Nuclear generation safer than coal

Not really when you factor in the fact you have to store the waste fuel for several lifetimes. They are still building old generation plants because they are cheaper than the new gen - the difference being is that the new gen can recycle most of the waste yet old gens are once through then in the ground for thousands of years.

I did a case study on nuclear at uni and it is quite suprising even in this country. Some of the stuff thats gone on at sellafield is eye opening. Whilst no deaths, they have storage ponds that are over capacity and have/are leaking. They are taking measures to correct this but it takes time, and this has to continue for years and years. The aftercare of the nuclear waste is often not considered when people think of nuclear
 
Whilst Nuclear may not be perfectly ideal, it's certainly 'greener' than coal/oil, and in theory should be an unlimited resource as opposed to the likes of coal/oil.

Unfortunately we've not got a great deal of choice. What would Greenpeace have us all do? Sit in the dark every night with no powered devices and have to cook over a naked flame etc.

Don't get me wrong, i would love to live in a world where Coal/Oil/Nuclear doesn't need to exist, but until further technology advancements are made with Solar/Wind/Hydro, to the point that residential homes and commercial premises can be 100% self sufficient. Until then, we have to rely on less favourable methods of producing energy.
 
But still comes into the catagory of how safe is nuclear? Why should you ignore the after effects of an operation? This nuclear water seeps into ground water and then what? This waste has a half life of thousands of years. Who foots the bill to ensure over these thousands of years the waste is kept safe and stable?

Fukushima - the nuclear contamination is still moving towards America and fish farmed in those regions will have been affected, that people consume.
 
Jonnybmac said:
But still comes into the catagory of how safe is nuclear? Why should you ignore the after effects of an operation? This nuclear water seeps into ground water and then what? This waste has a half life of thousands of years. Who foots the bill to ensure over these thousands of years the waste is kept safe and stable?

Fukushima - the nuclear contamination is still moving towards America and fish farmed in those regions will have been affected, that people consume.
Click to expand...

Operationally nuclear is safer than coal, non-operational risk the legacy of coal based operations and the impact on both people and the planet is far darker than that of nuclear, with regards to Sellafield that is a site cleanup issue, any evidence of offsite groundwater problems? The government and thus we foot the bill.
 
Last edited:
Jonnybmac said:
Not really when you factor in the fact you have to store the waste fuel for several lifetimes. They are still building old generation plants because they are cheaper than the new gen - the difference being is that the new gen can recycle most of the waste yet old gens are once through then in the ground for thousands of years.

I did a case study on nuclear at uni and it is quite suprising even in this country. Some of the stuff thats gone on at sellafield is eye opening. Whilst no deaths, they have storage ponds that are over capacity and have/are leaking. They are taking measures to correct this but it takes time, and this has to continue for years and years. The aftercare of the nuclear waste is often not considered when people think of nuclear
Click to expand...

Much of the "Dirty" stuff at Sellafield is not as a consequence of civil nuclear power. It is the result of the immediate post war UK Atomic Bomb program.

This was a project that was carried out in haste, with limited resources, at a time when it was felt to be necessary to prevent invasion and/or Nuclear annihilation by the Soviet union.

Yes, there are issues (As there are at the USA's Hanford reservation) and they need to be cleaned up, but there is actually no great hurry and waste generated by cold war bomb programs should not be used as a criticism of nuclear power generation in the 21st century.
 
There is a lot of long term nuclear waste from civil nuclear power both from the current fleet and the past but if we had spent some of the last 30 years doing more engineering on the Gen 4 reactors and other technology we could be dealing with some of this. Fast reactors like liquid salt reactors can be used to break down high level nuclear waste into less difficult to store isotopes. All those neutrons blasting around could take some useful energy out of the waste and break it into smaller short half life waste.

I think given the need for radical electrification of our energy supplies dictated by the Climate Change Act 2010 we really need to be pulling our finger out and have a crash project spending £10's billions a year to develop safe molten salt reactors and move away from expensive unreliable wind turbines and solar to new safer nuclear. Hinckley Point and it's immediate PWR successors are dinosaurs a horrible 60 year old solution chosen because it delivered nuclear weapons not because it was the best solution for safe energy generation.
 
Jonnybmac said:
Fukushima - the nuclear contamination is still moving towards America and fish farmed in those regions will have been affected, that people consume.
Click to expand...
None of this is true. When you see the scary facebook picture shares of the ocean with coloured waves that looks like radioactive water travelling what you're actually seeing is a picture of the raised water levels caused by the tsunami (usually with the watermark from the issuing body still visible), this is why it stops at coastlines (radiation can go through doors, it's not fire). The reason the fish in the area are radioactive is the same reason that everything on the planet is radioactive, and that's because everything on the planet is radioactive to a certain degree (dig a hole in your garden deep enough and the soil will be radioactive enough to show on a geiger counter), the fish are within normal readings.
 
We have had one VERY near miss already... We need a lower population level, not more houses and more and more energy production.

"They were labelled a waste of time and money, but in 1957 the bulging tips of two exhaust shafts rising above Sellafield arguably saved much of northern England from becoming a nuclear wasteland. The towers of Windscale Piles have been a landmark for decades but soon the last of these Cold War relics will be gone.

Cumbria's skyline will change with the removal of the towers - known as Cockcroft's Follies - but had they not been in place 57 years ago, the entire landscape may have been drastically different.

Until Chernobyl exploded in 1986, the blaze that ravaged the uranium-fuelled reactor at Windscale Pile One in October 1957 was Europe's most terrible nuclear disaster. It is still the UK's worst atomic incident."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-29803990
 
PlacidCasual said:
There is a lot of long term nuclear waste from civil nuclear power both from the current fleet and the past but if we had spent some of the last 30 years doing more engineering on the Gen 4 reactors and other technology we could be dealing with some of this. Fast reactors like liquid salt reactors can be used to break down high level nuclear waste into less difficult to store isotopes. All those neutrons blasting around could take some useful energy out of the waste and break it into smaller short half life waste.

I think given the need for radical electrification of our energy supplies dictated by the Climate Change Act 2010 we really need to be pulling our finger out and have a crash project spending £10's billions a year to develop safe molten salt reactors and move away from expensive unreliable wind turbines and solar to new safer nuclear. Hinckley Point and it's immediate PWR successors are dinosaurs a horrible 60 year old solution chosen because it delivered nuclear weapons not because it was the best solution for safe energy generation.
Click to expand...

That's the point. We are still building gen 2 reactors that are in effect ancient and still dump as much waste as 60/70 years ago. Eastern counties are building/running gen 3+ that have passive safety whilst we invest in old tech that is expected to run for many years to come

ubersonic said:
None of this is true. When you see the scary facebook picture shares of the ocean with coloured waves that looks like radioactive water travelling what you're actually seeing is a picture of the raised water levels caused by the tsunami (usually with the watermark from the issuing body still visible), this is why it stops at coastlines (radiation can go through doors, it's not fire). The reason the fish in the area are radioactive is the same reason that everything on the planet is radioactive, and that's because everything on the planet is radioactive to a certain degree (dig a hole in your garden deep enough and the soil will be radioactive enough to show on a geiger counter), the fish are within normal readings.
Click to expand...

Not saying it will affect people to a degree Chernobyl did but there is a relative ppm of nuclear waste entering the water, and was doing so at a considerable rate. I think it has been contained now but they struggled yo contain it for quite sone time?
 
Last edited:
This was for part of one of my assignments about the age of nucleat for anyone who may be interested. Took me weeks to research. The tables are a bit messed up ftom pasting into here but if you take that there are 4 rows, origin, reactor, type and active you should manage to work it out.

If you look at what's currently being built in the uk alone in terms of types of plants you'll notice they are old tech

The term generations in the context of power stations represents a significant technical advancement with regards to performance, cost, economics, sustainability or safety in comparison to the previous generation.

Generation I power stations housed the prototype and power reactors which launched civil nuclear power. Derived from experimental and military reactors and developed in the 1950-60’s, the first generation consisted of both commercial and non-commercial power producing reactors.
The UK, France, Belgium, Canada, USSR and USA all developed Generation I reactors.

Some examples and designs, not limited, within these countries are:
Origin UK UK France France France Belgium
Reactor Calder Hall-1 Dounreay(DFR) Marcoule G1-G3 Brennilis Chooz-A BR3
Type Magnox GCR FBR UNGG GCR HW GCR PWR PWR
Active 1956-2003 1959-1977 1956-1984 1967-1985 1967-1991 1962-1987

Origin Canada USSR USSR USA USA USA
Reactor NPD Obninsk AM-1 BR-5/10 Shippingport Dresden-1 Fermi-1
Type CANDU PHWR RBMK SFR PWR BWR SFR
Active 1962-1987 1954-2002 1959-2002 1957-1982 1960-1978 1963-1972

Generation I safety systems were active because they relied on active electrical and mechanical control of the equipment.


Generation II power stations are what make up the majority of the 400+ global commercial reactors currently active today. They are heirs to the development of the first generation reactors with active safety systems.

Uranium enrichment became readily available for civilian purposes, allowing the use of ordinary water as the moderator to slow down the neutrons. This meant that the bulk of the reactors within this generation are Light Water Reactors (LWR), developed and well established largely from the USA, with the main types being the Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR) and Boiling Water Reactors (BWR).

The UK continued with the Generation I Magnox design, with the last of this type to decommission at Wylfa Nuclear Power Station in December 2015. The UK also commercialised the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR), developed from Magnox and AGR prototypes in the 1960’s; Plagued with problems they then switched to LWR.

France developed a chain of Fast Breed Reactors (FBR) from the prototype Rapsodie, and substituted their Gas Cooled Reactor (GCR) designs for the more favourable PWR. After obtaining a licence from the USA for the imported Chooz-A reactor, the French and Belgians built and exploited the PWR design. This resulted in both France and Belgium developing their own individual designs.

Canada continued with their CANDU design which is a Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR), one of the only Generation II technologies marketed that wasn’t light water.

The USSR, later Russia, favoured the RBMK, a design that ultimately caused the Chernobyl disaster but has been retro-upgraded since. They also developed a new Water-Water Energy Reactor (VVER) which is similar to a PWR.

USA incorporated the PWR or BWR designs, which are currently the only types in commercial operation within the states.

South Korea developed their own Generation II design, the OPR-1000 (KSPN) PWR; based on USA and French designs.

There are currently over 30 countries operating commercial Generation II power stations, incorporating different reactor designs of PWR, BWR, CANDU, RBMK, VVER and AGR.


Generation II+ reactors are Generation ii reactor designs, post 2000, that have received significant upgrades such as instrumentation, size, simpler designs, longer life and an active/passive safety system combination.
Passive safety systems are based on energy transfer which results in less dependability on active systems and operator input.
An example of a generation II+ would be the French modified Ao II-1, CPR-1000 PWR reactor at the Chinese Ling Ao Nuclear Power Plant.


Generation III power stations are an advancement on the Generation II LWR technology with improved performance, design lifetimes, modularized and standardization, fuel technology and passive safety systems.
Throughout the 80’s and 90’s the nuclear power market suffered a crash and so few new plants were constructed in Europe and North America. Development continued, and this meant that Asia mostly invested within this generation.

The USA AP-600 (Advanced Passive) PWR was one of the first Generation III designs but took no orders.
USA designed and with Japan produced the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR), evolved from the BWR it was the first operational Generation III.
Another ABWR was the System 80+, which was never promoted for sale but its design features used in the APR-1400.

The Koreans developed the APR-1400, an advanced PWR based on the OPR-1000.

China improved the CPR-1000, resulting in the ACPR-1000, which they then merged with the similar ACP1000 design to give the Hualong-1(HPR-1000) that’s soon to be operational.

Russia incrementally improved safety with a full containment structure on the VVER-1000, as well as a FBR.

Canada continued development of the PHWR with the Enhanced CANDU-6 (EC6)

Some examples and designs, not limited, within this generation are:
Origin Japan Korea China China Russia Russia
Reactor KK-6 Shin Kori 3 Yangjiang 5 Fuqing 5 Bushehr-1 Beloyarsk-4
Type ABWR APR-1400 ACPR-1000 HPR-1000 VVER-1000/446 BN-800 FBR
Active 1996-Present 2016-Present 2015-Present 2019-Present 2013-Present 2014-Present


Generation III+ power stations are an evolutionary development of the Generation III reactors offering significant improvements in safety and passive systems. A lot of this Generation has just passed certification or is still in development.

Some designs, not limited within this generation are:
Origin Russia Canada USA USA Europe Korea
Reactor VVER-1200 ACR-1000 AP-1000 ESBWR EPR APR+
Type PWR PHWR PWR BWR PWR PWR
Based on VVER-1000 CANDU PWR ABWR N4/Konvoi APR-1400


Generation IV power stations are concept innovative designs that are being coordinated at a global level by the Generation-IV International Forum (GIF); a 14-member consortium that carries out the research and development needed to establish the performance and feasibility capabilities of next generation nuclear energy systems.

Research includes work on a range of areas including the fuel cycle, specifically closed, as well as the reactor components and passive safety.
A passive system in the context of a Generation IV power plant design is used as a key measurement to help avoid accidents, reduce reliance on operator action and mitigate the consequences of potential accidents to achieve the highest level of safety.

Development towards FBR aims to minimise end radioactive waste through burning if the actinides within the core. These actinides are usually separated in previous generations from spent fuel, one of which being pure bomb grade Plutonium, which is at no point separated from the other components of the spent fuel with this process, and therefore an unattractive material source for atomic bomb programs.
With burning and removal of the minor actinides, the radioactivity of the ultimate waste will therefore decay more rapidly and give a reduced radiotoxicity, as well as a reduction on heat generation.

Guiding principles to outline goals are that systems should be challenging and stimulate innovation; they should be responsive to energy needs worldwide; and concepts must define complete nuclear energy systems and not just reactor technologies.

The 6 system concepts chosen for development from GIF from a wide range of designs as exhibiting the greatest potential for advancement are:

(VHTR) - Very high-temperature gas-cooled reactor
(SFR) - Sodium-cooled fast reactor
(GFR) - Gas-cooled fast reactor
(LFR) - Lead-cooled fast reactor
(MSR) - Molten salt reactor

References

Abram, T. (2008). Abstract. Energy Policy, [online] 36(12), p.Abstract. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508004448 [Accessed 13 Apr. 2017].

Aris.iaea.org. (n.d.). Advanced Reactors Information System(ARIS). [online] Available at: https://aris.iaea.org/sites/overview.html [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017].

Azeez et al, (2009). The Enhanced CANDU 6TM Reactor. 1st ed. [ebook] IAEA, p.1. Available at: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1500_CD_Web/htm/pdf/topic3/3S02_S. Azeez.pdf [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017].

Cochran et al, (2010). Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status. 1st ed. [ebook] fissilematerials.org, pp.11-12. Available at: http://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017].

Comsan, M. (2007). power reactor development. 1st ed. [ebook] Cairo: IAEA, pp.83-88. Available at: http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/40/081/40081069.pdf [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017].

Ec.europa.eu. (n.d.). The different generations of nuclear technology. [online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/index_en.cfm?pg=fission&section=generation#generations [Accessed 9 Apr. 2017].

Freemantle, M. (2004). NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE FUTURE. C&EN, [online] 82(37), pp.31-35. Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/email/cen/html/091404124818.html [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017].
Gen-4.org. (n.d.). GIF Portal - Home - Public. [online] Available at: https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_9260/public [Accessed 9 Apr. 2017].

Geraets, L. (2010). Nuclear power in France. 1st ed. [ebook] GDF SUEZ, pp.5-17. Available at: http://www.wecmex.org.mx/presentaciones/2010_Nuclear_Power_Seminar_Francia_Luc_Geartes.pdf [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017].

Goldberg, S. and Rosner, R. (2011). Nuclear Reactors: Generation to Generation. 1st ed. [ebook] Cambridge: Amacad, pp.11-27. Available at: https://www.ipen.br/biblioteca/slr/cel/0090.pdf [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017].

Khattab, K. (n.d.). Generation IV reactor, IRIS. 1st ed. [ebook] Damascus: library.sinap.ac.cn, pp.1-2. Available at: http://library.sinap.ac.cn/db/hedianwencui201101/全文/41033533.pdf [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017].

Magnoxsites.com. (n.d.). Wylfa. [online] Available at: https://magnoxsites.com/site/wylfa [Accessed 9 Apr. 2017].
Nrc.gov. (2017). Power Reactors. [online] Available at: https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/power.html [Accessed 9 Apr. 2017].
Nucleartourist.com. (2006). Advanced Reactor Designs. [online] Available at: http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/advanced.htm [Accessed 9 Apr. 2017].

Ongsakul et al, (2011). GMSARN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL. 5th ed. [ebook] Klong Luan: GMSARN, pp.46-52. Available at: http://gmsarn.com/sitegmsarn2009/document/journal/vol5no2.pdf#page=46 [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017].

Radioactivity.eu.com. (n.d.). Generation I reactors. [online] Available at: http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Generation_I_Reactors.htm [Accessed 9 Apr. 2017].

Saraev et al. (2009). Experience Gained in Russia on Sodium Cooled Fast Reactors and Prospects of Their Further Development. [ebook] Available at: http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/meetin...ntations/plenary_session_6/INV-08.Ashurko.pdf [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017].

Sofu, T. (2015). Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) Technology Overview. 1st ed. [ebook] Santa Fe: IAEA, pp.34-35. Available at: https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/D...narMexicoCity_TSofu_SFRTechnologyOverview.pdf [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017].

Westinghousenuclear.com. (n.d.). AP1000 Nuclear Power Plant Design. [online] Available at: http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR/Overview [Accessed 9 Apr. 2017].

Westinghousenuclear.com. (n.d.). Nuclear Power Plants. [online] Available at: http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants [Accessed 9 Apr. 2017].

World-nuclear.org. (2017). Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors. [online] Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...reactors/advanced-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx [Accessed 9 Apr. 2017].

World-nuclear.org. (2017). Advanced Nuclear Power Belgium. [online] Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/belgium.aspx [Accessed 9 Apr. 2017].

World-nuclear.org. (2016). Nuclear Power in Canada. [online] Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...files/countries-a-f/canada-nuclear-power.aspx [Accessed 10 Apr. 2017].

World-nuclear.org. (2017). Nuclear Power in France. [online] Available at http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx [Accessed 10 Apr. 2017].

World-nuclear.org. (2017). Nuclear Power in Japan. [online] Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...ofiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx [Accessed 10 Apr. 2017].

World-nuclear.org. (2017). Nuclear Power in Russia. [online] Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...files/countries-o-s/russia-nuclear-power.aspx [Accessed 10 Apr. 2017].
World-nuclear.org. (2017). Nuclear Power in South Korea. [online] Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/south-korea.aspx [Accessed 10 Apr. 2017].
 
We can save the planet and go nuclear, or keep destroying it with coal.

It's really not a difficult choice.
 
Nuclear isn't really clean, not when you consider the waste will be dangerous to everything around it for millions of years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom