Is Nuclear Power Too Dangerous?

Is Nuclear Power Too Dangerous?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 14.0%
  • No

    Votes: 97 71.3%
  • Maybe/Other/Don't Know

    Votes: 20 14.7%

  • Total voters
    136
Even with recycling, France still has hundreds of tons of nuclear waste to get rid of each year. They have built a big hole to try to store it in http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12837958 and export it to other European countries like Germany http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/11/2010116115735771454.html and Russia. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466

http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/03/france_nuke_was.php
The cost of waste disposal -- hundreds of billions of euros -- is being passed along to ratepayers. High rates aren't the only legacy of 50 years of nuclear power. Citizens and scientists alike are concerned about security, groundwater contamination, and storage.

JE SUIS RADIOACTIF MATERIAL LIFE
Cobalt 60 years
Plutonium 24,000 years
Uranium 238 4 billion years

Storage problems
Highly radioactive materials, such as spent fuel rods, are stored in The Hague and at the Marcoule nuclear facility, on the Rhone River near the southern city of Orange.

The director of the Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA) at the Marcoule facility, Loic Martin-Deidier, recalls the enthusiasm for quickly launching civil and military nuclear programs. At the time, he says, "they weren't thinking 40 years ahead."

Half a century later, nuclear waste continues to grow. Rods from atomic reactors aren't the only waste France has to deal with.

Nuclear reactors and laboratories built during the nuclear boom times are being dismantled. Everything from contaminated parts to rubber gloves must be disposed of. Workers meticulously examine each item using remote-controlled cameras. Color-coded images reveal spots of radioactive contamination on items such as bolts, tools, conveyor belts, clothing, and medical equipment.

Some items can be cleaned. Robots stuff the rest into special barrels for eternal storage.

Every day, about ten shipping containers arrive on trucks at the Soulaines-Dhuys storage facility outside Troyes, in the province of Ardennes, 180 kilometers east of Paris. On board are barrels of waste that isn't radioactive enough to be stored at Marcoule. Every year, 15,000 cubic meters of waste contaminated with uranium, plutonium and tritium arrive here.

The 350-acre site is like an above-ground Yucca Mountain. Construction cranes hover above a hundred bunker-like cement blocks already filled with barrels encased in concrete. In 60 years, the cranes' job will be done, the 400-bunker facility will be full, and the entire facility will be covered with a concrete lid. What then?

The Soulaines-Dhuys site will enter a 300-year surveillance phase. After that, the plan is to observe the site until the stored waste loses its radioactivity.

The initial 300 years is just the beginning. Even moderately radioactive plutonium retains hazardous for 24,000 years. Skeptics wonder if future generations will follow the plan -- or even remember where the site is located.
 
Even with recycling, France still has hundreds of tons of nuclear waste to get rid of each year. They have built a big hole to try to store it in http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12837958 and export it to other European countries like Germany http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/11/2010116115735771454.html and Russia. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466

http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/03/france_nuke_was.php

This problem would also be solved with thorium reactors; apparently they're capable of burning off nuclear waste.


From what I can gather thorium is a sort of "dream energy" that's cheap, abundant, extremely safe, and doesn't pose some of the risks that current power plants have.

Apparently 1 ton of thorium has the same energy as 200 tons of uranium....and thorium is more common than uranium.

It's really quite interesting: http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...ion/the-truth-about-thorium-and-nuclear-power
 
In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel heads a center-right coalition government that is committed to nuclear power. Her government recently made a controversial decision to prolong the life of the country’s 17 nuclear power plants by an average of 12 years. She will now face renewed pressure to reverse that policy.

Here's the rub though - as long as the government is building nuclear power plants, the government can't be trusted to run nuclear power plants. Every time one breaks down, the story is the same: "It was old, new facilities aren't like that."

But governments have a horrible track record when it comes to maintaining infrastructure. I think it's delusional to believe that politicians will always do whats best for the public safety. Look at our financial situation right now. If we had a nuclear facility that was scheduled to be taken offline as a matter of routine, it would be really easy for a politician to do what Merkel just did - convince the voters that the facility had an excellent record, and therefore did not need to be replaced. Or maintained. Or inspected.
 
We will soon see how "safe" and "cheap" this power source is. The cost of nuclear power is rising exponentially day by day...
 
Hey guys, I just wanted to pop in on this thread and say I am currently working on my PhD in nuclear engineering at Ohio State and if anyone has any questions about the field, feel free to ask. I am a strong believer in nuclear energy (although I don't like the gov't funding it).

My particular area of study is reactor safety (probabilistic risk assessment).
hey, that is really cool.
 
We will soon see how "safe" and "cheap" this power source is. The cost of nuclear power is rising exponentially day by day...

people governments find ways to regulate it to extinction. it still remains one of the cheapest energy sources, although it probably the most expensive to build.
 
This problem would also be solved with thorium reactors; apparently they're capable of burning off nuclear waste.


From what I can gather thorium is a sort of "dream energy" that's cheap, abundant, extremely safe, and doesn't pose some of the risks that current power plants have.

Apparently 1 ton of thorium has the same energy as 200 tons of uranium....and thorium is more common than uranium.

It's really quite interesting: http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...ion/the-truth-about-thorium-and-nuclear-power

Sounds cool!
 
I voted 'yes' as the current technology is too dangerous and leaves much too big a mess. Suppose you do shut a plant down because of old age? Then what? Tear it down and build condos?

Then there's the waste. I think the waste is the whole point we keep this silliness up instead of holding on for such as the new thorium type reactor. Remember, enriched uranium is weapons-grade uranium. And how does it get that way? It's used for energy for a time.
 
Remember, enriched uranium is weapons-grade uranium. And how does it get that way? It's used for energy for a time.

You don't enrich uranium in a reactor, you can enrich it either in centrifuges or through gaseous diffusion. Now plutonium you make in reactors, but you can't use US power reactors to do that. They are the wrong type.
 
You don't enrich uranium in a reactor, you can enrich it either in centrifuges or through gaseous diffusion. Now plutonium you make in reactors, but you can't use US power reactors to do that. They are the wrong type.

I stand corrected.

Well, in that case, I don't understand it. Unless it's just G.E. patronage at work.

In any case, don't expect private enterprise to take over. No one would underwrite the liability.
 
Last edited:
Cost per kilowatt hour of electricity. Source MIT:

Nuclear: $0.08

Coal: $0.06

Gas: $0.07

Projected $/megawatt hour of electricity in 2016

Conventional natural Gas: $75

Conventional Coal: $105

Wind: $102

Nuclear $125

Clean coal: $145

Solar PV: $210

Myth 1: Nuclear power is a cheap alternative to fossil fuels.

Fact 1: Nuclear energy is a very costly business.

Myth 2: The main issue surrounding Nuclear power is safety.

Fact 2: The cost is the main issue.

Bloomberg Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD40J45zjIM
 
Cost per kilowatt hour of electricity. Source MIT:

Nuclear: $0.08

Coal: $0.06

Gas: $0.07

Projected $/megawatt hour of electricity in 2016

Conventional natural Gas: $75

Conventional Coal: $105

Wind: $102

Nuclear $125

Clean coal: $145

Solar PV: $210

Myth 1: Nuclear power is a cheap alternative to fossil fuels.

Fact 1: Nuclear energy is a very costly business.

Myth 2: The main issue surrounding Nuclear power is safety.

Fact 2: The cost is the main issue.

Bloomberg Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD40J45zjIM

I have a feeling this includes subsidies, because wind energy never occurs in the marketplace without subsidies; I'm sorry, but it's not that cheap.
 
About 435 nuclear power plants provide 14% of the worlds power.

How many acres of productive farmland will be used to build wind and solar farms?

How many acres of precious rain forest will be cut down to build wind and solar farms?
 
About 435 nuclear power plants provide 14% of the worlds power.

How many acres of productive farmland will be used to build wind and solar farms?

How many acres of precious rain forest will be cut down to build wind and solar farms?

Not that I believe solar power to be a panacea, but your premise is faulty.

We already have several very large "solar farms" going untapped and running half of every day in the US. Go for a walk in the desert southwest sometime :) Buildings already have rooftops, most of which are just nasty and collecting dust/mold/pigeon droppings. Some have started collecting rainwater for use; it stands to reason that they could just as easily collect solar power for use as well. Hydroelectric and geothermal plants are quite useful when geography permits. Wind farms are quite a problem, I'll agree; they kill off numerous birds, and require a pretty specific set of circumstances to be worthwhile. They are neat when seen from afar, but some us will just never benefit from them.

I think that the solution to the energy crisis is like any other: a hybrid of all the propaganda. Having solar panels on all the buildings will not provide sufficient power for certain big cities, particularly during the summer months. It's just a useful supplement to the power coming in from the local coal-friendly plant. Wind and geothermal and hydro and nuclear are not "clean" entirely, but can also help things along. I don't think nuclear should ever be entirely off the table. I think the proof is in how much power these plants have produced, versus how many accidents have been caused that led to disasters.
 
About 435 nuclear power plants provide 14% of the worlds power.

How many acres of productive farmland will be used to build wind and solar farms?

How many acres of precious rain forest will be cut down to build wind and solar farms?

Not necessary to use farmland when we have plenty of room on desert land and roof tops. No government hand-out necessary for construction and easily insured. This unlike nuclear power that requires taxpayer subsidies to be build, taxpayer dollars to maintain the storage infinitely and taxpayers handling any disaster since they are uninsurable.

I can also pose the same questions:

How many people will die and individual rights violated as a result of cummulative radiation exposure?
How many generations of Americans will be tax slaves to the government to pay for nuclear power and pay for it's waste?
How many acres of land will be permanently unusable for generations?

I have been posting here since 2007 and rarely have I ever seen anyone for a government subsidies and programs, rightfully so. It is actually somewhat of a sin to defend government funding in these forums or anything that violatees individual rights and private property rights. So it absolutely amazes me that we found a subject where so many are complete hypocrits to the beliefs constantly spouted here.

For some reason we find this one issue where people disregard individual rights and private property rights in favor of forced taxation and involuntary servitude to the state or nuclear engery companies. Sounds like the Neocons are succeeding in transforming this movement.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top