Use of nuclear power

[Siamese cat]

So, being that the thread "Radiation fallout update" did have a spark of an interesting discussion, but as I understood it was to be limited for those who are pro nuclear plants, I'm opening a thread that is supposed to facilitate that discussion further.

This thread is for everyone, those who are opposed to it and those who are for it. Though accidents are a major topic concerning this thread, this is not only for the discussion of events at Fukushima. Feel free to discuss what ever you see fit as long as it is tied to the use of nuclear power.

Only rules here are:
-be civil, though your opinion may have merit, others may not share it for various reasons
-while discussing try to use arguments instead of hollow like "nuclear power is good for use we should use it" or "nuclear power is bad for use, we should abolish it". I want more than just that, I want things you say to be expanded further and deeper.
-feel free to share useful articles and links about nuclear power from any standpoint, we might learn something from you

So, what do you see as pros and cons of using nuclear power?

 

[Neuropedia]

I think it is completely irresponsible to build a nuclear power plant on a fault line. Plus things were being overlooked at fukushima long before the disaster. IDK how I would feel if nuclear power became more popular. I don't think oil/gas is very safer either
I just don't know....
humans suck

 

[Galileo]

I agree with [MENTION=3501]Neuropedia[/MENTION]

I believe that with the only real alternatives to large power production being things like coal and oil that nuclear power is a safer and less harmful source of power, but to build it in an area where earth quakes and such are more likely to occur is incredibly irrisponsible.

I'd also like to see new international legislation drafted by the UN or something that forces governments to disclose any potentially dangerous situations to the rest of the world as soon as they occur. because these things have the potential to harm so many people it should just not be possible for a government to keep it to themselves until they have no option.

 

[bamf]

I don't accept or support the use of nuclear power. I think the "safety" issue is over-hyped, and that it only detracts from the ethics behind nuclear power and its use. I believe that we have the capabilities to control and use it, but I do not believe ability justifies the action. Because we can or because we "need" it is not proof to me. Nuclear power has the potential for destruction that is unnecessary and unneeded. I believe the danger from the recent nuclear power-plant damage is relatively minimum, and the hype that it's spreading across the ocean on winds and what not is exaggerated. At the same time, however, I do not believe nor will I accept people or life on earth to be exposed to a possible (and for those effected, very very real) danger. Such neglagence on our part is unwarranted.

I do not believe we "need" the power. If our energy consumption, as a human race, has grown to the point that we feel the need to harness such dangerous technology to run our refrigerators and entertainment centers at home, then the problem does not lay in where will we get more energy, but rather why we need to consume so much. We are at odds with nature, we have separated ourselves from it, and we are continuing to outgrow it. We've ceased to live collectively with life on this planet, and rather look at it as something to be conquered rather than to coexist with. The fact that we consider nuclear power a viable *edit* option (I had threat...which completely changes my meaning) is a warning in red letters to me that the problem exists not in our energy supply, but in our way of life. We need to scale back while finding safe, noninvasive alternatives that will allow us to return to a life that our planet, our nature, can support.

As Vonnegut said in a book that I doubt too many people read/finished, and not because I'm a hipster but because it honestly kinda sucked

"Just because some of us can read and write and do a little math, that doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the Universe."

 

[Galileo]

"Just because some of us can read and write and do a little math, that doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the Universe."

Hocus Pocus wasn't it?

meh it wasn't that bad, surely?

I just like him a lot so I read most everything he wrote though....

 

[Peppermint]

This is a good article to be read: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html

I'm not pro-nuclear power, but I don't think it's inherently evil either. However it's a power source that needs to be maintained very responsibly. We can't afford mistakes if we want to go down the road of using it.

As for my thoughts for the future, I'm for the exploitation of another source of radiation - Solar energy.

 

[myself]

This is a good article to be read: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html

I'm not pro-nuclear power, but I don't think it's inherently evil either. However it's a power source that needs to be maintained very responsibly. We can't afford mistakes if we want to go down the road of using it.

As for my thoughts for the future, I'm for the exploitation of another source of radiation - Solar energy.

I think your source may be a bit biased...

I agree that we can't afford to make mistakes with nuclear energy.

For this reason, we should avoid building nuclear facilities in Japan.

We need to keep these things away from tsunamis and fault lines.

Obviously....

It is obvious... is it not?

[MENTION=1009]bamf[/MENTION] I agree. Our 'need' for excess energy is artificial.
"We need to scale back while finding safe, noninvasive alternatives that will allow us to return to a life that our planet, our nature, can support."

I'm all for candle power.
Building energy efficient homes is smart too.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

Thanks to Siamese Cat for starting this thread and laying some ground rules.

Though I do find nuclear power preferable to power from coal and other fossil fuels, one concern that I do have is with spent fuel. Some of it can be used, but for the most part all we can do for now is bury it.

 

[Siamese cat]

When it comes to use of nuclear energy I'm leaning more to the pro side, though in discussions I almost always sound like I'm for it because I don't know many people who will stand that side, and I don't like hearing people bash something that they don't know enough about, especially after the recent events.

[MENTION=2434]Sloe Djinn[/MENTION] You are welcome. I appreciate that you brought up the subject of disposing spent fuel. It certainly is a problem.

[MENTION=751]Peppermint[/MENTION] Solar energy would be a good source, but maybe for individual users only and for covering only part of their needs, and even then it would be a challenge in areas where weather is harsh and cold. It is an interesting type of energy, my dad and I are currently exploring ways to use it for my parents house.

I think that ideal solution would be use of combined energy sources tailored for specific needs and properties of a certain place. Creative people throughout the world made some very interesting solutions for their own homes, it would be interesting to explore if some of those solutions could be used on a larger scale.


Questions for all:
How much are you informed about the use of nuclear power, not only as an energy source?
Do you know of some incidents involving it that had nothing to do nuclear plants and accidents in them?
How much do you think one should be informed about properties of nuclear power before taking a stance in discussion of it's usage?

 

[IndigoSensor]

I support nuclear power. I feel like we don't understand the properties of how the systems must be contained, crosschecked, etc. before we can implement. I'm more concerned with the nucelear waste then I am with disasters believe it or not. Until we find a way to properly destroy, or remove nucelear waste properly, we shouldn't implement it on the large scale. The thing is though, saftey is always going to be a concern. Acidents can and do happen. There is no avoiding it. If we can mitigate this, then I think it is an absolutely amazing form of technology. In the mean time, more effort should be placed into finding ways to contain the material. It can be done, and the recent japan events hopefully will spearhead that effort.

The fact of the matter is, we need to avoid emission type fuels (coal, gas, etc). We have the tech to get away from it. In a pinch, I think this is the way to go.

 

[Siamese cat]

I support nuclear power. I feel like we don't understand the properties of how the systems must be contained, crosschecked, etc. before we can implement. I'm more concerned with the nucelear waste then I am with disasters believe it or not. Until we find a way to properly destroy, or remove nucelear waste properly, we shouldn't implement it on the large scale. The thing is though, saftey is always going to be a concern. Acidents can and do happen. There is no avoiding it. If we can mitigate this, then I think it is an absolutely amazing form of technology. In the mean time, more effort should be
The fact of the matter is, we need to avoid emission type fuels (coal, gas, etc). We have the tech to get away from it. In a pinch, I think this is the way to go.

Just the point I wanted to make. I believe that people are not informed enough, or are misinformed, about accidents in general (not just those involving nuclear plants) and that a lot of confusion and panic spreading actions stems from that.
I agree about the emission fuels. I like the measures taken to control emission, but it would be great if we could avoid use of this fuels at all some day.

 

[myself]

carbon emissions really are bearable...
better to burn coal than to have radioactive waste polluting our ground water IMO

i think we should seriously consider what we are doing with nuclear plants...
we are boiling water

it's not the smartest way to create electricity when you stop to consider the harm done to the planet

why would anyone support this anymore?

why would anyone support the construction of these plants along active fault lines?

why support an industry that builds these things right next to the ocean?

we used to think nuclear power was fancy, clean, efficient, the smart choice...
we were duped

these facilities are not safe
not good for us

einstein warned us about these things

i can only stress the importance of preserving the environment
we only get this one planet, for the time being
it'd serve us well to treat the place with some respect

i wish we could really get a movement going to shut these awful things down.
or at least convert them to natural gas plants...which is easily done, so i hear

fukushima is STILL leaking radioactive waste into the atmosphere
they are flushing polluted water into the pacific...
and one of the buildings is visibly leaning...
japan continues to have quakes...

our media isn't reporting this stuff

i just hate seeing this happen
it seems as if we are doomed to experience the same fate as japan unless we shut em down

sadly, there doesnt seem to be a whole lot of public support for making the tough decisions

like i say... the media doesn't report this stuff

and we get bombarded with 'global warming' concerns
so people are trained to hate coal

i used to think nuke power was fine... as long as it was properly handled

thats the thing....
we really are NOT responsible enough to handle such toxic technology

i just don't see a reasonable argument to support nuclear plants anymore

check out the RT. seems to be the ONLY media source still covering this thing...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxbm7iJTT8U"]YouTube - Nuclear collapse looms? Fukushima No. 4 reactor 'leaning'[/ame]

 

[Skathac]

I can't with good conscience back any energy source that causes rampant destruction of our natural resources. I feel that more advancements in renewable energy sources is the way to go. Coal by the way is the nastiest damn business I've ever observed, if you want to see what raping the land really means then I invite you to walk around a strip mine before and after its a strip mine. I'm not saying Nuclear Power is a bed of flowers I want to go wallerin round in on a sunny day, but I hate me some coal.

 

[Siamese cat]

@myself

Actually there are many reasons why burning coal is not a good thing:

- it's not a renewable source of energy

- the pollution from coal burning plants needs to be tightly regulated (the problem is that not all types of coal burn the same nor do they have the same properties which is the reason why combustion of coal is not always easy to regulate if you want to reduce the pollution), and the reality is that in most countries it is not regulated at all or is regulated very poorly. One of the reasons for this is that measuring devices used to measure certain products of combustion can be placed on different sites, and this in turn dictates how often you'll have to replace certain parts of it, which is not always easy and brings big costs. If you place it near the site of combustion, you get relatively clear picture of the combustion by-products, but the probe gets damaged very quickly. If you place it somewhere further down the line you don't get as clear information on by-products, and some other devices might blurry the results also. And this is just one aspect why it's not so simple.

- When you use coal, the whole process is compromised by coal dust. There is no way you can prevent it from getting into devices, no matter how tightly you seal them. Coal dust is detrimental for electronic devices. This means special safety protocols and precautions.

- Burning coal gives more than just carbon emissions. From some types of coal you have very high concentrations of sulphur emissions in various forms. Many coal burning plants don't have devices that monitor, let alone regulate these emissions.

- People who work with coal are subjected to many health risks because they inhale coal dust. I spent some time in a coal burning plant. I was wearing black clothes, so it was not obvious at first, but when I got home and took it off, my skin was fully cowered with fine particles of coal dust. Just think how many I inhaled during that time. Then think about people living near by and those who work in that plants who inhale that everyday.

- And even if you find a way to minimise pollution and health risks in the plants, you are still left with those involved with coal mining and transporting.

There are similar concerns when mazut or natural gas are used as a combustible.

For further reading I suggest this, though I'm not the biggest fan of anything found on wikipedia and always take it with the grain of salt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal

And I didn't even touched the question of global worming, and I won't. I'm not saying that nuclear power is nice and safe, but because of the risks involved with it's use it is usually more tightly regulated than some other types of energy production. And even then you'll have accidents. With the use of nuclear power you'll have some risks concerning the waste disposal, and virtually none other when the plant is working fine. With the use of coal you have health risks the whole time even when the process is stable, and you have health risks when it becomes unstable, like in the case of a plant accident.

Also, in my opinion people will never be responsible enough for whatever technology. It is estimated that around 95% of accidents in industry is the product of a human error. But it won't stop people from trying to do better, more, go further. Hopefully people will learn from every accident, and not make the same mistakes again.

Also, I suggest reading about background radiation and the causes of it, one being the coal-fired plants (again from wikipedia, but if you are interested I could try find some better sources) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Edit: Things get more complicated in places where winters are cold. Use of coal in individual households brings significant amount of pollution, mostly because it's unregulated. If you add this to the pollution already created by coal burning power plants, you get some serious health risks. Some countries are regulating this, and have district heating, but even then you have significant risks. The good option is combined heat and power production with natural gas as combustible, but not all countries have the resources and regulations needed to make this happen, and again natural gas is not a renewable source.

 

[myself]

i just spent a good 30 minutes typing up a response
instead of posting it, i'm gonna save it for later

basically, my stream of consciousness writing took me to a place i did not expect to go

i feel at this point it might be irresponsible of me to open up this discussion any further

without saying too much, i get the sense that people don't want to really acknowledge the reality of these times

perhaps i'll save my deeper thoughts for another thread

humanity will suffer the consequences for its choices
destruction to the earth will bring destruction back to us
there is no getting around this simple fact

 

[Sloe Djinn]

i just spent a good 30 minutes typing up a response
instead of posting it, i'm gonna save it for later

basically, my stream of consciousness writing took me to a place i did not expect to go

i feel at this point it might be irresponsible of me to open up this discussion any further

without saying too much, i get the sense that people don't want to really acknowledge the reality of these times

perhaps i'll save my deeper thoughts for another thread

humanity will suffer the consequences for its choices
destruction to the earth will bring destruction back to us
there is no getting around this simple fact

Nah, it's just that coal is not a better alternative to nuclear energy. The medical conditions caused by mining and handling it kill hundreds of people each year.

Here's an npr article about coal: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126021059

More Deaths From Black Lung Than Mine Accidents

With less people working the mines, the overall deaths from black lung have declined, even as the percentage of workers with black lung has increased.

Source: NIOSH 2007 report for CDC
Credit: Stephanie d'Otreppe/NPR

 

[myself]

well... nuclear fallout lasts for a really long time ya know

if people die while mining... that is their own decision

if an earthquake destroys a nuclear facility
many generations will suffer the consequences

clinging to nuclear tech is evidence of a dependency of some sort

 

[bamf]

well... nuclear fallout lasts for a really long time ya know

Agreed, but I don't think he's arguing against that. I think he's saying that coal isn't a safe alternative to nuclear because it's still very destructive, and that a better, safer, and cleaner alternative needs to be utilized.

 

[Siamese cat]

well... nuclear fallout lasts for a really long time ya know

if people die while mining... that is their own decision

if an earthquake destroys a nuclear facility
many generations will suffer the consequences

clinging to nuclear tech is evidence of a dependency of some sort

And back-ground radiation that you get from coal-firing plants is also something that will last a long time, because of a long half life of uranium, which is one of the elements causing high background radiation in poorly regulated coal-firing plants.

I'm just curious, would you then prohibit use of nuclear elements in medicine?

 

[Sloe Djinn]

well... nuclear fallout lasts for a really long time ya know

if people die while mining... that is their own decision

if an earthquake destroys a nuclear facility
many generations will suffer the consequences

I'm just making the point that you're assuming that coal is less dangerous. You say that if people die while mining, it's their decision, but you suggest coal mining as an alternative. If you were to actually push for this in real life, then you would have some of that blood on your hands, like it or not. Coal guarantees hundreds of deaths annually by black lung alone. That doesn't even delve into the environmental impact or the deaths by mining accidents.