Depending on Nuclear Energy: Yes or no?

L

LadyFace

Famous
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
416
So today, in result of what's happening in Japan with Fukushima, I decided to watch a Documentary in 10 parts on The Chernobyl Incident which can be found on Youtube. My findings were disturbing yet awe-inspiring as I learned about how thousands of men gave up their health and their lives to save humanity from Reactor No. 4 which contained White-hot Plutonium lava. The men were civilians, soldiers and officers and thusly dubbed " The Liquidators" for their heroic deeds in cleaning up and containing the mess. After the initial explosion of the reactor, The Plutonium lava almost melted down through the concrete to the water coolant which would've triggered a massive explosion. The end result would've been catastrophic; Europe would've been wiped out and left completely uninhabitable. And as for the rest of the world? Serious fall-out and probably other unhealthy effects. The struggle to keep this from happening was called by the USSR "The battle of Chernobyl".

After reading up, looking at pictures and watching this documentary on Chernobyl, I was left deeply disturbed. Now, I'm no tree hugger, I'm not a vegan, I'm not crazy about going green but this totally changed the way I felt about Nuclear Energy. I'm not saying I liked it before, but my research has helped me develop very strong feelings against it. After my viewing, I was left with thoughts about why we were still even using nuclear energy. And now with what's happening in Japan with Fukushima Daiichi and Daini, I'm worried. I'm not saying it's going to turn into any sort of Chernobyl, but it's the whole idea of the fact we are taking an unnecessary risk to have cheap and easy power. So while Chernobyl was a man-made mistake, Fukushima is brought on by a natural disaster. Right now, Japan wants to keep it at Level 4 Nuclear incident while the rest of the world wants to either call it a 5 and even a 6 possibly making it the second worst Nuclear disaster in history since Chernobyl.

So, what does eGO think about this? I want to hear the peoples thoughts on Nuclear energy. And anything else to do with the crisis in Japan is cool also. I just want to hear some feedback.

PS - Here is the first part of the documentary if you are interested:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luSpdSyT1ys&feature=channel_video_title[/ame]
 
Last edited:
ChocolateVillain said:
Link to the reason why ALL news networks are WAY over exaggerating of the severity of the nuclear problem in Japan...
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/
It is a long and semi complicated read but it has been simplified a lot. But if you really care about what is going on over there and want to really know what is going on please read...
Click to expand...

Yes, while I understand that the Fukushima incident is not as serious as the media is blowing it up to be, that is not the point of my post. It's about the reliability and danger of Nuclear energy. Interesting article, nonetheless.
 
Nuclear energy is the future, and nothing about it is cheap or easy. People protest nuclear power plants and say "not in my backyard" but they will get in a car everyday, or smoke a cigarette everyday, and these things are a thousand times more dangerous. Coal mining is one of the most dangerous occupations there is and yet there's no one protesting the local coal mine. I understand the horror and the devastation over the situation in Japan, but to say we should scrap something because it poses a danger to us (I'm not implying you are) is illogical. Its like when a plane crashes, there's shock and panic, people no longer want to fly, but the general public turns a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in automobile accidents each year. Its not fair to say that because something is not 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami proof, it should not be built. You don't have to be a treehugger to see the evidence for the effects that the burning of fossil fuels has on the environment. Even more important is that our natural resources are called nonrenewable for a reason. It may seem far off, but to be able to create a source of power equal to the sun to power an entire planet, that is nuclear fission, something scientists are working on as we speak. Wind farms and solar panels may seem like prospective alternatives for now, but if we want to continue running our societies, as well as support the growth of countries that will double the amount of resources used now (China, India), nuclear energy is the way to go.
 
Shadow19 said:
Nuclear energy is the future, and nothing about it is cheap or easy. People protest nuclear power plants and say "not in my backyard" but they will get in a car everyday, or smoke a cigarette everyday, and these things are a thousand times more dangerous. Coal mining is one of the most dangerous occupations there is and yet there's no one protesting the local coal mine. I understand the horror and the devastation over the situation in Japan, but to say we should scrap something because it poses a danger to us (I'm not implying you are) is illogical. Its like when a plane crashes, there's shock and panic, people no longer want to fly, but the general public turns a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in automobile accidents each year. Its not fair to say that because something is not 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami proof, it should not be built. You don't have to be a treehugger to see the evidence for the effects that the burning of fossil fuels has on the environment. Even more important is that our natural resources are called nonrenewable for a reason. It may seem far off, but to be able to create a source of power equal to the sun to power an entire planet, that is nuclear fission, something scientists are working on as we speak. Wind farms and solar panels may seem like prospective alternatives for now, but if we want to continue running our societies, as well as support the growth of countries that will double the amount of resources used now (China, India), nuclear energy is the way to go.
Click to expand...

This was my point with my post in a lot fewer words. What I was saying is that news agency's are completely blowing out of proportion of how bad the incident is. Which causes a ripple effect of how the public feels about nuclear energy.

I also agree with Shadow in saying that right now nuclear energy is the future to our energy needs till a better product is found.
 
I understand the use of Nuclear energy and the benefits of it, so I'm behind it.

But what bothers me is the fact that the there's no safe way to get rid of the waste.
 
ChocolateVillain said:
This was my point with my post in a lot fewer words. What I was saying is that news agency's are completely blowing out of proportion of how bad the incident is. Which causes a ripple effect of how the public feels about nuclear energy.

I also agree with Shadow in saying that right now nuclear energy is the future to our energy needs till a better product is found.
Click to expand...

In response to both posts, I agree that the world is depending on Nuclear power to be the way of the future; However, I disagree in thinking that it IS and HAS to be the future. I'm 20 years old and I do not drive or own a car. At this point, I don't think I want to anymore. Carpooling is a much more effective route. Now Coal Mining? Yeah, that's ridiculous, I disagree with anything having to do with drilling into the earth and using non-renewable sources. The oil spill this past summer is a pretty good example of what happens when we do unnatural to the earth - like drilling. It's like we're Terra-ferma vampires: sucking the life out of the earth! Lol. But seriously, I don't agree with any of these practices for energy and I don't think we have to depend on them either for the future. There are much more simpler ways of going about things that we used to do like less than 150 years ago. I don't see why people feel like our technological advancement is so important for us to keep on living when we lived for thousands upon thousands of years without these things. Our societies are materialistic and we don't actually NEED these things. So yes, Nuclear Energy is the way to go because society DEPENDS on it, not because we actually need it. So it's a no if you really want to get down to the root of the problem.

I know people aren't just going to give up niceties but it's just insane to me what we do and what we COULD be doing.
 
SingularPoint said:
I understand the use of Nuclear energy and the benefits of it, so I'm behind it.

But what bothers me is the fact that the there's no safe way to get rid of the waste.
Click to expand...

Yeaaah. That's the part that really bugs me. In america, we are currently burying our nuclear waste under mountains. That's such a GREAT idea. Lol. It's awful...I don't see how that isn't illegal somehow...
 
Ladyhasaface said:
Yeaaah. That's the part that really bugs me. In america, we are currently burying our nuclear waste under mountains. That's such a GREAT idea. Lol. It's awful...I don't see how that isn't illegal somehow...
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken 40% of America's power is derived from hydroelectric...
 
Going back to the ways of life 150 years ago would be an impossible task. Neither you nor I would be willing to do such a thing. Population, medicine, and just basic technological needs have become too important to sustain to just give up. India and China are just NOW catching up to us. Yes nuclear fusion has all these harmful waste products, but so does every other fossil fuel. That is why people are so hard at work to make fission to work, an energy source that would have no by-product, no harmful effect on the environment, and be more potent than resources we use today; wind, solar, fossil, or what have you. As it stands, yes nuclear power is dangerous, yes there are negatives to it, but we've already pumped so much CO2 into the atmosphere that we have no idea what the long term effects will be. We've embarked on an experiment that we can't turn back from. We can only look forward and hope that nuclear power, or some undiscovered holy grail of energy, will be able to get the job done.

ChocolateVillain said:
If I'm not mistaken 40% of America's power is derived from hydroelectric...
Click to expand...

Water is also a nonrenewable resource, as absurd as it may seem.
 
Last edited:
Nuclear waste comes in 3 category
Low-level waste

Low-level waste (LLW) is generated from hospitals and industry, as well as the nuclear fuel cycle. It comprises paper, rags, tools, clothing, filters etc, which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity. It does not require shielding during handling and transport and is suitable for shallow land burial. To reduce its volume, it is often compacted or incinerated before disposal. It comprises some 90% of the volume but only 1% of the radioactivity of all radioactive waste.

Intermediate-level waste

Intermediate-level waste (ILW) contains higher amounts of radioactivity and some requires shielding. It typically comprises resins, chemical sludges and metal fuel cladding, as well as contaminated materials from reactor decommissioning. Smaller items and any non-solids may be solidified in concrete or bitumen for disposal. It makes up some 7% of the volume and has 4% of the radioactivity of all radwaste.

High-level waste

High-level waste (HLW) arises from the 'burning' of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor. HLW contains the fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. It is highly radioactive and hot, so requires cooling and shielding. It can be considered as the 'ash' from 'burning' uranium. HLW accounts for over 95% of the total radioactivity produced in the process of electricity generation. There are two distinct kinds of HLW:

* Used fuel itself.
* Separated waste from reprocessing the used fuel (as described in section on Managing HLW from used fuel below).

HLW has both long-lived and short-lived components, depending on the length of time it will take for the radioactivity of particular radionuclides to decrease to levels that are considered no longer hazardous for people and the surrounding environment. If generally short-lived fission products can be separated from long-lived actinides, this distinction becomes important in management and disposal of HLW.

In terms of radioactivity, high-level waste (HLW) is the major issue arising from the use of nuclear reactors to generate electricity. Highly radioactive fission products and also transuranic elements are produced from uranium and plutonium during reactor operations and are contained within the used fuel. Where countries have adopted a closed cycle and utilised reprocessing to recycle material from used fuel, the fission products and minor actinidesb are separated from uranium and plutonium and treated as HLW (uranium and plutonium is then re-used as fuel in reactors). In countries where used fuel is not reprocessed, the used fuel itself is considered a waste and therefore classified as HLW.

Low- and intermediate-level waste is produced as a result of operations, such as the cleaning of reactor cooling systems and fuel storage ponds, the decontamination of equipment, filters and metal components that have become radioactive as a result of their use in or near the reactor.

Used fuel gives rise to HLW which may be either the used fuel itself in fuel rods, or the separated waste arising from reprocessing this (see next section on Recycling used fuel). In either case, the amount is modest – as noted above, a typical reactor generates about 27 tonnes of spent fuel or 3 m3 per year of vitrified waste. Both can be effectively and economically isolated, and have been handled and stored safely since nuclear power began.

Storage is mostly in ponds at reactor sites, or occasionally at a central site. Some 90% of the world's used fuel is stored thus and some of it has been there for decades. The ponds are usually about seven metres deep, to allow three metres of water over the used fuel to fully shield it. The water also cools it. Some storage is in dry casks or vaults with air circulation and the fuel is surrounded by concrete.

If the used fuel is reprocessed, as is that from UK, French, Japanese and German reactors, HLW comprises highly-radioactive fission products and some transuranic elements with long-lived radioactivity. These are separated from the used fuel, enabling the uranium and plutonium to be recycled. Liquid HLW from reprocessing must be solidified. The HLW also generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling. It is vitrified into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass, encapsulated into heavy stainless steel cylinders about 1.3 metres high and stored for eventual disposal deep underground. This material has no conceivable future use and is unequivocally waste. The hulls and end-fittings of the reprocessed fuel assemblies are compacted, to reduce volume, and usually incorporated into cement prior to disposal as ILW. France has two commercial plants to vitrify HLW left over from reprocessing oxide fuel, and there are also plants in the UK and Belgium. The capacity of these Western European plants is 2,500 canisters (1000 t) a year, and some have been operating for three decades.

If used reactor fuel is not reprocessed, it will still contain all the highly radioactive isotopes, and then the entire fuel assembly is treated as HLW for direct disposal. It too generates a lot of heat and requires cooling. However, since it largely consists of uranium (with a little plutonium), it represents a potentially valuable resource and there is an increasing reluctance to dispose of it irretrievably.

Either way, after 40-50 years the heat and radioactivity have fallen to one thousandth of the level at removal. This provides a technical incentive to delay further action with HLW until the radioactivity has reduced to about 0.1% of its original level.

After storage for about 40 years the used fuel assemblies are ready for encapsulation or loading into casks ready for indefinite storage or permanent disposal underground.

Direct disposal of used fuel has been chosen by the USA and Sweden among others, although evolving concepts lean towards making it recoverable if future generations see it as a resource. This means allowing for a period of management and oversight before a repository is closed.
 
Last edited:
Shadow19 said:
Going back to the ways of life 150 years ago would be an impossible task. Neither you nor I would be willing to do such a thing. Population, medicine, and just basic technological needs have become too important to sustain to just give up. India and China are just NOW catching up to us. Yes nuclear fusion has all these harmful waste products, but so does every other fossil fuel. That is why people are so hard at work to make fission to work, an energy source that would have no by-product, no harmful effect on the environment, and be more potent than resources we use today; wind, solar, fossil, or what have you. As it stands, yes nuclear power is dangerous, yes there are negatives to it, but we've already pumped so much CO2 into the atmosphere that we have no idea what the long term effects will be. We've embarked on an experiment that we can't turn back from. We can only look forward and hope that nuclear power, or some undiscovered holy grail of energy, will be able to get the job done.



Water is also a nonrenewable resource, as absurd as it may seem.
Click to expand...

I actually lol'd at the last statement. That is rather absurd. In regards to everything else you said, You may not be willing to give it up but I am. Yeah, seems contradictory what with me typing on a computer while saying this but I mean, I'm not saying we have to go back to exactly how things were back in tha' day. I'm saying there are simple practices that perhaps we should adopt again in order to stop using non-renewable resources. Yeah, Nuclear Fission is cool and all but it's extremely expensive and I think it's silly to sit there and use it when we have the whole solar power and wind power. In my opinion, we do need to cut back on all this technology. Our dependence on it is lethal in it's own way in that, it's effecting humanity for the worse. I don't really see any bad side effects in cutting back in our advancements in order to preserve our world, our earth. I think instead of making everything easier like we are so fond of doing, why can't we just make advancements that just help in processes? I feel like this all centers around the fact that we want things easier and faster and because of that, we've changed the meaning of so many things and made practices that were once sacred and traditional- completely rare and undone. But they worked!

The one fact that bothers me most is something I learned back in my junior year of high school while writing a research paper on Food processing. The fact was that it's totally unnatural for humans to consciously think about exercising because way back when, most of our work was hard labor and therefore kept us fit. Now though, because of our need to make things "efficient" we have people calling obesity an "epidemic". So I just don't see why the world can't at least try to make some sort of change.
 
Last edited:
ChocolateVillain said:
LOL Bring back the Dark Age. I do agree that we need to find a better solution to our power needs but to cut back on technological advancement is absurd.
Click to expand...

Word of today: Absurd~! :D

Yeah, I know, it sounds completely radicalistic but I've been thinking about the possibilities of it for the past 3 years. We could mix technology with old ways of living and finding food and it would be awesome and balanced. I'd say that's much more advanced than where we are at now.
 
I agree that cutting back on the usage of technology would be beneficial, but continuing to do research to make it better is also crucial to society. Yes nuclear fission may be expensive but it is still more realistic than being able to rely solely on wind and solar energy. The sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow, the resources needed to collect the energy and use it to power cities across the world for days on end would not be cheap either. I don't think the direction we should be heading is backwards, and I don't think that's what your implying either, we just need to be "awesome and balanced" as you said.

Edit: That being said, I will continue to sit at my computer and be lazy, hoping that genetics and my metabolism will continue to keep me thin and somewhat in shape.
 
Last edited:
Shadow19 said:
I agree that cutting back on the usage of technology would be beneficial, but continuing to do research to make it better is also crucial to society. Yes nuclear fission may be expensive but it is still more realistic than being able to rely solely on wind and solar energy. The sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow, the resources needed to collect the energy and use it to power cities across the world for days on end would not be cheap either. I don't think the direction we should be heading is backwards, and I don't think that's what your implying either, we just need to be "awesome and balanced" as you said.

Edit: That being said, I will continue to sit at my computer and be lazy, hoping that genetics and my metabolism will continue to keep me thin and somewhat in shape.
Click to expand...

Fattttttyyy. Lol.

Yeah, I think you're starting to get me a little. But I think one day, I'm going to have to put down in words my radical plan of being "awesome and balanced" because there's a lot stuff to go along with it that's all in my head. I'm bad about writing the important stuff down while instead, I write down stupid stuff.
Well, I mean, those giant fan things don't just like stop when there's no wind, they're always going. So it's not that bad.

As for me, I'm sitting on my bed with my laptop procrastinating HORRIBLY on math homework.
 
Shadow19 said:
I'd vote for your plan...until the Republicans shoot it down.
Click to expand...

Now for something completely different but only relevant...How?

9dc1d89824fcf6121dd60e174eac9bb8jpg.jpg


I'm really liking the fact I had this whole serious post made and it's managed to come down to this. I'm doomed to be silly all my days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top