Maybe nuclear power isn't so bad after all

Maybe nuclear power isn't so bad after all

www.scientificamerican.com

Adams is a U.S. Navy officer who served on nuclear submarines, founded a firm to promote small reactors and blogs about nuclear power at Atomic Insights (highly recommended). Adams asked if I would like to talk to him on Bloggingheads.tv, and I said sure. Here are some of the major points that Adams made:

(visit the link for the full news article)

Ive been a nuclear advocate for the past decade and I've always wondered why the green crowd opposes the new clean nuclear.

This author John Horgan was an adamant antinuclear till he did this interview with Adams the ex nuclear submarine expert. Here are some of the points mentioned:

-Nuclear energy, far from undermining anti-proliferation efforts, can supplement them. ie. since the cold war the US has bought 15,000 obsolete Soviet nucs, recycled the nuclear fuel accounting for 10% of our nuclear energy production.

-Nuclear waste can be viewed as a feature, not a bug, of nuclear energy. First of all, spent fuel rods from a typical plant cannot easily be converted into weapons-grade explosives. ie., the rod fuel is very difficult to convert to weapons grade uranium but easy to convert back to usable nuclear fuel. The US nuclear waste represents a considerable energy asset if correctly used even with existing technology.

-Terrorists cannot easily blow up nuclear plants to create dirty bombs. Even if a plane hit a facility it is unlikely to penetrate. In one test the plane simply vaporized!

# The spread of nuclear power need not lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. Many countries that have nuclear power plants do not possess weapons. And almost every country that has nuclear weapons today acquired them before acquiring nuclear reactors.

-Nuclear energy is cheaper as well as cleaner than fossil fuels. Nuclear is 1.87 cents per KWH, Coal is 2.75 cents and natural gas is 8 cents / KWH.

You (and I) may dream of wind, solar or exotic fuels competing with clean nuclear and all its advantages but it won't happen, probably not even in our lifetimes. 1.87 cents per KWH!



www.scientificamerican.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 13/5/10 by plumranch]

Sure I'll have to agree without free energy what are we going to do.
The official word is that free energy does not exist.
A one cm cube of Radium has been estimated to have enough power
four states but that was the four corners back in the 60s.
And that was just atomic decay not even radioactive piles.
The nuclear plant warming up steam has been deemed less risky
and not prone to excessive danger of blowing up itself.
However some less dangerous generators might exist.

here's the problem with nuclear power

Too much politics involved!

nuclear is the cleanest most efficient energy source.

It has always boggled my mind the the "green crowd" was willing to trade nuclear power-plants for coal burning plants..billions of tons of co2..traded for a risk of an accident...small risk..3 mile island and chernobyl.


pretty much endless clean energy.

reply to post by plumranch


I tend to be on the green energy side of this discussion but I really think that nuclear has the best potential of the "dirty" energies. I know that everyone discusses the waste that is generated but as the article shows, much of the waste still has energy potential and can be converted for use.

While that nuclear waste can be dangerous, it is containable. We can store it. Unlike oil, coal and other fuels(gasoline in cars) much of their waste is not easily containable. Our cars emit waste every time we drive them. Burning of coal and oil releases waste into the atmosphere everyday.

I think we should be building nuclear plants all over and taking advantage of this fuel source in order to transition into clean energy options. Use the energy from nuclear to build solar panels, wind turbines and fuel cells. The waste generated from the nuclear can be contained and we are moving energy production into the cleaner sector.

Not to mention all the jobs that would be created in building all of these nuclear plants.

My dad has been saying for 20 years that he thinks one day we will solve the nuclear waste problem and that nuclear plants will get much smaller and spread out over a larger area. Instead of one nuclear plant providing energy for 3 cities, think a much smaller plant for each one of those cities.

While nuclear is not a perfect option, i think it is better than using oil and coal.

Human be-little-ings cannot be trusted with nuclear technology period....They have indoctrinated most into being selfish little monsters so yeah I say hell no to that...If this was a peaceful world it would be banned...

There are a few problems with nuclear energy.

1. Cost - Nuclear power is actually very expensive short term. It's the long lifespan of the facilities which makes nuclear power cheap.
   
   
2. Timing - We would need to build a large number of nuclear facilities built very fast in order to meet our energy requirements.
   
   
3. Accidents - The risk of accidents is very small. I would imagine that the safety features have come a long way since the accidents of Chernobyl and Three mile island. However, in the case that their was an accident, the damages could be devastating.
   

Besides those problems I think nuclear power would be an acceptable option. We would have to work around the disadvantages but I believe it could be done.

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL

Human be-little-ings cannot be trusted with nuclear technology period.

All the major countries already have nuclear so that is a moot point. Countries like France, Britain and the US can be counted on to use the technology wisely.

Did you read the first point of the nuclear specialist? 15,000 former Soviet nuc warheads have been dismantled and converted to nuclear power by the US nuclear industry. Nuclear bombs recycled for safe energy production!

Modern nuclear facilities are so hardened and defended terrorists could fly an airliner into one and not release radiation!

reply to post by plumranch
Liked your post till I saw the word "terrorist" the real terrorists are the UN and infiltrated US government...I get what your saying and It would be nice if we were actually the good guys...but sadly this just isn't the case.

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL


"Good" is one of those ethically subjective words.

Are there really any "good" guys out there?

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL

Liked your post till I saw the word "terrorist" the real terrorists are the UN and infiltrated US government...I get what your saying and It would be nice if we were actually the good guys...but sadly this just isn't the case.

That was a quote by nuclear specialist Adams, also an insider, don't you agree?

Actually France, Britain and the US have a good record in the last half century!

Balanced against all the CO2, acid rain, and toxic waste produced by conventional generation, nuclear looks especially good!

reply to post by Styki
We are all born with a sense of right and wrong...Even before the indoctrination starts...I don't know one person personally that believes poisoning the food and water supply or funding the nazi's is a good or right thing...but it's becoming more and more apparent that they do...

The real issue with Nuclear power isn't safety, it's cost. The process of enriching nuclear materials to be suitable for reactors is very costly and time consuming. Most of these high costs are actually concealed by government grants for the research, but it's still just so damn ridiculously expensive to produce right now that it ends up not being a very effective means of power.

reply to post by plumranch
Co2 has a very minimal effect on the weather, they want you to pay a carbon credit tax...Basically to fund there crimes.

reply to post by plumranch


I honestly feel that some day science will figure out how to undo the nuclear waste issues. Then going NUCLEAR will be the best way to go.

Right now we have nuclear fuel resources for about 500 reactors for 500 years.
( using thorium, depleted uranium. breeder reactors and all in ground ore,)
We could spread that to 2000 years by recycling spent fuel and just that would cut the amount of nuclear waste by 90%. or fuel 2000 reactors for 500 years.
(instead of burying fuel with 90 of the unused uranium still in it.

As for flying a plane into a reactor why build new reactors on the surface.
build them in mountains or in pits with extra cement shielding to stops the biggest planes from ever getting close.
This would help in mothballing the reactor after they are worn out.
remove the fuel, clean the site of any loose contamination and encase the empty reactor vessel in plastic and concrete.

reply to post by WolfofWar

The real issue with Nuclear power isn't safety, it's cost. The process of enriching nuclear materials to be suitable for reactors is very costly and time consuming.

Most of what I find on cost is not objective or is biased. I keep finding this pro industry comparison:




Note: the above data refer to fuel plus operation and maintenance costs only, they exclude capital, since this varies greatly among utilities and states, as well as with the age of the plant.

The Economics of Nuclear Power

reply to post by ANNED

As for flying a plane into a reactor why build new reactors on the surface. build them in mountains or in pits with extra cement shielding to stops the biggest planes from ever getting close.

Good point! However, the cooling tower still is going to be outside and vulnerable. If the tower is disabled things get hot fast and special techniques are needed to stop a runaway! Maybe you know more about that but a fail-safe cool down needs to be built in!