Can someone, who is informed, explain to me why nuclear plants are so bad?

hold the phone wrote:

So if we're willing to pay a huge premium for clean power (including massive capital costs for building nuclear plants), why don't we spend some of that money on improving solar technology?

And how about also spend it on ensuring (via tax credits or no-interest loans) that new building is as energy efficient as new technology will allow, complete with solar and/or green roofs?

Because sooner or later another of those things is going to blow up, there'sll be hell to pay, and it might be the one that's six miles up the road from my house.

Solar power works great in the sun. Wind power works great in the wind. No sun, no wind, you might have a problem.

As with nuclear power...eventually you run out of mountains to sweep it under. People are scared of the potential problems with nuclear power. Potential problems with coal (dead miners) are minimal compared to the problems with nuclear waste (more dead people).

Alan

People are against nuclear power because they don't know enough about coal. Coal power plants cause lung cancer, asthma, release tons of heavy metals into the atmosphere, are related to global warming, and are the reason you aren't supposed to eat fish (mercury in the ocean from burned coal). Coal is absolutely TERRIBLE.

For instance-Coal plants release more radioactivity than do nuclear power plants.

Another fact that people aren't aware of: the danger of nuclear waste is proportional to half life (time it takes to decay). Thus, all the waste that is going to be radioactive for thousands of years is pretty damned safe, because it takes so long to decay. Not to mention, we can recycle most of the dangerous waste and reuse it again and again.

[quote]Fossil fuel power contributes to acid rain, global warming, and air pollution (electricity generation is responsible for 41 percent of US manmade carbon dioxide emissions).[8] Acid rain is caused by the emission of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide into the air. These themselves may be only mildly acidic, yet when it reacts with the atmosphere, it creates acidic compounds such as sulfurous acid, nitric acid and sulfuric acid that fall as rain, hence the term acid rain. In Europe and the USA, stricter emission laws have reduced the environmental hazards associated with this problem.

Another danger related to coal combustion is the emission of particulates that are dangerous for public health. Natural gas plants emit virtually no particulates. Power plants remove particulate from the flue gas with the use of a bag house or electrostatic precipitator. Several newer plants that burn coal use a different process, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle in which synthesis gas is made out of a reaction between coal and water. This is purified of most pollutants and then used initially to power gas turbines, then the residual heat is used for a steam turbine. The pollution levels of such plants are drastically lower than those of "classical" coal power plants. However, all coal burning power plants emit carbon dioxide. Research has shown that increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is positively correlated with a rise in mean global temperature, also known as climate change.

Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment leads to radioactive contamination. While these substances are present as very small trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium. The radioactive emission from this coal power plant is 100 times greater than a comparable nuclear power plant with the same electrical output; including processing output, the coal power plant's radiation output is over 3 times greater.[9]

Trace amounts of mercury exist in coal and other fossil fuels.[10] When these fuels burn, toxic mercury is released which accumulates in food chains and is especially harmful to aquatic ecosystems. According to the United States Department of Energy, the worldwide emission of mercury from both natural and human sources was 5,500 tons in 1995, [10] of which coal-fired plants in the USA release an estimated 48 tons annually.[10] The Environmental Working Group (a privately funded environmental advocacy organization) alleges that coal-fired power plants are the largest emitters of mercury in the USA.[11]p/quote]

Whoops! Anyone against nuclear power should remember that they're supporting coal power instead, which is literally poisoning our country.

NICE!! You beat me to posting that link. Very very fascinating read.

You might be surprised how much of your power is already nuclear. This link allows you to see what percent of your electricity comes form what source:

http://www.epa.gov/solar/powerprofiler.htm

Just enter your ZIP code and select your power company.

Harry Kooter wrote:

You are, of course, ignoring the fact that the differences in design between the Soviet and American plants make a Chernobyl type event impossible in a plant like Three Mile Island.

What happened at TMI was supposed to be "impossible" as well, but it happened. Do you have any idea how close we came to a real nuclear disaster?

The feedwater pumps failed. They weren't supposed to. The emergency feedwater valves were supposed to be opened. They weren't. The pressure relief valve opened and was supposed to close again. It didn't. But the operators THOUGHT it was closed. The operators didn't even have a way of telling how much coolant was in the core. The core had partially melted and they didn't even know. Then there was the hydrogen bubble...

It isn't impossible at all. Unless things happen that aren't supposed to. But that NEVER happens, right?

troll???? wrote:

You are sadly misinformed. Three Mile Island was total media spin. Nothing bad really happened, and the safety mechanisms in the plant worked as they should. Chernobyl only happened because the Soviets were doing experiments and had turned off all safety guards.

I lived in Pennsylvania the time, I was reading about the accident every day it as it went on. The safety mechanisms did NOT work as they should which is why the accident occurred in the first place.

No Nukes concerts were the best, Jackson Browne and the rest of the crew were unreal.

NO NUKES !!!!!

amazingly, most of europe nuclear power plants as does japan. nuclear power is scary to americans because of ignorance.

regarding solar, the technology simply isn't there. how big of a solar collector would be needed to power a suburb of NYC? - basically one the size of New Jersey.

nuclear energy is the only real solution that will meet our energy needs and that will fit into our existing infrastructure, without having to spend TRILLIONS of dollars to replace infrastructure.

monkey fusion wrote:

nuclear energy is the only real solution that will meet our energy needs and that will fit into our existing infrastructure, without having to spend TRILLIONS of dollars to replace infrastructure.

As I said before, on balance I'm in favor of continuing to build new nuclear plants. But if you really can't see a place for any other alternatives, it just suggests that you're not really considering them with an open mind.

Overall, it makes sense to pursue an appropriate mix of power sources -- nuclear, hydro, renewables, and perhaps even clean coal -- as well as looking at the demand side and improving efficiency, as an earlier poster noted. There are enough problems inherent in all the options that none of them, on its own, will solve all our problems. The danger in believing that nuclear is the only answer is that we then stop the research funding that will enable, for instance, solar technology to play an important role down the road.

Right, but no radiation was released. None. So the safety mechanisms DID in fact work.

You know the saying about horseshoes and handgrenades. And engineering has come a long way in 20 years.

...................... wrote:

Right, but no radiation was released. None. So the safety mechanisms DID in fact work.

You know the saying about horseshoes and handgrenades. And engineering has come a long way in 20 years.

Let me see if I have this straight: Because we only narrowly averted a disaster, the mechamisms worked? Please. If things had worked there would not have been an almost-disaster in the first place.

The mechanical mechanisms were inadequate and gave inadequate feedback to the engineers (or NO feedback in the case of the water level) and the human process mechanisms in place made things worse. The fact that the whole thing did not meltdown is a hardly a resounding endorsement for it.

I wish you could have been there, when it happened and felt the awful sense of dread watching that thing on the TV and in the papers.

Nuclear engineering hasn't come nearly as far as you think. People have not come very far at all. And we still have nothing to do with the nuclear waste that piles up except stick it in a hole for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

Nuclear is probably the best alternative to go with but it is not a great answer either. Wind, Solar and other clean forms of energy should increase but there is no way they are the answer for the majority of our energy.

We need a real policy on what we will do with the nuclear waste before we go full blast with a nuclear program.

We should use France's model of standard plants and not the way we have gone with all different nuclear plants.

As much as I like France's model, France's problem with what they do with thier nuclear waste is often overlooked.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466

Some people make it sound like Yucca mtn and other places will be landfills. Landfills are increasing by several hundred, maybe more, cubic yards of crap everyday. Nuclear waste is small, compared to coal which poisons our air. Think about how much energy that can be extracted from radioactive material versus the amount of waste produced. Sure, there are concerns about the coolants used in the reactors and the "thermal waste" when water is reintroduced to nature. But, the physical waste, the spent rods, are used for quite some time before disposal. So, the energy-filled material achieves long usage as well as less physical waste, compared to coal. Another concern, is what happens with the decaying particles and the halflife of the material in the dumpsite? Well, since the spent rods would be buried underneath and inside a mountain, I would think this wouldn't be too big of a problem. These mountains are miles thick of granite and other very, very dense rocks and minerals. The mountains are a good natural barrier to the radioactivity.

California Legislative representitive Chuck DeVore R-Irvine is making a major push in California to restart nuclear power production. There is plenty to review on his website:

www.ChuckDevore.com

The technology has changed radically in the 30 years since the ban. Check it out!

How about we actually change people's attitudes about electricity first. I think the vast majority of citizens waste sickening amounts of energy they don't even think about. By doing this as the first step, we won't need as many coal or nuclear plants, and solar/wind power will go much further.

Nuclear Waste wrote:

...................... wrote:

Right, but no radiation was released. None. So the safety mechanisms DID in fact work.

You know the saying about horseshoes and handgrenades. And engineering has come a long way in 20 years.

Let me see if I have this straight: Because we only narrowly averted a disaster, the mechamisms worked? Please. If things had worked there would not have been an almost-disaster in the first place.

.

Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. Its either/or: the system either failed or it didn't. And since no radiation was released, it did not fail.

That is a simple engineering premise when the end goal is to avert disaster. Its like a building almost falling down or not in an earthquake: if the building doesn't collapse, the structure did its job no matter how much it shook, and you fix or replace it later.

Fact is, you have no idea how near a miss is was, because at the end of the day the safety systems worked.

I was alive for TMI, but I do not think the irrational fears of some locals should guide macro-energy policy.

Look, I understand the downsides and dangers of nuclear power. But I also understand they are greatly exaggerated by a lot of people, especially when you consider the alternatives.

At the moment, Solar is cute - but it is not practical.What is an open mind? How about Science, Engineering Physics and Economics - it is nice that people want power plants to run on rainbows and produce gluten free baked goods as a "byproduct" but it isn't going to work. We need massive amounts of energy and it isn't going to come from power plants that run on rainbows.