7 ms·

Nuclear power is a solved engineering problem. France has been doing it for years. Here in the US the problem is so called 'green' activists who don't (or won't

by bcl 18y ago

Nuclear power is a solved engineering problem. France has been doing it for years. Here in the US the problem is so called 'green' activists who don't (or won't) understand the basic laws of physics.

ramchip 18y ago
Although I agree that modern nuclear reactors are extremely safe, I'd hardly say that the problem is 'solved'. They still don't use the fuel efficiently comparatively to what could be done with eg. breeder reactors, and the solution to the waste problem is still 'bury them'. Separating the nuclear waste by isotopes is a very complex and costly process, and even once it's done it doesn't necessarily follow that what is obtained can be used as fuel or for medicine. It depends on the reactor you use, or the kind of medical imaging you need to do. Research is still ongoing in nuclear (fission) technology.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  It's important to look at nuclear waste in the context of alternative energy generation processes. The solution to waste from coal plants is "pump that shit in the air and water", which is far worse than nuclear.
  - parenthesis 18y ago
    "[a] coal power plant's radiation output [into the environment] is over 3 times greater" than that of a "nuclear power plant with the same electrical output". Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_station#Radioactive_...
    - Angostura 18y ago
      Unless there's some kind of accident.
      - bcl 18y ago
        That is not a certainty. According to the NRC report on 3-mile Island (which I think is the worst in US history) the release was about 1 millirem. For comparison a x-ray is 6 millirem and normal background radiation is 100-125. Western reactor designs are not like Chernobyl. They are designed to fail 'safe' and have over-designed containment vessels to prevent accidents from leaking into the community.
        Tangurena 18y ago
        The reactor at Three Mile Island only had a containment vessel because it was on the flight path in/out of a nearby airport. Otherwise federal regulators were going to let it be built without a containment vessel. The containment vessel at Three Mile Island was designed to survive a direct hit by a loaded 707 - because those flew over the reactor. They were NOT over-designed.
        dmfdmf 18y ago
        This is absolute ignorant non-sense. Edit: I designed the Feedwater Control System for the Lungmen Nuclear power stations going up in Taiwan. Edit2: Reply to jibiki below; Yes, no containment was the absurd comment. I don't know the details but I can guess the builders strengthened the containment building to appease the eviros - it was probably completely unnecessary and only raised the costs. The enviros and the lefties have gotten away with such "stories" for years but now thanks to the internet, the truth shall set us free! See Clay Shirky on Thinking the Unthinkable.
        jibiki 18y ago
        It seems to be a popular story. From: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/27/three_mile_island_30th_anniversary_of http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/27/three_mile_island_30th... "I want to mention that the reactor containment at Three Mile Island was actually thicker than most others, because citizen action, prior to the construction of the plant, demanded a thicker containment, because the Three Mile Island Unit 2 is right in the flight path of the Harrisburg Airport."--Harvey Wasserman (Of course, nobody was ever planning to build it without a containment... I hope?)
  - Tichy 18y ago
    That is a bit of a strawman argumentation, though. The parole is usually not "use coal plants instead of nuclear plants", it is essentially to get rid of nuclear plants. Instead of building more coal plants, saving energy is an alternative (for example).
    - asciilifeform 18y ago
      > Instead of building more coal plants, saving energy is an alternative Let's cut the power to your house first.
      - Tichy 18y ago
        I don't have a house - silly argument. I don't use a lot of energy personally. Also you can just use more energy efficient things. I did not want to interfere with your lifestyle.
Tangurena 18y ago
I'm surprised that we haven't seen the urban legend about Carter outlawing breeder reactors only for Saint Ronnie to overturn it. Reprocessing of spent fuel was banned by PL 95-242 as reprocessing fuel is a nuclear weapon proliferation risk. Separating U from Pl is a simple chemical reaction, and if you want to maximize production of Pl-239 (even numbered isotopes of plutonium suck for weapon use), then you want to use a graphite reactor and continuously push fuel through them (which is what the first generation of nuclear reactors did - at Hanford and similar places). http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=189253 http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=189253 http://www.nti.org/db/china/engdocs/nnpa1978.htm http://www.nti.org/db/china/engdocs/nnpa1978.htm http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=30475 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=30475 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12058.html http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/execut... We've got about 1700 tons of plutonium in private ownership in the US. That is far more than enough to make tens of thousands of Nagasaki sized nukes. If you want to know more about the politics and chemistry of nuclear fuel reprocessing, I recommend you read McPhee's book The Curve of Binding Energy. http://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming-Theodore/dp/0374515980 http://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming-Theodore...
lispm 18y ago
France has solved nothing. The nuclear waste problem is unsolved in France as it is everywhere else.
- palish 18y ago
  Please back up your statement.
sethg 18y ago
It's too bad that Indian Point was built before that engineering problem was solved. "The discovery of water flowing across the floor of a building at the Indian Point 2 nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y., traced to a leak in a buried pipe, is stirring concern about the plant’s underground pipes and those of other aging reactors across the country." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html?hp http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html?hp
Adam503 18y ago
Nonsense. Let me introduce you to the town I was born in. Richland WA. "...A huge volume of water from the Columbia River was required to dissipate the heat produced by Hanford's nuclear reactors. From 1944 to 1971, pump systems drew cooling water from the river and, after treating this water for use by the reactors, returned it to the river. Before being released back into the river, the used water was held in large tanks known as retention basins for up to six hours. Longer-lived isotopes were not affected by this retention, and several terabecquerels entered the river every day. By 1957, the eight plutonium production reactors at Hanford dumped a daily average of 50,000 curies (1,900 TBq) of radioactive material into the Columbia.[46] These releases were kept secret by the federal government.[4] Radiation was later measured downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts.[47] The plutonium separation process also resulted in the release of radioactive isotopes into the air, which were carried by the wind throughout southeastern Washington and into parts of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and British Columbia.[4] Downwinders were exposed to radionuclides, particularly iodine-131, with the heaviest releases during the period from 1945 to 1951. These radionuclides filtered into the food chain via contaminated fields where dairy cows grazed; hazardous fallout was ingested by communities who consumed the radioactive food and drank the milk. Most of these airborne releases were a part of Hanford's routine operations, while a few of the larger releases occurred in isolated incidents. In 1949, an intentional release known as the "Green Run" released 8,000 curies of iodine-131 over two days.[48] Another source of contaminated food came from Columbia River fish, an impact felt disproportionately by Native American communities who depended on the river for their customary diets....While major releases of radioactive material ended with the reactor shutdown in the 1970s, parts of the Hanford Site remain heavily contaminated. Many of the most dangerous wastes are contained, but there are concerns about contaminated groundwater headed toward the Columbia River. There are also continued concerns about workers' health and safety.[53] The most significant challenge at Hanford is stabilizing the 53 million U.S. gallons (204,000 m3) of high-level radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks. About a third of these tanks have leaked waste into the soil and groundwater.[54] As of 2008[update], most of the liquid waste has been transferred to more secure double-shelled tanks; however, 2.8 million U.S. gallons (10,600 m3) of liquid waste, together with 27 million U.S. gallons (100,000 m3) of salt cake and sludge, remains in the single-shelled tanks.[5] That waste was originally scheduled to be removed by 2018. The revised deadline is 2040.[53] Nearby aquifers contain an estimated 270 billion U.S. gallons (1 billion m3) of contaminated groundwater as a result of the leaks.[55] As of 2008[update], 1 million U.S. gallons (4,000 m3) of highly radioactive waste is traveling through the groundwater toward the Columbia River. This waste is expected to reach the river in 12 to 50 years if cleanup does not proceed on schedule.[5] The site also includes 25 million cubic feet (710,000 m3) of solid radioactive waste...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site The only part of nuclear power that is "solved" is the part where politicians figured out there is less uproar if they classify accidents as state secrets until decades have passed and and the victims are dying of weird cancers.

by bcl 18y ago

Nuclear power is a solved engineering problem. France has been doing it for years. Here in the US the problem is so called 'green' activists who don't (or won't) understand the basic laws of physics.

ramchip 18y ago

Although I agree that modern nuclear reactors are extremely safe, I'd hardly say that the problem is 'solved'. They still don't use the fuel efficiently comparatively to what could be done with eg. breeder reactors, and the solution to the waste problem is still 'bury them'. Separating the nuclear waste by isotopes is a very complex and costly process, and even once it's done it doesn't necessarily follow that what is obtained can be used as fuel or for medicine. It depends on the reactor you use, or the kind of medical imaging you need to do. Research is still ongoing in nuclear (fission) technology.

ivankirigin 18y ago
It's important to look at nuclear waste in the context of alternative energy generation processes. The solution to waste from coal plants is "pump that shit in the air and water", which is far worse than nuclear.
- parenthesis 18y ago
  "[a] coal power plant's radiation output [into the environment] is over 3 times greater" than that of a "nuclear power plant with the same electrical output". Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_station#Radioactive_...
  - Angostura 18y ago
    Unless there's some kind of accident.
    - bcl 18y ago
      That is not a certainty. According to the NRC report on 3-mile Island (which I think is the worst in US history) the release was about 1 millirem. For comparison a x-ray is 6 millirem and normal background radiation is 100-125. Western reactor designs are not like Chernobyl. They are designed to fail 'safe' and have over-designed containment vessels to prevent accidents from leaking into the community.
      - Tangurena 18y ago
        The reactor at Three Mile Island only had a containment vessel because it was on the flight path in/out of a nearby airport. Otherwise federal regulators were going to let it be built without a containment vessel. The containment vessel at Three Mile Island was designed to survive a direct hit by a loaded 707 - because those flew over the reactor. They were NOT over-designed.
        dmfdmf 18y ago
        This is absolute ignorant non-sense. Edit: I designed the Feedwater Control System for the Lungmen Nuclear power stations going up in Taiwan. Edit2: Reply to jibiki below; Yes, no containment was the absurd comment. I don't know the details but I can guess the builders strengthened the containment building to appease the eviros - it was probably completely unnecessary and only raised the costs. The enviros and the lefties have gotten away with such "stories" for years but now thanks to the internet, the truth shall set us free! See Clay Shirky on Thinking the Unthinkable.
        jibiki 18y ago
        It seems to be a popular story. From: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/27/three_mile_island_30th_anniversary_of http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/27/three_mile_island_30th... "I want to mention that the reactor containment at Three Mile Island was actually thicker than most others, because citizen action, prior to the construction of the plant, demanded a thicker containment, because the Three Mile Island Unit 2 is right in the flight path of the Harrisburg Airport."--Harvey Wasserman (Of course, nobody was ever planning to build it without a containment... I hope?)
- Tichy 18y ago
  That is a bit of a strawman argumentation, though. The parole is usually not "use coal plants instead of nuclear plants", it is essentially to get rid of nuclear plants. Instead of building more coal plants, saving energy is an alternative (for example).
  - asciilifeform 18y ago
    > Instead of building more coal plants, saving energy is an alternative Let's cut the power to your house first.
    - Tichy 18y ago
      I don't have a house - silly argument. I don't use a lot of energy personally. Also you can just use more energy efficient things. I did not want to interfere with your lifestyle.

Tangurena 18y ago

I'm surprised that we haven't seen the urban legend about Carter outlawing breeder reactors only for Saint Ronnie to overturn it. Reprocessing of spent fuel was banned by PL 95-242 as reprocessing fuel is a nuclear weapon proliferation risk. Separating U from Pl is a simple chemical reaction, and if you want to maximize production of Pl-239 (even numbered isotopes of plutonium suck for weapon use), then you want to use a graphite reactor and continuously push fuel through them (which is what the first generation of nuclear reactors did - at Hanford and similar places). http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=189253 http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=189253 http://www.nti.org/db/china/engdocs/nnpa1978.htm http://www.nti.org/db/china/engdocs/nnpa1978.htm http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=30475 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=30475 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12058.html http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/execut... We've got about 1700 tons of plutonium in private ownership in the US. That is far more than enough to make tens of thousands of Nagasaki sized nukes. If you want to know more about the politics and chemistry of nuclear fuel reprocessing, I recommend you read McPhee's book The Curve of Binding Energy. http://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming-Theodore/dp/0374515980 http://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming-Theodore...

lispm 18y ago

France has solved nothing. The nuclear waste problem is unsolved in France as it is everywhere else.

palish 18y ago
Please back up your statement.

sethg 18y ago

It's too bad that Indian Point was built before that engineering problem was solved. "The discovery of water flowing across the floor of a building at the Indian Point 2 nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y., traced to a leak in a buried pipe, is stirring concern about the plant’s underground pipes and those of other aging reactors across the country." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html?hp http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html?hp

Adam503 18y ago

Nonsense. Let me introduce you to the town I was born in. Richland WA. "...A huge volume of water from the Columbia River was required to dissipate the heat produced by Hanford's nuclear reactors. From 1944 to 1971, pump systems drew cooling water from the river and, after treating this water for use by the reactors, returned it to the river. Before being released back into the river, the used water was held in large tanks known as retention basins for up to six hours. Longer-lived isotopes were not affected by this retention, and several terabecquerels entered the river every day. By 1957, the eight plutonium production reactors at Hanford dumped a daily average of 50,000 curies (1,900 TBq) of radioactive material into the Columbia.[46] These releases were kept secret by the federal government.[4] Radiation was later measured downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts.[47] The plutonium separation process also resulted in the release of radioactive isotopes into the air, which were carried by the wind throughout southeastern Washington and into parts of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and British Columbia.[4] Downwinders were exposed to radionuclides, particularly iodine-131, with the heaviest releases during the period from 1945 to 1951. These radionuclides filtered into the food chain via contaminated fields where dairy cows grazed; hazardous fallout was ingested by communities who consumed the radioactive food and drank the milk. Most of these airborne releases were a part of Hanford's routine operations, while a few of the larger releases occurred in isolated incidents. In 1949, an intentional release known as the "Green Run" released 8,000 curies of iodine-131 over two days.[48] Another source of contaminated food came from Columbia River fish, an impact felt disproportionately by Native American communities who depended on the river for their customary diets....While major releases of radioactive material ended with the reactor shutdown in the 1970s, parts of the Hanford Site remain heavily contaminated. Many of the most dangerous wastes are contained, but there are concerns about contaminated groundwater headed toward the Columbia River. There are also continued concerns about workers' health and safety.[53] The most significant challenge at Hanford is stabilizing the 53 million U.S. gallons (204,000 m3) of high-level radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks. About a third of these tanks have leaked waste into the soil and groundwater.[54] As of 2008[update], most of the liquid waste has been transferred to more secure double-shelled tanks; however, 2.8 million U.S. gallons (10,600 m3) of liquid waste, together with 27 million U.S. gallons (100,000 m3) of salt cake and sludge, remains in the single-shelled tanks.[5] That waste was originally scheduled to be removed by 2018. The revised deadline is 2040.[53] Nearby aquifers contain an estimated 270 billion U.S. gallons (1 billion m3) of contaminated groundwater as a result of the leaks.[55] As of 2008[update], 1 million U.S. gallons (4,000 m3) of highly radioactive waste is traveling through the groundwater toward the Columbia River. This waste is expected to reach the river in 12 to 50 years if cleanup does not proceed on schedule.[5] The site also includes 25 million cubic feet (710,000 m3) of solid radioactive waste...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site The only part of nuclear power that is "solved" is the part where politicians figured out there is less uproar if they classify accidents as state secrets until decades have passed and and the victims are dying of weird cancers.