Nuclear Power - Dangerous or a Good Alternative?

[TruBlu]

OK so I figured I would probe our community here about the idea of America adopting nuclear power. I am no expert on nuclear power and don't expect anyone else to be either, but I don't think that can stop us from talking about it and maybe learn a few things in the process.

My question is this: Why is America not undertaking a large scale nuclear energy program?

I ask this because currently one of the biggest topics surrounding the presidential candidates and their running mates is our dependence on foreign energy sources, mainly oil. I support the idea of nuclear energy, and my best example of nuclear energy being employed safely, efficiently, and lucratively is France. 75% of their nation's energy is nuclear, and they even export electricity generated by nuclear plants for revenue.

If they French can do it, why can't we? I mean its a win-win really: reduce our dependence on foreign oil and generate more income for our economy. The new plants would create jobs to build those plants, operate, and manage those plants.

If its done in a way where the margin or error is minimal, whats the problem?

Here is my source of information on French nuclear energy - http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

[soccermark23]

I would say a big chunk of it is because many people are scared of some kind of nuclear incident. We have a nuclear plant approximately 20 minutes from my house and I know people who have lived in the area for years and are still somewhat scared of it.

I think a lot of people hear the word 'nuclear' and automatically associate it with the atom bomb or the incident in Chernobyl. That brings up images of fear, and people just get plain ole scared.

[Infinite]

The key problem is storage of the spent fuel rods, for two reasons - one, where to store them?, and two, the most efficient use of the fuel rods to make storage easier has a nasty product - weapons grade nuclear material.

There is a storage facility opening underneath some mountain in Nevada in 2010, and that's the temporary solution for now. In my personal opinion, nuclear power isn't a viable source of energy in this current era. It works in certain situations, especially naval vessels and in my opinion, would work well in space.

[flyBoy2010]

The biggest problem with nuclear power is the "leftovers." Spent nuclear fuel that is still radioactive and therefore still dangerous. Plants currently have to leave their waste in containers in their own backyards. The Yucca Mountain facility is a good idea but has two major problems.
1) Transportation. How do we get the waste to the mountain. Waste traveling to the mountain would need to pass through cities, towns, and other populated areas just to reach the mountain. What happens if one of the casks the fuel is shipped in breaks open in a train wreck or if a semi-truck rolls over?
2) Safety. The mountain is in an area of know seismic activity. The original site of the canister cooling station sat immediately above the Bow Ridge fault line. The site has since been moved, but the mountain is still in an extremely active seismic area.

I do agree that more needs to be done to solve the energy crisis, and building nuclear plants would help lessen our dependency on coal. However, the bigger problem is how to lessen our dependency on crude oil, foreign or domestic.

[flyBoy2010]

I think a lot of people hear the word 'nuclear' and automatically associate it with the atom bomb or the incident in Chernobyl. That brings up images of fear, and people just get plain ole scared.

It's not just Chernobyl, but also the 3-Mile Island incident, which happened right here in the US.

[AirForceAlways]

The way we (as a planet as a whole, not just the U.S.) manage energy is still in its infancy. One thing you have to remember is that we realy began the mass production of gasoline-powered automobiles right around only 100 years ago. We've definitely come a long way, but we still can't make an all-electric car that can go more than something like 60-80 miles and still carry passengers and baggage, or make a gas powered car with more than 50 MPG. We're taking steps, but they're only baby steps.

Nuclear power is no different. We still have the problem of "leftover" materials produced from nuclear reactions. Realistically, unless we all want to die in a nuclear winter or something to that ridiculous extent, we might have to just keep using electricity and oil the way we know how to until we can come up with a safe and viable process of completely using nuclear energy, without leftover products to pollute and possibly harm the planet. I do believe nuclear energy has a bright future, but I also believe we should spend a good amount of money, time, and effort to research all that nuclear energy has to offer before we go ahead with nuclear power.

[TruBlu]

When it comes to wastes, this is my rebuttal: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf103.html. Understandably, I am not refuting your argument with a direct opinion, but instead the opinion and facts of an association. Of course this information is bias (their little phrase is "representing the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession), but so would the site on denouncing nuclear use.

Storing nuclear wastes has been a safe practice in many countries, and think about it this way: in the years of developing and awaiting the operation of a nuclear facility (about 3-5 years), new practices for disposing of and storing this waste can be produced.

[Woody]

The problem with nuclear energy if it goes wrong it goes wrong badly its not
cheap and getting rid of the waste and storing it is a problem .Renewables seem a better option .As fusion seems a long term bet .

[ang1sgt]

Gentlemen,

the 3 Mile Island incident was NOTHING when compared to Chernobyl. Lets get facts straight here and keep on track.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

[flyBoy2010]

Gentlemen,

the 3 Mile Island incident was NOTHING when compared to Chernobyl. Lets get facts straight here and keep on track.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

I understand that Chernobyl was a much bigger incident, but the point is that accidents do happen and not even the US is immune to these accidents.

[ang1sgt]

I understand that Chernobyl was a much bigger incident, but the point is that accidents do happen and not even the US is immune to these accidents.

Chernobyl and the area around it will NEVER be inhabited ever again. It will never be totally cleaned up. There is NO Comparison with Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island. Matter of FACT, Reactor #1, not more than a few 100 yards from the accident site is still on-line and running with NO Problems at 3 Mile Island.

There are so many safe guards in place at the US Sites. Having lived with one down the road from me for most of my adult life, these Power Plants are much safer than you would think.

I live in an area blessed with both Nuclear and Hydro-Electric as well as New Wind Generated Power. There are pluses and minuses to all power generation. Hydroelectric is the best because it almost always works and is on line. I drove past the wind farm the other day and there were well over 30 windmills sitting idle due to no wind. The only other power that can come close to Hydro is Nuclear Power for continued power output.

[mtnsldr]

Everybody loves windpower until the company comes to install it and the people realize that nearly every inch of formerly uninhabited space must be consumed to return the same power they are accustomed to living with...

[flyBoy2010]

Chernobyl and the area around it will NEVER be inhabited ever again. It will never be totally cleaned up. There is NO Comparison with Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island. Matter of FACT, Reactor #1, not more than a few 100 yards from the accident site is still on-line and running with NO Problems at 3 Mile Island.

There are so many safe guards in place at the US Sites. Having lived with one down the road from me for most of my adult life, these Power Plants are much safer than you would think.


I understand the difference completely. My point was that accidents do happen, even to the best and safest reactors. I also understand that more safety protocols have been put in place since the 3-Mile Island inccident. I did not mean to compare the two inccidents, only to show that accidents can occur, no matter how carefull you are.

[ang1sgt]

And do you understand that 3 Mile Island happen almost 30 years ago? And since that time there has not been an event even close to that in the USA? And since that time there have been other Nuclear reactors brought on line with no problem. Show me your statistics as to all of these accidents. You would like to think there has been more than just one in 30 YEARS!

Have you worked around Nukes in any form? While I was a Nuke Certified Weapons Loader, and there is little to do with Nuclear Reactors, I did have an Uncle that work for the Ginna Nuclear Power Station for almost 40 years. During that period and even after, they have not had a Nuclear accident of any kind. Do you have any idea the amount of training people get to be Certified to work on ANYTHING Nuclear? How long is the training program for a person in the Naval Service that works on Nukes? I'll tell you it is one of the longest training programs there is and the training continues even after Technical School.

Your average Bum does NOT work at a Nuclear Reactor no matter what Matt Groening might have you believe!

I understand the difference completely. My point was that accidents do happen, even to the best and safest reactors. I also understand that more safety protocols have been put in place since the 3-Mile Island inccident. I did not mean to compare the two inccidents, only to show that accidents can occur, no matter how carefull you are.

[Machine]

And do you understand that 3 Mile Island happen almost 30 years ago? And since that time there has not been an event even close to that in the USA? And since that time there have been other Nuclear reactors brought on line with no problem. Show me your statistics as to all of these accidents. You would like to think there has been more than just one in 30 YEARS!

Have you worked around Nukes in any form? While I was a Nuke Certified Weapons Loader, and there is little to do with Nuclear Reactors, I did have an Uncle that work for the Ginna Nuclear Power Station for almost 40 years. During that period and even after, they have not had a Nuclear accident of any kind. Do you have any idea the amount of training people get to be Certified to work on ANYTHING Nuclear? How long is the training program for a person in the Naval Service that works on Nukes? I'll tell you it is one of the longest training programs there is and the training continues even after Technical School.

Your average Bum does NOT work at a Nuclear Reactor no matter what Matt Groening might have you believe!

I guess that would make me an above average bum, right?

All I can tell you right now is to be patient. More nuclear power is coming, and I'm standing on the first one on the list. There is 30 years of spent fuel right across the farm here, and the entire lot is less than 5 acres, with room for the next 120 years worth of spent fuel.
A nuclear operator is in school approximately six years out of his first ten, and is tested and recertified every six months.
If I had time, I'd get deeper into it, but I haven't been here long myself and am learning something new everyday. Restrictions are tough, but the smart money says go to school and get a nuke degree.

[flyBoy2010]

This is the last time I will post on this topic so read carefully.

And do you understand that 3 Mile Island happen almost 30 years ago? And since that time there has not been an event even close to that in the USA? And since that time there have been other Nuclear reactors brought on line with no problem.

Yes, yes and yes. That was not a point that I was trying to make. Take commercial airlines. Pilots go through years of training, some have even been in the military. Planes are built with new safety features every year. But you still have plane crashes. The point I was trying to make was that accidents do happen and no matter how much safety and training is taken into account human or mechanical errors do occur.

Show me your statistics as to all of these accidents. You would like to think there has been more than just one in 30 YEARS!

I never said that more accidents had occurred.

Have you worked around Nukes in any form? While I was a Nuke Certified Weapons Loader, and there is little to do with Nuclear Reactors, I did have an Uncle that work for the Ginna Nuclear Power Station for almost 40 years. During that period and even after, they have not had a Nuclear accident of any kind. Do you have any idea the amount of training people get to be Certified to work on ANYTHING Nuclear?

No, and I never claimed to have worked in that field.

How long is the training program for a person in the Naval Service that works on Nukes? I'll tell you it is one of the longest training programs there is and the training continues even after Technical School.

I believe it is, but like I have said, accidents still can occur.

Edit: I was in a hurry, and left off a couple of sentences.

You seem to be turning the conversation towards nuclear weapons. The conversation is about nuclear power, not weapons.

Accidents have happened before, they will happen again.

[Machine]

Accidents have happened before, they will happen again.

That is a blanket statement full of emotion. I'm not stupid enough to believe that an accident will never again happen, but if you knew the anally painstaking measures that are taken to prevent one, I seriously doubt you'd have made that statement.
The industry keeps a microscope on itself. Every station is on a communication network dedicated exclusively to station safety and accident prevention. The primary cause of ALL incidents, safety or otherwise, has one common denominator, and that common denominator is the human being. That's why there is such a massive amount of redundant task preview, peer-checking, procedure use and adherance, and post job critique involved. I have the utmost confidence in the guys and gals who operate and maintain these units, even if the paperwork involved, for even the simplest of jobs, is a pain in the ass.

[ang1sgt]

This is the last time I will post on this topic so read carefully.

You seem to be turning the conversation towards nuclear weapons. The conversation is about nuclear power, not weapons.

Accidents have happened before, they will happen again.

NO CADET, I am NOT trying to turn this in a Nuclear Arms conversation. That again is a whole other concept and topic which you may have an opinion of, but neither the training or discipline to fully comprehend.

Please STOP putting words into my mouth. I said these things to get you to realize the breath and scope of things both training, and maintaining these systems.

If this is your last word on the subject, then fine, but get some backbone and stand by your opinions and back it up with FACTS or at least a reference to a known source, That is all we ask.

[mtnsldr]

This is the last time I will post on this topic so read carefully.

Arrogant much?