General Discussions > Skepticism / Science Talk

Hottest The Earth Has been In 2,000 years.

<< < (3/6) > >>

cyborganics:
Gost:

What aspect of Hanford are you concerned with? Hanford has a long history and many different experimental sites used as far back as WWII, so it might be extremely unfair to judge the entire picture of Nuclear power based only on Hanford. As far as I’m aware, they only have one active nuclear power plant at the moment.

The Columbia Generating Station produces 10% of the energy for the area using only one reactor and to my knowledge; the current concern about leakage from stored radioisotopes is from past projects not WPN-2. Examples of those past programs would be the enrichment of plutonium for the United State’s nuclear weapons program which has nothing to do with modern nuclear power generation and more to do with nuclear weapon proliferation – a much different subject.


Besides, Coal produces far more radioactives from mining and burning than nuclear power ever would because it’s so hard and expensive to contain those byproducts. And do I even need to get into the dreaded evils of CO2 and other nasties from coal power?


Thakkus:

Assuming that there is a demonstratively high rate of cancer in that area does not mean it was caused from Nuclear power. This is the manner of thinking that is blinding our society from making good, informed choices to maximize our potential while minimizing the collateral effects on the ecology. A more accurate and responsible question might be: What is the level of radiation in the area that is directly attributable to the current production of electricity from nuclear power and how significant a threat does it pose to public and the nuclear technician’s health?


The answer:

Statistically non-existent, the odds are several orders of magnitude higher in dieing from a lightning strike. And the last reported fatalities related to nuclear power mishaps were two Japanese technicians many years ago, whereas you have Coal companies in West Virginia alone proudly stating less than 20 deaths per year, AWESOME!


http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

http://www.wvminesafety.org/wvcoalfacts.htm

http://www.uic.com.au/nip14app.htm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes2.html

gost:
Cybo- I'm well aware of the CO2 problems and radon emissions from coal, but that's not my concern at all. Nuclear power plants, despite the public's perception, have an outstanding safety record. I personally have always felt that as a society, we have given nuclear power a short shrift. The problem with nuclear power, as I see it, has to do with the waste.

Aside from spent fuel rods and wastes produced directly in the reactor core, other sources of nuclear waste are the result of the mining and enrichment processes, and contamination of the reactor core and the power plant structure itself, which eventually needs to be "decommissioned" and disposed of.

While much of the waste involves short term isotopes with half-lives in the tens or hundreds of years, a small percentage of it will need to be safely stored for literally thousands of years without leakage and environmental contamination. Even if this is technically possible, which has yet to be entirely proven, the nuclear industry must be able to overcome a public perception of danger due to past failures, both real and imagined. I used Hanford as an example of this very problem because the local population has become extremely polarized over this issue and it matters very little to the public whether the nuclear materials were enriched for nuclear bombs or nuclear power plants, the fact is that leakage DID occur, despite government assurances that it couldn't, and people remain afraid for both themselves and future generations. Rumors of illnesses and supposed government cover-ups have caused many people to leave the area after being forced to sell their properties at undervalued prices. Would you be willing to raise your children in the Tri-Cities area knowing that many ex-Hanford engineers are not? Not me.

At present, nuclear waste is mostly being stored using temporary methods while we await the permanent long-term government operated storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, which was approved by Congress in 2002 at the recommendation of President Bush, expected to possibly be ready for use in 2010.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/

The local NIMBY coalition, along with anti-nuclear and environmental groups are already hard at work to put a stop to this facility, where the waste will be stored 1500 feet underground in specially designed non-corrosive casks. Despite assurances that the area is very geologically stable and extremely dry, with very little ground water to become contaminated, there are in fact dormant volcanoes in the area, along with supposedly inactive geologic faults. Can we expect this facility to remain protected and secure on geologic time scales while being operated by a government with a previously stained track record for managing nuclear waste? No one is willing to provide any sort of legal guarantees that leakage will never occur.

Setting aside the Yucca Mountain facility, other sites are also being proposed. Here is an example, from today's Kansas City Star, of a site on an Indian reservation in Utah that received an NRC license in February to store 40,000 tons of used reactor fuel in metal and concrete canisters for up to forty years:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/14895914.htm

What kind of security will there be? What kind of assurances will we be given that none of this waste could ever be stolen and used, for instance, to construct a low-grade "dirty" bomb? Should local people in Salt Lake City, 45 miles away, be expected to take any risks whatsoever in order allow the Gosiute Indians to make a bunch of money for themselves?

I don't have any answers for these issues, and frankly, I haven't thought about them all that much, but like I said before, I will need some convincing that the problems of nuclear waste management have been well taken care of before I'm willing to completely endorse any new push towards nuclear energy production.

cyborganics:
I agree about the costs and risks involved, they should be scrutinized. The way I see it: what other good choices are there? Ultimately we have to look at resolving our growing energy consumption vs. ecology effects and it seems like it all comes down to the choice of lesser evils. No matter what we do we are going to be faced with a gamble and it comes down to hedging our bets.

BTW: It’s rare to come across people who have a decent grasp of what’s going on; I’m so use to the Greenpeace crowd here in Vancouver shoveling their anti-globalism propaganda down everyone’s throat with a smile. Thanks for taking the time to respond, Gosh.

 [This is good]

Wonko the Sane:
Gost- Most of the problems you mentioned will be relieved by the fact that congress has finally lifted the ban on reconstituting spend nuclear fuel, what you call "nuclear waste" which still has upwards of 90% of it's fissionable energy.

And some food for thought, if switch to getting our electricty from nuclear and hydro it would be the equivelent of taking every single car off the roads, several times.

gost:

--- Quote from: "cyborganics" ---BTW: It’s rare to come across people who have a decent grasp of what’s going on; I’m so use to the Greenpeace crowd here in Vancouver shoveling their anti-globalism propaganda down everyone’s throat with a smile. Thanks for taking the time to respond, Gosh.

 [This is good]
--- End quote ---


I couldn't agree with you more about finding people with a good grasp of what's going on. Ain't it cool?  :wink:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page