Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

One final point:

The radiation around a coal fueled power plant is significantly higher than around a nuclear power plant. This is because smoke contains radioactive isotopes - even uranium. The byproduct spred into nature by a nuclear power plant is steam. And it's actually not possible to detect any level of radiation above background radiation. Unless the power plant is in some kind of trouble.

Really respectfull not to read links if you are asking for info above emotion! And it's not a battle, it's a discussion. But not for you as shown by the link you picked out, you take the only and oldest article that claims the other side of the story. A bit cheap if I may say so, as also not reading posted links that can change your mind ... But here is 1 of the new studies, 2010, Nuclear power station causing cancer (link to the study at the bottom if you want to know even more).

And why I tend to believe France more, because they don't have to think of all the other consequences in their country like mass panic, economic failure etc. But this is indeed only based on what I think, just as you just have to believe Japan is more right. But you aren't more right because you believe something else.

And my point is, that we absolutely need more of "these things" in the world. Unless we don't care about basing our lives on fossil fuels.

Yeh, and uranium is a sustainable source of energy without any waste ;) oh wait ...

The link to the actual study doesn't work. Anyways I spent almost the entire saturday afternoon picking apart another study (linked to on another forum) claiming, that by the year 2050 nuclear power would surpass the CO2 emission of natural gas power. I'm just a layman, but it was actually quite easy - even though it took some time. My point is, that research into nuclear power is extremely biased unfortunately, and every finding that raises an eyebrow should be viewed with criticism. But unfortunately I don't have the time nor the will to do so in every case.

I won't get into your final points in details. I've come to believe, it wouldn't matter much. Besides I've got this discussion going on several other forum. So to make it short: Yes, I think nuclear power, even based on uranium alone and not thorium for example, is virtually a sustainable source of energy. At least for so long as humankind is going to need it. And no, noone - even the most die hard fan of nuclear power - would claim that nuclear energy is without waste. But compared to, say, fossil fueled energy, the waste is very limitted in comparison, and much easier manageable.

I would like to see the numbers that support uranium can provide nuclear power for a long periode (and I don't mean decades but you probably also not) and that nuclear power can ever be called sustainable, I would like to see that also. In my head are competely different numbers so I would be very surspriced if this is even close to the reality :)

EDIT: and nuclear power was becoming more and more populair again, not at all biased. That's just not true. Look at the numbers of new to build nuclear power stations in China, Russia, etc.
world-nuclear.org - Plans For New Reactors Worldwide

(edited)

Nuclear power becoming more popular should be no surprise. More people come to realize, that nuclear power is essential if we want to get rid of fossil fuels. Plus it's just good economics to invest in. This doesn't change the fact however, that much research into nuclear power (and energy production generally) is still often based on a political agenda. But neither the pro nor the con side can probably be excused from doing this.

Regarding the occurence of uranium in nature and the need in future powerplants, the best analysis I've read is in Danish unfortunately. I don't mind linking to it, but I guess you'll have a hard time reading it: http://www.reo.dk/data/archive/Rapporter/INFO-res-oekonomi.pdf

But here's something about uranium from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence

Uranium is everywhere. And mining isn't developed very much, since uranium is actually not a very attractive product to dig for. The need is small due to the high levels of energy beeing made from very little material, and most countries have years, evens decades, of uranium in stock for future use in their power plants.

The Japanese have tested a method of extracting uranium from sea water. It's possible, but so far not economicably viable compared to traditional mining. The price of uranium doesn't affect the price of electricity much however. Most money is spent building and running the power plant. The fuel is a minor detail, so even if prices were to rise to, say, 10 times the level today, nuclear power would still be able to compete with most other forms of energy.

And we haven't even touched the subject of thorium as nuclear fuel (four times more abundant than uranium and with a much higher "burn value" with today's technology) - or the subject of future breeder reactors, that'll probably be as good as self sustainable.
(edited)

Ok, I will read some tomorrow and give you an answer.

There is only 1 thing I will always be surpriced about, how can it be that people that have 3 options, energy by fossile fuel, by nuclear power or sustainable clean power, can ever consider one of the first two as a better option as the third ... waste, nuclear waste, no waste ... For me this is a no brainer, how could this be different for anyone else, I really wonder :)

It's all about economics and what's possible in the real world. So far I've seen no evidence, that even if we didn't care about the price, we could cover our needs with renewables only. The only major power source other that power plants (be it nuclear or fossil) is hydroelectric power. Maybe solar power, but it's too expensive so far - and would probably call for enormous power plants. Not exactly a way to preserve nature.

And regarding hydroelectric power let me just remind you of the worst catastrophy in human history caused by energy production: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam. Not exactly a "safe" alternative to nuclear power.

But our future shouldn't be based on nuclear energy alone either. In my - and in most nuclear enthusiast - opinion nuclear power is only one of the things we need to consider to reach the goal of getting rid of fossil fuels. No one solution can do it all by itself. The only viable solution is a mix between nuclear power and many different kinds of renewables - hydroelectric, wind, solar and biofuel for example.

It would be a big mistake to let out nuclear power of the equation, since it's the most praticable and economicably viable solution to the problem. And so far - even with the Fukushima accident - the one with the least effect on human health and nature. At least if you don't consider Chernobyl - a power plant that would never have been allowed in Western countries because of major design faults. Not least the complete lack of secure containment, that so far has saved the situation in Japan (and at Three Mile Island) from getting anywhere near Chernobyl level.

(edited)

Filling valleys with large ammounts of water is everything but save as no one knows if the mountain is going to hold together.

But there are many different projects going on in the world. I believe geothermal energy has a good change in many places in the world. But for example the sun (1 sollution: PS10 Solar Power Plant and ocean (Ocean Energy or Energy from the Gulf Stream Possible renewable power source) and wind (Major North Sea offshore wind farm ready for Phase 1) also contains energy to provide us, but without any waste.

You see, I just don't understand why not, if we can :) If we never had heard of any of these alternatives I would have believed we can't, now I don't.
(edited)

Thanx guys. Very interesting discussion. :)
It was especially interesting finding out that Chernobyl accident doesn't even come close to Banqiao Dam accident's consequences. Still, we fear more of nuclear than hydro power. This is what impression based opinions compared to facts based do. I already wrote here, this is a simmilar situation to people having more fear from shark attack than lightning or from airplanes than cars. Facts and numbers tell a different story different but it's difficult to repeat numbers to yourself while looking into deep waters while swimming, down from airplane's 5.000 meters or at nuclear power plant's reactor. ;)

I've thought about this topic last night and this morning and I stop with this 'discussion'. I would like to read more about the subject and probably I will as I like knowledge, but 'discussing' this on this forum is really a waste of my time. Most or even all people in this topic can't be changed so it never becomes a good discussion, and arguments why not, even make people kick back harder because change their minds was never an option.

@ MontyBurns
I going to make a rather strange example, but this is how I look at it. You're supporting the improvement of typewriters while we have computers. For me that's how it is.
And a last thing about the waste of those 3 energy sources mentioned on this page, think of what you want in your backyard, CO2 storage, nuclear storage or nothing ... :)

Looking at things the most simple way can often help to come to the right conclussion. But maybe the problem is not everyone want to or even can.
(edited)

I think that every discussion changes people's mind. It's just too difficult to predict how they will actually change and so usually it's not a good idea to have expectations before a discussion about how your or other people's mind will change. Expectations are actually what leads to not changing your mind ever and cherrypicking evidence.

It has been repeated here: 3rd options you advocate need to be researched and developed further until it can be seen how they can satisfy our energy needs in terms of quantity in the long-run.

It has been repeated here: 3rd options you advocate need to be researched and developed further until it can be seen how they can satisfy our energy needs in terms of quantity in the long-run.

Huh? How is that?
Everything we need to change this planet into a nuclear and fossil fuel free world is already researched. Wind, solar, hydro, geothermic, tidal power and so on. Everything works already. Like with any other technology this can certainly be improved. However, the possibilities are unquestionably there.

As Charles Hill already mentioned it is simply a political question.

Your right, I should have written, open minded in stead of the willing to change :)

Yes, nuclear technology is a source of clean electric power, because we had a few disasters along the story or you find it better to build a dam and destroy all that is around?

Look 7 posts up, this same page ............... ;)

EDIT: page 22 I mean :P
(edited)