"
With unprecedented access to the nuclear industry in France, Russia, and the United States, Nuclear Now explores the possibility for the global community to overcome the challenges of climate change and energy poverty to reach a brighter future through the power of nuclear energy.
Beneath our feet, Uranium atoms in the Earth’s crust hold incredibly concentrated energy. Science unlocked this energy in the mid-20th century, first for bombs and then to power submarines. The United States led the effort to generate electricity from this new source. Yet in the mid-20th century as societies began the transition to nuclear power and away from fossil fuels, a long-term PR campaign to scare the public began, funded in part by coal and oil interests. This campaign would sow fear about harmless low-level radiation and create confusion between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. Looking squarely at the problem, Oliver Stone shows us that knowledge is the antidote to fear, and our human ingenuity will allow us to solve the climate change crisis if we use it.
"
The nuclear industry it trying hard to get back governmental support, as this is there life-line. From the economic side nuclear makes no more sense. It is just to expensive and to slow to build, if one looks beyond the marketing promisses. We need to replace fossile energies fast, not in 30 or 50 years. So it does not help to start developing new reactors. They would be available in quantety just to late and it is by no means clear they could deliver on the promisses. The money would be better spend on builing the currently available renewable alternatives. They had there chance, but failed with lots of tax money spend.
It can be Ok to keep the limited number of existing reactor running, as long as they are safe. So I consider the stop of nuclear in Germany a mistake, but starting new nuclear, especially at large scale in other place would be another even larger mistake.
I think it’s legitimate to compare electricity generated by coal with electricity generated by nuclear.
Edit: by which I mean I think it’s legitimate to compare deaths from coal versus deaths from nuclear.
As it comes to terrible waste management, did I not say I think some people should be in prison?
I think it’s legitimate to compare electricity generated by coal with electricity generated by nuclear.
Edit: by which I mean I think it’s legitimate to compare deaths from coal versus deaths from nuclear.
As it comes to terrible waste management, did I not say I think some people should be in prison?
Well, acid rain wasn't a joke, either. In that I agree with you. But if you abandon carbon, you can expect that acid rain to vanish in about a decade, give or take? I had a carbon power plant some 4 kms from my home. So I know a couple things about carbon power plant waste.
But I think you forget that radioactive waste will remain radioactive for hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years.
The reality is that nuclear waste decays to low levels of radiation quickly; within a timespan of 100 to 200 years. Not thousands! After 200 years it no longer poses a serious threat where it comes to radiation levels.
"(...) nowadays the nuclear waste gets stored underground or on site were control is much more effective".
IIRC, it's said that after 10 half-lives one could consider there's not a problem anymore.
I think it’s legitimate to compare electricity generated by coal with electricity generated by nuclear.
Edit: by which I mean I think it’s legitimate to compare deaths from coal versus deaths from nuclear.
The reality is that nuclear waste decays to low levels of radiation quickly; within a timespan of 100 to 200 years. Not thousands! After 200 years it no longer poses a serious threat where it comes to radiation levels.Bullshit, out by orders of magnitude.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/489408/how-long-is-spent-nuclear-fuel-radioactive
Would you like a metic ton of uranium ore outside your house? Not even close to typical background levels.
I'm guess you're using some (as usual) unstated version of "low" in some contrived (and still unstated) circumstance.
The point with the deaths is that they are kind of statistical from polution and from accidents. So neither the numbers for coal no nuclear are easy and free of controversy.
With nuclear one point is that the waste problem is one that can hit us in the future - it is just hard to guess how good the disposal will work in 1000 years. Ideally everything would be fine, but when for some reason (e.g. a pandemic, war or other global desaster) the power-plants are just abandoned, chances are the waste problem would hit future generation hard.
In some respect it looks like proposed new and better nuclear power is used as an excuse to keep the old coal power plans running longer and slow down the replacement with remewable
sources.
We really need to seriously start with stopping the use of coal fast. If it really gets faster this way one may also build a few nuclear plants, but I don't see them making a big difference and for new designs there is just not enough time around with a rather uncertain outcome and high upfront costs.
Chances are the energy will get more expensive. Coal burned today is not much better than coal burned in 20 years. So why not start charging it with the environmental costs now - the economy needs the cost pressure to really let go. It kind of has to hurt.
The reality is that nuclear waste decays to low levels of radiation quickly; within a timespan of 100 to 200 years. Not thousands! After 200 years it no longer poses a serious threat where it comes to radiation levels.Bullshit, out by orders of magnitude.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/489408/how-long-is-spent-nuclear-fuel-radioactive
Would you like a metic ton of uranium ore outside your house? Not even close to typical background levels.
I'm guess you're using some (as usual) unstated version of "low" in some contrived (and still unstated) circumstance.The link you provided underlines exactly what I wrote. Note the horizontal line which marks the 'Uranium ore level equavalent' in the graph.
Getting down to the Uranium ore equivalent is by far not saying that the material is safe after this. Uranium ores can also be quite different - not all are the same and they are also considered prolematic material, that should be keept in a safe place (geologic barrier) and not spread around.
The horizontal line is just in a sweep spot where it looks like the time is not too long to blow the mind.
China is already building and installing a lot of new PV (some 216 GW) and wind power, way more than the few nuclear plants (maybe 5 GW) they are also building. It is just cheaper to build PV than nuclear.
IIRC, it's said that after 10 half-lives one could consider there's not a problem anymore.That is equally misleading and not just a wild simplification but misses the point.
People care about their (statistical) exposure to harm, there is a well used measure for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
to get there from a waste stream you need the activity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becquerel
multiplied by the pathway of exposure, and weighting for both exposure method and energy spectrum
This is done for coal power as a comparison:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096980431300273X
What we dont get is lifecycle numbers for nuclear. The generating plant is relatively benign and inoffensive compared to the mining, reprocessing, and waste (where water contamination pathways into shared/perpetual sources is scary).
Fukushima
Do not forget that burning coal releases more radioactive particles ("radiation") than nuclear power plants, tests, bombs, and accidents combined.
For a layman article about radioactivity in coal ash, see this (Scientific American; by a science journalist, not a nuclear energy proponent).
If we compare coal power plants to nuclear power plants producing the same amount of electricity, the coal power plant produces about ten times as much radioactive waste as the nuclear power plant.
I for one prefer solar and wind energy, but for industry and stability, we need bulk energy production for which currently nuclear is the safest and least polluting option. At least here in Finland, we're doing something about the spent fuel. The permanent storage facility, Onkalo, is almost ready for use. It is designed to last 100,000 years and an ice age.
My option on this is that it would be good to add enough salt to the water to make it slightly heavier than the normal see water and than release it to the deep ocean (there is plenty of depth near Japan). Trtium has a relatively short half life (13 years from memory) and chances are most of the water would stay in the deep see for long enough to largely decay before coming up again. The deep see has relatively little life that would be harmed from the relatively small release.
I don't buy that thing about carbon power plants being more radioactive than NPPs.
Again I don't buy that, and I laugh at those "stablished facts".
Again I don't buy that, and I laugh at those "stablished facts". I know for sure that's bullshit, because, after 50 years living next to a carbon power plant, I still have to see any radioactive poisoning or even an increase in, say, thyroid cancer or leukemia. Incidence is about the same here that in some little town 100 km south, where never has been any carbon power plant. So calling out that bullshit.
Well, there you have your proof that particles with low radioactivity levels have no measurable negative effect on health.
Again I don't buy that, and I laugh at those "stablished facts". I know for sure that's bullshit, because, after 50 years living next to a carbon power plant, I still have to see any radioactive poisoning or even an increase in, say, thyroid cancer or leukemia. Incidence is about the same here that in some little town 100 km south, where never has been any carbon power plant. So calling out that bullshit.
According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile [one kilometer] of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you're exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays.
Getting down to the Uranium ore equivalent is by far not saying that the material is safe after this. Uranium ores can also be quite different - not all are the same and they are also considered prolematic material, that should be keept in a safe place (geologic barrier) and not spread around.
The horizontal line is just in a sweep spot where it looks like the time is not too long to blow the mind. Shift that line lower by 1 or 2 decades and it takes 100s of thouthands or millions of years.
I am yet to come across just the wind, solar and battery capacity required to run a normal run of the mill country fully on renewables.
Interestingly, if one bothers to check the EPA link, the current way of getting rid of the (slightly) radioactive waste from burning coal is exactly analogous to what is done at Fukushima: it is distributed in various products, including building materials (concrete and roofing), so that the concentration is kept low enough to not pose significant risks.
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
On one hand, it is better than nothing, or letting stuff concentrate somewhere. On the other hand, Onkalo spent nuclear fuel deep geological repository shows there is a better way. All nuclear waste generated in Finland must be disposed in Finland by law, and this is the (first) site. Its costs are paid from a fund collected from nuclear energy production, not taxpayers. (I.e., nuclear energy users have paid for the site already.)
Again I don't buy that, and I laugh at those "stablished facts"."I take my belief as the proof of the whole truth, and laugh at your statistics." Are you sure you're not a politician?
You're not laughing at just one science writer, you're also laughing at the US Environmental Protection Agency and European Environment Agency, plus about half a century of geoscience. Pretty idiotic, in my opinion.
CCRs can contain concentrations of TENORM that are 3-5 times higher than background levels in average soil in the United States.
there you have your proof that particles with low radioactivity levels have no measurable negative effect on health
Ensuring the nuclear industry accounts for and takes responsibility for the full lifecycle is most important, no fair trying to compare a "light" scoped nuclear operation with a heavy scoped renewable (pushes to price wind/solar only with backing storage).
As an attempt at looking at the lifecycle you get things like this:
As for criteria air contaminants (CAC), 92 per cent of them came from coal-fired power generation and nuclear’s share was just
0.5 per cent. Nuclear’s share of radionuclide emissions, at 99.8 per cent, was much more than proportional to its generation share. Nevertheless, comparative information from the United States as summarized in Appendix F leads to the conclusion that on a per TWh basis the collective radiation dose from the nuclear life cycle is much lower than the collective radiation dose from the coal-fired life cycle.
Just rebuffing your assertion, which I very much doubt. You just gave a link to "Scientific American".
So, be careful about what you take as "established facts". Excuse me if I don't take your word at face value. I could easily do, should we were speaking about electronics. But we aren't.
Ensuring the nuclear industry accounts for and takes responsibility for the full lifecycle is most important, no fair trying to compare a "light" scoped nuclear operation with a heavy scoped renewable (pushes to price wind/solar only with backing storage).What? What does 'a "light" scoped nuclear operation' and 'a heavy scoped renewable' mean?
In Finland, solar and wind power are heavily subsidized. Nuclear power generation cost has included the cost of long term storage (designed to handle a new ice age with storage time of 100,000 years) for over three decades here. So yeah, the nuclear industry here is forced to take responsibility for the full lifecycle.
If you want to complain about how somewhere else the industry doesn't have to pay all it's costs, that's wrong and I do agree with you there; but it does not mean all nuclear power everywhere is like that.
As an attempt at looking at the lifecycle you get things like this:And my point is that the amount of radionuclides released by coal power is higher than that released by nuclear power, accidents, bombs, and tests combined.
The fact that nuclear fuel rods are in most places sitting in storage pools does not mean they're released.
This was also mentioned just below your screenshot, from page 132:QuoteAs for criteria air contaminants (CAC), 92 per cent of them came from coal-fired power generation and nuclear’s share was just
0.5 per cent. Nuclear’s share of radionuclide emissions, at 99.8 per cent, was much more than proportional to its generation share. Nevertheless, comparative information from the United States as summarized in Appendix F leads to the conclusion that on a per TWh basis the collective radiation dose from the nuclear life cycle is much lower than the collective radiation dose from the coal-fired life cycle.
Did you intentionally omit the part that repeated my point just so it would look like your reference disagreed with my post, or was it simple ineptitude and not understanding what you read?
The Wikipedia article on radioactive waste puts the exposure to radiation due to coal power plants at 100 times that from nuclear power (but note that this does not include weapons tests, accidents, nor the two nuclear bombs) based on Oak Ridge National Review vol. 26, Nos. 3 & 4, 1993 article Coal combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger by Alex Gabbard.
Feel free to do your own literature search, though. Just don't do what Someone did, and cut off the paragraph just before the sentence that repeats my own point.
Comparing the emissions of coal and nuclear power is tricky. Not all nuclear is equal (e.g. CANDU emits quite a lot of tritium, that is hard to compare to other sources). The mining of Uranium is also quite different between mines - some are OK or even good (removing the uranium from phosphate fertilizer), but other can be very dirty, spreading dust and unused low grade ore. Another variable is the waste from fuel reprocessing - this has be traditional rather dirty, e.g. releasing the technetium.
My option on this is that it would be good to add enough salt to the water to make it slightly heavier than the normal see water and than release it to the deep ocean (there is plenty of depth near Japan). Trtium has a relatively short half life (13 years from memory) and chances are most of the water would stay in the deep see for long enough to largely decay before coming up again. The deep see has relatively little life that would be harmed from the relatively small release.
I'm pointing to the ways in which the "costs" can be manipulated to suit politics.
Comparing the emissions of coal and nuclear power is tricky. Not all nuclear is equal (e.g. CANDU emits quite a lot of tritium, that is hard to compare to other sources). The mining of Uranium is also quite different between mines - some are OK or even good (removing the uranium from phosphate fertilizer), but other can be very dirty, spreading dust and unused low grade ore. Another variable is the waste from fuel reprocessing - this has be traditional rather dirty, e.g. releasing the technetium.
The coal is also quite different and in newer plants the filters catch much of the particles.
With the emissions it is also questionalble which natural radioactivity from the dust should count. E.g. Potassium should not, as it is a natural part of soil and even a disired one.
I'm pointing to the ways in which the "costs" can be manipulated to suit politicsAnd you do so by taking a screenshot that conveniently excludes the same statement I'm making. Are you seriously trying to claim that was honest? You are being obnoxious here, very much so.
How about you and tatel start putting some actual papers and articles behind your assertions, instead of just claiming stuff based on your personal beliefs and conveniently cut screenshots?
I'm only saying more common sense needs to be applied to look past the mis-information and prejudice in order to get a picture of the actual problems at hand and take an unbiased look at the solutions that are available.
For most parts nuclear power turned out quite expensive, but the costs can really vary and are not very predictable. If all would run to plan, with no delays and mishaps in construction the pricing may not be that bad.
What's the worst that can happen for a solar or wind farm?
In the comparative 'bad for you' and 'how to dispose of it' tables, are they not perhaps missing a quite important point about nuclear: when the shit hits the fan the potential for Bad Stuff far outweighs renewables. What's the worst that can happen for a solar or wind farm? But for a nuke... I appreciate that the risk is small (and should get smaller), but it's not zero.
Wind farms make people sick due to the constant noise and flickering light. In the NL there is quite a bit of uproar from medical doctors who have lots of patients with mental and physical problems which are directly related to having wind turbines built too close to their homes.
Wind farms make people sick due to the constant noise and flickering light. In the NL there is quite a bit of uproar from medical doctors who have lots of patients with mental and physical problems which are directly related to having wind turbines built too close to their homes.AFAICS the jury is still out on this one. The medical doctors you mentioned disagree with the outcome of research by Nivel (https://eenvandaag.assets.avrotros.nl/user_upload/PDF/1004508.pdf, excuses for it being in Dutch) that found more or less the opposite.
The problem is that for noise level limits they use is dbA and thus don't include low frequency noise. And the study done by Nivel isn't fine grained enough to select people living closest to the wind turbines. IOW: the test methodology used by Nivel is completely unsuitable for the purpose and thus their conclusion is invalid. This is a known problem to many but the law makers are lagging behind.
For my country the best way to mitigate these mental and physical problems? Give people who live close to a wind turbine a certain amount of electricity for free. The closer you live, the more free electricity you get. Somehow I think that the price of houses near that turbine will go up
Wind turbines here are placed on ridges, where there is good wind most of the time, and far from any houses. AFAIK, placing them on low terrain with things like houses near, makes the performance quite lower since that affects the wind. In that case one should go to the sea, I'm told. But hey, there are as many scammers in renewables as in nuclear.
If you visit the Netherlands you'll notice the country is as flat as a pancake. You can basically put wind turbines anywhere and they will produce.
About areas becoming inhabitable; that is not unique to nuclear accidents. Underground coal fires are a serious problem and make large areas of land uninhabitable or at least dangerous to live on due to toxic emissions (CO for example). And think about chemical spills like what happened in Bhopal (India). With large scale energy storage we will also have big accidents affecting the lifes of many. Again, there is a price to be paid for having a highly developed society.
Any industries able to create a disaster should a) be strictly controlled and b) either able to pay up until the last penny of compensation, or banned.
If you visit the Netherlands you'll notice the country is as flat as a pancake. You can basically put wind turbines anywhere and they will produce.Yeah, I know. I know also wind has been used to pump water out the polders for centuries. However it surprised me hear about the noise being annoying. In my experience you need to be quite close to a wind mill to be able to hear the noise. Less than 200 meters I would say. Then having a house(s) so near would probably affect the wind, thus the performance.
QuoteAbout areas becoming inhabitable; that is not unique to nuclear accidents. Underground coal fires are a serious problem and make large areas of land uninhabitable or at least dangerous to live on due to toxic emissions (CO for example). And think about chemical spills like what happened in Bhopal (India). With large scale energy storage we will also have big accidents affecting the lifes of many. Again, there is a price to be paid for having a highly developed society.
You see to imply I'm against affections caused by nuclear energy only. If so you are wrong. BTW, any comparisons with carbon continue to be moot.
Main point is I can't see how capitalism achieved making the common environment they don't own, a place to dump for free the crap resulting from making a money that only they own. Any industries able to create a disaster should a) be strictly controlled and b) either able to pay up until the last penny of compensation, or banned. Call me a commie if you want. I'm just caring for my wallet/health/life.
The point about large storage energy is also debatable, I think. Here we are not using candles at night, you know, and this is a 50-million people country that makes about the fourth economy in the EU.
How about the operator of a hydro dam? Plenty of scope for financial ruin with that one.
It is not debatable. Large amounts of stored energy in a small space is an accident waiting to happen.
... even persistent noise from a (wind) farm. None of the latter are going to kill you.
It is not debatable. Large amounts of stored energy in a small space is an accident waiting to happen.
Unless it's nuclear energy, of course. Then there wouldn't be the slightest possibility, it isn't?
It is not debatable. Large amounts of stored energy in a small space is an accident waiting to happen.
Unless it's nuclear energy, of course. Then there wouldn't be the slightest possibility, it isn't?You didn't get the message. And the message is: whatever energy source or storage system you put in place, there will be accidents and / or emissions causing lots of damage. You are the one dismissing everything but nuclear.
You didn't get the message. And the message is: whatever energy source or storage system you put in place, there will be accidents and / or emissions causing lots of damage. You are the one dismissing everything but nuclear.
Please note we don't have any energy mega-storage here and we don't need it. PV doesn't work at night, but wind, hydro and gas do. You can attribute any fictional needs you want to no-nuclear, that isn't going to change the outcome.
You seem to overlook that both hydro and gas use mega energy storage too.
One of your own posts is about the risk of a hydro power dam in your country. The amount of water behind the dam has a shitload of energy stored in it. If the dam breaks the havoc the water can wreak is enormous. Sure the aftermath is not as lasting as from nuclear, but still.
Gas needs to be stored in tanks and is transported through pipes. Both are potential hazards. Again, no long lasting effects after an event, but it can still kill many people.
You didn't get the message. And the message is: whatever energy source or storage system you put in place, there will be accidents and / or emissions causing lots of damage. You are the one dismissing everything but nuclear.
Please note we don't have any energy mega-storage here and we don't need it. PV doesn't work at night, but wind, hydro and gas do. You can attribute any fictional needs you want to no-nuclear, that isn't going to change the outcome.
Yeah, nuclear is the only thing that will cause damage for thousands of years. You just said there will be accidents, whatever energy source. So you expect to have nuclear accidents. And, it seems, you think that's acceptable. Crazy reckless, I would say.
It is not debatable. Large amounts of stored energy in a small space is an accident waiting to happen.
Unless it's nuclear energy, of course. Then there wouldn't be the slightest possibility, it isn't?You didn't get the message. And the message is: whatever energy source or storage system you put in place, there will be accidents and / or emissions causing lots of damage. You are the one dismissing everything but nuclear.
I wonder if with the rise of home batteries we will see more house fires?