Slashdot Mirror
The Nuclear Power Renaissance
Actual Reality writes "It is ironic to me that much of the same sentiment that thwarted the nuclear power industry back in the 80's is partially responsible for reviving it. Nuclear power is very clean compared to any power source that burns fuel. The US has missed several advancements in nuclear technology. We can only hope that environmental concerns will not again stifle our progress."
I don't know in detail about the US situation, but in the UK what killed nuclear power was not environmental concerns but the cost. When the government privatised the nuclear power stations they had to finally admit what had until then been denied - that it was the most expensive form of generation then in widespread use. It's possible this has changed, but the dearth of new builds despite apparent government sympathy leads me to believe that it probably hasn't.
How plentiful is Uranium for nuclear power?
This link is a pretty good read for that information. Current price of uranium is nowhere near the historic inflation-adjusted high ($75/pound versus $145/pound). However, the author gives some very good information on why the price will be skyrocketing soon:
-there's a gap between production and consumption that's currently being closed by using stockpiles, i.e. old Russian nukes. Once those are used up, that gap opens up again.
-there are many nuclear power plants coming online in the next decade or so. 28 are currently under construction, over 100 more in the next decade.
-at current rates of demand, we'll need 900 new nuclear plants by 2050 to keep up.
In short, it's plentiful now, but it won't be soon.
Do you realize that the reactor core at Chernobyl was moderated with GRAPHITE? Graphite burns in air. THAT is why the radiation release was so catastropic there. US reactors are all water-moderated, not graphite-moderate, so they are inherently safer and the potential for a radiation release on that scale is much less. FURTHERMORE, Cernobyl didn't have a giant concrete western-style containment vessel over the entire place. And do you realize that US's WORST commercial nuclear accident is estimated to have killed *one* person?
The nuclear waste sites you mention are all, or almost all due to nuclear weapon manufacture, NOT commercial nuclear power.
Nuclear waste IS an issue, but it is much LESS of an issue than the *billions of tons* of toxic ash, and carbon dioxide produced by coal power, which you advocate using (not to mention lesser amounts of other nasty pollutants such as mercury, sulfur and the like--ever heard of acid rain? Toxic mercury fish? Where do you think acid rain comes from?). Further, that coal is often mined using extremely environmentally destructive strip mining.
I would like to comment that France has more nuclear power than the USA, but LESS of a problem with nuclear waste. Why is that? It is because we here in the USA are *complete idiots* about safe disposal of waste. It can be done, we're just too stupid to do it! And most of the problem is due to the ignorance and attitude of people like you!
Coal mining, burning, and transport has probably led to the deaths of millions of people. Nuclear power has NOT come CLOSE to such a death toll EVEN INCLUDING NUCLEAR WEAPON USE ON JAPAN.
And you know what? The deaths due to burning coal and other fossil fuels are going to exponentiate once much of the planet becomes refugees due to sea levels rising due to global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions!
I grant you, we SHOULD be using windmills, bicycles, sweaters, walking, transit, hydropower, and solar cells, but advocating the use of *any* carbon-emitting energy source over nuclear power is---your word-- INSANE.
Here's some more supplementary material:
Case Study: The Side Effects of a Coal Plant
A 500 megawatt coal plant produces 3.5 billion kilowatt-hours per year, enough
to power a city of about 140,000 people. It burns 1,430,000 tons of coal, uses
2.2 billion gallons of water and 146,000 tons of limestone.
It also puts out, each year:
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SOx) is the main cause of
acid rain, which damages forests, lakes and buildings.
10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) is a major cause of
smog, and also a cause of acid rain.
3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main
greenhouse gas, and is the leading cause of global warming. There are
no regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S.
500 tons of small particles. Small particulates are a health hazard,
causing lung damage. Particulates smaller than 10 microns are not
regulated, but may be soon.
220 tons of hydrocarbons. Fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons; when
they don't burn completely, they are released into the air. They are a
cause of smog.
720 tons of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a poisonous gas
and contributor to global warming.
125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack