11 ms·

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 compara

by 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?)
        lukifer 18y ago
        > the enviros and the lefties Please don't lump us all together like that; this enviro-leftie is very pro-nuclear. Following political ideology blindly has never been limited to any particular viewpoint.
        18y ago
    - ivankirigin 18y ago
      Again, you need to put nuclear in context of alternative energy generation mechanisms. People talk a lot about TMI, but not the integrated & far larger accidents from coal.
    - jedc 18y ago
      That's where a professional and well-trained workforce is important, with indepenent and very strong regulations. I'm a former US Navy submarine officer, and the US Navy has been operating nuclear reactors in some of the harshest environments imaginable for 40+ years without any accidents whatsoever. It works because Navy sailors are incredibly well-trained and well-drilled. But also because there is a virtually independent bureaucracy in the US Navy that can literally "take away your keys" to run the plant. (And I do mean literally.) Regular inspections that scare the st out of everyone because of their intensity and thoroughness. But it works, and with no accidents.
      - miked 18y ago
        I'd heard some years ago that the Navy's nuclear operations officers and their nuclear safety officers are not allowed to even talk to each other, just to prevent any chumminess from creeping into the relationship. Is that still true?
      - Tichy 18y ago
        Except that 40 years is nothing. Things can change - look at the former Sowjet Union. Maybe a US president comes to power that withdraws funding from the Navy, and things will start to deteriorate (just making that up, but with really long time frames, all bets are off). Edit: yahooing for "us navy reactor accidents" comes up with quite a few hits, and allegations that mostly the Navy is very secretive about it. Edit2: Even with the best trained staff, the staff is essentially just running an algorithm. Training the staff makes sure they run the algorithm correctly, but it does not protect against bugs in the algorithm. If you are a software developer, you don't believe in bug free algorithms (above a certain complexity).
        ovi256 18y ago
        If you are a software developer, you don't believe in bug free algorithms (above a certain complexity). Please allow me to introduce you to Mr. Donald Knuth (pronounced Kah-nuth). He would like to have a word with you.
        18y ago
    - tjmc 18y ago
      Coal's the one with the bad record there too. An average of 1000 coal miners die each year from accidents in China alone.
- 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.

by ramchip 18y ago

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?)
        lukifer 18y ago
        > the enviros and the lefties Please don't lump us all together like that; this enviro-leftie is very pro-nuclear. Following political ideology blindly has never been limited to any particular viewpoint.
        18y ago
  - ivankirigin 18y ago
    Again, you need to put nuclear in context of alternative energy generation mechanisms. People talk a lot about TMI, but not the integrated & far larger accidents from coal.
  - jedc 18y ago
    That's where a professional and well-trained workforce is important, with indepenent and very strong regulations. I'm a former US Navy submarine officer, and the US Navy has been operating nuclear reactors in some of the harshest environments imaginable for 40+ years without any accidents whatsoever. It works because Navy sailors are incredibly well-trained and well-drilled. But also because there is a virtually independent bureaucracy in the US Navy that can literally "take away your keys" to run the plant. (And I do mean literally.) Regular inspections that scare the st out of everyone because of their intensity and thoroughness. But it works, and with no accidents.
    - miked 18y ago
      I'd heard some years ago that the Navy's nuclear operations officers and their nuclear safety officers are not allowed to even talk to each other, just to prevent any chumminess from creeping into the relationship. Is that still true?
    - Tichy 18y ago
      Except that 40 years is nothing. Things can change - look at the former Sowjet Union. Maybe a US president comes to power that withdraws funding from the Navy, and things will start to deteriorate (just making that up, but with really long time frames, all bets are off). Edit: yahooing for "us navy reactor accidents" comes up with quite a few hits, and allegations that mostly the Navy is very secretive about it. Edit2: Even with the best trained staff, the staff is essentially just running an algorithm. Training the staff makes sure they run the algorithm correctly, but it does not protect against bugs in the algorithm. If you are a software developer, you don't believe in bug free algorithms (above a certain complexity).
      - ovi256 18y ago
        If you are a software developer, you don't believe in bug free algorithms (above a certain complexity). Please allow me to introduce you to Mr. Donald Knuth (pronounced Kah-nuth). He would like to have a word with you.
        18y ago
  - tjmc 18y ago
    Coal's the one with the bad record there too. An average of 1000 coal miners die each year from accidents in China alone.
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.