Seriously thoughtful Will more nuclear power plants be built?

[Dr. Drib]

The construction of nuclear power plants has virtually stopped, due to regulatory redtape, safety issues, and world economies.

In the UK, I read that their government is in favor of privately built plants, although it seems uncertain that any one group will engage in such an undertaking. Construction in the U.S. stalled in the 1970s.

One website concludes with this comment: "Some analysts argue that the stagnation of the nuclear-power industry should be attributed primarily to economics, rather than to political opposition." http://science.jrank.org/pages/4745/...-concerns.html

There are safety concerns, and there will always be safety concerns. The major accident in the U.S. - Three Mile Island - occurred in 1979. Perhaps the most famous accident was at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant near Kiev in the Ukraine, where the top of the containment building blew off. That was in 1986.

I'm just wondering if nuclear power is a feasible alternative anymore, considering cost, political opposition, and danger.


Don

[Nate the great]

I wish they would build more nuke plants. Even though it pollutes, it's the most cost effective long term power source.

[igorsk]

It's a pretty well-known that coal plants produce more radioactive pollution than nuclear ones.

[ahammer]

nuclear power if really very green power. given who is in power I don't think it will happen.

nuclear is still the best power we know of so far. and now that there are more safe guards. I think it is one of most safe form of power right now. (save attack on the power plant even then as I under sand it unlike to do much damage.).

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

The construction of nuclear power plants has virtually stopped, due to regulatory redtape, safety issues, and world economies.
[SNIP]
There are safety concerns, and there will always be safety concerns. The major accident in the U.S. - Three Mile Island - occurred in 1979. Perhaps the most famous accident was at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant near Kiev in the Ukraine, where the top of the containment building blew off. That was in 1986.

I'm just wondering if nuclear power is a feasible alternative anymore, considering cost, political opposition, and danger.

Don

Well -- in the U.S. the total radiation released at Three Mile Island (TMI) was negligible. If you'd camped at the downwind edge of the perimeter fence for the entire duration of the problem you'd have gotten less than one-half of a chest-xray in terms of dosage.

As for Chernobyl, it's completely incorrect to say that "the top of the containment building blew off." Soviet plants flat out didn't have a containment vessel in the sense that US plants do! What blew off was the top of the (completely ordinary) building housing the plant. There's a HUGE difference between those statements.

As for the danger, I observe that the death toll from nuclear power is a pittance compared to the death toll from coal. And that's assuming the most pessimistic estimates of long-term deaths from Chernobyl actually pan out.

Coal mining is dangerous, coal is very dirty, and the air pollution it produces is really nasty stuff. And that doesn't even consider CO2 emissions possibly contributing to global warming! I'll take nuclear in a heartbeat -- as long as the plants weren't designed or constructed in the Worker's Paradise, that is.

Xenophon

[Xenophon]

While I'm at it, note that nuclear waste should be a complete non-issue. Yucca mountain is a wasteful boondoggle. The French have developed a dandy technology for handling radioactive waste. The layman's description is this:

1. Grind up the waste into very fine particles.
2. Mix those particles into a large volume of leaded glass.
3. Cast that glass into a large billet -- about 1/2 the volume of a boxcar.
4. Embed that lead-glass (plus radioactive waste) billet inside another billet of leaded glass, winding up with a hunk of glass about the size of a large boxcar.

The resulting huge hunk of glass is stable as can be. Safe enough to bury in your back yard, or use as a foundation block for the local grade-school, or whatever. It's not a security risk -- stealing a hunk of glass the size of a box-car is a truly major undertaking. People would notice. It's nice and safe in terms of leaching of radioactives -- the cube-square law works nicely in your favor. The glass billets are stable for more than enough time to allow the radioactives to decay. The French nuclear agency sponsored a bunch of archaeological research to find the oldest glass samples in the world and studied their properties very carefully. They really nailed down the very long term properties of glass (extrapolating from a base-line of nearly 4K years with real samples)! And the lead in the glass blocks the radiation quite adequately in the mean time.

In addition to all those benefits, it also allows for recovery of the radioactive material (by reprocessing the glass billets) should it become sensible to do so. But that recovery would be extremely obvious, so it poses no significant security issue.

I have no clue why we're too dumb to use this solution here in the US. Perhaps there's too much political capital tied up in the current non-solution?

Xenophon

[Xenophon]

Why is the Soviet lack of containment vessels a big deal? The easy explanation is this: a Chernobyl style accident at a US plant (or a French plant, for that matter) would be terrifically expensive -- and would release no more radiation than TMI did. That's what that big-*ss reinforced concrete dome is for! The non-Soviet world has done a far far better job of safety than did the Soviets.

Xenophon

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

As for the danger, I observe that the death toll from nuclear power is a pittance compared to the death toll from coal.

yes but you can't possibly have a Chernobyl-type accident in a coal mine, ever...
(and I'm all for nuclear power plants)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Well -- in the U.S. the total radiation released at Three Mile Island (TMI) was negligible. If you'd camped at the downwind edge of the perimeter fence for the entire duration of the problem you'd have gotten less than one-half of a chest-xray in terms of dosage.

I worked as a physicist in the UK nuclear power industry for many years. Three Mile Island proved the fact that the designed-in safely systems WORKED. It should be held up as an example of the fact that, even when accidents happen, there is little or no danger to the public.

[Andybaby]

Im pro-nuclear from what i hear about the arguments, its Safe, Its cheap (i heard that is 6x cheaper than Wind and Solar on Bill Maher on friday) and it is Green.

why there are not solar cells on everything besides calculators yet i dont really understand. Its Expencive they cry... Im sure if factories are built for it, instead of tickle me elmos and Iphones, Solar will be cheap.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

In the UK, I read that their government is in favor of privately built plants, although it seems uncertain that any one group will engage in such an undertaking. Construction in the U.S. stalled in the 1970s.

Hi Don,

The next generation of UK nuclear plant will almost certainly be built by EDF (Electricity de France). France generates around 70% of its electricity from nuclear power (compared with around 20% in the UK), and EDF are the most experienced company in the world at constructing nuclear power stations.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Andybaby

why there are not solar cells on everything besides calculators yet i dont really understand. Its Expencive they cry... Im sure if factories are built for it, instead of tickle me elmos and Iphones, Solar will be cheap.

For one thing, the production of solar cells is not exactly an "environmentally friendly" process; they contain all sorts of highly toxic substances, like cadmium.

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by HarryT

France generates around 70% of its electricity from nuclear power

I think it's more like 85% ?

and EDF are the most experienced company in the world at constructing nuclear power stations.

Right; and AREVA is the foremost player in the spent nuclear fuel refining... which still needs lots of improvement.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by YGG-

I think it's more like 85% ?

Thanks - the figure's obviously gone up since I left the industry!

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by YGG-

yes but you can't possibly have a Chernobyl-type accident in a coal mine, ever...
(and I'm all for nuclear power plants)

There is a part of West Virginia that is on fire and will be on fire for about a century as the coal reserves under ground are burnt up. It is releasing CO2 as we speak. A fire started in a deep mine and got out of control. The mining company tried flooding the mine, but there were too many holes and not enough water. They finally decided to abandon themine and let it burn.