How about never refilling your tank for 25 years?
First I am going to pose a question, then, I am going to make a statement. Here goes: Is nuclear power good or bad? In this particular example, a new submarine for the British Royal Navy is powered by its very own nuclear reactor, and said nuclear reactor will power the machine for its entire expected 25-year lifespan. While the idea of never needing to refill a gas tank or recharge batteries sounds great, the question is whether nuclear power is a good option. Like I said earlier, this example is a submarine, but much of the world is powered by nuclear reactors, which generate steam from the immense heat generated therein. So, in a sense, some of the many electric cars that may hit the roads could be powered by a nuclear reactor. Is that good or bad? Alright, now for a statement. It seems to me that a major stumbling block to fixing our environment is the cost associated with the clean-up process. I have noticed, as I am sure you have as well, that budget concerns seem to take a back seat when talking about military projects. I am not going to get into the debate on money spent for defense purposes, but I will say that we should consider the defense of our entire planet (oddly enough, against ourselves) as at least equally as important. But, sadly, I would have to say that we do not. Comments are welcome.
Related:
[Source: Gizmag]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Don 4:27PM (5/21/2007)
No. Nuclear power isn't a bad thing. Nuclear power is incredibly important. Right now it provides 20% of our power, but could provide 100% if we'd just build 400 more reactors.
Don't listen to the hippies.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 4:30PM (5/21/2007)
Nuclear powered subs are old news. I was a Nuc sailor in the 1970s. They are definitely a good solution for a couple of problems: range and ability to stay submerged for a long time. Cost is a relatively minor consideration for the mission.
Reply
Tony Belding 4:43PM (5/21/2007)
I also have to vote in favor of nuclear power, with a couple of caveats.
I believe nuclear waste disposal is much more of a political problem than an engineering problem. However, it's still got to be resolved in some way before fission reactors can be fully accepted by the public.
Nuclear technology has been stagnant for decades. Many improved reactor designs exist on paper, but they never get built due primarily to "green" opposition. Environmentalists haven't managed to kill nuclear power, they've only succeeded in preventing it from becoming safer.
Everyone seems to have given up on nuclear fusion, which I think is a huge mistake. Some fresh thinking and different approaches (such as focus fusion or IEC polywell fusion) should be explored, as the cost of doing this research is quite small and the payoff could be gigantic.
Reply
pkuhl 4:45PM (5/21/2007)
The wasted from the reactor is so deadly that only robots can handle it and it stays around so long, that you will be dead before it has decayed.
It is vastly subsidized by your tax dollars. Compare costs without the subsidy, and then add in the cost of handling the waste, which nobody wants to. Is it still a good idea? Not really.
Reply
Jeremy Korzeniewski 5:17PM (5/21/2007)
Howard - I know that nuclear subs have been around for a long while now, but I still think that the question is worth asking.
The cost is relatively minor for their mission? According to whom exactly? I am not going to argue the point here, 'cause that's not the point I was trying to make. The point that I was making was this: Compared to the amount of money the world spends on its defense against their enemies, the amount they spend on the environmental fight (or, the fight against ourselves) is quite small.
Reply
Charles S 5:34PM (5/21/2007)
Nuclear has a lot of advantages, but I'd take solar and wind over it hands down.
There will always be a need for centralized power, but in this day and age, it is better for our national security to have a decentralized power structure. Besides the big "bomb me" sign that nuclear plant carries, transportation of fuel in and out of the facility just add that much more cost and anxiety to all that's involved.
In terms of costs and benefits, solar and wind farms can be built quickly, has greater choice in locations, and it is scalable, from a small home to a moderate size community, to large cities. Nuke plant takes an enormous resources and effort to plan, build, and maintain. Besides nuclear wastes, some designs require large amounts of water.
A specific nuclear plant will not last forever, and some will never be upgraded and simply close its doors after it's done. There will be cost to clean up and dismantle such a facility, if anyone else plan to use the site again. It's usually us, the taxpayers who flip the bill.
I have not even start talking about any possible safety issues yet. While it's true that nuclear energy can be much safer today, a worse case scenario could mean that any area downwind from the plant will be render useless.
Imagine that your home is hundreds of miles away from a nuke plant, but a radiation "scare" occurs. All it takes is a publicized map of wind patterns and a slightly elevated geiger counter readings and your property value will drop instantly.
As energy demand grows, nuclear energy will always be on the table. I'd rather see some serious effort in conservation and renewables before we have to put up with nuclear energy.
Reply
Nils 6:09PM (5/21/2007)
Nuke me, I'm all for it. Next generation fast breeders are waaaay more efficient and produce very little waste, some even claim to produce no waste at all. Long term deposits are proven (google for "oklo natural reactor") so the only issues are purely political. And even if we don't put it all in long-term deposits, what's the problem with guarding this small volume in a controlled space? Much research is also carried out in nuclear reactors to find ways to get rid of the waste's radiation. A whole lot of experiments have to be done in or near reactors. Demonizing nuclear also has the side-effect of having less students engaging in nuclear-physics because they are being told that it's a dead-end. This is very counter-productive cause it's the same people that do research in more sustainable nuclear energy like fast-breeders or fusion or waste-management.
Reply
Charles S 6:25PM (5/21/2007)
"...what's the problem with guarding this small volume in a controlled space?"
Well, in the case of US, Russian and Iraqi armories, it has been proven that there are plenty of opportunities for vandals. I think the "dump it and forget it" is the favorite song among the nuclear optimists. If the track record for current holding sites is perfect, I'd probably have more confidence.
Come to think of it, I think if we all use the terms "manageable risk" versus "safe" in regards to nuclear energy and wastes, then maybe we can find something in common.
Reply
Tim 6:58PM (5/21/2007)
#4 is absolutely correct. How could anyone that considers themselves to be “green” even suggest such a harmful mode of power? I’m very disappointed.
Reply
Jackson 7:25PM (5/21/2007)
Seems like there would be _really_ big problems if there was ever a leak. For example, if a nuclear-powered car gets into an accident and its containment system is damaged, it just might irradiate everyone in the car, potetially causing all kinds of harm.
Reply
Mike Z 1:23AM (5/22/2007)
Nuclear as far as I'm concerned is the ultimate green energy source.
There really are no appreciable benefits of a decentralized grid: Studies have found that the cost of the grid represents only a small part of the cost of electricity. Solar is nice, but you still need a real grid to provide power during the night and on cloudy weather.
The arguments against it are nothing more than appears to 'worse case scenarios' that lack any real interest in risk assessment.
Worst case scenario of reading a book: I get a paper-cut that leads to a the cut getting infected with flesh eating bacteria. My Medical treatment results in the bacteria mutating into a airborne strain that is immune to all know treatment. The decease is realized into the public and millions die. Therefore, we should ban all books.
Spent-fuel can be reprocessed or stored. Either way, the risks are not that bad---hell, we use to light nukes out off like crazy during the 50's and while there was clear damage and death this stupidity, it was not catastrophic.
The argument that nukes are terrorist targets is a bad argument all around; forget the containment building--there are more effective ways to inflict terror (chemical plants....) with a much much higher probability of success. Hell, if your going to do a terrorist attack against a nuclear power plant, why not go for the gold and just try and steal a nuclear bomb instead?
I live 60 Miles from a Nuclear plant and 20 From a Coal plant. I'll gladly prefer it be the other way around.
Reply
Der Alte 3:39AM (5/22/2007)
There are lots of arguments on both sides of the nuclear debate. We have to remember, nuclear technology is not cheap. From what I understand, nuclear power plants run over $1 billion each to build as well as 5-7 years of construction. Its not so simple as "just build another 400" and all our energy problems are solved. Mind you $400 billion is the amount the US spends on its military every year....so if the US government put its mind to making real change in energy policy, I suppose something could be worked out.
The original post though contemplated the possibility of a nuclear powered car. Even if you could engineer it, I am highly skeptical that you could bring the cost down to a level the average consumer could afford. In terms of complexity, a nuclear reactor small enough for a car would make a fuel cell look painfully simple.....and we've already seen how much has been spend on fuel cell R&D. Yes, you would not have the expense of having to fill the car with fuel, and that would have to be factored into the price....but not many people would have the upfront cash or borrowing power to buy the car unless the banks started offering car mortgages. Then there are the none too insignificant issues of crash safety with a nuclear powered car.
A much more sensible plan for nuclear vis a vis the automobile is to just go with BEV or PHEVs add more nuclear plants to the grid to deal with the demand. Nuclear powered cars are just not feasible from a cost or engineering standpoint...at least not in our lifetimes. Maybe it will happen in some George Jetson like reality.
Reply
Henry 8:22AM (5/22/2007)
Whenever there is a problem the government's only solution is either to bomb a country or let the people help themselves. We saw it with 911 rescue workers, Hurricane Katrina and we will see it when a Nuclear Powerplant will get hit by a hurricane or earthquake.
Nuclear power is another Hydrogen paradox - sure its clean when its making energy but its source is anything but clean.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0415-23.htm
More info on the not so safe elements of nuclear power
www.radiation.org
Reply
Owen 9:00AM (5/22/2007)
People keep crying wind, solar, etc... But solar is dependant on the sun shining and provides electricity only during the daylight hours and when there is little cloud cover. In addition wind can't be increased or decreased to meet demand, it's up to mother nature to determine that. Wind and solar both need to be backed up by something. Also the fact remains that it would require massive amounts of land for solar and wind to equal the power output of nuclear.
That being said, perhaps a combination of the two would be the answer. Use nuclear as a backup for the other alternatives. You keep crying about the waste, but the waste DOES decay, that's the whole idea of storage, you store it for a long period of time until it is spent, then you can get rid of it anywhere because it is harmless, you get more radiation from naturally occuring sources. Safety is NOT an issue, yes reactors can be terrorist targets, but so can anything. Security around reactors is tight, and cooling towers are designed to withstand an impact from a plane. Plus new reactor design is such that if anything occurs that could be threatening, the rods are withdrawn and become harmless. Reactor design has come so far in the US since the last one was built some 10 years ago. How many problems have you heard about.. 2 and they were more than 30 years ago, not bad for a new technology. New reactors produce less waste, use little water, and the spend fuel has lower radioactivity remaining, and hence has a shorter half life.
Lastly, what about some of the new technologies?Perhaps we need to start taking some national initiatives to fund some projects such as solar towers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
which no-one wants to foot the bill for because of the massive capital investment. Whatever new ideas have been proposed, I've even seen some projects to harness wind from the freeway or other unlikely candidates, but no-one ever steps up the plate to fund them. Perhaps an electricity x-prize?
Reply
Owen 9:06AM (5/22/2007)
People keep crying wind, solar, etc... But solar is dependant on the sun shining and provides electricity only during the daylight hours and when there is little cloud cover. In addition wind can't be increased or decreased to meet demand, it's up to mother nature to determine that. Wind and solar both need to be backed up by something. Also the fact remains that it would require massive amounts of land for solar and wind to equal the power output of one nuclear plant.
That being said, perhaps a combination of the two would be the answer. Use nuclear as a backup for the other alternatives. I also hear people keep crying about the waste, but the waste DOES decay, that's the whole idea of storage, you store it for a long period of time until it has decayed, then you can get rid of it anywhere because it is harmless, you get more radiation from naturally occuring sources. Safety is NOT an issue, yes reactors can be terrorist targets, but so can anything. Security around reactors is tight, and cooling towers are designed to withstand an impact from a plane. Plus new reactor design is such that if anything occurs that could be threatening, the rods are withdrawn and become harmless. Reactor design has come so far in the US since the last one was built some 10 years ago. How many problems have you heard about.. 2 and they were more than 30 years ago, not bad for a new technology. New reactors produce less waste, use little water, and the spent fuel has lower radioactivity remaining, and hence has a shorter half life.
Lastly, what about some of the new technologies?Perhaps we need to start taking some nationalinitiatives to fund some projects such as solar towers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
which no-one wants to foot the bill for because of the massive capital investment. I've even seen some projects to harness energy from some unlikely candidates, but no-one eversteps up the plate to fund them. Perhaps an electricity x-prize?
Reply
pamela lorraine 9:55AM (5/22/2007)
okay what is a nuclear power plant? its a steam engine what about gas fired steam cars?
Reply
Dave Wallace 10:21AM (5/22/2007)
To #14:
Also http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/sutabs.html
Reply
Mike Z 10:41AM (5/22/2007)
To #13 A Nuclear power plant withstood a direct hit from Hurricane Andrew with no damage.
Reply
Henry 12:20PM (5/22/2007)
To #17
A nuclear power plant was almost hit by 260 mph tornado when concrete reinforced steel powerplants cvould only withstand 220 mph winds.
Their is not much info on nuclear powerplants hit by floods, ice storms, earthquakes or fires.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/naturaldisaster&nuclearpower.pdf
Reply
SenatorPerry 1:04PM (5/22/2007)
With so many places on Earth uninhabitable, why is it that we worry about the highly dense waste of a nuclear plant more than the lightly dense free floating waste from other energy sources?
I promote that we should use Chernobyl's site as the new home to the World's nuclear waste.
Other people hit it on the head. We need to move to a 95% nuclear power system with current safe designs and then use the extra hundreds of years we extend our polution tollorance to find a final solution to the energy issues.
To those that haven't mentioned it, how about we move the speed limits on interstates back down to 55 MPH? It will save on gas, but also save lives.
Since water travel is so efficient, why not start building canals again?
Reply