Nuclear Power Explained : Climate of Hope : Part 1

[kryst1]

nice movie - i liked jurassic park better though

[Skellingtor]

Kool

[BynoKawai]

I wonder which would have killed more people: destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or sitting back while the war continued.

[fixfilet]

@BynoKawai ...read the books, honey. when the us decided to drop the bomb japan was already close to a capitulation. actually the us were afraid they would do so before they could present their little boy to the world.

[jimmywrangles]

@fixfilet That's not entirely true.

The japanese navy was done for,it's army had copped a flogging but a major part of it was still functional and at home in Japan ready to fight.

The entire country of Japan was mobilised and ready to fight right down to school boys and girls.

Japanese culture was not geared mentally for surrender and I seriously doubt wether they would have,not without a fight anyway.

having said all that it's still all conjecture which is fun but ultimately piontless.

[fixfilet]

@BynoKawai ...read the books, honey. when the us decided to drop the bomb japan was already close to a capitulation. actually the us were afraid they would do so before they could present their little boy to the world.

there is always an alternative, specially to nuclear bombs.

[russlowes]

Continuing on the message I last posted, there are a number of studies that outline the decline of uranium. The assay, or ore content, was 3000 parts per million of U to gross ore weight in 1980. Today it averages 1500. It is projected to go to about 400 in 2040 or so, assuming hardly any nuclear expansion. Three studies show this, two under Sovacool's compliation, from the U.S., a Dutch study and an Australian study. Uranium mining and milling will increase with CO2 output skyrocketing.

[papcio]

If it was true than no-one would invest in nuclear power, at least private capital. I also searched for various studies and there are really many that say, that the uranium reserves gonna last for hunders or thousands of years. The point is whether you consider unexplored resources and reusage of uranium from used fuel. Also new reactors are often fueled with MOX fuel. I know it may sound, like im saying "we simply gonna find it" but it is this way, we never looked for uranium.

[papcio]

An example is that in 2003 we knew about 3,2mln tons of uranium that can be recovered with the price of 130$/kg (that's not much). 2005 we knew about 4,7 tons. With current production it would 80 years to deplete it. But there is still lots of it to find, and when we considere the price of 200$/kg it where dozens of mlns of tons if I remember correctly.

[russlowes]

. . . (cont'd). . .that are too old, too non-transparent and that are not original, but only refer to other studies. He concludes that of the remaining studies the average grams/kilowatt-hour emitted by nuclear energy is 66. For wind it is 10. For solar it is 25-75 or so. He does not estimate energy efficiency, bu it would be far less than 10 on average. Nukes produce over 6 times the GHG that wind does. But, this is going up as uranium ore depletion continues. The best ore is depleted.

[papcio]

I'm not going to argue about the studies you talk about, because I have my own studies etc. But still 60g/kwh would be almost CO2 free. Belive me one thing there is still plenty of uranium. Saying that the best ores are depleted is like saying that the best places for wind plants are occupied now. Somewhat true, but not really.

[russlowes]

This is a great video. Very accurate and comprehensive. Thanks to the crew who put it together!

[IbnAlla]

I more like the movies WATERWORLD and MAD MAX.

[cellispielen]

Nuclear power is a great source of Greenhouse-gas-free electricity, but it is not a viable solution to the global climate change problem. This is because it would be far to expensive & take too much time to implement nuclear power on a scale large enough to replace 80% of our fossil fuel burning. It takes 10 years to get a nuclear plant online because of safety regulations, etc. This is too long. We can start implementing SAFE, CLEAN, & EFFICIENT renewables (wind solar etc) immediately!

[wce1987]

With political will it can be done in a year.

[papcio]

"We can start implementing SAFE, CLEAN, & EFFICIENT renewables (wind solar etc) immediately! "

What most people don't realise in most countries it's not the goverment who builds the powerplants, but it's the one who bans the building of new nuclear power plants and subsidise renewables. Seriously if renewables are so efficient than why we need to subsidise them? And belive me the 10 years for building a nuclear power plant are not this long. Remember year 2000? Yes it wasn't that far...

[papcio]

Nuclear energy too expensive? Than why want all those energy companies build new reactors for their money, but they are not allowed to?

[papcio]

BTW. These year the Germans will pay 10 billion euros to subsidise their solar cells that produce 0,4% of their electric energy, while the non subsidised nuclear energy gives them like 30%. Moreover they want to do some extra taxation on the nuclear power plants... Still the energy companies would profit from them...

[russlowes]

Nuclear energy is not greenhouse gas-free. As this film points out, there are many steps of the nuclear energy cycle, including mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, reconversion, fabrication, building the plant, running it, decommissioning it and many waste steps. The greenhouse gases emitted are very high and going higher with ore grade depletion.

[papcio]

Renewables are not greenhous free either. Such a wind power plant requiers tons of concrete, steel, plastics and rare elements. If the nuclear power required so much energy to produce energy than it's price would be way higher than almost now - almost free. Think about it and don't listen to some shitty youtube video (yeah sometimes they prove that elivis lives and so on). They may say things simple and the way you like it, but there are more reliable sources of information and think...

[TWEAKER01]

Yes I've actually been studying this issue for many years, long before climate change as an excuse for the nuclear industry came into vogue.

Do you have any idea how much uranium has to be mined, milled and processed to get a useable (saleable) amount of yellowcake? Watch all parts of this video again.

[papcio]

I'm not going to watch this bullcrap. There were enough lies in 2 parts of it. Any way did you know that splitting 1g of uranium gives as much energy as 2 tons of coal? If processing of uranium needed more energy or pretty much energy it would be so cheap. But I guess just don't want to understand it. I really don't see the point in argueing with you...

[papcio]

Just look on "carbon footpring of electricity" on wikipedia.

[papcio]

watch this watch?v=zwfqEvQq7M0 1:35

Sorry it's German, but I wonder why they didn't show this graphic here... Hmm because they didn't like it? And btw nuclear power is "Kernkraft" in German. As you see a nuclear plant needs less CO2 to run than a wind plant.

[eniac2000]

why do the french and english build so many reactors?

[TWEAKER01]

Well, you see, these nations have nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons gave birth to the "need" for "energy too cheap to meter". It didn't happen the other way around.

Civil and military applications are intrinsically linked, via expertise, infrastructure and the fuels themselves. See also Iran, DPRK....

[papcio]

They didn't need all those reactor for nuclear weapons as they had only few of them. Moreover reactors aren't necessary to produce nuclear weapons. BTW. what about Sweden? Or Czechs? None of them has nuclear weapons.

[TWEAKER01]

A great little film by WA Senate candidate Scott Ludlam.

Put it this way, it would take more money than has ever existed in the world to pay the overtime costs for even just a couple of staff to guard/manage radioactive wastes for the timescale required...

[wce1987]

Who said overtime was needed. Just do it in shifts like every other factory or security firm has done it since time immemorial.

[TWEAKER01]

"overtime" used simply to imply extended time periods involved.

We (humankind) don't even know for sure how the Pyramids of Giza were built. Can we safely manage nuclear wastes for thousands of generations longer than that? And with much of it already hugely costly ticking time bombs on ocean floors?

[papcio]

The only difference between toxic waste and nuclear wast is that the toxic wast is dangerous for ever, while the nuclear waste loses its properties over time. You mentioned the Pyramids of Giza. Whats the problem of building a simple concrete building a storage nuclear waste in it for 2000 years? You say with current technology we cann't storage things for 1000 years while the Acients could do that? srsly...

[TWEAKER01]

You're mistaken, in that Pu239 has a half life of 24,400 yrs and an effective radioactive life of half a million years - effectively for ever. And just 0.001 gram of the stuff will kill you.

Or Strontium 90, with the qualities of calcium, thus easily absorbed and a cause of leukemia & sarcoma..

My Pyramids analogy was lost on you, ie: despite they're relatively "modern" age we still don't know how they were built, or why. Radioactive half lives far outlast the history of human accountability.

[papcio]

But there are also lots of isotops like I-131 with the half life of 8 days or strontium-90 with 29 years that

provide most of the radiation...

"with the qualities of calcium, thus easily absorbed and a cause of leukemia & sarcoma.."

Just like there are thousends of other non radioactive materials around you that are toxic. The point is that

thay have to get inside you somehow in sufficient amount.

[TWEAKER01]

"thay have to get inside you somehow in sufficient amount." - which is quite easy when it comes to inhalation, or ingestion from fallout bio-concentration in the food chain. And penetrating gamma radiation sources are worse, still, in which the above doesn't apply. Of course Iodine 131 was the primary cause of thyroid cancers after Chernobyl. A shorter half-life does not preclude the risks.

[papcio]

"thay have to get inside you somehow in sufficient amount."

Read my example about lead. You have tons of it around you, but you don't die.

"And penetrating gamma radiation sources are worse, still, in which the above doesn't apply"

What do you mean? You realise that it won't penetrate from 1000m underground? And even if 1000 from the point of radiation, it is way lower beacause it spreads in all directions?

[papcio]

"Of course Iodine 131 was the primary cause of thyroid cancers after Chernobyl"

There was only slightly increase in thyroid gland cancers in Chernobyl. It could be because more people were tested for it, because every thyroid gland deformation was concerned as cancer and because of many screening looking for it. Still all causes were healed. The death toll of Chernobyl is 56 people. And what you don't realise there is no I-131 in stored nuclear waste... so your argument is invalid.

[papcio]

"My Pyramids analogy was lost on you..."

Zomg we totally know how they were build but it's not the point. Belive it or not but they are just huge piles

of stone. I could name any other acient building. The point is that a simple pile of stone can last thousends

of years. So we in XXI century can do the same...

"Radioactive half lives far outlast the history of human accountability. "

[papcio]

Probably all the matter around us is radioactive, we just lack the equipment to measure such low radiation.

Generally the longer the half-life the lower the radiation. Another thing that you don't get is that we don't need to lower the radiation levels to zero (it could never be achieved). We lower it to some point that we

belive that even if it mixes with ground water it will increase its radioativity only so slightly that it won't be dangerous.

[TWEAKER01]

"We lower it to some point that we belive that even if it mixes with ground water it will increase its radioativity only so slightly that it won't be dangerous." - Are you serious? Regulations for 'acceptable" limits standards are being reduced all the time. Fact is, in terms of naturally occurring sources of ionising radiation from space or earth minerals, it should be noted that any human-induced exposure is in ADDITION to the above. There is no "safe" dose.

[papcio]

Bullshit, you need WAY higher doses of radiation to do any harm. It's because your own metabolism does damage your body the same way radiation does, but the number of mutations made by your own metabolism is several orders of magnitude higher. Secondly your theory is invalid because there are places on earth with much higher background radiation than others. And I'm taling about inhabitet places. We still have huge reserves of cell repairing capabilities....

[papcio]

What you also should think about - there is lots of natural radioactive material. Why isn't it dangerous? Because it's thined so much. Or about lead. There is plenty of lead around us and is toxic. It also never decays...

[papcio]

1. Oh I forgot to mentiont - when stored underground the radioactive material isn't going to move for a time that as you described "far outlast the history of human accountability"

2. Im not shure that 0,001g Uranium kills me since I was allowed once to hold a sample of it in my hands. Just need to wash them afterwards.

[TWEAKER01]

I said Pu239, not U235. Hence an amount of PU239 the size of no more than a grapefruit is enough for an A-bomb.

[papcio]

I don't see the point of talking to you, when you can't argument properly. Atom bombs have nothing to do here with risks of nuclear waste.

[Rumour66]

I agree. Did you watch part two and three of this?

[zebramaria]

I'm no expert, but...

Nuclear is not the solution. It is not a solution. The cost benefit of building nuclear plants is negative and uses a lot of fossil fuel. We have no safe way of storing nuclear waste, and we don't have the right to impose it on future generations just so we can fuel our current lifestyles. Uranium reserves are finite, and we'll run out of that too.