How do you feel about the expansion of nuclear power as a zero CO2 emission energy alternative?

In general I am in favor of the newer Gen 3 and the future Gen 4 designs. Gen 1 and 2 now in the field are fossils. Yes, there is nuclear waste that we don’[t know how to handle yet and are currently burying. But….
I believe the human race will eventually skip over fission and go to fusion that, like the sun, will convert hydrogen to helium and produce tremendous quantities of energy. The temperatures are incredibly high so containment is still in the distant future. But, I have faith our children’s children will figure it out.
In 100 years, there will be fusion facilities operating and converting the nuclear waste made today into other elements that will be used to manufacture who know what. I cannot guess.
They will look back at our technology today and think it quaint – the way we look back at horse and buggy days and think of all the manure dropped by the horse and how it polluted the water in cities.

One thing is certain. It we stop funding these types of projects we will never become the utopian “Hydrogen society” and nuclear waste will continue to fester for tens of thousands of years.

Given that coal power stations release more radiation into the environment than nuclear power stations I’d rather live next to a nuclear power station.

I grew up near a nuclear power station (site of the worlds first nuclear disaster). Amusingly the area around it has a significantly lower death rate from cancer than any other area in the U.K.

I’m with @LuckyGuy, though the issue is probably moot for at least a decade. Past nuke disasters have rendered the financing for such projects pretty much impossible. Nobody wants to insure the things.

Not great. Theoretically, nuclear power is a great alternative to fossil fuels, but we still don’t deal with waste or disasters well. I’d rather see us expand research in different directions. That said, all of our current energy options represent trade-offs of some kind, so it’s all damned if you do, damned if you don’t territory..

I live in Northern California. It is a lousy idea, given the Fukushima disaster.

And the problem with the waste is the extraordinarily long time horizon. 100 years is one thing; 10,000 is more than just three orders of magnitude.

Coal needs to be retired. There is no question. I am in favour of nuclear power, but with some serious caveats. I don’t want to get into the science here, but if you want to meet me and a group of other science minded folks, I’ll be happy to talk about the whys and wherefores.

@zenvelo actually very (very) little of the radiation from Fukushima made it to California. Compared to to fossil fuels we deal with the waste and distasters very well.

And what do we do with the byproduct from Nuclear power plants, that seems to stay very deadly for like a 100 years or so?
While coal aint great I don’t think Nuclear is the answer either.

I live in an area that is still dealing with the fall out from Chernobyl. We are very aware of what can happen, but there is new technology that shouldn’t be tossed out becuase of past failures. I Read into thorium reactors or liquid sodium reactors. There has been incredible advances.

((while my English continues to erode… holy crap… I spent the day speaking Norwegian and now I can’t English.))

@Lightlyseared I know that there has not been demonstrable radiation in California from Fukushima, but California’s seismic history is just as problematic as Japan’s.

In this day and age why do the only options seem to be Nuclear or coal????
There are better cleaner options, oh yeah I forgot those cost money.
I must point out just another reason Mrs Squeeky and I chose not to have kids, what the hell are leaving for future generations?

I’m fine with nuclear (and live within a few miles of a nuclear reactor).

@cazzie your English is better than my Norwegian

Takk, Rarebear. Du er snill.

@cazzie בבקשה

The zero CO2 bit is fine but the 25,000 year half-life of nuclear waste concerns me. That is a long time to keep the stuff securely contained and if it starts leaking out and getting into the water table the results are catastrophic. We are told nuclear power is safe, and it is, until there is another accident and then it isn’t.

I heard today that the cost of the Fukushima disaster has been estimated at $600 billion and that includes dumping radioactive water into the ocean. Even normal decommissioning is very expensive and the UK government has badly underestimated the scale and the cost of decommissioning redundant nuclear sites.

There isn’t a good way to keep the lights burning in the future. I don’t like any of the alternatives because of the effects, not just on our generation, but the countless generations to come.

The thing is – nuclear waste is recyclable and can be used as fuel for reactors many times over.

I’m fine with it. I wouldn’t suggest putting one in downtown San Francisco. But this isn’t Europe. We have vast swathes of land that are for the most part barren, and seismically stable. Nobody is really going to miss North Dakota if things go horribly wrong.

The nasty isotopes decay quickly, like weeks. The ones that are not as bad a take long time. Green energy simply cannot supply the base load. It’s not matter of money, it’s physics and resources. Nuclear is the only place to go so there is that. New reactors are quite safe. Where I live coal based power is being dramatically reduced. It’s about 15% now. Combustion turbines that use natural gas (from fracking) replaces most. New reactors replace the rest. I do believe solar will someday power a good bit of residential. Small modular reactors are probably going to do the rest. Combustion turbines will go away once the modular nukes are common.
There was so much bullshit about Fukushima it’s legendary. Nuclear is not the monster people believe it to be.

Still what about the byproduct that remains deadly for hundreds of years what do you do about that^^^?????

Reprocess, store deep underground, use a little common sense. The long decay isotopes are not near as “deadly” as people think. I wish there was a better option and I have been hell bent against nuclear in the past but I bought into some of the BS. I ‘m more educated about it now. The elephant in the room is not something people want to hear. The problem is the demand for power. People want AC, hot showers and want to build cities in the middle of the fucking desert.

I don’t like it. I went to a lecture recently by a man, George Erickson, who just published a book about it. He was against nuclear power in the past, but after the research he did he has done a complete 180. He keeps asking green groups and organizations to let him give a lecture, but they won’t let him.

Here is a link to some of the information. Go down the page to January, and you’ll see his nuclear power info.

I think we need nuclear. We need every viable energy source that doesn’t pump carbon into the atmosphere.

Regarding the waste, the US has a waste storage facility ready at Yucca Mountain but it hasn’t been used for political reasons.

All for it. Mankind is going to hell in a hand basket, and doing so at a continually accelerating rate, so what harm could it do if harm it would do?

I think the eventual goal should be to replace both of them, and that coal should be replaced first.

While it is practical to keep operating fission plants, and perhaps build new and better ones, the eventual plan should be to replace them with sustainable clean technology that does not require long-term storage of dangerous nuclear waste, and which does not have a risk of large-scale accidents the way fission plants do.

If we manage to survive the impending environmental catastrophes from climate change, ocean acidification, non-human habitat destruction, and other byproducts of corporate profiteering and power-grabbing, long enough for fusion reactors, at some point there should be no reason to prefer fission to fusion.

Meanwhile, we should develop other sustainable clean non-dangerous energy technologies. The only reason to prefer fission to solar, wind, etc is lack of capacity versus demand.

The problem I have with almost all energy companies is that their greed prevents them from preparing for the worst case scenario. Then when it happens (no matter how unlikely) the world suffers the consequences.

I’d much rather a combination of clean power. Nuclear power plants are pretty safe. But I liken them to plane travel. Plane travel is by far safer than car travel. But if/when there is a problem, it’s catastrophic.

I’m not in favor of any nuclear power plants. I think the technology is too risky. At least for humanity, in it’s current form. Someone will cut corners to save money, or a terrorist will blow one up…

Every source of energy has its trade-offs. It’s delusional (or simply ignorant) to think that wind and solar farms large enough to fully meet our energy needs don’t come with their own ecological cost.

They do, though solar can be combined with things we already do, such as buildings, roads, and other paved places.

Fusion power should hopefully eventually provide power plants with no radioactive waste and no risk of catastrophe.

It’s not just foot print. That’s actually the easier part. The materials that make solar are another ignored factor with a large ecological cost. Manufacturing them uses multiple chemical processes and many different substances must be mined to make them. They are not easily recycled either. Before their cost came down I used to make my own. The ones I made have outlasted the commercial ones so manufacturers are not making them to last.

@rarebear – you already live near a refinery. There are alerts, etc. every now and then.

I agree, though: we both used to live downstream of a nuclear reactor (ocean currents run south from there to SD). 0 effects from that reactor. @LuckyGuy is right. The newer designs have more failsafes than the current (ancient) American reactors.

@RocketGuy Yes, I know I live by a refinery. I can smell it sometimes. I’d rather live by a nuclear power plant.

Good point about assessing the real cost of manufacturing for alternative power. The battery manufacture comes at a pretty high ecological cost.

@Darth_Algar . There are more alternative energy sources than solar, and wind…

There are many different designs for harnessing the power of the ocean’s movement/tides, that in theory can provide lots of sustainable energy, with little known environmental impact.

If I’m not mistaken, you live in Britain? I’ve read articles about panels on the street that move when vehicles run over them, creating enough energy to run nearby stop lights, and traffic signals.

If all alternative energy concepts are explored,and used in conjunction, a large portion of our energy needs can be met.

Ecological cost is vastly unknown, in regards to lots of this alternative energy technology. But I would wager that it couldn’t compare to what has happened, and isn’t yet fully understood, in Northern Japan. I read,just the other day, that waste from the tragedy has now been detected on the western shores of the US. Such damage is,for the most part, something that cannot be undone.

The BP oil spill, in the Gulf of Mexico, has been cleaned up as best as possible, but most opine that the effects will be felt for a long time.

The long term effects of just those two disasters are unknown. But most things I’ve read concede that the impacts will be felt badly, and for an unpredictable amount of time.

If we found out that wind farms were doing more than killing birds,we could simply disassemble them. The negative effects of oil,and nuclear disasters cannot be controlled. There are smaller chances for error now, but when an error occurrs, it causes incalculable damage to the already reeling environment.

Mankind is not responsible enough to wield the power of the atom. Nor is it wise to continue the large scale use of fossil fuels. The only thing stopping humanity from moving away/forward from such energy production, is greed…

@MrGrimm888 the tidal projects are more than theory. My son’s grandfather was involved in tidal project off Hammerfest, in the north of Norway. It was connected to the grid mid 2000’s. Tidal projects are great, but there are very limited places on the globe where it works. The Norwegians pioneered the technology, but have now sold off and lost control of the project, which is pretty sad after after 9 years of research and investment, but it’s being pursued now by a UK company. http://www.andritzhydrohammerfest.co.uk/

^I knew there were some prototypes, and yes, I am aware of some of the limitations. That’s why I mentioned using all of the alternative types of energy.

In a realistic, near future, we would still have to rely on some power from fossil fuels, or nuclear power. But the more we use alternative energy, the more it will develop, and the cheaper it will become.

Fracking is absolutely not the answer. I think most people agree on that, so I can’t figure out why it’s still happening.

^Money…

I can’t either. Gas turbines are replacing coal fired plants quickly because gas is sooo cheap right now. Once the price goes up or fracking is finally stopped the southeast US at the very least is going to be in a bit of a pickle. I’m not sure if this is happening in other regions.

Sweden makes a lot of energy by cleanly burning garbage. They’re even importing garbage from other countries to get more fuel.

Yep, @Zaku ! They have been burning garbage from Norway.

How is that different than burning coal?

@ARE_you_kidding_me Good question and the answer is complex. For starters, garbage does not require mining and burned garbage does not go in a landfill. However, it does release CO2, and while that CO2 would be released eventually if put in a landfill, it comes out years sooner if burned. Also, burning may influence manufacture and other human behavior so there is less recycling, and recycling results in overall less energy use and less pollution.

Here is one article that discusses the differences with coal, and pros and cons of burning garbage.

@ARE_you_kidding_me The system is very closed and doesn’t emit the shit that coal does. Did you know that coal emits mercury when burned? http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/brief_coal.html

Oh coal transportation is another issue. Here is another article going into problems with coal.

I work in the power industry and have been in it for 17 years. I know all about it. We actually burn landfill gas here. CO2 is the thing people are concerned with so garbage is not so clean either. Personally I like landfills simply because they leave the resources intact. We may need them someday, especially when recycling technology is much better.

As an aside, I do wonder what I’ve ever posted that suggests I’m in the UK.

^Something about the Irish, in a St. Patrick’s day thread…

That was about ancestry, not geographic location.

Ok. Well. I meant no offense…

Either way, the technology I mentioned dies exist. I was trying to think of something relevant, and close you could appreciate.

^^No offense? I’m just curious what you thought was possibly offensive?

^Some people are touchy about exactly where they live…

^^I thought maybe you thought saying someone is from the U.K. is offensive, and I couldn’t figure that out. I doubt Darth was offended, I felt like he was just correcting an innaccuracy, but I can’t speak for him.

^I believe you’re right. Just wanted to make sure…

No offense taken, I was just clarifying. S’all good.

^Cool…

I burn my paper trash, pizza boxes, chicken wing bones, used cooking oil, egg shells, etc. in my high efficiency, reburner type, wood burning stove. That monster eats anything flammable and puts out virtually no smoke.
Every BTU I extract from my trash, leaves that much oil in the ground.

I need a way to pipe the air intake under my living room couch so I can capture and burn any methane emissions I release while watching the news.

^^gives me an idea for fueling thermal underwear.

@LuckyGuy You just need to create sofa cushions that capture the methane emissions and then squeeze them into something, or make the whole cushion/methane a fuel source.

^ Then patent it. Methane is one of the worst greenhouse gases. And we have lots of cows, that fart a LOT…

Here is a backpack for cows: http://bigthink.com/design-for-good/this-is-how-you-turn-cow-fart-gas-into-energy