The False Promise Of Nuclear Power

It will take several million years for the waste to be considered safe. Perhaps it's like freezing the dead, in the hope that sometime in the future, a cure will be found. The idea of using nuclear power as a green way to extract fossil fuels, just dosen't seem logical. I suppose we will leave both contaminates for our children to deal with.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

Why do these kind of articles never deal with waste free renewable nuclear technologies?

Are they just scared of the work 'Nuclear'?


---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

waste free renewable nuclear technologies<<

I never heard of it. Please enlighten. They don't fear the "word" just the potential death & mayhem of the devise.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

Nuclear power plants have potential hazards that are very dangerous if something goes wrong. Nuclear waste is unlike regular garbage, in that it can poison the water table and environment for millions of years. <br><br> Most people agree that dying from cancer caused by radioactive contamination sucks, but so does dying from cancer caused by polutants from other energy sources, and global warming won't be fun either. Then there are all those nasty wars for oil. Who knows, perhaps nuclear power despite all its failings is a healthier option than oil, but the problems with oil polution (and wars) won't stop no matter how many nuclear power plants are built because we still need oil for our cars, and plastics, etc. The more nuclear power plants there are, the more likely a major disaster will happen. <br><br> Do you have a link concerning renewable waste free power plants? I never heard of this technology before. <br><br> Hey, check this out!<br> <a href="http://www.brian-mcdermott.com/fusion_is_easy.htm">The Homemade Amateur Nuclear Fusion Reactor</a>

Well, Rearguard, there is the situation in Iran. The USA will start a war over their Nuclear program. Or so say thee.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

Mankind has come to the conclusion our devices won't run without the power we have (or thinking about) Maybe it's the devices that need reconsideration. Several hundred years and we developed the devices and the power for them. A mind change needs to take place. Lighting, heat and mobilization has to be a different perspective.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

Where did the material used as fuel from reactors come from in the first place?

It came from mines that are located underground.

Radioactivity is the result of a natural process.

I never cease to be amazed by people who press the panic button every time the words "nuclear power" or anything to do with using fission based technology.

Putting it back into the ground after it has been used is far better than leaving in buildings, barrels, or other such easily tampered with storage.

I am not saying that nuclear power is perfect or flawless, it isn't.

I am not even saying that it is even near the best way either.

What I am saying is that it shouldn't be discarded simply because of it being politically inconvenient for one group or another.

And anyone who is against putting it back into the ground, in the most geologically stable region possible is obviously ignorant of where it came from in the first place.

Btw, I find it interesting that these same people offer very little in the way of suggestions as to how to deal with the leaking and unsecured waste we already have.

I guess their preferred method might just be "pretend it's not there and it will go away".

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that doesn't work either.









---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

To answer both RG and Bofflade's question, Breeder Reactors take used uranium and reprocess it back into usable power grade uranium. The uranium in this type of reactor does not break down into waste products, but they produce more fissile material (uranium or thorium) than they consume.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor</a><br />
<br />
There is another similar type of reactor, called an "Integral Fast Reactor".<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.canadiangrassroots.ca/article.php?sid=9530&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0">http://www.canadiangrassroots.ca/article.php?sid=9530&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0</a><br />
<br />
Some highlights:<br />
<br />
1) is cheaper to build and cheaper to operate than water reactors.<br />
<br />
2) is passively safe. It uses a metallic fuel that expands when it overheats, causing the volume to increase which decreases the neutron density to the point where the reaction is shut down by the laws of nature without operator intervention!<br />
<br />
3) can be operated in a mode where it uses as its fuel the spent fuel of the water reactors. (It runs on other reactors nuclear waste, which is produced at the rate of 6000 tons a day in the US)<br />
<br />
4) can be operated in a mode to burn the world's excess stocks of weapons grade plutonium. <br />
<br />
5) recycles all the long lived radioactive material on site. <br />
<br />
And yet another type of reactor, being deployed in China, the 'Pebble bed reactor'.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html</a><br />
<br />
"Suppose a coolant pipe blows, a pressure valve sticks, terrorists knock the top off the reactor vessel, an operator goes postal and yanks the control rods that regulate the nuclear chain reaction - no radioactive nightmare. This reactor is meltdown-proof."<br />
<br />
So, why does the common denominator of this type of the above article always come down to 'nuclear baaaaddd!' and ends there?<br />
<br />
Nuclear can be good. Japan runs many breeder reactors, and ships the waste from all other reactors there. They don't have the waste problem the the US does.<p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />

Sorry for the misspelling, boflaade.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

<blockquote> What I am saying is that it shouldn't be discarded simply because of it being politically inconvenient for one group or another. </blockquote> What you are suggesting then, is that, when we come to "peace, love, and understanding" we'll be able to safely consider nuclear fission/fusion....? <p>---<br>"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." <br />
-Max Planck<br />
<br />

It really isn't whether nuclear power is any more dangerous than "conventional" power systems (the only difference being that one can kill/maim that much quicker than the other). <p>What IS a major drawback with nuclear, is that it is necessarily a large and elaborate system that takes it yet one more step away from being under the control of the individual, and yet makes individuals more dependant on it, thereby moving it into the realm of "monopoly" and "manipulation". We need a plethora of "mini-systems" than we do a few "mega-systems", because democracy and freedom depend <u>solely</u> on the ability of the individual to control the energy (s)he requires to exist in this world.</p> Egads! I've been "corrupted" by Ed........ :~)<p>---<br>"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." <br />
-Max Planck<br />
<br />

In answer to your obvious bait:

Any form of technology is only as safe as the ethics of those who build it will allow.

If you're a profit seeking parasite, you'll cut every corner imaginable.

That you refuse to even consider nuclear as an option, even a badly chosen one, indicates to me that your resistance is based more on fear than what is real.

I have to wonder what your view on fusion energy would be, assuming of course it ever becomes viable.

One question RPW, what would YOUR solution to the current methods of storing used nuclear fuel and by-products be?

Answer that or remain silent.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Thanks DC for the info, I'll read this all up with interest!

"So, why does the common denominator of this type of the above article always come down to 'nuclear baaaaddd!' and ends there?"

Perhaps the oil industry is sponsoring these fear-mongering articles? Environmentalists always need a cause to rally behind, but that's a weak argument in this case since they already have enough causes to fight over multiple life times. Could also be simple ignorance.

Keep in mind, I cannot comment on the safety of the breeder reactors, etc, since I have not read up on it yet, I'm just going on the likelihood that you know what your talking about.

ps: did you see my link about the fusion reactor known as the "fusor"?

I agree with what RPW had to say.

There are all sorts of alternative regenerative energy sources which do not tear nature into little bits, why do we not hear about them? Why do we want large centralized energy production facilities? When they fail, large numbers of people are inconvenienced, or worse, and perishables are lost, or worse.

The difference between nuclear waste and naturally occuring uranium deposits is that nuclear waste is concentrated radioactive material. What happens when this waste gets into the ground water and the aquifers from which we draw our water becomes contaminated?

The nuclear crowd wants to put nuclear waste into consumer products, of course we wouldn't be exposed to more than the daily recommended limit by being around a single one of these products. Of course we have ample evidence to support the contention that any exposure is too much.

The nuclear crowd crows about "geologically stable areas"
and how anyone opposed is hysterical and wears a tinfoil hat in their spare time. When the nuke crowd first began to propagandize nuclear power they said that it would take ten years to develop a nuclear plant and by the time it was developed they would have figured out how to dispose of nuclear waste safely. Well guess what, they are still coming out with "lets sweep it under the rug and pretend it went away" ideas.

---

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)