Nuclear power

Great Debates
141

Actually, the danger of introducing cadmium and zinc to the environment from damaged/broken PV cells is quite minimal. My apologies if I gave a different impression; I can see that I wasn’t as clear about that as I could have been.

The most significant environmental danger from these elements comes mainly from mining & processing the ore, and then release of dust during manufacture of the panels. Once the elementary metals have been processed into their final useful compounds and deposited onto the glass substrates of the PV, they are relatively safe and quite stable. It has been demonstrated that even in fires, very little cadmium is liberated - either as a gas, or as dust particles.

And as for disposal, they’re working on that. At least the PV manufacturer I am most familiar with is doing so quite dilligently and at great expense. FirstSolar also asks that purchasers of their PV panels return them to the factory and will pay for all shipping & handling costs to do so.

142

To add another concern to the stew though, there are a few scientists who worry about what large-scale deployments of PV solar panels might do to the albedo of the earth as they soak up a bunch of sunlight. It is suspected that it might actually have a measurable cooling effect.

143

And with Fossil fuel emissions heating the earth, this would be bad right now?
Do you care to suggest how much has to be covered before it changes Global Temp by more than 1 degree.

144

I’m not sure how this could happen, given that the solar panels in question are actually on Terra, and not in space blocking the sunlight from ever entering the atmosphere.

145

There are more misconceptions in this statement than in an arbitrary half-hour of Fox “News”.

::sigh:: I envy Sisyphus. All he had to do was push a boulder.

Stranger

146

So answer the second real question, not my flippant remark. Solar panels will cool the earth is a little hard to take.
On this subject, what about Nuclear power plants that have already caused temperature changes on nearby waterways that they discharge the heated cooling water into. (I know it is not radioactive)? Just throwing this was out there.

147

The problem here is that many people (not just you) want to reduce climatology to a few simple parameters to be plugged into an equation and come out with a single number, be it “global temperature” (whatever that is) or albedo or whatnot. In fact, climate models are incredibly complicated, extremely sensitive to boundary and initial conditions, and still very inaccurate. Although most scientists agree that the average surface temperature is increasing somewhat, there is no consensus on:[ul]
[li]the amount of increase,[/li][li]the rate of increase,[/li][li]the mechanism(s) responsible for increase,[/li][li]whether these mechanisms are artificial or natural in origin,[/li][li]the overall climate impact and,[/li][li]the price of rice in China.[/ul] [/li]We have a somewhat devleoped understanding of the impact of local temperature changes such as waste heat from a power generating plant (and large coal- and gas-fired plants use rivers and lakes for coolant just as nuclear plants do) upon environment and lifeforms, although we often miscalculate or overlook parameters, but this doesn’t translate into any kind of coherent, prediciton-generating model for global or even regional effects.

A large amount of solar-absorbing surfaces could, in fact, cool the Earth by converting the Sun’s emissions to electricity rather than reradiating all of it as heat (though you’re eventually going to convert the electricity to heat in some way). They might also interrupt the evaporation cycle, reducing cloud cover and increasing the amount of incident light on the planet’s surface. Et cetera, ad nausum. There is no simple answer to your question, and anyone that proffers one is speaking through their fedora.

Stranger

148

Right so in a nutshell :wink:
I was protesting the
Originally Posted by UncleBeer

Which is guilty of what you just described.
The warning is of no value.
It is possible that a plant was badly run and almost everything went wrong and a complete meltdown could happen. After the Soviet stupidity I don’t believe we would be that stupid, but I can say it anyway. Why bring up the cooling point. It has no factual support or convincing statistics.

149

What? PV cells don’t just soak up sunlight and store it in deep underground sunlight deposits. All that sunlight gets converted to waste heat eventually which means that PV cells probably decrease albedo and would have a warming effect.

It would only have a cooling effect if PV cells are more efficient at reflecting sunlight than rooftops.

As for the anti-Yucca people, could I just ask what you predict the worst case scenario would be for Yucca? The waste is converted into a form of glass and stored in big steel barrels. So lets say theres an earthquake, okay, everything gets shaken up a bit and probably some of the barrels rupture… so you still have a bunch of radioactive glass buried deep in the earth. And then say the water table rises 1000 ft miraculously… You have a couple of chunks of wet glass. For the waste to actually contaminate the water table, radioactive elements need to get dissolved into the water table. As far as I can see, the only way to do that would be to physically abrade the cylinders and that’s only ever going to happen if the yucca site becomes a stream bed. I honestly cannot see how this could happen within the next 1000 years or so and even if it did, we could just run around with a geiger counter picking out the chunks of glass and moving them somewhere else. I honestly don’t see how anything could go more wrong than that (barring freak meteors or volcanos).

150

I suspect the “worst case scenarios” worried about in this thread is a train accident where waste is released before it gets to Yucca Mountain. Or terrorists hijack the truck, and use the waste to build a dirty bomb.

Of course, that could happen with cadmium ore even if we went 100% solar, which is why I mentioned balancing risk with energy output.

[hijack]My non-technical WAG is that solar power would increase heat absorption, by trapping sunlight that is currently being reflected back into space. But I thought the worry about global warming, to whatever extent it is happening, is that greenhouse gasses are trapping the heat so that it is not re-radiated back into space. Thus using nuclear power (or solar, for that matter) addresses global warming by reducing CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions and reducing the greenhouse effect. [/hijack]

Regards,
Shodan

151

Neither pro-nuke, nor anti-nuke, but primarily unhappy with the current system of centralized power generation and distribution which concentrates an essential commodity in the hands of a small number of corporations who just conceivable might not act in my best interests (no names, please). Ultimately, I’d like to see in situ generation of power, making every household self-sufficient in a manner that is sustainable and non-polluting. I’d also like to see flying cars that fold up into a briefcase. I should also mention that I’d like to take a shower with Jennifer Garner.

I think that this is a laudable, even an achievable goal (local power generation, not showering with Ms. Garner, though I guess that’s a laudable goal too). Between now and then, however, I guess we’ll have to face reality, bite the bullet, grin and bear it, batten down the hatches, and make hay while the sun shines. So put me down-grudgingly- in the “leery, but not stridently opposed” camp.

For a good read, check out Stewart Brand’s article in the May, 2005 issue of Technology Review. It’s pretty eye-opening to see the founder of The Whole Earth Catalogue making a claim for nuclear power generation.

152

Not all of the waste that would be stored at Yucca would be converted to glass.

Contamination of the aquifier could also result from flooding.

cite

Such flooding would likely affect the Armagosa River, which is the only surface water source available for all animal and bird life in the region.

cite

Also, there is flow downward from the surface to the water table below. And there are places where there is water hundreds of feet above the water table.

cite

Earthquakes are also a real factor:

cite

Also, your limit of 1,000 years is unusable, as the time for safely storing the waste, as determined by scientists and upheld by the courts, is 100,000-300,000 years. In fact, the court found that the EPA broke the law when it set the standard at 10,000 years, disregarding the recommendation of the National Academy of Science.

cite

Again, the studies done at Yucca by the DOE are seriously flawed. There is evidence that some data was wholly fabricated. The site is simply not suitable for the purpose of storing nuclear waste safely for the time period needed. The DOE, which is acting as a shill for the nuclear power industry, is attempting, through poor science and political means, to force Yucca Mountain into becoming what it can never be: a safe geological repository.

cite

Yep, that’s right. Even tho the DOE admits there are almost 300 already known questions that it can’t answer, it planned to file the license application (they did, too, in December of 2004). How is that good science, or good public policy?

153

I whole-heartedly agree with these sentiments, except that in #3 I’d like to substitute Jessica Alba. :smiley:

Which would be the case with me, if the waste was stored on-site. Nuclear power generation would not affect me, and so I would remain “leery, but not stridently opposed.” As I put it, “guardedly neutral”. Why should I have an opinion on a matter which does not affect me? Do what you want, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone or impact my life. Is that finally clear, Shodan?

154

No, it was presented as evidence that the DOE can’t be trusted, that their word is not good enough. It is evidence that they will risk the lives of citizens in order to further the goals of the nuclear power industry.

If you had been reading, you would have seen that it was provided to refute the notion, presented by Sam Stone that it was “impossible to rupture” a transportation cask.

Thankfully, the judges agree with me.

155

Okay, but that’s just an objection to centralised processing, not an objection to Yucca per se. And I believe that those two issues were adequately countered by previous posters. It’s possible for a train accident to be severe enough to cause a release of radioactive materiel but the likelyhood of that is low enough and the consequences are minor enough that a rational assesment of the risk would discount this as a factor. After all, we transport a lot of hazardous materiel every day with far more lax safety standards than any proposed nuclear waste.

And terrorists already have enough sources of material that trying to hijack a heavily armed convoy for waste that is of marginal value is not a very likely option. They could much more easily get materieals for a dirty bomb from smoke alarms or medical waste.

156

Not very good evidence, though, is it?

The fact that, although dust masks are provided for all workers, they were not mandatory means that the DOE is taking chances? That seems, as I mentioned, a considerable overstatement.

I imagine that you might object if I cited an instance of some construction accident at a solar panel factory as proof that the solar power industry was inherently untrustworthy.

Again, it is not very good evidence. The fact that a TOW missile can punch a small hole in a cask means, to me, that the casks are pretty damn safe. How likely do you think it is that people will be shooting anti-tank missiles as a cask of nuclear waste? And how much radioactivity will be released thru a softball sized hole if they did?

Fairly clear. It seems a restatement of NIMBY.

And the rest of your objections, regarding flooding and so forth, frankly strike me as silly. So there is flooding. As has been mentioned, the waste is stored in stainless steel casks that have been tested by ramming them with a locomotive. Do you seriously think that getting them wet is going to cause large-scale deaths from radioactive poisoning? Or that nobody will notice if suddenly Yucca Mountain is six feet underwater?

You are simply grasping at straws.

Regards,
Shodan

157

A letter of admission of the fact isn’t very good evidence? What would be?

Tell that to the dead guy and the sick people. I’m sure your words will comfort them.

It wasn’t an accident. The DOE deliberately ignored OSHA standards and their own regulations. People are sick. At least one person is dead.

The statement I was refuting was not “they are fairly safe” it was they are “impossible to rupture”. Clearly, they are not “impossible to rupture”. And as I am fond of pointing out when someone makes the argument you just did, no one thought it likely that people would hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center, but it happened.

Holy jumping Og, it’s almost a positive statement from you. Of course it’s NIMBY, the whole point of wanting to move the waste in the first place is NIMBY. You don’t want it in your backyard. Well, we don’t want it in our backyard. Duh.

I must have missed that test. Cite?

Yucca doesn’t have to be six feet under water. Re-read my post and look at the cite about perched water. Re-read about what happens to rainfall in the area in my cites. Read about how the water eventually makes it way to Death Valley via the Armagosa River. Read about how the aquifier makes it way to the Colorado River. Large-scale deaths? Hopefully it will be detected before that happens, but once the aquifier is contaminated, say good-bye to all the big cities and farmlands dependent on it.

Not really. I’m providing scientific evidence with lots of factual cites. You seem to simply have your made mind up that you don’t want this waste, and you’re going to ship it here no matter what. I suspect that there is nothing that would make you change your mind, and so this isn’t really a debate at all. I’m done wasting my time answering your baseless opinions, unless you can tell me: what evidence would cause you to agree that Yucca Mountain was unsuitable for the purpose described in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982?

158

Well, I won’t pretend to understand the physics behind these statements; I’m just relating something I remember reading somewhere a couple years back. Frankly, I’m more than a bit skeptical meself.

Which they may very well be. PV cells are not, after all, 100% efficient.

159

Something to do with storage of nuclear waste?

I doubt that. Neither would the statement “It was your own damn fault you got sick - you were provided the masks but you didn’t wear them”.

Entirely true. My point is how far you have to go in order to make a softball sized hole in one of the casks.

Because the implied statement is, “the casks are unsafe because they are not sufficiently resistant to anti-tank missiles” is kind of silly unless it is likely that a lot of people are going to shoot anti-tank missiles at them.

Well, if the risks overall of keeping it in my backyard out weigh the risks of keeping it in yours, then, as has been pointed out, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. We need a place to keep it. It is safer to keep it in a mountain a hundred miles from anywhere, in a nuclear testing range, than in 141 different places much closer both to population centers and to the local water tables. Why do you find it preferable (in the abstract) to magnify the danger by storing the waste in 141 different places, instead of in a freaking desert that has been studied intensely since 1978?

This is the kind of thing I was talking about.

The part you skipped is the part where you explain how enough of the nuclear waste escapes from the stainless steel cask it’s stored in, and how the water penetrates the six-inch thick walls and dissolves the vitrified nuclear waste within, then filters down thru a thousand feet of rock over a hundred years or so and contaminates the aquifer in high enough quantities to cause health issues - without anyone noticing.

I can’t imagine that you believe we are just going to throw the waste into a hole in the mountain, quickly slam the door and then forget all about it. The site is going to be monitored. And I suspect that any changes in heavy metal levels anywhere near the site would be detected pretty damn quick.

And some of the other objections I have heard - that we might forget where we put the stuff, or things of that nature - sound bizarre as well. Increased levels of radioactivity are not difficult to detect with today’s technology. Do people imagine we will forget the use of a Geiger counter in the next ten thousand years? Are we going to lose all interest in hydrology?

You would have to show that leaving the waste where it is is less risky than storing it out in the middle of nowhere, and that transporting it there is too dangerous to risk.

Playing “what if” is a perfectly valid exercise, and highly profitable for the lawyers on both sides, but there comes a point when you see that all of the reasonable objections have been answered. We need the power, nuclear is the safest reasonably available option, and after a certain point the good people of Nevada will have to suck it up and deal with Yucca Mountain as they have dealt with the other nuclear testing that has occurred in their state.

Regards,
Shodan

160

No, the 100,000 year limit was decided by politics and possibly by scientists not qualified to make that sort of pronoucment. Virtually every person in the study of risk assesment and management would agree that even 10,000 is an absurdly long time and speaking much past 1000 years begins to not make sense. The reason is that risk is discounted as time goes on, that is, we are unwilling to pay $100 to solve a problem that will cost us $101 next year. Over a 1000 year even the most moderate discount rate renders any discussion about risk moot. I’m aware that any discussion about risk management with laymen is rife with misunderstandings and objections since it’s an inherently counter-intuitive practise. So I reccomend you go check out Technological Risk where Lewis goes into a lot more detail about the whole Yucca thing.

In 1000 years, either one of the following things will happen:

a) We’ll all be dead in which case it doesn’t matter
b) We’ll maintain a continued technological civilisation around Yucca in which case we can monitor and move the materiel in case of any danger
c) We’ll revert back to a stone-age existance in which case it doesn’t really matter either because we’re pretty much doomed anyway

Also, none of your cites actually deal with anything more dire than water getting into the cave. Like I said before, all the stuff is incredibly inert and insoluble. The mere presence of water in the cave is not going to do any significant damage. At worst, what you would get is a low and sustained increase in radiation levels in the aquifer, hardly something overwhelmingly catastrophic.