Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

You need to talk about the future of nuclear power, not the past. Most generators are 30-50 years old now, and are beginning to show their age. Fourth gen reactors are in development and are both cheap(taken over their entire lifetime), more reliable, and much safer. (They litterally can't melt down)

Nuclear is cheap

Point is, by 2040, IIRC, energy use will have quadrupled world wide. Green power might follow, but there simply aren't enough mineral resources around to build more windmills and such. Rare metal prices are staggeringly high already, and will only rise. Link. This will have a direct impact on their price.

Nuclear is on average 10% cheaper than any other power source (except hydro and some fossils). Nuclear costs are going to remain over their lifetime, while all others are expecting to rise.

Nuclear is safer than green power

All the radiation sharts and such.
Nuclear engineering is responsible for most advanced scans in medical things. If you took a dive in a nuclear fuel cell containment pool, you'd recieve less radiation that if you'd remain outside.*
4^the generation power can't melt down (increased melting point of radioactive materials that the reactor can't achieve. Some designs shut down on their own).

*Provided you don't touch the glowing bits.

Nuclear is stable

This is the largest problem with green power sources. Variable output requires other installations or batteries to kick in to replace the deficit. However, turning on and off rapidly is expensive and polluting. In fact, The Guardian calculated that a group of wind turbines placed before the coast of England actually increased pollution output of the gas plant they were supposed to be replacing.(Because constantly running at the same production is better than switching on and off constantly). Nuclear provides power at any point, and always without excuses.

It's also extremely resilient to blackouts. When power demand exceeds production ampere levels drop automatically. This is very damaging for generators, so these shut down immediatly. Now the tolerance of this is based on the production of the generator. Hence, nuclear power will results in significantly less blackouts than green power.

Nuclear is green

Greener than wind and solar actually. Link. Those are numbers for Gen II reactors. Gen IV can be up to 33% more efficient at what they do.

Also, green power requires rare earth's of which about 50%* is mined in the Link. Not only is China lowering the export, the environemental problems in the region mean that average life expetancy hovers around 40 years. This pollution is inherent in the refinery of rare earth's, and can't be avoided, only mitigated.
*The rest is mined in smaller mines in China.

I suggest looking around the nuclear organisation websites for information. They're not always neutral, nor is this post, but contain plenty of graphs and information.

Do some research into thorium-based reactors, which I've heard are infinitely less capable of meltdowns, but still quite capable of producing heat.

Thorium isn't the only 4th gen reactor that can do this. Some reactors using pellet fuel are designed to autoregulate themselves. When temperature gets to high, the material surrounding the nuclear fuel expands, blocking the reaction till the heat dies down. (They demonstrated this by shutting down the cooling of the test reactor in front of an audience of experts)

Do some research into thorium-based reactors, which I've heard are infinitely less capable of meltdowns, but still quite capable of producing heat.

They have their own problems, such as being more expensive to process the fuel and requiring significant redesign from existing plants. Most likely spot for them to really achieve a critical mass (pun intended) would be India, which has the world's largest thorium reserves and a critical demand for energy. Australia also has significant reserves, but I think folks there are far more leery of nuclear power.

Actually, one of the largest thorium mines is currently planned in Australia, and is already under construction, IIRC. And the increased refinement cost is nihilable, and is mostly the result of missing infrastructure. (Also, you don't need to modify existing plants, those are all way to old).

The real reason we didn't went for Thorium back when nuclear power was first developped is that the waste product isn't weaponizable.

[Zrk2]

Base load capacity

Lower cost/kWh

No GHG

Storage not as difficult as some would have you believe

/Nuclear Engineering student

[misko27]

Still, Just looking at that chart, it ppoints out how crappy it is to be in the Fukishima exclusion zone. All it takes is one reactor to blow, near a massive population center. What if it had melted down? What if it was the one near Tokyo?
 
What if one in the US goes?

[Graknorke]

Still, Just looking at that chart, it ppoints out how crappy it is to be in the Fukishima exclusion zone. All it takes is one reactor to blow, near a massive population center. What if it had melted down? What if it was the one near Tokyo?
 
What if one in the US goes?

Actually it really wasn't that bad. Just because it's more than a lot of the things doesn't mean that it's bad. It was 1/5 of the radiation levels that have been proven for increasing cancer risk. Not particularly harmful.

[RedWarrior0]

If you're allowed to bring in a demonstration, I suggest a very long sheet/roll of paper comparing the energy densities. Or perhaps, since you're going for beating out solar/wind/biofuel, do energy cost rather than energy density.

[Cthulhu]

Still, Just looking at that chart, it ppoints out how crappy it is to be in the Fukishima exclusion zone. All it takes is one reactor to blow, near a massive population center. What if it had melted down? What if it was the one near Tokyo?
 
What if one in the US goes?

If you weren't actually right there it wasn't especially terrible.  When you remember that it took an earthquake big enough to shift the Earth's orbit a couple inches to do it, I think we're probably okay.

[werty892]

Fuck people who hate nuclear.

[kaenneth]

I'm pro nuclear, but be prepared to defend the costs of mining, refining, processing, etc. the fuel.

I've seen claims that the energy costs of extracting the tiny amount of uranium in ore makes it inefficient, but haven't researched it.

[Loud Whispers]

Fuck people who hate nuclear.

Why?

[Frumple]

Because nuclear hate is the sexiest of hate, apparently.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, you're wrong, but if you want to argue it I'd focus on making people think about the massive energy production and minimal carbon production. France is a good example of a successful nuclear-powered state. It is also vital to focus on future developments of fast-breeder reactors, thorium reactors, and fusion reactors. Look in to ITER for the latter.

Nuclear ultimately just is not that great, though. It takes forever to build and no one will ever negotiate waste movement, so it usually has to stay on site. It also takes weeks to turn off if you need it to not be generating power. Most towns with nearby nuclear plants still experience spikes in health problems despite the buffer zones.

You're in for a hard fight, as public opinion has turned against nuclear sharply since Fukishima and the US's nuclear stagnation. Conservatives are in bed with the oil and coal companies, liberals are the face of the anti-nuclear movement and compose most of the greens. The most likely areas of nuclear support are libertarians and centrists.

[redwallzyl]

Do some research into thorium-based reactors, which I've heard are infinitely less capable of meltdowns, but still quite capable of producing heat.

http://energyfromthorium.com/

all you need to know about it.

[Zrk2]

Most towns with nearby nuclear plants still experience spikes in health problems despite the buffer zones.

Have a source on that? Everything I've ever read indicates exactly zero increase in radiation related health problems near nuclear power plants.

You're in for a hard fight, as public opinion has turned against nuclear sharply since Fukishima and the US's nuclear stagnation. Conservatives are in bed with the oil and coal companies, liberals are the face of the anti-nuclear movement and compose most of the greens. The most likely areas of nuclear support are libertarians and centrists.

What funny bedfellows.

Also remember to talk about CANDU reactors if you have to deal with the nuclear weapons side of it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Now, you just said all that...

Please, evidence for the health problems?

The paper is offline, but as cited here they found significant links between living near nuclear plants and cancers in children. There is admittedly little evidence for adults, but a 70% child leukemia spike is very concerning.

[Zrk2]

In 1990 the United States Congress requested the National Cancer Institute to conduct a study of cancer mortality rates around nuclear plants and other facilities covering 1950 to 1984 focusing on the change after operation started of the respective facilities. They concluded in no link. In 2000 the University of Pittsburgh found no link to heightened cancer deaths in people living within 5 miles of plant at the time of the Three Mile Island accident. The same year, the Illinois Public Health Department found no statistical abnormality of childhood cancers in counties with nuclear plants. In 2001 the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering confirmed that radiation emissions were negligibly low at the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Also that year, the American Cancer Society investigated cancer clusters around nuclear plants and concluded no link to radiation noting that cancer clusters occur regularly due to unrelated reasons. Again in 2001, the Florida Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology reviewed claims of increased cancer rates in counties with nuclear plants, however, using the same data as the claimants, they observed no abnormalities.[134]

You seem to have shot yourself in the foot.