Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

THey have already started construction of type III breeder reactors which will reduce the amount of waste further.

What kind of abomination are they breeding in nuclear reactors?!?!?!

youbedead wrote:You keep saying nuclear is is dangerous, exensive, prone to risks etc. however all forms of power are more expensive, dirtier and more hazardous then nulcear. However your using a flawed metric, you need to look at cost per kWh. If you do do then you find that nuclear is one of the cleanest sources available.

First off, I am not only talking about CO2 when I talk of environmental pollution, but rather the effects of radioactive isotopes in ground water as they have been discovered as side-effects of nuclear fuel mining/processing as well as disposal. Either the technology simply isn't safe enough to prevent this, or the companies are not investing enough money because they're greedy. It's probably mostly the latter, but the end result is the same.

youbedead wrote:

And the article you pulled this image from comments this image with:
Another report - Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia - conducted by the University of Sydney in 2008 produced the following results: nuclear = 60-65 g CO2/kWh; wind power = 20 g/kWh; solar PV = 106 g/kWh. The likely range of values from this study produced the following results: nuclear = 10-130 g CO2/kWh; wind power = 13-40 g CO2/kWh; solar PV = 53-217 g CO2/kWh. Furthemore, the study criticised the Vattenfall report : "it omits the energy and greenhouse gas impacts of many upstream contributions".

It's an old trick by the nuclear industry, conveniently "forgetting" about the mining and processing and only giving numbers for plant operations. This goes both for cost as well as for pollution.
It is also worth noting that Vattenfall is a nuclear power corporation, so probably not entirely unbiased in that matter.

Also, see this table here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions#2008_Sovacool_survey

youbedead wrote:Further more if we look at cost from a country that get 75% of its power then we find that nuclear is surpassed only by hydroelectric.
Hydro power 20
Nuclear 50
Natural gas turbines without CO2 capture 61
Onshore wind 69
Solar farms 293
Numbers are Euros per mWh.

Yes, the nuclear corporations can afford dumping prices because unlike all the other businesses they are not required to pay insurance, as nuclear power plants are virtually uninsurable. This study by an insurance company concluded that insuring a nuclear power plant would have the price of a kilowatt-hour climb to a staggering $3.40 - compared to $0.35 from solar.
So basically, people are gambling that nothing will ever go wrong, because if it does, it's not the company who is going to pay for clean-up.

youbedead wrote:As far as waste goes again we look to france. France, thankfully, understands that its a good idea to recycle nuclear fuel to be used again, something which is not done in the us. By doing this they get the amount of waste produced to a very small number. A family of for over the course of 20 years produce an amount of waste about the size of lighter. THey have already started construction of type III breeder reactors which will reduce the amount of waste further.

The issue of course being that waste is still being produced, and that the side-products from reprocessing are even more toxic than the original waste. I also do not know where you pulled that lighter-example from.
Added to that, reprocessing nuclear fuel is 6 times more expensive than dumping it - so what's it gonna be, paying more, thereby making this form of energy even more costly, or continueing to churn out even more radioactive waste in the thought that "a little more won't hurt", given that either method will result in waste being created?

youbedead wrote:For safety nuclear power is still significantly safer then any other form of power
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED
Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
Coal electricity- China 90
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

I call groxgak on that chart. For one, it isn't even possible to track all the number of people that have and will continue to die from radioactivity-induced cancer. Relevations such as Monticello are fairly rare, yet it would be surprising if that would be an exception - especially considering that there's even less transparency (or available means to detect such maladies) in countries like China or Russia. Added to that comes the nuclear lobby's blackout policy (and their influence in politics). Doesn't anyone remember what happened to the workers at Fukushima? Need I drag up a list of attempted cover-ups from various nuclear power plant companies around the world concerning the release of toxic substances into the environment? Studies about increased leukemia in the vicinity?
The very idea of more people supposedly dying to wind or solar energy generation than to nuclear is mind-boggling and it should be obvious that something isn't right with that chart. Where do these deaths come from, and why do they (apparently) not happen for the nuclear sector?

If you are worried about long term effects of radiation and toxic materials then you need to also be opposed to solar and coal, Coal power plants produce radiation at levels far higher then a nuclear plant and the chemicals involved in the production and implementation of solar panels.

If the nuclear lobby is so strong and has the capability to cover up every accident as you stated then why are there not more reactors. Outside of France, Germany, and Japan nuclear power isn't prolific at all which doesn't really fit with your idea of a monolithic nuclear looby

Like I said earlier, I am opposed to coal. As for solar panels, their production is toxic, but nowhere nearby what nuclear power plants churn out over the years they run (keeping in mind that a solar panel only has to be produced once - though replacement every ~20 or so years is a factor, of course).

As for the proliferation of nuclear power, last time I checked, it actually is growing fairly fast. India is currently building 5 new reactors, and I vaguely recall a couple nations in Eastern-Europe planning to do so as well. That they haven't done so already is probably chiefly a lack of know-how, and it would not surprise me if certain corporations are now outsourcing it to these nations to secure alternate means of income should they lose their foothold in the First World. The sad fact is that the poorer nations lack the money to fund cleaner but more expensive renewable energy sources; economically speaking, for them, nuclear sadly is indeed the best option. And I have no illusions whatsoever about what is going to happen to the waste.

Also, no, the nuclear lobby isn't able to cover up every accident, else we wouldn't know about them - but what has come to light so far shreds a fairly disappointing light on both the corporations as well as politics. And I'm not referring solely to the embarassing reports and warnings that were suppressed in Japan. There's a reason the country is restructuring its entire energy administration, and it was a huge mistake to place the nuclear energy control commission under the ministry for economy promotion in the first place. What were they thinking?! "We need to shut down this plant, it's dangerous!!" - "No, that would cost too much money!" - "Okay..."

So many big numbers and statistics...Mind going blank...