What's your opinion on nuclear energy?

[Ceasabel]

WOW, I can't believe how many people are responding to this! biggrin

[Dryctarth]

Seeing as the topic's come up, I've been a bit curious about how we're getting energy from nuclear power plants. It seems somehow inefficient that the source of generated electricity from nuclear power plants is steam power. It also feels old and boring (romantic delusion, I know). It'd be nice if there were some other way to use the energy produced by the fission, so I'm wondering if anyone's ever heard of something like that, even if only rumors or theoretical proposals.

The second thing I've been wondering, is can't we use the photoelectric effect somehow to get energy from the waste? Ignoring alpha and beta radiation, couldn't we use gamma radiation to eject electrons from certain metals, producing a charged surface and thus potential energy differences we could use? Also, if there's any experts around, is there any other way we could use the photoelectric effect for energy? (Sorry for wandering off topic a bit)

[Comet Cracker]

Dryctarth

Seeing as the topic's come up, I've been a bit curious about how we're getting energy from nuclear power plants. It seems somehow inefficient that the source of generated electricity from nuclear power plants is steam power. It also feels old and boring (romantic delusion, I know). It'd be nice if there were some other way to use the energy produced by the fission, so I'm wondering if anyone's ever heard of something like that, even if only rumors or theoretical proposals.

The second thing I've been wondering, is can't we use the photoelectric effect somehow to get energy from the waste? Ignoring alpha and beta radiation, couldn't we use gamma radiation to eject electrons from certain metals, producing a charged surface and thus potential energy differences we could use? Also, if there's any experts around, is there any other way we could use the photoelectric effect for energy? (Sorry for wandering off topic a bit)

Well, most power plants in general use steam turbines. Most of the energy in a nuclear reaction is released as heat, and using that heat to make steam and drive turbines is currently the most efficient way of converting it to electricity.

[Vote Kira]

77watermelons

Vote Kira

No. The plants are expensive to build and the waste that they generate is toxic for centuries. Even if the waste was buried in containers and sealed in an underground concrete or lead or whatever chamber, if there was an earthquake or any other sort of movement of the surrounding rock it could destroy the chamber and release the radioactive material into the ground water. The idea that nuclear energy is 'clean' energy is a hoax. It should only be used in places where other ways of producing energy are not viable.

I'm no expert, but I've written a few research papers on this topic, and, actually, nuclear energy has enormous potential to be safe.

I'll start with the waste. While it is true that the waste is dangerous to almost all life forms for somewhere between decades and tens of thousands of years, depending on the type of material and which process it was involved in, it can be safely stored. Regions of Yucca Mountain in Nevada have been proposed waste disposal regions, as they would safely store the materials despite any natural disaster, were one to occur, which, given the region, would be somewhat unlikely. The proposed region is also already incapable of supporting life, so there is no risk to any sentient being.

As for the safety of the actual plants, there have only been two serious incidents in the fifty odd years that nuclear power plants have been implemented, an already significantly lower incidence rate than other power sources such as coal-burning plants. And when a closer look is taken at the two incidents (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island), it is obvious that a nuclear power plant can operate safely. Chernobyl was built to safety standards that were appalling even in that era, and this standards have only risen with time. The idea that something like that could happen is unthinkable if one takes into account the enormous regulation of nuclear power plants. The incident at Three Mile Island was not caused by any failure in the plant itself, but rather in user error. There was a minor mishap, the attendants strayed from protocol, and some bad s**t happened. (Though I don't have any reliable source for this, my father, who spent 26 years in the Navy working in the nuclear field once told me that a properly built nuclear power plant could have an F-16 collide with it without releasing any substantial radiation). That paired with the fact that the average coal-burning plant actually releases more radiation on a day-to-day basis than the average nuclear power plant shows just how safe these plants are.

And while nuclear energy does produce hazardous waste, that waste can be stored where it will not threaten life. The greenhouses gases produced by so many other methods cause just as much harm, and are not so easily stored safely. These gases are not produced at nearly the same rates at nuclear power plants as other power sources, meaning that nuclear energy is, in that and other respects, a clean energy. And currently, France produces almost half of it's energy by means of nuclear power. They manage to do this without wasting money on admittedly expensive plants, because nuclear plants produce more energy per dollar than coal and solar (though current research into solar will likely change that fact within 2-4 years). So while the individual plants are expensive, the waste is dangerous, and the plants aren't perfect, the energy is cheaper per kilowatt hour, the danger is a non-factor, and they are as, if not more so, safe than most other types of plants.

What I am particularly worried about when it comes to nuclear power is how long the wastes are dangerous for. I can imagine that oh let's say five hundred years or even just ten years into the future there is a war or something and the knowledge of where these disposal locations is lost. People then dig or build on the site for whatever reason and come in contact with the toxins. The containers and storage places that hold them will not last forever and neither will the countries that produce it.

I know that the plants themselves are relatively secure and rather clean for the air when it comes to radiation, I am just concerned about what happens or might happen to the waste part. That is what bothers me.

I am glad to hear that storage of nuclear wastes is at least being thought through in the U.S. (I actually found one of the reports done on Yucca Mountain here).

I noticed that you said that it will not have a threat to sentient species. What about the native species that live in the area?

I should also say that I am no expert on this matter either.

[Gregori Umbranox]

I think we should use it. Besides that fact that we can make it safe, come on, that is one of the better ways to show just how far mankind has come. From flint tools to nuclear energy. Come on, that is some progress people.

[AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug]

77watermelons

Vote Kira

I'll start with the waste. While it is true that the waste is dangerous to almost all life forms for somewhere between decades and tens of thousands of years, depending on the type of material and which process it was involved in, it can be safely stored. Regions of Yucca Mountain in Nevada have been proposed waste disposal regions, as they would safely store the materials despite any natural disaster, were one to occur, which, given the region, would be somewhat unlikely. The proposed region is also already incapable of supporting life, so there is no risk to any sentient being.

I am glad to hear that storage of nuclear wastes is at least being thought through in the U.S. (I actually found one of the reports done on Yucca Mountain here).

I noticed that you said that it will not have a threat to sentient species. What about the native species that live in the area?

I should also say that I am no expert on this matter either.

I'm reading these and finding them rather funny.
[quote="Layra-chan]I'm still in favor of the "pave Nevada with solar cells" idea. There's a lot of the Southwest that nobody is using and enough sunlight that even at only 10% efficiency we can power at least Western Civ. on solar alone as long as our energy consumption doesn't rise more than linearly. And we don't get the problem of nuclear waste and possible sources of weapons-grade plutonium as side-effects. Everybody wins! Except maybe Nevada.

If you people get any more stupid on this particular subject. I lived in Las Vegas, which, for all of you who don't know, that is less that 200 miles away from where you propose store the waste. Now, you are suggesting that we possibly contaminate the area and ground water...which I feel I must also point out, Nevada shares water with Arizona, California, New Mexico. All in all, there are a whole lot of places that rely on the fact that Lake Mead is so conveniently close. And the potential problem of poisoning thousands of tourists that travel there each year. Just a little piece of info for y'all, since my grandfather died of radiation poisoning, radiation poisoning may not pass directly from person to person, it will pass from parent to child if parents procreate, and if enough people are infected strongly enouin one area, it can affect that whole area.

[d43dr34m3r]

I'm personally in favor of nuclear energy. It seems like the best option we have on the table right now. Anyone interested in a review of the actual dangers of nuclear energy and a short history of nuclear power use should at least go listen to Brian Dunning's take on Skeptoid #92, The Terrors of Nuclear Power. You can find it by searching iTunes, or going to http://skeptoid.com/episode_guide.php . I'm sorry for justifying my views with little more than a link, but when someone's already said it better than I can...

[Kikarok]

AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug

If you people get any more stupid on this particular subject. I lived in Las Vegas, which, for all of you who don't know, that is less that 200 miles away from where you propose store the waste. Now, you are suggesting that we possibly contaminate the area and ground water...which I feel I must also point out, Nevada shares water with Arizona, California, New Mexico. All in all, there are a whole lot of places that rely on the fact that Lake Mead is so conveniently close. And the potential problem of poisoning thousands of tourists that travel there each year. Just a little piece of info for y'all, since my grandfather died of radiation poisoning, radiation poisoning may not pass directly from person to person, it will pass from parent to child if parents procreate, and if enough people are infected strongly enouin one area, it can affect that whole area.

I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug]

Kikarok

AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug

If you people get any more stupid on this particular subject. I lived in Las Vegas, which, for all of you who don't know, that is less that 200 miles away from where you propose store the waste. Now, you are suggesting that we possibly contaminate the area and ground water...which I feel I must also point out, Nevada shares water with Arizona, California, New Mexico. All in all, there are a whole lot of places that rely on the fact that Lake Mead is so conveniently close. And the potential problem of poisoning thousands of tourists that travel there each year. Just a little piece of info for y'all, since my grandfather died of radiation poisoning, radiation poisoning may not pass directly from person to person, it will pass from parent to child if parents procreate, and if enough people are infected strongly enough in one area, it can affect that whole area.

I have no idea what I'm talking about.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I do, I have actually talked to several people who work area 51 and Yucca mountain. On what bases do you say I don't know what I am talking about? Please enlighten everyone.

Besides, why don't you go and live in a place where they propose dump the waste. I was there when they proposed dump it there, and I did my research on the subject, RADIATION KILLS, and it doesn't just go away, there is the whole fact of half life to consider.

[LtEarthworm]

AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug

Kikarok

AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug

If you people get any more stupid on this particular subject. I lived in Las Vegas, which, for all of you who don't know, that is less that 200 miles away from where you propose store the waste. Now, you are suggesting that we possibly contaminate the area and ground water...which I feel I must also point out, Nevada shares water with Arizona, California, New Mexico. All in all, there are a whole lot of places that rely on the fact that Lake Mead is so conveniently close. And the potential problem of poisoning thousands of tourists that travel there each year. Just a little piece of info for y'all, since my grandfather died of radiation poisoning, radiation poisoning may not pass directly from person to person, it will pass from parent to child if parents procreate, and if enough people are infected strongly enough in one area, it can affect that whole area.

I have no idea what I'm talking about.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I do, I have actually talked to several people who work area 51 and Yucca mountain. On what bases do you say I don't know what I am talking about? Please enlighten everyone.

Besides, why don't you go and live in a place where they propose dump the waste. I was there when they proposed dump it there, and I did my research on the subject, RADIATION KILLS, and it doesn't just go away, there is the whole fact of half life to consider.

They're not just gonna drive up to the mountain, drop off the waste, and leave. It's being built to contain the radiation.
If you don't like a radiation proof mountain though, what would you suggest we do with the waste? Stockpile it at the plants?

[AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug]

LtEarthworm

AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug

Kikarok

AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug

If you people get any more stupid on this particular subject. I lived in Las Vegas, which, for all of you who don't know, that is less that 200 miles away from where you propose store the waste. Now, you are suggesting that we possibly contaminate the area and ground water...which I feel I must also point out, Nevada shares water with Arizona, California, New Mexico. All in all, there are a whole lot of places that rely on the fact that Lake Mead is so conveniently close. And the potential problem of poisoning thousands of tourists that travel there each year. Just a little piece of info for y'all, since my grandfather died of radiation poisoning, radiation poisoning may not pass directly from person to person, it will pass from parent to child if parents procreate, and if enough people are infected strongly enough in one area, it can affect that whole area.

I have no idea what I'm talking about.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I do, I have actually talked to several people who work area 51 and Yucca mountain. On what bases do you say I don't know what I am talking about? Please enlighten everyone.

Besides, why don't you go and live in a place where they propose dump the waste. I was there when they proposed dump it there, and I did my research on the subject, RADIATION KILLS, and it doesn't just go away, there is the whole fact of half life to consider.

They're not just gonna drive up to the mountain, drop off the waste, and leave. It's being built to contain the radiation.
If you don't like a radiation proof mountain though, what would you suggest we do with the waste? Stockpile it at the plants?

And what happens to all that radiated waste when Yucca Mountain goes up. It is a volcano, and Nevada is riddled with faults, so there is no way that it can be proven extinct. Honestly, we don't need nuclear power, solar, wind, and hydro are not really as expensive people think. Why not ship it to the sun? Or just not us it.

[d43dr34m3r]

AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug

You have no idea what you are talking about. I do, I have actually talked to several people who work area 51 and Yucca mountain. On what bases do you say I don't know what I am talking about? Please enlighten everyone.

Besides, why don't you go and live in a place where they propose dump the waste. I was there when they proposed dump it there, and I did my research on the subject, RADIATION KILLS, and it doesn't just go away, there is the whole fact of half life to consider.

I'm sorry, but, "several people who work area 51 and Yucca mountain"? What, like the janitors? Pilots? Security Guards? You're gonna need to be more specific than that. At the least their actual position at the two locations, and exactly what they said, not what you heard them say from your point of view. Preferably you would also provide us with names for these several people, and links to papers/articles/interviews where they actually put forth the ideas that you attribute to them, and why they're still working on a project they're against.

And I would much rather live next to a nuclear waste disposal facility than, say, a coal ash disposal site. The not-in-my-backyard attitude is not sufficient reason to argue against something.

As far as solar energy goes, I honestly haven't looked into it enough recently to have a good opinion, but it seems to me that we'd have to find somewhere to put all those panels, and a way to transport that energy. Building systems on that scale usually ends up far more expensive than the estimates given. Wind and hydroelectric power both depend on location, and dams can destroy local ecosystems with the artificial lakes they create, while windmills are a serious problem for bats, also run into the NIMBY problem, and again requiring large amounts of land and being a logistical problem.

On a slightly related note, what does area 51 have to do with Yucca mountain or the problem of nuclear waste disposal?

[AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug]

Part of the mountains that are Yucca Mountain run through area 51. And I can't give names, I only know what my own father told me during his time out there. And the people he met and spoke with on the subjects are pretty important. He didn't tell me names, but he is of the same mind, don't let them place that in his back yard.

[d43dr34m3r]

So your argument is that you know better than the experts that picked Yucca Mountain as a safe place for nuclear waste. Your reasons for this are because you live near Yucca Mountain, your dad spoke to some people whose name and qualifications you can't provide at area 51 who know about the topic because they work near Yucca Mountain, he spoke to some people from Yucca Mountain whose information you can't provide either, and your dad agrees with you.

I'm sorry, but it seems like you're asking me to accept your position as valid based solely on your own word.

[Vote Kira]

AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug

77watermelons

Vote Kira

I'll start with the waste. While it is true that the waste is dangerous to almost all life forms for somewhere between decades and tens of thousands of years, depending on the type of material and which process it was involved in, it can be safely stored. Regions of Yucca Mountain in Nevada have been proposed waste disposal regions, as they would safely store the materials despite any natural disaster, were one to occur, which, given the region, would be somewhat unlikely. The proposed region is also already incapable of supporting life, so there is no risk to any sentient being.

I am glad to hear that storage of nuclear wastes is at least being thought through in the U.S. (I actually found one of the reports done on Yucca Mountain here).

I noticed that you said that it will not have a threat to sentient species. What about the native species that live in the area?

I should also say that I am no expert on this matter either.

I'm reading these and finding them rather funny.
[quote="Layra-chan]I'm still in favor of the "pave Nevada with solar cells" idea. There's a lot of the Southwest that nobody is using and enough sunlight that even at only 10% efficiency we can power at least Western Civ. on solar alone as long as our energy consumption doesn't rise more than linearly. And we don't get the problem of nuclear waste and possible sources of weapons-grade plutonium as side-effects. Everybody wins! Except maybe Nevada.

If you people get any more stupid on this particular subject. I lived in Las Vegas, which, for all of you who don't know, that is less that 200 miles away from where you propose store the waste. Now, you are suggesting that we possibly contaminate the area and ground water...which I feel I must also point out, Nevada shares water with Arizona, California, New Mexico. All in all, there are a whole lot of places that rely on the fact that Lake Mead is so conveniently close. And the potential problem of poisoning thousands of tourists that travel there each year. Just a little piece of info for y'all, since my grandfather died of radiation poisoning, radiation poisoning may not pass directly from person to person, it will pass from parent to child if parents procreate, and if enough people are infected strongly enouin one area, it can affect that whole area.

The link that I left in my previous post that you quoted was to the report for the testing of ground water. Read the links before you post. There is a reason why people cite.