Unbiased Views On Nuclear Power

[hibeeleicester]

Im doing a case study in science.....

And im lookign for some Unbiased PRO'S to nuclear power. I cant seem to find much. Yeah proabably im lazy and not looking hard enough.


id also like to ask "Should The Government Invest In More Nuclear Power Plants?"

i need to get peoples views so i can add it to my case study.

If you are like Stu from nottingham and have your own blog that has any usefull info relating to my topic i could recognise it in my bibliography.

Thanks for your help

[GlesgaeHibby]

I'd happily give you some, but as a physicist I'm probably as biased as they come.

[Woody1985]

I'd happily give you some, but as a physicist I'm probably as biased as they come.

Fancy sharing them anyway as I'm quite interested?

[HibbyScott]

Im doing a case study in science.....

And im lookign for some Unbiased PRO'S to nuclear power. I cant seem to find much. Yeah proabably im lazy and not looking hard enough.


id also like to ask "Should The Government Invest In More Nuclear Power Plants?"

i need to get peoples views so i can add it to my case study.

If you are like Stu from nottingham and have your own blog that has any usefull info relating to my topic i could recognise it in my bibliography.

Thanks for your help

I did a similar kind of essay in Adv H geography a few years ago. I used a column written by Boris Johnson where he discusses Nuclear Power...can't remember that much about it, but there were a few good quotes in it I'm sure

[hibeeleicester]

I'd happily give you some, but as a physicist I'm probably as biased as they come.

What are your thought on it anyway....i biased view might come in handy for those extra marks.


I did a similar kind of essay in Adv H geography a few years ago. I used a column written by Boris Johnson where he discusses Nuclear Power...can't remember that much about it, but there were a few good quotes in it I'm sure

Can you remember where you got it from?
Ive tried a couple of books but all been useless.

Do i trust wikipedia?

[HibbyScott]

What are your thought on it anyway....i biased view might come in handy for those extra marks.



Can you remember where you got it from?
Ive tried a couple of books but all been useless.

Do i trust wikipedia?

The source was from The Telegraph on 2/3/06...try googling Boris Johnson and nuclear power and see what it gives you...I've got some points from the article on my computer but pretty sure its not complete

[Just Jimmy]

Do i trust wikipedia?

no. It's not an academic source.

[Sylar]

As an environmental physicist, I'm also rather biased, but in the wrong direction for your argument I reckon.

My "positive" ideas of nuclear energy are clean production (no emissions of GHG's), efficient process (1kg of Uranium can produce the same energy output as 200 barrels of oil). A single plant can generate substantial volumes of energy in comparison to fossil fuel stations.

The process relies on uranium, but other radioactive materials can be "converted" into Uranium-233 (Thorium being a primary example). As resources, these are relatively abundant in nature.

Despite the initial cost of plant development, the facilities are generally relatively low cost to operate them.

Following Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear power plants is impeccable, with strict regulations enforced during their lifespan.

The technology for developing nuclear plants is readily available and requires no new developments, although the industry continually evolves to improve safety and efficiency.

Just as well you didn't ask for a balance, or I'd be writing your essay for you :greengrin

[hibeeleicester]

well im against them so i found it rather easy to dot he argument against.

i still dont think its nowhere near as safe as fossil fuels....

what do we do with the waste?

Also may i ask what GHG is...?


Thanks appreciate your help :thumbsup:

[Sylar]

well im against them so i found it rather easy to dot he argument against.

i still dont think its nowhere near as safe as fossil fuels....

what do we do with the waste?

Also may i ask what GHG is...?


Thanks appreciate your help :thumbsup:

GHG = Greenhouse Gas

Waste is usually stored and then disposed off in a specially designated landfill site (its more complex than that, but I can't be arsed expanding).

They are much safer than fossil fuels (in terms of plant safety) - the waste generated and potential for misuse make them more dangerous, but on the whole, there are far fewer hazards associated with working at a Nuclear Plant than a fossil fuel energy generation plant.

[hibeeleicester]

GHG = Greenhouse Gas

Waste is usually stored and then disposed off in a specially designated landfill site (its more complex than that, but I can't be arsed expanding).

They are much safer than fossil fuels (in terms of plant safety) - the waste generated and potential for misuse make them more dangerous, but on the whole, there are far fewer hazards associated with working at a Nuclear Plant than a fossil fuel energy generation plant.

Oh right...thought it was going to be some sort of complicated chemical or something :greengrin

Just out of interest....how many disasters(on the size of chernobyl) have there been from fossil fuel plants?

if you dont know then its fine... nobodys perfect :greengrin

thanks for your help nearly finished. just trying to find that borris' article.

[Jack]

well im against them so i found it rather easy to dot he argument against.

i still dont think its nowhere near as safe as fossil fuels....

what do we do with the waste?

Also may i ask what GHG is...?


Thanks appreciate your help :thumbsup:

Well I’m for it. As Scott M says it seems to be as safe as is reasonable.

However your comment, bold above, made me laugh – in a nice way :agree: and here's why …

If the same safety concerns that you have now for nuclear fuels had been adopted for the mining of fossil fuels most of it would still be in the ground and as a result no industrial revolution or world as we know it now. Some thought :confused:

10s of thousands of people have died as a direct, or indirect, result of mining or drilling for fossil fuels and as the North Sea continues to take the lives of men locally, in China the continuing death toll from coal mining accidents is staggering.

Basically deaths from nuclear fuel accidents will never [never say never so probably never] get close to the number of deaths already caused by fossil fuel extraction.

So aye, the alternatives of flooding the glens for hydro; covering the landscape and seascape with windmills; surrounding our coasts with these wave power thingys might all work but the world we live in has an increasingly insatiable appetite for power and when petrol goes we’ll need an alternative for that too.

So all you scientists will just have to get on to harnessing the power of dilithium crystals - but even then, if the warp core goes ... beam me up Scotty :bye:

[Sylar]

Bear in mind that the Chernobyl disaster was started through a fire, which could happen at any plant!

Chernobyl killed 30 (?) people, but shy of that, I don't think many people have died as a result of working in a nuclear energy sector - certainly not anywhere near that scale. There was a well documented leak at Three Mill Island, PA, but I don't think it lead to any fatalities - might need to check that though.

By comparison, think of the amount of lives lost in mine collapses (when sourcing coal), oil rig disasters (and transfer between rig and shore, more recently), dam failures and their consequences (Banqiao Dam in China, where it failed structurally, killing 26,000 people!).

[--------]

You might also bear in mind that the safety record for the construction phase of Hydro schemes (with menworking underground under compressed-air conditions) isn't all that good. (To say the least.)

The main question I would have would be regarding waste-storage, especially in the light of some of the dubious practices uncovered during the decommissioning of Dounreay.

But if the alternative is to have the whole of Scotland covered in windfarms (from the construction of which someone muct be making a fortune) - I'd say there has to be a stronger argument ofr nukes than many people imagine.

And any argument that irritates the eco-warriors seems to me to be a good thing.... :wink:

[LFC Fan]

Don't think you'll ever find an unbiased view of nuclear power.

James Lovelock makes a good case for it in 'The revenge of Gaia'. It's probably not an academic book but it's very interesting.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Im doing a case study in science.....

And im lookign for some Unbiased PRO'S to nuclear power. I cant seem to find much. Yeah proabably im lazy and not looking hard enough.


id also like to ask "Should The Government Invest In More Nuclear Power Plants?"

i need to get peoples views so i can add it to my case study.

If you are like Stu from nottingham and have your own blog that has any usefull info relating to my topic i could recognise it in my bibliography.

Thanks for your help

try and find the exchange between Arthur Scargill and George Monbiot on nuclear power that was in the Guardian a while back. Very interesting.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Modern reactors are inherently safe, Pressurized Water Reactors(PWRs) use a two loop system which increases efficiency and safety.

For the next generation of reactors I'd hope the UK will consider the Canadians CANDU reactor.

They are the most efficient and have the least down time of all nuclear reactors, and don't need enriched uranium as the fuel which makes them an attractive option. The downside is that they need D20 (Heavy Water) as the moderator and coolant, and this costs more to produce.

As mentioned above only about 30-40 people died directly as a result of Chernobyl. 4000 got Thyroid cancer, but the survival rate is 99%. As a result of Chernobyl, safety regulations were tightened and modern Plants have additional safety features, such as those discussed above, built into them to give added protection.

Currently waste is dealt with by Vitrification. The material is mixed with sugar, and calcined and then encased in containers.

The next step for waste favoured by all the developed nations is Geological disposal. Burying it in a deep mine between 500-1000m although the first global site earmarked for this will not be in operation until 2017.

Other ideas suggested have been space disposal-great, but not so great if the rocket blows up!

A UK committee was set up in 2000 to tackle the problems of nuclear waste. Only 2 of the 10 members present were trained physicists. Also the UK holds 2/3 of the worlds plutonium supplies, so on a political level the UK government needs to sort out some major issues if it is going to be serious about investing in new nuclear power stations.


I firmly believe that at the moment it is the only way to go to meet our energy needs. Money should have been heavily invested into wave power research in the 1970s and we probably wouldn't have to build another generation, but I believe renewable technology will have advanced enough to allow us to only have to build one more generation of Nuclear Power stations.

Nuclear Fusion is still at least 50 years away IMO.

[Woody1985]

Modern reactors are inherently safe, Pressurized Water Reactors(PWRs) use a two loop system which increases efficiency and safety.

For the next generation of reactors I'd hope the UK will consider the Canadians CANDU reactor.

They are the most efficient and have the least down time of all nuclear reactors, and don't need enriched uranium as the fuel which makes them an attractive option. The downside is that they need D20 (Heavy Water) as the moderator and coolant, and this costs more to produce.

As mentioned above only about 30-40 people died directly as a result of Chernobyl. 4000 got Thyroid cancer, but the survival rate is 99%. As a result of Chernobyl, safety regulations were tightened and modern Plants have additional safety features, such as those discussed above, built into them to give added protection.

Currently waste is dealt with by Vitrification. The material is mixed with sugar, and calcined and then encased in containers.

The next step for waste favoured by all the developed nations is Geological disposal. Burying it in a deep mine between 500-1000m although the first global site earmarked for this will not be in operation until 2017.

Other ideas suggested have been space disposal-great, but not so great if the rocket blows up!

A UK committee was set up in 2000 to tackle the problems of nuclear waste. Only 2 of the 10 members present were trained physicists. Also the UK holds 2/3 of the worlds plutonium supplies, so on a political level the UK government needs to sort out some major issues if it is going to be serious about investing in new nuclear power stations.


I firmly believe that at the moment it is the only way to go to meet our energy needs. Money should have been heavily invested into wave power research in the 1970s and we probably wouldn't have to build another generation, but I believe renewable technology will have advanced enough to allow us to only have to build one more generation of Nuclear Power stations.

Nuclear Fusion is still at least 50 years away IMO.

Is that not what they said 30/40/50 years ago? Don't quote me on exact years as I'm not an expert on NF (if there is one / if there can be one given that it doesn't exist (that we know of)).

My understanding is that IF they conquer this it will give us unlimited energy with no harmful waste (?).

To me it seems like a pipe dream. Even if it becomes reality can we honestly see governments making it known until it was too late for the planet?

What would be the wider economic issues? Where would all the oil/coal/gas/windfarms (other new green technologies developed by then) go? Assuming it's conquered before these run out.

The same goes for water powered cars etc. Where would the governments get their tax revenues, problems caused by water shortages etc etc.

All these things seem good in principle but are they really.

On the subject of nuclear power I think I'd be for it due to the environmental benefits (other than the nuclear waste (always a downside eh!)).

[Ryan91]

With the way in which governments invest in research into a possibly commercially viable. Once ITER is up and running probably 6/7 years away, but if it works then almost all our energy problems could be solved. We have been able to sustain Nuclear Fusion for around 30 seconds at most, but in a few years time the KSTAR reactor in South Korea could sustain fusion for upto 5 minutes. The reactor down at JET in Oxfordshire and KSTAR are 'hot' fusion reactors. The possiblity of 'cold' fusion is something which certain folk think will work but i don't think it will. Then again i'm a physicist so i am probably biased.

[hibeeleicester]

The cost of the chernobyl disaster was approximately $200billion. The most costly disaster in modern day history. The IAEA also report that
there were 56 direct deaths, 9 of which were young children who developed thyroid cancer. It is also estimated 4000 cancer deaths because of the explosion.

[GlesgaeHibby]

With the way in which governments invest in research into a possibly commercially viable. Once ITER is up and running probably 6/7 years away, but if it works then almost all our energy problems could be solved. We have been able to sustain Nuclear Fusion for around 30 seconds at most, but in a few years time the KSTAR reactor in South Korea could sustain fusion for upto 5 minutes. The reactor down at JET in Oxfordshire and KSTAR are 'hot' fusion reactors. The possiblity of 'cold' fusion is something which certain folk think will work but i don't think it will. Then again i'm a physicist so i am probably biased.

Laser Induced Fusion is also another real possibility. Only problem is it draws a massive amount of energy to induce the fusion, so the energy produced would have to be even more massive than needed to sustain it.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Is that not what they said 30/40/50 years ago? Don't quote me on exact years as I'm not an expert on NF (if there is one / if there can be one given that it doesn't exist (that we know of)).

My understanding is that IF they conquer this it will give us unlimited energy with no harmful waste (?).

To me it seems like a pipe dream. Even if it becomes reality can we honestly see governments making it known until it was too late for the planet?

What would be the wider economic issues? Where would all the oil/coal/gas/windfarms (other new green technologies developed by then) go? Assuming it's conquered before these run out.

The same goes for water powered cars etc. Where would the governments get their tax revenues, problems caused by water shortages etc etc.

All these things seem good in principle but are they really.

On the subject of nuclear power I think I'd be for it due to the environmental benefits (other than the nuclear waste (always a downside eh!)).

By Nuclear Fusion, I mean sustainable nuclear fusion. The Worlds energy needs will continue to grow rapidly that fusion is almost our only hope of meeting that demand.

[RyeSloan]

What about the true cost of nuclear though....seems to me like the Government here has bailed out the industry a few times and is still saddled with the huge cost of waste disposal and storage.

On waste has anyone actually came up with a truely workable plan yet.....!!??

It seems to me nuclear really is too expensive in construction and decommisioning especially and that really if the huge sums we are talking about for a whole life cycle of new plants were directed towards R&D in renewables / 'alternative' fuels and smarter power grids then we would quickly find ways to negate the need for a re-birth of nuclear.

[hibee62]

I'm going into a PHD in nuclear physics in september but I dont think my department works tyoo much with this stuff, more into astrophysical stuff. HAving said that, I know for a fact that research is ongoing to try to come up with clean nuclear power. The fusion thing remains the ultimate but its not the only solution, no one trully understands how radioactive decay works and if any of its properties could be varied by some sort of human interference: temperature dependence, pressure, etc, that would also be a solution.

What it comes down to in the end is whether it takes more energy to do it than it creates, hence the problem with fusion, we need to plug in so much energy to get the nuclei to fuse that the energy produced is not worth it.

Personally, i think that we should be investing money in both nuclear and renewable energy, both will probably make huge strides in the next few years.

[NYHibby]

There was a well documented leak at Three Mill Island, PA, but I don't think it lead to any fatalities - might need to check that though.


I actually grew up nine or ten miles from Three Mile Island. I got to touch the wall of the containment building for reactor 2 and stand in the middle of its cooling tower.

Saying there was a leak is a little bit of an overstatement. Very little radioactive material got out. Nobody died as a directly result. However, there are protest groups that claimed radioactive materials did leak and claim it has caused the area closed to the plant to have a higher than average rate of cancer cases.

In terms of safety, I always felt complete safe living near the plant. I used to go fishing in the river that surrounds the island. You would always get information from the plant and the government about what to do if there was an emergency. You'd hear them testing the warning sirens throughout the ten mile radius from the plant. My family kept Potassium Iodide tablets in a cabinet.

This has already been hinted at, but the design of the reactor at Chernobyl was inferior to the design the western world had been using since the 60s. TMI is the worst accident at a commercial nuclear plant and no one died in it. TMI is safe to go to and the other reactor has been operating fine.