Nuclear Power? The way foward?

[happy_Alex]

Tony Blair is giving the go ahead for more nuclear power. Is this a viable answer to the energy crisis?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Only if Tony Blair has agreed to store all the worlds nuclear waste in his big echoing empty head. Seriously, where does he plan on dumping the waste?

 

[skadistic]

Yukka (sp?) mountain.

 

[thetrooper]

Just curious, how does Sellafield store the nuclear waste nowadays?

A viable answer to the energy crisis?

Use your feet more!

 

[Truronian]

We could dump the waste in central Antartica. I imagine lots of people will have problems with this though...

 

[El_Machinae]

Yukka (sp?) mountain.

I've heard, over and over (from informed people) that Yukka mountain is not a great idea, and it's only politics keeping it viable (the scientists are washing their hands of responsibility).

 

[Steph]

Seriously, where does he plan on dumping the waste?

Sell them to Iran to build dirty bombs!

 

[Truronian]

Sell them to Iran to build dirty bombs!

They'd only send it straight back...

 

[Leonel]

How much nuclear waste is generated at all and how much of it is recycleable?

 

[.Shane.]

I've heard, over and over (from informed people) that Yukka mountain is not a great idea, and it's only politics keeping it viable (the scientists are washing their hands of responsibility).

Actually, it is a good idea. Nuclear power, relative to other sources of power, is quite safe. I have friends who are Risk Analysts (w/ PhDs in statistics and engineering) who have studied that very project and their conclusion is essentially what I stated in the first sentence.

The "no nukes" thing is a great example of well-meaning intentions gone wrong.

 

[GenMarshall]

Tony Blair is giving the go ahead for more nuclear power. Is this a viable answer to the energy crisis?

With strict nuclear safety (like the Nuclear Reglatory Commission in the US) can nuclear power be safe.

 

[Samson]

Actually, it is a good idea. Nuclear power, relative to other sources of power, is quite safe. I have friends who are Risk Analysts (w/ PhDs in statistics and engineering) who have studied that very project and their conclusion is essentially what I stated in the first sentence.

The "no nukes" thing is a great example of well-meaning intentions gone wrong.

You mean they say "Actually, it is a good idea"? I shall assume you mean they say "Nuclear power, relative to other sources of power, is quite safe." I shall have ask you to expand a bit;

Relative to what other sources of power?
Does it include the risk of terorist attack? How can that be quantified?
Does it include the risk of global warming? How is that quantified?
Do they have any links to primary liturature?

I know it is them that need to answer these questions, but it is a bit hard to take what they say as gospel without htese answers.

 

[sysyphus]

We have plenty of room to store it in Canada, and we'll gladly do it if Phony Tony is ready to hadn over a nice little sum for our troubles.

 

[sysyphus]

Relative to what other sources of power?

I'd imagine fossil fuels, no others are capable of producing the required quantities at an econolically viable level.

Does it include the risk of terorist attack? How can that be quantified?

A terrorist attack on a nuclear plant would be very ineffective. The buildings are built to withstand a plane crash, planting bombs to destroy the building would take too much time before being caught. Taking control and overrunnign the reactor meltdown is not an option since the operator can poison out the reactor and render it inoperable within 2 seconds of being altered to a threat.

Does it include the risk of global warming? How is that quantified?

Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gasses.

 

[.Shane.]

Relative to what other sources of power?
Does it include the risk of terorist attack? How can that be quantified?
Does it include the risk of global warming? How is that quantified?
Do they have any links to primary liturature?

I'm actually gonna ask my friend to read this thread and type a reply which I'll post for him.

Nuclear Power is safer than fossil fuels esp. in that given all the damage that coal plants, etc... cause they can assign a value in terms of how negatively that impacts life expectancy. The value for nuclear power, assuming things like good regulation, safety, and storage, is much less.

Again, I'll see if my friend has anything to add. I'm sure he'll be much more lucid on the topic than me.

 

[Samson]

I'd imagine fossil fuels, no others are capable of producing the required quantities

That depends on what you do to reduce demand.

at an econolically viable level.

That depends on your view on the ecconomics of popution.

But I agree that is probably what it is being compared to.

A terrorist attack on a nuclear plant would be very ineffective. The buildings are built to withstand a plane crash, planting bombs to destroy the building would take too much time before being caught. Taking control and overrunnign the reactor meltdown is not an option since the operator can poison out the reactor and render it inoperable within 2 seconds of being altered to a threat.

SOME buildings may be designed this way, but I know that the waste storage facilities at selafield and Harwell are not capable of withstanding a plane crash.

Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gasses.

Yes it does. There is uranium mining, uranium milling, Uranium hexafloride (?) production, enrichment and fuel rod construction that all require energy, and most require fossel fuels unless you can get zero emmisions vehicales. And then you have waste handling, power plant construction and decomisioning.

However I was refering to the other side of the equasion, the power sources it is being compared to. Very hard to quantify the risk of CO2 production.

 

[Xanikk999]

That depends on what you do to reduce demand.

That depends on your view on the ecconomics of popution.

But I agree that is probably what it is being compared to.

SOME buildings may be designed this way, but I know that the waste storage facilities at selafield and Harwell are not capable of withstanding a plane crash.

Yes it does. There is uranium mining, uranium milling, Uranium hexafloride (?) production, enrichment and fuel rod construction that all require energy, and most require fossel fuels unless you can get zero emmisions vehicales. And then you have waste handling, power plant construction and decomisioning.

However I was refering to the other side of the equasion, the power sources it is being compared to. Very hard to quantify the risk of CO2 production.

When he said none, he meant theres so little greenhouse gas that it is barely noticable.

Given all the pluses of nuclear power i support it also.

And i have to tell you the chance of a meltdown today is almost none. Chernobly was a different story because the plant was neglected. With all the measures we have now its incredibly unlikely that would ever happen again. I think the benifits outweight the negatives.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I am against nuclear power, waste is a problem. Nuclear meltdowns are not my concern.

Instead, we need to be pushing for using renewable energy sources, or sources that don't create waste/pollution, like wind and solar power.

 

[Samson]

When he said none, he meant theres so little greenhouse gas that it is barely noticable.

It is low compared to burning coal, but I belive it is far from negligable.

Given all the pluses of nuclear power i support it also.

And i have to tell you the chance of a meltdown today is almost none. Chernobly was a different story because the plant was neglected. With all the measures we have now its incredibly unlikely that would ever happen again. I think the benifits outweight the negatives.

I generally agree with you. However I THOUGHT I knew enough about risk assesment to be suspision about such sweeping statements as his.

An d I forgot another risk they MAY not have considered, the spreading of nuclear power technology helping the spread of nuclear weapons and precipitating nuclear war. Everyone needs electricity (if anyone does anyway).

 

[.Shane.]

I am against nuclear power, waste is a problem.

Actually, its not. Or maybe we should define "problem."

That said, I agree that renewable sources should be pursued.