Why are so many people opposed to nuclear energy?

[Krevsin]

I still think we need something to bridge the gap between now and when we develop a clean, economical solution that doesn't have these drawbacks, and I'd prefer something cleaner than coal..

I live in a country where we have both a coal plant and a nuclear plant. More people develop lung cancer or have health issues around the coal plant than around the nuclear plant. The nuclear plant is also constantly monitored and checked. Last week, during regular checking they found that one of the control rods had broken off.

The media went hysteric, claiming that the engineers should've somehow known that this had happened even before there was a check-up and the local greenpeace organised a protest in front of the powerplant because clearly, finding out a fault and shutting the plant down clearly means we have another Fukushima on our hands.

On the other side of the country, the 6th block of the coal plant had just cleared the long-running blockade it had (an economic blockade, not enviromental) and the work on it resumed undisturbed.

Oh, and there was a plan to make a wind powerplant but ornithologists blocked it because birds would get killed by the turbines. Because birds are notoriously stupid, apparently.

[Seret]

something that kills 100 on one spot once per year is perceived as more dangerous than something that kills 10000 evenly distributed trough time and space.

This is the core issue the OP was addressing. The public in general are very poor at assessing risk. Engineers learn how to do this as part of their training (which may be way there have been several working engineers pop up on this thread). It's interesting to see mention of aircraft and nuclear power, as these are often used as case studies in teaching risk analysis. Both industries suffer from a similar problem: their gear is actually very safe and reliable due to the heavy regulatory regime they operate under, but the headline incidents frighten the pants off the public when they occur.

People don't perceive risk based on probability of actual harm to themselves, they assess it emotionally based on factors such as proximity, familiarity and the number of casualties in a single incident. So people will rate an incident in something which is not normally present in their daily life or which they do not understand (such as taking a flight, or the operations of a nuclear reactor) as high, while they rate routine risks such as driving or crossing the road as low, even if the actual risk of injury or death is far higher.

This is not going to change, it's how we're wired up. The disconnect between rational risk analysis and the public perception of risk is just part of the gig in engineering.

[peadar1987]

As someone who has worked in the UK civilian nuclear power industry (As a fuel route engineer), I can categorically say that nuclear power is not 100% safe, and the risk is not negligible, especially with Uranium. Yes, if you have a negative void coefficient in a PWR, you can avoid prompt criticality like in Chernobyl, but that's not the problem, the problem is decay heat after you shut down the reactor, which can quite happily cause Hydrogen explosions, blow the lid off a pressure vessel, or melt the fuel through the floor of the reactor building.

Molten salt thorium breeder reactors are so interesting because fission only occurs as the salt-fuel mix is pumped through the moderator at operating temperature. If it gets too hot, thermal expansion pushes fuel out of the moderator, and it goes subcritical. If it gets even hotter, the melt plug melts and the entire thing drains into a subcritical cooling area. The primary problem isnt one of nuclear physics or reactor design, it's material science, as we're struggling to find something that can resist attack by fluoride salts over the timescale required for an economically viable plant. Interestingly, even though it's called "thorium power", most of the actual fission occurs in U-233, which is "bred" from thorium in the salt solution. Unfortunately, Thorium power is many years behind uranium, because uranium is more useful for weapons development. Not every program who used uranium did it because they wanted to build a bomb, but as the technology was already in place, it was far cheaper to build on the previous reactor technology than go down a completely new R&D path. As a concept, Thorium reactors are far more passively safe than Uranium, and also the reactions lend themselves far more favourably to "burning" what would otherwise be considered waste (meaning the waste is absolutely screaming with radioactivity for hundreds of years, as opposed to merely very radioactive for tens of thousands)

That said, these risks are very small. Even when you take into account accidents like TMI, Fukushima and Chernobyl, the nuclear industry releases far less radiation than say the coal industry, causes far fewer deaths, especially when mining is taken into account, and causes far less damage to the environment.

The "best" argument against isn't safety, it's expense. A nuclear power plant is a big piece of kit, with a long payback period, and it's a lot easier and less risky (in a financial sense) for a company to build a CCGT or cogeneration plant that won't last as long or produce as much power, but is significantly cheaper, even if that's not the best decision in the long run.

Edited November 1, 2013 by peadar1987

[MBobrik]

This is not going to change, it's how we're wired up. The disconnect between rational risk analysis and the public perception of risk is just part of the gig in engineering.

.

then we are a failed species and for all practical purposes we are screwed.

.

The main argument against isn't safety, it's expense. A nuclear power plant is a big piece of kit, with a long payback period, and it's a lot easier and less risky (in a financial sense) for a company to build a CCGT or cogeneration plant that won't last as long or produce as much power, but is significantly cheaper.

.

we all know that fossil fuel plants are the cheapest and the dirtiest. but there are other reasons why we should not always go for the cheapest and dirtiest, aren't they ?

Edited November 1, 2013 by MBobrik

[Seret]

.

then we are a failed species and for all practical purposes we are screwed.

Not really. It just means we need to make sure the people with decision making authority have the right information and are able to make a rational assessment of it.

[lajoswinkler]

I, uh...I'm just gonna put this in here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621

Yeah.

It's not exactly a milestone. There's been a thread on Science Labs about it.

I see renewables as a superior solution, and ultimately the end goal of where we want to be. No need to mine, no waste to dispose of, and practically endless supply. Sure there is more research that needs to be done before they can completely supply all of our power needs, but I don't think that's so far off that we should invest heavily in stop gap measures like nuclear (fission). Temporary solutions have a way of becoming permanent, and I think it would kill the incentive to research renewables. I want my orbital solar microwave death ray power station please.

Most renewables also have the benefit of decentralisation and distribution being much easier than with nuclear. This makes them ideal for developing countries as well.

No need to mine? I suppose we're going to get neodymium from the neodymium forests, and we'll pick up ultrapure silicon from siliconnuts and siliconberries.

No waste do dispose? Tell that to the good people of various China industrial towns, where cadmium and arsenic have contaminated the ground and the water because China is making your "green technology" so you could feel like you're making an effort.

Renewable energy is the future. Longterm renewable is Earth's inner heat and Sun, but remember that there is more to energy than just the fact it's renewable. Energy density plays a huge role.

Oh, you won't see any orbital collectors ever. Energy density of Sun's rays in orbit is a bit above the density during noon in parts where the Sun reaches zenith. 1 m² of collectors in the orbit is extremely expensive. It's a nice idea, but it quickly crumbles down.

I may have been unclear. The I-131 was emitted as a gas during the reactor's operation. Folks who are suing were the 'downwinders' exposed for many years while the reactor was operational. Clean-up is a separate issue and has been a boondoggle. The whole facility stinks of mismanagement and lax regulation. I'll admit that those aren't necessarily technical problems, but that's kind of the point.

That's awful, I hope they'll get a refund. Is there a news source about this? What was the amount of curies released into the environment?

I was on an aircraft carrier, but your point is apropos. I know very little about civilian plants except by analogy, but I'm assuming that a PWR is a PWR. And by looking at DoE inspection reports for civilian reactors it seems they have many of the same issues with materials, water chemistry, failure modes that naval plants do (e.g. the steam generator u-tube degradation at San Onofre or reactor vessel corrosion at Brown's Ferry.) True that naval plants use HEU, and perhaps having a lower neutron flux density in the core might have mitigated one of the casualties I described (power peaking and uneven fuel use due to unbalanced coolant flow.) And like fossil-fuel fired plants, much of the personnel danger is due to the steam plant, not the reactor side, but steam plant casualties in a nuclear plant have the added complication of affecting the reactor (e.g. a rupture in the steam system can cause a cold water excursion that could overpower and damage the core.) It is telling that as a plant supervisor, 95% of what I did during operation was materials management through water chemistry and tight temp/pressure control to prevent brittle fracture. And the most dangerous things we did were not operations, but maintenance -- by several orders of magnitude.

As far as I know, reactors in submarines are much more unstable. They simply need to work like crazy. Enrichment can be huge. I've read about over 50%, even 96% U-235. That's some serious power in a small package.

Steam generator degradation is a common problem. Our power plant had its steam generator replaced a decade ago or so.

I am curious, how much problems with maintenance have you had when tritium in water is concerned? Is that tough to get rid of in a so small and powerful plant?

[lajoswinkler]

As someone who has worked in the UK civilian nuclear power industry (As a fuel route engineer), I can categorically say that nuclear power is not 100% safe, and the risk is not negligible, especially with Uranium.

I agree with your post, but nobody here ever claimed it is 100% safe. Nothing is. Risks always exist, and they span from anomalies to severe disasters. Risks have to be accepted. If we accept huge death toll of coal power plants, we might as well accept tiny death toll of nuclear power plants. It sound cruel, but that's how things work...

Edited November 1, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[RadHazard]

Stuff like solar sattelites aren't "a long way off" because the engineering is insurmountable. It's just that the research funding, investors and economic incentives aren't there (yet).

This, unfortunately, is the reason why we're still running coal and gas as our primary power sources. I agree, and I sincerely hope we decide to give increase the penalties for carbon emissions and other pollution sometime soon. The best way to develop any kind of clean alternative is to make the dirty one uneconomical.

[peadar1987]

I agree with your post, but nobody here ever claimed it is 100% safe. Nothing is. Risks always exist, and they span from anomalies to severe disasters. Risks have to be accepted. If we accept huge death toll of coal power plants, we might as well accept tiny death toll of nuclear power plants. It sound cruel, but that's how things work...

I know, it was more to preempt the anti-nuclear strawman that pro-nuclear people supposedly believe nuclear is 100% safe.

Ideally, we'd have geothermal, biomass and nuclear CHP for base load, wind, wave, tidal and solar on top of that when conditions were right, and hydro supplemented by CHP CCGTs for smoothing out variability and dealing with spikes (As well as dealing with a proportion of base load in the case of hydro). The energy mix would vary by country, but there aren't many places on earth where some combination of those would work, and work economically to deliver near carbon-neutral energy.

[Seret]

The best way to develop any kind of clean alternative is to make the dirty one uneconomical.

Dirty fuel sources do actually have a genuinely high cost, it's just not borne by the emitters. Nitrogen and sulfur oxides emitted by combustion plants have a real negative impact on forestry and agriculture, for example, not to mention the economic cost of the impact on human health. The trouble is that assessing these external costs is inexact, and depends a lot on the assumptions you make. However, various attempts to put a cost on different fuel cycles have all been in broad agreement (as in, they're within the same order of magnitude). The kind of costs they've come up with are:

(Price in UK pence per kWh)

coal = 5.4,

gas = 0.39,

nuclear = 0.48,

renewable = 0.055,

oil = 6.05.

(source: Pearce et al 1992 "The Social Costs of Fuel Cycles, Report to

the UK Department of Energy").

These figures attempt to sum up all impacts of fuel use, from global warming potential, environmental damage, land use, impact on human health, etc. If these costs were levied against the emitters (as they would be in a fair world) it's pretty obvious that coal and oil would become uneconomical overnight.

[MBobrik]

Not really. It just means we need to make sure the people with decision making authority have the right information and are able to make a rational assessment of it.

.

In a democracy, everyone has decision making authority.

[Mr Shifty]

That's awful, I hope they'll get a refund. Is there a news source about this? What was the amount of curies released into the environment?

Estimates vary, though I've seen numbers up to a million Curies total over the 30 year operation of the plant. The most infamous single release was the "Green Run" where about 8,000 Curies were released on purpose over a few weeks in 1949 to test airborne radiation detection equipment. No warning was ever provided to area residents, no medical follow-ups done until decades later when the release was uncovered after documents were declassified (due to a Freedom of Information Act filing) in the mid 80's.

http://www.psr.org/chapters/washington/hanford/hanford-history.html

As far as I know, reactors in submarines are much more unstable. They simply need to work like crazy. Enrichment can be huge. I've read about over 50%, even 96% U-235. That's some serious power in a small package.

Steam generator degradation is a common problem. Our power plant had its steam generator replaced a decade ago or so.

I am curious, how much problems with maintenance have you had when tritium in water is concerned? Is that tough to get rid of in a so small and powerful plant?

I can confirm that Naval reactors use >93% enriched uranium. (Here's a public source for this number: http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/81mahip.pdf) But, they're still LWR's. I don't recall tritium production ever being an issue we worried about. These are LWRs; the only tritium produced is directly as a product of U-235 fission, but it's a rare product, and it only becomes a significant problem during fuel handling, which we never did. Enrichment allows Naval plants to operate for 20-30 years without refueling.

[Seret]

Ideally, we'd have geothermal, biomass and nuclear CHP for base load, wind, wave, tidal and solar on top of that when conditions were right

Tidal is actually suitable for base load, due to its metronomic predictability. Tidal stream is not quite mature enough for mega-scale deployment yet, but it does look like they're making good progress. In countries with decent tidal resource it should make a useful contribution in the future.

.

In a democracy, everyone has decision making authority.

Lol, no we don't. Well, maybe in a direct democracy like Switzerland, but don't kid yourself you have a large influence on policy in a representative democracy.

[MBobrik]

Lol, no we don't. Well, maybe in a direct democracy like Switzerland, but don't kid yourself you have a large influence on policy in a representative democracy.

the will of the people can't be completely ignored even in a representative democracy (otherwise it wouldn't be democracy at all). and when the will of the people is to replace an expensive alternative with a cheap and dirty one, virtually no politician will say no.

[Fractal_UK]

One of the biggest problems that exist with regard to nuclear energy rest in the public's understanding of risk. Most people have no experience of actually quantifying risk, they judge it entirely qualitatively based on what they see on the TV and read in the newspaper. People will hear news for days about a plane crash and worry about getting on a plane for weeks or months afterward but they won't think twice about getting into their cars and driving somewhere, an activity which is far more likely to get them killed.

Another related point is that most people are also very unfamiliar with (and often outright distrustful of) statistics, hence the common phrase "there are lies, damn lies and statistics." This is because while almost everyone has the ability to understand an individual statistic, they don't have the experience to look at the way those statistics were collected to determine if they have been weighted correctly, determining whether the sample size has been abused to produce a particular outcome, etc. This is unfortunate because it means that even a very sound argument based on good data might be ignored solely because you're using those damned evil statistics to make a point.

Nuclear energy, unfortunately, suffers from both of these issues. Nuclear accidents are big news because they are scary and have some emotional resonance with the general public, when people see a coal power plant there is not the same fear, they don't see something that has caused a comparable number of deaths to the entire history of the nuclear industry, even though depending upon its period within its lifecycle and its location, it's quite possible that it actually has. The coal plant is the car accident to the nuclear power plant's plane crash.

The nuclear industry likewise suffers from abuse of statistics, the biggest example of this at the moment is probably with regard to cost. The anti-nuclear lobby point often to Olkiluoto in Finland and Flamanville in France and draw conclusions about the cost of nuclear power based solely on their costs. Of course, we need to realise that we're looking at the first two of a brand new type of reactor. In Europe, there hasn't been a great deal of new nuclear construction since the 1980s, expertise is not as available as it once was and there is a large knowledge and skills base that needs to be built up. Virtually all large-scale engineering projects suffer from cost overruns with their initial units, with costs dropping dramatically for later units. There is plenty of data available from previous rounds of nuclear engineering projects to help estimate just how the costs will change with varying amounts of new construction - those with an interest in performing a meaningful analysis will apply discount rates for later units to try to derive an accurate forecast of costs while those with a point to prove will continue to add up the costs from the two power plants, divide by capacity and point to an excessive cost / MWh.

[lajoswinkler]

Estimates vary, though I've seen numbers up to a million Curies total over the 30 year operation of the plant. The most infamous single release was the "Green Run" where about 8,000 Curies were released on purpose over a few weeks in 1949 to test airborne radiation detection equipment. No warning was ever provided to area residents, no medical follow-ups done until decades later when the release was uncovered after documents were declassified (due to a Freedom of Information Act filing) in the mid 80's.

http://www.psr.org/chapters/washington/hanford/hanford-history.html

I'm truly sickened by the type of people behind these things. I see it was 1949, mere years after the atomic bomb war crimes so I'm not surprised. Those were the years of the red scare and massive government-supported domestic crime "in the name of freedom", I guess. Sounds familiar...

Horrible times. Too bad people responsible for such things got old in their nice government-paid homes with cool pensions without ever having to face charges.

There were several experiments we know about today that were done in USA, mostly epidemiological and toxicological. But then again, I can't name one country in the modern world that didn't do crimes at that time. Every historic time brings new crimes. Decades later, declassification. Little does that help to the victims...

I can confirm that Naval reactors use >93% enriched uranium. (Here's a public source for this number: http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/81mahip.pdf) But, they're still LWR's. I don't recall tritium production ever being an issue we worried about. These are LWRs; the only tritium produced is directly as a product of U-235 fission, but it's a rare product, and it only becomes a significant problem during fuel handling, which we never did. Enrichment allows Naval plants to operate for 20-30 years without refueling.

So there was no diffusion through zirconium? In normal power plants, it is collected from the primary loop coolant and there are systems which vent it out. In fact all kinds of gases are collected in special tanks and then stored for a while until their radioactivity is low enough to be safe. Then they are simply blown out through the stack.

[peadar1987]

Tidal is actually suitable for base load, due to its metronomic predictability. Tidal stream is not quite mature enough for mega-scale deployment yet, but it does look like they're making good progress. In countries with decent tidal resource it should make a useful contribution in the future.

One of the main problems is stopping weed growing on the damn things, secondary problem is stopping them being destroyed in bad weather, as parking them isn't quite as simple as feathering the blades as you would on a wind turbine. You're right though, although tidal power doesn't run 24:7, it is predictable and slow-changing enough that you can ramp up and down the load on another base load plant without needing the rapid response of a gas turbine

[Psycix]

Perhaps the most important reason for using (and as a result, developing) nuclear energy, is because while there might be alternatives here on earth, these may not be viable in space.

Going to Mars can be done with conventional engines, but having nuclear engines is going to make things so much easier.

Do you ever want to set foot on another planet or moon? The chance is slim, but if anything is going to make that larger, it is nuclear propulsion (or nuclear-powered electric propulsion).

Support nuclear energy -> go to Mars. Let's do it.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Psycix

[vetrox]

Support nuclear energy -> go to Mars.

I like your argument but unfortunatley the majority of the population dont care about going to mars. They care about celebrities and their income tax and how its all spent etc

(notice i didnt give a % I said majority which basically means %51 or more of the population an easy way to hide low percentages in the media. I.E 55% of people hate puppies...thats a pretty low percentage really so instead we say "the majority"...word play...i hate it... a little fun bit of trivia for whoever mentioned the public and statistics)

Edited November 1, 2013 by vetrox

[3_bit]

I imagine it's simply because it's not reusable, and it has a poor history. I must state that we have taken long strides in safety, and incidents like Chernobyl happened because the core was operated outside normal parameters, when they removed more control rods than the recommended minimum. Not to mention technical failures of supporting equipment, critically being the intercom between the fresh water cooling pump control room and the reactor's control room.

[Unit327]

Oh, you won't see any orbital collectors ever. Energy density of Sun's rays in orbit is a bit above the density during noon in parts where the Sun reaches zenith. 1 m² of collectors in the orbit is extremely expensive. It's a nice idea, but it quickly crumbles down.

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:

The advances in technology have made materials lighter and cheaper, making it economically viable to utilize powersats for baseload generation. A key enabling technology has been the development of thin-film solar cells which dramatically reduce the weight of the satellite. We also have a patented technology in the works to decrease launch cost. As well, the drive for carbon free renewable baseload power has now made powersats a viable economic alternative.

[peadar1987]

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'd imagine they'd have a longer lifetime up in space than if they were located in a dusty desert with wind and an atmosphere.

[Nibb31]

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:

A dozen solar farms around the equator can provide power 24/7 and will always cost less than a solar farm in geosync.

An orbital solar plant would be limited by launch capacity to GSO. The current heaviest sat in GSO is ~7 tons. SLS might provide the capability for 20t to GSO, but it can't be used for commercial launches, so that's moot. On Earth, you can just add panels to increase production or to compensate for any loss.

Also, the technology to beam high power from GSO to the ground without major loss or side effects is absolutely not proven.

I'd imagine they'd have a longer lifetime up in space than if they were located in a dusty desert with wind and an atmosphere.

Not really. Most solar panels are rated for 25 years on Earth. The ISS Solar Array Wings were designed to last 15 years. In space, they are subject to MMOD damage. On Earth they can be cleaned and are easy and relatively cheap to replace. A repair in space would be expensive, especially at GSO.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Nibb31

[NASAFanboy]

A dozen solar farms around the equator can provide power 24/7 and will always cost less than a solar farm in geosync.

Also, the technology to beam high power from GSO to the ground without major loss or side effects is absolutely not proven.

No commercial company in their right mind will build a solar farm in GSO.

Well, maybe those companies that have billion-dollar contracts from goverment space agencies....

To build a solar farm in GSO will not get you any profits. It's hard, technology is unproven, and it's not that practical.

[Seret]

A dozen solar farms around the equator can provide power 24/7 and will always cost less than a solar farm in geosync.

An orbital solar plant would be limited by launch capacity to GSO. The current heaviest sat in GSO is ~7 tons. SLS might provide the capability for 20t to GSO, but it can't be used for commercial launches, so that's moot. On Earth, you can just add panels to increase production or to compensate for any loss.

Also, the technology to beam high power from GSO to the ground without major loss or side effects is absolutely not proven.

Not really. Most solar panels are rated for 25 years on Earth. The ISS Solar Array Wings were designed to last 15 years. In space, they are subject to MMOD damage. On Earth they can be cleaned and are easy and relatively cheap to replace. A repair in space would be expensive, especially at GSO.

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.