Why are so many people opposed to nuclear energy?

[Skyler4856]

Gotta say I agree with all of the above. The cost of PV panels has really nosedived in the last few years, but launch costs are still high. A panel in orbit has greater insolation for longer, but not enough to make up the difference. Arrays at ground level may have less insolation available per unit area, but the high cost of shipping mass to orbit means you'll get way more output per unit cost by simply building a bigger array on the surface.

Looking at the economic side, the fact that output of a ground-mounted array matches demand reasonably well (especially in areas where aircon is used) means it can often sell it's output at a higher price, instead of having to try and sell bargain-bin baseload power like a space-based array would have to. On top of this, I don't know of any country that's offering incentives for solar feed-in electricity that account for space-based installations, so there would be a lot of uncertainty for investors about the possible returns.

Well, considering that Elon Musk believes that all elements of society in the future should be powered by electricity, I wouldn't be extremely surprised if he offered reduced launch costs to a company contingent on the payload

[Seret]

All-electric is actually a pretty orthodox vision for our future energy systems, and doesn't necessitate space-based power stations.

[Aghanim]

Actually yes, electric is future. Why I say this?

Electricity is one of the most useful and powerful abstracting layer that we invented. With that, we could use power of the blowing wind to cook our food. Use the power of flowing water to heat up water. Both of them is impractical without electricity. The only problem is efficiency, but with near-infinite power and cheap electricity price, convenience will rule over efficiency. But with us using fossil fuel, there is global warming to be concerned, there is fossil fuel depletion to be concerned, so we doesn't convert all into electricity

The problem with all-electric society? Cut the grid and real **** will happen. With ICE cars at least we could pump fuel manually, but with electric car there is no electricity to charge with

[lajoswinkler]

Only a fraction of the surface of the earth between the tropic of cancer / capricorn can ever have the sun at the zenith. For any one fixed location in that band, the sun only ever goes near the zenith for a fraction of the year. It almost goes without saying, but when it does so, it is only near the zenith for a fraction of the day, and only a fraction of those days will have clear skies.

A solar power sat near geosync gets full solar radiation 24/7 365.25, and can beam that power anywhere on the globe. The idea clearly has merit, the main argument against it being economic. As electricity prices rise, demand for clean energy increases, and costs decrease, they become viable. The powersat corporation says they are viable now:

I'm sure they say that. They're a corporation.

[Hellothere!]

Well the main Problem with nuclear Energy is the question what to do with the nuclear waste. I come from Germany and we have an ongoing discussion about this problem which is the main reason why most persons here are opposed to nuclear energy here. I know that all the dumb fears about exploding reactors are mostly irrational. And if there was a way to lock down the waste in some safe container and put it into an abandoned mineshaft I would really be fine with it. But all types of containers known so far won`t keep stable long enough. Metal does corrode, and plastic, cement and many other materials get unstable due to radiation over time. So maybe after some thousand or maybe just ten years radioactive material will get out and into the water. Then we will have huge problems.

[jwenting]

no, the main problem with nuclear energy is politics preventing proper handling of nuclear waste, the vast majority of which can be reused as fuel, and the rest refined so there's only a tiny fraction that needs storing, and that needing storing only for a short period (a few decades or so).

You can't help getting your "facts" from the likes of Greenpeace (an utterly incorrect name for what is a terrorist organisation), but you should realise that that's where your "facts" come from.

[ZetaX]

You might want to back your claims that Greenpeace is a terrorist organisation. Or more accurately, you might get rid of that stupid overusage of "terrorist": as the name says, a terrorist wants to create terror to achieve some kind of goal. At best, and that's more what PETA does, you could use something like "guerilla fighters", yet Greenpeace generally does not even do sich things.

Also, your claims on the majority of waste being reusable is wrong. Most of the waste is not even the former fuel but stuff that got in contact with it or otherwisely got irradiated. It may be debatable what of that one really should consider dangerous, but some parts are, and extracting the non-dengerous parts is costly. The burnt fuel's radiation is also not short term, e.g. caesium and iodine isotopes that have a half-life in the decades occur.

[rtxoff]

no, the main problem with nuclear energy is politics preventing proper handling of nuclear waste, the vast majority of which can be reused as fuel, and the rest refined so there's only a tiny fraction that needs storing, and that needing storing only for a short period (a few decades or so).

You can't help getting your "facts" from the likes of Greenpeace (an utterly incorrect name for what is a terrorist organisation), but you should realise that that's where your "facts" come from.

????!!!!????

Sorry but in which world do you live? I must be dreaming!!!

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

Please read that before posting such nonsense!!!

And that thing with an terrorist organisation, you better hope you live not in Germany because there you could get sued for saying such things.

It is true that a great portion of the wastes can get recycled but not all of them and that is an problem. Some of the absolutely dangerous stuff that can not be recycled has half-lifes of thousands of years and there is no place on the whole planet that could possibly store that stuff safe for such long periods. Even the containers would not survive that long periods of time. There are megatons of nuclear waste already produced in the world that is beyond recycling.

There is no real solution for this problem. We are poisoning all the generation behind us and all that for what? To keep our Industries going which produce cars which pollute the world too.

Really, wake up kiddy and face reality. Humans are the most destructive force on this planet.

I know that all the dumb fears about exploding reactors are mostly irrational.

Really? Then have a look at this:

And also have a look on that list:

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

[m4v]

nuclear energy doesn't even account 10% of the energy generated in the planet and its waste is a real problem today. If we're going to power a significant portion of human civilization with nuclear energy then we need a much better plan for waste management.

[jwenting]

????!!!!????

Sorry but in which world do you live? I must be dreaming!!!

unlike you, who get your "facts" from greenpeace propaganda, I've actually studied physics, with the degree to prove it, and graduated in nuclear waste related research.

[rtxoff]

unlike you, who get your "facts" from greenpeace propaganda, I've actually studied physics, with the degree to prove it, and graduated in nuclear waste related research.

I guess that gave you also the qualification to accuse greenpeace to be a terrorist organization?

And also the Wikipedia link is the work of greenpeace?

But hey go on, prove your point. I am very anxious to learn something from you. Give us you proof.

[m4v]

unlike you, who get your "facts" from greenpeace propaganda, I've actually studied physics, with the degree to prove it, and graduated in nuclear waste related research.

Well, in that case your post's contents will reflect that, yes? I only see rhetoric and no "degree worthy" material in them. Plus you called Greenpeace a terrorist organization, do they put bombs now? such hyperbolic statements are not the ones I would expect from someone that graduated from a high studies institute.

[peadar1987]

unlike you, who get your "facts" from greenpeace propaganda, I've actually studied physics, with the degree to prove it, and graduated in nuclear waste related research.

Well then you'll surely know that even though most of the activity from nuclear waste is in stuff that could potentially be burned as fuel, most of the volume of waste is indeed stuff that is just contaminated or irradiated, and is just that; waste. This coming from someone who has worked in the nuclear industry and is generally pro-nuclear.

[Psycix]

The problem is that the requirements for waste storage are extremely high due to an irrational fear.

It is perfectly fine to store it in a warehouse in the desert or such. No need to bury anything.

A good reason to keep the waste around is because generation 4 fast reactors will be able to burn it as fuel.

You read that right. Gen4 reactors can burn waste as fuel. The waste from gen-4 reactors contains isotopes that are radioactive for mere decades rather than centuries.

---

Really? Then have a look at this:

Yes because we can compare 21st century western technology to careless russians in the 70's that had (in comparison) had no clue what they were doing.

Chernobyl didn't even have a containment building.

Chernobyl's reactors had inherent design flaws. One of the most prominent being SCRAM-ing the control rods back in would stall coolant flow while not yet reducing reaction rate in the bottom part of the reactor.

Chernobyl's staff was not properly trained. Even common sense could have prevented the insane human mistakes that were made.

At the the day of the incident they mistreated the reactor, causing it to get 'reactor poisoning', this filled the core with the wrong isotopes, stalling power production. In order to try to get the power back, they took out almost all control rods. They even MANUALLY removed ALL but 9 of the fail-safe control rods that were never to be removed at any point.

THEN, while the reactor was beyond full throttle the improperly trained night-crew decided to do perform the test that simulated coolant pump faillure.

Stack that with the fact that the back up generators started up nearly 3 times slower than initially intended AND the issue of SCRAMming the rods in blocking coolant flow while bottom half of the reactor is still control-rod-less, and you have a conundrum involving runaway prompt criticality.

Chernobyl is not an example of nuclear power hazards, it is an example of human imcompetence, playing with forces they didn't fully understand yet.

Modern reactors are designed to be incapable of a runaway. As it heats up, the water boils, changing the neutron moderation characteristics and slowing the reaction in a negative feedback loop. Modern reactors are controlled by properly trained staff under strict protocols. Modern reactors actually have a containment building. These are just a few of the many examples why today, modern nuclear energy is safe.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Psycix

[rtxoff]

Most prominent case for storage of nuclear waste in Germany is a place called Gorleben.

By November 2011 there where stored 178 German Castor containers each having a weight of up to 117tons of nuclear waste.

And this is only one place for storage of many in Germany. I really would like to know why this waste is stored there if it could be recycled?

Edit:

Dennis Berry, Director Emeritus of Sandia National Laboratories said "fabrication, construction, operation, and maintenance of new reactors will face a steep learning curve: advanced technologies will have a heightened risk of accidents and mistakes. The technology may be proven, but people are not".

Edited June 7, 2014 by gpisic

[Psycix]

Your question about the amount of nuclear waste spurred me to do a calculation.

How much nuclear waste would we create if we generated ALL of the world's electricity with nuclear power?

World electricity production: 20,279,640 GWh/year [1]

This equals about 73006704 terajoules/year

Grams of nuclear waste per joule [2]

8.193 · 10^-10 grams/J

Nuclear waste per year:

8.193 *10^-10 grams/joule * 73006704 terajoules = 59814392.6 kilograms

This is about 59814 metric tons of waste per year. Let's say 60-thousand tons of nuclear waste per year.

I couldn't find the exact density of nuclear waste, but let's assume about 11 grams / cm^3 (uranium dioxide is 10,97 g/cm^3)

60 000 metric ton / 11 gram/cm^3 = 5454 m^3

We would generate 5454 cubic meters of nuclear waste per year in order to generate ALL the electricity in the world.

How much is this?

Football/soccer field size: 105 m × 68 m = 7140 m2

5454 m^3 / 7140 m^2 = 76 centimeter

If we would put all nuclear waste to generate all electricity in the world on a soccer field, it'd cover a layer of 76 centimeters per year.

Compare!

Gasoline energy density: 36 MJ/L

73006704 terajoules / 36 MJ/L = 2027964000000 liters = 2027964000 m^3

Which is about two BILLION cubic meters of gasoline.

If we had a tank the size of a soccer field, the tank needs to be this high:

2027964000 m^3 / 7140 m^2 = 284 kilometers

If we were to generate ALL of our electricity using nuclear power, THE ENTIRE WORLD would need to fill a soccer field to 76cm high with nuclear waste every year.

If we were to generate ALL of our electricity using gasoline, the entire world would need to burn an amount of gasoline equivalent to filling a tank the size of a soccer field 284 kilometers high.

Now tell me, which one do you prefer: Burning 284000 meters of gasoline, or storing 0,76 meters of nuclear waste for a few generations?

All we need are a few remote locations where we can collect and store the waste. In return our entire species are provided with electricity while not injecting billions of tons of CO2 into our planet's atmosphere.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_energy_consumption

[2] http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/waste_per_person.pdf

[m4v]

What a ridiculous comparison, CO2 isn't radioactive and isn't captured because nobody wants to fork the money, while managing nuclear waste isn't just depositing it in a soccer field and forgetting about it, you have to monitor and maintain the installation for more time than the time it took us to advance from the stone age to today.

Nuclear waste per year:

8.193 *10^-10 grams/joule * 73006704 terajoules = 59814392.6 kilograms

This is about 59814 metric tons of waste per year. Let's say 60-thousand tons of nuclear waste per year.

Wikipedia cites a source that says that we generate 12000 metric tons of high level nuclear waste per year. Since nuclear energy doesn't even reach 10% of the energy produced worldwide I can argue that your ~60000 metric ton per year figure is not even half of what we should expect in a world that's 100% nuclear. Edited June 7, 2014 by m4v

[Rondon]

????!!!!????

And also have a look on that list:

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

People have a skewed interpretation of risk, the example that sticks out in my mind was a hypothetical suggestion: what if we lived in a world where there where no negative health consequences to smoking? except that for every 100 thousand cigarettes produced one would cause the smokers face to violently explode? every now again you'd hear a story of terror as a person blew up in front of a crowd on the street, and there be a terrible, just terrible mess to be cleaned, Not many people would smoke at all, and yet that's the statistic for in around every 100 thousand cigarettes smoked the correlation is that someone dies. Not violently but slowly and "silently".

This is worth bringing up, for as many people who have sadly died in nuclear accidents its a moot point, Nuclear power is one of the safest power sources in the world for deaths per kilowatt, its kills less than all the fossil fuels, it kills less than hydroelectricity (exacerbated by this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam) , it even kills less than wind and solar, which is more interesting than anything else. Look up "Death per terrawatt" for yourself.

[ZetaX]

unlike you, who get your "facts" from greenpeace propaganda, I've actually studied physics, with the degree to prove it, and graduated in nuclear waste related research.

I know you were not speaking to me there, but I also responded on your post. Regardless of your argument from authority, I gave some points where you are wrong, so why don't you answer on those¿

[Psycix]

What a ridiculous comparison, CO2 isn't radioactive and isn't captured because nobody wants to fork the money, while managing nuclear waste isn't just depositing it in a soccer field and forgetting about it, you have to monitor and maintain the installation for more time than the time it took us to advance from the stone age to today.

Wikipedia cites a source that says that we generate 12000 metric tons of high level nuclear waste per year. Since nuclear energy doesn't even reach 10% of the energy produced worldwide I can argue that your ~60000 metric ton per year figure is not even half of what we should expect in a world that's 100% nuclear.

Indeed it is different.

1- 20 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere create environmental problems, while radioactivity in the desert does not harm anyone.

Sure, radioactivity is more harmful, but nuclear waste is not vaporised and released into the air we breathe.

2- Fossil fuels contain radioactive isotopes.

Yes, these are trace amounts, but looking at the ludicrous amounts of fossil fuels we need to burn even a coal plant injects radioactive isotopes into the air.

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~aubrecht/coalvsnucMarcon.pdf#page=8

So while the radioactivity of nuclear waste is contained, fossil fuels inject TONNES of radioactive elements into the atmosphere.

About the 12 kTons: good find, I stand corrected, but less than 10% is debatable. It was 13% in 2008, and dipped to 10% in 2011.

Let's assume 10 percent and recalculate. (I'm not sure what year the 12 kTons belong to though)

12000 / 10 * 100 = 100 000 tonnes of nuclear waste.

This is about a 66% increase over my first calculation, so we would need to fill the soccer field to 1.21 m instead of 0.73 m. The point still stands against 284 km of gasoline.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Psycix

[m4v]

This is worth bringing up, for as many people who have sadly died in nuclear accidents its a moot point, Nuclear power is one of the safest power sources in the world for deaths per kilowatt, its kills less than all the fossil fuels, it kills less than hydroelectricity (exacerbated by this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam) , it even kills less than wind and solar, which is more interesting than anything else. Look up "Death per terrawatt" for yourself.

Which means that nuclear power plants have less fatal accidents, that's okay, but is not because nuclear technology is intrinsically safer, but because nuclear power plants have more strict safety regulations and the people there follow it to the letter, all the other energy sources would be just as safe if the people adhered to safety rules.

[ZetaX]

It is a fact that almost nobody ever died due to a nuclear incident. Except Chernobyl, all such events were almost harmless, and the former was deadly because of the reaction on it (delayed evacuation, sending workers into the plant, etc.), so it should to a significant part be attributed to the sovjet's political structure.

[m4v]

Indeed it is different.

1- 20 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere create environmental problems, while radioactivity in the desert does not harm anyone.

Sure, radioactivity is more harmful, but nuclear waste is not vaporised and released into the air we breathe.

Is not harmful only if you can guaranteed that for several thousand years it will not be released to the environment that that nobody will go anywhere near there, and that nobody will bring back dangerous stuff back to habitable places, can you guarantee it?

2- Fossil fuels contain radioactive isotopes.

Yes, these are trace amounts, but looking at the ludicrous amounts of fossil fuels we need to burn even a coal plant injects radioactive isotopes into the air.

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~aubrecht/coalvsnucMarcon.pdf#page=8

So while the radioactivity of nuclear waste is contained, fossil fuels inject TONNES of radioactive elements into the atmosphere.

Yes, I knew that, fossil fuels actually contribute a lot the world's radioactive contamination.

Note that despite all that I have said, I'm actually pro-nuclear, but I don't like when people like you trivialize the problem of nuclear waste, because is not a problem you can solve by just dropping it in some place that's remote and uninhabited today. That's just being negligent and is negligence that the future generations will have to deal with.

Edited June 7, 2014 by m4v

[rtxoff]

Now tell me, which one do you prefer: Burning 284000 meters of gasoline, or storing 0,76 meters of nuclear waste for a few generations?

All we need are a few remote locations where we can collect and store the waste. In return our entire species are provided with electricity while not injecting billions of tons of CO2 into our planet's atmosphere.

Neither one, optimal solution is to cut down unnecessary consume, to optimze the efficiency of the consumers and the carriers and to establish a healthy mix of renewable energy sources like wind, water and solar. Also coal is not necessarily bad for CO2 economy. You can produce coal from wood. And trees take away CO2, in this cycle you can't produce more CO2 then you extract from the enviroment. I am aware that all this will cost money but it is not impossible if the will is there.

Honestly i am not even sure if that would cost much more then establishing Gen4 nuclear plants. It certainly would create more job's then nuclear plants would. Also this job's would not require that amount od expertise and so on....

You say we need a few places for disposal? Would you offer your ground for this? Or do you plan to lay waste to some other countries paying them to accept your waste?

What if that people sell the waste to terrorist then? Bam dirty bomb.

You see, nuclear business is a dirty business. Once the waste is there it can cause many problems. Better not produce any in first place.

Scientists of this world, invent a reactor producing no waste at all or concentrate on other forms of energy production.

[ZetaX]

Wind and water are too limited, and the latter is even an environmental problem sometimes. Solar cells are expensive and cause chemical polution, and obviously only work at day. It's not that simple.