste material - then I'd agree.

Yes. But they are getting closer over the past 40 yrs, most of the fuel is now recycled, very little waste. France, with their 50 plants, has been the leader in that science.

[schildi]

Mar 16, 2011 9:34:00 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

Phil, now if we would come up with a good way to get rid of the radioactive waste material - then I'd agree.

Yes. But they are getting closer over the past 40 yrs, most of the fuel is now recycled, very little waste. France, with their 50 plants, has been the leader in that science.

LOL, Phil, funny you'd bring up France. Do you know what happens there every year with the nuclear waste transports ("Castor transports") they send to other countries? I am following that since years. They don't know what to do with the junk. Let me know if you want me to digg out a few links with images. It's insane.

[whoisjohngalt]

You guys keep asking me how far is far enough and I don't know. I lived 100 miles away from one and it wasn't far enough when the damn thing exploded. So, I guess 100 miles is not far enough, that's the best answer I can give.

Lena

[973beachbum]

Front page of the newspaper and it isn't there because of Japan.
www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/new-jersey-fights-new-regulation-allowing-nuclear-plants-to-store/article_28ee4334-4f59-11e0-9982-001cc4c002e0.html
"The Oyster Creek Generating Station in Lacey Township, Ocean County, is scheduled to cease operations in 2019, 50 years after its construction, and under the new regulations it could keep radioactive waste there for another 60 years instead of the 30-year period it was allowed to since 1990."

[schildi]

I think we have no idea about all the consequences yet.
I just read another article about a region in Germany (Bavaria) where some of the radioactive cloud from Chernobyl came down. That's like 2,000 miles away, and even > 25 years later, wild boars are radioactively contaminated to a point that they can not be eaten (something like 20x the safe levels) because their food comes mainly out of the (still contaminated) ground. Wow! 25 years later, 2,000 miles away.
www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/bayern/Wildschweine-radioaktiv-id3409936.html

[mithrin]

I've toured the test tunnel at Yucca Mountain, and followed the study of it's suitability as a repository. Unfortunately, I doubt that any site can be found that can maintain containment for the 100,000 years that the specs call for. At that point, you can't even count on the climate to stay the same (so a desert site with very little water dripping on containers could turn to a much wetter climate--or the next Ice Age could get rolling and totally change the landscape). Safe storage is going to have to involve active monitoring and maintenance, another variable the DOE doesn't want to count on, since no government will be stable for thousands of years.

Disposing of the waste into the Sun is a good idea, but we currently have a lot of challenges. The biggest is the cost. The cost to lift a ton of payload just into Earth orbit is already quite high. It's even higher to lift something to escape velocity, and there is a very large amount of tonnage that needs to be dealt with. The second challenge is the consideration of the Challenger explosion. Imagine a rocket or shuttle loaded with nuclear waste that explodes during launch and scatters the waste over a large area (and into the ocean).

One of the more viable options for the future might actually be a massive cannon. Something that can fire containers full of nuclear waste with enough force to push them past escape velocity. It's possible with a very large rail gun. Then the challenges become designing containers that can withstand the acceleration and the journey through the atmosphere. As well as meeting the massive energy demands of the rail gun. You still have the minor risk that a container could collide with an asteroid on its way to the Sun, but the chances are pretty low that any of the waste will make it back to Earth.

[schildi]

Mar 16, 2011 14:15:53 GMT -5 mithrin said:

Disposing of the waste into the Sun is a good idea, but we currently have a lot of challenges. The biggest is the cost. The cost to lift a ton of payload just into Earth orbit is already quite high. It's even higher to lift something to escape velocity, and there is a very large amount of tonnage that needs to be dealt with. The second challenge is the consideration of the Challenger explosion. Imagine a rocket or shuttle loaded with nuclear waste that explodes during launch and scatters the waste over a large area (and into the ocean).

Ouch, and good point.
I agree, at this time, there is not much "safe" and "clean" about nuclear energy. Well, maybe clean because the "dirt" is invisible? :-(

[Deleted]

Solar is the future!

[schildi]

Mar 16, 2011 14:23:56 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Solar is the future!

I am sure it will be a significant part of the future. I have never heard of an exploding solar panel, so it should be safer at least.

[Deleted]

Mar 16, 2011 14:26:56 GMT -5 schildi said:

Mar 16, 2011 14:23:56 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Solar is the future!

I am sure it will be a significant part of the future.

69% by 2050!

[schildi]

Mar 16, 2011 14:27:24 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Mar 16, 2011 14:26:56 GMT -5 schildi said:

I am sure it will be a significant part of the future.

90% by 2050!

That would be nice. Where do you have that number from, Mr. Archie?

[Deleted]

Mar 16, 2011 14:28:11 GMT -5 schildi said:

Mar 16, 2011 14:27:24 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

90% by 2050!

That would be nice. Where do you have that number from, Mr. Archie?

An article in Scientific American. They put together a plan to convert the US energy system to a solar based system.

Ok, I just checked the article again. I was a little optimistic in my numbers.

Their plan estimates that by 2050 69% of our electricity needs and 35% of our total energy needs could be solar generated.

And by 2100 100% of our electricity needs and 90% of our total enery needs could be solar generated.

[so1970]

i like the idea of perpetual motion

[973beachbum]

There is a local power plan that wants to move from coal fired to natural gas and a biomass hybred facility. There actually is more push back against this than there is with the Oster Creek keeping all the spent fuel rods in the parking lot for the next 1000 years.

[schildi]

Mar 16, 2011 14:51:34 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

There is a local power plan that wants to move from coal fired to natural gas and a biomass hybred facility. There actually is more push back against this than there is with the Oster Creek keeping all the spent fuel rods in the parking lot for the next 1000 years.

Weird, isn't it?
I mean, natural gas, combined with biomass, it does not get much cleaner nowadays, right?