Are you for or against expanding the use of nuclear power?

[epicstruggle]

I think this week Pres. Bush might make a big push into enviromental issues. And one issue I feel he should encourage is creating/using a national storage space for nuclear waste and reducing the red tape to create bigger/better/safer/more efficient nuclear power plants. What do you think? Are you for the newer nuclear power plants?

Since many here are not from the US, what are the current views your nation holds on nuclear power plant.

Also what produces more radiation burning coal or using nuclear power? (i believe i have stated the question correctly, if not please correct me)

later,
epic

 

[Silent_One]

Good questions Epic......
I feel we should be using the national storage space in Yucca Mountains in Nevada for nuclear waste.

I have mixed feelings about nuclear power plants. The waste problem is the biggest headache. From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, if we took all our current waste and put it in permanent storage in Yucca 1 & 2, the storage sites would be nearly full, or would be soon after.

Let the power plants continue until their useful lives run out, decommission them, clean up the sites, and end the program. The US has vast coal resources to use for our power needs and new plants are far cleaner then the ones in the past.

 

[PC-Engine]

Is it possible to launch the waste into outerspace and have it burn up in the atmosphere in another galaxy millions of light years away? If yes will it be too expensive?

 

[notAFanB]

Is it possible to launch the waste into outerspace and have it burn up in the atmosphere in another galaxy millions of light years away? If yes will it be too expensive?

and what there is an 'acident'/'terrerist act etc....


oh for nuclear pwr btw.

 

[epicstruggle]

Many space vehicles have gone to space that have had nuclear power. No accidents yet. I dont think that all the nuclear waste would fill up the storage space planned in Nevada. Also GE has designed 2 new nuclear power plants that can run without any cooling solution (what caused problems in chernobyl and 3 mile island). Somehow if the cooling solution leaks out, the plant shuts itself down automatically. These new plants are incrediebly more efficient and safer.

later,

 

[SvP]

Good questionscorrect me if I'm wrong, if we took all our current waste and put it in permanent storage in Yucca 1 & 2, the storage sites would be nearly full, or would be soon after.

I don't know how big these sites are, but
All the spent fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in more than 35 years of operation--some 32,000 metric tons--would, if stacked end to end, cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of about four yards.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I'm for Nuclear power as long as there are some very competent people running the plants.

The machines there are only so much idiot proof. Remember: The universe creates bigger and better idiots all the time.

 

[zidane1strife]

I'm against it.

I want fusion!!!! If they had a decent R&D program we'd likely have working prototypes in less than 2 decades...

 

[Silent_One]

SvP wrote:

All the spent fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in more than 35 years of operation--some 32,000 metric tons--would, if stacked end to end, cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of about four yards.

According to National Geographic's July 2002 issue the United States has 52,000 tons of spent fuel from commercial, military, and research reactors, as well as 91 million gallons of radioactive waste from plutonium processing. This waste is considered "High Level" waste. "Transuranic" waste is waste that includes clothing, tools, and amterials contaminated with plutonium, neptunium, and other man-made elements , of which there is about 11.3 million cubic feet of waste. "Low level" waste from hospitals and research institutions, including decommissioned power plants, air filters, ect., total 472 million cubic feet. Finally, uranium mill tailings, left over from extraction of uranium form ore, total 265 million tons, but has the lowest radioactivity.

Yucca Mountain could hold 77,000 tons of waste. With over 2,000 tons a year of high level waste, and yucca scheduled to open in 2010, the site will be nearly full from the start, and Yucca 2 will have to be prepared.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

I am for more nuclear power.

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Natoma]

The only problem with blasting nuclear waste into outer space is the possibility of booster rocket failure, or explosion. The resultant catastrophe of millions of pounds of nuclear waste raining back down on the planet would simply be an unacceptable chance to take to the majority of people.

Unfortunately storing it in places like Yucca mountain have their own issues, such as leakage into and subsequent contamination of the surrounding environment.

 

[epicstruggle]

I hope we can develope space elevators that would then make it more feasible to lift and then launch nuclear waste into deep space. I dont think its that far off. Maybe in 20-50 years. However lifting nuclear waste right now isnt as disastrous as stated, the cassini space probe did not blow up or the other nuclear powered probes.

Id like to see current nuclear plants replaced by newer safer plants that are more efficient and safer (designed to withstand certain terrorist attacks).

By the way more radioactive waste is produced by burning coal than by the use of nuclear power.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

Challenger certainly did (1986), as have many other rockets in the history of the space program.

 

[epicstruggle]

Any probe that has included nuclear power. has been safely sent into space. I dont think challenger had any nuclear material in it.
NASA spent a lot of money making sure that the cassini space probe could sent to space without mishap.

later,

 

[Vince]

Any probe that has included nuclear power. has been safely sent into space.

Actually, there have been accidents with RTGs during launch, but RTGs aren't exactly comperable with a fission based nuclear facility. They typically utilize well under 100lbs of non-fissible Pu which is encased in a ceramic shell capable of withstanding re-entry @ >10km/sec.

They, in no shape or form are comperable to a fission plant (as RTGs just utilize the thermal energy emmitted by decaying radioactive matter and thus have no moving parts or active fission, the only force is the weak one) or even the launching of radioactive mass into space en masse (which would entail a high ratio of payload to weight to make it economic).

There have been several ideas such as space-based dumping proposed over the years, such as injecting it into the earths crust via deep mine shafts, under the ocean floor, below the icecaps, et al.

I favor the liquid metal/fast breeder reactor option with tight regulated controls. Nuclear is good IMHO.

 

[Natoma]

Any probe that has included nuclear power. has been safely sent into space. I dont think challenger had any nuclear material in it.
NASA spent a lot of money making sure that the cassini space probe could sent to space without mishap.

later,

:?

It doesn't matter whether or not a probe or rocket or whatever is nuclear powered and has not failed yet. The point is that our rocket technology is not foolproof, and has failed time and time again. Whether or not it's nuclear powered or not has no bearing on the fact that our technology is not foolproof.

For instance, just because the Shuttle had never failed before Challenger in 1986 doesn't mean that it wouldn't fail in the future. If there had been nuclear waste on Challenger, due to the fact that the scientists stated that the Shuttle Technology had never failed and thus would be fine for transporting nuclear waste, that would have been a disaster of epic proportions.

The point is that the chance of a mishap would deepsix any possibility of nuclear material being blasted off the planet. Our technology wrt space based travel simply is not foolproof enough to warrant the risk/reward ratio. In a few decades this will no doubt change. But for now, it's not good enough.

 

[Clashman]

Any probe that has included nuclear power. has been safely sent into space. I dont think challenger had any nuclear material in it.

The STS after Challenger was scheduled to be launched into space with 46 pounds of plutonium. After Challenger blew up they decided that maybe that wasn't the best idea.

 

[Evildeus]

I think it's a political decision not economical, so i don't mind (if the plant is at least 5000 km from me ).

 

[Basic]

Radiation isn't the problem with coal burnng. There's enough of other problems.

By the way more radioactive waste is produced by burning coal than by the use of nuclear power.

What do you classify as radioactive waste?


Btw
Long time ago I read about a (at that time) new kind of nuclear plant. It "sucked out" the last bit of energy out of nuclear waste by hitting it with a high power neutron beam. This would split the atoms and release a lot of heat.
Positives:
Runs on nuclear waste, and the end result is easier to handle (less radiation, shorter half time).
The "fuel" is rather stable. As in "will not go off by itself if you screw up", but it's still dangerous stuff.
If you stop actively hitting it with the neuton beam, it will cool down by itself, since you never have enough concentrated unstable material to keep it going.

It looked like a win-win situation, but then I didn't hear anything more about it. Is this the thing from GE that you mentioned epic?


Oh, and I'm pro nuclear

 

[Silent_One]

Unfortunately storing it in places like Yucca mountain have their own issues, such as leakage into and subsequent contamination of the surrounding environment.

The desposal containers, to be made of a nickel alloy, are designed to resist corrosion for 10,000 years, according to the DOE. They are to be stored thousands of feet underground in tunnels positioned by robots under a titanium drip shield to protect them from any water, should that occure.

And yes, it is not foolproof. Nothing is.

Yet the question remains, what do you do with the waste? What do you do with the 52,000 tons of highly dangerous waste, the 91 million gallons of high level waste from plutonium processing, the 1/2 million tons of depleated uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents,ect....?