Nuclear power, are we stupid?

[giorgio]

A recent article showed that “China, Russia and India are all planning to build more than a hundred new power plants among them in the coming decades”

Are we stupid? It doesn't take a genious to know that this isn't sustainable energy... Let alone cheap... Imagine the billions our next generations will be paying just to protect and dispose of the waste?!

[oo87]

Agreed. The process of affordable, clean energy needs to be a global process, because every country will effect the other with the creation of new plants. But what can others do about it?
India is a rapidly developing country, and in my opinion they are poised to become the next super power if they can really get a handle on their economy.
China has often followed their own rules, and are much more concerned with profit, proof given with the recent problems with their products and the sickness they have been causing.
Do you think that others should try to reason out regulations when so many other countries are mass producers themselves?

[jonathon]

What you have to ask is where this waste is going to be dumped in the coming decades, it will not be this planet maybe, it will be blasted into the solar system on China, India and Russia's spaceship, where will this madness stop.

[2010]

Since the big corps. are in control they could care less about long term effects or the safety of others. They just want to reel in the cash, and they'll continue to pull crap like this off until the people do something about it. I hope that the public over there is outraged and protests, but often they are scared to do so, and see such plants as a boost in their economy amongst other benefits that might rise from it. I just hope that they remember that there's some negative effects too though..

[vkxxiii]

I watched something on the discovery channel explaining how nuclear power is so dangerous for the earth that if we left the plants unoccupied for over a day, that it would cause massive damage all around the environment

[oo87]

I watched something on the discovery channel explaining how nuclear power is so dangerous for the earth that if we left the plants unoccupied for over a day, that it would cause massive damage all around the environment

That's a terrifying thought....I remember watching this one that spoke about how damaging it would be if humans suddenly disappeared, and the horrible things that would happen to the planet because of the imprint of ourselves we have made on the environment. The whole of Earth would die, more or less. :P

[Oic]

We need to use alternatives to Nuclear power but the government cant spend millions setting up these alternatives as of the moment there is a finical crisis going on

[oo87]

We need to use alternatives to Nuclear power but the government cant spend millions setting up these alternatives as of the moment there is a finical crisis going on

The countries mentioned above are some which are far from considering the implications of global warning as it pertains to their own involvement and what they should do to stop it. The fact that they are building these plants at all, or planning to, is proof enough of that.

[RBseatown]

A recent article showed that “China, Russia and India are all planning to build more than a hundred new power plants among them in the coming decades”

Are we stupid? It doesn't take a genious to know that this isn't sustainable energy... Let alone cheap... Imagine the billions our next generations will be paying just to protect and dispose of the waste?!

I think it's pretty apparent that current generations aren't looking too far into the future and worrying about their kids, kids. It's not a very smart way to go about things, but it appears to be the way things are. There are dozens of things we should be worried about for the future.

[shailbpl]

Solar energy appears to be a good alternative, but my understanding is efficiency per cell (density wise) has to increase tremendously.. we've reached a point where engineering alone can not make the projects economically feasible..

whereas, wind energy, as long as there are proper wind-zones, it should be doing OK. GE is lobbying agressively to push wind energy. they dont do it unless it makes business sense.

the good thing about all these forms of energy are they are non-polluting and they have infinite supply of input energy, so to speak.

energy independence in the future implies economic independence and hence a possibility of becoming a super power..

the so-called IT revolution is like a balloon, somebody can easily puncture it anytime, or just cut-off the air-supply..

we are enjoying the success but are we prepared for the failure?

[rajan17_88]

Why are they always going for the one which has high risk atleast not for the moment but for the future generation why they are not concentrating on using sun light to produce energy??

[jonathon]

With nuclear power the big and real trouble with the generation is that it also generates tons radioactive waste, No country in this world has developed a realistic waste disposal mechanism for radioactive waste, and the problem involves storing this radioactive waste, safe from all disturbances for 10,000 years, The radioactive waste that has already been illegally dumped poses a problem that will not go away, there are methods for constructing nuclear power plants that would greatly reduce this problem but because our society values quick profit over sustainability, there is no political or commercial incentive to explore better options, the big world leaders are doing as little as they can to explore sources of alternative energy, there's just too much money to be made while petroleum is relatively cheap, This fall back position for world energy is nuclear and coal or oil.

[ppyvabw]

Hi, new here.

I'm afraid many of the opinions on nuclear fuel here are based on fear and not on academic and scientific fact. This is a post I recently made on another forum on this issue

Another one of those moments where I rolled my eyes in despair today......

I was reading about the future of energy production and when resources will run out etc...partly out of curiosity and partly out of worry lol.gif

I saw an interesting article on nuclear power. Why are the worlds governments wasting time, money and resources on curing the worlds energy problems with 'renweables' and so on when technology currently exists for making nuclear fuel last for potentially thousands of years. This was a scientific article, not some media nonsense. What I read was unclear I think if the figures they were quoting were based on current nuclear usage, or projected usage from the majority of our power being generated this way, but given that it comes to thousands of years it's hardly relevant.

Being a physicist (I'll try not to get technical) I have no qualms with nuclear power, except for the fact the common belief is that the uranium resource will itself only last for 80 years which I thought was true until today. According to this article that figure is based on current known and extractable Uranium sources and reactor technology today which is woefully inefficient. Currently, the exploration of new uranium sources is very small because it is in such little demand which is why this figure is low.

Prospecting for further good quality uranium sources, but perhaps ones more difficult to extract could increase this figure to over 100 years with current commercial technology. Currently less than 1% of the uranium is used, the fuel also requires enriching which takes energy. Technology which does exist called breeder reactors, which has yet to be implemented, can increase the efficiency 60 times and can also use all the waste that is stored from current nuclear power stations. (So that erm....60*80 years+waste that we have already used in current power stations)

Moreover, nuclear fuel is more abundant than just in good quality mining sources. It is present in many minerals in small quantities and in sea water where 4000 million tonnes exists. If that could be extracted, it could provide energy for thousands of years with new reactor technology. This can be done on the laboratory scale currently. New reactor technology can also implement Thorium which is three times more abundant than uranium.

Further in the interim, nuclear fuel from nuclear weapons can contribute a significant amount to current energy needs.

Of course I hear people cry out that it's dangerous.....and then remind us of the Chernobyl incident. There is I believe around a thousand nuclear reactors in the world and a large proportion of them are in power stations. To my knowledge Chernobyl has been the only serious incident and this was because it was a poorly designed reactor and at the time of the accident they were irresponsibly experimenting to see how far they could push the reactor. I think it is also true that at the time, they were no scientists present, only technicians.

Why then are the governments of the world not investing money on this instead of other forms of energy production. It's clean (radioactive waste aside which is safe when stored correctly) the technology is safe, despite popular belief and in my humble opinion as a non politician, just a mere scientist it will solve the climate chrisis and the energy chrisis.

The possibilty of renewables is all very well, but unfortunately the facts remain. If you do the basic A-level mathematics,you arrive at the conclusion they are woefully inadequate to supply our energy needs currently, never mind in the future. The construction of a wind farm, for example, isn't carbon neutral for at least 25 years, given the carbon that went into building it. There is also current research suggesting that renewables could also adversely affect the climate.

For nuclear on the other hand, the technology exists for carbon free energy with sufficient capability to generate our needs and proven technology for storing the waste. The dangers of it are hyped up by the media I am afraid.

From the above quote, nuclear fission is certainly the only way forward, at least in the interim. However, current research (for example at tokamac in Oxford) is studying the possibility of nuclear fushion which is completely clean, leaving no radioactive waste and runs on seawater. Experimental, useable powerstations are to be built soon in Norway I believe. This is a real long term solution to the energy and pollution problems within our grasp soon in my opinion, but the governments of the world still waste money on renewables which will not work when they could be putting money into building more Fission power stations that can potentially supply us for hundreds and thousands of years or fushion research which can supply our energy needs practically indefinitely.

[katiebelle]

i agree with alot of ppyvabw points. apart from majorly dissagreeing with the "radioactive waste aside which is safe when stored correctly" comment. ra waste is never completely safe even when stored correctly. it might not leak for 50, 100, 1000 years but it will always leak.
most "green" energy options are not carbon neutral for years, the generaly population dont think about all the energy that goes into production of solar or wind sources.

and even getting some of the green thing in doesnt work. near where i live there is a streach of coast that is perfect for a wind farm but the local people protested against it because they didnt wasnt the noise pollution or the sight of the towers anywhere near their houses.

[ppyvabw]

It may well leak eventually, and I am sure there must have been leaks before. I think it is currently stored in large concrete and lead coffins.

If the coffins were stored in large underground bunkers, (which engineers could access to keep an eye on it) with warning systems to warn of a leak, because it was underground the leak would hardly be dangerous and could be repaired.

[katiebelle]

this is true and i do agree that the majority of the time containment would be safe, its just there will certainly be cases where toxic waste spills into the environment and damages something. i dont think this should really stop np though, just that we need to be extra cautious with it