Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power

Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a
sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases
energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.

Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small
and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer
reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world
is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants.

Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous energy
source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in production,
and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology.

Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no
air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil
fuel combustion.

Proponents also point out that nuclear power is the only viable course
to achieve energy independence for most Western countries.

Critics point to the issue of storing radioactive waste, the history
of and continuing potential for radioactive contamination by accident
or sabotage, the continuing possibility of nuclear proliferation, and
the disadvantages of centralized electricity production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate

The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste
from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully
looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to
United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).

High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can
still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100%
security. A small probability of failure will always last. The
consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for
human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more
nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built,
the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the
world.

Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred
targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world
could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a
terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.

During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is
produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear
weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power
plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons
(nuclear proliferation).

The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce
resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60
years depending on the actual demand.

The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new
nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in
the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build
new nuclear power plants in a short time.

http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-co...sustainability

Immortalist wrote:

Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a
sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases
energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.

An acceptable high school-level discussion for the first three lines.

Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small
and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer
reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world
is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants.
[snip]

The military fuel cycle isolates transuranics at high purity and
leaves alpha-emitters in the beta-waste. It must be stored forever
and there are long term criticality issues. A civilian fuel cycle
isolates transuranics contaminated with beta-emitters for refueling.
The waste stream is strictly beta-emitters that require modest storage
times and has no criticality issues.

There is no problem. There is political interests and bull****.

The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one.
[snip rest]

Bull****.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Uncle Al wrote
Immortalist wrote

Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a
sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and
increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.

An acceptable high school-level discussion for the first three lines.

Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small
and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer
reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world
is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants.

The military fuel cycle

It aint the military fuel cycle being discussed.

isolates transuranics at high purity and leaves alpha-emitters
in the beta-waste. It must be stored forever

No longer than the original nuclear material.

and there are long term criticality issues.

Like hell there are.

A civilian fuel cycle isolates transuranics contaminated
with beta-emitters for refueling. The waste stream is
strictly beta-emitters that require modest storage
times and has no criticality issues.

There is no problem. There is political interests and bull****.

The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one.

Bull****.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:50:06 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

Immortalist wrote:

Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a
sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases
energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.

An acceptable high school-level discussion for the first three lines.

Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and
can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors
and that the operational safety record in the Western world is
excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants.
[snip]

The military fuel cycle isolates transuranics at high purity and leaves
alpha-emitters in the beta-waste. It must be stored forever and there
are long term criticality issues. A civilian fuel cycle isolates
transuranics contaminated with beta-emitters for refueling. The waste
stream is strictly beta-emitters that require modest storage times and
has no criticality issues.

There is no problem. There is political interests and bull****.

The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one.
[snip rest]

Bull****.

BY the time you get a large scale uranium nuclear plant built the thorium
reactors will obsolete it.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

On Aug 13, 6:15*pm, Immortalist wrote:
Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a
sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases
energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.

Proponents of nuclear energy are very similar to proponents of oil
energy,
The only thing either of the parties mostly know about enginering
is 500 foot tall
exhaust stacks.

Which is also why the people with post North Pole Admiral
Engineering Plans work
work so much on GPS, Weather Satellites, Digital Terrain Mapping,
Data Fusion.
PGP, Holograms, Post Thumbscrew-AI, Desktop Publishing, Pv Cell
Energy, Electronic Books,
Laser Disk Libraries, Blue Ray, HDTV, Mulrt-Plexed Fiber Optics,
Cell Phones, Home Broadband,
Micowave Cooling, Thermo-Electric Cooling, Microcomputers, Flat
Screen Software Debuggers, C++, USB, XML,
Optical Computers, Atomic Clock Wris****ches, Light Sticks, Compact
Flourescent Lighting,
UAVs, AAVs, Drones, Cruise Missiles, Phalanx, Cyber Batteries, Self-
Assembling Robots,
Self-Replicating Machines, Post 1912 Gas Turbine Engines, Hybrid-
Electric Engines,
On-Line Banking, On-Line Shopping, On-Line Publishing, ABS,
Spandex, Plexiglass,
Solar Energy, neo-Wind Energy, Biodiesel, Holographics, DSP, and
Post-Chrysler Nomics









Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small
and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer
reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world
is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants.

Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous energy
source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in production,
and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology.

Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no
air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil
fuel combustion.

Proponents also point out that nuclear power is the only viable course
to achieve energy independence for most Western countries.

Critics point to the issue of storing radioactive waste, the history
of and continuing potential for radioactive contamination by accident
or sabotage, the continuing possibility of nuclear proliferation, and
the disadvantages of centralized electricity production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate

The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste
from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully
looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to
United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).

High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can
still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100%
security. A small probability of failure will always last. The
consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for
human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more
nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built,
the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the
world.

Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred
targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world
could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a
terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.

During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is
produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear
weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power
plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons
(nuclear proliferation).

The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce
resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60
years depending on the actual demand.

The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new
nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in
the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build
new nuclear power plants in a short time.

http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-co...-and-sustainab...

A classical science fiction method of getting rid of radioactive
waste has been to dump it into the sun.

Also, as an energy source, the sun, with 'up close', transfer
stations, has been discussed.

On 14 Aug 2009 00:18:49 GMT, Michael Coburn
wrote:

BY the time you get a large scale uranium nuclear plant built the thorium
reactors will obsolete it.

Power plant technologies seem to advance slowly. But "obsolete"
power plants are producing power all over the world.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

"Sir Frederick" wrote:
A classical science fiction method of getting rid of
radioactive waste has been to dump it into the sun.

hanson wrote:
.... but wouldn't the solar radiation bake, vaporize and
ionize such incoming loads... and wouldn't the solar
wind blow that gossamer stuff then right back into the
direction it came from? ... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:03:49 GMT, "hanson" wrote:


"Sir Frederick" wrote:
A classical science fiction method of getting rid of
radioactive waste has been to dump it into the sun.

hanson wrote:
... but wouldn't the solar radiation bake, vaporize and
ionize such incoming loads... and wouldn't the solar
wind blow that gossamer stuff then right back into the
direction it came from? ... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

I have no idea.... ahahahaha... ahahamartin

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:37:51 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote:

On 14 Aug 2009 00:18:49 GMT, Michael Coburn wrote:

BY the time you get a large scale uranium nuclear plant built the
thorium reactors will obsolete it.

Power plant technologies seem to advance slowly. But "obsolete" power
plants are producing power all over the world.

But are they creating decent ROI? The costs are now sunk costs. The
investment in a large nuclear facility will not produce a profit whereas
it may well be that an investment in a thorium plant will do so with a
greater certainty. That is obviously not the case at present for
thorium. But it would not take much public funding to make it the case.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson