What's wrong with nuclear energy?

[Deleted]

The problem is all it takes is one accident to screw an entire country up.

Ukraine is fine despite Chernobyl. Japan is fine despite Fukushima. The US is fine despite Three Mile Island. None of those disasters "screwed the country up".

[caervek]

Ukraine is fine despite Chernobyl. Japan is fine despite Fukushima. The US is fine despite Three Mile Island. None of those disasters "screwed the country up".

I believe you mean "Ukraine is ****ed but not due to Chernobyl" ^^

- - - Updated - - -

In the US cheap natural gas killed the attempted "nuclear renaissance".

The same thing happened in the UK in the 90's. Sadly now that gas has gone up in price/value we are kind of screwed as we don't have cheap nuclear power to turn too and our government seems intent on wasting money on wind/solar instead of just building the damn reactors and pumped storage we need >.>

[Wikiy]

It's not safe because of a small number of high profile incidents that gained mass media coverage? Even though there are thousands of nuclear reactors online right now without incident.

By that merit, oil isn't safe either - been proved on several occasions.

Nor are cars. People want to think the world is black and white. It isn't. We gladly drive cars even though quite a lot of people die in nasty accidents.

[Deleted]

In 2015, 38300 people died in the US in motor vehicle accidents, and 4.4 million more had to see a doctor because of their injuries. How many deaths and injuries have there been in the US due to nuclear plant accidents in the past 58 years?

[caervek]

In 2015, 38300 people died in the US in motor vehicle accidents, and 4.4 million more had to see a doctor because of their injuries. How many deaths and injuries have there been in the US due to nuclear plant accidents in the past 58 years?

Random fact, the worst power plant disaster in history occurred at a hydroelectric plant and claimed 171,000 lives.

[vipers]

whats wrong on nuclear energy is nuclear waste

and ofc nuclear accident when it happen and aftermath

[Deleted]

whats wrong on nuclear energy is nuclear waste

Which, unlike the waste from fossil fuels, isn't going to make the planet uninhabitable for humans.

[Chrysia]

When the inherent risk is a nuclear explosion, followed by decades of radioactive fallout, yes.

There is zero inherent risk of a nuclear explosion from energy-quality nuclear materials.

[willtron]

I've been saying this some pages ago, but I guess it's more fun to bash each others heads in about the current and should-be long obsolete generation of reactors, instead of talking about what actually offers a very interesting solution.

With these reactors:
- Melt-downs are technically impossible, unless forcefully and intentionally initiated (and maintained)
- Raw materials are abundant (comparable to lead) and comparably easy and safe to mine (in fact it IS already mined as a waste-byproduct while mining rare earth metals and gets thrown away!)
- The waste is a whole lot easier to handle, significantly more fuel can be recovered relatively easily (because it's purity requirements are quite low), and what DOES remain as waste, has a half-life of ~300 years, not 25.000. It is to be less radioactive after 300 years than naturally occuring Uranium, and is a tiny fraction compared to what common tech generates in waste.
- Highly efficient. 1t of natural Thorium ~= 35t enriched Uranium ~= 4.000.000t black coal. Let that sink in for a moment.

Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid...horium_reactor for more and fascinating facts. (I found it rather funny, that most advantages the article lists are hard, practical and scientific, while many of the disadvantages are totally man-made either by an obvious lack of interest in making this tech happen for whatever reasons, or by lack of research all of which sound perfectly doable with our current tech.)

This, in my eyes, is where at LEAST 50-60% of all money spent on energy-research should go.

It sounds too good to be true. What's the catch?

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is all it takes is one accident to screw an entire country up.

I agree.

All those American, Japanese and Ukrainian migrants that had to move from their country due to the radioactivity are really putting a strain on our infrastructure. I'm glad we're out of that recession when the market collapsed because America was so screwed up.

/sarcasm

[Kujako]

1. Non-standardized designs.
2. Lowest bidder construction.
3. Catastrophic consequences due to failure.
4. No waste storage plan.
5. Waste gets stored onsite (see 4), next to water supplies (see 3).

[Chrysia]

1. Non-standardized designs.
2. Lowest bidder construction.
3. Catastrophic consequences due to failure.
4. No waste storage plan.
5. Waste gets stored onsite (see 4), next to water supplies (see 3).

4 and 5 are both complete horseshit.

Catastrophic consequences haven't been a realistic result of a reactor failure in almost 3 decades.

[Kujako]

4 and 5 are both complete horseshit.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission disagrees (shrug).

[Chrysia]

Nuclear Regulatory Commission disagrees (shrug).

No, it doesn't. Most high-level nuclear waste (the kind that is actually worrisome) is stored in specifically designed, shielded and reinforced pools, not, "next to water supplies."

[Kujako]

No, it doesn't. Most high-level nuclear waste (the kind that is actually worrisome) is stored in specifically designed, shielded and reinforced pools, not, "next to water supplies."

specifically designed, shielded and reinforced pools,

What you left out was "on site". Since most plants are next to water supplies, for cooling, the waste is ALSO stored next to water supplies.

[Chrysia]

specifically designed, shielded and reinforced pools,

What you left out was "on site". Since most plants are next to water supplies, for cooling, the waste is ALSO stored next to water supplies.

No, it isn't. The pools are entirely separated from the water cooling supplies. They're in a completely different part of the facility.

EDIT:

This also directly disputes your claim of "no waste storage plan."

[Tuor]

whille my country doesn't have any nuclear power plant, i actually live just 160km away of a very problematic spanish nuclear plant (Almaraz) its even worst, the spanish authorities store their wastes in a cave near the portuguese border... Result, sometimes portuguese authorities report some abnormal radiactive material coming from river Tagus.

So, i'm against.

Three mile island. Worst commercial nuclear accident in US history.

0 deaths.
0 injuries.
0 incidents of cancer linked to the accident.

Still running 40 years later. 200,000 people live within a few miles of the plant.

Great now look at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

[Chrysia]

whille my country doesn't have any nuclear power plant, i actually live just 160km away of a very problematic spanish nuclear plant (Almaraz) its even worst, the spanish authorities store their wastes in a cave near the portuguese border... Result, sometimes portuguese authorities report some abnormal radiactive material coming from river Tagus.

So, i'm against.



Great now look at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Chernobyl was a fluke, zero deaths have been attributed to Fukushima.

[caervek]

Chernobyl was a fluke

Hardly a fluke, they disabled the safety systems so they could keep the plant running without making needed repairs, then when **** went south the system that would have prevented a disaster wasn't operational. This is why the humans can't override the safeties on modern designs.

[Shadowferal]

Ukraine is fine despite Chernobyl. Japan is fine despite Fukushima. The US is fine despite Three Mile Island. None of those disasters "screwed the country up".

Ukraine has 1000 square miles that is still screwed and is still too radioactive and when a grass fire or forest fire happens within the zone more radioactivity is released.

Still too soon to tell the long term effects in Japan. But Japan used to be a staunch supported of nuclear power. Now that's no longer the case because of one accident that's costing them billions of yen to clean and decontaminate the affected areas. Indeed public opinion seems to have done a 180. The latest poll I saw had a response of 70% in favor of ending nuclear power, period. Before the accident 65% favored expanding nuclear power.

And Three Mile Island is kinda funny, in a not humorous way. The one reactor was permanently shut down, and when the license expires on the other reactor that too will get shut down.

[Chrysia]

Hardly a fluke, they disabled the safety systems so they could keep the plant running without making needed repairs, then when **** went south the system that would have prevented a disaster wasn't operational. This is why the humans can't override the safeties on modern designs.

No, that is definitely a fluke. It was the perfect storm of poor design and human idiocy.