Slashdot Mirror
'No Quick Fix' From Nuclear Power
humoly writes to tell us BBC News is reporting that while many are calling for nuclear power, new nuclear plants are not the answer to combating climate changes or the wavering energy concerns for the UK. From the article: "The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) report says doubling nuclear capacity would make only a small impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035. The body, which advises the government on the environment, says this must be set against the potential risks. The government is currently undertaking a review of Britain's energy needs."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While I was shocked how little nuclear power would reduce emission and the fact apparently intelligent people thought this would be a silver bullet deal, it should not surprise anyone that
There is no quick fix. A lot of things have to change, like our automobile usage, suburban lifestyle, and the excessive packaging of one time use products.
Congratulations on stating the obvious! Considering the fact that energy requirements are almost always increasing, and not decreasing, simply having CO2 levels maintain where they are now in 2035 would be somewhat of an accomplishment.
If you don't build nuclear, and instead build that new coal plant, does that somehow cause CO2 levels to go down? Didn't think so.
It's time for the world to face the fact that nuclear energy (and hopefully fusion in the "next 20 years") is the only practical way to truly reduce CO2 emissions and solve pollution problems. If cheap nuclear energy exists, it is possible to reduce pollution and CO2 production in other areas, in addition to the initial electrical generation. Hydrogen fuel for vehicles, electrical heating instead of natural gas or oil, etc.
While other forms of alternative energy are "nice", they all have their downside - solar cells aren't exactly environmentally friendly to produce, wind plants take lots of land and are an eyesore, etc. Nuclear plants may have some miniscule risks, but when properly managed, they are by far the best solution. The problem with nuclear energy (dealing with the waste included) is entirely political, not technical.
I see these 'reports' all the time, claiming that nuclear power would do little do reduce emissions. Now, wait a minute - those gigawatts per year produced would then instead come from what? A coal plant? Now, that ADDS to emissions AND it actually produces more radioactive waste isotopes than a regular nuclear plant (not many people seem to realize that). Why in the world is everyone so freaked out about building a frackin' nuclear plant, whilst tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are rotting away in the former Soviet states? And the U.S. has at least as many and they don't know who do drop them on either... It's all a big mindfuck if you ask me - NUCLEAR? BAD!! Poisoning the air with your car and other air polluting devices - GOOOD!
This (pay wall past intro) is an interesting article I read in Scientific American about a plan to recycle much of what is currently considered nuclear waste for use in advanced fast breeder reactors. It seems the most feasible alternative to oil I have seen.
Seems to me some of their claimed disadvantages are in conflict. To wit:
1) The economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain, according to the report
2) Nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised energy distribution system for the next 50 years when more flexible distribution options are becoming available
3) The report claims that nuclear would undermine the drive for greater energy efficiency
4) If the UK brings forward a new nuclear programme, it becomes more difficult to deny other countries the same technology, the SDC claims
Points 1 and 2 seem to indicate economic and technological malfeasance, but points 3 and 4 seem to imply the technology is good enough to curtail better economic options which would be desirable to other countries? Hmm...
Point 4 also implies that the UK would seek to deny other countries nuclear plants in general, or that "other countries" might use said plants for other than above-board reasons. I can't figure out whether point 4 is insulting to other countries or insulting to the UK...or both.
The only reason that doubling the number of nuclear plants wouldn't have an impact on emissions is because there are so few nuclear plants. For the UK, doubling would mean 23 more plants that would cover 20% of the UK's electricity needs.
I couldn't find details, but the study likely also ignores the benefits of nuclear plants in relation to automobiles. Currently, if a person drives an electric car, he'll still be causing emissions at the electric plant. In conjunction with electric car technology, nuclear plants could be a way to significantly reduce emissions that result from vehicles.
No, nukes are not a quick fix. But they (barring a breakthrough in fusion, which I wouldn't bet on) may still be our only hope, because changing the lifestyles of billions of people isn't possible.
Nuclear power does reduce emissions by helping us eliminate coal and oil power plants. Something's better than nothing, and nuclear waste is infinitely easier to contain than a cloud coming out of a smokestack.
Moreover, nuclear power scales better for the future. Like it or not, our energy usage is only going to go up. Nuclear also makes possible other technologies that reduce emissions- where do you think the hydrogen for fuel cells comes from? The easiest way to generate it is in a reactor.
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
...nuclear power plants are nowhere to be found since we're the world's largest producer of hydroelectric power but it wasn't always like this...
In 1968, after a nuclear meltdown in Charlemagne (Quebec's own Chernobyl accident), the government decided to ban nuclear power for fear of another disaster. Unfortunately, it was too late, since Celine Dion was unleashed to the world soon after that and the rest, as they say, is history...
Sounds like a badly written Uncyclopedia article or something.
1) Long-term storage of nuclear waste.
...as opposed to the way things are now? There's an economy of scale benefit to most forms of power generation. This is nothing new or unique to nuclear. Furthermore, any alternative sources that could be decentralized could likely still be deployed and connected to the power grid as they become availible. History demonstrates that demand for energy generally only goes up.
First, keep in mind that the longer it stays radioactive, by definition the less radioactive (and thus less dangerous) it is. Depleted Uranium, for instance, despite being technically radioactive, is actually used as radiation shielding!
The obvious solution to dealing with waste is to seperate it into stuff that can processed back into viable fuel (and used as such), stuff that's so mildly radioactive that it could be ground into powder and scattered into the ocean and you'd never notice the difference in the background radiation level, and stuff that's not viable as fuel but still radioactive enough that it needs to be stored--which I imagine you'll find is not very much waste.
2) Economics of building nuke plants
Yeah, and how much of the economic uncertainty comes from artificial barriers created by scientific illiterates who oppose nuclear power? Other than fossil fuels, nuclear is the only type of generator that is proven to be long-term viable and scalable to any capacity. If the economics are "uncertain" for nukes, they can only be worse for anything else.
3) Centralized distribution system
4) Undermines the drive for efficiency
Uh, no. Efficiency is, within reason, its own driving force. Despite what some people would like, we're never going to use less energy. There's only so much efficiency gain possible, for one thing. Besides, efficiency gains don't reduce consumption any more than getting a bigger house reduces clutter. Efficiency just lets us get more value from the energy we do use.
5) Difficulty in denying other countries the technology
Oh yeah, because that's working really well as is.
Nuclear power will most likely never surpass its existing use as a source of supplemental power for the world market. That said, I disagree with the article in its suggestion that it cannot make a significant dent in carbon emissions.
Nuclear power could very easily become the largest source of power for fixed location consumers. Existing coal and oil plants could simply be replaced with nuclear facilities. This eventual phase-out of legacy power supplies could easily cut carbon emissions by hundreds of tons per year.
However, nuclear power will never become the totally dominant source of all our power needs unless the near future reveals a revolutionary advance in battery or super-capacitor technology. Until then, transportation technology will never be able to efficiently harness power off the Grid. Transportation will continue to use energy sources that are easy to transport and distribute.
The major hold-up with nuclear power is two-fold. First, current generation nuclear reactors use uranium as a fuel source. This fuel creates huge amounts of radioactive waste. Although this waste was once highly desired for nuclear weapons projects in the past, today it is a worthless product that is expensive and dangerous to dispose of. Also, this fuel is quickly becoming scarce. Some scientists suggest that the world has less than 60 years worth of reactor grade uranium at current consumption. Secondly, current generation reactors have a high potential for danger. The horrific blunder of Soviet engineers when running a coolant test at the Chernobyl facility will haunt generations to come. America's own scare at Three-Mile Island brings that fear close to home.
Surprisingly, most of these issues have modern solutions. The French has developed an encapsulated uranium fuel source that places fuel within a heat resistant shell. This shell keeps the density of the fuel low enough that in the event of a coolant failure, the fuel rods never go critical.
Second, scientists have suggested that a switch from uranium to thorium could reduce radioactive waste by over half, and could reduce our plutonium stockpiles by using it as a seed for these new reactors. Furthermore, thorium is a more common element than uranium, with prices being only a fraction of uranium.
However, political pressure will most likely never allow it to happen since traditional power companies fund many anti-nuclear lobbies. Oil and coal hate nuclear. Popular media demonizes nuclear. Environmental laws make it nearly impossible to even whisper nuclear without the threat of civil lawsuits.
As such, we will continue to pump greenhouse gasses into the air. At our current rate, my home in Washington State might experience weather similar to that of Southern California today. Sunshine is good. . .
Thorium reactor acrticle: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68045, 00.html
It unfortunately turns out that electricity power generation contributes a relatively small fraction of the total CO2 output. Hence, increasing the output from other sources (like Nuclear) won't really make much of a dent.
That is currently true, but vastly increased electricity production using clean nuclear plants could allow electricity to substitute for other places that are responsible for carbon emission, such as electric cars replacing internal combustion engines.
Energy is energy, in the end, and once it's availible as electricity you can do almost anything with it without generating further pollution.
"may still be our only hope, because changing the lifestyles of billions of people isn't possible."
We done it many times before. Or do you believe that humans have always driven cars to work?
Then please kill yourself now. Lead by example.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
More radiation comes from coal plants than from all the nuclear waste, reactors and mining. Now as to your statement that Yucca Mountain is overflowing, that'd be hard since it isn't taking waste until 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_mountain
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/about/index.shtml
"The Yucca Mountain Project is currently focused on preparing an application to obtain a license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct a repository."
It seems that this very important government body only has one (yes, only one) PHD scientist on it's board (a metallurgist)... and zero (yes, no-one), with any knowledge of nuclear energy or physics at all!
Nearly all of the people on the board are lawyers, administrators, or prominent members of anti-nuclear organizations.
So a government body of people, with no knowledge whatsoever of nuclear power, and who were already ideologically dead set against nuclear power from the get-go, decided that nuclear power is bad. Wow, what a shock!
Yes, the advanced research determined that if you double the tiny amount of energy produced by nuclear power in England, you get double a tiny amount! Wow! I wonder what happens if you generated ALL OR THE VAST MAJORITY OF ENERGY VIA NUCLEAR ENERGY? I guess that would produce a lot more energy and reduce a lot of greenhouse gases, wouldn't it?
How come people take things like the "Sustainable Development Commission" seriously? I mean, this "commission" is a joke!
Yet, there are plenty of economic tricks you can impose to change lifestyles. Make something not worthwhile for people anymore, and over time they will change their methods of living. I don't encourage, condone, or am proposing any of the following... just pointing out there are possibilities if we are thinking in the extreme :)
As gas prices rise, we will see people move closer to their jobs (ie, the city) from the suburbs. Suburban sprawl is obviously more likely if the act of commuting is not in the least bit taxing (See: United States). If we want people to stop driving so much, make it expensive as hell...and in turn, maybe start using Europe's incredible public transportation. We don't have that in the U.S. (realistically).
The biggest problem with environmental concerns (very similar to security concerns which any of us involved can relate) is obviously that a single person experiences very little payback for their contribution (and/or can see very little return instantaneously). To curb the public's tendencies, we may have instate some pretty intense restrictions.
How far do we need to go to really protect ourselves against Global Warming (yes, I said it), or environmental concerns?
It amazes me to see so many informed comments, yet none practically based.
How many people here have worked in a nuke plant? How many know the logistics of it?
First off, redundancy factors make failure and meltdown a near impossibility. Unless an operator is asleep in the control room, and then deaf and blind to all of the alarms and lights that go off when a coolant failure might occur, the reactor will be shut down.
Second: Waste storage. Many people don't seem to know what a spent fuel pool is. Everyone's talking about disposing of waste, when all nuclear facilities in this country already have a means of storing the waste for the approximate life of the reactor. The spent fuel pools are huge buildings with a huge pool, where spent Uranium fuel bundles are stored. The walls of this building are solid concrete, approx. 10 ft thick. No radiation is getting out of there.
On top of that, most slashdotters would probably be surprised to know that they pick up more radiation in a year from their computer monitors, cell phones, simple radios, and other devices, than a nuclear employee does from the plant. Everything is carefully monitored with dosimeters (devices that measure your radioactive dose).
Another thing that annoys me: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RADIATION SUIT. The suits that nuclear workers put on are are called "Anti-C's" or anti contamination suits. Inside the reactor building, and in other areas where boric acid is used to absorb radiation, loose radioactive particles are everywhere. Movement of those particles from where they're expected to where they're not desired is called contamination, so these suits are used to prevent the spread of contamination. There's even a special process you are to use in removing these suits which prevents contamination. After that, you enter a scanning device which does a once-over of your entire body to detect contaminants, and if you're contaminated, a number of things can happen. If it's an article of clothing, it's simply disposed of. A shoe or boot, generally on the bottom, the offending region is sliced off. On your skin, anti-contamination soap is used, and if that isn't successful, they bring out the SOS pad.
Also, people don't realize how common Radon is. Often, workers would enter the "hot side"(we call it that because that's the area where exposure to radiation is possible) and come out, having gone nowhere near contamination, and they set off the alarm, mostly on rainy days. That's because of Radon. The water causes the radon to essentially stick to your shoes, and while sticky pads on the floor can help removing this, often a de-ionizing fan is required to get rid of it totally.
This is the extent to which they go to prevent public exposure to radiation/radioactive material from their facility. Environmental concerns are nil.
Fear of meltdown is an irrational, uninformed position, and an easy fear to maintain through ignorance.
Follow the money.
Most objections to nuclear power are driven by the coal industry, who stands to be the biggest loser if the US and UK move towards more nuclear power.
Anybody else who objects is simply echoing the fears which were fed to them by coal lobbyists.
Nuclear power is both safer and cleaner than coal. Anybody who rejects nuclear in favor of coal plants out of "environmental" concerns is either badly informed or deliberately lying.
Also, anybody who says we can avoid the need of nuclear power by just riding bikes, using a more efficient furnace, and holding hands while singing "Kum Ba Ya" is simply not looking at the real numbers of what our future power needs are, even after you account for a radical scaling back of elective consumption.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The only way to really solve this problem is to stop wasting energy. The way to think about this is: if you have to live with using only 5% of the energy that you use now, what will you choose to use it on? Take it as a thought experiment - you're not allowed to invent ways to produce your own energy; assume that this has already been done. So what will you keep? A car? Your fridge? Your computer? How about not buying stuff that comes in unnecessary packaging? Avoiding ready made meals, drinks, snacks etc?
Perhaps 5% is not what we will have to live with in the future, it could be more or less, but I suspect it won't be far off at least for our children.