View Poll Results: What do you think of Nuclear Power?
Nuke power is the best option to meet our energy demand. No worries!
11
22.92%
Nuke power has some safety/security and waste issues but is still the best short term option.
22
45.83%
While Nuclear power is clean and does not contribute to global warming the safety risks concern me.
9
18.75%
Nuclear power is not safe, waste is a huge and long term problem. Option of last resort.
6
12.50%
Voters: 48. You may not vote on this poll
Nuclear Power?
Active Enthusiast
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 160
Re: Nuclear Power?
While I have learned allot about this stuff over the last hour and have read an otherwise convincing array of safety information relating to nuclear power, the rest of those links however provide too many references proving that there is no shortage of blunders and fools to circumvent even the best designs.
The fact that the DOE requires containment structures is proof enough that nobody can say with any certainty that all factors have been addressed and are 100% controllable. Even .000000000001% chance that there will be a meltdown and a breach is too much for me - and that's just with respect to the generation aspect. Throw in the fact that a simple forrest fire could threaten to release waste materials and I am anything but convinced that we have a realistic clue as to how to safely handle this stuff.
The fact that the DOE requires containment structures is proof enough that nobody can say with any certainty that all factors have been addressed and are 100% controllable. Even .000000000001% chance that there will be a meltdown and a breach is too much for me - and that's just with respect to the generation aspect. Throw in the fact that a simple forrest fire could threaten to release waste materials and I am anything but convinced that we have a realistic clue as to how to safely handle this stuff.
Thread Starter
|
Super Moderator & Contributor ($)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,672
Re: Nuclear Power?
I've been reading the whole time myself. I can't imagine the poor idiots who "tickled the dragon's tail" and monkeyed around with nuclear materials BY HAND and slipped causing their own deaths due to radiation. What a nasty way to go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin Poor guy!
Last edited by lakedude; Mar 11, 2007 at 09:01 AM.
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 441
Re: Nuclear Power?
Here's my horse in this race. Despite my misgivings about nuclear power in general I think the plant itself is quite elegant. The following information is readily available to the public, found by typing "Westinghouse AP100" into Google. (That way I don't get fired or arrested. 
)
AP1000
The above site is not especially interesting, but gives you a rough idea of the concept. For the more technically inclined, the following paper is far more informative.
Technical Overview (PDF)
As always, I am NOT the voice of my employer.
)AP1000
The above site is not especially interesting, but gives you a rough idea of the concept. For the more technically inclined, the following paper is far more informative.
Technical Overview (PDF)
As always, I am NOT the voice of my employer.
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 480
From: Ppls Rep. of Boulder
Re: Nuclear Power?
Nuclear Power Industry Wins First Site Approval in 30 Years
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2...7-03-09-04.asp
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2...7-03-09-04.asp
Active Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 141
From: Carless in Curacao, Netherland Antilles
Re: Nuclear Power?
PS: If you fly on commercial aircraft, I'd highly recommend avoiding France. There are just too many reactors to crash into.
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 955
From: Chicago area
Re: Nuclear Power?
Worthywads' link has some interesting back-and-forth on this exact topic by Secretary of Energy Bodman and the head of the Nuclear Control Institute, which appears to be an NGO with, perhaps, the purpose of advocating for limits on nuclear power. I've not researched NCI at all. But both arguments I think are trenchant:
Leventhal comes off as a bit of an alarmist here, I think, but it's still interesting to hear arguments from the other side of the question.
"As our nation seeks to increase its reliance on nuclear energy to strengthen U.S. energy diversity and security with a reliable electricity source that keeps the air clean, today’s action marks a promising day for a brighter energy future for the American people," [Bowman] said.
Leventhal [head of the NCI] said, "The nuclear renaissance is in the eyes of the beholder. The administration has tried to build a solid case for nuclear power based on global warming and electricity needs beyond current capacity." But, in his view, the risks outweigh the benefits.
"I'm not anti-nuclear, and I have taken a neutral position on nuclear power," Leventhal said. "It can be accpetable[sic] if it is operated as safely as humanly possible."
"But nuclear power plants in today's security environment should be regarded as strategic targets in the United States with the fullest protection the federal government can provide," Leventhal said. "They should be protected with ground to air missiles integrated into both the military and the Federal Aviation Administration systems with careful command and control systems. There may have to be permanent troops or special federal protection forces."
But Leventhal says the industry opposes the federal government stepping in because it might alarm the public into recognizing that nuclear power plants are vulnerable. "So you have nuclear power plants protected by rent-a-cops."
Energy Secretary Bodman characterizes nuclear power as "clean" and "safe" and says "nuclear power will play an increasingly important role as the demand for electricity grows worldwide."
"Government's role is to create an environment in which clean energy can flourish, and I'm proud to say that we're helping doing just that," said Bodman Thursday.
But Leventhal is not reassured. "There's lots of loosey, goosey stuff that makes plants vulnerable to attack," he said. "The public doesn't want to know, they're in denial."
"We cannot today protect against an attack like 911," Leventhal warned. "If plants are hit in the big metropolitan areas such as Chicago or New York, the effects would be catastrophic, rendering these cities uninhabitable."
Leventhal [head of the NCI] said, "The nuclear renaissance is in the eyes of the beholder. The administration has tried to build a solid case for nuclear power based on global warming and electricity needs beyond current capacity." But, in his view, the risks outweigh the benefits.
"I'm not anti-nuclear, and I have taken a neutral position on nuclear power," Leventhal said. "It can be accpetable[sic] if it is operated as safely as humanly possible."
"But nuclear power plants in today's security environment should be regarded as strategic targets in the United States with the fullest protection the federal government can provide," Leventhal said. "They should be protected with ground to air missiles integrated into both the military and the Federal Aviation Administration systems with careful command and control systems. There may have to be permanent troops or special federal protection forces."
But Leventhal says the industry opposes the federal government stepping in because it might alarm the public into recognizing that nuclear power plants are vulnerable. "So you have nuclear power plants protected by rent-a-cops."
Energy Secretary Bodman characterizes nuclear power as "clean" and "safe" and says "nuclear power will play an increasingly important role as the demand for electricity grows worldwide."
"Government's role is to create an environment in which clean energy can flourish, and I'm proud to say that we're helping doing just that," said Bodman Thursday.
But Leventhal is not reassured. "There's lots of loosey, goosey stuff that makes plants vulnerable to attack," he said. "The public doesn't want to know, they're in denial."
"We cannot today protect against an attack like 911," Leventhal warned. "If plants are hit in the big metropolitan areas such as Chicago or New York, the effects would be catastrophic, rendering these cities uninhabitable."
Active Enthusiast
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 160
Re: Nuclear Power?
Wow, those are some long odds, Kip. I promise not to discuss any more statistics. If you got your arms around the catastrophic events in life that are far more probable than a nuclear reactor accident, you'd never leave the house again.
PS: If you fly on commercial aircraft, I'd highly recommend avoiding France. There are just too many reactors to crash into.
PS: If you fly on commercial aircraft, I'd highly recommend avoiding France. There are just too many reactors to crash into.
So why take this risk if alternatives do exist that niether threaten global temperature nor the majority of the earth's inhabitants? The potential for renewable energy sources far exceeds that of nuclear - which like coal, must be mined out of the earth in large quantities. Further, workers are exposed to harmful radon, and a waste heap of dangerous tailings from refinement is left behind.
Thread Starter
|
Super Moderator & Contributor ($)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,672
Re: Nuclear Power?
Wow, those are some long odds, Kip. I promise not to discuss any more statistics. If you got your arms around the catastrophic events in life that are far more probable than a nuclear reactor accident, you'd never leave the house again.
PS: If you fly on commercial aircraft, I'd highly recommend avoiding France. There are just too many reactors to crash into.
PS: If you fly on commercial aircraft, I'd highly recommend avoiding France. There are just too many reactors to crash into.
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 955
From: Chicago area
Re: Nuclear Power?
The point is that this a risk that can be 100% avoided by simply not building the things, and that the result from a catastrophic failure could potentially render millions ill or dead, and render the surrounding landscape uninhabitable.
So why take this risk if alternatives do exist that niether threaten global temperature nor the majority of the earth's inhabitants? The potential for renewable energy sources far exceeds that of nuclear - which like coal, must be mined out of the earth in large quantities. Further, workers are exposed to harmful radon, and a waste heap of dangerous tailings from refinement is left behind.
So why take this risk if alternatives do exist that niether threaten global temperature nor the majority of the earth's inhabitants? The potential for renewable energy sources far exceeds that of nuclear - which like coal, must be mined out of the earth in large quantities. Further, workers are exposed to harmful radon, and a waste heap of dangerous tailings from refinement is left behind.
One. Nuclear reactors exist in the world. Two. Nuclear weapons exist in the world. Three. Nuclear 'power' in the sense of "if your country has it, then it's powerful" is a hugely important global political issue.
Basically, if you take a hard look at what those three facts together mean, it's naive to conclude that nuclear reactors are going to vanish. The technology is not going away; individual countries are HIGHLY unlikely to give it up once they have it, countries that do not have it are going to try to get their hands on it unless faced with a strong disincentive (like the trade agreements and other treaties the US has with countries like South Korea, which could probably develop nuclear reactors if it tried but has not due to our influence).
Given these facts, the existence and continued presence of these things in the world, your point is, well, fairly pointless. None of the risks are going to be 100% avoided by eliminating nuclear power; it's a political, social, and probably economic impossibility. The main questions to discuss are how many there will be, what form (weapons/reactors/power plants) they will be in, how safe can they be made and who will have them?
Now, I am being somewhat unfair, in that you could be arguing that for any one city or specified geographic area in which there is currently no nuclear power, you could avoid 100% of the risks that come with nuclear power by failing to build a nuclear power plant in that area. However, given your prior contentions that a single nuclear incident would have global impacts, I feel comfortable leaving that to one side.
