Nuclear power: Good or bad?

Beware of the Leopard · Post by **Beware of the Leopard** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:11 am

When handled safely, and with a safe method of disposal, nuclear energy is good. Chernobyl (spelt a little better, but probably still wrong) was the result of a few individuals experimenting freely with the energy output. "Gee, I wonder how much energy we can produce if we remove all the control rods?" I'd be more supportive of fusion if they could finally figure out a workable reactor design.

Mr.Shroom · Post by **Mr.Shroom** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:35 am

[quote="Douglass MacArthur";p="94070"]So does anyone here live near a plant and get potassium iodide pills from the plant?[/quote]

Close enough to get them if requested, free of cost. But they don't hand them out.

Imperator Severn · Post by **Imperator Severn** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:59 am

Nuclear waste isn't so big a problem as people seem to imagine. There really isn't all that much volume of waste generated. What is created can be buried in secure facilities where it will, barring a megaton blast (a nuclear waste site would be a silly target for that) not come out for millions of years.

Barring great lapses in procedure (which I think could be solved with high pay/low job security), it is very safe, although it's probably still wise to keep them out in the boonies, which really isn't a problem.

Hydroelectric uses up a lot of land, and can cause soil contamination in some cases (china's three gorges).

Wind power is inefficient to the point of laughability, though in some cases it works well. It can help, but it cannot be a complete solution.

Coal power is dirty or expensive, depending. There really isn't any happy medium. It's filthy if it's cheap, and it's insanely expensive if it's fairly clean.

I know North Korea has been using its nuclear power to make nuclear weapons, but on the other hand, more nukes means less security, and therefore more work for the marines.

Pedric · Post by **Pedric** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 2:19 pm

As for economic reasons, nuclear power is very efficient and clean - at least at first glance. Compared to a coal power plant, it is much cleaner.

Nevertheless, nuclear power is the most dangerous way of "producing" energy. I was 4 years old when Tchernobyl exploded and the radioactive clouds ran all over europe. Some of that radiatioactivity can still be found in certain mushrooms and other plants. My youngest brother was born about 4 months later that year, and we're glad the radiation did not affect him. Most playgrounds were closed for weeks.

Although it is highly unlikely that something like that might happen again in the near future, it is NOT impossible. I think it is better to be safe than to be sorry and therefore support my country's (Germany's) step-by-step abandoning of nuclear power...

[edit] More details on the accident:

On 25 April, prior to a routine shut-down, the reactor crew at Chernobyl-4 began preparing for a test to determine how long turbines would spin and supply power following a loss of main electrical power supply. Similar tests had already been carried out at Chernobyl and other plants, despite the fact that these reactors were known to be very unstable at low power settings.

A series of operator actions, including the disabling of automatic shutdown mechanisms, preceded the attempted test early on 26 April. As flow of coolant water diminished, power output increased. When the operator moved to shut down the reactor from its unstable condition arising from previous errors, a peculiarity of the design caused a dramatic power surge.

The fuel elements ruptured and the resultant explosive force of steam lifted off the cover plate of the reactor, releasing fission products to the atmosphere. A second explosion threw out fragments of burning fuel and graphite from the core and allowed air to rush in, causing the graphite moderator to burst into flames.

Imperator Severn · Post by **Imperator Severn** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:27 pm

How does that possibility compare with the certainty of health problems caused by coal?

Pedric · Post by **Pedric** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:07 pm

Coal is not good as well. To replace the nuclear power plants to be closed in a few years, alternate methods like wind, water and gas power will be used. Wind energy is already powering entire small towns over here. It will work without additional coal power plants and without nuclear power...

SothThe69th · Post by **SothThe69th** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:34 pm

I love it when you can sum up a subject with either good or bad. Its so generic that it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling in the pit of my stomache that may or may not be ulcer related.

For the record- Good.

yellow13 · Post by **yellow13** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:44 pm

I live roughly 30 minutes from the Seabrooke Nuclear Powerplant, and I have no problem with that. There really is nothing to be paranoid over it.

yellow13 · Post by **yellow13** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 4:10 pm

Question. Is it possible to replenish nuclear material expended in a fission reaction by bombarding the material with neutrons?

Pedric · Post by **Pedric** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 4:51 pm

That would be nuclear fusion. That works with smaller matter such as H to He, but with complex matter as is Plutonium and Uranium, this may prove too difficult IMHO.

Imperator Severn · Post by **Imperator Severn** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 7:42 pm

Actually, that's how plutonium and other transuranium elements are produced. It works, but it would be inefficient.

Pedric · Post by **Pedric** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 7:44 pm

To get the potentially same material you had to put back the energy released opon fission I think...

Post by **Martin Blank** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 6:41 am

[quote="yellow13";p="95493"]Question. Is it possible to replenish nuclear material expended in a fission reaction by bombarding the material with neutrons?

[/quote]
Congratulations. (No, seriously. No sarcasm.) You've just suggested what is known as a "breeder" reactor, so named because it produces fuel at the same time as it's generating energy. This is probably how new reactors will be built (several such reactors are in operation around the world, including in Japan and France), because spent fuel can be reprocessed through it and used again in reactors, minimizing waste and reducing the amount of mining necessary for new fuels. In fact, with breeder reactors, Yucca Mountain might turn from a waste repository into a fuel depot.

Run a Google search on "breeder reactor" and see what you can find.

Mr.Shroom · Post by **Mr.Shroom** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:27 am

See, this is one of the many reasons I hate it when our nation insults the French.

And actually, Severn, it depends how you handle the aplication of the material itself, not just the reaction. Like Martin said, run a google search. Or just read the latest Popular Mechanics, they did an article on it recently. Might have been last months, come to think of it.

yellow13 · Post by **yellow13** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:02 am

"Congratulations. (No, seriously. No sarcasm.) You've just suggested what is known as a "breeder" reactor, so named because it produces fuel at the same time as it's generating energy. This is probably how new reactors will be built (several such reactors are in operation around the world, including in Japan and France), because spent fuel can be reprocessed through it and used again in reactors, minimizing waste and reducing the amount of mining necessary for new fuels. In fact, with breeder reactors, Yucca Mountain might turn from a waste repository into a fuel depot. "-Martin Blank

Thank for the answer to my question. I really was not sure that the process described above was actually possible.

Real Life Forums

Nuclear power: Good or bad?

Re: Nuclear power: Good or bad?

Breeder reactors

Who is online