BF2S Forums Nuclear power

at the current rate of energy consumption nuclear energy would last us about 87 years. and produce all that radioactive waste that we would have to store for 400,000 years. sound like fun?


edit: even with the use of breeder reactors we still have some loss of nuclear material and eventually the source will run out. essentially its not a sustainable fuel source, just like oil.

as well, nuclear plants themselves become radioactive and after about 20 years they start to decay from the constant barrage of nuclear emissions. they then have to be entombed which means we have this huge land area thats unusable for 400,000 years. keep multiplying this effect if we switch to all nuclear and pretty soon its as unfeasible as wind power.

Last edited by Ender2309 (2008-04-29 21:35:40)

My AP environmental science teacher and textbook nuk.

edit: spelling.

Last edited by Ender2309 (2008-04-29 21:36:17)

Ender2309 wrote:

My AP environmental science teacher and textbook nuk.

edit: spelling.

lolteachers.

don't trust a high school teacher to be accurate.

the actual number is 35,000 years

real source

Ender2309 wrote:

sciam wrote:

The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.

i stopped reading here because the article lost credibility. anybody can conclude what they want when they work with estimates. as well, nuclear plants are designed to stop nuclear leeching while coal plants are not, meaning that if the article is in fact correct about the fly ash issue (i'm assuming it is) then of course its going to have a greater environmental impact.


edit: its also got a misleading headline. the article is about how the effects are greater, which doesn't mean that the byproduct is more radioactive.

it has been repeatedly studied, coal plants release thousands of tons of C-13 into the atmosphere every year.

Ender2309 wrote:

i stopped reading here because the article lost credibility. anybody can conclude what they want when they work with estimates. as well, nuclear plants are designed to stop nuclear leeching while coal plants are not, meaning that if the article is in fact correct about the fly ash issue (i'm assuming it is) then of course its going to have a greater environmental impact.

Kay.

This article was meant to address the "OMG NUKULAR POWER IS BAD" mentality which was discussed yesterday.  Not you in particular.

Ender2309 wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

My AP environmental science teacher and textbook nuk.

edit: spelling.

lolteachers.

don't trust a high school teacher to be accurate.

the actual number is 35,000 years

real source

recheck your source. that estimate is based on nuclear energy consumption rates as of 1999, not total energy consumption rates.


their estimate, without breeder reactions at current energy usage rates is 326 years, probably less accurate than my given number because its an older estimate (1999 vs 2008)

reactors are more efficient, not less

Ender2309 wrote:

at the current rate of energy consumption nuclear energy would last us about 87 years. and produce all that radioactive waste that we would have to store for 400,000 years. sound like fun?


edit: even with the use of breeder reactors we still have some loss of nuclear material and eventually the source will run out. essentially its not a sustainable fuel source, just like oil.

as well, nuclear plants themselves become radioactive and after about 20 years they start to decay from the constant barrage of nuclear emissions. they then have to be entombed which means we have this huge land area thats unusable for 400,000 years. keep multiplying this effect if we switch to all nuclear and pretty soon its as unfeasible as wind power.

That sounds like someone who really does not like nuclear power, and is trying to convince you of it.  Nearly every nuclear reactor in the US is over 20 years old; closer to 35 years old.  And each of them still passes safety inspections.  If your statistic were true, every one of our reactors should be offline now, and fully entombed.  That observation should throw a bit of doubt on the information you have been given.

Second, projections such as the one you gave are meaningless without the data used to come to that number.  The only thing I can possibly think of to make your numbers work, is if the entire energy requirements of the entire world are turned over to nuclear reactors and maitain current levels, with ONLY the current supply of radioactive material, then yes, it may indeed be that your numbers are true.  But you can play with all sorts of conditions to try to create a scenario you like, then use that data.

Now, for reason.

No one (at least not me) is suggesting that the entire power system be turned over to nuclear power.  At least change over the coal plants, which introduce more radioactive particles into the air than a nuclear plant does.  By all means, keep solar, wind generation, tidal generation, geothermal, and hydrodynamic power going.  There is no sense putting all of your eggs in one basket.

As to radiation issues.  Current theories indicate that the in the core of the Earth is a large nuclear reaction keeping the planet from cooling down.  I do not see an issue with finding a way to return the material to the earth.  Perhaps a way to dump it down a volcano or some such.  It is a possibility worth looking into.  Or....

There is a plan to try to design a 'beanstalk,' or an elevator to orbit.  This would allow for the inexpensive and safe lifting of packages into orbit, without using all of that rocket fuel.  It is an elegant idea, actually.  Granted, this may be 100 - 150 years before a practical system is built, mind you.  But how about tossing our radioactive waste into the sun?  You can not find a better disposal area aywhere else.

Edited to fix a word; makes more sense now.

Last edited by imortal (2008-04-29 21:53:16)

SenorToenails wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

their estimate, without breeder reactions at current energy usage rates is 326 years, probably less accurate than my given number because its an older estimate (1999 vs 2008)

Or 17000 with more complex fuel cycles and recycling.

hes using the numbers from un-recycled U-235 only...

S.Lythberg wrote:

hes using the numbers from un-recycled U-235 only...

Yes.  I am aware.

imortal wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

at the current rate of energy consumption nuclear energy would last us about 87 years. and produce all that radioactive waste that we would have to store for 400,000 years. sound like fun?


edit: even with the use of breeder reactors we still have some loss of nuclear material and eventually the source will run out. essentially its not a sustainable fuel source, just like oil.

as well, nuclear plants themselves become radioactive and after about 20 years they start to decay from the constant barrage of nuclear emissions. they then have to be entombed which means we have this huge land area thats unusable for 400,000 years. keep multiplying this effect if we switch to all nuclear and pretty soon its as unfeasible as wind power.

That sounds like someone who really does not like nuclear power, and is trying to convince you of it.  Nearly every nuclear reactor in the US is over 20 years old; closer to 35 years old.  And each of them still passes safety inspections.  If your statistic were true, every one of our reactors should be offline now, and fully entombed.  That observation should through a bit of doubt on the information you have been given.

Second, projections such as the one you gave are meaningless without the data used to come to that number.  The only thing I can possibly think of to make your numbers work, is if the entire energy requirements of the entire world are turned over to nuclear reactors and maitain current levels, with ONLY the current supply of radioactive material, then yes, it may indeed be that your numbers are true.  But you can play with all sorts of conditions to try to create a scenario you like, then use that data.

Now, for reason.

No one (at least not me) is suggesting that the entire power system be turned over to nuclear power.  At least change over the coal plants, which introduce more radioactive particles into the air than a nuclear plant does.  By all means, keep solar, wind generation, tidal generation, geothermal, and hydrodynamic power going.  There is no sense putting all of your eggs in one basket.

As to radiation issues.  Current theories indicate that the in the core of the Earth is a large nuclear reaction keeping the planet from cooling down.  I do not see an issue with finding a way to return the material to the earth.  Perhaps a way to dump it down a volcano or some such.  It is a possibility worth looking into.  Or....

There is a plan to try to design a 'beanstalk,' or an elevator to orbit.  This would allow for the inexpensive and safe lifting of packages into orbit, without using all of that rocket fuel.  It is an elegant idea, actually.  Granted, this may be 100 - 150 years before a practical system is built, mind you.  But how about tossing our radioactive waste into the sun?  You can not find a better disposal area aywhere else.

i said they start to decay. that doesn't mean they immediately fall apart. they last about 40 years before they really need to be replaced.

yes, 87 years is based on a full turnover to nuclear energy, which is what quite a few nuclear proponents argue, if you pay attention closely. agreed, switching to all one source (except solar) is a dumb idea.

i've heard nothing of this nuclear reaction theory. sounds like the sun, which i do believe would make us dead. dumping nuclear waste in volcanoes is incredibly unfeasible and downright stupid. when they errupt we now have nuclear waste being flung out for hundreds of miles.

do i support a switch to nuclear? if it means getting away from oil then sure, but it should only be a stepping stone towards sustainability. thats the only way for us to really survive as a species.

with the elevator idea, i've heard about that and its great. but the fact of the matter is now you're dreaming miles ahead of what we have here and now.

@ST: i realize that. it would be great if we can get there but theres a long way to go before its cost (and energy) effective. i don't have the numbers off hand, but the amount of energy it takes to recycle that fuel is almost as much as we get out of it, making it pretty much useless.

i agree with you wholeheartedly immortal. my point about the elevator was that we shouldn't start using nuclear just because we might have a great method of disposal.

that tidbit about the yellow dam is actually pretty damn interesting.

about sunlight: if we're smart about solar it won't make a difference. if its placed upon existing structures it won't have any more of a negative impact than we already have.
as for parking lots, well, as populations continue to rise and food scarcity with it its likely that many parking lots will be torn up, replaced with vertical parking structures, and the resulting empty land returned to farmland. which i honestly support.

i've wondered the same thing about wind energy myself, but its false. wind is driven by thermal heating, which means that its going to be here forever no matter what we do, as its powered by the sun.

the same thing for tidal, which is powered by the moon's gravity.

It always seemed to me that waste disposal is cited as big factor against it, when it really shouldn't be.

Can't we just find an isolated pot in the desert, create a giant cavern, coat said cavern with 15 feet of concrete and lead, treat the concrete/lead against water damage, and happily store waste?

If you can guarantee the concrete for 10,000 years, that it won't leak at all, that if it does leak it will never find its way to the water table then fine.
The nuclear waste problem just hasn't been solved.
Even if the world went 100% nuclear there is not actually enough Uranium to go around.
Solid effort behind fusion would make more sense, and better development of solar, geothermal and wind.