Why are so many people opposed to nuclear energy?

[MBobrik]

No, there actually is a problem.

...

Nobody really wants the stuff on their patch, which you can't really blame them for. It's a hassle to look after, and doing so brings no benefits.

.

Nuclear power opponents complaining about a problem they themselves created. How typical...

[Galacticruler]

If properly regulated, maintained and inspected(and guarded), a nuclear reactor would work just fine.

Mostly I'd imagine its the fact that the wastes and expended fuels are nearly impossible to safely dispose of, and when they "meltdown" it produces all kinds of bad stuff.

Chernobyl is a good example of those points.

I cannot wait for nuclear fusion(not cold fusion) to be a reality in power production, because it would be near limitless power, with fewer but similar consequences.(Only worse thing is that if the fusion reactor fails, the whole thing might explode with the force of a modern hydrogen bomb...)

[Seret]

.

Nuclear power opponents complaining about a problem they themselves created. How typical...

I don't see it as a politicised problem. Not wanting to have a bunch of highly toxic highly active waste anywhere near you is perfectly rational, whether you like nuclear power or not.

[Seret]

I cannot wait for nuclear fusion(not cold fusion) to be a reality in power production, because it would be near limitless power, with fewer but similar consequences.(Only worse thing is that if the fusion reactor fails, the whole thing might explode with the force of a modern hydrogen bomb...)

There are limits on the amount of energy available via fusion, it wouldn't just be free energy. As for accidents, a containment breach at a tokamak would vent a whole lot of very highly radioactive gas, but nothing on the scale of a hydrogen bomb.

[Klingon Admiral]

There is no radioactive waste problem. There is radioactive waste, and we've solved the problem by storing it deeeep under ground where it will not see the surface again, and eventually turn to rock. And radioactive waste is a ressource. The Caesium and Strontium isotopes can be used in radiotherapy, and the Uranium can be purified, and be reused, and you only store the stuff you can't use.

Also natural nuclear reactors are a thing. There's a giant vein of nuclear "waste" in Africa. Nobody seems to give a ****.

Deep underground is no solution, you know about groundwater and stuff? And no place on this planet is stable for multiple million years, plate tectonics be damned. One of the nuclear storage facilities in my country, located in an old salt mine shaft, suffers from water inflow, and a test in 2008 showed Cs-137, among other radiactive isotopes, in the water. Lovely stuff.

[mdatspace]

Deep underground is no solution, you know about groundwater and stuff? And no place on this planet is stable for multiple million years, plate tectonics be damned. One of the nuclear storage facilities in my country, located in an old salt mine shaft, suffers from water inflow, and a test in 2008 showed Cs-137, among other radiactive isotopes, in the water. Lovely stuff.

There are places which have been stable on this earth since the Archean. They are called cratons.

[liko2k]

Decommissioning cost of defueling, decontamination, demolition and post-demolition upkeep are between 500M to over 1B USD - not worth trying to build new ones anymore with renewables getting cheaper and cheaper.

[Galacticruler]

There are limits on the amount of energy available via fusion, it wouldn't just be free energy. As for accidents, a containment breach at a tokamak would vent a whole lot of very highly radioactive gas, but nothing on the scale of a hydrogen bomb.

This, I did not know, thank you.

Radioactive gasses are still bad though.

Deep underground is no solution, you know about groundwater and stuff? And no place on this planet is stable for multiple million years, plate tectonics be damned. One of the nuclear storage facilities in my country, located in an old salt mine shaft, suffers from water inflow, and a test in 2008 showed Cs-137, among other radiactive isotopes, in the water. Lovely stuff.

This is very true.

Now I just read an article on deep sea waste dumps, that have been in use since the 60s.(with few issues).

[Skyler4856]

no, i've often thought that a lot of people get all their information on nuclear power from watching "the simpsons" - particularly greenpeace. They're even against fusion...

Whilst i understand some of the concerns about nuclear power, i think it's often unfairly treated compared to fossil fuels. Sure, nuclear waste is a problem, but at least nuclear power plants do something about it. Most waste from fossil fuels is just vented into the atmosphere. How can carbon capture (burying co2 under the ground) the answer to our energy problems, yet at the same time burying nuclear waste is seen as irresponsible? Many large cities are incredibly polluted thanks to fossil fuels and hundreds of thousands of people each year die because of it, but no-one seems to care.

People's assesment of risk is also way off; it's heavily biased against new technology. Fukushima's radiation killed nobody. In the same year, 53 people died & nearly 4,000 were made ill as a direct result of the farming practices used in organic food production. Imagine the worldwide protests if that had been contamination due to radiation, or even scarier, gm food!

Similarly, earlier this year a canadian train carrying oil derailed & the resulting explosion killed 47 people. Imagine the reaction if that was a train carrying nuclear waste that had killed 47 people...

Not an argument to make nuclear more dangerous, but we let fossil fuels away with a hell of a lot. I think the costs of fossil fuel would rocket if we made them play by the same rules as nuclear.

how are people against fusion!?!

[jwenting]

Nuclear isn't economical anymore even with its benefits. 4 plants have gone out this year, replaced by gas and renewables.

nonsense. Nuclear is "not economical" only because of the massive bureaucratic and regulatory overload surrounding it, all of which is spawned by the anti-nuclear movement and has nothing to do with safety or whatever real and everything with a desire to prevent people from having access to cheap, safe, and plentiful electricity without massive pollution.

That's been the agenda of the "green" movement for decades, opposition to anything that provides cheap, plentiful, and reliably safe energy.

And that includes solar, wind, water, tidal, as well as nuclear.

[jwenting]

how are people against fusion!?!

because they've been led to believe the same lie as about fission, that the powerstations are/will be nuclear bombs just waiting to go off and destroy the world.

[Extemporary]

To me, the thing that really showed me just how little people know about nuclear power was when I looked at the sources of my area's power. If you ask the average person in Ontario what comes out of the wall socket, it's "hydro." All the power companies people see are Hydro One, Toronto Hydro, Hydro Ottawa, etc. I once did a survey and found that when people had to guess how much of the electricity was hydro and how much nuclear, the average response was about 50% and 10% respectively. They were somewhat surprised at the data from IESO:

People have NO IDEA that nuclear energy is even such a major part of their lives; good luck trying to explain how CANDUs are safer than RBMKs, or that one of those reactors they want to close supplies a full third of the world's medical radioisotopes. We are completely dependent on nuclear power to maintain our way of life, and nobody seems to know it. We have in Ontario the largest nuclear station in the world, Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, and despite being more than forty years old it has had no significant incidents. And yet people are so completely ignorant. It boggles my mind.

[Skyrunner27]

The United States spends more on its military than the next 26 countries combined. The entire worlds military capabilities, collectively, would not be enough to even invade the US. There was a very interesting article on the very subject earlier this year by one of the US Military Generals who said that while a "World vs US" scenario would succeed in forcing the US defeat (In other words, ruin its capability to mount an offensive), the rest of the world completely, 100%, lacks the capability to even land ashore. There aren't enough Aircraft carriers and amphibious warships outside the US to break through a US fleet and reach shore. An invasion through Mexico would be met with the worlds largest Tank and artillery base which happens to be in Texas. Long post brought to an end, the scenario of "enemies invading and bombing the nuclear plant" is impossible if we're discussing a US invasion, and every country with nuclear plants is an ally of NATO or the UN - again making such a scenario extremely unlikely.

War of 1812 anyone? The moral of the story is to invade from Canada. Yes, I realize the war happened 200 years ago but still there are virtually no defenses on the border.

On the subject of Nuclear power. I am a big fan of it with the amount of power it produces with little effect to the enviroment(Even better than wind and solar), but I do agree when that thing meltsdown and you are near it. You are going to have a bad day. Therefore, build nuclear but keep it away from centers of population.

[MBobrik]

. Not wanting to have a bunch of highly toxic highly active waste anywhere near you is perfectly rational, whether you like nuclear power or not.

.

Nobody wants a landfill nearby, yet somehow, we manage to agree to create landfills somewhere. If the nuclear opponents weren't throwing hissy fits, we would quietly find a remote uninhabited location, dig a deep hole and start dumping.

@Klingon Admiral

Deep underground is no solution, you know about groundwater and stuff? And no place on this planet is stable for multiple million years, plate tectonics be damned.

.

Nobody needs that. after a few thousands of years, the radioactivity or the waste will be comparable to the original uranium ore. And we aren't evacuating the planet because of all the unsecured uranium ore underground

Edited October 30, 2013 by MBobrik

[Drunken Hobo]

how are people against fusion!?!

Bit of an old article, but it's still on their site and they've never corrected any of the (deliberate) mistakes. Don't read if easily annoyed: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/

It's really funny to see Greenpeace argue for short-term gain over long-term sustainability.

[qeveren]

Perhaps I have been reading too much Asimov, but nuclear energy seems to be a much better alternative to oil than wind power or solar power. Nuclear energy (particularly fusion) is very clean, (when done correctly) safe, and reliable. This being the case why are so many people opposed to nuclear energy, my best guess would be many from the cold war era are frightened by the very mentioning of... NUCLEAR! This seems very presumptuous and frankly an unfounded fear.

Ignorance, and fear-mongering by folks with monetary agendas.

[lajoswinkler]

No, there actually is a problem. There is no long-term facility for storage of high-level nuclear waste anywhere in the world. It just sits around in short-term storage such as cooling ponds waiting for the day when some sucker agrees to take it away. Every year there's a little more, and every year we get less certain about where it all is, how much there is, and what we're going to do with it.

There has been talk of geological storage facilities, but no one has actually bitten the bullet and built one. Nobody really wants the stuff on their patch, which you can't really blame them for. It's a hassle to look after, and doing so brings no benefits.

I'm not anti-nuclear at all, but high-level waste is an unsolved problem at the moment.

I don's see why is the waste such a problem.

And it is not true that no final deposit sites exist.

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

It is currently being built.

The amount of the waste, in the terms of volume, is so small that most plants store their entire lifetime worth of waste in their own pools. Unlike coal power plants, which create huge mounds of coal ash which is carried by the wind.

I really don't see where is the problem with the waste unless someone steals it and throws it around like a fertilizer.

If properly regulated, maintained and inspected(and guarded), a nuclear reactor would work just fine.

Mostly I'd imagine its the fact that the wastes and expended fuels are nearly impossible to safely dispose of, and when they "meltdown" it produces all kinds of bad stuff.

Chernobyl is a good example of those points.

I cannot wait for nuclear fusion(not cold fusion) to be a reality in power production, because it would be near limitless power, with fewer but similar consequences.(Only worse thing is that if the fusion reactor fails, the whole thing might explode with the force of a modern hydrogen bomb...)

Chernobyl is a horrible example because it did not have any containment. The best example of a worst case scenario is Three Mile Island. The was no quake, no huge wave, no stupid commie corrupt dumbasses trying to impress anyone. TMI experienced meltdown, too. It was a classical textbook case.

Deep underground is no solution, you know about groundwater and stuff? And no place on this planet is stable for multiple million years, plate tectonics be damned. One of the nuclear storage facilities in my country, located in an old salt mine shaft, suffers from water inflow, and a test in 2008 showed Cs-137, among other radiactive isotopes, in the water. Lovely stuff.

a) Try geology 101. There are plenty of stable places on Earth, some of them billions of years old (there's one part in Russia with insanely old rocks).

If you put something in a subduction zone, it will get pulled into the mantle. Funny, huh?

c) Who cares what's going to happen in a million years? Think about it and explain it. Honestly, for god sake, who cares? The level of radioactivity will fall substantially in the next few tens of thousands of years. If humanity vanishes, nothing will matter. Stupid animals won't dig deep and eat the huge concrete filled blocks with vitrified waste.

d) There are still no built permanent storage facilities in the world. The storage you're talking about must be a temporary, where the stuff is not sealed. Perhaps it is for medium level waste? How much of Cs-137 was found and where? It's a legitimate question, because there's some in your milk at the moment, too. The quantity is important.

[Azivegu]

I don's see why is the waste such a problem.

The best example of a worst case scenario is Three Mile Island. The was no quake, no huge wave, no stupid commie corrupt dumbasses trying to impress anyone. TMI experienced meltdown, too. It was a classical textbook case.

Calling TMI a meltdown would be giving it too much credit. It was a partial meltdown. They may seem like almost the same thing but there is a big difference between the two.

And about that stability... I am studying geology and can tell you that practically no where is absent of seismic activity. Just because the rocks are old doesn't mean that there aren't fault lines. Cratons are indeed old (Precambrian rocks have been found) but it doesn't automatically mean it is stable. It is just more stable then average.

And there are a lot of things to take into account with nuclear waste. You know you can recycle it? By doing that you remove the uranium that is still good and are left with a waste product that doesn't nearly have the half-life of U238.

Also they are currently building a nuclear repository in Finland if I am correct.

I wouldnt advise chucking barrels into a subduction zone. They aren't as 'disappearing' as one might think. The crust does subduct to a 100 or so km, but on top of that is a bunch of sediment that just sits there and it takes a long time for it to go down under with the rest. In the mean time the barrels could break for any number of reasons and releasing nuclear waste into an environment that we know little about and the consequences we know nothing about isn't a recipe for success.

The strongest argument for nuclear energy is to talk 15 minutes out of your day to look up on Thorium and Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR's)

They have a higher density of energy, is more readily available, is inherently safe (melt down is physically impossible if left to its own devices) and they can be made so small you could litterally run an airplane with one. (Dont believe me? check out this link.)

[JebIsMyHero]

The biggest problem in my mind is what to do with the waste. There's a ton of it basically sitting out in the open with nowhere to put it in locations all over the world (look it up!) Projects have been developed to dispose of it (more like hide it underground and hope nothing bad happens), but the only country that's really made any progress is Finland with "Onkalo."

[lajoswinkler]

Calling TMI a meltdown would be giving it too much credit. It was a partial meltdown. They may seem like almost the same thing but there is a big difference between the two.

And about that stability... I am studying geology and can tell you that practically no where is absent of seismic activity. Just because the rocks are old doesn't mean that there aren't fault lines. Cratons are indeed old (Precambrian rocks have been found) but it doesn't automatically mean it is stable. It is just more stable then average.

And there are a lot of things to take into account with nuclear waste. You know you can recycle it? By doing that you remove the uranium that is still good and are left with a waste product that doesn't nearly have the half-life of U238.

Also they are currently building a nuclear repository in Finland if I am correct.

I wouldnt advise chucking barrels into a subduction zone. They aren't as 'disappearing' as one might think. The crust does subduct to a 100 or so km, but on top of that is a bunch of sediment that just sits there and it takes a long time for it to go down under with the rest. In the mean time the barrels could break for any number of reasons and releasing nuclear waste into an environment that we know little about and the consequences we know nothing about isn't a recipe for success.

The strongest argument for nuclear energy is to talk 15 minutes out of your day to look up on Thorium and Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR's)

They have a higher density of energy, is more readily available, is inherently safe (melt down is physically impossible if left to its own devices) and they can be made so small you could litterally run an airplane with one. (Dont believe me? check out this link.)

I'm really getting tired of this thread. No matter how much you explain things, and I've wrote a ton of text here, there will always come someone with the same stuff, so if you ignore it, it looks like you're backing out from a discussion.

So I'll be short.

So what if there is no place absent of seismic activity? Please explain to me why we should bother about dumping vitrified waste (locked in a glassy matrix, not a glass bottle) encased in concrete plugs into concrete cases filled with concrete and then flodding it with concrete in a place that will not experience anything more than few weak tremors in the next 50,000 years or more?

This is the third time I'm asking this. Why should we care? I'm still looking for an answer.

Yes, I know we can recycle it and I'm a strong proponent of it, as I stated numerous times in this thread. We should dump only the stuff we really don't need, and freshly spent fuel is not something we should be throwing away.

The waste product after removal of useful fuel is furiously radioactive, but that only means its halflife time is low.

I'm aware of the subduction problems, I've just mentioned it because the user I was replying to was thinking it would be horrible if the stuff was put into Earth. If we had easy access to mantle, all our problems would be solved. It's the ultimate trash destroyer.

Thorium reactors are not inherently safe. They don't operate at high pressures, but they still produce furiously radioactive daughter products that can reach the environment just like they can with uranium. The chances of such event are very small, but the point is that it's not true they don't exist for thorium.

They require U-235 or Pu-239 as boosters. Thorium alone can't sustain fission. They are still not commercially viable. Their technology is not nearly as tested as uranium technology that we've perfected greatly and have lots of experience with.

Proliferation of weapon grade material is not stopped with thorium because it requires purification of those two mentioned isotopes.

It's very hard to find rational critique of thorium based reactors. If you search for thorium myths, you'll end up on greenwashed stupid pages lobbying for 100% replacement of every power source with solar panels and hating everything nuclear. Yeah, those poopie heads.

And when you search for proponents, you'll find weird preachers that talk crap about uranium and glorify thorium because they're conspiracy theorists and "it's all about how USA wanted bombs". It isn't.

The reality is that thorium might one day be a great source. It is not today and will not be for a long time. We already have uranium and decades of research and confidence and excellent technology. The fact USA is stuck with old reactors... you can thank that to the "green" movement.

[lajoswinkler]

If someones wants to know how the high level waste is currently dealt with, this is how.

Fuel rods are chopped up and dissolved in nitric acid and then after chemical treatment, the waste is mixed with special type of molten glass (borosilicate, phosphate) and it forms a solid solution, like an alloy, except it's not a metal.

It is poured in metallic containers which you can see in the photo. They are put into concrete barrels and covered with concrete and covered by concrete lids. Additionally, copper plating is used.

Such barrels can be put into concrete tubs in depository and encased with more concrete.

Even if all that concrete is ruined, and that takes ungodly amount of time if there's no rain and wind, the material is still trapped in the glassy matrix. It is heavily immobilized. In fact, by doing this, you're effectively ruining the chance you'll ever retrieve the waste if you need it because it would take lots of chemical treatment, probably with hydrofluoric acid.

Granted, after few thousand years the glass has microscopic pores because of irradiation and decay, but it is not soluble.

The amount of safety considered here is remarkable. Nothing and nobody can reach the material without heavy and expensive equipment. The fear that one day someone will find it and open it is completely unsubstantiated.

I just hope breeder technology and reprocessing will become popular so we will be able to burn the waste down and further decrease even now low amounts of the waste. It really is very low. My country has one nuclear power plant and every single burned rod is in the power plant's spent fuel pool. There's enough space for all future waste until it's decomissioned, and it's been working since the eighties. Most people don't know that. They've got this Greenpeace-forced image of evil people pouring glowing green stuff into huge amounts of steel barrels and dumping them into rivers and ponds.

There's medium and low level waste, too. Those require different approach and their amount is higher. Examples are filters, cleaning equipment, gloves, etc. It is put into steel barrels and compressed to save space. It does not require fancy methods like high level waste and is much less dangerous.

[Diche Bach]

We've had this discussion on here not too long ago. And I've been involved in some similar discussions on other boards lately. I think the Fukushima ongoing story is probably prompting it. Here are some 'excerpts' of my own 'analyses' and conclusion.

You should note: I'm a social scientist, but I did start this process of examining the available data with a bit of a bias that disasters like Fukushima and Chernobyl show that nuclear energy is just too risky.

I spent a few hours a while back walking my self through the readily available data on Chernobyl and getting a bit familiar with the numbers and effects of radiation. I started out with a largely 'emotionally' based sense that the desolation/wilderness around Chernobyl is objectively WORSE than the ~2500 people killed by Bhopal. So I decided to work my way through it, mostly sticking to reality but in some cases allowing a few 'flights of fancy' like the "what if every nuclear power plant on Earth right now went ballistic"

The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is presently about 2,600 km^2. That is about 82% the size of Rhode Island (3,140 km^2)

As of 2013 the IAEA "report there are 439 nuclear power reactors in operation[1] operating in 31 countries.[2]." If every power plant in operation experienced a Chernobyl scale disaster (which is quite difficult to comprehend in reality) that would make 1,141,400 km^2 uninhabitable. That is slightly more than the total size of the nation of Colombia (1,038,700 km^2).

EU is 4,381,376 km^2 so the total maximum possible area of desolation is about 26% of the EU.

dose effects for varying levels of radiation. Note that, even in side the U.S. Capitol building there is an annual dose is about 0.85 mSv simply because of the granite used in its construction.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends limiting artificial irradiation of the public to an average of 1 mSv (0.001 Sv) of effective dose per year, not including medical and occupational exposures.[1] For comparison, radiation levels inside the US capitol building are 0.85 mSv/a, close to the regulatory limit, because of the uranium content of the granite structure.[12] According to the conservative ICRP model, someone who spent 20 years inside the capitol building would have an extra one in a thousand chance of getting cancer, over and above any other existing risk. (20 a·0.85 mSv/a·0.001 Sv/mSv·5.5%/Sv = ~0.1%) That "existing risk" is much higher; an average American would have a 10% chance of getting cancer during this same 20 year period, even without any exposure to artificial radiation. See natural Epidemiology of cancer and cancer rates. These estimates are, however, unmindful of every living cell's natural repair mechanisms, evolved over a few billion years of exposure to environmental chemical and radiation threats that were higher in the past and exaggerated by the evolution of oxygen metabolismâ€â€a challenging tradeoff made by life.

To bypass the complexity of tissue dependence, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) defined standard radiation weighting factors, independently of tissue type, to be used for risk and exposure assessment in radiology and the nuclear industry.[3] These values are conservatively chosen to be greater than the bulk of experimental values observed for the most sensitive cell types.

In 2012 the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation stated that for typical background radiation levels (1–13 mSv per year) it is not possible to account for any health effects, and for exposures under 100 mSv, it is only possible in specific conditions.[13] See Lowest-observed-adverse-effect level and linear no-threshold model hypothesis.

Later in 1986, after updated maps of the contaminated areas were produced, the Zone was split into three areas to designate further evacuation areas based on the revised dose limit of 100mSv: The "Black Zone" (over 20 mRem hr−1), to which evacuees were never to return, the "Red Zone" (5-20 mRem hr−1) where evacuees might return once radiation levels normalized, and the "Blue Zone" (3-5 mRem hr−1) where children and pregnant women were evacuated starting in the summer of 1986[7]:4. Special permission for access and full military control was put in place in later 1986.[5] Although evacuations were not immediate, 91,200 people were eventually evacuated from these zones[6]:104

Certainly the highest environmental radiation levels tend to be closer to the Chernobyl plant, but the current effective area of the Exclusion zone is far larger than the 30km radius referenced above.

0.0010 rem = 1.0 mrem =

1 mrem

= 0.000010 Sv = 0.010 mSv = 10 µSv

So lets put these numbers into perspective (using 8760 hours per annum)

"Black Zone" (over 20 mRem hr−1) = 0.2mSv/hr = 1752 mSv/annum

"Red Zone" (5-20 mRem hr−1) = 0.05-0.2mSv/hr 438-1852 mSv/annum

"Blue Zone" (3-5 mRem hr−1) = 0.03-0.05mSv/hr 262.8-438 mSv/annum

So now lets put this into health terms:

"(ICRP) recommends limiting artificial irradiation of the public to an average of 1 mSv (0.001 Sv) of effective dose per year" and "In 2012 the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation stated that for typical background radiation levels (1–13 mSv per year) it is not possible to account for any health effects, and for exposures under 100 mSv, it is only possible in specific conditions."

So, they have set the recommended healthy dose (1 mSv/a) about 13 times lower than the dose that they think they can actually detect some health effects (13 mSv/a). Above 13 mSv/a and below 100 mSv/a the effects are ambiguous in general, but some specific linkages to certain diseases must be empirically established. What I gather from this is, above 100 mSv/a and risks for a wide variety of illnesses will be increased, along with increased risk for the specific diseases which are 'responsive' to lower doses.

So 13 mSv/a is where it starts to get 'unhealthy' and at 100 mSv/a it is DEFINITELY unhealthy.

These models are specifying "additional" exposure over and above what a 'normal' person will get from background and routine medical exposure

10 to 30 mSv: single full-body CT scan[20][21]

2.4 mSv/a (0.27 μSv/h avg) Human exposure to natural background radiation, global average[note 1]

24 mSv/a (2.7 μSv/h avg) Natural background radiation at airline cruise altitude[27][note 2]

People have been known to die of acute radiation exposure from doses as low as 4.5 to 6 Sv (4500 to 6000 mSv). But on the other hand, people have been known to live to substantial old age and die of causes seemingly unrelated to radiation exposure having been hit with a total lifetime exposure of as high as 64 Sv: nonfatal dose to Albert Stevens spread over ~21 years, due to 1945 human experiment

So the average Joe or Sally is getting hit by anywhere from 2.4 to 40 or 50 mSv/a. 1mSv/a (above and beyond) is the recommended "safe" dose, and 13 mSv/a (over and above 'normal') is where some health effects are detected epidemiologically. An extra 100 mSv/a seems to be a sort of low-end, "You're gonna eventually suffer some health effects from this" type dose.

Now lets go back to Chernobyl . . . lets just assume that the Blue Zone is representative of what people who resettled the area would experience (even though it might be lower farther toward the boundary and higher closer to the plant) = "Blue Zone" (3-5 mRem hr−1) = 0.03-0.05mSv/hr 262.8-438 mSv/annum.

We know that an immediate dose of about 4500 mSv is likely to be lethal in short order. It seems that the Chernobyl exclusion zone (and to a lesser degree the Fukushima area) are in a "grey" area that is likely to increase long-term health risks, but some individuals may show little or no health effects at all.

What this led me to conclude is: as long as we NEVER have any more Chernobyls, and very few and diminishing rates of Fukushimas, and eventually experience effectively ZERO serious nuclear power plant "disasters" then maybe nuclear power is just fine after all :shock:

Amazing when you can use numbers and rational analysis to convince yourself that the world is in fact, probably NOT going to hell in a hand basket :mrgreen:

[Diche Bach]

And a related one . . . Dude quotes me as saying

If you run a perfect nuclear power industry, and have ideal means of disposing of the spent fuel, its just about the best source of energy ever.

By replying that

As far as I know, uranium still is a finite resource.

To which I replied

Absolutely. Best estimates of how much we got on Earth, and how long it will last based on present technology of extraction and use are 200 years minimum. Technological innovations in extraction and usage could reduce rates of consumption by as much as 60% while still producing equivalent kilowatts.

Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half

Somewhat more speculatively . . .

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscoveredâ€â€a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time

So, working with todays prevailing technologies reserves are anywhere from 200 to 400 years worth. Exploration could double that according to this article.

Moreover, there is supposedly the potential to yield effectively 'infinite' uranium

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uraniumâ€â€a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

These estimates and speculative projections can be contrasted with those for the three fossil fuels: coal

British Petroleum, in its 2007 report, estimated at 2006 end that there were 147 years reserves-to-production ratio based on proven coal reserves worldwide. This figure only includes reserves classified as "proven"; exploration drilling programs by mining companies, particularly in under-explored areas, are continually providing new reserves. In many cases, companies are aware of coal deposits that have not been sufficiently drilled to qualify as "proven". However, some nations haven't updated their information and assume reserves remain at the same levels even with withdrawals. Speculative projections predict that global peak coal production may occur sometime around 2025 at 30 percent above current production, depending on future coal production rates.[99]

Also found this site, which goes into 'excruciating' detail,for all three fossil fuels but doesn't really seem to offer any "years left" conclusions.

I think with fossil fuels in particular it is very difficult to come up with sound estimates because changes in technology and economics has always led to a certain amount of "reserve growth" as deposits which were previously regarded as "unproducable" and unproven reserves become proven reserves.

Here is a very interesting site that discusses the contrasting phenomenae of oil-doom prophesying versus the reality of reserve growth.

Speaking of the 1980s, had peak oil prophets been correct at the beginning of the Reagan presidency, the world would have run dry by 2011, or even as early as 2006 given the increased global demand for petroleum . . . Since the 1980s, though, much more oil has been found, and technologies have been developed that enable previously inaccessible oil to be collected economically. Consequently, oil reserves have jumped from 600 billion barrels to approximately 1.65 trillion barrels as of 2011. To put this number in perspective, this is enough oil to power the entire planet for 52 years, assuming no new oil fields are found, no new technologies are created to increase efficiency, and no methods are developed to extract oil from currently inaccessible sources.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Diche Bach

[jwenting]

Bit of an old article, but it's still on their site and they've never corrected any of the (deliberate) mistakes. Don't read if easily annoyed: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/

It's really funny to see Greenpeace argue for short-term gain over long-term sustainability.

as I said, "green""peace" is neither about green nor peace.

In fact they and their ilk are all about population control, inciting genocide, and imposing dictatorial governments (led by their people of course).

Just look at the history of USAID and similar programs. All of them demand developing nations impose forced sterilisation programs on large parts of their population in order to kill off as many people as possible in exchange for things like help to build schools and hospitals (where then the virtues of sterilisation and not using pesticides and fertiliser to increase crop yield so the country can support more people are taught, keeping those countries in perpetual poverty on purpose, the end goal being to kill as many people as possible).

[AlamoVampire]

Perhaps I have been reading too much Asimov, but nuclear energy seems to be a much better alternative to oil than wind power or solar power. Nuclear energy (particularly fusion) is very clean, (when done correctly) safe, and reliable. This being the case why are so many people opposed to nuclear energy, my best guess would be many from the cold war era are frightened by the very mentioning of... NUCLEAR! This seems very presumptuous and frankly an unfounded fear.

well, right now, we are incapable of FUSION only able to do FISSION. It is a clean energy, but, the risks associated with it are usually unacceptable. Just look at Chernobyl and 3 mile Island and that one reactor in Japan that suffered that Tsunami a while ago. There is also the matter of spent fuel rods and other nuclear waste that is not so friendly, and some of which, in the wrong hands become a dirty bomb iirc.