Personal and spiritual growth
- Purpose of spirituality
- The benefits of modesty
- The more the better?
- Children develop their parents
- Perceptive reality
- The human needs
- Higher consciousness
- About the meaning of life
Global warming, climate change
- Definition of global warming
- Cause and effects of global warming
- Responsibility and global warming
- Energy consumption
- Reduce the energy demand
- Carbon footprint
- CO2 emissions by country
- Reason for climate change
- Global warming news
Nuclear energy, atomic power
Time for change
Most recent content
Respect the basic rights of existence: Why fight against something which we cannot change?
Nuclear power - discussion
27 February, 2007 - 16:58 — juerg
Please attach you comments and suggestions regarding articles about advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power here below. Comments to the international nuclear energy news are also welcome here.
Thank you!
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Yigg
Wong
Webnews
Linkarena
Alltagz
Readster
Infopirat
SEOigg
Oneview
Colivia
SeekXL
Addthis
Wow, only 3 plusses to nuke power
You really show your one sided ness with that lop sided paper. Come on, if nuke power only has those 3, we would have never used it in the first place.
Guess you all are not Fox news, Fair and ballanced?
What are the other advantages of nuclear power?
You are more than welcome to let us know the additional advantages of nuclear power.
Nuclear energy was used under the assumption to find a good solution to the hazardous waste problem. However there is still no solution in sight for the waste problem (just digging radiating waste into the ground for several thousand years is not a solution, that is simply polluting the environment).
In the meantime, sustainable energies have been developed further. There are now better alternatives to nukes and mankind has (hopefully) learned. See also the article about nuclear phase-out . It is time for a change of technology!
Juerg
nuclear power
*Discalmer... I'm no expert, I just think Iknow some stuff.*
well, if we are in love with nature's way, digging holes to put unstable isotopes away for a while isn't that bad of a plan. Oh, and i'ts not goign to kill anyone, now is it? (Oklo?)
And I hesitatie to accept the validity of your statment conserning how sustainable a nuclear power infastructure is, especially considering that breeder reactors produce more fisionalble material than they consume, and that the current estimates are around 100,000 years of power (though i'm not sure what scale the ANS used for future energy demands).
Finally, I have yet to see a decent alternative to the conventional method for supplying a base load of power to the nation.
I'm goign to go out on a limb, and say that in the "future"...
There isn't goign to be just one power production method, however the base load will be supplyed by a more central, large, powerstation.
oops, that's what we have now...
Myths of nuclear energy advantages
Nuclear energy stations are producing hazardous nuclear waste. This waste has to be shielded from all living creatures (not just from human beings) for more than 10'000 years. The most dangerous nuclear waste even has to be shielded away for 1 million years! You call 10'000 years just "a while"? This is more than 330 generations! We now live in the year 2'007 after Christmas. 10'000 years ago people were living in caves and we still have very little information about that age. I hope this does give a feeling for the time range we are talking about.
How can we be sure that the hazardous nuclear waste will remain stable and well protected for this long time span? For example 25 years ago the chemical industry disposed chemical waste "safely". - However we are already digging out their "safe" disposal sites...
Just an example of nuclear waste handling in France : "Now evidence is emerging that a new nuclear dumpsite in the Champagne region of France is leaking radioactivity into the ground water threatening contamination of tritium and at a later stage other radionuclides. The French nuclear waste authority ANDRA has only a partial inventory of the multitude of existing waste categories, as large quantities have not yet been declared by the main waste producers EDF and Cogema, including spent nuclear fuel or waste from the uranium enrichment industry. Even French government regulators are expressing their concerns over the conditions at both dump sites."
Breeder reactors
Breeder reactors are currently not available. 20 years ago we were told "in 10 to 15 years fusion reactors will be available". Now we are told again "in 15 to 20 years fusion reactors should be ready for industrial application". Who knows whether in 20 years from now it will be another 20 years to wait for this technology? Many nuclear scientists came to the conclusion that the application of fusion reactors is very unlikely within the next 30 to 50 years. There are simply too many technical problems still to be solved.
In addition, using fusion reactors would still generate dangerous nuclear waste. It would only mitigate the problem related to the limited resource Uranium.
In other words: breeder reactors or fusion reactors are not an option. When Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair calls for nuclear power stations, they talk about normal fission reactor technology.
The role of nuclear power
Even if many additional fission reactors would be built within the next 20 years, their contribution to mitigate global warming would be very little according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). IEA investigated to which extent the emissions of CO2 could be reduced if politics applied rigorous measures. From all measures investigated, nuclear energy was found to have the least effect (only 10%) . Almost 80% of the desired effects are due to increasing the energy efficiency.
Instead of talking about measures to increase the energy efficiency, which accounts for 80% of the effects, some people propagandize building nuclear power plants, which according to IEA can only account for 10% of the desired effects. Here the focus is clearly on the wrong subject!
Our future life style must be sustainable
We should put full effort into developing sustainable energy technologies further and phase-out nuclear technology . This will open many opportunities and have many positive side effects. It is time for change!
In addition, we will inevitably have to change our behaviour : We should only use as much energy as we are able to produce with sustainable technologies. Demand of energy has to follow available supply of sustainable energy. This will have many positive side effects, too.
Breeder Reactors and Fast Breeder Reactors
I am sorry I fail to see your point when you say breeder reactors are not viable.
First of all Breeder reactors are Fission Reactors not Fusion Reactors, true we do not yet have working Fusion reactors HOWEVER breeder reactors are Fission Reactors.
We also have enough weapons grade uranium stockpiled in the US to fuel breeder reactors for several thousand years making uranium for BWR or other types of fission reactors for hundreds of thousand years.
Trash: We dug up radioactivity, why can't we put it back where it was? The trash we produce is less radioactive then the fuel we used. So if it was in the earth before we got it, why can't we simply put it back?
Nation with nukes
You included a chart that shows which of the nuclear using nations have nuclear weapons. What is the relevance of this chart? What does it have to do with the pros or cons of nuclear engery? Are you trying to make the assertion that because your country pursues nuclear energy, you're more likely to pursue nuclear weapons? If that's the case, we should bomb Iran.
Nuclear proliferation
The article you are referring to is probably "Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons per country ". In this text you can read: ".....it appears to be quite doubtful that using nuclear power for civil purposes is independent from military applications. The graph above seems to rather indicate "the more nuclear power plants, the more likely nuclear weapons".
Nuclear proliferation is a real threat and we should therefore be very reluctant to further applications of nuclear power. Considering on top of that other disadvantages of nuclear energy , we should definitely switch to renewable energies and phase-out nuclear power as soon as possible.
I very strongly disagree with your conclusion that "we should bomb Iran". Military power cannot solve any problem in the world but usually creates many additional problems (see e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq).
However, Iran is a good example to prove that civil and military applications of nuclear power are much closer related than most lobbyists of nuclear energy are willing to admit. Otherwise there would be fewer concerns about the plans of Iran to build their own nuclear power stations.
There is yet another issue with this: Why should some countries be allowed to use nuclear power and others not? Who has the right to decide on this? How can a country be using nuclear power (and even nuclear weapons) and at the same time ban other countries from doing the same? If everyone phased out nuclear technology - both civil and military applications - it would make sense to penalize countries trying to start using it.
CO2 emissions
I am stunned that this site encourages one of the biggest misnomers in the nuclear debate. Nuclear power DOES produce C02. It comes from mining, transport, creation of fuel rods, building the plant, use of concrete (1kg concrete produces just under 1kg C02), cleaning the place up afterwards etc etc. It has been calculated that a plant using high quality uranium ore will produce about two thirds less CO2 than an energy equivalent gas power station. It is even producing C02 50 years after its stopped producing electricity.
This is an improvement, but it is nowhere near zero. Please adjust your site.
(for a good run down of information and referances, check "Nuclear Power, The Energy Balance", Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith)
Uranium sustainability - is it worth the effort?
quoting a comment on a different page:
"I am a science teacher and have an issue with one of the facts that you have included in your "pros and cons of nuclear power" page. At the bottom of page 1 you write, "The energy for nuclear power is Uranuim. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand." My issue is with the "30 to 60" years. According to the NEI it is relatively abundant. Another site I found said the reserves would last up to 1000 years. I am curious as to your source for the depletion time."
I do not know the numbers, but the anount of uranium on the planet is completely different to the amount of usable uranium ore. Low grade ore requires so much energy and produces so much CO2, that it is less effective than conventional fuel power stations.
The Nuclear industry and its allies often refrain from mentioning these kinds of facts.
Don't get me wrong, Nuclear Power can be a help, but when you look at ALL the evidence and compare it to other alternative energy options, it becomes apparent that the time, money and effort would be better spent on even better forms of energy.
16% of the worlds energy consumption is from electricity. So at MAXIMUM nuclear can only reduce the problem by 16%. We need a much better solution than that, and need to get working on it fast and stop wasting time on the nuclear issue.
Uranium Sustainability
The 30 to 60 years comes from the current market price of enriched uranium. Our current reactors use enriched U-235 which is actually a quite rare element, and so 30-60 years is the supply of u-235 left AT THE CURRENT MARKET PRICE. It has been estimated that if the market price for u-235 doubles (which would still not increase electricity generation cost much) allowing more expensive ways to mine uranium, world supply of u-235 increases to around 300 years. This is still not acceptable however, as this is obviously not sustainable for our descendents. Breeders are a much better alternative because u-238 is very abundant, we have thousands of years worth of this material, (assuming the current world power usage.) While we agree that waste is generated, the idea is to build these plants to allow our standard of living, while also at the same time developing fusion power and cheaper wind and solar alternatives. Nuclear power is currently the 2nd cheapest energy source (behind coal), and we could continue to use that cheap electricity to power electric cars for transportation and for heating in our homes as opposed to coal and oil. Solar and wind are great options, but you must cover huge amounts of land, detracting from the "natural" appearance of the landscape. (just look at the wind farm in Palm Springs, CA.) Then again, what is so "beautiful" about a desert anyways? :)
Supply of Uranium for nuclear power
It is a common misunderstanding that nuclear power is cheap electricity. Read this article about the true cost of nuclear power generation .
Known Uranium reserves will only last for 30 to 60 years. Breeder reactors are not available and it is doubtful whether they will ever be available. For background and details see the report from the German Energy Watch Group of December 2006 with the title "Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy ".
Excerpt from the summary of "Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy":
"Any forecast of the development of nuclear power in the next 25 years has to concentrate on two aspects, the supply of uranium and the addition of new reactor capacity. At least within this time horizon, neither nuclear breeding reactors nor thorium reactors will play a significant role because of the long lead times for their development and market penetration.
The analysis of data on uranium resources leads to the assessment that discovered reserves are not sufficient to guarantee the uranium supply for more than thirty years.
Eleven countries have already exhausted their uranium reserves. In total, about 2.3 Mt of uranium have already been produced. At present only one country (Canada) is left having uranium deposits containing uranium with an ore grade of more than 1%, most of the remaining reserves in other countries have ore grades below 0.1% and two thirds of reserves have ore grades below 0.06%. This is important as the energy requirement for uranium mining is at best indirect proportional to the ore concentration and with concentrations below 0.01-0.02% the energy needed for uranium processing – over the whole fuel cycle – increases substantially.
The proved reserves (=reasonably assured below 40 $/kgU extraction cost) and stocks will be exhausted within the next 30 years at current annual demand. Likewise, possible resources – which contain all estimated discovered resources with extraction costs of up to 130 $/kg – will be exhausted within 70 years.
At present, of the current uranium demand of 67 kt/yr only 42 kt/yr are supplied by new production, the rest of about 25 kt/yr is drawn from stockpiles which were accumulated before 1980. Since these stocks will be exhausted within the next 10 years, uranium production capacity must increase by at least some 50% in order to match future demand of current capacity.
Recent problems and delays with important new mining projects (e.g. Cigar Lake in Canada) are causing doubts whether these extensions will be completed in time or can be realized at all??
In case only the proved reserves below 40 $/kt can be converted into production volumes, then even before 2020 supply problems are likely. If all estimated known resources up to 130 $/kgU extraction cost can be converted into production volumes, a shortage can at best be delayed until about 2050."
And a last remark: According to the WEO 2006 report nuclear energy is considered to be the least efficient measure in combating greenhouse warming! We should therefore focus on other technologies to mitigate global warming and in particular change our own behaviour .
nuclear energy discussion
i need it for my school report!
Is nuclear power sustainable?
Freedom, progress, civilization and prosperity demand allowing everyone in the world to have
as much energy as they can afford. Limits to energy are limits to
Nuclear energy can supply a Kwh at 4 cents US, so 20,000 Kwh/year is $800 US.
This is well within means of many people around the globe.
What if we wanted to make sure that each person in the world could get that energy without
creating a global warming issue? Simple. 7 billion x .25Kw = 1,750 GW.
We would need to build 1,750 1GW plants. This can be done over 40 years at a cost of $60 billion/year.
($2 billion/ plant).
Nuclear power is sustainable power. It can be used productively, safely and without environmental harm for thousands of years, and the use nuclear fuel can be re-used as fuel again and again, to get 60 times the energy per kg of Uranium as compared with the current system.
Nuclear power is no solution and not sustainable
From all measures investigated, nuclear energy was found to have the least effect (only 10%). One of the main reason according to IEA was the lack of capacity to build more nuclear power plants within a relatively short time frame. Almost 80% of the desired effects are due to increasing the energy efficiency.
This result is surprising, in particular if you think about how nuclear power is praised as solution to global warming by politicians like George W. Bush and Tony Blair. It seems like they would (again) head into the wrong direction.
Instead of talking about measures to increase the energy efficiency, which accounts for 80% of the effects, some people propagandize building nuclear power plants, which according to IEA can only account for 10% of the desired effects. Here the focus is clearly on the wrong subject!
The cost of nuclear power is high
Electricity from nuclear energy is considered to be economical and very cost effective, in particular compared to electricity from renewable energy sources like wind, water, sun, biomass or geothermal energy. There are two main reasons for the relative low cost of nuclear power:
True costs should be compared, at least for the evaluation of technologies for new plants. The inclusion of full cost of risks also for nuclear power is a must. Otherwise apples are compared to peares.
It is evident that comparing true costs will dramatically reduce the attractiveness of electricity from nuclear plants compared to all other sources. And it can also be expected that the nuclear industry with their strong lobbying organisations will fierily fight against this comparison of true costs.
However atomic energy has been subsidized long enough. It is high time for the use of renewable energies, even more so when a fair cost comparison alone makes nuclear electricity unattractive! In addition to economics, all ecological reasons speak for renewables.