The problem with Chernobly reactors is the core design and fuel rod design. The fuel rods must have a hafnium alloy caps on both ends and hafnium alloy linnings within the graphite holes when the fuel rods are being removed for refuelling. Stainless high boron steel will do since hafnium is expensive though much more desirable from an engineering point of view since all nuclear engineers considers hafnium as a problematical nuclear quencher that can shutdown a reactor almost instantly.
@bibbyandal I hate people like you who think they are better than everyone else, smarter than everyone else, go do somthing with your life instead of writing pointless comments like that.
@122boxer i dont think im better than you, or anyone else for that matter. im just saying, you seem like your the kind of person who jumps to conclusions without really knowing the facts.
maybe do some research before jumping to conclusions like that? and dont just use greenpeace. use varied sources and get the real picture
Only a fool, or a nuclear industry shill would claim, "Nuclear energy is clean. It produces no greenhouse gases." The emmission of greenhouse gases during the life-cycle of nuclear energy production is enormous, and will continue to grow as the quality of remaining uranium deposits degrades: just as the EROEI will diminish.
Nowhere near as much as coal, plus you burn it. You are correct to say that it is not completely free of emissions, but the life cycle still makes it small when the energy of the fission in the reactor does not produce the emissions.
Yet another nuclear industry shill selling poison? Another bad accountant? The energy to clean and deliver water to thirsty nuclear plants, the waste heat pumped into the environment, the water evaporated at reactors located in deserts that are experiencing drought and draining their aquifers, etc., etc., etc. You seem to have forgotton a number of real costs and their associated emissions.
Ok first, Nuclear FUSION bombs constitute most of the modern nuclear arsenals of the major powers. Tsar bomba (50 megaton) was the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated and it was a fusion device.
Hydroelectric power (the waterfall) is not based on molecular or atomic reactions at all, it harnesses gravity.
Wafflepudding (3 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Ok first, Nuclear FUSION bombs constitute most of the modern nuclear arsenals of the major powers. Tsar bomba (50 megaton) was the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated and it was a fusion device.
thrummer1953 (2 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Dear Death, Our reliance on overseas oil sources,is causing much of the international friction fueling nuclear weapons proliferation.
... what? ok, you can swim down to the "deep seas" and watch it "do nuclear fusion." then come back and tell us how gravity (pressure) was able to overcome electromagnetism and force hydrogen nuclei together.
This is all part of George WMD Bush's Big Lie 2.0 He is testing the reich wing talking points for the NEI.
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - George W. Bush
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels
Why use nuclear power when all you need to do is to use Geothermal energy. It's not nearly as complicated and it can provide lots of renewable base load energy.
People like lonympics and nanfree really annoy me. Its individuals like these that are preventing us from moving into a future which demands intelligence and acceptance of nuclear energy. Yes, Nuclear plants produce CO2 in construction, mining, and enrichment of Uranium but even then it still produces less carbon per kw energy than ALL other forms of power generation. Its good science combined with logic, something opponents of Nuclear have never had!!
"still produces less carbon per kw energy than ALL other forms of power generation" Nonsense
Renewables create far less carbon per kWh produced. (kWh is a unit of energy like a gallon of gas, kW is a measure of power like horsepower) For example, Hydro is responsible for 4g/kWh and wind 3 g/kWg. Nuclear 6g/kWh
That's right, but Nuclear would not displace renewables, and renewables are not so reliable to power all the world and industry, we need something more powerful and efficient. So they both are the solution, not one in detriment of the other.
Most of the renewables are reliable if properly sited. Powerful is a function of scale. The efficiency of many of the renewables is as high as the efficiency of nuclear power. Nuclear power is about 30% efficient - energy in versus electric power out.
Great slide presentation. I was just quoting CO2 from operating the nuclear power plant. This did not include the construction, the front end, the back end and the deconstruction contributions to CO2. Thanks
Nuclear power causes global warming beyond CO2 emissions. I wish I had the figure for the amount of CFC-114 the enrichment plant leaks into the atmosphere per kWh. The two enrichment plants in Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, released 818,000 pounds of freon (CFC-114) in 1999 alone. CFC-114 lasts 300 years in the atmosphere, and causes 9800 times more global warming per pound than CO2. The largest source of CFCs leaked in the atmosphere is from these two plants.
Yeah, that's because dumbass liberals think they can run the country one wind and solar. While were at it, why don't we run our vehicles on hydrogen too LOL
Electric cars sound nice, but they are very unsafe. Hydrogen could make a debut when someone is brilliant enough to come up with an efficiant technology for hydrogen vehicles.
I'm not talking about golf carts, I'm talking about real roadworthy cars. I've seen quite a few, including an original GM EV-1. They pass all of the Federal safety standards.
Fuel cells are nice an efficient. However, the hydrogen has to be extremely pure. And the fuel cells are currently still in the millions of dollars. This also leaves one more problem. Hydrogen is very volumous as a gas and very expensive to liquefy. This is why fool cells are really not going to be a viable option.
I've read about those. Although, people in the U.S. are too friggin stupid to ditch thier big SUVs and gas powered vehicles while there are other solutions for cars. And I know about the hydrogen, hydrogen powered cars arent coming around any time soon. There are only a dozen or so hydrogen stations across the country anyways.
I like to see that statistic as well, its important that we know all of the facts. I am confident however, that if this is recognized as a serious problem that it can be contained. however, with over 6.049x10^9 metric tonnes of CO2 emitted by the US in a year, 371 metric tonnes of CFC-114 is spit in the ocean. even with the ratio, CFC-114 is contributing only 6.01x10^-4 times the global warming CO2 is. I doubt thats even worth measuring per kWh.
In the 1990's and early 2000's this was a huge problem. The two plants accounted for 90% of the CFCs in the atmosphere, but were exempted by the government. Since then, they have been working on containing the CFC-114 leaks at the Paddcah, KY plant and have closed the Portsmouth plant. Officials are saying they are licensed to build a new gas centrifuge plant that will not leak as much.
the 371 metric tonnes are significant because CFC-114 is much more potent and longer lasting than CO2.
CFC-114 is one of the worst substances know to man in terms of ozone destruction. CFC-114 lasts 300 years in the atmosphere, and causes 9800 times more global warming per pound than CO2. It was banned by the Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.
The tonnage emitted by USEC in 1999 was 88% of total CFC-114 emissions from US industrial sources; 14% of worldwide emissions.
Trying to disguise it per kWh is like Exxon trying to rationalize the Valdez drunken captain's actions.
Nuclear Power to create electricity and Hydrogen through electrolis, this is the only real "green" solution. Spent fuel rods and other contaminated materials can be controlled safely, just like Chemicals. It is geometrically impossible for a power plant to blow up like a bomb, never happen.
Hydrogen is a very inefficient fuel for one of two reasons - as a gas, it takes up far too much space. And to liquefy hydrogen is very energy intensive.
Hydrogen makes the sun shine! Adn ti provides the main energy fro life on Earth. It liberates 4 times more power than nuclear fission, which kills big time!
1) World Uranium Peaked in 1980. They currently produce LESS uranium every year since the grade of the uranium is less and less. As ore grades diminish, more mining is required to get the same amount of oxide.
2) Germany, the Czech Republic, France, Congo, Gabon, Bulgaria, Tadzhikistan, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Portugal and Argentina, have already exhausted their uranium resources.
3) Many counties have peaked already and are net importers now. US imports 84%
1) Yea, because we don't need uranium mines that are that rich, and we haven't actively surveyed for new uranium deposits since the 70's, look at how much longer fossil fuels have been extended thanks to new surveys.
2)Germany, the Czech Republic, France, Congo, Gabon, Bulgaria, Tadzhikistan, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Portugal and Argentina never had much uranium to begin with. they probably have more, but why survey when its cheaper to get it from Australia?
I definitely will rely on the advice ofonewho is making his living off the energy/environmental crisis. You did not mention the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce nuclear power. Fossil fuel is needed to mine the ore, mill the ore, process the yellow cake and enhance the uranium. Please give us the figures for that. It is not cheap--it backed by experts like you get federal subsidies--and also overrun their bids by at least 3 times.... Nuclear is not renewable--very deceptive!!!
Ranger mine uses 165 GJ of fossil fuels per ton of U3O8 made. That's about the same amount petroleum the USA imports in about 1/5th of a second, and that Uranium will go to light a million homes for days.
Subsidized photovoltaics, on the other hand, will destroy the earth if the hundreds of currently planned coal plants don't do it first.
By the way, ALL of our submarines and all but ONE of our aircraft carriers use nuclear reactors to generate their electricity. I hope the media reminds folks of this point when politicians like John Edwards say we should stop using nuclear power. I guess Edwards thinks we should let some other country dominate the oceans! Iran, perhaps?
If France wouldn't have all the electric heaters running at night and couldn't depend on foreign storage lakes, it wouldn't know what to do with all its inflexible nuclear energy. Also, during maintenance, a nuclear power plant leaves a huge gap and doesn't generate any power at all for several weeks and not just at night when the wind doesn't blow. Solar and wind can power towns well as large cities (transmission lines work not just with large power plants).
With the money required for one new nuclear power plant one can purchase 15 Turnkey high tech and highly automated thinfilm solar module factories with a yearly output of 160 MW per factory from Oerlikon.
So, with these 15 Oerlikon solar module factories one can produce solar modules with a total peak power of 36'000 MW in 15 years, which is actually 22.5 times more peak power than what a new EPR nuclear reactor delivers.
your nuclear power has a deadly waste material that is being buried deep underground and dumped into the deep ocean as well. My home has solar panels that power my home and my electric car. case closed. Period. Solar electric and Wind farm is a good choice.
You've never been to France, have you? They've been using nuclear power to generate 75% of their electricity for 20 years, without any disasters. Please, stop making an ass of yourself.
Are you say the French are so dumb that if they can have nuclear energy and not have an accident then an accident will never happen. Ooo. Wow what a point to make. And the terrorism issue does not matter then i suppose
The terrorism issue doesn't matter because every nuclear reactor in this country is surrounded by 6 feet of solid concrete! Tests during the 80's have shown that a plane crashing into such a concrete shield chips a 1/2 inch piece off. Terror proof, in other words.
No the plane test was a fix. It was a 30 tonne fighter jet on a track, against unachored concrete. If you see the video the concrete is allowed to move back to take the strain. It was a total fix. Look at the pentagon that is reality.
No by my logic, if a energy device could kill millions of people, wipe out huge chunks of out nation, in one terror attack it is not worth the risk. The plane video was con, it was fix
France gets 70% of it's power from nuclear energy and they have technology in place where they recycle the waste within the reactor just like the guy says. The global warming people claim reducing carbon emissions is crucial to saving all life on our planet. You'd think they'd be screaming for more nuclear power. Makes you wonder about their priorities and their politics.
That the waste product stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years coupled with the fact that there are no buildings or containment systems that have even lasted that long (not to mention any single government or even LANGUAGE) sounds like nuclear fuel is the fastest way yet to destroy all human life on earth.
Once again, you use deceptive language. The annual waste per person, though it is objectively a small volume, would still be enough to deliver many lethal doses of radiation, cause cancers, mutate DNA. You should tell people how long it will take this "small" amount of waste to become inert, about storage problems and the possible ramifications if storage systems fail.
Q:What is a problem that has been "greatly reduced"?
Most types of fission products will completely decay within 1000 years. The problem with waste storage is political, not technological. With current technology we should be able to store waste for over 75000 years. Gen 4 reactors can only help this situation, by greatly reducing the longivity of waste.
On another note, you should know that you receive 3 times as much radiation per year living within 50 miles of a coal power plant than a nuclear power plant.
There is no commercially viable plutonium breeder reactor program in any country. The two largest operating breeder reactors in the world are in the former Soviet Union and they use uranium as a fuel. Breeder reactor programs have been stopped in many countries, including the United States, due to technical problems, cost, and proliferation concerns.
One dramatic example of the failure of breeder reactor was the December 1995 accident at the Monju breeder reactor in Japan, which was shut down due to a large liquid sodium leak and fire. The reactor first achieved criticality in April 1994.
Look up integral fast reactor. It was cancelled by the government, true, but it showed incredible promise. Also, in 2006 Japan, France and the US agreed to develop sodium cooled fast reactors, which bears close resemblance to the liguid metal fast breeder reactor and integral fast reactor. And yes, they will be able to utilize depleted uranium, as will some other Gen 4s. So I correct you: some Gen 4 reactors will be able to utilize depleted uranium as fuel.
The fact that gen4 reactors will be able to use DU as fuel is not in contention. I contend that these miracle reactors, which will do nothing to alleviate the environmental/health damage caused by mining and refining uranium, aren't going to be running until 2020-2030. So, if the result is the only relevant thing (which is akin to saying that the end justifies the means), how much damage will be done in the interim?
I think it's also important to note that the nuke ind. (in the fed's pocket)caused the waste problem, so it's only right that they should fix it. And not by using DU to manufacture weapons. The experimental breeder in southeast Idaho has been running for 30 years w/out reported accidents, but they have accumulated 43 metric tons (47 english tons) of spent fuel they don't know what to do with. There goes yer assertion that breeders will solve the waste problem.
A 2001 study of workers at the Paducah gas. diff. plant found they were exposed to Pu and other transuranics without their knowledge, not provided protective clothing, and were issued useless "rad. measurement badges" that contained no film. One worker's bones contained 1700 X the expected level of uranium. Rad. and toxic waste was dumped both in & outside the fence at Paducah for 50 yrs, contaminating groundwater to 400 ft deep and poisoning wells with plutonium.
Look at the bigger picture, not single incidents. Anyways, the argument you're making in this is for reform, not for prohibiting. And because the fuel costs play such a small part in the overall input cost (as a comparatively small amount is used), mining reforms won't bring the industry to its knees.
sorry, I was wrong-- there was an accident in Idaho. CORE MELTDOWN and EXPLOSION kiling three workers who had to be buried in special coffins to prevent their bodies from contaminating soil and water.
Now you're talking about 2 separate reactors, both of which were experimental. The one with the accident used 50s technology (EBR-I), and the other one (EBR-II) started up in the 60s. If you want to present a more convincing argument, try showing, on a technical basis, that the SFR and IRF won't work. Also, regarding the accident, using an example from 1955 isn't a very convincing argument against nuclear technology 50 years later.
I assume you're talking about EBR-II. The emphesis as a complete breeder reactor was a test SUCCESSFULLY demonstrated from 1964-1969. The emphesis was then shifted to testing fuels and materials for larger, liquid metal reactors. And you accuse me of deceptive wording?
When compared to coal mining, the impact of uranium mining is much safer. The environmental impact is also less. The injuries/deaths in the nuclear power industry are actually about 25% of that in offices per year, and about 10% that of other traditional industries (mining and elsewhere). Also a study was conducted which found that nuclear power industry workers are 35% less likely to die from cancer than the general population, with a 60% lower mortality rate in general.
When compared to wind power, uranium mining is unforgivable. Because uranium emits radon gas, and their harmful and highly radioactive daughter products, uranium mining is considerably more dangerous than other (already dangerous) hard rock mining.
Did you even look at the numbers I presented? They don't lie. I'll repeat: 35% less likely to die from cancer than the general population, with a 60% lower mortality rate in general; injuries/deaths in the nuclear power industry are actually about 25% of that in offices per year, and about 10% that of other traditional industries. True, work in the niclear industry can be risky, but look at what's being done to prevent that (hence the numbers).
Big picture: a large number of nuclear incidents have resulted in countless deaths/injuries/diseases/birth defects caused by rad. and toxic releases. Besides accidents, nuke material processing and handling have led to massive contamination of the US and world. The US Dept. of Energy, according to their '00 Fed. Budget, spend over $4 bil/yr. to manage 2.1 mil. acres of contaminated sites in 30 states and 1 territory. That's an area = the states RI + DE
Mining: even the best deposits contain less than 1% uranium. Huge amounts of ore have to be crushed into a fine powder (itself radioactive & hazardous for 250,000 years)& washed w/sulphuric acid to capture the uranium. Huge amts. of H2O are used to suppress the deadly dust, which creates huge amts. of (you guessed it)radioactive H2O.
I am arguing for a ban on uranium mining, conversion, enrichment, transportation, and use as nuclear fuel. Uranium is nothing but a problem from beginning to end. Fuel rods only last 3yrs, reactors have about a 30-40 yr. life span before they must be decommissioned or have their core replaced: but we'll still have to deal with their effects for a few million years.
Regarding reactor life spans: you're right in some cases and you're wrong in a whole lot of others. Just look at how many reactors are getting liscense renewals for 20 additional years (for 60 years total). And by the way, Gen 4's are built to last 60 years. And once again, regarding the "few million years", I'll assume you're talking about the waste, which gen 4 reactors will reduce the longevity of by several orders of magnitude.
All the more reason to close the fuel cycle with Gen 4 reactors then. Closed fuel cycles utilize fuel 50 times as efficiently, and will greatly extend the fuel supply (I've heard estimates ranging from 2000 to 20000+ years), and thus reduce the demand for mining.
And once again you could argue for mining reforms as well. The increase in fuel prices will have little if any noticible effect on fuel costs. About a year ago uranium prices doubled due to increased demand, and there was no noticible change in input costs.
Big Picture: all incidents included, more radiation is still released into the environment from coal power than from all nuclear releases combined. Also, notice how the frequency of accidents has decreased over the last 30 years in the US. That's called technological progress. It's important to learn from the past, but at the same time one should not live in it.
Because of economics the realistic choice we face iis coal or nuclear. You may not like that choice, but that's the choice we have. If you live within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor, on average you'll receive an additional .01 mrem/yr of exposure, which is nothing compared to an average yearly dose of 360 mren. You're exposed to 100 times as much radiation from a 2 hour jet ride than from living near a nuclear reactor.
I am not talking about fission products-- i am talking about the still fissible actinides that are currently disposed of as "waste" and stored outdoors in big corroding steel cylinders. Do you think that is safe storage, considering how DUF6 reacts with moisture? It is an example of current storage teknology. Would you volunteer to store them in your backyard?
And regarding the storage of DUF6, if we completely stop using nuclear energy all together that's what we'll have to do. Not much better than the status quo. Once more I contend that gen4 reactors are the solution to this problem: all this can be potentially be utilized as fuel and converted into shorter-lived, less toxic fission products.
correction: And regarding the storage of DUF6, if we completely stop using nuclear energy all together that's what we'll have to do: store it. Not much better than the status quo. Once more I say that gen4 reactors are the solution to this problem: all this can be potentially be utilized as fuel and converted into shorter-lived, less toxic fission products.
It sounds great, but are there any GEN4 reactors on line and how long will it take to get rid of the 300,000 tons of nuclear waste we already have from nuclear power?
Gen 4 reactors will most likely be online in the 2020-2030 range. As far as how long it will take to get rid of the actinides and DU using gen4's, I can't give any exact #'s right now (maybe I'll know for sure after another year in college), but I will stress that utilizing them as fuel will greatly help to extend our current fuel supply (by about 50 times).
1)Where are you getting your #'s from? I the amount of waste doubling in the next 13-23 years seems a bit unrealistic (also, I said 2020 to 2030 range, not 20 to 30 years).
2)Technologically speaking, storage isn't a problem (the "problems" with storage are really all political).
3)In the long run the Gen 4 reactor solution will yield a much better waste situation.
Where are you getting your info? Mine is from Bill Nye. There is no place to store it safely which is why thy just drive it around on a train. Plus 300,000 tons is plenty of waste not to have a place for. They say 2030 but that is just a guess. It could be 30 more years.
Let's see...my info comes from the UC Berkeley nuclear engineering department. It should be self evident that UC Berkeley's nuclear enginnering department is more knowledgible about nuclear technology and the current situation than Bill Nye.
"It could be 30 years more"-If you want to make that guess, at least provide some reasoning for it. Otherwise, you are using blind faith by trying to claim the experts are wrong without justification.
If you think it is that safe then you should not have a problem if they bury it in you back yard. I personally do not want it in mine. Every 30 years we create around 300,000 tons of waste.
Actually, the amount of waste produced by US nuclear plants will reach the preliminary government imposed limit on Yucca mountain in 2014. However, the technological limit is 91% to 367% more for the 2000 acre site, and an additional 2200 acres may become availible, so there goes your implication that we can't store it in the short run.
I tried to post a video link from one of my professors, but it wouldn't let me. But if you're interested I could send it in a message. Just let me know.
The government is defiantly one to listen to since they think the half life of this waste is a thousand years. Putting it in a hole is not a good solution. I do not disbelieve that you know what you are talking about.
You are really generalizing with the term waste. Waste is not all the same element. Actinides and DU in almost every case have the longest half-lives. The two most concerning fission products (in terms of toxicity, healh hazards, etc.) are CS-137 and Sr-90, which have half-live of about 30 and 29 years respectively. It's generally actinides and DU with the extremely long half-lives.
Hey man, workers in the nuclear power industry are 35% less likely to die from cancer than other professions. And believe it or not 4 times as many injuries/death occur in offices than in the nuclear power industry.
So, concidering the excellent worker safety record, and the fact that technologically speaking storage is very possible, just give me the right equipment to modify.
Don't get me wrong I love the idea of all of this, but I think that in your world you seem to forget that the waste has to go somewhere. So if it is not 300,000 tons then how much is there?
A lot of things work in theory but to create large amounts off nuclear waste and say we can solve that in 10 yrs is stupid. If you can not solve the problem right now then we should not make more.
I started watching it. Interesting. I can not say I am against nuclear power. I am for clean power. No power is 100% clean, but I would like it as clean as possible. Coal and natural gas is something we need to get away from. When I start heard numbers like 300,000 tons of waste it bothers me.
This whole time I have not heard you offer a single solution to the waste issue. I've suggested Gen4 reactors which use closed fuel cycles. You argue that we should just stop using nuclear power all together, and yet you offer no solution as to what you'd do with the waste (which appears to be your main issue of concern).
Here's a short list of what a shift to Gen4 reactors can do to vastly improve the current situation:
extend the fuel supply, increase Yucca Mountain's capacity by a factor of 50, utilize fuel 50 times as efficiently, use depleted uranium and actinides (DU and actinides are by far the most toxic and long lasting components of the waste) as fuel (where they are converted to fission products, which are nowhere near as toxic or long-lasting as actinides/DU) as opposed to having to store them, bulletproof safety, improved economics, and possibilities of hydrogen production to name a few.
By rejecting Gen4 reactors, you not only reject an economical, reliable energy source which doesn't rely on foreign oil, but you also reject a good solution to the waste problem. If you think you have a better method which actually decreases the amount of actinides and DU (which phasing out nuclear energy won't do), please share it with me and some nuclear engineering professors.
By rejecting Gen4 reactors, you not only reject an economical, reliable energy source which doesn't rely on foreign oil, but you also reject a good solution to the waste problem. If you think you have a better method which actually decreases the amount of actinides and DU (which phasing out nuclear energy won't do, but Gen reactors will do), please share it with me and some nuclear engineering professors.
Just spit balling here but a government subsidy program for solar energy for homes. Fuel cell systems for homes and cars. Building power plants that can run on ethanol and bio-diesel. Cheaper energy for people who use less energy. Charge higher prices to those who consume large amounts of energy.
My stance on renewables: leave it to the market. If people want to install solar panels or a windmill on your own property, that's fine-it's their right as a citizen in a capitalist society. However, when it comes to big baseload, downtime puts them out of the game economically. In the end, the choice for big baseload is coal or nuclear, due to economics.
One other advantage about nuclear is that, since it uses such comparatively small amounts of fuel, input costs will show vastly less change than with fuel costs for nuclear than for coal, natural gas, ethanol, etc.
I do not reject it, but where are they? I have yet to see one and they have been talking about them for a long time. In the mean time they want to increase the amount of waste we produce.
There is a large difference between on paper and built. If they have not built and tested one of these reactors then you are just stating an opinion with no fact. I do not think that we should build 50 new nuclear power plants with the hope someday we will be able to solve the problem.
Once again you say, "It might not work." If you believe this, at least have some technical basis for it.
And actually there was a concept reactor in the late 80s to early 90s called the intergral fast reactor, which showed a great deal of promise, is similar to the sodium cooled fast reactor (one of the Gen4's).
Yes I am new to the research. I became interested during the elections when Kerry said he was going to put at least one react in every state starting with Iowa. I love the idea of GEN4 reactors, but I have heard they are a long way away if even at all.
Okay, so let's get your stance clear: at first I thought you completely anti-nuclear, but now the way you are arguing it seems like your more in the middle and almost playing devil's advocate. So where do you really stand?
Argue all you want about the nuclear power industry only be interested in money. What's relevant is the result, not the intension. The use of Gen 4 reactors would be a better solution in the longrun than stopping nuclear energy (as much of today's waste is DU and actinides). Once they're up and running, the nuclear power industry will be solving the waste problem in a far better manner than any suggested by antinuclear activists.
Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said we should judge on result rather than intension. Let me throw out an example to clarify: You could argue that gen4 reactors are being developed solely for increased profit. However, if one of the added benefits is a better situation regarding the waste problem, where's the harm in that?
Like most pro-nuke propaganda I've seen, this bit ignores the most glaring negative aspect of nuclear power: the waste. It's easy to shrug off nuclear waste as just a tiny fraction of the wastes produced in any given year, but you shouldn't try to fool people with percentages.
How about some real numbers here? From what i've read, a thousand megawatt nuclear reactor produces 30 metric tons of "spent" fuel every year. This high-level, lethally radioactive mess contains radioisotopes that remain hazardous for millions of years. Is that the span of time you had in mind when you assured your listeners that these wastes will become "non-radioactive with time"? Is that the span of time modern tecnology is prepared to contain these wastes?
"Spent" nuclear fuel, ha. I am disgusted by the word game the nuclear industry plays with the public. "Spent" fuel is many times more radioactive than when it entered the reactor. "Reprocessing," purportedly done to render waste less radioactive, is a deceptive term: reprocessing is done to recapture fissible (still usable) plutonium and uranium. Its motive is profit-- not the safety of the people.
If the entire United States was powered by nuclear reactors, the annual waste per person would weaigh about as much as a golf ball and have the volume of about 2 pencils. And as I said, once the generation 4 reactors come out (more specifically the ones that run on closed fuel cycles) come out, the waste problem would be greatly reduced, as the most toxic and long lasting portions of the waste would be used again as fuel.
rumpustuous, once generation 4 nuclear reactors come online (about 2020-2030) waste will no longer be a problem. We can simply use the most toxic and long-lasting types of waste (actinides (aka heavy metals), not fission products). Fission products aren't at all a long-run problem for most isotopes, and actinides are about 100 times as toxic as them.
GenIV reactors will not run on flowers. End-waste is only part of the prob.- uranium (an actinide) fuel production itself creates deadly radioactive waste. The "gaseous diffusion" (uranium enrichment) plants in Paducah,KY Portsmouth,OH and Oak Ridge,TN store 1.5 billion pounds (equal in weight to 70 Ticonderoga class navy cruisers) of "depleted" uranium in steel cylinders outdoors.
Ever hear of breeders? They use depleted uranium (mostly U-238) to breed Pu-239, which can be used as fuel. All this "waste" can be essentially converted into fuel. Depleted uranium lasts a long time (4.5 billion year half life), but fission products don't last anywhere near as long (many thousands of times less in most cases), and aren't anywhere near as toxic (about 100 times less toxic).
I must correct myself: fission products last many thousands of times less than actinides and millions of time less than depleted uranium in most cases.
Technology can be dangerous. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use it.Nuclear has proven itself reliable and manageable as a power source and I'm sure it will only improve. There will almost definately be another accident at some point, but its worth the risk. Its pretty easy to make more humans.
Well consider the amount of human suffering global warming will do. Nuclear power can replace coal and oil. So it's not necessary to devalue people to move to nuclear, it has the potential to save lives.
How many windmills have you seen going up in your backyard?? But more than 3,000 MW of wind power were built just this year (2006) alone. This is about the same output as a nuclear power plant. Windills are mostly going up on ranch land, giving extra income to our ranchers. He does not talk about passive solar homes being built right now that can save up to 90% of their energy costs over their life time with only a 10% higher building cost.
You pretty much stated everything right there, most of the fear of Nuclear Power is not justified, its just the ignorance of the general public, and of course the media doing there undercutting.
Most of the media is owned by the companies that make nuclear reactors. The nuclear waste problem has not been solved. Plutonium, which is produced by all fission reactors, is one of the most poisonous substances known to man. Do you want a ricin or dioxin factory in your neighborhood?
So now you're going to start spouting off some conspiracy theory, right? Coincidense means fact, right? (obvious sarcasm) Watching the news, I rarely see a story on nuclear energy...the most recent one I've seen was that California will continue its moratorium on nuclear power plant construction...hardly pro nuclear.
No. It's not a conspiracy theory. But I can tell you that news is very filtered and influenced by their corporate owners. They are not going to criticize their owners. The news editors see to that. Perhaps you've not ever held a corporate job before.
You might want to compare how news stories are presented. Take a close look at for example FOX, NBC and CBS versus ABC and PBS. Or Wall Street Journal, New York Times versus Washington Post. The pro-nuclear lobby is working vehemently behind the scenes to secure a new generation of nuclear power stations. Listen for key frames or "talking points" See how many stories are written about alternative energy and nuclear energy and see how they are slanted.
I agree...all news casts have some kind of bias to them...I've seen some biased to the right and some to the left...what's important is to see through that to the real facts...I believe we're in agree on that.
I agree Plutonium is poisonous, but only if its ingested, but so are plenty of plants that grow in the wild, and mushrooms. Plutonium is not very radioactive, you could play pool with it and you would be fine, just don't eat it!
You are so correct. It's an alpha emitter. I have held a plutonium pit coated in another metal in my bare hands. It's warm to the touch. However, I had to wear a respirator to keep from breathing any dust. Under normal operation reactors are safe. The problem is when things go wrong. Don't kid yourself. Pu is a very dangerous radiological hazard.
Well you do have a point and I agree that reactors should be held up to the best safety standards possible, and they are, at least in the US, after all there haven't been any real nuclear disasters in the US, yes there was three mile island, but that's an example of how good our safety measures are, it was contained.
TMI is just one of many Nuclear Disasters. TMI had a partial melt-down. Luckly TMI did not melt through the containment vessel. Approximately 43,000 curies of krypton were vented into the environment from the reactor building. Please read the NRC report. I would NEVER support de-regulation of nuclear power.
Accidents happen not only in reactors, but while mining, transportation, conversion/processing, enriching/refining, fuel fabrication, waste storage, fuel reprocessing ... No nuclear fuel cycle is accident proof.
Every nuclear reactor routinely releases millions of curies annually. Some of these radioactive emissions such as radioactive iodine 131, plutonium, strontium 90, many noble gases, and tritium go into our air and water and bioaccumulate in our food chain and bodies. These radioactive materials are extremely carcinogenic and mutagenic. They will be passed down through our genes to endless generations. Please look into it.
I learned a lot about radioactivity from the webcasts of a physics lecture from the University of Berkeley. The Professor of physics showed that the dangers of nuclear power are massively exaggerated in public opinion. To find these lectures go to google video and search for: physics 10
Perhaps Dr. Muller would like to retain his job as a physics professor. After all, Berkeley was the home of Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb and is closely associated with Lawrence Livermore Labs. Of course he will tell you that there are negligible risks involved.
Let's not get political. Look at the science. There is more radiation coming from the natural rocks in Denver than there is coming from a nuclear power plant. But no-one says "don't live in Denver because of the natural radiation". There are dangers, but a meltdown really is very unlikely and compare it to the damage we know is going to be caused by global warming from coal and oil power. Don't fall into the trap of believing everything that scares you.
For argument's sake, if it was found to be true that nuclear power was the only feasible way to provide enough power without causing a global warming disaster that would kill billions of people, would you then change your mind about nuclear? If we knew that for certain. This is a hypothetical argument, I know it's not known to be true.
Actually, TMI did have a containment. And Unit 1 of TMI is the same type of reactor. Albeit, it is safer since then. The containment was actually a success story in that it contained a lot of the potential release.
TMI's containment vessel luckly contained the accident and kept the core from melting down into the water table. It's not safer since then. It will be radioactive for a long time to come. The reactor's core melted down and it's been shut off. It did have a venting of radioactive krypton over Pennsylvania.
The problem with Chernobly reactors is the core design and fuel rod design. The fuel rods must have a hafnium alloy caps on both ends and hafnium alloy linnings within the graphite holes when the fuel rods are being removed for refuelling. Stainless high boron steel will do since hafnium is expensive though much more desirable from an engineering point of view since all nuclear engineers considers hafnium as a problematical nuclear quencher that can shutdown a reactor almost instantly.
darthvader5300 4 months ago
1989 Chernobyl remember that, the explosion, nuclear power, it caused many deformitys to children and it still is.
122boxer 1 year ago
@122boxer you are clearly severly under educated on the facts of nuclear power generation.
you also seem greatly misinformed about the causes of the explosion at chernobyl in 1989.
bibbyandal 1 year ago
@bibbyandal I hate people like you who think they are better than everyone else, smarter than everyone else, go do somthing with your life instead of writing pointless comments like that.
122boxer 1 year ago
@122boxer i dont think im better than you, or anyone else for that matter. im just saying, you seem like your the kind of person who jumps to conclusions without really knowing the facts.
maybe do some research before jumping to conclusions like that? and dont just use greenpeace. use varied sources and get the real picture
bibbyandal 1 year ago
Only a fool, or a nuclear industry shill would claim, "Nuclear energy is clean. It produces no greenhouse gases." The emmission of greenhouse gases during the life-cycle of nuclear energy production is enormous, and will continue to grow as the quality of remaining uranium deposits degrades: just as the EROEI will diminish.
QuarereAude 3 years ago
Nowhere near as much as coal, plus you burn it. You are correct to say that it is not completely free of emissions, but the life cycle still makes it small when the energy of the fission in the reactor does not produce the emissions.
suemorphplus2009 1 year ago
Yet another nuclear industry shill selling poison? Another bad accountant? The energy to clean and deliver water to thirsty nuclear plants, the waste heat pumped into the environment, the water evaporated at reactors located in deserts that are experiencing drought and draining their aquifers, etc., etc., etc. You seem to have forgotton a number of real costs and their associated emissions.
QuarereAude 1 year ago
Interesting sociological/psychological experiment or joke you got going there pal.
Wafflepudding 3 years ago
Ok first, Nuclear FUSION bombs constitute most of the modern nuclear arsenals of the major powers. Tsar bomba (50 megaton) was the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated and it was a fusion device.
Hydroelectric power (the waterfall) is not based on molecular or atomic reactions at all, it harnesses gravity.
Wafflepudding 3 years ago
Wafflepudding (3 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Ok first, Nuclear FUSION bombs constitute most of the modern nuclear arsenals of the major powers. Tsar bomba (50 megaton) was the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated and it was a fusion device.
<< This is not even Fusion you idiot!
Deathridesahorse2 3 years ago
The world cannot rid itself of Nuclear Weapons by establishing more Nuclear Power...
Deathridesahorse2 4 years ago
Dear Death, Our reliance on overseas oil sources,is causing much of the international friction fueling nuclear weapons proliferation.
thrummer1953 3 years ago
thrummer1953 (2 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Dear Death, Our reliance on overseas oil sources,is causing much of the international friction fueling nuclear weapons proliferation.
<< What is the source of the proliferation, tho?
Deathridesahorse2 3 years ago
Death, It is NOT US domestic power plants.
HulkingLib 3 years ago
HulkingLib (2 weeks ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Death, It is NOT US domestic power plants.
<< But it is the fact the world has Nuclear Power Plants!
Deathridesahorse2 3 years ago
Nucllear fission kills. Even teh deep seas do nuclear fusion from water - safe, cheap and no CO2 or toxic death!
JonThm 4 years ago
... what? ok, you can swim down to the "deep seas" and watch it "do nuclear fusion." then come back and tell us how gravity (pressure) was able to overcome electromagnetism and force hydrogen nuclei together.
Bleezz 3 years ago
everywhere like such as ... sounds a bit loopy to me.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Nuclear power kills
YOU!
JonThm 4 years ago
Stop living in the past hippie
2289567 4 years ago
This is all part of George WMD Bush's Big Lie 2.0 He is testing the reich wing talking points for the NEI.
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - George W. Bush
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels
milofonbil 4 years ago
Nuclear mainly then wind and solar... this 3 are the solution...
kardrak 4 years ago
Why use nuclear power when all you need to do is to use Geothermal energy. It's not nearly as complicated and it can provide lots of renewable base load energy.
HiTekVagabond 4 years ago
because there is not geothermal everywhere, only in few countries.
kardrak 4 years ago
Most of the western states in the US have abundant geothermal energy.
Check out this website:
smu. edu/geothermal/2004NAMap/2004NAmap. htm
milofonbil 4 years ago
People like lonympics and nanfree really annoy me. Its individuals like these that are preventing us from moving into a future which demands intelligence and acceptance of nuclear energy. Yes, Nuclear plants produce CO2 in construction, mining, and enrichment of Uranium but even then it still produces less carbon per kw energy than ALL other forms of power generation. Its good science combined with logic, something opponents of Nuclear have never had!!
jplieges 4 years ago 6
"still produces less carbon per kw energy than ALL other forms of power generation" Nonsense
Renewables create far less carbon per kWh produced. (kWh is a unit of energy like a gallon of gas, kW is a measure of power like horsepower) For example, Hydro is responsible for 4g/kWh and wind 3 g/kWg. Nuclear 6g/kWh
HiTekVagabond 4 years ago
That's right, but Nuclear would not displace renewables, and renewables are not so reliable to power all the world and industry, we need something more powerful and efficient. So they both are the solution, not one in detriment of the other.
kardrak 4 years ago
Most of the renewables are reliable if properly sited. Powerful is a function of scale. The efficiency of many of the renewables is as high as the efficiency of nuclear power. Nuclear power is about 30% efficient - energy in versus electric power out.
milofonbil 4 years ago
Actually, according to this study (which is based on data from the nuclear industry), nuclear power produces over 90 g_CO2 per kWh .
Check for yourself:
tinyurl . com / 2kj4cq
microfactory 4 years ago
Great slide presentation. I was just quoting CO2 from operating the nuclear power plant. This did not include the construction, the front end, the back end and the deconstruction contributions to CO2. Thanks
Here is my source:
i-sis. org. uk/DTNPM. php
HiTekVagabond 4 years ago
Nuclear power causes global warming beyond CO2 emissions. I wish I had the figure for the amount of CFC-114 the enrichment plant leaks into the atmosphere per kWh. The two enrichment plants in Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, released 818,000 pounds of freon (CFC-114) in 1999 alone. CFC-114 lasts 300 years in the atmosphere, and causes 9800 times more global warming per pound than CO2. The largest source of CFCs leaked in the atmosphere is from these two plants.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Yes, and CANDU reactors don't need uranium enrichment, which are the future source for nuclear power.
braino2000 3 years ago
I don't see it happening anytime soon.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Yeah, that's because dumbass liberals think they can run the country one wind and solar. While were at it, why don't we run our vehicles on hydrogen too LOL
braino2000 3 years ago 3
Now there is something I can agree with you - Hydrogen ROFL.
However, I've certainly seen electric cars that work - highway speeds, 60 mile range, plug-in 110v or 220v.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Electric cars sound nice, but they are very unsafe. Hydrogen could make a debut when someone is brilliant enough to come up with an efficiant technology for hydrogen vehicles.
braino2000 3 years ago
I'm not talking about golf carts, I'm talking about real roadworthy cars. I've seen quite a few, including an original GM EV-1. They pass all of the Federal safety standards.
Fuel cells are nice an efficient. However, the hydrogen has to be extremely pure. And the fuel cells are currently still in the millions of dollars. This also leaves one more problem. Hydrogen is very volumous as a gas and very expensive to liquefy. This is why fool cells are really not going to be a viable option.
milofonbil 3 years ago
I've read about those. Although, people in the U.S. are too friggin stupid to ditch thier big SUVs and gas powered vehicles while there are other solutions for cars. And I know about the hydrogen, hydrogen powered cars arent coming around any time soon. There are only a dozen or so hydrogen stations across the country anyways.
braino2000 3 years ago
I like to see that statistic as well, its important that we know all of the facts. I am confident however, that if this is recognized as a serious problem that it can be contained. however, with over 6.049x10^9 metric tonnes of CO2 emitted by the US in a year, 371 metric tonnes of CFC-114 is spit in the ocean. even with the ratio, CFC-114 is contributing only 6.01x10^-4 times the global warming CO2 is. I doubt thats even worth measuring per kWh.
Bleezz 3 years ago
In the 1990's and early 2000's this was a huge problem. The two plants accounted for 90% of the CFCs in the atmosphere, but were exempted by the government. Since then, they have been working on containing the CFC-114 leaks at the Paddcah, KY plant and have closed the Portsmouth plant. Officials are saying they are licensed to build a new gas centrifuge plant that will not leak as much.
the 371 metric tonnes are significant because CFC-114 is much more potent and longer lasting than CO2.
milofonbil 3 years ago
CFC-114 is one of the worst substances know to man in terms of ozone destruction. CFC-114 lasts 300 years in the atmosphere, and causes 9800 times more global warming per pound than CO2. It was banned by the Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.
The tonnage emitted by USEC in 1999 was 88% of total CFC-114 emissions from US industrial sources; 14% of worldwide emissions.
Trying to disguise it per kWh is like Exxon trying to rationalize the Valdez drunken captain's actions.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Nuclear Power to create electricity and Hydrogen through electrolis, this is the only real "green" solution. Spent fuel rods and other contaminated materials can be controlled safely, just like Chemicals. It is geometrically impossible for a power plant to blow up like a bomb, never happen.
gsxjimg 4 years ago
Hydrogen is a very inefficient fuel for one of two reasons - as a gas, it takes up far too much space. And to liquefy hydrogen is very energy intensive.
HiTekVagabond 4 years ago
Hydrogen makes the sun shine! Adn ti provides the main energy fro life on Earth. It liberates 4 times more power than nuclear fission, which kills big time!
JonThm 4 years ago
Even more interesting:
1) World Uranium Peaked in 1980. They currently produce LESS uranium every year since the grade of the uranium is less and less. As ore grades diminish, more mining is required to get the same amount of oxide.
2) Germany, the Czech Republic, France, Congo, Gabon, Bulgaria, Tadzhikistan, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Portugal and Argentina, have already exhausted their uranium resources.
3) Many counties have peaked already and are net importers now. US imports 84%
bogon5dot 4 years ago
1) Yea, because we don't need uranium mines that are that rich, and we haven't actively surveyed for new uranium deposits since the 70's, look at how much longer fossil fuels have been extended thanks to new surveys.
2)Germany, the Czech Republic, France, Congo, Gabon, Bulgaria, Tadzhikistan, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Portugal and Argentina never had much uranium to begin with. they probably have more, but why survey when its cheaper to get it from Australia?
3)Again, its cheaper from Australia.
Bleezz 3 years ago
Of course we need the best grade of fuel. Enrichment is very expensive.
Think what you want to think. Australia is not having a sale on uranium below the going price.
milofonbil 3 years ago
The sun fuses hydrogen isotopes into helium... That has nothing to do with burning hydrogen with oxygen.
milofonbil 3 years ago
I definitely will rely on the advice ofonewho is making his living off the energy/environmental crisis. You did not mention the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce nuclear power. Fossil fuel is needed to mine the ore, mill the ore, process the yellow cake and enhance the uranium. Please give us the figures for that. It is not cheap--it backed by experts like you get federal subsidies--and also overrun their bids by at least 3 times.... Nuclear is not renewable--very deceptive!!!
nanfree22 4 years ago
Ranger mine uses 165 GJ of fossil fuels per ton of U3O8 made. That's about the same amount petroleum the USA imports in about 1/5th of a second, and that Uranium will go to light a million homes for days.
Subsidized photovoltaics, on the other hand, will destroy the earth if the hundreds of currently planned coal plants don't do it first.
zassounotsukushi 4 years ago
By the way, ALL of our submarines and all but ONE of our aircraft carriers use nuclear reactors to generate their electricity. I hope the media reminds folks of this point when politicians like John Edwards say we should stop using nuclear power. I guess Edwards thinks we should let some other country dominate the oceans! Iran, perhaps?
c06031983 4 years ago
If France wouldn't have all the electric heaters running at night and couldn't depend on foreign storage lakes, it wouldn't know what to do with all its inflexible nuclear energy. Also, during maintenance, a nuclear power plant leaves a huge gap and doesn't generate any power at all for several weeks and not just at night when the wind doesn't blow. Solar and wind can power towns well as large cities (transmission lines work not just with large power plants).
microfactory 4 years ago
With the money required for one new nuclear power plant one can purchase 15 Turnkey high tech and highly automated thinfilm solar module factories with a yearly output of 160 MW per factory from Oerlikon.
So, with these 15 Oerlikon solar module factories one can produce solar modules with a total peak power of 36'000 MW in 15 years, which is actually 22.5 times more peak power than what a new EPR nuclear reactor delivers.
microfactory 4 years ago
your nuclear power has a deadly waste material that is being buried deep underground and dumped into the deep ocean as well. My home has solar panels that power my home and my electric car. case closed. Period. Solar electric and Wind farm is a good choice.
PlugInPrius 4 years ago
Our deadly waste material can be renewed and what little of it that is very deadly is buried and loses its radioactivity over short time.
Yeah Solar is a good choice for a small town, but what about a large city, that takes in more power that what solar and wind can produce?
Alkaline4batterys 4 years ago
No one here has ever seen a picture of a Chernobyl orphan, I gather.
Solar, please.
everloony 4 years ago
That plant was run poorly.France has 80% nuclear power.
FLYR123 4 years ago
All it takes is one mistake - not even considering the issue of storage for nuclear waste. In the end, it's a risky proposition.
everloony 4 years ago
No it doesn't, it would take a catastrophic malfunction/mistake to cause the plaint to anywhere near a meltdown.
Alkaline4batterys 4 years ago
You never heard about faulty Soviet tech and poor workers, I gather.
Nuclear, please.
Alkaline4batterys 4 years ago
You've never been to France, have you? They've been using nuclear power to generate 75% of their electricity for 20 years, without any disasters. Please, stop making an ass of yourself.
c06031983 4 years ago
My previous comment was directed at everloony.
c06031983 4 years ago
And I suppose you have some brilliant idea as to where to put all of that radioactive waste for the next 100,000 years? =D
everloony 4 years ago
Yes, the Yucca Mountain. Problem solved! Clown.
c06031983 4 years ago
It will soon be possible to dispose of nuclear waste offworld. Have rocket, problem solved.
Hottides 4 years ago
Are you say the French are so dumb that if they can have nuclear energy and not have an accident then an accident will never happen. Ooo. Wow what a point to make. And the terrorism issue does not matter then i suppose
lonympics 4 years ago
The terrorism issue doesn't matter because every nuclear reactor in this country is surrounded by 6 feet of solid concrete! Tests during the 80's have shown that a plane crashing into such a concrete shield chips a 1/2 inch piece off. Terror proof, in other words.
c06031983 4 years ago
No the plane test was a fix. It was a 30 tonne fighter jet on a track, against unachored concrete. If you see the video the concrete is allowed to move back to take the strain. It was a total fix. Look at the pentagon that is reality.
lonympics 4 years ago
Oh, and by your logic, we should abandon any power source that has even a remote chance of having an accident. Right.......
c06031983 4 years ago
No by my logic, if a energy device could kill millions of people, wipe out huge chunks of out nation, in one terror attack it is not worth the risk. The plane video was con, it was fix
lonympics 4 years ago
PLus 30 tonne f4 xverus 300 tonne airliner.
lonympics 4 years ago
France gets 70% of it's power from nuclear energy and they have technology in place where they recycle the waste within the reactor just like the guy says. The global warming people claim reducing carbon emissions is crucial to saving all life on our planet. You'd think they'd be screaming for more nuclear power. Makes you wonder about their priorities and their politics.
rumwhisp 4 years ago
That the waste product stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years coupled with the fact that there are no buildings or containment systems that have even lasted that long (not to mention any single government or even LANGUAGE) sounds like nuclear fuel is the fastest way yet to destroy all human life on earth.
berryconnell 4 years ago
Sorry, but you are horribly ignorant...
seedmole 4 years ago
And rumpustuous, on a side note can I ask you a couple questions:
1) Do you have any experience in the nuclear power field?
2) Why did you become antinuclear?
masterseph 4 years ago
Once again, you use deceptive language. The annual waste per person, though it is objectively a small volume, would still be enough to deliver many lethal doses of radiation, cause cancers, mutate DNA. You should tell people how long it will take this "small" amount of waste to become inert, about storage problems and the possible ramifications if storage systems fail.
Q:What is a problem that has been "greatly reduced"?
A: STILL A PROBLEM
rumpustuous 4 years ago
Most types of fission products will completely decay within 1000 years. The problem with waste storage is political, not technological. With current technology we should be able to store waste for over 75000 years. Gen 4 reactors can only help this situation, by greatly reducing the longivity of waste.
On another note, you should know that you receive 3 times as much radiation per year living within 50 miles of a coal power plant than a nuclear power plant.
masterseph 4 years ago
There will be less than .025% of the original Sr-90 and Cs-137, which are by far the most dangerous fission products, in 250 years.
masterseph 4 years ago
There is no commercially viable plutonium breeder reactor program in any country. The two largest operating breeder reactors in the world are in the former Soviet Union and they use uranium as a fuel. Breeder reactor programs have been stopped in many countries, including the United States, due to technical problems, cost, and proliferation concerns.
rumpustuous 4 years ago
One dramatic example of the failure of breeder reactor was the December 1995 accident at the Monju breeder reactor in Japan, which was shut down due to a large liquid sodium leak and fire. The reactor first achieved criticality in April 1994.
rumpustuous 4 years ago
Funny...Monju is set to reopen again in 2008. Also if you want to refute my argument, you'd do much better using an example from the US.
masterseph 4 years ago
Look up integral fast reactor. It was cancelled by the government, true, but it showed incredible promise. Also, in 2006 Japan, France and the US agreed to develop sodium cooled fast reactors, which bears close resemblance to the liguid metal fast breeder reactor and integral fast reactor. And yes, they will be able to utilize depleted uranium, as will some other Gen 4s. So I correct you: some Gen 4 reactors will be able to utilize depleted uranium as fuel.
masterseph 4 years ago
The fact that gen4 reactors will be able to use DU as fuel is not in contention. I contend that these miracle reactors, which will do nothing to alleviate the environmental/health damage caused by mining and refining uranium, aren't going to be running until 2020-2030. So, if the result is the only relevant thing (which is akin to saying that the end justifies the means), how much damage will be done in the interim?
rumpustuous 4 years ago
I think it's also important to note that the nuke ind. (in the fed's pocket)caused the waste problem, so it's only right that they should fix it. And not by using DU to manufacture weapons. The experimental breeder in southeast Idaho has been running for 30 years w/out reported accidents, but they have accumulated 43 metric tons (47 english tons) of spent fuel they don't know what to do with. There goes yer assertion that breeders will solve the waste problem.
rumpustuous 4 years ago
A 2001 study of workers at the Paducah gas. diff. plant found they were exposed to Pu and other transuranics without their knowledge, not provided protective clothing, and were issued useless "rad. measurement badges" that contained no film. One worker's bones contained 1700 X the expected level of uranium. Rad. and toxic waste was dumped both in & outside the fence at Paducah for 50 yrs, contaminating groundwater to 400 ft deep and poisoning wells with plutonium.
rumpustuous 4 years ago
Look at the bigger picture, not single incidents. Anyways, the argument you're making in this is for reform, not for prohibiting. And because the fuel costs play such a small part in the overall input cost (as a comparatively small amount is used), mining reforms won't bring the industry to its knees.
masterseph 4 years ago
sorry, I was wrong-- there was an accident in Idaho. CORE MELTDOWN and EXPLOSION kiling three workers who had to be buried in special coffins to prevent their bodies from contaminating soil and water.
rumpustuous 4 years ago
Now you're talking about 2 separate reactors, both of which were experimental. The one with the accident used 50s technology (EBR-I), and the other one (EBR-II) started up in the 60s. If you want to present a more convincing argument, try showing, on a technical basis, that the SFR and IRF won't work. Also, regarding the accident, using an example from 1955 isn't a very convincing argument against nuclear technology 50 years later.
masterseph 4 years ago
I assume you're talking about EBR-II. The emphesis as a complete breeder reactor was a test SUCCESSFULLY demonstrated from 1964-1969. The emphesis was then shifted to testing fuels and materials for larger, liquid metal reactors. And you accuse me of deceptive wording?
masterseph 4 years ago
When compared to coal mining, the impact of uranium mining is much safer. The environmental impact is also less. The injuries/deaths in the nuclear power industry are actually about 25% of that in offices per year, and about 10% that of other traditional industries (mining and elsewhere). Also a study was conducted which found that nuclear power industry workers are 35% less likely to die from cancer than the general population, with a 60% lower mortality rate in general.
masterseph 4 years ago
When compared to wind power, uranium mining is unforgivable. Because uranium emits radon gas, and their harmful and highly radioactive daughter products, uranium mining is considerably more dangerous than other (already dangerous) hard rock mining.
rumpustuous 4 years ago
Did you even look at the numbers I presented? They don't lie. I'll repeat: 35% less likely to die from cancer than the general population, with a 60% lower mortality rate in general; injuries/deaths in the nuclear power industry are actually about 25% of that in offices per year, and about 10% that of other traditional industries. True, work in the niclear industry can be risky, but look at what's being done to prevent that (hence the numbers).
masterseph 4 years ago
Big picture: a large number of nuclear incidents have resulted in countless deaths/injuries/diseases/birth defects caused by rad. and toxic releases. Besides accidents, nuke material processing and handling have led to massive contamination of the US and world. The US Dept. of Energy, according to their '00 Fed. Budget, spend over $4 bil/yr. to manage 2.1 mil. acres of contaminated sites in 30 states and 1 territory. That's an area = the states RI + DE
rumpustuous 4 years ago
Mining: even the best deposits contain less than 1% uranium. Huge amounts of ore have to be crushed into a fine powder (itself radioactive & hazardous for 250,000 years)& washed w/sulphuric acid to capture the uranium. Huge amts. of H2O are used to suppress the deadly dust, which creates huge amts. of (you guessed it)radioactive H2O.
rumpustuous 4 years ago
I am arguing for a ban on uranium mining, conversion, enrichment, transportation, and use as nuclear fuel. Uranium is nothing but a problem from beginning to end. Fuel rods only last 3yrs, reactors have about a 30-40 yr. life span before they must be decommissioned or have their core replaced: but we'll still have to deal with their effects for a few million years.
rumpustuous 4 years ago
Regarding reactor life spans: you're right in some cases and you're wrong in a whole lot of others. Just look at how many reactors are getting liscense renewals for 20 additional years (for 60 years total). And by the way, Gen 4's are built to last 60 years. And once again, regarding the "few million years", I'll assume you're talking about the waste, which gen 4 reactors will reduce the longevity of by several orders of magnitude.
masterseph 4 years ago
All the more reason to close the fuel cycle with Gen 4 reactors then. Closed fuel cycles utilize fuel 50 times as efficiently, and will greatly extend the fuel supply (I've heard estimates ranging from 2000 to 20000+ years), and thus reduce the demand for mining.
masterseph 4 years ago
And once again you could argue for mining reforms as well. The increase in fuel prices will have little if any noticible effect on fuel costs. About a year ago uranium prices doubled due to increased demand, and there was no noticible change in input costs.
masterseph 4 years ago
Big Picture: all incidents included, more radiation is still released into the environment from coal power than from all nuclear releases combined. Also, notice how the frequency of accidents has decreased over the last 30 years in the US. That's called technological progress. It's important to learn from the past, but at the same time one should not live in it.
masterseph 4 years ago
Because of economics the realistic choice we face iis coal or nuclear. You may not like that choice, but that's the choice we have. If you live within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor, on average you'll receive an additional .01 mrem/yr of exposure, which is nothing compared to an average yearly dose of 360 mren. You're exposed to 100 times as much radiation from a 2 hour jet ride than from living near a nuclear reactor.
masterseph 4 years ago
I am not talking about fission products-- i am talking about the still fissible actinides that are currently disposed of as "waste" and stored outdoors in big corroding steel cylinders. Do you think that is safe storage, considering how DUF6 reacts with moisture? It is an example of current storage teknology. Would you volunteer to store them in your backyard?
rumpustuous 4 years ago
And regarding the storage of DUF6, if we completely stop using nuclear energy all together that's what we'll have to do. Not much better than the status quo. Once more I contend that gen4 reactors are the solution to this problem: all this can be potentially be utilized as fuel and converted into shorter-lived, less toxic fission products.
masterseph 4 years ago
correction: And regarding the storage of DUF6, if we completely stop using nuclear energy all together that's what we'll have to do: store it. Not much better than the status quo. Once more I say that gen4 reactors are the solution to this problem: all this can be potentially be utilized as fuel and converted into shorter-lived, less toxic fission products.
masterseph 4 years ago
It sounds great, but are there any GEN4 reactors on line and how long will it take to get rid of the 300,000 tons of nuclear waste we already have from nuclear power?
dataloreforever 4 years ago
Gen 4 reactors will most likely be online in the 2020-2030 range. As far as how long it will take to get rid of the actinides and DU using gen4's, I can't give any exact #'s right now (maybe I'll know for sure after another year in college), but I will stress that utilizing them as fuel will greatly help to extend our current fuel supply (by about 50 times).
masterseph 4 years ago
20 to 30 years. That means about 600,000 tons of waste. Can we store that in you basement until then?
dataloreforever 4 years ago
1)Where are you getting your #'s from? I the amount of waste doubling in the next 13-23 years seems a bit unrealistic (also, I said 2020 to 2030 range, not 20 to 30 years).
2)Technologically speaking, storage isn't a problem (the "problems" with storage are really all political).
3)In the long run the Gen 4 reactor solution will yield a much better waste situation.
masterseph 4 years ago
Where are you getting your info? Mine is from Bill Nye. There is no place to store it safely which is why thy just drive it around on a train. Plus 300,000 tons is plenty of waste not to have a place for. They say 2030 but that is just a guess. It could be 30 more years.
dataloreforever 4 years ago
Let's see...my info comes from the UC Berkeley nuclear engineering department. It should be self evident that UC Berkeley's nuclear enginnering department is more knowledgible about nuclear technology and the current situation than Bill Nye.
"It could be 30 years more"-If you want to make that guess, at least provide some reasoning for it. Otherwise, you are using blind faith by trying to claim the experts are wrong without justification.
masterseph 4 years ago
If you think it is that safe then you should not have a problem if they bury it in you back yard. I personally do not want it in mine. Every 30 years we create around 300,000 tons of waste.
dataloreforever 4 years ago
Actually, the amount of waste produced by US nuclear plants will reach the preliminary government imposed limit on Yucca mountain in 2014. However, the technological limit is 91% to 367% more for the 2000 acre site, and an additional 2200 acres may become availible, so there goes your implication that we can't store it in the short run.
I tried to post a video link from one of my professors, but it wouldn't let me. But if you're interested I could send it in a message. Just let me know.
masterseph 4 years ago
The government is defiantly one to listen to since they think the half life of this waste is a thousand years. Putting it in a hole is not a good solution. I do not disbelieve that you know what you are talking about.
dataloreforever 4 years ago
You are really generalizing with the term waste. Waste is not all the same element. Actinides and DU in almost every case have the longest half-lives. The two most concerning fission products (in terms of toxicity, healh hazards, etc.) are CS-137 and Sr-90, which have half-live of about 30 and 29 years respectively. It's generally actinides and DU with the extremely long half-lives.
masterseph 4 years ago
Hey man, workers in the nuclear power industry are 35% less likely to die from cancer than other professions. And believe it or not 4 times as many injuries/death occur in offices than in the nuclear power industry.
masterseph 4 years ago
So, concidering the excellent worker safety record, and the fact that technologically speaking storage is very possible, just give me the right equipment to modify.
masterseph 4 years ago
Don't get me wrong I love the idea of all of this, but I think that in your world you seem to forget that the waste has to go somewhere. So if it is not 300,000 tons then how much is there?
dataloreforever 4 years ago
A lot of things work in theory but to create large amounts off nuclear waste and say we can solve that in 10 yrs is stupid. If you can not solve the problem right now then we should not make more.
dataloreforever 4 years ago
Yes but what is the math from the storage sites and the people who live around them?
dataloreforever 4 years ago
I'll send you that video via message that I was talking about. Maybe that will help clear things up in regard to waste.
masterseph 4 years ago
I started watching it. Interesting. I can not say I am against nuclear power. I am for clean power. No power is 100% clean, but I would like it as clean as possible. Coal and natural gas is something we need to get away from. When I start heard numbers like 300,000 tons of waste it bothers me.
dataloreforever 4 years ago
What is it you are going to school for?
dataloreforever 4 years ago
I'm attending UC Berkeley and am double majoring in nuclear engineering and chemical engineering.
masterseph 4 years ago
This whole time I have not heard you offer a single solution to the waste issue. I've suggested Gen4 reactors which use closed fuel cycles. You argue that we should just stop using nuclear power all together, and yet you offer no solution as to what you'd do with the waste (which appears to be your main issue of concern).
Here's a short list of what a shift to Gen4 reactors can do to vastly improve the current situation:
masterseph 4 years ago
extend the fuel supply, increase Yucca Mountain's capacity by a factor of 50, utilize fuel 50 times as efficiently, use depleted uranium and actinides (DU and actinides are by far the most toxic and long lasting components of the waste) as fuel (where they are converted to fission products, which are nowhere near as toxic or long-lasting as actinides/DU) as opposed to having to store them, bulletproof safety, improved economics, and possibilities of hydrogen production to name a few.
masterseph 4 years ago
By rejecting Gen4 reactors, you not only reject an economical, reliable energy source which doesn't rely on foreign oil, but you also reject a good solution to the waste problem. If you think you have a better method which actually decreases the amount of actinides and DU (which phasing out nuclear energy won't do), please share it with me and some nuclear engineering professors.
masterseph 4 years ago
Correction:
By rejecting Gen4 reactors, you not only reject an economical, reliable energy source which doesn't rely on foreign oil, but you also reject a good solution to the waste problem. If you think you have a better method which actually decreases the amount of actinides and DU (which phasing out nuclear energy won't do, but Gen reactors will do), please share it with me and some nuclear engineering professors.
masterseph 4 years ago
Just spit balling here but a government subsidy program for solar energy for homes. Fuel cell systems for homes and cars. Building power plants that can run on ethanol and bio-diesel. Cheaper energy for people who use less energy. Charge higher prices to those who consume large amounts of energy.
dataloreforever 4 years ago
My stance on renewables: leave it to the market. If people want to install solar panels or a windmill on your own property, that's fine-it's their right as a citizen in a capitalist society. However, when it comes to big baseload, downtime puts them out of the game economically. In the end, the choice for big baseload is coal or nuclear, due to economics.
masterseph 4 years ago
I plan on being solar and wind myself one of these days. I want to be off the grid. I am tied of paying $250 a month for electricity.
dataloreforever 4 years ago
One other advantage about nuclear is that, since it uses such comparatively small amounts of fuel, input costs will show vastly less change than with fuel costs for nuclear than for coal, natural gas, ethanol, etc.
masterseph 4 years ago
I do not reject it, but where are they? I have yet to see one and they have been talking about them for a long time. In the mean time they want to increase the amount of waste we produce.
dataloreforever 4 years ago
There is a large difference between on paper and built. If they have not built and tested one of these reactors then you are just stating an opinion with no fact. I do not think that we should build 50 new nuclear power plants with the hope someday we will be able to solve the problem.
dataloreforever 4 years ago
Once again you say, "It might not work." If you believe this, at least have some technical basis for it.
And actually there was a concept reactor in the late 80s to early 90s called the intergral fast reactor, which showed a great deal of promise, is similar to the sodium cooled fast reactor (one of the Gen4's).
masterseph 4 years ago
Yes I am new to the research. I became interested during the elections when Kerry said he was going to put at least one react in every state starting with Iowa. I love the idea of GEN4 reactors, but I have heard they are a long way away if even at all.
dataloreforever 4 years ago
Okay, so let's get your stance clear: at first I thought you completely anti-nuclear, but now the way you are arguing it seems like your more in the middle and almost playing devil's advocate. So where do you really stand?
masterseph 4 years ago
Argue all you want about the nuclear power industry only be interested in money. What's relevant is the result, not the intension. The use of Gen 4 reactors would be a better solution in the longrun than stopping nuclear energy (as much of today's waste is DU and actinides). Once they're up and running, the nuclear power industry will be solving the waste problem in a far better manner than any suggested by antinuclear activists.
masterseph 4 years ago
Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said we should judge on result rather than intension. Let me throw out an example to clarify: You could argue that gen4 reactors are being developed solely for increased profit. However, if one of the added benefits is a better situation regarding the waste problem, where's the harm in that?
masterseph 4 years ago
Like most pro-nuke propaganda I've seen, this bit ignores the most glaring negative aspect of nuclear power: the waste. It's easy to shrug off nuclear waste as just a tiny fraction of the wastes produced in any given year, but you shouldn't try to fool people with percentages.
rumpustuous 5 years ago
How about some real numbers here? From what i've read, a thousand megawatt nuclear reactor produces 30 metric tons of "spent" fuel every year. This high-level, lethally radioactive mess contains radioisotopes that remain hazardous for millions of years. Is that the span of time you had in mind when you assured your listeners that these wastes will become "non-radioactive with time"? Is that the span of time modern tecnology is prepared to contain these wastes?
rumpustuous 5 years ago
"Spent" nuclear fuel, ha. I am disgusted by the word game the nuclear industry plays with the public. "Spent" fuel is many times more radioactive than when it entered the reactor. "Reprocessing," purportedly done to render waste less radioactive, is a deceptive term: reprocessing is done to recapture fissible (still usable) plutonium and uranium. Its motive is profit-- not the safety of the people.
rumpustuous 5 years ago
If the entire United States was powered by nuclear reactors, the annual waste per person would weaigh about as much as a golf ball and have the volume of about 2 pencils. And as I said, once the generation 4 reactors come out (more specifically the ones that run on closed fuel cycles) come out, the waste problem would be greatly reduced, as the most toxic and long lasting portions of the waste would be used again as fuel.
masterseph 4 years ago
rumpustuous, once generation 4 nuclear reactors come online (about 2020-2030) waste will no longer be a problem. We can simply use the most toxic and long-lasting types of waste (actinides (aka heavy metals), not fission products). Fission products aren't at all a long-run problem for most isotopes, and actinides are about 100 times as toxic as them.
masterseph 4 years ago
GenIV reactors will not run on flowers. End-waste is only part of the prob.- uranium (an actinide) fuel production itself creates deadly radioactive waste. The "gaseous diffusion" (uranium enrichment) plants in Paducah,KY Portsmouth,OH and Oak Ridge,TN store 1.5 billion pounds (equal in weight to 70 Ticonderoga class navy cruisers) of "depleted" uranium in steel cylinders outdoors.
rumpustuous 4 years ago
Ever hear of breeders? They use depleted uranium (mostly U-238) to breed Pu-239, which can be used as fuel. All this "waste" can be essentially converted into fuel. Depleted uranium lasts a long time (4.5 billion year half life), but fission products don't last anywhere near as long (many thousands of times less in most cases), and aren't anywhere near as toxic (about 100 times less toxic).
masterseph 4 years ago
I must correct myself: fission products last many thousands of times less than actinides and millions of time less than depleted uranium in most cases.
masterseph 4 years ago
Technology can be dangerous. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use it.Nuclear has proven itself reliable and manageable as a power source and I'm sure it will only improve. There will almost definately be another accident at some point, but its worth the risk. Its pretty easy to make more humans.
matsai6 5 years ago
Well consider the amount of human suffering global warming will do. Nuclear power can replace coal and oil. So it's not necessary to devalue people to move to nuclear, it has the potential to save lives.
theinquisitor 5 years ago
Energy addicts..
spiritedblue 5 years ago
How many windmills have you seen going up in your backyard?? But more than 3,000 MW of wind power were built just this year (2006) alone. This is about the same output as a nuclear power plant. Windills are mostly going up on ranch land, giving extra income to our ranchers. He does not talk about passive solar homes being built right now that can save up to 90% of their energy costs over their life time with only a 10% higher building cost.
milotacsbil 5 years ago
You pretty much stated everything right there, most of the fear of Nuclear Power is not justified, its just the ignorance of the general public, and of course the media doing there undercutting.
coviekiller5 5 years ago
Most of the media is owned by the companies that make nuclear reactors. The nuclear waste problem has not been solved. Plutonium, which is produced by all fission reactors, is one of the most poisonous substances known to man. Do you want a ricin or dioxin factory in your neighborhood?
milotacsbil 5 years ago
So now you're going to start spouting off some conspiracy theory, right? Coincidense means fact, right? (obvious sarcasm) Watching the news, I rarely see a story on nuclear energy...the most recent one I've seen was that California will continue its moratorium on nuclear power plant construction...hardly pro nuclear.
masterseph 5 years ago
No. It's not a conspiracy theory. But I can tell you that news is very filtered and influenced by their corporate owners. They are not going to criticize their owners. The news editors see to that. Perhaps you've not ever held a corporate job before.
milotacsbil 5 years ago
I'm just saying I don't see any pronuclear bias in the news.
masterseph 5 years ago
You might want to compare how news stories are presented. Take a close look at for example FOX, NBC and CBS versus ABC and PBS. Or Wall Street Journal, New York Times versus Washington Post. The pro-nuclear lobby is working vehemently behind the scenes to secure a new generation of nuclear power stations. Listen for key frames or "talking points" See how many stories are written about alternative energy and nuclear energy and see how they are slanted.
milotacsbil 5 years ago
I agree...all news casts have some kind of bias to them...I've seen some biased to the right and some to the left...what's important is to see through that to the real facts...I believe we're in agree on that.
masterseph 5 years ago
hint - NBC, MSNBC -> GE CBS -> Westinghouse
The pro-nuke frames are "Clean, Renewable Nuclear Energy", "Clean and Safe Nuclear Energy", "Sustainable and Safe Nuclear Energy" ...
milotacsbil 5 years ago
Haven't seen it yet on news broadcasts but I'll keep looking...I'll let you know if I find anything.
masterseph 5 years ago
I agree Plutonium is poisonous, but only if its ingested, but so are plenty of plants that grow in the wild, and mushrooms. Plutonium is not very radioactive, you could play pool with it and you would be fine, just don't eat it!
coviekiller5 5 years ago
You are so correct. It's an alpha emitter. I have held a plutonium pit coated in another metal in my bare hands. It's warm to the touch. However, I had to wear a respirator to keep from breathing any dust. Under normal operation reactors are safe. The problem is when things go wrong. Don't kid yourself. Pu is a very dangerous radiological hazard.
milotacsbil 5 years ago
Well you do have a point and I agree that reactors should be held up to the best safety standards possible, and they are, at least in the US, after all there haven't been any real nuclear disasters in the US, yes there was three mile island, but that's an example of how good our safety measures are, it was contained.
coviekiller5 5 years ago
TMI is just one of many Nuclear Disasters. TMI had a partial melt-down. Luckly TMI did not melt through the containment vessel. Approximately 43,000 curies of krypton were vented into the environment from the reactor building. Please read the NRC report. I would NEVER support de-regulation of nuclear power.
milotacsbil 5 years ago
Accidents happen not only in reactors, but while mining, transportation, conversion/processing, enriching/refining, fuel fabrication, waste storage, fuel reprocessing ... No nuclear fuel cycle is accident proof.
milotacsbil 5 years ago
Every nuclear reactor routinely releases millions of curies annually. Some of these radioactive emissions such as radioactive iodine 131, plutonium, strontium 90, many noble gases, and tritium go into our air and water and bioaccumulate in our food chain and bodies. These radioactive materials are extremely carcinogenic and mutagenic. They will be passed down through our genes to endless generations. Please look into it.
milotacsbil 5 years ago
I learned a lot about radioactivity from the webcasts of a physics lecture from the University of Berkeley. The Professor of physics showed that the dangers of nuclear power are massively exaggerated in public opinion. To find these lectures go to google video and search for: physics 10
theinquisitor 5 years ago
Perhaps Dr. Muller would like to retain his job as a physics professor. After all, Berkeley was the home of Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb and is closely associated with Lawrence Livermore Labs. Of course he will tell you that there are negligible risks involved.
milotacsbil 5 years ago
Let's not get political. Look at the science. There is more radiation coming from the natural rocks in Denver than there is coming from a nuclear power plant. But no-one says "don't live in Denver because of the natural radiation". There are dangers, but a meltdown really is very unlikely and compare it to the damage we know is going to be caused by global warming from coal and oil power. Don't fall into the trap of believing everything that scares you.
theinquisitor 5 years ago
For argument's sake, if it was found to be true that nuclear power was the only feasible way to provide enough power without causing a global warming disaster that would kill billions of people, would you then change your mind about nuclear? If we knew that for certain. This is a hypothetical argument, I know it's not known to be true.
theinquisitor 5 years ago
Actually, TMI did have a containment. And Unit 1 of TMI is the same type of reactor. Albeit, it is safer since then. The containment was actually a success story in that it contained a lot of the potential release.
trinian23 5 years ago
TMI's containment vessel luckly contained the accident and kept the core from melting down into the water table. It's not safer since then. It will be radioactive for a long time to come. The reactor's core melted down and it's been shut off. It did have a venting of radioactive krypton over Pennsylvania.
milotacsbil 5 years ago
thanks im going to use some of this information for my presentation on nuclear power in environment concenrs calls. WERD UP
melanurrr 5 years ago