What are your opinions about nuclear power?

[Chronos]

One of the lessons we learned (or at least, should have learned) from Fukushima is just how incredibly safe nuclear power is, compared with all of the alternatives. In that earthquake and tsunami, everything failed, and people died in all sorts of failures. For everything else except nuclear, that’s just accepted: There’s no way an oil refinery or a dam can survive a disaster of that magnitude. But the nuclear power plant very nearly did survive, and would have if the disaster had been even slightly less severe. And even in the failure, it cost fewer lives than any of the other infrastructure failures.

Quoth Simplicio:

I think oil (or at least, hydrocarbons) squelched nuclear power simply by being cheaper and easier to use to generate power with. Without heavy gov’t subsidies, or various carbon-tax schemes, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense to invest in building a nuclear power plant when you could just build a gas-fired plant and make almost twice the profit per kwh over the lifetime of the plant.

You say that as though subsidies and carbon taxes were the same sort of thing, but they’re actually completely opposite. The lack of carbon taxes is itself a subsidy, and a huge one, to all fossil-fuel technologies. A fair comparison would be a world where either neither side got subsidies, and where there was a significant carbon tax, or a world where there are no carbon taxes and nuclear also gets a similarly hefty subsidy.

[Deeg]

@nevadaexile

The downsides of nuclear energy frankly have longer terms to BE “downsides” than any other form of energy. That alone makes it somewhat more problematic than any other.

I don’t know if I agree with this. Will the residual effects of Chernobyl outlast those of, say, CO2 production from hydrocarbons?

[nevadaexile]

@Deeg

I don’t know if I agree with this. Will the residual effects of Chernobyl outlast those of, say, CO2 production from hydrocarbons?

Of course.
When the half life of some radioisotopes are measured in 10-20k years (which might be longer than humanity remains on Earth or even as a viable species) then yes, it does have a greater effect.

I have yet to hear a climatologist state that global warming would last more than 1,000 years. That’s almost a meaningless amount of time, geologically.

[Deeg]

@nevadaexile

Of course.
When the half life of some radioisotopes are measured in 10-20k years (which might be longer than humanity remains on Earth or even as a viable species) then yes, it does have a greater effect.

Do those isotopes exist in Chernobyl on a scale that they have a meaningful impact outside of a few kilometers?

[Simplicio]

You say that as though subsidies and carbon taxes were the same sort of thing, but they’re actually completely opposite.

Errr…no I don’t. I just say that without one or the other, nuclear can’t be competitive, and that is why we don’t see more of it.

@Chronos

One of the lessons we learned (or at least, should have learned) from Fukushima is just how incredibly safe nuclear power is, compared with all of the alternatives.

I half-agree. It’s safe in the sense of not posing as much risk to human life. But the disaster in Japan also showed how staggeringly expensive nuclear-plant failures can be. Fukushima is projected to cost the plant owners something like 100 billion. That’s far more expensive then even the worst disasters involving hydro-carbons. That kind of tail-risk is a big reason why, even if nuclear was competitive with other power generation methods on a per kwh basis, investors would still stick to mainly coal/natural gas/etc.

[nevadaexile]

@Deeg

Do those isotopes exist in Chernobyl on a scale that they have a meaningful impact outside of a few kilometers?

Their impact may be that what they are may be forgotten by future generations.

It’s doubtful that even 500 years from now that people will speak English or any or the modern languages. If radioactive waste is uncovered in an area which has been abandoned, there is the real risk that it could contaminate people who have no understanding as to what it is.That occurs quite frequently today in Brazil, Mexico and China, so there’s no reason to believe that it wouldn’t occur in the future.

Other forms of energy will remain harmful (if they indeed are) for years or decades for the most part, not centuries.

[Steve_MB]

@nevadaexile

When the half life of some radioisotopes are measured in 10-20k years (which might be longer than humanity remains on Earth or even as a viable species) then yes, it does have a greater effect.

By definition, long half-life means low radiation intensity. The isotopes that actually emit enough radiation to be dangerous, or even to significantly add to the ambient background, burn off in a few decades at most.

[Deeg]

@nevadaexile

It’s doubtful that even 500 years from now that people will speak English or any or the modern languages. If radioactive waste is uncovered in an area which has been abandoned, there is the real risk that it could contaminate people who have no understanding as to what it is.That occurs quite frequently today in Brazil, Mexico and China, so there’s no reason to believe that it wouldn’t occur in the future.

But this is also true of slag heaps from coal processing. And at least the waste is avoidable by the vast majority of people, unlike the CO2 that we’re pumping into the air. What about nuclear power waste makes it worse than what we already have?

[carnivorousplant]

Folks live in Hiroshima.
How is the half life of reactor waste compared to Little Boy’s Uranium 235?

[minor7flat5]

I used to be fairly sanguine on the subject. After all, I spent years studying how to safely operate a nuclear power plant in the Navy and we learned all about the safety features and this and that and so on. My positive attitude was in spite of the fact that one week before I started Nuclear Power School the Chernobyl disaster took place. That was sure a solemn backdrop for our studies throughout 1986.

Nowadays I’m on the fence. Surely, properly run power plants with well kept waste are a good thing, but when things do go wrong they go wrong badly.

I remember that in our technical library we had write-ups of TMI and other accidents and we read them. It seemed that as long as you follow the checklists everything will always work correctly.

Right now I’m reading a book that doesn’t help my confidence in the industry: Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety
This book is not about nuclear power; it is about nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the dangers are similar, and the absolute necessity of never making mistakes is similar.

Checklists and regulations dominated Strategic Air Command, to the point that one would imagine nobody would ever make mistakes, but they did. Hundreds of them. In closing, the author discusses whether it is possible to have a complex closely coupled system that doesn’t fail terribly because of simple problems.
His argument is that the close coupling of all of the systems cause accidents to involve multiple factors, often masking each other. And this very nature of things (example: an event that causes a fire and simultaneously damages fire detection circuitry) makes it very difficult to predict the scenarios.

The author of the book used a 1980 accident at a Titan II missile silo in Arkansas as the backdrop for his story, underscoring how so many things went wrong that those in control did not really know what was happening within the missile silo at all, until the missile’s fuel finally exploded. During a serious nuclear power accident I’m certain that the same can be said about the power plant: the only folks who know what was going on find out by forensic analysis.

That’s the kind of thing I don’t think can be swept under the rug. No matter how many safety systems there are and how much training there is, major accidents will happen.

My vote: I don’t like fossil fuels much, but why can’t we reduce our overall consumption? Why do we all have huge American cars, when our European and South American counterparts do quite nicely with smaller vehicles?

[Cat_Whisperer]

That’s a concern of mine, too - as long as humans are involved in the systems, we will make mistakes (and we will be susceptible to corruption in building and maintaining the plants as well). As has been noted, though, the nuclear energy sector has an exemplary record, even taking its largest problems into account. We can think of three big events for nuclear problems - I hear about a train car derailments resulting in spills every other week. And when you start really looking at the Big Three, the longterm repercussions aren’t as bad as they have been made out to be.

As for reducing consumption, I agree that it should be embraced, but that’s an even harder sell. How do you tell India and China that they can’t do what we’ve been doing for the last 50 years because we’ve ruined it for everyone now?

[Simplicio]

@minor7flat5

My vote: I don’t like fossil fuels much, but why can’t we reduce our overall consumption? Why do we all have huge American cars, when our European and South American counterparts do quite nicely with smaller vehicles?

Well, I don’t think anyones proposing a nuclear powered car, so I’m not sure of the relevance. But US gas use per capita has plummeted over the last decade, so we can and are reducing our overall consumption.

But whether for car use or power generation, there’s only so much you can do with added efficiency. At some point you need to switch to a power source that doesn’t rely on burning fossil fuels.

[nevadaexile]

@Steve_MB

By definition, long half-life means low radiation intensity. The isotopes that actually emit enough radiation to be dangerous, or even to significantly add to the ambient background, burn off in a few decades at most.

And since when has unnecessary exposure to low level radiation not become dangerous? The AMA doesn’t recommend multiple chest X-rays and that’s low level radiation.

If some time in the future someone (again) finds radioactive material, doesn’t know what it is and takes it home or to work or to their school, are they not going to be risking radiation poisoning or an increased risk of cancer? If nuclear waste were “benign”, then finding a place to store it wouldn’t the serious headache which it is, would it?

[nevadaexile]

@Deeg

But this is also true of slag heaps from coal processing. And at least the waste is avoidable by the vast majority of people, unlike the CO2 that we’re pumping into the air. What about nuclear power waste makes it worse than what we already have?

Apparently no one is reading my first post.
I support the use of nuclear power.
My concerns are about the risks involved.

Frankly, it is logically fallacious to attempt to compare coal slag heaps with radioactive waste. While slag heaps are dangerous (especially if improperly managed as the Aberfan disaster tragically demonstrated) those risks are mitigated over a relatively short period of time (decades, not centuries)Nuclear waste.however, will remain a problem for millennia, not decades. To suggest otherwise is flies in the face of decades scientific evidence to the contrary.

And again, the issues with CO2 will mitigate themselves over time. Far less time than what most radioactive waste will be radioactive. If it doesn’t, then human beings will have to adapt themselves and their societies to the increased temperatures, won’t they as few scientists are claiming that global warming will stop if hydrocarbon stopped tomorrow.

WHEN (not if) we as a society decide tha we are again going to discuss nuclear power in a rational manner, we should already have multiple storage sites ready and available to store nuclear waste, as well as multiple plans and contingencies in place for its safe transport and storage.

[nevadaexile]

@carnivorousplant

Folks live in Hiroshima.
How is the half life of reactor waste compared to Little Boy’s Uranium 235?

Apples and oranges.

The detonation of a small, and not a particularly “dirty” atomic weapon almost 70 years is nothing like the long-term irradiation of an area caused by the constant presence of radioactive material. It’s probable that many of the spots in Nevada where open air test were done are also now “safe” to live in if someone chose to do so.

[Chronos]

What about the radioactive waste problem, though? No, I don’t mean the radioactive waste from nuclear plants, I mean the radioactive waste from the plants that produce more of it. Coal waste is radioactive, too.

[Leaffan]

@Cat_Whisperer

That’s a concern of mine, too - as long as humans are involved in the systems, we will make mistakes (and we will be susceptible to corruption in building and maintaining the plants as well). …

This just isn’t true at all. The nuclear industry is probably the most regulated industry in the world.

There are management systems specifically developed for the nuclear industry. In Canada we follow CSA N286, and in the US it’s CFR50 Appendix A and B, and NQA-1.

Independent regulatory compliance for construction, maintenance and operations is ensured by the regulatory body of the country: NRC in the US and the CNSC in Canada.

On top of that there are voluntary associations that power plants tend to align with, who also provide independent oversight, and sharing of Operational Experience (OPEX).

Construction, maintenance and operations are scrutinized by power companies own oversight auditors, who typically do not report into line management, but rather to the board of directors. Then they are subject to oversight by the federal regulator, not to mention provincial and/or state regulators (in Ontario it’s the TSSA), and finally, since CEOs don’t typically want to go to jail, the plant is usually a voluntary member of INPO or WANO.

[carnivorousplant]

@nevadaexile

Apples and oranges.

The detonation of a small, and not a particularly “dirty” atomic weapon almost 70 years is nothing like the long-term irradiation of an area caused by the constant presence of radioactive material. It’s probable that many of the spots in Nevada where open air test were done are also now “safe” to live in if someone chose to do so.

Are you saying that the half life of the fuel in a nuclear reactor is greater than U-235?
Was there a much smaller amount at Hiroshima?

[carnivorousplant]

@minor7flat5

The author of the book used a 1980 accident at a Titan II missile silo in Arkansas as the backdrop for his story, underscoring how so many things went wrong that those in control did not really know what was happening within the missile silo at all, until the missile’s fuel finally exploded.

That is about 25 miles from the population center of Little Rock.
It was not a big deal. The major worry was the guys who had been exposed to rocket fuel in the explosion. The warhead was recovered intact and undamaged.

[minor7flat5]

@Simplicio

Well, I don’t think anyones proposing a nuclear powered car, so I’m not sure of the relevance. But US gas use per capita has plummeted over the last decade, so we can and are reducing our overall consumption.

But whether for car use or power generation, there’s only so much you can do with added efficiency. At some point you need to switch to a power source that doesn’t rely on burning fossil fuels.

No, you didn’t miss any special reference; it was just my own personal ramblings about how it seems to me that we are so horribly wasteful with the fossil fuels we do have, but I have no numbers to back it up. Don’t give that bit of grumbling much thought.

My actual contribution to this thread is my opinion as a former nuclear power plant operator, having followed the checklists and so on, having trained for all kinds of eventualities, having essentially memorized all of the plant systems and the majority of the operating procedures (though we never did them from memory) . . . after all that, I just don’t think that engineers and technology have mitigated all of the risk.

Do I lie awake at night considering the power plants within bad-news-distance of my home in NJ? Not really, but I’m still on the fence on the topic. This is a true dilemma: two choices, each with its own faults, neither obviously superior to the other.