Nuclear Power

[Markface]

I've recently been studying on this and it got me thinking. Are you for or against nuclear power?

Around the world there are over 400 nuclear power plants which create 17% of the worlds power, for one reason... its cheap. But is it more of a question that we dont have a choice, we NEED to have the nuclear power to keep our technological slant going upwards?

I'm sure of you are all quite aware of the damage they can and will evidentially create. Not the emission of the nuclear rays exactly, but the harmful nuclear waste. At this given point in time we are just dumping it so our future generations can deal with it. Whether it be in oceans, underground or in massive concrete tanks in the middle of nowhere.

Even with these unadventured landscapes as home to the waste the rays can still travel far, and with more and more waste being dumped and more land being filled are we running out of space? Stephen Hawking says that we need to fix this problem now, or it will create an enviormental disaster by the year 3000.

By taking a look at uraniums half life of 760 Million years... A.K.A just 1kg of Uraninum will take 2.2952x10^11 years (229 Billion Years). Thats just 1kg, most nuclear power plants have the ability to withdraw over 1000 tons of waste per year. Times that by the 400 plants operable today and you get 400,000 tons of waste a year.

Are we really leaving this problem for later, hoping that in the future we can somehow alter or fix the atomic properties of Uranium-235 and Uranium-238 (the types of uranium) in a sense almost like alchemy?

But even knowing all this, I am FOR nuclear power but only as mentioned before. We NEED it now, its not a choice.

Express your views, I'm aware my contents is somewhat bias so feel free to flame :P

[lapis]

At 11/28/06 09:27 AM, 2good2b4goten wrote: By taking a look at uraniums half life of 760 Million years... A.K.A just 1kg of Uraninum will take 2.2952x10^11 years (229 Billion Years). Thats just 1kg, most nuclear power plants have the ability to withdraw over 1000 tons of waste per year. Times that by the 400 plants operable today and you get 400,000 tons of waste a year.

I'm not a physicist, but isn't 229 billion years a rather arbitrary number? 229 billion years encompass 301.316 half lives, so after that period in time a kilo has decayed to 2^(-301.316) or 1.972*10^-91 kilograms. Why not pick 200 half lives (152 billion years), after which 6.223e*10^-61 kg would remain? Both quantities are negligible and both still aren't zero. Uranium 238 has a longer half life than Uranium 235, by the way.

[Markface]

At 11/28/06 09:53 AM, lapis wrote: I'm not a physicist, but isn't 229 billion years a rather arbitrary number? 229 billion years encompass 301.316 half lives, so after that period in time a kilo has decayed to 2^(-301.316) or 1.972*10^-91 kilograms. Why not pick 200 half lives (152 billion years), after which 6.223e*10^-61 kg would remain? Both quantities are negligible and both still aren't zero. Uranium 238 has a longer half life than Uranium 235, by the way.

Valid, but even from the smallest amounts of Uranium-238, radiation and energy is released. On the scope of all thats been dumped each year it can still create an alarming amount. Though, not enough to harm, but I was speaking theoretically.

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

I'm not sure if I'm right, but isn't the half-life irrelevant to how much of it you have? One gram would take as long to decay as 100. Also:
uranium-234: half life = 244 thousand years, 0.0055% of all uranium.
uranium-235: half life = 704 million years, 0.72% of all uranium.
uranium-238: half life = 4.5 billion years, 99.28% of all uranium

[Peter-II]

Depending on fission energy instead of fossil fuels should be a stop-cap solution, i.e., it should only be used while renewable energy resources are being developed.

Once we have fusion, then that should obviously be used.

[RedSkunk]

Yeah, the byproduct is one whopping reason why I don't support nuclear power. The "waste" can be recycled and used again but that's sorta expensive.

Also the possibility of accidents and the idea that it contributes (indirectly or otherwise) to nuclear weaponry.

[Begoner]

Nuclear waste isn't really so ominous of a problem. There are few detrimental environmental consequences if we dump the waste in the middle of the desert and it is a completely clean form of energy. Of course, nuclear waste can be re-processed -- I believe France excels at such a practice and can reduce nuclear waste by 99% with such programmes. Either way, it's an excellent source of energy, and a bit of radioactive waste shouldn't dissuade anyone from supporting it. It can be rendered completely innocuous by being deposited far away from human life.

[RedSkunk]

At 11/28/06 03:40 PM, Begoner wrote: It can be rendered completely innocuous by being deposited far away from human life.

That's the sort of short-sightedness that allowed us to dump our garbage into lakes, rivers, and the oceans. We have a finite amount of land on the earth, rendering any of it permanently unfit for human use is incredibly stupid. And I'll have to call you on your French statistic. "99%" eh? And reprocessing spent fuel rods still results in radioactive waste – that's one of the major contributors to the French dumping site Centre de Stockage de La Manche (one of the largest sites in the world) which is leaking. The wells of farmers nearby see 7x the amount of radiation over the European safety limit, and the farmland nearby is 90x over said limit. And the CSM was meant to only hold "low level" radiation to boot. url

[Begoner]

At 11/28/06 04:03 PM, RedSkunk wrote: That's the sort of short-sightedness that allowed us to dump our garbage into lakes, rivers, and the oceans.

No, it's not. If our waterways are contaminated, that could contribute to wide-spread health problems in large parts of the world. However, if only a certain section of land is used to store radioactive waste, it will not pose a danger to other areas.

We have a finite amount of land on the earth, rendering any of it permanently unfit for human use is incredibly stupid.

I believe that the area surrounding Chernobyl is now fit for human life. Why would any area be "permanently" unfit for human usage? We have the capacity to contain radioactive emissions -- gamma rays can be stopped by several feet of lead, thus allowing humans to live in close proximity to large quantities of radioactive waste.

And I'll have to call you on your French statistic. "99%" eh?

Here's a Guardian article about nuclear re-processing. According to it, 96% of spent fuel can be converted to plutonium, 3% to plutonium, and 1% to waste. Nuclear energy is safe as long as there are adequate measures taken to store the waste, which is easy to do with the state of our current technology. There may have been some mistakes committed, but that does not reflect poorly on nuclear energy as a whole, just like Chernobyl doesn't.

[TehChahlesh]

Nuclear power does not cause pollution, it does not require rapidly diminishing fossil fuels, and provides a lot of power. And, if everything is done correctly, posing no safety hazards.

Why not?

[SolInvictus]

At 11/28/06 04:26 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: Why not?

because we're not in the USSR?

[Draconias]

At 11/28/06 04:52 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:

At 11/28/06 04:26 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: Why not?

because we're not in the USSR?

Which is exactly why we should use it more. We're not dumb enough to build a nuclear plant with a well-known, critical design flaw and absolutely no containment at all, and then put a bunch of idiots in charge who will trigger the well-known design flaw and cause a meltdown.

[RedSkunk]

At 11/28/06 04:20 PM, Begoner wrote: No, it's not. If our waterways are contaminated, that could contribute to wide-spread health problems in large parts of the world. However, if only a certain section of land is used to store radioactive waste, it will not pose a danger to other areas.

Again, I can just reiterate what I've already said. Creating radioactive dump zones is not a smart idea, whether or not people might live in that immediate vicinity in this point in time.

I believe that the area surrounding Chernobyl is now fit for human life. Why would any area be "permanently" unfit for human usage? We have the capacity to contain radioactive emissions -- gamma rays can be stopped by several feet of lead, thus allowing humans to live in close proximity to large quantities of radioactive waste.

The area where the meltdown occured is still an uninhabited wasteland. And the effects are still being felt. They'll continue to do so for generations down the line. And the French case that I already linked to is just a sample of how well we're able to store radioactive materials. You can't keep it locked away perpetually.

Here's a Guardian article about nuclear re-processing. According to it, 96% of spent fuel can be converted to plutonium, 3% to plutonium, and 1% to waste.

That is a totally irrelevant source about theoreticals. It doesn't say that France recycles 99% of their spent fuel rods. Please provide a source to your claim. And as an aside, perhaps you ought to peruse the rest of The Guardians material on nuclear power.

[Begoner]

Again, I can just reiterate what I've already said. Creating radioactive dump zones is not a smart idea, whether or not people might live in that immediate vicinity in this point in time.

I don't think that anyone is going to miss a few square miles of desert, if that, at any point in time. In the distant future, it might be plausible; however, at that juncture, we will have the technology to adequately deal with the hazardous materialists, rendering it a moot point. We have conducted nuclear tests in the desert -- dumping a bit of waste their is much less harmful, especially if it is contained in a lead box.

You can't keep it locked away perpetually.

An error was made in the specifications of the container in which the material was kept, allowing radioactivity to seep out and poison the surrounding land. However, that is not symptomatic of an underlying problem with waste disposal; a human error was made and that type of error can be easily rectified. Anyway, nuclear waste which contaminates the sand in the desert isn't going to harm anyone.

That is a totally irrelevant source about theoreticals. It doesn't say that France recycles 99% of their spent fuel rods. Please provide a source to your claim.

My source is the chemistry class which I took -- since I can't provide a link to that, I showed a site stating how nuclear re-processing works which corroborated the fact that 99% of the materials can be reused. That particular technique is already being used at the plant described in the guide; it doesn't take a tremendous leap of faith to assume that the same technology is available in the US.

And as an aside, perhaps you ought to peruse the rest of The Guardians material on nuclear power.

Yeah, I realize that they are opposed to its proliferation, which is why I used a link from that site. If even they are willing to stipulate that 99% of the waste can be reused, then it's probably true. I read a few anti-nuclear arguments, but I found them rather weak and speculative. Nuclear power remains extremely clean and efficient while posing little or no risk if the waste is competently managed.

[Kev-o]

At 11/28/06 12:08 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote:

uranium-238: half life = 4.5 billion years, 99.28% of all uranium

Isn't that depleted uranium?

[Begoner]

Isn't that depleted uranium?

Uranium, in its natural state, is about 99.28% U-238, 0.71% U-235, and 0.0054% U-234. Depleted uranium is very similar to natural uranium, but the "impurities" are extracted and there is much less U-238 and U-234. Overall, though, this minute change doesn't affect the half-life of uranium significantly. Both natural and depleted uranium have the same half-life.

[Kev-o]

At 11/28/06 08:03 PM, Begoner wrote:

. Overall, though, this minute change doesn't affect the half-life of uranium significantly. Both natural and depleted uranium have the same half-life.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[RedSkunk]

As far as storing nuclear waste being a permanent solution, we've hit a brick wall. You're entitled to your opinions Begoner. But it's a pity that you can't substantiate the single concrete claim you made. Next time, huh?

[Draconias]

At 11/28/06 08:31 PM, RedSkunk wrote: As far as storing nuclear waste being a permanent solution, we've hit a brick wall. You're entitled to your opinions Begoner. But it's a pity that you can't substantiate the single concrete claim you made. Next time, huh?

RedSkunk, hasn't it occurred to you that this uranium we use didn't just come from nowhere-- it existed before we mined it. The radioactive "waste" is already there, so a very obvious solution is to refill depleted uranium mines with the waste from reactors, but diluted to relatively safe levels. From the ground, and back to the ground, doing as little overall "damage" to that environment as possible.

[RedSkunk]

At 11/28/06 08:52 PM, Draconias wrote: RedSkunk, hasn't it occurred to you that this uranium we use didn't just come from nowhere-- it existed before we mined it. The radioactive "waste" is already there, so a very obvious solution is to refill depleted uranium mines with the waste from reactors, but diluted to relatively safe levels. From the ground, and back to the ground, doing as little overall "damage" to that environment as possible.

I don't believe that's very economically feasible. But please enlighten me if you aren't just talking out your ass. Prove that this is economical and that a corporation would be willing to do this.

[JakeHero]

The funniest thing about this thread is everyone except lapis seems to not know what the fuck they're talking about.

[RedSkunk]

At 11/28/06 08:56 PM, BanditByte wrote: The funniest thing about this thread is everyone except lapis seems to not know what the fuck they're talking about.

Thanks for the contribution!

[Jose]

What if we were to launch it into the sun?
Since we haven't tried it yet, are there any theoreticals on the pros or cons about such a solution?

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

At 11/28/06 08:55 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

I don't believe that's very economically feasible. But please enlighten me if you aren't just talking out your ass. Prove that this is economical and that a corporation would be willing to do this.

Toss the waste down the shaft, how hard is that?

[RedSkunk]

At 11/28/06 09:17 PM, Jose wrote: What if we were to launch it into the sun?
Since we haven't tried it yet, are there any theoreticals on the pros or cons about such a solution?

I wrote a paper arguing for just this. But it's not economical in reality. And also, sort of dangerous. A certain number of rocket launches are unsuccessful, remember. A rocket full of radioactive material blowing up in the upper atmosphere would disperse it over a large area. No public support for this. Of course, nuclear-powered satellites and the like have blown up repeatedly, but this is on a smaller scale and I don't think the public realizes it.

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

At 11/28/06 09:53 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

I wrote a paper arguing for just this. But it's not economical in reality. And also, sort of dangerous. A certain number of rocket launches are unsuccessful, remember. A rocket full of radioactive material blowing up in the upper atmosphere would disperse it over a large area. No public support for this. Of course, nuclear-powered satellites and the like have blown up repeatedly, but this is on a smaller scale and I don't think the public realizes it.

Not to mention doing something wrong and blowing up the sun, which might have some negative consequences.

[Draconias]

At 11/28/06 08:55 PM, RedSkunk wrote: I don't believe that's very economically feasible. But please enlighten me if you aren't just talking out your ass. Prove that this is economical and that a corporation would be willing to do this.

The current plan being pushed by Bush is a big hole in Yucca Mountain. My plan is filling a bunch of small holes we've already dug back up. The economical nature of the plan isn't very hard to comprehend.

In essence, I am proposing landfills for nuclear waste located in depleted uranium mines. It's common practice already for normal and hazardous waste, so it isn't at all outlandish. The willingness of corporations to create landfills has been proven (even when it is illegal), and it saves money by not requiring constant warehouse storage.

A secondary benefit is that the terror threat of vulnerable, concentrated nuclear waste is severely decreased because it is no more worthwhile for terrorists to dig up the dispersed waste than it is to mine fresh uranium.

If something about this plan seems economically infeasible, please specifically point out what you believe the problem could be.

[RedSkunk]

At 11/28/06 10:54 PM, Draconias wrote: If something about this plan seems economically infeasible, please specifically point out what you believe the problem could be.

Your post was along the lines of dispersing the waste into fine enough amounts that radiation levels would be "natural" again. You stressed the nature part. Simply braking the waste into chunks and dropping it into multiple holes doesn't solve anything. It would create multiple radioactive holes. The process of breaking the waste into small enough amounts that it wouldn't meaningfully contribute to radiation levels would be prohibitively expensive.

Draconias, you do understand what uranium is like "in nature," right? The uranium is trace amounts encapsulated in other [non-radioactive] rock..

[JudgeDredd]

At 11/28/06 11:04 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Draconias, you do understand what uranium is like "in nature," right? The uranium is trace amounts encapsulated in other [non-radioactive] rock..

I.. don't.. know... i'm kinda getting the feeling that he thinks that uranium comes from a mine in the rocky mountains of Uran. It's raw form gets dropped into a reactor, and years later when it's "depleted" it get tossed down a deep hole.

Apparently no LLW, ILW, HLW, TRUW, or NMW (nucular meltdown waste).

These topics should come with mental-health warnings, and mandatory Wiki links.

[Markface]

At 11/28/06 09:17 PM, Jose wrote: What if we were to launch it into the sun?
Since we haven't tried it yet, are there any theoreticals on the pros or cons about such a solution?

Theoretically it would work, but the amount of waste created each day. Well it would be almost impossible to keep it up.