Nuclear Polyticks

[windhound]

I heard somthing on NPR today that startled me
Democrats apparently universally oppose nuclear power

...
WTF?
Nuclear is /the/ clean power source right now
Coal is horribly messy (Duke University is still powered by Coal)
Hydro needs dams which destroy hundreds of acres
Wind is getting there, but still takes many acres and people think they're ugly and dont want them where they need to go
Solar is still horribly inefficient.

Historically its been the crap nuclear sites that have caused the problems and melted. Crap run, crap maintained. A properly run nuke site is as safe as can be

The nuclear waste is fairly minimal, can be recycled, and safely stored.
Coal dumps its leftovers into the atmosphere

I'm just confused. People love power. They like living in heated, cooled, lighted houses with running water and electronics... Its gotta come from somewhere, what exactly is the problem with nuclear?

[Ruddertail]

Beats me. I tend to agree. It's cheap, it's effective, it pollutes less... why not? I'm all for going for the best source, and if it's profitable, affordable, and pollutes less... seems the best of all worlds.

As I'll refrain from dark conspiracy speculation and jokes about democrats and insanity, that's about all I've got to say.

Edit: I do see how people could be worried about the waste, but it doesn't seem that bad. Between recycling of waste and proper storage, it's not, to my knowledge, a major problem. France apparently generates most of it's power with nuclear, and while they need less energy and thus generate less waste, they also have far less space to store it in, far fewer areas with absolutely nobody around... etc.

[Death]

Plus you have to remember how much money is made off of non-nuclear energy, and the fact that politicians are generally greedy.

[Ruddertail]

Again, though, nuclear can probably turn a pretty decent profit. Also, they push stuff like wind, solar, ethanol, so they're not just trying to hand oil a monopoly.

[Death]

That's not the point though. Right now the companies making all the money do not want to change it up (a cookie to who guesses why) and do not want to let it become a popular alternative. Case in point, that electric car that GM made ages ago. Big Oil paid them off and had every single one repossessed by claiming that there is a defect, and then destroyed so they wouldn't lose money.

[bjornredtail]

Solar isn't horribly inefficient, at least in terms of energy in/energy out. Modern pv cells are around 60% efficient, that is for every 100J of energy that hits the panel, 60J of electrical energy comes out... Such cells are just horribly expensive.

If nuclear powerplants had to pay a fair price to dispose of their waste, any profit margin would simply vanish.

"Hydro needs dams which destroy hundreds of acres"
Wrong. Counterexample, take a look at the hydro plants along the Truckee River.

"The nuclear waste is fairly minimal, can be recycled, and safely stored. " Tell that to the residents of the area where it is going to be stored.

"Historically its been the crap nuclear sites that have caused the problems and melted. Crap run, crap maintained. A properly run nuke site is as safe as can be"
Similarly, it's been the crap coal fired plants that spew harmful particulates and other nasty chemicals into the air. Modern plants with modern pollution controls emit very little emissions that are actually harmful.

"I'm just confused. People love power. They like living in heated, cooled, lighted houses with running water and electronics... Its gotta come from somewhere, what exactly is the problem with nuclear?"
Two words: Waste Disposal. Perhaps even more of a concern than the possibility of an accident, an "accident", or the use of the facilities by a hostile government to produce atomic weaponry. Nuclear waste is highly toxic and will have to be burred or sunk some place where nothing will touch it for somewhere on the order of 10,000 years. As I have argued before, I think that it is beyond the current state of materials engineering to produce such a facility, thus, our descendants are going to be left with quite a mess to clean up. That is if some odd third world government hasn't already doomed us all with atomic warheads...

That's not the point though. Right now the companies making all the money do not want to change it up (a cookie to who guesses why) and do not want to let it become a popular alternative. Case in point, that electric car that GM made ages ago. Big Oil paid them off and had every single one repossessed by claiming that there is a defect, and then destroyed so they wouldn't lose money.

I call bull on this. The vehicle simply didn't preform up to what the average consumer would ask in a vehicle. As a result, the program would never move past the prototype phase, thus the vehicles would never undergo government crash testing and the like. This opens up GM for some liability. Thus, some company lawyer decided it would be cheaper to destroy the vehicles upfront rather than face a possible lawsuit down the road. Pure speculation, but I do think it's a bit more plausible than a big oil conspiracy theory.

Either way, it is rather unfortunate that they were destroyed. The EV1 was a great piece of engineering given the state of battery technology at the time. What is really impressive is the fact that it could out accelerate many sports cars to spite the mass of all those lead acid batteries.

[Death]

That's not the point though. Right now the companies making all the money do not want to change it up (a cookie to who guesses why) and do not want to let it become a popular alternative. Case in point, that electric car that GM made ages ago. Big Oil paid them off and had every single one repossessed by claiming that there is a defect, and then destroyed so they wouldn't lose money.

I call bull on this. The vehicle simply didn't preform up to what the average consumer would ask in a vehicle. As a result, the program would never move past the prototype phase, thus the vehicles would never undergo government crash testing and the like. This opens up GM for some liability. Thus, some company lawyer decided it would be cheaper to destroy the vehicles upfront rather than face a possible lawsuit down the road. Pure speculation, but I do think it's a bit more plausible than a big oil conspiracy theory.

Either way, it is rather unfortunate that they were destroyed. The EV1 was a great piece of engineering given the state of battery technology at the time. What is really impressive is the fact that it could out accelerate many sports cars to spite the mass of all those lead acid batteries.

They were already being sold. Like people owned them, and used them, and liked them.

[windhound]

Solar isn't horribly inefficient, at least in terms of energy in/energy out. Modern pv cells are around 60% efficient, that is for every 100J of energy that hits the panel, 60J of electrical energy comes out... Such cells are just horribly expensive.

yes.. yes it is inefficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic#PV_power_stations
current max is 12MW, they've got plans for one thats 154MW in 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
average for nuclear is 366MW, Russia has a 600MW and they're planning a 800MW
These solar power sites are massive, the nuclear plants are fairly small
Its great, free energy. But for the size its hard to compete with nuclear. I mean, if its cloudy and rainy for a month what happens? You have to fall back on other technologies. Man cannot yet control the weather, but will always have a demand for energy.

If nuclear powerplants had to pay a fair price to dispose of their waste, any profit margin would simply vanish.

Eh, I've heard the biggest part of a nuclear plant is just building the thing. It doesnt really make /that/ much waste. Coal plants get free dispersion of their waste, they just throw it in the air. I worked in the building right behind the coal plant at Duke. They're burning /coal/. There's only so much they can do to clean it up.

"Hydro needs dams which destroy hundreds of acres"
Wrong. Counterexample, take a look at the hydro plants along the Truckee River.

Um, no. I'm right. They're planning several hydro power plants up in Canada that are going to destroy miles and miles of forest, including (I believe) many native people's burial grounds and sacred sites.
There can be certain sites with minimal environmental impact, sure. But most massive dams destroy a ton of otherwise beautiful land.
Besides, for hydro power you need a river. A good many rivers are simply not suitable for damming, and there arnt rivers everywhere.

"The nuclear waste is fairly minimal, can be recycled, and safely stored. " Tell that to the residents of the area where it is going to be stored.

Well, der. Noone wants to live next to a landfill either, but people keep creating trash... and using electricity.

"Historically its been the crap nuclear sites that have caused the problems and melted. Crap run, crap maintained. A properly run nuke site is as safe as can be"
Similarly, it's been the crap coal fired plants that spew harmful particulates and other nasty chemicals into the air. Modern plants with modern pollution controls emit very little emissions that are actually harmful.

Again, I worked next to the coal plant at Duke. Duke university has all the money in the world to keep their plant clean and it still spews out the crud. They're burning /coal/. Besides, the residue you catch on the way out isnt gone, you still have to dispose of it.

"I'm just confused. People love power. They like living in heated, cooled, lighted houses with running water and electronics... Its gotta come from somewhere, what exactly is the problem with nuclear?"
Two words: Waste Disposal. Perhaps even more of a concern than the possibility of an accident, an "accident", or the use of the facilities by a hostile government to produce atomic weaponry. Nuclear waste is highly toxic and will have to be burred or sunk some place where nothing will touch it for somewhere on the order of 10,000 years. As I have argued before, I think that it is beyond the current state of materials engineering to produce such a facility, thus, our descendants are going to be left with quite a mess to clean up. That is if some odd third world government hasn't already doomed us all with atomic warheads...

We've already created a mess for those that come after us to clean up, incase you havnt noticed. There's a river in China so polluted it can nolonger support life other than algae.
Storing nuclear waste in a safe mountain isnt such a bad idea. Maybe in the future we'll find a way to reuse more of it.
Accidents happen, they just do. In a properly run nuclear site a failsafe kicks in and the plant shuts down until the mistake is corrected.
Hostile enemies using nuclear power? Heh. Russia is so overflowing with nuclear mess it probably isnt all that hard to get your hands on nuclear waste


As far as the EV1, I think it was a shame they were destroyed. I've heard of people trying to buy them but being told they couldnt.
GM's prerogative though, what they maketh they can take away

[Death]

There's actually still one person with one.

[bjornredtail]

Again, I worked next to the coal plant at Duke. Duke university has all the money in the world to keep their plant clean and it still spews out the crud. They're burning /coal/. Besides, the residue you catch on the way out isnt gone, you still have to dispose of it.

Just how old is the plant? Perhaps it was built before the technologies I describe were developed. Similarly, although the residue is actually toxic, it is nowhere near as dangerous as concentrated atomic waste.

They were already being sold. Like people owned them, and used them, and liked them.

No, they were being leased.... I'm not saying GM wasn't stupid, I'm just saying that that they were likely not malicious.

yes.. yes it is inefficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic#PV_power_stations
current max is 12MW, they've got plans for one thats 154MW in 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
average for nuclear is 366MW, Russia has a 600MW and they're planning a 800MW
These solar power sites are massive, the nuclear plants are fairly small
Its great, free energy. But for the size its hard to compete with nuclear. I mean, if its cloudy and rainy for a month what happens? You have to fall back on other technologies. Man cannot yet control the weather, but will always have a demand for energy.

I really don't see ANYTHING in that article about efficiency at least as I described it. Fair point about the weather though.

Eh, I've heard the biggest part of a nuclear plant is just building the thing. It doesnt really make /that/ much waste. Coal plants get free dispersion of their waste, they just throw it in the air. I worked in the building right behind the coal plant at Duke. They're burning /coal/. There's only so much they can do to clean it up.

No... I'm figuring if they had to pay upfront to guard and maintain the waste dump for eternity, the price would go up significantly. Thankfully, the taxpayer is paying that for them, thankfully only in money.

Storing nuclear waste in a safe mountain isnt such a bad idea.

Yucca Mountain is a dormant volcano. That doesn't sound so safe to me.

Um, no. I'm right. They're planning several hydro power plants up in Canada that are going to destroy miles and miles of forest, including (I believe) many native people's burial grounds and sacred sites.
There can be certain sites with minimal environmental impact, sure. But most massive dams destroy a ton of otherwise beautiful land.
Besides, for hydro power you need a river. A good many rivers are simply not suitable for damming, and there arnt rivers everywhere.

There are no major dams for hydroelectric power along the Truckee, yet there are hydro plants along that river. So, you don't NEED a major dam to get some power this way.

Well, der. Noone wants to live next to a landfill either, but people keep creating trash... and using electricity.

Perhaps... But, once again, who is going to pay to clean up an accident if and when one occurs? Who is going to pay for the death and suffering that would surely accompany such an incident? Last time I checked, no one was killed by domestic refuse.

Hostile enemies using nuclear power? Heh. Russia is so overflowing with nuclear mess it probably isnt all that hard to get your hands on nuclear waste

I'm figuring more on using a reactor to make plutonium for atomic weapons. The ability to do that is not something we want to spread through the world.

[Freenhult]

Yucca Mountain is a dormant volcano. That doesn't sound so safe to me.

The odds of that moving under a hotspot or something to trigger that to become active again are nill.

[bjornredtail]

Myself, and the Federal Government's geologists disagree. They estimate around a 3-4% chance of it becoming an active volcano over the next 10,000 years. The area is geologically active anyways, there is a much higher chance of an earthquake. Or if the climate changes significantly, we have a chance of a South Nevada equivalent of Lake Lahontan forming.

[windhound]

3-4% over the next 10,000 years?
damn Nev, you're hard to please. That means its got a 96-97% chance of remaining inactive... over the next Ten Thousand Years. I'll give it a couple of centuries, if those that follow us find that we screwed up, I dare say they'll take it upon themselves to fix the problems. Odds are in their favor that the site will remain stable until then.

As far as Duke's coal plant... Sorry. I always assume most people know what Duke is. Its a massive Private University with a rather large hospital and many research centers, all with massive amounts of funding. I dont know for sure ofcourse, but if I had to guess, that coal plant has every bit of modern filtering that can be put on it.

I meant that when you pit Solar vs. Nuclear, Nuclear far far outshines solar.
Besides, they dont use photo voltaic cells for serious power generation. Top of the roof supplements, sure. But PV cells are worthless for large scale power generation.
I believe most solar plants are mirror driven, with the sunlight focused on a central point which is heated and the heated substance (usually water?) is used as in a nuclear plant.
Or atleast that's one method.

Taxpayer's money is squandered in many worse ways than hiding away the leftovers from power generation that benefits everyone. I wish all my tax money was squandered as wisely.

I did say that some hydro plants could be built with minimal environmental impact, but I dare say most are made via the method I mentioned... damming a river then using the force of the held back water to push turbines at a higher speed.
Again though, there arnt all that many rivers suited for this purpose, so hydro electric is special case only.

The ability to make weapons using nuclear plants is known. Once something is known to be doable there will be immediate copycats. The safest thing to prevent nuclear weapons being made is simply to have not created the technology. Woops. Too late, the information is already out. Those that want it and have the funds to build such a monster can already do so. Not building more nuclear power plants isnt going to stop the terrorists
Or did I miss the point?

edit: spag! boo

[Freenhult]

...After taking one geology class, and not being a professional, I'd say you're all worry warts.

"Myself, and the Federal Government's geologists disagree. They estimate around a 3-4% chance of it becoming an active volcano over the next 10,000 years. The area is geologically active anyways, there is a much higher chance of an earthquake. Or if the climate changes significantly, we have a chance of a South Nevada equivalent of Lake Lahontan forming."

Hardly. If you win the lotto 5 times in the same week, I'd say we're having problems here. 10,000 years from now, if we HAVEN'T figured out a way to completely recycle the waste in 1,000 then who cares? Odds are some very bad things will have happened in the mean time. Even if the waste gets eaten by a volcano, its not going to explode. If anything, it just gets put back into the Earth. Since it will be much heavier than the basalt coming out.

The risk has been minimized. Heck, I wonder what WOULD happen if we dumped more junk into active volcanoes?

[bjornredtail]

Well, I'm thinking of a combination of worst case scenarios that might not be far off. A major earthquake destroys human access to the site, as well as the storage containers. Then a major storm washes the pulverized waste into the aquafers. Wells as north as the Walker Lake drainage would start pumping radioactive material, rendering the water there useless. Entire communities are wiped off the map as a result of lack of water, and the ranching industry is never able to return.

I'll give it a couple of centuries, if those that follow us find that we screwed up, I dare say they'll take it upon themselves to fix the problems. Odds are in their favor that the site will remain stable until then.

Except the plan is to seal off the site... Which seems rather stupid, for the above reason.

Taxpayer's money is squandered in many worse ways than hiding away the leftovers from power generation that benefits everyone. I wish all my tax money was squandered as wisely.

So, yes, you favor a government handout to the big energy companies?

As far as Duke's coal plant... Sorry. I always assume most people know what Duke is. Its a massive Private University with a rather large hospital and many research centers, all with massive amounts of funding. I dont know for sure ofcourse, but if I had to guess, that coal plant has every bit of modern filtering that can be put on it.

I don't see your reasoning... Because the academic research folks at Duke get lots of money, means that they have the most modern emission controls? I mean, Poly has a well known college of engineering, that doesn't mean that we always have the best facilities for everything.

I meant that when you pit Solar vs. Nuclear, Nuclear far far outshines solar.
Besides, they dont use photo voltaic cells for serious power generation. Top of the roof supplements, sure. But PV cells are worthless for large scale power generation.
I believe most solar plants are mirror driven, with the sunlight focused on a central point which is heated and the heated substance (usually water?) is used as in a nuclear plant.
Or atleast that's one method.

Water, or some form of salt (higher temperatures possible) that is later used to heat the water, which expands and drives a steam turbine, just like with large scale Geothermal, Nuclear, Coal and Gas plants.

The ability to make weapons using nuclear plants is known. Once something is known to be doable there will be immediate copycats. The safest thing to prevent nuclear weapons being made is simply to have not created the technology. Woops. Too late, the information is already out. Those that want it and have the funds to build such a monster can already do so. Not building more nuclear power plants isnt going to stop the terrorists
Or did I miss the point?

Yes, you did. A nuclear plant or reactor of some sort is necessary to build a plutonium bomb (uranium can be enriched by conventional means). If a nation does not have a reactor, it cannot build a plutonium bomb. Thus, building more reactors in more nations means more nations have the ability to build plutonium weapons.