Keep burning fuel, or go Nuclear?

SeanW

"The cowards way out"? The cowards way out can be found in the Irish Government's green paper so vaunted by Lou.m

Hammer, Nail and Head. Government policy supports fossil fuels in preference to nuclear. Lou.M show support for government policy, and has throughout this thread opposed nuclear more than fossil fuels, much like our "man without a plan" government.

What Lou.M is proposing is that we scrap our extremely unsustainable lifestyle, and reduce our usage of electricity considerably.

If you read a few pages back Lou.M discussed his/her lifestyle, which essentially involves not using any energy for anything that isn't absolutely critical to stay alive. No car, no international travel in the last 10 years, etc. I think I speak for virtually all mankind when I say nobody wants to know about that kind of lifestyle, at least not voluntarily.

And as long as there's a default option, like coal which is plentiful, there will always be a way to allow everyone to use what energy they feel they need.

The PROBLEM for you guys is that your kind have Joe and Jane Q. Public scared senseless of the horrible evil nuclear boogeyman, but getting them to share your vision of radical lifestyle changes is another, much harder ball game.

That's the reality of the situation. You can ignore reality if you wish but that doesn't make it go away - and thats the problem YOU have to deal with.

You accuse me of attacking a straw man but you don't deal with the issue - fossil fuels vs. non-fossil options. Unless you can actually deal with the issue of 'if not nuclear, then what?' then the premise of nuclear vs fossil fuels stands.

RedPlanet wrote:

Because you are not going to slap and enforce a worldwide ban on Oil and Coal.

Which is exactly why we should support all non-fossil options and conservation.

What is meant by advocating "Nuclear Power" is in reality: We Rich Countries Aligned With America, because proponents of nuclear power never advocate setting up nuclear power stations in countries that are not part of the Western World.
And so, nuclear power is in reality, another imperialist enterprise. Concern for "the environment" is just today's marketing concept.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? If you're referring to the tendancy of nuclear adovcates to advocate projects in the 1st world or specifically their home countries like what I'm doing here that's basic logic. Nuclear power needs 2 things to be used most effectively, large scale electricity demand (which doesn't exist in some 3rd world countries) and a stable, competent government, complete with a strong, vicious but fair nuclear regulator - required for safety and environmental protection. Again, this doesn't exist in many 3rd world countries.

Lennoxschips

Lemming wrote:

It's not a cheap shot. It's a perfectly sensible point to make. You didn't give me your allegedly credible source. You simply gave me a link to a diagram hosted on Wikipedia.

I said it was from United States Department of Energy. Here is the original file in PDF format: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/world.pdf (the source is listed next to the image hosted on wikipedia) I just thought it would be convenient to link to wikipedia for the graph in question because you wouldn't have to open a PDF file.

one proposal once looked at was to bury HLW in a oceanic subduction zone where the Earth's tectonic plates would carry it down many miles into towards the core (which is kept hot by naturally occuring radiation anyway) - by the time any of it came back up to the surface it would have stabilised many times over. I don't know if that's been done though.

This was looked at but was found to be impractical. Dumping nuclear waste at sea (and that includes the sea bottom) is also strictly banned according international treaties. The fact remains that in the 60 or so years since the start of the atomic age, there is not a single country that has yet started implementing a successful method of waste disposal.

Lemming

Lennoxschips wrote:

I said it was from United States Department of Energy. Here is the original file in PDF format: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/world.pdf (the source is listed next to the image hosted on wikipedia) I just thought it would be convenient to link to wikipedia for the graph in question because you wouldn't have to open a PDF file.

Actually no, what you did was provide a link that you claimed was the US Dept. f Energy when in actual fact it was nothing of the sort.

But thank you for linking the pdf. Was that so hard? Interestingly enough .... did you read the rest of the document? Or just look at the graph. Because the commentary regarding Nuclear & Renewables is ..... "interesting". Not to mention a little more in-depth than that graph is, which is to be honest, a bit misleading and not to be relied upon as a summary.

Most of the renewable power generation comes from hydro-electric plants. Given that such plants rely heavily on topography, there are fewer and fewer places available in which to build new plants. That means that the renewable base-line isn't going to rise significantly once the saturation point for locating hydro-power plants is reached. A point that is backed up by the figures given for an increase in renewable power generation; total global share will rise from 8% from 2003 to .... wait for it ...... 9% by 2030.

With regards the Nuclear power projections, they're already in doubt given statements today by Germany regarding its nuclear power programme. Other european countries will undoubtedly be following suit given the recent vulnerabilities shown up by the Russians trying to throw their weight around with their fuel resources.

The Corinthian

RedPlanet wrote:

The title of this very thread "Keep burning fuel, or go Nuclear" is a straw-man argument.
Why?
Because you are not going to slap and enforce a worldwide ban on Oil and Coal.
Forgettabout it.
Fact: oil is going to be mined and used until it becomes unprofitable to do so.
Fact: coal is going to be mined and used until it becomes unprofitable to do so.

I get the distinct impression that you have not actually worked out the meaning of those assumptions (and they are assumptions, not facts, as straightforward profit maximisation is rarely the only influence on a corporation’s commercial strategy).

Even if we were to assume your assumptions are correct, then fossil fuel must remain competitive against any alternatives. As the cost of extraction and, by extension, price to the consumer increases, its competitiveness will diminish. If a megawatt of power derived from fossil fuel becomes more expensive than a megawatt of power derived from nuclear fuel (or even alternative means) then you won’t need to ban fossil fuels as no one will want to buy them anyway. And just to be clear, the price is not simply the figure quoted on the markets, but also the opportunity and transition costs involved, not to mention the cost of reliability of supply – because that too has a value in the marketplace.

This much does appear to be the case: independent of the commercial or practical viability of other energy sources, fossil fuel is becoming less and less competitive. It’s getting harder and more expensive to extract and political instability in the former Soviet Union, Middle East, Nigeria and Venezuela are disrupting supply even when it is extracted. All of this is making the alternatives more and more attractive.

Are we at the point where fossil fuels have priced themselves out of the market? No, but we have begun to realise that they may soon do so, which is why we’re now talking about it. This does not make Nuclear power attractive in itself, but given the present lack of alternatives it is beginning to look like the best of a bad lot. So it’s a Hob’s son’s choice rather than a straw man argument.

Some of those Energy corporations that want to sell you nuclear are the same ones selling you oil and coal today.

So?

What is meant by advocating "Nuclear Power" is in reality: We Rich Countries Aligned With America, because proponents of nuclear power never advocate setting up nuclear power stations in countries that are not part of the Western World.
And so, nuclear power is in reality, another imperialist enterprise. Concern for "the environment" is just today's marketing concept.

Maybe we really are better off wasting planet earth's fossil fuels on pathetic things like xmas lights and SUV's so we can make progress in the future once those resources are spent.

All that bares no relation to former part of your argument, so I’ll take it as another assumption dressed as a conclusion.

Hotblack Desiato

SeanW wrote:

Secondly, the root cause of radiation, the chemical instability of atoms, is not changed by the nuclear process, this only concentrates chemically unstable substances for use as fuel and the reaction changes the rate of decay.

That's not actually correct.
First off, nuclear processes (involving atomic nuclei) are totally different from chemical processes (which involve the electrons of atoms), you cannot change one element into another element chemically, but you can do this in a nuclear process.
A "stable" substance radiologically can be very reactive chemically, and vice-versa.

Nuclear fuel production is, as you say, just the concentration (chemically and by physical processes like centrifuge enrichment) of naturally occuring radioactive substances, e.g. producing enriched uranium. Radiation in fuel + radiation in waste = radiation in the original ore

When you run a chain reaction in a reactor though, you do get additional radioactivity, as the huge number of neutrons produced strike 'stable' atoms and transform them into radioactive isotopes (of the same element or a different element.) e.g. iron in a reactor gradually absorbs neutrons and is transformed into radioactive cobalt-60.

When uranium decays outside of a reactor, most of the neutrons escape (which is why a chain reaction doesn't happen) so additional radioactivity isn't generated except to a tiny extent.

You could happily stand next to a fuel rod which hasn't been run inside a reactor - the radiation level of low-enriched uranium is pretty much the same as natural uranium. Fuel rods coming out are a very different story- they're highly radioactive between fission products and neutron activation products - but most of that activity decays away within a few decades.

So reactors do create additional radioactivity - but it's how we manage that that matters.

Lennoxschips

Lemming wrote:

Actually no, what you did was provide a link that you claimed was the US Dept. f Energy when in actual fact it was nothing of the sort.

I linked to a Department of Energy image hosted on Wikipedia. Underneath the image it says that it has been produced by the Department of Energy and the relative link is there. I said the source is the Department of Energy. You are being pedantic.

Lemming

Lennoxschips wrote:

I linked to a Department of Energy image hosted on Wikipedia. Underneath the image it says that it has been produced by the Department of Energy and the relative link is there. I said the source is the Department of Energy. You are being pedantic.

No. Would you like me to quote exactly what you wrote?

Lennoxschips wrote:

More of the world's energy is supplied by renewable energy than Nuclear energy, according to the United States Department of Energy.

So which is proven and which is unproven?

What you actually linked was not the US dept. of Energy, but content hosted on wikipedia, which was very misleading. And as I've pointed out, the image in question is very misleading in context of the actual pdf file that the image comes from.

StPatsSLayer

The Awnser has to be Nuclear.

Nuclear Power is the most clean and efficent power that we could have.

The only drawbacks to Nuclear are

Security

and Nuclear Waste.


Yes we would need to beef up security.

And maybe a long term plan for Nuclear waste would be to dispose it in Space. Send it Mars or another planet.

Lennoxschips

Mr. Lemming, I don't see how what I said was misleading. The only point I wanted to make was that renewable currently generates more energy than nuclear. The source is listed next to the image as United States Department of Energy, with a link to the original. I'm sorry if you find that misleading.

Manic Moran

Large court case just got settled here in California about the Altamont Pass Wind Farm, according to the radio on the way in this morning. Environmentalists sued the power company and won. Apparently the windmills are killing too many birds.

You just can't win.

NTM

Lemming

Lennoxschips wrote:

Mr. Lemming, I don't see how what I said was misleading.

Lets see. First you make a link that you claim is from the US Dept. of Energy, when in actual fact it is nothing of the sort, but content hosted on Wikipedia.

Then you use an image that is, taken out of context of the facts & figures provided by the associated pdf, very misleading.

Have you even read that pdf document? I notice you didn't comment on the figures contained within that I pointed out which make that diagram look somewhat .... exaggerated ... in its assertions.

The only point I wanted to make was that renewable currently generates more energy than nuclear. The source is listed next to the image as United States Department of Energy, with a link to the original. I'm sorry if you find that misleading.

Read everything I mentioned above. I cannot be @rsed repeating it.

lucernarian

Lemming, Wikipedia was just a website hosting the picture created by the US administration. There should not have been any ambiguity about the original creators of the document. You don't help your cause by making trivial and in my opinion, unfounded claims of being misled.

The fact that the diagram is not representative of the entire pdf document is a different matter.

John_C

Storm in a teacup lads.