Debate: Is Nuclear Energy Worth the Risks?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Frank on September 9, 2011 at 11:04am

I was in the nuclear power program in the US Navy. Plants in US are required to be safer than the rest of the world (type of reactor, containment, coolant). A Chernobyl situation is very, very unlikely here (I say impossible). Military run reactors are extremely safe and give less rad exposure on a ship than you get from background radon on land. However, when reactors are run for profit by power companies things get a little....um... sketchy. Corner-cutting on expense, sloppy adherence to protocol, etc. While in the USN I read a lot of Nuke incident reports. A reactor plant about fifty miles from my house once ran at 100% power for a full year with no primary alarm system. Any nuke student should have known what was happening at Three Mile Island within minutes, but the techs didn't trust the readings and let it get out of control. 

There is also the little problem of spent fuel cell disposal. Some is being used to make DU artillery, which should be banned by NATO, but the rest gets buried. Half-life is thousands of years. 

 

If done correctly, it can be a safe, reliable source of energy. It is NOT inexpensive, but it is viable.

 

I personally feel it's time to start funding greener things like solar farms. 

I am not opposed to nukes. If something has to be 'burned' nuclear power probably has the least environmental impact of all available types.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on September 9, 2011 at 11:08am

Thanks for the input!  Glad to know we have high standards in at least one area.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pat on September 9, 2011 at 12:24pm

I'm not so sure I agree with Eric on this one.  While I don't dispute that government run reactors are safer than ones operated by private companies, (my experience in the military was limited to making the mushroom cloud version of a fission reaction), I don't think we're likely to see any rush on implementing more safety regulations or controls over the industry in the current political climate.  I do think if handled properly and with very strict safety controls, it is a reasonable alternative to fossil fuels.  The problem is, the lack of controls and oversight.  Just take a look at the plutonium waste that was found around the site at the nuclear fuel processing facility in Mayfield, KY.  Or, the release of large doses of tritium into the drinking water at the power plants near Joliet, IL.  More and stricter regulation is what is needed, but without it (which I don't foresee happening anytime soon), I'd say, hold off on it.

Greener solar farms, wind power, clean coal technology, and natural gas, in combination with each other, would be great. But even here (gas and coal) clean air standards and extraction without major damage to the environment and resources are needed.  Once again, I'm not holding my breath waiting for Boehner and Cantor to get these passed in Congress.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on September 9, 2011 at 12:33pm

I just read about a power outage that was caused by a single person.  Scary!  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/09/09/2011-09-09_sing...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spitter on September 9, 2011 at 1:03pm

I think we should start investing in nuclear energy.  Most people have a jaded view on the risks involved, and are scared of a Chernobyl.  Well, the Chernobyl thing would not happen considering no U.S. nuclear power plant would ever be built like the one in the Soviet Union.  Another concern I've heard is the radiation risk to people.  Well, you get the same amount of radiation per year that you would get from eating a banana.  Nuclear energy is as safe as any other form of energy we use.  No one has died in 50 years of commercial US use.  And as far as waste control, all of the nuclear fuel ever created would fit inside a football field, and only go about 10 yards deep.  This is minute in comparison to the waste products generated by other means.  I think people hold on to unsubstantiated fears that were instilled in them by propaganda techniques.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on September 9, 2011 at 1:33pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spitter on September 10, 2011 at 4:58am

Maybe a potato would be better.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by annet on September 9, 2011 at 11:53pm

My main complaint is that nuclear energy comes from uranium, a nonrenewable resource that must be mined and the waste must be stored underground forever and a day.

How are these nuke proponents any different than the oil barons of yore?

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on September 10, 2011 at 8:39am

I think they got to this in the Q&A, which aren't embedded above, but which are on the playlist on YouTube.  Most uranium today does not come from mining, but from decommissioned nuclear weapons from around the world.  Swords to plowshares, that sort of thing.  Also, the waste can be recycled (since they contain something like 85% power still), we just don't yet because of costs.  So in the future we're probably going to dig all that up and reuse it, and then when it's really waste forever, it will be far less potent.  But hopefully by the time our technology is that good, we'll be well on our way to better forms of energy anyway.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by annet on September 10, 2011 at 10:29am

I see your points. I can get on board with the megatons to megawats program but that is going to end in 2013 and (according to wikipedia) is good for 2 years worth of global demand.  We have to develop new technology to deal with the waste, we could use those resources developing cleaner stuff. France has had a good nuke run.  But Germany and Japan are ditching it. I agree with the MIT scientist club USC ( admittedly lefty & pro-environment) which says, fine if you make it safer first.  It seems like we are careening down a hill and have to invent and implement the brakes on the way down.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grinning Cat on March 16, 2012 at 1:36pm

This brings to mind "The Lessons of Fukushima" (Alexander Cockburn, The Nation, March 26, 2012):

... no matter how obviously appalling the catastrophe, the nuclear industry will insist on the safety of nuclear power. This chorus has been uninterrupted since the 1950s, when it urged that building materials be impregnated with uranium to make snow removal unnecessary.

(Photomanipulation by Grinning Cat, based on a photo by Michael Canton. (CC) Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic Licence. Some rights reserved.)

Would they really have wanted their kids to live in such houses?

 

Also:

At the moment, only two our of fifty-four reactors in Japan are operating. There have been no blackouts because of power shortage.

And he quotes the antinuclear coalition All Japan 3/11 Action Committee:

We cannot afford to miss this opportunity.... If we managed to realize zero nuclear power in Japan now, it will certainly speed up the process of putting an end to nuclear power not only in Japan but also the world.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on September 10, 2011 at 9:06am

I donno.  Ask the Russians and the Japanese.  Unlike God, science is an equal opportunity double-edged sword.  Einstein died a skeptic, skeptical mainly about mankind's ability to use science wisely and with discrimination.  Only time will tell if he was right in so believing.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page