Nuclear Power

[spooony]

Don't forget about malware like Stuxnet that was designed to sabotage Irans nuclear plants and infected other plants around the world as well

 

[Sully]

CIA plot?

 

[spooony]

CIA plot?

http://www.symantec.com/content/en/..._response/whitepapers/w32_stuxnet_dossier.pdf

More like a USA/Israel joint venture. Unbelievable piece of malware

 

[spooony]

I don't pretend to know an awful lot about nuclear power but my understanding of the situation is:

Positives:

1. Low CO2 emissions;
2. We've got a shedload;
3. Baseload.

Negatives:

1. Despite 70 years of trying, no one knows how to dispose of the extraordinarily dangerous waste.
2. The conversion from nuclear power to nuclear weapons isn't a big enough jump (though I would hate to think Australia would ever be tempted to develop nuclear weapons).
3. Time lag to get these bad boys on line is 20 years meaning they're going to be too late to deal with our CO2 problem.
4. They need lots of water. It can't be fresh water because we don't have any to spare meaning it must be seawater. Given our coastline, there is a fair bit of NIMBYism (which I can perfectly well understand).

Low CO2? Do you know how long it takes for nuclear waste to be processed before they can put it in the ground? 35 to 40 years. For that period it needs to be cooled otherwise meltdown. Then there is the H-Bomb....

 

[wilful]

1. It is not CO2/emissions free. There are massive costs not only from mining and refining the ore to usable standard directly, the indirect costs come in the massive amounts of aluminium required to process the ore and the related energy inputs to create these components that then cannot be used for anything else. The energy inputs do not stop there, there is then processing of and then the maintenance of the waste. The Waste is highly corrosive both chemically and physically, (Chemically by oxidization of its containments and physically by displacement and conversion of the atomic structure of the containment.) Thus the waste must itself be continually maintained, and given the extraordinarily long half life of the majority of the waste the energy inputs are massive. For proof of this have a look at the continuing efforts being made to contain Chernobyl.

Extensive life cycle analysis demonstrates that nuclear power is very low emissions. About the same as solar (which requires a lot of glass, concrete and steel too, as well as land). You are flat out wrong to suggest it is a high emissions tech.

2. There is currently no permanent storage facility for high level waste.

Check this post regarding waste. Waste is a small issue, which will grow smaller when gen IV breeder reactors come online (which they are already doing)

3. Given the lead times for most cancers caused by the types o radio isotopes released from a Power Reactor it is a grossly misleading statement to say that nobody has been killed by the incident at Fukishima. and the fact same lies are still propagated by Nuclear supporters regarding Chernobyl despite the evidence of increases in many types of cancer in areas surrounding Chernobyl since that incident. It is also misleading given that a more telling measure of the impact of Nuclear accidents is the impact on the lives of the effected. More than 20 years since Chernobyl people still cannot live in the exclusion zone. Ask what the impact of the Fukishima incident is on the people of the areas no quarantined.

UNSCEAR, the frigging United Nations, says that about 50 deaths were due to radiation. Mostly preventable if they'd given children iodide tablets.

4. Accidents are common place though rarely publicised in power generation and the level of maintenance in the now privately run Power Stations is minimal and basically on a 'replace it when it breaks' basis. I have no faith at all that these people can run a Nuclear facility safely given the consequences of a failure.

The total number of deaths in the OECD due to nuclear power in the past several decades is a number that is very very close to zero. Even hydro power has been more dangerous if you count fatalities. Here is world data (so including soveit russia) of deaths per terawatt hour. There has never been a severe accident in the OECD before Fukishima. Fukishima was a 1960s design on the point of retirement, that could not be licensed today.

I often ask people a similar question regarding so called renewables, add up the inputs that go into the production of the units as Solar cells and wind turbines as they both contain highly carbon intensive components and you will find that the time to break even is very close to the service life of the unit, without taking into the significant input costs in maintenance for units like wind turbines.

How much land does a solar farm take up? Lots and lots and lots. For something that doesn't work when it's cloudy or dark.

 

[Scarfman]

Hey Wilful, you are very quick to post-facto explain why nuclear accidents shouldn't have happened. But they will, won't they?

 

[Gnostic]

Wilfull - those are the standard lines quoted by the Pro-Nuclear lobby.

1. Nuclear is low emissions only when you consider the actual operations emissions. Consider as I proposed the full input emissions from mining, processing, reprocessing and finally storage and maintenance of the waste.
2. Waste is not an issue. I am so glad that you believe that to be the case. GenIV reactors do not dispose of the waste indeed significant amounts will still remain with the same health and environmental issues and continuing energy input requirements.
3. The errors in the reporting of cancer related deaths are especially well known. There is also the fact of life impacts such the rate of continuing birth defects attributed to Chernobyl, displacement of people from their homes and so forth. Death rate directly attributable to the accident is always reportedly low. Are you one of those people who still assert that fewer than 200 people died as a result of Chernobyl. The effects of of this latest accident will be felt for many years to come.
4. You miss the point entirely and still rely on direct deaths. My point is that in conventional Generation in Oz with our stringent workplace safety laws, is subject to many "accidents" they often result in no injury to people but total failure of plant. The direct injury/death is a secondary point to the fact that there are multiple incidents every day in conventional generation with relatively common major failures.
5. Again you miss the point entirely. Assess the actual Carbon inputs for each of the "alternatives" and then what the "saved" carbon will be from the lifetime power generation from that unit. If the equation comes back negative are you really saving Carbon? The amount of land taken up by solar is a whole different consideration.

 

[wilful]

Wilfull - those are the standard lines quoted by the Pro-Nuclear lobby.

Are you inferring that I'm a paid hack? I wish. But that's ad hominem. Your lines are the standard lines quoted by the anti-nuke crowd. So where does that leave us? In the realm of facts.

1. Nuclear is low emissions only when you consider the actual operations emissions. Consider as I proposed the full input emissions from mining, processing, reprocessing and finally storage and maintenance of the waste.

Nuclear power is low emissions, full stop. Including all reasonably attributable energy expenses: http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf

A nuclear power plant, with a design life of more than 50 years, has an emissions payback period of 5 to 10 years.

2. Waste is not an issue. I am so glad that you believe that to be the case. GenIV reactors do not dispose of the waste indeed significant amounts will still remain with the same health and environmental issues and continuing energy input requirements.

Waste really is a very trivial issue compared to many industrial processes. The biggest issue is fear. Gen IV plants do dispose of wastes, and will leave very small amounts of wastes with half lives of decades only. With 100 years they will be less radioactive than the ores they're mined from.

3. The errors in the reporting of cancer related deaths are especially well known. There is also the fact of life impacts such the rate of continuing birth defects attributed to Chernobyl, displacement of people from their homes and so forth. Death rate directly attributable to the accident is always reportedly low. Are you one of those people who still assert that fewer than 200 people died as a result of Chernobyl. The effects of of this latest accident will be felt for many years to come.

Not less than 200, more like 50. As stated clearly and unequivocally by the United Nations. I know I'm arguing from authority here, but until an internationally respected epidemiologist turns up, I think that the item I previously quoted is clearly the final word on the matter.

4. You miss the point entirely and still rely on direct deaths. My point is that in conventional Generation in Oz with our stringent workplace safety laws, is subject to many "accidents" they often result in no injury to people but total failure of plant. The direct injury/death is a secondary point to the fact that there are multiple incidents every day in conventional generation with relatively common major failures.

If deaths isn't the most unarguable and bottom line measure then I don't know what is. Nuclear power not only doesn't result in deaths, it also doesn't result in QALYs. It's safe whatever way you want to cut it. Probably the biggest health cost is psychological, due to unreasoning fear. Not sure whether that should be directly attributed to the nuclear power industry or to its critics.

5. Again you miss the point entirely. Assess the actual Carbon inputs for each of the "alternatives" and then what the "saved" carbon will be from the lifetime power generation from that unit. If the equation comes back negative are you really saving Carbon? The amount of land taken up by solar is a whole different consideration.

If I missed the point it is because it was obscure.

Land consumption is different, but not irrelevant. Another aspect of solar power is that because they are not reliable and aren't much use on cloudy or wintry days, back up power generation must unavoidably be installed. This could be gas fired (until the gas runs out), which is still fossil fuelled. Of course PV advocates wouldn't include the costs of the back up plant in their figures regarding costs, emissions etc, yet it is the choice to rely on solar that leads to these other plants being necessary. So this is a legitimate cost attributable to choosing solar. Same deal with wind and still days, unfortunately.

I don't believe it is true that PV has a long energetic payback time directly, I read figures such as about four years (http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17219 ). But these don't include ancillary costs when scaled.

Don't get me wrong, I hope and expect that some major increases in solar and wind power are made in Australia. I have installed 2.5kW of PV. But realistically we cannot and should not try to run a modern industrialised society on intermittent, highly expensive technology, particularly when a low-emission, safe and reliable alternative is available (costly with up-front costs, I'll admit, but not too costly).

 

[wilful]

Hey Wilful, you are very quick to post-facto explain why nuclear accidents shouldn't have happened. But they will, won't they?

Will they? not for the sort of nuclear power I advocate.

Also, I try to explain taht tehre's a lot less in those accidents than you may have been led to believe. Compared to the other crap that we deal with as a society regularly, the risks of well regulated nuclear power are entirely manageable, and indeed have been well managed for decades. Even with the biggest quake and tsunami ever recorded, and even using a 1960s design that wouldn't be licensed these days, still the impact of Fukushima is far smaller than the impact of the tsunami. Lets not forget the 20 000 people who died in that deluge. Versus the zero people that have died so far, and possibly maybe a few hundred in the long term. Meanwhile here in Australia our failure to introduce higher emissions standards for diesel are killing hundreds, and the climate change induced heat wave in 2009 killed hundreds.

 

[chasmac]

This topic needs to be refreshed now that there have been 2 full quarters with the carbon tax in place.

 

[Runner]

As a non scientist with limited knowledge.
1. Solar batteries must be recycled or replaced or disposed off. At the moment we send some batteries overseas to be "recycled" in India. They are expensive at the moment. A cost not mentioned.
2. Wind towers require a great deal of CO2 to produce and maintain them ( gear boxes use a great deal of oil). A cost not mentioned.
3. The area of land required to feed the needs of Sydney would be interesting to calculate. As is the cost of compensation or payments for land used or resumed.
4. Payments to keep alternatives to CO2 alive are huge and add to the cost of power perhaps more than the carbon tax hence why many are being looked at for viability by governments.
5. Base load power is the underlying issue. If you have one day without sun or wind then it must come from the coal/gas stations. So you have to built power stations to cope with the system demands now and in the future - 30 years of expansion of population and industry. The cost of these needs to be recovered in the price of power, as is the cost of all the alternatives being produced. So what we have is a very expensive price for electricity.
6. Deaths unfortunatly occur in industry. China and Russia loose many miners per year mining coal, our system is safer thankfully.
7. Remember the many deaths and abnormal births in Japan after the leaking of mercury by battery manufacturers. We live in a hazzardous world and leaps forward have had a price in dollars and lives. Have there been deaths in the construction and installation of solar panels and wind turbines?

 

[Pfitzy]

Geothermal hot rock:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Rock_Power

Long time ago a friend was telling me about a race to determine the most environmentally friendly vehicle capable of human transport - over the life of the vehicle.

Recumbent bike (human powered) won hands down, despite the solar vehicle being slick, because of the CO2 emissions required to produce the panels.

 

[RoffsChoice]

I've been studying Physics for a while now and one of the best ideas for a reactor I have seen is the Thorium-Fluoride reactor.

Basically, it's the same as a normal Uranium/Plutonium reactor, except the main buffer is Fluoride and the fuel is Thorium.
The same amount of power is produced per fuel rod, except the waste has a few advantages:
a. It only takes 200 years to decompose, not 10000+
b. It produces alpha particles, not gamma rays
b.1. This is important because, although alpha particles do a lot more damage if the source is ingested, they are basically harmless to the outer layer of skin and can be stopped by something as thick as a sheet of paper or 2cm of air.
c. It can never be developed into nuclear weapons

The reason these have not been implemented en mass is that the reaction is different. There is a chemical reaction between the fluoride and the thorium (which I will leave to more competent chemists to understand) which produces a lot of heat. The introduction of neutrons makes the nuclear reaction start, with the excess neutrons released being absorbed by the fluoride. From this point on it behaves like a normal nuclear reactor.

And for all the talking of the dangers of the plant itself, I was talking to a guy at Lucas Heights about the potential dangers of the plant. He said "The only real threat to anyone here is the machine guns. If you try anything funny with the reactor, you'll be dead before you even get to the room."

 

[Sully]

I've heard of these reactor.
my question is why hasn't anyone built one? Not even a trial one to see if the theory works.
Australia has most of the worlds thorium so you'd think we'd be a little more interested.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The same reason we haven't got conventional nuclear power yet. Because it's political suicide to even go near this stuff. Logically it's a no brainer IMO. But you can imagine the outroar that would occur if any government announced they are planning to build a nuclear reactor in Australia. Quite simply it's not worth their time dealing with all that drama and risking going out of (political) power. (.....representative democracy 'you go girl')

For interest China are looking into this technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Chinese_Thorium_MSR_project (there's probably a few other projects out there as well)

quick youtube clip:

 

[wilful]

Geothermal hot rock:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Rock_Power

I am an unfortunate shareholder in Geodynamics. For ten years now, they've had my dough and it hasn't gone anywhere. But i do still hold out hope.