Nuclear power emissions

[Merlyn]

So we are told, nuclear power is "clean" and void of carbon foot print... but is it really?
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810 ... 08.99.html

Nuclear plants have to be constructed, uranium has to be mined, processed and transported, waste has to be stored, and eventually the plant has to be decommissioned. All these actions produce carbon emissions.

And of the places where these plants go; and where the uranium comes from..

Another question has to do with the sustainability of the uranium supply itself. According to researchers in Australia at Monash University, Melbourne, and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, good-quality uranium ore is hard to come by. The deposits of rich ores with the highest uranium content are depleting leaving only lower-quality deposits to be exploited.3 As ore quality degrades, more energy is required to mine and mill it, and greenhouse gas emissions rise. "It is clear that there is a strong sensitivity of ... greenhouse gas emissions to ore grade, and that ore grades are likely to continue to decline gradually in the medium- to long-term," conclude the researchers.

http://nuclear-news.net/2009/11/15/uran ... use-gases/

The hidden cost of Britain’s new generation of nuclear power could be the destruction of the Kalahari desert in Namibia and millions of tonnes of extra greenhouse gas emissions a year, the Observer has discovered.=

The desert, with its towering sand dunes and spectacular lunar-like landscapes, is at the centre of an international uranium rush led by Rössing Uranium, a subsidiary of the British mining giant Rio Tinto, and the French state-owned company, Areva, which part-manages the nuclear complex at Sellafield and wants to build others in Britain……………

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/hea ... 72080.html
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/uranium-mining/
And as I mentioned before, it is what is artfully left unsaid by politicians we need to know most
http://uranium-news.com/2009/11/15/uran ... vironment/

The UK has justified its planned expansion of nuclear power partly on the basis that it provides low-emission energy. However, the energy used in drilling, blasting, excavating, separating and transporting the uranium to Britain are not taken into account.

and;

Documents seen by the Observer suggest the mines would initially consume about 53 million cubic metres of water a year, more than 75% of the water presently supplied by the Namibian state water company. The water will need to be pumped more than 56km to the mines from the coast. The proposed expansion of the uranium mining would create mountains of waste radioactive sand.

And; Something to watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5zkHaRctfQ
This was just one nuclear plant...
http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/nuclear ... lants.shtm

Local and state governments, federal agencies, and the electric utilities have emergency response plans in the event of a nuclear power plant incident. The plans define two “emergency planning zones.” One zone covers an area within a 10-mile radius of the plant, where it is possible that people could be harmed by direct radiation exposure. The second zone covers a broader area, usually up to a 50-mile radius from the plant, where radioactive materials could contaminate water supplies, food crops, and livestock.

Food for thought,

Seems power plants are having some difficulty today..
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585040,00.html
Omitted from the above, we see this was going to be a gas powered plant.
"That's another thread" but..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100207/ts_ ... _explosion


Merlyn

[oaklight]

Because entropy increases with time, there is no energy source that won't cause more disorder (in pollution and expended energy, and therefore, carbon) than the energy realized. The batteries found in hybrid vehicles, made in China, cause enormous pollution; in the manufacture of the plastic battery housings (petroleum products), to the heavy metals dumped by the ton into the soil. Even the manufacture of solar and wind harvesting technologies causes pollution in the mining of the metals and refining of the plastics involved. The trick is to find an energy technology that provides the most energy for the least entropy created. Because, as Einstein discovered, E=MC2 (Energy equals Mass times the Speed of Light, squared), nuclear energy probably produces the most energy per unit of entropy produced.

[Corwen]

Because entropy increases with time, there is no energy source that won't cause more disorder (in pollution and expended energy, and therefore, carbon) than the energy realized. The batteries found in hybrid vehicles, made in China, cause enormous pollution; in the manufacture of the plastic battery housings (petroleum products), to the heavy metals dumped by the ton into the soil. Even the manufacture of solar and wind harvesting technologies causes pollution in the mining of the metals and refining of the plastics involved. The trick is to find an energy technology that provides the most energy for the least entropy created. Because, as Einstein discovered, E=MC2 (Energy equals Mass times the Speed of Light, squared), nuclear energy probably produces the most energy per unit of entropy produced.

It would if you could magic up uranium and nuclear power plants from thin air, and then dispose of the waste and decommission the plants by waving a magic wand, but in practice the infrastructure for nuclear power takes so much energy to create and dispose of that it makes the carbon footprint of nuclear massive.

I posted about the damage the uranium mining alone will do for Britain's proposed nuclear reactors on this thread: http://www.druidry.org/board/dhp/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34528&start=0&hilit=nuclear

[treegod]

Look up the term EROEI, which means energy returned on energy invested. If you google "EROEI list" you can find out how much energy nuclear produces compared to others. So far oil tops the lot with no suitable rivals, even nuclear.

[oaklight]

It would if you could magic up uranium and nuclear power plants from thin air, and then dispose of the waste and decommission the plants by waving a magic wand, but in practice the infrastructure for nuclear power takes so much energy to create and dispose of that it makes the carbon footprint of nuclear massive.

What, you mean you can't? Perhaps Al Gore can give the UK a volume discount on carbon credits.
Whether or not one energy source creates more entropy and/or carbon than the other; I'll reserve judgment until someone can show me the math.

[Corwen]

It would if you could magic up uranium and nuclear power plants from thin air, and then dispose of the waste and decommission the plants by waving a magic wand, but in practice the infrastructure for nuclear power takes so much energy to create and dispose of that it makes the carbon footprint of nuclear massive.

What, you mean you can't? Perhaps Al Gore can give the UK a volume discount on carbon credits.
Whether or not one energy source creates more entropy and/or carbon than the other; I'll reserve judgment until someone can show me the math.

Even if nuclear power was radically lower in carbon emissions than other forms of energy (which it is not) there are still a number of reasons not to use it over other available technologies. Most obviously the waste disposal issue. This is problematic because firstly we have no way of safely disposing of nuclear waste, and secondly because one of the main ways is truly appalling. I speak of the use of depleted uranium in munitions, responsible for contaminating all the major battlefields of the last 20 years with low level radioactive waste.

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Then there is the security issue. Imagine what would happen if a hijacked airliner crashed into a wind turbine. Now what happens when it crashes into a nuclear power plant?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZreEBnqlZlk

Plus of course the fact that nuclear power stations produce not just energy, and nuclear waste, but fissile materials which can be used to make nuclear weapons. Even low level waste and non fissile materials made in reactors can be used to make so called 'dirty bombs'. Last I checked it wasn't possible to make any kind of weapon of mass destruction from wind turbine by-products or spent solar panels...

Ultimately of course we just all need to USE LESS!!!!!!!!!!

[oaklight]

(SNIP)...Then there is the security issue. Imagine what would happen if a hijacked airliner crashed into a wind turbine. Now what happens when it crashes into a nuclear power plant?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZreEBnqlZlk

Plus of course the fact that nuclear power stations produce not just energy, and nuclear waste, but fissile materials which can be used to make nuclear weapons. Even low level waste and non fissile materials made in reactors can be used to make so called 'dirty bombs'. Last I checked it wasn't possible to make any kind of weapon of mass destruction from wind turbine by-products or spent solar panels...(SNIP)

Your youtube link is a political ad, did you know this? It contains no fact or truth; it does, however, contain actors and special effects. Read this:
http://www.answers.com/topic/containment-building
Watch this (rocket sled tests of containment building missile shield material) :
http://www.sandia.gov/vqsec/SON-ST.html

I spent 3 years on a nuke sub out of Holy Loch, Scotland, I can draw the power plant schematics from memory; I feel perfectly safe with nuclear power and I think we need more. I'm not saying that we shouldn't build wind and solar projects; but until those technologies are mature enough to be economically viable on a large scale, they will be nothing more than experimental toys.

[Corwen]

Wind and tidal power are already mature technologies, large numbers of wind turbines generate useful amounts of power all over the world, we just need to invest more in these forms which would bring the cost down in an economy of scale.

So you worked on a nuclear sub, you might feel differently if you'd worked for three years in Chernobyl, three mile island or any of the other plants which have suffered serious accidents.

Of course that film has actors! Luckily no-one has yet crashed a jet plane into a nuclear power station, the film is to make you think about it!

I simply don't believe the reassurances that nuclear facilities are safe, we were also told that after the first bomb attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993 that the Twin Towers in New York were safe and wouldn't fall if they were hit by an aircraft.

What if the plane that crashed wasn't a civilian airliner, but a military aircraft carrying munitions? Would the buildings be safe then? You may think this is far-fetched but a Tornado F3 crashed near the nuclear power plant at Torness in 1999.

No matter how small the risk, an accident that could make half of Britain uninhabitable for thousands of years is such an appalling consequence that it should be avoided at all costs, which luckily is easy to do. Close all the existing nuclear power plants and don't build any more!

[oaklight]

Wind and tidal power are already mature technologies, large numbers of wind turbines generate useful amounts of power all over the world, we just need to invest more in these forms which would bring the cost down in an economy of scale.

So you worked on a nuclear sub, you might feel differently if you'd worked for three years in Chernobyl, three mile island or any of the other plants which have suffered serious accidents.

Of course that film has actors! Luckily no-one has yet crashed a jet plane into a nuclear power station, the film is to make you think about it!

I simply don't believe the reassurances that nuclear facilities are safe, we were also told that after the first bomb attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993 that the Twin Towers in New York were safe and wouldn't fall if they were hit by an aircraft.

What if the plane that crashed wasn't a civilian airliner, but a military aircraft carrying munitions? Would the buildings be safe then? You may think this is far-fetched but a Tornado F3 crashed near the nuclear power plant at Torness in 1999.

No matter how small the risk, an accident that could make half of Britain uninhabitable for thousands of years is such an appalling consequence that it should be avoided at all costs, which luckily is easy to do. Close all the existing nuclear power plants and don't build any more!

Well, I'm not a British subject, so it really isn't any of my business, You should contact your MP and let him/her know how you feel. BTW, the film I posted from Sandia National Labs showed famous footage of a crash test involving an F-4 Phantom fighter jet crashing into a piece of missile shield.

[Corwen]

Well, I'm not a British subject, so it really isn't any of my business, You should contact your MP and let him/her know how you feel. BTW, the film I posted from Sandia National Labs showed famous footage of a crash test involving an F-4 Phantom fighter jet crashing into a piece of missile shield.

You seem to have more faith in our political process than I do. There is massive opposition to building any more nuclear power statons, but they are doing it anyway. There was massive opposition against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but they went to war anyway. Our politicians no longer listen to public opinion, they feel safe in their two party system (a radical monopoly, where both choices are essentially the same, although not quite as identical as Republicans and Democrats).

As for the F-4, I doubt it was carrying any bombs or other bunker busting munitions. Its not just whether a plane could physically breach the reactor core, its also whether an aircraft impact could do enough damage to the infrastructure, power distribution, cooling towers, water pumping stations etc around the site to cause a meltdown or major leak.

[oaklight]

You seem to have more faith in our political process than I do. There is massive opposition to building any more nuclear power statons, but they are doing it anyway. There was massive opposition against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but they went to war anyway. Our politicians no longer listen to public opinion, they feel safe in their two party system (a radical monopoly, where both choices are essentially the same, although not quite as identical as Republicans and Democrats).

As for the F-4, I doubt it was carrying any bombs or other bunker busting munitions. Its not just whether a plane could physically breach the reactor core, its also whether an aircraft impact could do enough damage to the infrastructure, power distribution, cooling towers, water pumping stations etc around the site to cause a meltdown or major leak.

First you referenced a hijacked jetliner, then a military aircraft, now a military aircraft carrying bunker busters; what shall it be next; a B-52 loaded with Semtex? Your ever-shifting parameters of discussion have rendered this waste of our time. I'll leave you with my hopes that you can find contentment in, what you've described as, a horribly depressing world.

[Merlyn]

It is what is left unsaid, that unsettles me most.
The political sale of nuclear energy ignores the cost. Like the rain forest, the desert is an interlaced part of our ecology.

Destroy it and who knows what will be the affect?
Like coal, we will find it harder and harder to mine.
Also there are many large farms left around from nuclear projects, fenced off and I had simply stopped my bike to take a pee, and no sooner done a police officer came by and told me to leave the land. I had not noticed the barns and all were long ago vacated.

Of the people displaced or wronged, who are we to decide that Africa is fair game? What of their animals?
This hidden agenda is the creepy part. All fine to grand stand as a politician, or like Al Gore and point to nuclear as "clean" but it is far from it.
And yes, the weapon problem associated with this is now going in the hands of those who hang "enemies of god".
Bad enough America used this and decided "that's just a bad idea". The political implications are very worrisome.

Of the waste... I wondered if that 50 ton payload they dropped on the moon just might have been nuclear waste... I have no idea, but every reason to wonder.

Hydro and solar-thermal are the best solutions so far.
Solar thermal is the use of reflection into a focused point to generate electric power.
It can also be simply to heat water.

Hydro electric is perhaps the best, yet location is the factor there.
Solar thermal does not require the mass of space solar electric panels require, and is a different way of using the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

[Corwen]

First you referenced a hijacked jetliner, then a military aircraft, now a military aircraft carrying bunker busters; what shall it be next; a B-52 loaded with Semtex? Your ever-shifting parameters of discussion have rendered this waste of our time. I'll leave you with my hopes that you can find contentment in, what you've described as, a horribly depressing world.

Since fighter jets generally carry munitions I'd have thought it was assuming that a fighter jet crashing into a power plant would be unarmed is the silly assumption.

I'd have thought a 747 full of aviation fuel the equal of a B52 (half the weight of a 747) full of Semtex, so yes maybe that would make a better test than an f-4 jet which only weighs a sixteenth the weight of a 747.

I think the world is generally made more depressing by the presence of deadly forms of technology in the hands of heavily armed nations with irresponsible governments. By opposing them we might make it less depressing. Ignoring them won't make them go away, and judging by history trusting them to act sensibly would also seem foolish. Working for a nuclear armed government, especially in the armed forces, especially those which only exist to deliver nuclear weapons and kill millions of random innocents on the other side of the world would seem to make one an accessory to a vast unthinkable evil, so I understand that someone who has been in that position might have a psychological need to defend nuclear power and arms.

I haven't enjoyed living my life under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. Living in a world where someone would build weapons capable of wiping out all life is a bit depressing isn't it?

[oaklight]

(SNIP)...I think the world is generally made more depressing by the presence of deadly forms of technology in the hands of heavily armed nations with irresponsible governments. By opposing them we might make it less depressing. Ignoring them won't make them go away, and judging by history trusting them to act sensibly would also seem foolish. Working for a nuclear armed government, especially in the armed forces, especially those which only exist to deliver nuclear weapons and kill millions of random innocents on the other side of the world would seem to make one an accessory to a vast unthinkable evil, so I understand that someone who has been in that position might have a psychological need to defend nuclear power and arms.

I haven't enjoyed living my life under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. Living in a world where someone would build weapons capable of wiping out all life is a bit depressing isn't it?

The threat of nuclear annihilation came from the Soviet Union. I, my shipmates and our counterparts in the Royal Navy took personal responsibility for the safety of our homelands, and the rest of the free world by sacrificing a portion of our lives to ensure that the Soviet Union didn't launch a first strike. We did this through nuclear deterrence, and it worked! You, and everyone you know, are beneficiaries of our sacrifice. My hearing is still deteriorating because of the damage sustained during my service. I don’t really expect you to understand, but if I had it all to do over again, I would do it in a heartbeat because I truly believe that we saved countless millions of lives. So, the next time you’re in a pub, and you see a veteran, try buying them a pint. Don’t forget to say “thank you”, because the real lovers of the world are those who would put themselves in harm's way for the benefit of others.

[Corwen]

The threat of nuclear annihilation came from the Soviet Union. I, my shipmates and our counterparts in the Royal Navy took personal responsibility for the safety of our homelands, and the rest of the free world by sacrificing a portion of our lives to ensure that the Soviet Union didn't launch a first strike. We did this through nuclear deterrence, and it worked! You, and everyone you know, are beneficiaries of our sacrifice. My hearing is still deteriorating because of the damage sustained during my service. I don’t really expect you to understand, but if I had it all to do over again, I would do it in a heartbeat because I truly believe that we saved countless millions of lives. So, the next time you’re in a pub, and you see a veteran, try buying them a pint. Don’t forget to say “thank you”, because the real lovers of the world are those who would put themselves in harm's way for the benefit of others.

I'm sure, to those on the other side of the Curtain, the threat came from us. The US, our close allies, are after all the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons, which they could have chosen to drop in a harbour or on a mountain, but instead chose to drop two over cities.

I'm sorry to hear about your hearing, and I'm glad you think your sacrifice was worth it. Personally I despair at how compliant the mass of humanity is, that they will lend their weight to the insane schemes of their leaders, and then no doubt argue that they were 'just following orders' as if that absolves them of responsibility. Most people just don't seem capable of seeing the bigger picture. I guess you should count your blessings that you were never called upon to launch the weapons whose existence you spent your life supporting.

If we ever fight another truly defensive war against tyranny (rather than our present wars, where we are the tyrants) then any veteran can have a pint on me, but in the meantime don't expect me to get all patriotic. Patriotism is crazy. We are all people, all the same, all over the earth, and nations are just lines drawn in the sand.

[oaklight]

I'm sure, to those on the other side of the Curtain, the threat came from us. The US, our close allies, are after all the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons, which they could have chosen to drop in a harbour or on a mountain, but instead chose to drop two over cities.

I'm sorry to hear about your hearing, and I'm glad you think your sacrifice was worth it. Personally I despair at how compliant the mass of humanity is, that they will lend their weight to the insane schemes of their leaders, and then no doubt argue that they were 'just following orders' as if that absolves them of responsibility. Most people just don't seem capable of seeing the bigger picture. I guess you should count your blessings that you were never called upon to launch the weapons whose existence you spent your life supporting.

If we ever fight another truly defensive war against tyranny (rather than our present wars, where we are the tyrants) then any veteran can have a pint on me, but in the meantime don't expect me to get all patriotic. Patriotism is crazy. We are all people, all the same, all over the earth, and nations are just lines drawn in the sand.

I had often wondered why we didn't just use the two weapons (the only two we had) for a demonstration, either. According to released government documents, they didn't think that the Imperial Japanese Government would surrender with only a demonstration, and they, like the Nazis, were working on developing their own. Furthermore, as they had shown their willingness to use chemical weapons in Manchuria, and their horrifying brutality during "Rape of Nanking" and elsewhere; it was determined that a land invasion would have been far more devastating on the Japanese people, as well as our own troops. We gave them more warning than they gave us at Pearl Harbor. I think we gave them a week.

I do, indeed, count our blessings that we never had to release our weapons; but that, of course, was the point of deterrence, wasn't it?

You know, I'm starting to look forward to our little chats; it's kind of like having a "pen pal". I've always believed that having a heated debate is good for the mind; but that "vast unspeakable evil" crack was a little below the belt, don't you think? Oh well, no worries, no harm done.

One last thing: are there no WWII veterans left in Britain to buy a pint for?

[Hennie]

So I am enlightened : All the violence executed by man has only prevented more violence and destruction. I think I'll beat up my wife now to prevent her from
beating me for she is mad about me because I beat her because I was mad about her because she beat me because...

[oaklight]

So I am enlightened : All the violence executed by man has only prevented more violence and destruction. I think I'll beat up my wife now to prevent her from
beating me for she is mad about me because I beat her because I was mad about her because she beat me because...

Not all, only some. Perhaps someday, things will be different; but as long as survival is a biological imperative, we'll be forced to live with this bizarre paradox. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could utilize those recourses that we now use for defense, toward something more pleasant? I have discovered that those who "turn the other cheek" usually get smacked in the chops. Neville Chamberlain discovered that to the worlds' great sorrow. Mankind, as a whole, is selfish; we can only see our own Light, the Light of others' is hidden from us. BTW, thanks for joining in; this is the just kind of discourse I was hoping for when I joined this forum.

[Corwen]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could utilize those recourses that we now use for defense, toward something more pleasant?

Lets start now.

[Hennie]

Lets start now.

Seems to me the thing to do indeed.