theoildrum.com — Technically, there appear to be no show stoppers for a considerable expansion of Nuclear Power throughout the world. It is a low carbon energy source with abundant fuel supplies. The technology works and has much potential for improvement. Whether or not a large scale expansion eventuates depends on how it competes with coal on economic grounds.
Mar 1, 2007 View in Crawl 4
digitapMar 2, 2007
One Word: Chernobyl.Discussion over.
theungodMar 2, 2007
@angryredplanetIf Mr. Gore were a decent environmentalist, he'd also be well read and knowledgable on nuclear energy production. He is completely ignorant however of the current state of nuclear technology. Most of the people who are anti-nuclear really need to learn about it before they bash it. I haven't heard one person with a degree in a science related field talk about how awful nuclear power is. A real environmentalist should educate themself. Causing pollution out of ignorance is just as damaging as causing it out of apathy or sloth.
tivoMar 2, 2007
Nuclear energy is great but people like you who know nothiing about it are affecting its usage. dont be an idiot.
kelbearMar 2, 2007
angryredplanet is hilariously naive.In short: There's pros and cons for everything. So let's throw everything away and invent something new that's all pros and no cons. ...Because it's just that easy.
bugsy187Mar 3, 2007
"Most of the people who are anti-nuclear really need to learn about it before they bash it. I haven't heard one person with a degree in a science related field talk about how awful nuclear power is." @TheUngod I just posted an article above from the Union of Concerned Scientists. It discusses serious flaws in safety calculation regarding nuclear power. The risks and real-world problems with nuclear power aren't accurately covered in safety calculations.
nuclearavengerMar 9, 2007
I am a junior in the nuclear/mechanical engineering program and have worked at the Idaho National Laboratory (where they have done most of the safety testing and designing of reactors) for almost two years. I would like to straighten out a couple of things that have been mentioned in the discussion above. First off Yucca Mountain is not yet open and may never open (due to politics, not lack of evidence showing it will work). Yucca mountain has been studied more than any other piece of land on earth. The repository level is about a thousand feet below the waste and water propagates very slowly through the "wielded tuff" rock. When people voice their concern about attacks on the mountain I think they forget the fact that we're talking about a MOUNTAIN. No airplane or car bomb will hurt that place, not to mention that it is on the border between the Nevada Test Site and Nellis Air Force weapons test range, two very well protected areas. Someone mentioned a computer failing and the whole thing going to hell in a hand basket, well guess what, there are no computers involved with the storage. Also the comment about a meteor is crazy. The chances of a meteor hitting Yucca Mountain is very small, not to mention if the meteor was big enough to crush the mountain then the nuclear waste is the least of our concerns.Yucca Mountain is also relatively safe from seismic events as there are no faults running through the actual repository itself. Also a seismic event would only further entomb the nuclear waste. The waste issue is not nearly as big of a problem as people make it out to be. Also the chances of terrorists using spent nuclear waste as a dirty bomb isn't very practical either because it is deemed "self-protecting" due to its high radiation field. If the waste isn't "hot" enough to deter theft then it isn't "hot" enough to create a risk to the public before teams could recover it. Yucca Mountain isn't full because there isn't anything in there yet, as a matter of fact only the main tunnel has been drilled. Under the current plan I'm unsure if all the room is "reserved", however I do know that the repository can be expanded by simply drilling more holes within the region that they have deemed to be safe. Another great thing is reprocessing. This would significantly decrease nuclear waste. Another option are advanced burner reactors that essentially burn nuclear waste to produce energy. These reactors reduce waste to only a fraction of it's original volume and do not release any gasses than regular nuclear plants.
nuclearavengerMar 9, 2007
@bugsy187I spoke with an expert in Probabilistic Risk Assessment today concerning the issues you raised. First off PRA is used to identify frequency of occurrence of an accident and also the severity of the accident, contrary to your statement. Next, no matter how much two plants are supposedly mirror images of each other there are always differences. These differences have substantial effects on the PRA outcomes. Also you said that some of these plants are owned by different operators, well guess what, because they have different owners they have different preventative maintenance schedules. That in and of itself has a huge impact on PRA. Furthermore power industries spend millions of dollars a year updating their PRA calculations to ensure plant safety. Your article from concerned scientists has a large problem, they don't tell you the whole story. Most of your scientists are probably scientists like political scientists and biologists, not physicists or engineers, so they really don't know what they are talking about.
nuclearavengerMar 9, 2007
Look up EBR-I and EBR-II and you will see that there is a technology known as breeder reactors. This technology transmutates uranium-238 into a usable isotope, plutonium-239. In this fashion the amount of fuel available for reactors increases significantly. As a matter of fact the only energy source (excluding solar, wind, tidal, geothermal) that has more fuel than nuclear with breeding is fusion, which may never be achieved in a way to make it a viable energy source.
Closed AccountOct 22, 2007
And how is this energy released?? In the form of kinetic energy of neutrons and some gamma radiation.