What's your opinion on nuclear energy?

[AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug]

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.

I see what you're saying, and if I was in your spot, I would probably say the same thing. I went back and re-read all of my posts, and thatis exactly what I am doing. But I have done my research on this, and though I can't quote any one from the Yucca mountain project(plus the fact that my dad actually shouldn't have told me some of this info.)I hold what was said to be true.
But seriously, you should look into the fact that Yucca Mountain is a volcano. And I honestly don't believe that it is extinct, no matter what they say, Earth is unpredictable, and Nevada is riddled with tiny faults taht cause minor tremors. Maybe one day they won't be so minor. That is a real fear for many in Las Vegas. Like others were saying, everyone wins except Nevada, and if something does happen, there won't be enough time to evacuate, or to make any type of real plan on how to deal with it.

[Vote Kira]

Well are these faults along the San Andreas Fault? If not, it probably isn't something to worry about. As for the volcano... there are ways to tell. One can check the age of the radioactive rocks around there. Also there will most likely be a plan put in place in case of a melt down.

[zu_22]

I think Nuclear is probably the best option we have at the moment to address global warming and the supposed 'Energy Gap'. (Where demand is outstripping supply due to rapid growth).

I saw in a documentary that if the number of Nuclear power plants in the world was trippled, a seventh of the total CO2 emissions the world emits would be retained due to the reduced usage of other types of power station. Thats quite a good amount!

About waste, I think it would be justified that more would be produced. The waste is much more easily manageable than other waste products and I believe that it would be kept to a small amount by the time fusion energy comes around.

By then, little or no waste gasses at all would be emitted by the developed world, giving time for them to deal with the nuclear waste. It would be a few hundred years in the bottom of a hole, which is sealed, though after that, emissions would be literally a thing of the past, and global warming reduced significantly.

[Skyburn]

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)

Only if you eventually want to turn the Uranium into ions. Not a good idea. Basically, you'd turn it into uranium which could shock people, or it would form bonds and pollute itself.

Using it as heat for steam power is one of the best ways we have, though the Navy is looking into Liquid Metal Cooled reactors so they can make the reactors small enough to efficiently and cheaply put on cruisers and destroyers so than can power railguns well enough.

The waste it doing well enough now. We are keeping it in water-pools, basically. Water works surprisingly well as a shield. Lead and steel are obviously better, but still. It blocks neutrons well enough. Yes, we are stockpiling it at the plants. Yeah, so what? You know how much of that we actually produce? Not much. We can afford to stockpile it long enough that we have space travel good enough to launch it into the sun.
Waste gasses? The worry about waste is the radiation, not gasses.

A few important things to note: People who work near nuclear reactors all day will receive less radiation than someone who has an outdoor job. This includes reactor entries, which would not be daily, likely not even monthly, though.
The Three Mile Island incident produced little more radiation exposure to the general public than a common medical X-ray.

Nuclear Power is the way to go. Solar, Geothermal, and Wind are inefficient and rely on a good location. Coal is far too pollutant. Hydro-power is too location oriented.

Source: I'm training to be a Nuclear Reactor Operator in the Navy.

[Johnnie Here]

It depends on the type of nuclear energy we're talking about.

I feel fairly safe with a simple fusion reaction type of generator (the type mostly used right now) because due to the velocity at which the initial particle (generally a neutron if I'm not mistaken) is fired at the reactive substances the reaction cannot reach a critical point and thus cause a nuclear detonation to the likes of Hiroshima. Thus, those who fear having a big explosion need to research the physics a bit more.

As far as the waste is concerned my opinion is that it is safer than the incredible amounts of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere each day by coal-fired plants. Clean coal, to me, is largely a joke unless we're talking about the pellets of reconstituted feces, which are a bit more practical, tahn having to deal with storing the radioactive by-products which are produced through the reactions. Besides, who is to say that this can't have further uses? I believe that the spent uranium from nuclear power can be enriched to the level of low-grade weapons uranium, and as such, if a cheap and efficient way of reconstituting it to energy-grade uranium (roughly 60-70% Uranium 238 or 235 I think?) it would become a much more viable power source.

The safety of nuclear energy is much higher than people think it is. The amount of fail-safes that a U.S. built nuclear reactor contains to prevent a melt down are absolutely enormous. Cooling rods will be able to come into the tank at just about any angle should any of the other cooling-rod systems fail.

Nuclear fission? That's another story.

[zz1000zz]

Skyburn

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)

Only if you eventually want to turn the Uranium into ions. Not a good idea. Basically, you'd turn it into uranium which could shock people, or it would form bonds and pollute itself.

Using it as heat for steam power is one of the best ways we have, though the Navy is looking into Liquid Metal Cooled reactors so they can make the reactors small enough to efficiently and cheaply put on cruisers and destroyers so than can power railguns well enough.

The waste it doing well enough now. We are keeping it in water-pools, basically. Water works surprisingly well as a shield. Lead and steel are obviously better, but still. It blocks neutrons well enough. Yes, we are stockpiling it at the plants. Yeah, so what? You know how much of that we actually produce? Not much. We can afford to stockpile it long enough that we have space travel good enough to launch it into the sun.
Waste gasses? The worry about waste is the radiation, not gasses.

A few important things to note: People who work near nuclear reactors all day will receive less radiation than someone who has an outdoor job. This includes reactor entries, which would not be daily, likely not even monthly, though.
The Three Mile Island incident produced little more radiation exposure to the general public than a common medical X-ray.

Nuclear Power is the way to go. Solar, Geothermal, and Wind are inefficient and rely on a good location. Coal is far too pollutant. Hydro-power is too location oriented.

Source: I'm training to be a Nuclear Reactor Operator in the Navy.

Is it me, or does it seem whenever someone posts saying little nuclear waste is created, there is absolutely nothing given to support their claim? Not getting a source is one thing, but I never even see a rough estimate from these people.

[Layra-chan]

Um...Isn't water a moderator? Isn't it the usual moderator used in this country? And by moderator, I mean "used to thermalize neutrons to promote nuclear reactions"?
Now, most waste doesn't do too much with thermal neutrons. Krypton and Barium have low absorption cross-sections and aren't terribly fissile or anything. But what about the uranium-238 that's still mixed in with the fuel? U-238+n -> U-239 -> Np-239 -> Pu-239.
Am I simply overestimating the number of free neutrons that gets dumped out with the waste? I probably am, but it still makes me nervous to know that we're storing waste in a substance that promotes nuclear reactions, even if it absorbs the radiation.

[Rarest Wolf]

A few factories would be good enough

[Johnnie Here]

Layra-chan

Um...Isn't water a moderator? Isn't it the usual moderator used in this country? And by moderator, I mean "used to thermalize neutrons to promote nuclear reactions"?
Now, most waste doesn't do too much with thermal neutrons. Krypton and Barium have low absorption cross-sections and aren't terribly fissile or anything. But what about the uranium-238 that's still mixed in with the fuel? U-238+n -> U-239 -> Np-239 -> Pu-239.
Am I simply overestimating the number of free neutrons that gets dumped out with the waste? I probably am, but it still makes me nervous to know that we're storing waste in a substance that promotes nuclear reactions, even if it absorbs the radiation.

Storing something that promotes nuclear reactions shouldn't necessarilly concern you. If you're storing Hydrogen or Helium you're storing materials that can promote a nuclear reaction (the same reaction as what happens in our sun).

The necessities for the nuclear reaction to occur at the same levels as the nuclear power plant are quite specific and unlikely if not impossible to occur without human intervention.

Now, if you're talking about nuclear decay it obviously will occur, but nuclear decay is happening around us all the time.

[asedc]

It seems liek soemthing that was good in the apst but we have found alot safer ad cleaner ways to produce efficent engergy. with nuclear energy we get waste that comes with it and what do we do with the waste we dump it and it pollutes the world. with like wind energy we can get energy jsut by having turbines catch air and creat energy. would u preffer somethign that can kill you jsut by being near it or soejmthign thatblooks sooo cool when u drive by it on the road smile

[oni_no_guro]

If nuclear power is our best option, I want to see these reactors having a continuous source of water. If not, then these reactors could overload in the absence of people.

Build one by a lake or some source of continuous water to feed the reactor.

[Ceasabel]

oni_no_guro

If nuclear power is our best option, I want to see these reactors having a continuous source of water. If not, then these reactors could overload in the absence of people.

Build one by a lake or some source of continuous water to feed the reactor.

I believe that's were most of them are built...

[fires22~]

Skyburn

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)

Only if you eventually want to turn the Uranium into ions. Not a good idea. Basically, you'd turn it into uranium which could shock people, or it would form bonds and pollute itself.

Using it as heat for steam power is one of the best ways we have, though the Navy is looking into Liquid Metal Cooled reactors so they can make the reactors small enough to efficiently and cheaply put on cruisers and destroyers so than can power railguns well enough.

The waste it doing well enough now. We are keeping it in water-pools, basically. Water works surprisingly well as a shield. Lead and steel are obviously better, but still. It blocks neutrons well enough. Yes, we are stockpiling it at the plants. Yeah, so what? You know how much of that we actually produce? Not much. We can afford to stockpile it long enough that we have space travel good enough to launch it into the sun.
Waste gasses? The worry about waste is the radiation, not gasses.

A few important things to note: People who work near nuclear reactors all day will receive less radiation than someone who has an outdoor job. This includes reactor entries, which would not be daily, likely not even monthly, though.
The Three Mile Island incident produced little more radiation exposure to the general public than a common medical X-ray.

Nuclear Power is the way to go. Solar, Geothermal, and Wind are inefficient and rely on a good location. Coal is far too pollutant. Hydro-power is too location oriented.

Source: I'm training to be a Nuclear Reactor Operator in the Navy.

Oy, don't talk till you really know more, the Navy did once research liquid metal reactors, however, the reactors go on boats, which happen to be in the water, and the most common liquid metal for a reactor, sodium, happens to be very explosive when put into water and also is fairly easily activated, it will not be used on a ship, a pressurized water reactor is all there will ever be because the ships need to be able to withstand a tactical situation without the power source blowing up in the event of a casualty. Also, read a T-10 manual to find out exactly how much radiation was leaked to the public at 3-mile island, and it is Gamma radiation, not X-ray, much higher energies.
The waste gasses are what we worry about, some very specific ones. They are where radioactive fallout comes from, some fission product gasses decay into radioactive metals. Ingestion or inhalation of these is one of our primary concerns, that is why there are limits to airborne radioactivity and why we have air particulate detectors.
And also, if you are making the argument that all those other power sources are too location orientated, the same goes for nuclear power, they need to be by water to have a heat sink, there is a reason all power plants are by a river or ocean. Nuclear power is expensive, there are some hazardous materials produced, you are not 100% safe to be working with it, you get a different kind of radiation exposure than pilots or those who work outside. However, nuclear power is worth the risk and cost because it is still cleaner than coal, there is less radiation exposure to the public than coal and once past the initial build costs it is actually cheaper, or would be if it were not for foreign and domestic policies and with trusted operators, it is a very safe form of power.

The reaction from U-238 to Pu-239 does happen, and in some other countries they take advantage of this and in America we did too for a while, Pu-239 is what is used to power long range satellites and we are currently running out. Also, this is not the only thing that occurs to U-238 upon the absorption of a thermal neutron, it only happens a percent of the time.

And with the enrichment of civilian reactors, at very least in the US, most reactors are only around 5% enriched, using the fuel from weapons is not practical, since they are very highly enriched and produce reactor dynamics that are unnecessary for a civilian reactor.

As for a source on how much radioactive waste is produced from a reactor, well that depends on how much Uranium is first loaded and how much is spent at the end of life of the core. from there you can find a Chart of the Nuclides from knolls atomic laboratory, at the bottom right of each column it has the fission yield of each group for U-235 and U-238. find what is hazardous and do some math with the fission yield percents, should be good to do some of your own research.

[-Legal_Pirate-]

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.

Thanks for the source on the report, I've been too lazy to do my own research lately. As for losing the location, Yucca Mountain is not very hospitable, and would be damn difficult to build on. I suppose you could, but if we are at the point where that is our best building site, we have bigger problems than just some hazardous radiation. And I meant bacteria and microbes and such organisms. I am largely uneducated in the field of biology (only a high school junior, but I'll be taking AP Bio this year, so that should help), since I'm unaware of their presence or the affect the radiation would have on them, and am fairly sure they are not sentient beings. I was merely trying not to say more than I knew.

[-Legal_Pirate-]

asedc

It seems like something that was good in the past but we have found alot safer and cleaner ways to produce efficient energy. With nuclear energy we get waste that comes with it and what do we do with the waste we dump it and it pollutes the world. with like wind energy we can get energy just by having turbines catch air and create energy. would u prefer something that can kill you just by being near it or something that looks so cool when you drive by it on the road smile

Fixed your post. And you are somewhat misinformed. Not only is nuclear energy more efficient than wind power (which converts, doesn't create energy, Law of Conservation of Energy), but wind turbines cannot be used everywhere, in fact, there scope is widely limited. See my earlier post for safe disposal methods, I don't feel like quoting myself. And a properly operating nuclear power plant releases less radiation on a day-to-day basis than the average coal-powered plant, which I believe someone mentioned.