Nuclear power

[Lledargo]

Since the earthquake on the 11th, and all that has been happening with the Fukashima nuclear plant some JREF forum members have been expressing their opinions on nuclear power about the forums. Please discuss chuch things here where it belongs.

I would give my opinion but I now have only 15 minutes to get ready and leave for class.

 

[EmperorHirohito]

I for one am in favour of nuclear power, I live in a region that has its electricity supplied by a nuclear reactor in a place called Sizewell. But I am also keen to see other ways to produce electricity being built, there is a lovely wind farm off the coast in the town where I live, the turbines do rotate most of the time.

 

[Revenant]

Understand nuclear power is necessary, but I'm in favor of creating much more energy efficient societies to building ever more nuclear power plants.

About half the U.S. electricity goes to residences, and within residences most of that energy goes to heating and cooling, but the energy needs of an average house vs a passive house are nothing to blink at, and that's just one way we can avoid having to build ever more nuclear reactors as the oil supply diminishes and the world population grows and modernizes.

 

[Lledargo]

I am for nuclear power, with some restrictions. For instance, you may not build a reactor withing x miles of a coast or fault line. The cooling system should have some kind of assured power, seeing as how the problems at fukashima started when both the main power source, and backup generators were knocked out.

I also however think that we should still research new ways of creating power and making out current sources more efficient.

 

[EmperorHirohito]

At present nuclear power staions use nuclear fission to generate power. Very little is heard of nuclear fusion. It would be nice in future years scientists could develop a substainable nuclear fusion reactor. The whole world could benefit.

 

[noyhauser]

I am for nuclear power, with some restrictions. For instance, you may not build a reactor withing x miles of a coast or fault line. The cooling system should have some kind of assured power, seeing as how the problems at fukashima started when both the main power source, and backup generators were knocked out.
I also however think that we should still research new ways of creating power and making out current sources more efficient.

There is also a new generation of nuclear power that is far cleaner and physically incapable of producing the toxic events like this one. The Fukushima plants are basically first generation plants designed about fifty years ago; while generally safe they have issues that require constant care. If you look at the evolutionary descendants, they have better designs with greater safety margins. For example a newer boiling reactor would not be in the same situation as these older models as they could shut down with their natural processes and not require outside electricity to run its pumps.

Absolutely we need to be careful, but newer reactors are far less dangerous than the ones built between 1960 and 1990 (not that they were so risky either).

 

[Nuala]

There is also a new generation of nuclear power that is far cleaner and physically incapable of producing the toxic events like this one. The Fukushima plants are basically first generation plants designed about fifty years ago; while generally safe they have issues that require constant care. If you look at the evolutionary descendants, they have better designs with greater safety margins. For example a newer boiling reactor would not be in the same situation as these older models as they could shut down with their natural processes and not require outside electricity to run its pumps.
Absolutely we need to be careful, but newer reactors are far less dangerous than the ones built between 1960 and 1990 (not that they were so risky either).

I am all for nuclear power. The newer generation of nuclear power plants being physically incapable of producing the same toxic events like we're watching with Fukushima's sounds absolutely awesome to me. I don't live very far from the first privately financed nuclear power reactor built in the entire world, that being the Dresden Nuclear Power Plant. It's kinda scary when you think about it. The #1 reactor was activated in 1960 and deactivated in 1978, and the other two were activated in 1970-71. They're both going on 40-41 years. Of course, they are boiling water reactors. I believe they are Generation II reactors. The ones you are referring to are ABWR(Generation III)

I would love to see the ABWR design replace the Generation II reactors. I wonder though, how much would one of these cost?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I agree with Nuclear Energy. It is very environmentally friendly as long as the waste is disposed of properly and the nuclear reactors & plants are kept up to standards. Its much cleaner than fossil fuel energy like coal.

While the nuclear crisis is unfolding in Japan, those reactors were IMO old & outdated and i wouldn't be surprised if in the future we hear more about a catalog of health & safety errors with the way they were run up until the earthquake & tsunami struck Japan.

 

[Nuala]

President Obama is still committed to nuclear power in the USA! I hope we are wise and implement future security measures as they're figured out. It's important that nuclear reactors are made as secure as possible.

 

[Haruspex]

I find it is a great alternative to candles and torches.

 

[nice gaijin]

I was just surprised that Japan wasn't using a pebble-bed reactor. Nuclear energy is way more environmentally friendly than coal or hydroelectric, provided it's done right.

I find the fact that it was shut down for maintenance during the quake, then experienced all these explosions and problems after the fact a bit suspicious. Conspiracy theories, anyone?

 

[Lledargo]

where did you read that the reactors had been shut down for maintenance?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

where did you read that the reactors had been shut down for maintenance?

The first reactor that suffered issues after the quake/tsunami was supposed to be closed down this month for repairs. Can't remember the exact news article i read it in but its all in this thread;

9.0 Earthquake/Tsunami/Fukushima

Japan in fact apparently has a great deal of reactors running that were supposed to be shut down years ago. Japan actually has a pretty poor nuclear energy safety record, with numerous incidents over the last decade alone;

http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=845&catid=23&subcatid=152

The problem is not nuclear energy in essence, but hows its managed. All nuclear accidents that have happened in the past were down to human error, and i have no doubt that the reactors in crisis in Japan right now are partly in the situations they are currently suffering due to mismanagement of them in the past etc.

 

[Revenant]

10 parts to this. Great documentary.

The Battle of Chernobyl part 1

 

[FrustratedDave]

The Fukushima Governor refuses apology from TEPCO president.

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20110322-00000346-yom-soci

 

[scarmullet]

I am for Nuclear Power as long as the plant in question is kept up to date with new safety measures and redundant systems to ensure the safe operation of the plant in case of an emergency. Its cleaner than other forms of energy, it outputs massive energy, but there is the issue of disposing of the waste. We need to find a way to use up all that nuclear waste.

I would really prefer we work on more efficient forms of energy though.

 

[Half-n-Half]

We need to find a way to use up all that nuclear waste.

If only the US would allow spent fuel to be reprocessed

 

[scarmullet]

If only the US would allow spent fuel to be reprocessed

I had no idea it could be reprocessed, interesting.

 

[Half-n-Half]

I had no idea it could be reprocessed, interesting.

It can, over and over and over, but the US doesn't allow it because reprocessing means enriching it which makes it a target for terrorists or anyone else wanting enriched nuclear fuel. I believe Russia does reprocess their fuel, and countries like Germany and France send their fuel their to be reprocessed and returned.

 

[scarmullet]

It can, over and over and over, but the US doesn't allow it because reprocessing means enriching it which makes it a target for terrorists or anyone else wanting enriched nuclear fuel. I believe Russia does reprocess their fuel, and countries like Germany and France send their fuel their to be reprocessed and returned.

Isn't there a way to taint the enriched product so its not weapons grade but can still be used in a reactor?

 

[Half-n-Half]

The uranium that is reprocessed is nowhere near weapons grade. Plutonium product is also reprocessed for fuel. On the surface the reason is a fear of nuclear proliferation but in reality it just doesn't make sense economically. It is much cheaper to just bury spent fuel and mine more uranium instead of reprocessing it. There is no economic incentive, although when uranium runs short in the future it will balance out and reprocessing will become viable.

 

[Revenant]

Dunno if anyone watched the full documentary I posted, but in the relatively short history of nuclear power, two of the three major disasters were due to human error. Now I personally wouldn't want to suffer radiation sickness or any of the related health problems, nor would I want my offspring to suffer those to feed our ever growing need for electricity. I seriously feel there's a whole lot of energy saving technology that could be tapped before turning to the building of more nuclear plants, cause the immediate and long term consequences of a nuclear disaster are nothing to blink at, as a whole lot of victims of Chernobyl would agree. More nuclear plants means more people in charge of them, and more people involved simply raises the margin of possible human error. All humans err, even very capable people.

 

[Rube]

At present nuclear power staions use nuclear fission to generate power. Very little is heard of nuclear fusion. It would be nice in future years scientists could develop a substainable nuclear fusion reactor. The whole world could benefit.

There's a lot being said about it but it doesn't make the news much. I've seen them claim the best guess is 50 years till we have it.