Nuclear Power

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Captain_Crunch, Aug 1, 2002.

  1. Captain_Crunch Club Ninja Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,186
    An old topic and has probally been done many times but i would like to know of your opinions on it.
    Nuclear power provides cheap energy but can have very dangerous consequences. Do you think its morally correct to have such plants in this day and age where there are safer alternatives and do you think the benefits out weigh the drawbacks?
    your views please

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Riomacleod Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    301
    What are the "safer" alternatives?

    Oil and coal both release C02, which according to some reports is killing us.

    Natural gas is cleaner, but much more expensive and still emits CO2.

    Geothermal is unrealistic at best.
    Water Turbine is good, but people don't want to harm local river ecosystems.
    Wind? Solar? Not this decade...

    Nuclear power plants are working perfectly fine every day. I don't have the exact numbers, but when they are regulated and inspected regularly, then you do not have the same massive problems that Chernobyl and 3 Mile island has. Granted, Nuclear waste is a problem, but we may find a use for all of that crap. Hell, we might even be able to just shoot it all into space, and let the universe deal with it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. overdoze human Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    310
    Speaking of expenses, a major reason why nuclear power is so cheap as to be competitive with other forms of generation: massive subsidies with taxpayer dollars. Subsidies in all imaginable forms from insurance to inspections, from security to waste disposal, from ore mining and transportation to massive tax dollar investments to build the beasts in the first place.

    In and of itself, nuclear power is not economical.

    As for solar-electric, all we have to do is mass-produce solar panels to lower cost and install them on the roof of every house in the country. This would probably give us enough excess capacity (especially during daytime when everyone's out at work anyway) that we could shut down many of our nuclear plants. If we're going to subsidise something, then this is what we should be subsidising. Then all you have to do is install some relatively cheap near-term energy accumulators on the grid such as flywheels or reversible fuel cells, and you can regulate the solar energy and make its output continuously available regardless of weather conditions or time of day. Meanwhile, solar panel efficiencies are continually improving; now around 30% (with state-of-the-art approaching 40%.) There is a way; all we need is will.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Riomacleod Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    301
    I don't think you're going to get people to do that, though, Overdoze, unless you provide a serious benefit of some sort, people are not going to just allow the US to install solar panels on their roofs, and I doubt everyone could afford it if they had the option to pay money to install them.

    I didn't make a claim that nuclear energy is cheap, because I just don't have the numbers in front of me to make a claim either way. I do know, though, that most power plants are working perfectly fine. Meltdowns are very very rare, leaks happen less often than oil spills (a relatively rare occurance in and of themselves) and we have plenty of Uranium to feul it at least until we finally get fusion working the way we want it to.
     
  8. fadingCaptain are you a robot? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    I dunno Rioma. Nuclear power is inherently a dangerous and volatile way of producing energy. Obviously, we need an alternative to fossil fuels...but I think a safer alternative needs to be seriously considered. I agree with Overdoze in giving solar power more attention. I also read somewhere that someone has figured out a way of harnessing the energy of ocean waves. I dunno, I need to read up on the topic but I do not think nuclear power is the answer.
     
  9. Riomacleod Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    301
    But is it any more dangerous than any other energy source which we use right now? If properly maintained and supervised, nuclear power can be made significantly safer. I'm not going to deny that it's not dangerous, but with the proper effort, we can significantly reduce the risks to a level where other plants are at.
     
  10. Joeman Eviiiiiiiil Clown Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    From what I have read before, nuclear power is not cheap at all. It is cheap once you get it to setup, but the setup cost is very high. The nuclear waste also cost a lot of money to process. There isn't any good ways to deal with them without harming the environment unless you send them to outer space. Danger really isn't an issue.
     
  11. fadingCaptain are you a robot? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    Well, when I am thinking dangerous I do not think of a meltdown scenarios. I am thinking more like truck bombs, stealing of radioactive material, radioactive waste (sending it into space could pose some problems - what the rocket explodes before it gets into space?), etc.

    Maybe we can reduce the risks to current fossil fuel levels, but its a gamble. Why not invest money and time into something fundamentally safer? Do you think we do not have enough time to development other methods of energy production?

    Some info on ocean power:
    http://www.eren.doe.gov/RE/ocean.html
     
  12. Joeman Eviiiiiiiil Clown Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    Our future source of energy should be fuel cell and solar panel. Actually nano-fabricated solar cells have effeciency close to 95%
     
  13. Captain_Crunch Club Ninja Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,186
    wave power has been developed and is still in its developing stage: they are installing massive wave generators on Jura off scotland where they get alot of waves. Everyone has overlooked hydroelectric power, maybe not an alternative in every country but could be a solution to other places.
     
  14. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Nuclear energy averages 0.4 cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents.

    In mid 2000, the approx. US $ cost to get 1 kg of UO2 reactor fuel:

    U3O8 : 8 kg x $25 = $200
    conversion: 7 kg U x $5.5 = $38
    enrichment: 4.3 SWU x $105 =$ 452
    fuel fabrication: per kg =$ 240
    total, approx: US$ 930

    This yields 3400 GJ thermal which gives 315,000 kWh, hence fuel cost: 0.30 cents/kWh.

    If you can find any other cheaper source, I will buy 2 Gigawatt-hours and sell it to public and make tons of money.

    Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. It is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradeable commodity.

    The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect. For instance, a doubling of the 2002 U3O8 price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 30% and the electricity cost about 7% (whereas doubling the gas price would add 70% to the price of electricity).

    Solar energy radiation in my area is 5 KWH per square meter per day that includes photonic energy and heat energy. Assuming, I can convert 100% to electricity, I need 20 square meters of area to meet my energy needs.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2002
  15. postoak Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    281
    Random thoughts with no particular point being made:

    1) Our nuclear plants are built using 1960s designs. If built today the risk of a melt-down would be non-existent.

    2) The threat of terrorism makes nuclear not very attractive

    3) Everybody talks about nuclear waste, but isn't all that uranium scattered around the earth more potentially dangerous than concentrating and storing it?

    4) What about wind-power?

    5) The figure of 20 square meters quoted above for solar power doesn't sound like very much to me -- that's 3 meters by 7 meters -- or did the writer mean 20 meters square, i.e., 20 x 20 meters.
     
  16. overdoze human Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    310
    kmguru,

    If nuclear plants are so economical, then we must stop subsidising them and their waste disposal problems. Make them pay for Yacca Mountain, and all the other things.

    As if fossil or nonrenewable fuels are our only option. Waves/tidal (these are of course only applicable along coasts), wind (good for off-shore as well as mountainous regions), solar (best in dry climates far inland), geothermal (any volcanically active region), hydroelectric (any place with rivers), temperature differential (any place with deep water). Just the viable alternatives I'm aware of. Note that for hydroelectric power we don't necessarily have to dam the rivers. We can have much greener and smaller facilities dotting the river banks and taking advantage of the river's intrinsic current. That's how water mills used to operate. Granted, the efficiency would be pretty low. But there'd be a virtually 0 environmental impact. Windmills take smaller footprint, become more efficient, and less of a hazard for birds when they are scaled up in size. 1-Megawatt peak single turbines are currently in operation.

    5 KWH per day?? Where do you live, North Pole? Or in a cave? Last I heard, average daylight power from the sun at 40 degree latitude is 5 KWH per hour. If your typical day consists of 6 hours of sunlight, then for each square meter you can collect 30 KWH. Assuming efficiency of, say 20% you'd be getting 6 KWH per square meter per day. Typical roof area is 10mx10m, giving 100 m<sup>2</sup>. That means if your whole roof was covered with solar shingles you'd get 600 KWH each day. You'd have plenty of energy left over to sell back into the grid!

    The main issue is price of solar cells, which needs to be reduced dramatically. If our government had the inclination or the balls, they might have spent an extra 50 billion a year on an accelerated solar cell R&D program than as a boost to the Pentagon budget. Arguably, energy self-sufficiency and high environmental standards are just as important to national security (if not far more so) than maintaining and even enhancing the most expensive and most powerful military machine in the world. Plus, once such technology is developed imagine the worldwide export potential under patent protections!

    As for convincing people to install solar cells on their roofs, there are plenty of ways. We could change building codes to requie all future builders to configure houses with solar cells preinstalled. We could offer people sizeable tax breaks. There is also the incentive that people would be able to sell excess power back to the grid, actually generating a monthly supplemental income and paying back some of the cost of solar cells over time. Of course, first we must work intensively to develop cheap and mass-producible solar cells for the masses. If I were the President, this would be at the top of my energy agenda.
     
  17. Emfuser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    90
    Wow... just noticed this thread.

    I'm too tired now to write up an appropriate response, but I'll be in later to put in my $0.02.

    I'm fairly sure I know what I'm talking about, too.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Solar energy data from:

    http://www.solar4power.com/solar-power-insolation-window.html

    The reason nuclear power plants are so expensive here in US is due to unnecessary regulations in the areas that have nothing to do with nuclear. Such as nuclear grade pencils and toilet seats. I am not kidding.

    If a 1200 MW coal fired plant costs $1.5 Billion, the same size nuclear will cost $6 Billion in US. It should not cost more than $3 billion including the waste management system. In China they do it cheaper because they strip out handouts and unnecessary regulations.

    The nuclear design in US is seventies not sixties including the automated control system. They are slowly changing the control system but have a long way to go. I would prefer they hire graduate nuclear engineers as operators rather than high school rednecks.

    There are newr technology such as tiny pallet based Uranium and breeder reactors that could improve safety a lot. I have designed control systems for nuclear reactors in the past.

    Bottomline:

    Nuclear power plant is safe and can be run for many years with proper improvements

    I prefer going after fusion technology...

    Terrorism is not really an issue contrary to the present histeria.

    For some reason, people are willing to put their life shavings to make a fast buck in the dotcom companies and losing it - yet no one wants to invest in fuel cell, continuous solar cell processing, solar cell units, timed charging systems, wind generator kits, Thermal differential heat exchangers etc....
     
  19. ssivakami Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    58
    Virtually every scientific and technological breakthrough has been ethically ambiguous. Cant fire be misused ? Cant the wheel be misused ?
    The trick is to try and minimise the chances of exploitation of the technology.

    I am not sure about the safer alternatives ... do they also produce a comparable amount of energy ? I doubt it.

    - Sivakami.
     
  20. Captain_Crunch Club Ninja Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,186
    the safer alternatives are safer

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    aw naw, head for the hills!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. ssivakami Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    58
    Going by that logic you should never drive cars or fly in airplanes or use electricity .....

    Its always a trade-off between safety and efficiency/comfort.

    - S.
     
  22. Captain_Crunch Club Ninja Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,186
    i dont....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    i'm not taking part in this conversation, i am wanting to see peoples opinions on the subject. All the examples you have gave if an accident occurs only a small number of people will be killed and there is no lasting effect on the surrounding area if i were to be killed by an electric shock for example. If a nuclear reactor goes into melt down, well, use your imagination.
     
  23. postoak Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    281
    Well, I understand that nuclear power plants could now be built that wouldn't melt down in hours if something went wrong. Instead the timeline would be months. So, I think that should remove that fear.

    kmguru - you said terrorism isn't a threat and left it at that. WHY isn't it a threat? It seems like a big threat to me!

    Doesn't anyone here know anything about the economics of wind-power? I was in Germany recently and was told their wind-mills currently produce 1% of Germany's electricity. There is easily enough room over there for 100 times as many wind-mills as there are right now. Why aren't they building them like crazy?
     

Share This Page