So how bad is nuclear energy actually?

[CaptainCernick]

In an early leak of the IPCC, conferencing in Bangkok, nuclear energy is named as a good alternative to using fossile energy sources, next to renewable energysources (wind, water & sun).

Already certain environment groups, such as the Climate Action Group and Friends of The Earth declare this to be "worrying".

Source: DeMorgen.be (sorry, couldn't find anything about this in English)

What exactly is wrong with nuclear energy? IMO, it's a pretty decent alternative to nonrenewable sources: it's ratio energy-pollution is very good compared, and as long as renewable sources can't be more efficiently exploited (it's still a very expensive technology) I don't see anything against using nuclear energy.

[Rhinosaur]

Except that its byproducts are harmful to anything that lives for nearly 500000 years, nothing. I personally don't want to be hideously deformed by it or have to fight off radscorpions of humongous size because someone else thought fission reactors were a good idea.

[boofhead]

It's not worth it. One stuff-up (think Chernobyl) has horrific consequences.

FFS why aren't these :wub: business conglomerates proposing enormous solar-energy facilities or wind-farms in arid regions?

It's ****ing money, money ****ing MONEY.

[TheKwas]

It's not worth it. One stuff-up (think Chernobyl) has horrific consequences.

Aside from what Chris has already argued, more people died in the Soviet Union from coal-mining accidents in the year of Chernobyl(1986) than actually died during the disaster. I'm not sure if that includes the additional deaths due to radiation and cancer, but it still illustrates that the alternatives aren't exactly any better in that regard.

[Manji]

Aside from what Chris has already argued, more people died in the Soviet Union from coal-mining accidents in the year of Chernobyl(1986) than actually died during the disaster. I'm not sure if that includes the additional deaths due to radiation and cancer, but it still illustrates that the alternatives aren't exactly any better in that regard.

The problem is that I doubt coal mining accidents have both long term genetic disease problems like Chernobyl or even longer term radiation fallout which turns large areas of land inhabitable for any human.

For me the only solution are "clean" energies (solar, wind and water derivative); the problem is these aren't viable solutions right now and there hasn't been much advancement in these areas.
Fusion power has also the potential to be clean, viable and nearly impossible to spend entirely but as we know it's still theoretical and pending a magnetic reactor capable of dealing which such power.

[DisgruntledGoat]

It's not worth it. One stuff-up (think Chernobyl) has horrific consequences.

FFS why aren't these :wub: business conglomerates proposing enormous solar-energy facilities or wind-farms in arid regions?

It's ****ing money, money ****ing MONEY.

Chernobyl... dear god. You're misinformed by idiots that know nothing about nuclear power. In fact with todays methods even the by-products are nearly non-existant. France, leader in nuclear recycling, produces only 1 SHOT GLASS of nuclear waste for every family of 4 over their life span.

Chernobyl wasn't the fault of nuclear power, but incompetent Russian commanders and poor russian reactors. Chernobyl occurred during a test in which a Russian commander wanted to test the capabilities of the reactor. In the test they removed all the controlling rods to see what would happen. The reactor began to spiral out of control. Instead of calming replacing the control rods back in one at a time (like he was suppose to) the commander had all the rods rammed back in all at once, causing the reactor to melt down. This itself wouldn't have been bad if it had happened in a western reactor as they have concrete safety domes which would have contained the melt down. However the russians had no such protection and some of the radioactive material escaped into the air. Something like 25% I believe. Next death tolls are vastly over estimated. In fact there are no where near what they have been quoted as. Original estimates put deaths at some ridiculous number like 65,000. That was wrong. In the end so far only several hundred people have died as a direct result of the meltdown and subsequent explosion. Which you can't blame on nuclear power but on incompetent Soviet Commanders and engineers.

[chris_uk_83]

Except that its byproducts are harmful to anything that lives for nearly 500000 years, nothing. I personally don't want to be hideously deformed by it or have to fight off radscorpions of humongous size because someone else thought fission reactors were a good idea.

Genetic mutation doesn't work like that. The radioactive dose from nuclear byproducts is far more likely just to give everything cancer even then there are ways to make the waste safe (vitrifying it and sticking it in a veeerrrryy deep hole in the ground, then filling the hole in and surrounding it with concrete and lead and stuff). It's not ideal and there are processes that can be used to reduce the halflife of the material still further (transmutation), but these are experimental at the moment and expensive.

It's not worth it. One stuff-up (think Chernobyl) has horrific consequences.

Except that becasue of the design of modern plants it is impossible for anything like Chernobyl to happen again. The laws of physics actually make the reactors shut down if they get too hot, they don't rely on safety cut offs (though there are many of those installed too). Also nobody is allowed to dick about with the reactors like they did at Chernobyl any more.

FFS why aren't these :wub: business conglomerates proposing enormous solar-energy facilities or wind-farms in arid regions?

I agree, but take Britain for example, we don't get enough sun for solar energy to be practical, also it's dark for half the time so what do you do at night? You can't store it very efficiently. Wind is unreliable too, the wind blows sometimes, and it doesn't sometimes so you can only watch TV when it's windy. Tidal power is much more reliable and more available (I'm still talking about Britain here, each country should play to its strengths), but Environmentalists won't let anyone build big turbines off the coast because "It hurts fish". ******* fish.

Nuclear isn't ideal, but it's all we can do at the moment. We should be investing heavily in renewable sources, but we first have to rid ourselves of do-gooding environmentalists who care about fish and beaches unless we want to be stuck with nuclear fission forever.

Actually, nuclear fusion is an up and coming technology which we might be able to use soon (well in 50 + years). And there's research going on about harnessing energy from the quantum vacuum (see the "Zero point energy - WTF!?" thread).

[boofhead]

chris u obviously know better than I do about these things, but what happens when safer energy production methods are developed and the planet is already dotted with hundreds of nuclear power plants?

My question is how easy is it to shut them down or get rid of them?

[Rhinosaur]

I say no to nuclear fission reactors. Anything with such dangerous waste should not be used. It's not just dangerous for us, it's dangerous for the next however many civilizations come after us for half a million years. Covering it in lead or burying it deep in the ground makes it no less lethal when it leaches into the groundwater table or an earthquake cracks the vault open. And I would hope you know I'm kidding about the radscorpions, they come from Fallout.

[chris_uk_83]

It's harder to get rid of a nuclear plant than a coal or oil plant because of the residual radioactive material on them. But it's still very possible, it just costs more. I work as a safety consultant making sure the cleanup in the UK happens without giving a significant radioactive dose to the general public or the workers involved in the cleanup (and significant is defined as 20 microSv, just to quantify that it's 0.0000002 Sieverts, and 1 Sievert is the amount of radiation you'd have to absorb to get radiation sickness, give or take a bit. Anything up to about 8 Sv is non-lethal, but nevertheless bad).

The new nuclear plan in the UK says that any company who builds a new plant is responsible for its decommissioning and cleanup too. This way the cost of removal is built in to the cost of energy production and it shouldn't be a problem, with any luck!

[Rhinosaur]

It's harder to get rid of a nuclear plant than a coal or oil plant because of the residual radioactive material on them. But it's still very possible, it just costs more. I work as a safety consultant making sure the cleanup in the UK happens without giving a significant radioactive dose to the general public or the workers involved in the cleanup (and significant is defined as 20 microSv, just to quantify that it's 0.0000002 Sieverts, and 1 Sievert is the amount of radiation you'd have to absorb to get radiation sickness, give or take a bit. Anything up to about 8 Sv is non-lethal, but nevertheless bad).

The new nuclear plan in the UK says that any company who builds a new plant is responsible for its decommissioning and cleanup too. This way the cost of removal is built in to the cost of energy production and it shouldn't be a problem, with any luck!

But why trust such dangerous stuff to luck? Companies go out of business all the time, if that company you're talking about goes out of business, then what? Taxpayers have to step in, like they always do.

The energy is expensive, the waste is extremely dangerous, what is the upside? I'd rather take my chances burning coal. Coal plants can be very clean today compared to what they used to be, and the byproducts aren't radioactive.

[boofhead]

Hopefully the UK law will demand that said companies pay for the stuff to be sent into space aboard a rocket.

But what about other "less" legally or ethically diligent countries?

I think (from what little I know) that such a short-term solution to a current problem with such long-term ramifications is just insane.

[chris_uk_83]

Hopefully the UK law will demand that said companies pay for the stuff to be sent into space aboard a rocket.

Think this one through again. What's a possible problem with rockets. Let me know when you've figured out why this is a bad idea

But why trust such dangerous stuff to luck? Companies go out of business all the time, if that company you're talking about goes out of business, then what? Taxpayers have to step in, like they always do.

Yep, you've hit the nail on the head. That's what I think will happen, but hopefully there will be some management to ensure it happens, like making them pay up front or something.

the waste is extremely dangerous

It's less dangerous than everyone thinks though. Radiadion doses aren't so bad, especially in the quantities that people would get. You're exposed to a higher radiation dose every day anyway from natural sources. I agree we should limit it to as low as possible but it isn't the end of the world if some escapes.

You can't continue with coal forever because it's running out, ditto oil and ditto gas. You need something else or coal, oil and gas will become very expensive as they become more rare. In my opinion nuclear can fill the gap until we can build good renewable energy supplies (or fusion )

[boofhead]

Think this one through again. What's a possible problem with rockets. Let me know when you've figured out why this is a bad idea

Well, yeah, you know what I mean - who actually wants this stuff on planet earth? Nobody. So why play with fire? Better for humanity to suffer for a few generations until a new method is developed than screw the world for a potentially long time...and all in the name of the "economy", i.e. big business who have political links, a very contemporary, shady and propogandist industry.

I don't want my descendants to suffer because my generation were selfish/foolish/naieve.

[chris_uk_83]

Personally I don't think they'd suffer anything like as much as anybody seems to think. Organisations like Greenpeace like to scaremonger about nuclear power, but the reality is that we have the ability to make this stuff safe and keep it away from the environment until it's decayed enough to be harmless. I really can't see a problem with doing that as long as we're persuing alternative methods of energy production at the same time, this is an important point because, although we can, we dont' want to have to deal with any more nuclear waste than is necessary.

Actually, as a side note do you know how many things have had the words "nuclear" and "radiation" removed from their names to avoid scaring the general public? Here are two:
MRI - Magnetic Resonance Imaging. This is actually Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imagine, but the word nuclear was dropped to avoid scaring patients (incidentally it's nothing at all to do with nuclear fission, it's merely a descriptive term).
The Diamond Light Source - This is a new particle accelerator that has opened recently near Oxford. It produces what they call "synchrotron light". What it actually is is "synchrotron radiation", but they don't want to call it that in case people get scared. Incidentally it's perfectly safe, just like MRI.

[CaptainCernick]

Thanks for your replies, Chris. They voice my exact opinions but in a far more knowledgeable (err...is that a word?) way.

[chris_uk_83]

far more knowledgeable (err...is that a word?)

Why yes it is, and thank you

[numerosdecimus]

Until better energy sources are available in a practical and efficient way, nuclear energy is our best energy source in many aspects, and it's waste's effects can indeed be reduced and new and more efficient methods are already in advanced investigation stages. Have in mind that what I've said is just a short version in order to avoid any confusion, but nevertheless accurate.

Organizations like greenpeace come up with what they call as "proof" out of nowhere just to justify their agendas and what chris_UK_83 said is indeed correct, we are daily exposed to several sources of both natural and human "provoked" radiation, however, you don't see any greenpeace dude saying we should stop performing almost half the things we do in our socety nowadays. For instance, just like chris_UK_83 said, our current medicinal technology also focusses on radiation methods and even radiation treatement, just to show that radiation is also usefull to help in one's health, however, the intensity of he radiation/amount of ionized particles per a certain volune in extremely low. It's like one of the fundamental theorems of chemistry, everything is benefic, but at the same time harmful, it's just a matter of quantity.

[The Fish]

Actually, a number of environmentalists have recently begun changing their stances on nuclear energy as a result of the threat of global warming. Since it does not produce carbon byproducts, and represents an existing technology that can be implemented relatively quickly on a large scale, it is an attractive "stop-gap" measure to use until safer renewable energy sources can be researched. Here's a Washington Post editorial from about a year ago that outlines some of the new thoughts rattling around the environmentalist movement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041401209.html

[chris_uk_83]

Haha, and after all the campaigning to have it stopped in the first place. Now who's laughting you environmentalist scum! Hahaha, me, that's who!

Greenpeace, pah, don't make me laugh.

Seriously though, go and look at the Greenpeace forums. You'll see just how badly they understand the issues they're meant to care about. In particular note the lack of citations for "scientific facts" and the large amount of made up crap that they throw around.