Heeeeey. I like you. We disagree but you bring it with knowledge. I like that.
First, before I get too far into a reply, let me say that I was only referring to nuclear as energy option within U.S. borders where these vehicles are being sold. I have no interest in discussing energy problems on a global level or debating the politics of other countries going nuclear. With that out of the way, let's work our way through this...
GoUNCA wrote:I guess to answer your question I have to say both and then some (more than you want, I'm sure). Chernobyl is a huge black eye on the nuclear power industry, but a poorly ran Soviet power station probably isn't the best example. It does serve as a worst case scenario. Three Mile Island would be a better example. Chernobyl is a good example for what can happen when nuclear energy is ramped up across the globe in countries with low regulations.
Chernobyl is a great example of what running a VERY poorly designed reactor primarily for enrichment purposes without a containment unit will get you. That's about it. Cherynobyl was the perfect storm and if anyone ever even proposed bringing an RBMK reactor online, they should be shot immediately. There are a few the remain in operation today and they need to be closed NOW.
Three Mile Island is not an issue in my mind. "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year." (According to Wikipedia) The hype about TMI was much greater than the actual damage done. Even with multiple mistakes, the safety features worked. We're talking about another obsolete design. Neither TMI or Cherynobl could happen in a modern reactor design.
GoUNCA wrote:High level nuclear waste is not easily disposed of as well. Because of a long half life we are talking tens of thousands of years that the waste has to be safely stored. "Safely" is supposed to encompass environmental, epidemiological, and national security risks. You can't give me an example of a civilization under a continuous government for the last 10,000 years can you? If you could, that probably still wouldn't be long enough. The pro is that 20 metric tons of high level waste a year per facility doesn't sound like much, but then again we don't have a whole lot of facilities now. This doesn't even go into low level nuclear waste which is also produced.
Why store waste? If technology stays on pace we'll have a space elevator by the time we get through the approval processes for new reactors. We can haul the waste up and fire it off toward the sun or the depths of space. There are alternatives to stuffing the Earth with it and I'm confident one of them will emerge as a viable alternative to long-term storage. Storage aside, breeder reactors provide a much better nuclear energy model than current designs. The produce their own fuel and generate much less waste and there's no reason we shouldn't be exploring the deployment of them.
GoUNCA wrote:It takes 20-30 years to get approval for a new plant or something like that. I imagine other technologies will catch up in the next 50 years, so you really wouldn't be getting a whole lot for the effort.
I can't think of a single competing energy technology that's on a pace anywhere near the level that it would take to catch nuclear energy production capabilities within 50 years. Especially not a clean one. Please fill me in, though. If it's out there I definitely want to know about it.
GoUNCA wrote:The technology as is just isn't a panacea for anyone's energy problems.
If by "as is" you're referring to the reactors currently online in the U.S., then yes, I'd agree. However, our reactors are ancient compared to current designs. Modern reactor designs overcome so many of the limitations of the 70's and 80's-era nuclear plants. We're just irrationally scared of them. Nuclear has a boogie man factor thanks to enviro-nuts and it really bothers me. This may be the only time you hear me say this, but I think France got it right. About 90% of their electrical production is from nuclear sources and they export about 18% of their electrical output to other nations. Their emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide have been reduced by 70% over 20 years and they've tripled their output in that same time period. They manage to store their high and medium-level waste just fine, with no problems. If we adopted their production model with newer reactor designs, we'd be in much better shape than we are now.
However, with the Obama administration saying Yucca Mountain is out for storage in the U.S., we're headed in the wrong direction. I think the coal and oil lobbies are also a force to be reckoned with in this country. Oh well. I'm pro-Nuke guy and I always will be.
- By LU Armchair coach
- By thecomeback