# Still support nuke power plants? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647 "2011-03-14T11:56:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 80
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1581 "2011-09-02T16:47:57Z")
[QUOTE=FXMastermind] Germany has around 20,339 MW capacity from their reactors right now. (source) In 2010 Germany had 17,320 MW capacity from solar. (source) [/QUOTE] Look at the chart for [German Renewable Generation](http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/new-record-for-german-renewable-energy-in-2010??cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-March30-2011) 2010 (from one of your Wiki links): Nuclear: 133 TWh, 22% (of their total electrical generated energy) Solar: 12 TWh, 2% Tells a bit different story than the one you tried to portray, no? You can also look at other energy generation methods in that cite: Wind: 37.5 TWh, 6.2% Biomass: 33.5 TWh, 5.6% Hydro: 19.5 TWh, 3.2% The only thing that has more capacity (despite a large push by the German government towards renewables in the last few years) is coal. I’m sure you won’t bother clicking on the link (despite the fact that I actually got it from YOUR link that cites what the numbers mean), but maybe some others are wondering why PV and nuclear look so similar in your cites. > [@](#): > > They want to shut down all the reactors due to safety issues. If they had spent the money on solar/wind they spent on the reactors, especially the huge costs of decommisioning, (as well as the hidden cost of the waste problem), what would their solar capacity be? I don’t know…maybe 4% of their total electrical generation? Possibly 5% if they REALLY pushed it? They would be better off with wind…roughly doubling their huge investment in wind would at least have gotten them into double digits for percentage of energy generated (assuming they have the tier 1 or 2 wind sites to support that sort of increase in generation). Yeah, they want to get rid of their nuclear power plants because of fear from their public. And if they push ahead what it will mean is more coal plants, more wind and solar…and probably buying electricity form neighboring countries (many of who use nuclear, ironically enough) to make up the short fall. -XT ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1582 "2011-09-02T17:05:49Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > It is not just that nuclear is not completely safe, but that when it goes bad the results are horrendous and very long lasting. Horrendous? Yes, the potential for a few thousand excess cancer deaths to result from the Japanese nuclear disaster is horrendous. And the costs of clean-up, etc. will be very significant. But compared to coal much more headline grabbing dramatic and much much less horrendous. The fallacy is the same one that makes some afraid of flying compared to driving: a plane crash is a horrendous event that gets headlines and is something that everyone is aware of; car crashes are common and mundane, so common that their risk is psychologically discounted as just part of life. Travelling by car across country is much more dangerous than flying but many fewer get nervous about it. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > … Real deaths and monetary loss due to pollution from coal doesn’t even come close to the real dangers, risks, costs and human tragedy unfolding in Japan right now. At this point the actual numbers have been pointed out to you so often that you repeating this untrue statement is mindboggling. Coal causes [4,000 times more deaths](http://www.geekosystem.com/coal-oil-nuclear-deaths-chart/) a year per TWh than does nuclear. You do pretend that “the one million deaths that the World Health Organization estimates occur each year due to coal-related air pollution” (same cite) do not exist because they are not rare headline grabbing dramatic disasters but are instead “the pervasive and pernicious”. You pretend that global climate change is something to handwave away. Your phrasing of the question and you still won’t answer. Disappointing but not surprising. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1583 "2011-09-02T22:49:38Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Indeed. Of course. > > It really is. Because if there were caskets actually “impervious to just about anything”, the spent fuel could simply be put in them and stored for now in secure buildings, away from the reactors themselves. Fukushima would have had all the 30 years of fuel rods not sitting in the buildings, next to the reactor, but safely away from them. > > (yes some was in dry cask storage, but the majority is still in the ruined fuel ponds) > > So if you listen to the magic casket theory, the spent fuel and high level waste can simply be put in the amazing “impervious to just about anything” storage devices. Not left in a deep pool of water that needs constant cooling to prevent the fuel rods from burning. > > You might think this whole spent fuel issue is ridiculous. Why is there even a problem? Just use the magic caskets and safely store the highly radioactive waste anywhere. > > Problem solved. You have set up another straw man. I did not say that the caskets are safe for long term storage. Anybody knows that. the whole reason why spent fuel storage (in holding ponds), is that anti-nuclear crazies HAVE PREVENTED efficient, safe reprocessing of nuclear fuels. Moreover, they have also prevented the use of safe, long term storage facilities. The Yucca facility in Nevada has been open for years..but has not received a single shipment. So keep condemning nuclear power, and prevent any rational means of dealing with the waste. Meanwhile, coal fired plants are being built-because clean, safe nuclear power is being (irrationally) blocked.:smack: ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1584 "2011-09-02T23:52:33Z")
The Yucca facility was never finished, much less open to take waste. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1585 "2011-09-03T00:19:54Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Anybody knows that. > the whole reason why spent fuel storage (in holding ponds), is that anti-nuclear crazies HAVE PREVENTED efficient, safe reprocessing of nuclear fuels. Such falsehoods should not be tolerated by a civilized society. > [@](#): > > In October 1976, fear of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. On April 7, 1977 , President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel. The key issue driving this policy was the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation by diversion of plutonium from the civilian fuel cycle, and to encourage other nations to follow the USA lead. After that, only countries that already had large investments in reprocessing infrastructure continued to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing.[[WP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#History)] The economics and technical problems of using plutonium as reactor fuel is the prime reason the world is not covered with safe clean plutonium fired power plants. The protests in Japan against using MOX at Fukushima delayed Reactor three from having ten years of spent plutonium fuel rods, and more fresh ones waiting in the now ruined fuel ponds. This turned out to be really good for the island of Japan. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1586 "2011-09-03T02:05:51Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Real deaths and monetary loss due to pollution from coal doesn’t even come close to the real dangers, risks, costs and human tragedy unfolding in Japan right now. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Such falsehoods should not be tolerated by a civilized society. Yup. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1587 "2011-09-03T02:37:48Z")
We need a lottery and betting pool so we can try and predict which previously addressed topic will come up again in either this (32 page) thread or one of the other seemingly endless threads on this topic. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that ‘nuclear energy is dangerous and evil’ will factor in somehow… -XT ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1588 "2011-09-03T09:07:50Z")
The nuclear fuel in three of the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant has melted through the base of the pressure vessels and is pooling in the outer containment vessels. This was suspected since March of course, but now it is official. I know you want an English source, with Japanese being so hard to fathom. > [@](#): > > The experts have also yet to come up with a plan for decommissioning the ruined plant. Studies have estimated that the cost of the accident at Fukushima may rise as high as $250 billion over the next 10 years. > > The pressure vessel of the No. 1 reactor is now believed to have suffered damage just five hours after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, contrary to an estimation released by Tepco, which estimated the failure at 15 hours later. > > Melt-downs of the fuel in the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors followed over the following days with the molten fuel collecting at the bottom of the pressure vessels before burning through and into the external steel containment vessels. > **[Nuclear fuel has melted through base of Fukushima plant](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8565020/Nuclear-fuel-has-melted-through-base-of-Fukushima-plant.html)** > > The nuclear fuel in three of the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant has melted through the base of the pressure vessels and is pooling in the outer containment vessels, according to a report by the Japanese government. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1589 "2011-09-03T09:28:17Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > You have set up another straw man. I did not say that the caskets are safe for long term storage. Anybody knows that. The supreme irony of that statement is just so prefect. The “solution” for long term storage is to put the spent fuel rods in dry secure storage. Yet if you look carefully at what he says, the problem is obvious. OK maybe only to somebody with a brain. On the one hand the “magic caskets” are impervious, nothing can happen to the spent fuel while being transported. Yet, once at the mystical safe underground facility, the containers are not safe. And some wonder why I resist debating on internet. Oh I know, I know, now somehow (more magic I guess) all the dangerous spent fuel rods will be somehow be removed from the impervious containers, and now put in some other container that is both magic and will last for thousands of years. And be perfectly safe as well. Of course you might ask why not transport them in those containers? The simple answer is, they don’t exist. > [@ralph124c](#): > > The Yucca facility in Nevada has been open for years..but has not received a single shipment. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The Yucca facility was never finished, much less open to take waste. There is delicious irony in watching the loud voices complain that somebody ignores their points, yet they can’t see what is right before there eyes. Like how the nuclear love thinks the only problems is some mythical persons who are stopping all progress in safe clean cheap nuclear reactors. > [@ralph124c](#): > > So keep condemning nuclear power, and prevent any rational means of dealing with the waste. > Meanwhile, coal fired plants are being built-because clean, safe nuclear power is being (irrationally) blocked.:smack: See? These mythic persons somehow have also stopped the French, Russians, India, China and everyone else from moving forward with the spent fuel problem, fast safe breeder reactors, and safe cheap power plants. These unknown people are quite powerful. Like a worldwide cabal pulling the strings. > [@xtisme](#): > > I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that ‘nuclear energy is dangerous and evil’ will factor in somehow… I will use ralph to answer that bit of insipidness. > [@ralph124c](#): > > You have set up another straw man.. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1590 "2011-09-03T18:48:42Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > OK maybe only to somebody with a brain. Personal insults are not allowed in this forum, so I am giving you a formal warning. There was also no reason for you to revive this thread. It was dormant for two months and your polemic thread in the Pit was still active. I am locking this. Don’t start another thread on this topic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=79)