Question : Nuclear Power, Climate Change & Space

[Retsef]

OK, these may be schoolboy questions....

As nuclear power is a carbon free source of power, able to generate vast quantities of electricity, why is there argument on whether the UK should commision a new generation of power stations?

I understand there are safety issues and the nuclear waste issue, but can these not be overcome?

Additionally, why can't the human race turn it's considerable talent to hurling our unwanted nuclear waste in to space?

Your views....

 

[Welshy]

Toxic waste cannot be disposed of cheaply, or cleanly.

If i remember right, it stays radioactive for thousands of years

 

[Retsef]

OK, it won't be cheap firing toxic waste in to space, but the alternative of keeping fossil fuel powerstations may well kill all of us in the future.

 

[SiriusB]

People are worried if anything bad happens with the waste we will all be transformed into mutants. However the fact is the radioactivity of nuclear waste is only slightly higher than background radioation levels. What makes it a risk is the large quantities of it.

The UK is researching lots of different ways of disposing of the waste and I think the best idea is to bury deep underground in a specially built network of tunnels etc. The waste is safely out of the way and we can store hell of a lot too.

In my own opinion nuclear energy is far better than fossil fuel energy. For a start baring any accidents it is far far far cleaner.

SiriusB

 

[AmaTeX]

Also all the effort in mining extracting uranium then enrichment produces vast amounts of carbon.

 

[Efour]

Because people are short sighted idiots.
And its too late anyway.
And it might not have anythign to do with CO2 so yipee.

 

[Retsef]

Also all the effort in mining extracting uranium then enrichment produces vast amounts of carbon.

Hmmm. More carbon than Drax powerstation? Carbon footprint for uranium extraction and enrichment surely cannot be higher over the life of a powerstation than relying on fossil fuels.

(I only base above on gut feeling, not hard evidence)

 

[Dolph]

Predominately because political arguments (and stupid people making lots of noise because they refuse to actually learn anything) have prevented decent research into disposal and reprocessing of nuclear waste. There are plenty of ways to dramatically reduce the amount of highly radioactive waste that have never been properly investigated due to short sighted whingers.

Waste reprocessing and breeder reactors could dramatically reduce the amount of waste produced (as could sensible and realistic classification of waste. Coffee from certain areas of a nuclear plant is classed as low level waste ffs)

Unfortunately, far too many people who no knowledge of the technology whatsoever hear the word Nuclear and freak out, make a lot of song and dance and convince other people who also know nothing it must be a bad idea....

 

[SiriusB]

Hmmm. More carbon than Drax powerstation? Carbon footprint for uranium extraction and enrichment surely cannot be higher over the life of a powerstation than relying on fossil fuels.

(I only base above on gut feeling, not hard evidence)

More than gut feeling, it is logic. It probably costs just as much carbon mining for fossil fuels as it does nuclear fuels. A powerstation burning fossil fuels for 20 or more years does nothing but increase the amount many many times over.

SiriusB

 

[Dolph]

More than gut feeling, it is logic. It probably costs just as much carbon mining for fossil fuels as it does nuclear fuels. A powerstation burning fossil fuels for 20 or more years does nothing but increase the amount many many times over.

SiriusB

Of course it does, but the anti-nuclear lot have this wonderful habit of totally ignoring facts in favour of propaganda, so it tends to get forgotten or manipulated to make it appear that nuclear power is the work of the devil and all his little minions....

 

[bottletop]

I could never understand why they don't get the nuclear waste, mix it back with pulverised rock to the same concentration as it's naturally found in the original ore, and dump it back in the depleted uranium mine

 

[Retsef]

More than gut feeling, it is logic. It probably costs just as much carbon mining for fossil fuels as it does nuclear fuels. A powerstation burning fossil fuels for 20 or more years does nothing but increase the amount many many times over.

SiriusB

Which is why Tony B.Liar needs to ensure our nuclear programme goes ahead. Look at the French, they love nuclear. Wouldn't surprise me if they were developing domestic mini-reactors.

 

[Dolph]

I could never understand why they don't get the nuclear waste, mix it back with pulverised rock to the same concentration as it's naturally found in the original ore, and dump it back in the depleted uranium mine

Because the nature of the process means that the waste (if a fuel rod is only used once then dumped) is much more radioactive than the natural uranium. Hence why reprocessing it into new fuel is a much better idea.

 

[SiriusB]

Apart from the efficiency and cleanliness of nuclear power there is another benefit that anti-nuclear nay sayers miss, and that's environmental impact.

As an example take the Magnox nuclear reactor on Anglsey - Wylfa. The area it is in is absolutely gorgeous. BNFL who own the plant looks after the local habitat and are always doing tests to make sure nothing bad is happening.

I can't imagine the immediate environment around a coal- or gas-fired power plant being the same.

SiriusB

 

[JCBeastie]

Chernobyl did a lot to damage nuclears image..

The way I see it is that radioactive materials are extracted from the earth, made useful in a reactor and then returned to the earth.

Radioctive waste is a comic-book misconception. Fact is it's less radio-active than when it went in, just it's all in one place now. Also the metals tend to be inherently toxic.

Nuclear is the future until hydrogen fusion is perfected IMO.

 

[lay-z-boy]

[Imo]

Its very late in the game to start this, someone down the line is going to suffer, if it is my generation or later on.
Global warming and eventual running out of resources are inevitable, the question is how long can we make them last.

Unfortunatly we cant control everyones economy and stop everything that uses fuel, the people that have the power to change things are very stupid smart people that dont think long term, the waste can be stored but they cba to look into it.
Not only that coal fired stations are much cheaper than nukes and thats the only way the powerful people see it.

TBH, i would like to see more nuke stations, less coal fired ones, some way of dispensing the waste and much more long term thinking (good hybrids, but thats another story)


[/imo]

 

[Combat squirrel]

OK, these may be schoolboy questions....

As nuclear power is a carbon free source of power, able to generate vast quantities of electricity, why is there argument on whether the UK should commision a new generation of power stations?

I understand there are safety issues and the nuclear waste issue, but can these not be overcome?

Additionally, why can't the human race turn it's considerable talent to hurling our unwanted nuclear waste in to space?

Your views....

To answer that, a good quote from this months new scientist which I totally agree with:

We live in a nuclear powered universe. We're the oddballs by getting energy from burning carbon

As for firing it into space, current space launch tech is to risky to start shooting enriched uranium and plutonium up in the air - if it explodes you iradiate a large area - current agreement in the scientific world is, once we have an orbital teather in place (long rope from the ground up into orbit ) that would be considered safe enough to start moving dangerous materials up into space - but of course were still a good 50 to 75 years away from having the tech that would enable us to build one.

Whats stopping us embracing nuclear energy is world superpowers that get large amounts of money from the worlds oil companys, and the worlds fatcats that wish to stay 'at the top of the pile' In theory with todays tech we can all live in a 'free energy' cheap living world, but no superpower goverment would allow that to happen. Hell the usa went to war to keep control of the oil, and thus the world economy and thus keeping things as they are, the worlds leaders dont want us to progress.

Once we have mastered nuclear fusion power we should have free safe endless energy, the only bi product would be Helium


As for disposing nuclear waste from nuclear fission on earth, there is no way it can be done without it eventualy somehow leaching back into the earths ecosystem - iv done presentation on nuclear waste disposal this year for my degree, if you like I can upload the powerpoint file and put a link here, then all can read the main points and problems of nuclear waste disposal, only about 15 slides long -i think-

 

[SiriusB]

Chernobyl did a lot to damage nuclears image..

The way I see it is that radioactive materials are extracted from the earth, made useful in a reactor and then returned to the earth.

Radioctive waste is a comic-book misconception. Fact is it's less radio-active than when it went in, just it's all in one place now. Also the metals tend to be inherently toxic.

Nuclear is the future until hydrogen fusion is perfected IMO.

Chernobyl was the result of illegal experiments carried out by the scientists there. It was a result of human flaws not of the technology.

SiriusB

 

[Retsef]

Thanks all your responses. I see most views are all for nuke power. All we need to do now is persuade our idiot government to rubber stamp the next generation nuke plants. Easier said than done unfortunately.

 

[Rancidelephant]

IMHO there are better options than nuclear.

Why not stick a solar pannel, wind turbine and water collection devise on EVERY new house built. On top of that start adding them to existing houses. I have yet to find a good argument against this, it produces free energy for the household, no emissions (even from the mining/collection aspect) you get no dodgy waste that you have to look after for a few thousand years, you decentralise the power grid, you remove any threat of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant, you do wonders for the environment ...

I agree that large wind farms are ugly and annoying and that large scale solar farms are a bit useless here but as a decentralised strategy i have yet to find a good argument against them.