Jump to content

Would you support nuclear power generation in RI?


Cotuit

Would you support nuclear power generation in RI?  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you support nuclear power generation in RI?

    • Yes
      13
    • Not under any circumstances
      7
    • I'd have to hear the proposal to consider it
      11
    • Don't know/Unsure
      4
    • Other
      0


Recommended Posts

Sending spent fuel (nuclear waste) into space is an old idea. If you ever watched the 70's SciFi show Space 1999, the premise was that all spent fuel was being buried on the moon by 1999. However burial was too concentrated, it went critical, and blew the moon out of orbit sending it on its journey across the galaxy. Space burial will never happen because rocketry is still unreliable. One explosion and you have plutonium being spread all over the environment. A glowing Mickey Mouse isn't what the people want to see.

France and the UK have plans to send most of its spent fuel from its light water reactors to Japan where it is reprocessed to be re-used in more advanced MOX reactors. Several tons have already been shipped there. Japan has almost no natural energy resources, and the huge metros of Tokyo and Osaka are gigantic energy users. For the last 30 years they have built close to 60 nuclear reactors which are supplying 30% of their energy needs. Because uranium supplies are dwindling, they have been working on plans to refuel reactors with spent plutonium from light water reactors (the most common type in the world). The output of these MOX and Breeder reactors is rather nasty and Japan is studying ways to bury the waste geologically. The reuse of the waste, has reduced the amount of waste produced however.

Similar plans for fast breeder reactors and other similar technologies existed in the USA (where it was invented), but were controversial and killed off in the 70s. The Three Mile Island incident of 1979 ended all commercial reactor development in the USA. Even some reactors under construction were stopped in the anti-nuclear sentiment that prevailed at the time. I mentioned earlier the Cherlokee reactor in SC. This is a revisit to that site as Duke was in the process of building a reactor there that was to have opened in the mid-80s. Instead they abandoned the project and later the building was sold to a movie company. If you ever saw the move The Abyss, it was filmed in the partially built containment building of that reactor site after they filled it with water.

I don't believe there are any revival plans in the USA at the moment for anything beyond light water reactors, so all of the waste being generated is going to have to be buried where it will remain hazardous to all life for more than 100,000 years. What is happening here, that is not happening elsewhere is the re-use of plutonium that was once part of our vast arsenal of nuclear arms. A lot of these weapons are being decommissioned and several power companies (Duke Energy included) are looking at ways to use some of this weapons grade plutonium for commercial power generation. Duke has fueled at least one of its reactors from fuel rods made from weapons grade plutonium. It should be noted the Bush Administration is looking to begin or has begun designing more advanced nukes, so some of this plutonium may be reused to make new bombs. I made this thread in honor of that.

Interestingly, the most advanced nuclear reactors in the world are designed and operated by the US military which power the aircraft carriers and nuclear subs. These designs are very safe and reliable, but are considered too expensive for commerical use and their designs are one of the most closely guarded state secrets of the USA. If you ever watch those military programs on TV, one might note they never show the reactor rooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I should mention that also in 1979, there was another incident that sealed the fate of nuclear power in the USA for the next 2.5 decades. The Soviets use to routinely send up satellites powered by small nuclear reactors. (this was relatively unknown at the time) However because of a number of mistakes one of the satellites was put into a decaying orbit that would lead to the satellite breaking up over North America. Because this was during the midst of the Cold War, reliable information on where this would happen was difficult to come by leading to more hysteria about nuclear power. Saturday Night Live did a skit on this about giant lobsters that grew from the radioactive wreakage of this satellite, which came an attacked NYC including their show. LOL

The satellite did crash fortunately in an uppopulated part of Canada spreading radioactive pieces over a large area. The Canadian government spents millions of dollars in efforts to collect all of the waste as contact with plutionium is fatal. Considering this was about the time TMI occured, and one of the top boxoffice movies in the country was The China Syndrome (about a nuclear meltdown and subsequent coverup) nuclear power was finished in the USA for a long time. Now that memories have passed and there are new generations that did not face this or don't remember it, nuclear power is now seen as a "Green" energy again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see how it can be seen as green energy, since it uses a non-renewable energy source (uranium) and produces waste that we dont have a really good way of dealing with.

and I am part of that "new" generation that does not remember the events that happened previosuly with nuclear power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see how it can be seen as green energy, since it uses a non-renewable energy source (uranium) and produces waste that we dont have a really good way of dealing with.

and I am part of that "new" generation that does not remember the events that happened previosuly with nuclear power.

generating nuclear power is generally much safer than it was in the past. there's a lower rick of meltdown, ala chernobyl. but there is still the issue of dealing with the waste, which is generally the only issue with nuclear power now.

but the question should be... what's worse for the environment, nuclear waste or burning fossil fuels? as it stands, natural sources of energy (solar, wind, hydroelectric, tidal) aren't really efficient enough for our needs as a society. they serve as great alternatives for individuals and great supplemental energy sources, but it's not enough for us as sole source of energy.

now here's something i was wondering about... can we build a tidal power solution that might be able to power providence (or part of providence)? maybe we could build it into the hurricane barrier...

ps, i wasn't alive for chernobyl or three mile island... but i've heard about both of them fairly in depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

generating nuclear power is generally much safer than it was in the past. there's a lower rick of meltdown, ala chernobyl. but there is still the issue of dealing with the waste, which is generally the only issue with nuclear power now.

What is your basis for that statement? Both Chernobyl and TMI occured because of human mistakes, failures in management, un-realistic goals, and governmental bureaucracy. Chernobyl was much worse because the Soviets decided not to put their reactors in containment buildings, but that didn't change the reasons behind the meltdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your basis for that statement? Both Chernobyl and TMI occured because of human mistakes, failures in management, un-realistic goals, and governmental bureaucracy. Chernobyl was much worse because the Soviets decided not to put their reactors in containment buildings, but that didn't change the reasons behind the meltdown.

better practices, learning from mistakes... human error is still a factor, but i've read somewhere (i'll be honest, i don't remember where, but it was in the past year or 2) that containment is better and monitoring systems and automation are better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

generating nuclear power is generally much safer than it was in the past. there's a lower rick of meltdown, ala chernobyl. but there is still the issue of dealing with the waste, which is generally the only issue with nuclear power now.

but the question should be... what's worse for the environment, nuclear waste or burning fossil fuels? as it stands, natural sources of energy (solar, wind, hydroelectric, tidal) aren't really efficient enough for our needs as a society. they serve as great alternatives for individuals and great supplemental energy sources, but it's not enough for us as sole source of energy.

now here's something i was wondering about... can we build a tidal power solution that might be able to power providence (or part of providence)? maybe we could build it into the hurricane barrier...

ps, i wasn't alive for chernobyl or three mile island... but i've heard about both of them fairly in depth.

I have read how containment and automated systems are better too. Human error is always an issue, no matter how automated something is. System error is also an issue. Those are the same no matter what energy source we are talking too.

But remember, nuclear power is not renewable. Uranium is still necessary. Here is a good article about uranium processing and waste managment from Canada. http://www.nfwbureau.gc.ca/english/View.aspx=626&oid=5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not a clean alternative if there is nothing to be done about the waste. If our only solution is to put it somewhere... I do not consider this an option.

Also, a previous example mentioned warming the sea water near a plant was good for fishing. Maybe, but its incredibly bad for everything else. Changing an environments climate is not something we should aim for.

Coal can be clean. However, I don't like coal because it still requires coal. There might be a lot of it available, but thats still a finite amount.

We'll never run out of wind, sunlight, or ocean currents. I'd vote for any way of harnessing that energy (into the flux capacitor if possible). Lets also not forget our enormous supply of human, animal, and agricultural (aka biomass) waste. There must be some way to use this.

Biodiesel is cool for a gas alternative, and if you have a diesel engine, no modification/conversion is necessary, and I believe any ratio of diesel gas to biodiesel is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But remember, nuclear power is not renewable. Uranium is still necessary. Here is a good article about uranium processing and waste managment from Canada.

The mistake of that argument is that nuclear energy is also produced by Plutonium and 30% of today's reactors use plutonium instead of uranium. Plutonium does not exist in nature and is produced within nuclear reactors during the fission process. Using advanced techniques that I mentioned above in Japan, this source of energy is good for hundreds of years through the use of plutonium recycling. For all practical purposes Nuclear energy is renewable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mistake of that argument is that nuclear energy is also produced by Plutonium and 30% of today's reactors use plutonium instead of uranium. Plutonium does not exist in nature and is produced within nuclear reactors during the fission process. Using advanced techniques that I mentioned above in Japan, this source of energy is good for hundreds of years through the use of plutonium recycling. For all practical purposes Nuclear energy is renewable.

You obviously have a good deal of knowledge on this subject. A hobby or something professional?

I know of no reactor today that uses 100% plutonium, although there are those that are designed for it. Indeed, MOX fuel is not 100% plutonium to begin with. It is a mix of plutonium and uranium correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously have a good deal of knowledge on this subject. A hobby or something professional?

I know of no reactor today that uses 100% plutonium, although there are those that are designed for it. Indeed, MOX fuel is not 100% plutonium to begin with. It is a mix of plutonium and uranium correct?

The uranium used to create MOX is depleted uranium so it is re-used. I was speaking in general terms as reactors can be built with today's technology that can operate on and produce excess quantities of plutonium, hence, for all practical purposes fisson power can be considered the same as renewable. However, is this the best approach to take for future energy needs is a different question as there are certainly hazards with this approach.

I am an electrical engineer by education and part of that education was in power generation, but I certainly don't claim to be anywhere close to being an expert on nuclear power generation. Most of this are things that I have heard over the years from people that I know that are in the industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a good article to read on the handling of nuclear waste:

http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_7/7-3/longterm.html

I remember a proposal about a decade ago for sub-seabed disposal, which is intriuging. Basically the waste would be stored into bullet-shaped containers, then dropped into an area of the Pacific Ocean where the seabed is essentially made up of a silt several miles thick. The containers would be treveling very fast by the time they reach the ocean floor and the bullet container would bury itself into the seabed floor.

"The main advantage of sub-seabed disposal relative to geologic disposal is that large radiation doses via the drinking water pathway are highly unlikely. Water used for drinking and irrigation is generally regarded as the most important radiation exposure pathway that would result from geologic disposal. However, radiation doses via the food pathway are possible"

The report has a lot of scientific-speak, but one worthy of reading regarding the controversy regarding nuclear power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how far behind we are technologically due to the fear that set in at the end of the 70s. I'm no scientist, so I'm talking out my ass here, but there must be some way to make this all safer and cleaner, some other way to split atoms that doesn't create 100,000 year toxic residue, some way to rapidly decay waste... If fear didn't end research where would we be? Would we have cold fusion by now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha.. is cold fusion sci-fi??? i thought it was real

It is science fiction. There has never been a cold fusion setup that was proven to work. In fact any controlled fusion reaction has been extremely difficult to maintain and up to this point, despite 60 years of research, it only exists in very expensive labs for durations that last in the fractions of seconds. It may be another 50 years or more before a practical commercial fusion reactor is built and it will be hot fusion. (barring any scientific break throughs) I say controlled fusion reaction as we have known for quite some time how to make an uncontrolled fusion reaction, but that is only good for hydrogen bombs.

All of the nuclear reactors that have ever been built and that are proposed, use nuclear fision. (as opposed to fusion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, a previous example mentioned warming the sea water near a plant was good for fishing. Maybe, but its incredibly bad for everything else. Changing an environments climate is not something we should aim for.

it isn't good for fishing. Just ask anyone who has been looking for winter flounder in Mt Hope Bay since Brayton Point started sucking up millions of gallons of bay water and discharging it at a higher temp...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it isn't good for fishing. Just ask anyone who has been looking for winter flounder in Mt Hope Bay since Brayton Point started sucking up millions of gallons of bay water and discharging it at a higher temp...

i think proof would be the large number of fishing boats sitting right off the coast of waterford where millstone discharges their water... i've seen it with my own eyes, and my marine biology instructor explained it to us. it might not be good for winter fishing, but it does bring fishing season to an earlier start and a later end in the spring and fall...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i freely admit to not being a marine biologist but i can't believe that fundamentally affecting a water body's ecosystem by changing the temperature drastically can possibly be any good! It may bring fish earlier and later, but that's only good for fishermen (until its overfished, of course). how is that good for the whole ocean system there?

and i wouldn't want to eat fish that were hanging around in those waters! They'd be like that fish from the simpsons, with three eyes! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now thats what I am talking about! I am sure there are some limitations now, that the article did not go into detail about. Still, cool stuff and much more elegant than going back to Nuke power.

Have to read a bit more, thanks cotuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i freely admit to not being a marine biologist but i can't believe that fundamentally affecting a water body's ecosystem by changing the temperature drastically can possibly be any good! It may bring fish earlier and later, but that's only good for fishermen (until its overfished, of course). how is that good for the whole ocean system there?

and i wouldn't want to eat fish that were hanging around in those waters! They'd be like that fish from the simpsons, with three eyes! :lol:

the water is actually clean, it's only used for cooling. so no green fish... although if the fish are green, i'm sure we'd start seeing people with deformities as well...

it changes the ecosystem in the discharge zone, but because of the natural flow of water, it's not a huge area. it's probably bigger in waterford than it would be anywhere on the coast of RI (quonset for example) because there's less exchange of water in LI sound as opposed to the bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.