Germany's soapbox against nuclear power made of coal.

[a completely inoffensive name]

After Fukushima, Germany decided that nuclear power was "too dangerous" and presents all sorts of problems to the environment (completely false but thats not what this is about). So they shut down their nuclear power plants to show their commitment to renewable energy... except no one ever told them that renewables are not the greatest at supporting base load power. So how did the Germans try to keep the power going without losing face? By building dirty coal plants and not telling anyone!

http://www.dw.de/german-region-backs...ive/a-17680488

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-iwr-says.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...or-brown-coal/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93P0PI20130426

Of course, the drive for more expensive renewables is still ongoing despite Berlin having one of the most expensive electricity prices in all of Europe. All this just so they can say "we don't use a form of power that is inexpensive to produce and is proven to work for decades in our next door neighbor".

[Husar]

Yeah, it's almost as bad as our meddling in Ukraine or that we started two World Wars.
I can't wait for Putin to take over.

But what I don't like is that you're jelly of our coal industry just because we have the bigger diggers.

We may have never built the Ratte, but we did build this:
http://www.ausflugsziele-nrw.net/wp-...lradbagger.JPG

[a completely inoffensive name]

That is an impressive digging machine. I can't lie and say it isn't cool looking. I just don't understand why you want those digging up your own country.

[Husar]

Most people don't. But most people are also more afraid of livving in a post-nuclear-fallout wasteland than having a few big holes here and there. The long-term goal is to get rid of them as well and it has been pointed out by some organizations for quite a while that replacing nuclear with coal is not exactly making the earth a lot cleaner.

However, I still wouldn't see nuclear as an inherently stable source of energy, despite all the safety measures and technology used to operate the plants. And why should our rich and arrogant country that is usually known for enslaving greeks and others through banks and ruining America's day not take a risk itself and boldly go where no country this size has gone before? Since when do Americans detest such entrepreneurial spirit and why do you hate industrialized coal that is so important that the government allows it to just dig away through villages?

That said, I'm also not fond of the energy prices, but I think the world should applaud our risk-taking business-establishing leadership for a better tomorrow instead of stealing our technology as China and the USA constantly do. At least Putin would rather bring us home to mother Russia before taking our technology.

[Papewaio]

Germany isn't doing it because the French are doing it better.

The amount of nuclear waste a person generates over a life time from a uranium based fuel cycle is the size of a can of soft drink. If the fuel cycle is optimized it is a about a cup for a nuclear ;) family. Or about a doppio (double shot espresso) over the lifetime of a person.

The amount of waste over a lifetime using just coal is about 6 coal train carriages. Approximately a ton of CO2 per annum.

[drone]

The amount of waste over a lifetime using just coal is about 6 coal train carriages. Approximately a ton of CO2 per annum.

And a fair amount of that waste is radioactive.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And a fair amount of that waste is radioactive.

Not to the level of spent reactor fuel, but you are quite correct.

Nuclear is still the better bridge between NOW and when "renewable" technologies are truly cost effective. I'd like to see us stop burning the fossil fuels not because of climate change -- the biggest culprit of which is all the billions of us breathing and giving off CO2 -- but because those long-chain petro molecules are so blinking useful for so many other things aside from burning them....and the renewal time frame for petrochemicals is a tad.....epochal.

[drone]

Not to the level of spent reactor fuel, but you are quite correct.

At least spent reactor fuel stays in a waste storage pool at the plant...

I'd like to see us stop burning fossil fuels so we don't have to watch professional soccer players dying in a desert in 2022. Energy dependence is a huge national security and economic issue.

[Beskar]

....and the renewal time frame for petrochemicals is a tad.....epochal.

It is not so bad, we can grow-harvest biofuels which can be converted into plastic and what not. So we have alternatives, thankfully.

But I agree, we don't have that much buried in the ground, we will see it depleted within a century.

[Papewaio]

At least spent reactor fuel stays in a waste storage pool at the plant...

I'd like to see us stop burning fossil fuels so we don't have to watch professional soccer players dying in a desert in 2022. Energy dependence is a huge national security and economic issue.

They wouldn't die in a desert if the desert didn't have the petrodollars to lure the decision makers.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Most people don't. But most people are also more afraid of livving in a post-nuclear-fallout wasteland than having a few big holes here and there.

Where is this fear
of a nuclear wasteland coming from?

However, I still wouldn't see nuclear as an inherently stable source of energy, despite all the safety measures and technology used to operate the plants.

Could you explain why?

[Papewaio]

Good site to compare:
http://www.cravenspowertosavetheworl...-nuclear-waste

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where is this fear
of a nuclear wasteland coming from?

Past experience, like the bit of Ukraine Putin WON'T annex.

Look mum - I trolled like an American!

But seriously - Banquo ran down on this about four years ago - all modern power plants are based on water cooled models designed to enrich Plutonium and then re-purposed for energy generation, it's why the Iranians are so slippery. Thorium salt reactors are much safer and more efficient, and they are not under pressure (no water cooling) so they can't "blow".

Unfortunately, Uranium mining is more popular than Thorium mining for reasons that have nothing to do with energy generation.

Tiarexz is, I believe, wrong about the coal however - the figure when I was at school was 3,000 years for coal and probably 100 for oil, and we've found other fields since then.

[Beskar]

Tiarexz is, I believe, wrong about the coal however - the figure when I was at school was 3,000 years for coal and probably 100 for oil, and we've found other fields since then.

I was talking about oil, not coal.

Most figures say we have 50 years worth of oil, this is mostly based on cost as shortage of oil would dramatically increase prices which would affect demand, so it becomes unfeasible to be used as fuel, but there is approximately 120 years worth assuming we are talking about digging up every last drop.

As for coal, I did some reading around, we currently have around 150 years worth. However, if we include coal deposits which are currently not technologically possible or economically viable, we have your 3,000 years figure.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But seriously - Banquo ran down on this about four years ago - all modern power plants are based on water cooled models designed to enrich Plutonium and then re-purposed for energy generation, it's why the Iranians are so slippery. Thorium salt reactors are much safer and more efficient, and they are not under pressure (no water cooling) so they can't "blow".

The problem I have with that is that it is incorrect to say that they are designed to enrich Plutonium. Plutonium is a consequence of nuclear reactor designs that allow for the use of uranium 238 to take up most of the actual fuel (note that 238 is the non fissile isotope of uranium). When U238 happens to take on an extra neutron it undergoes beta decay twice to turn into Plutonium 239. Now, the question becomes, can we go about generating power without using Uranium 238? Sure, however it is highly illegal to do so because it would require fuel cores of highly enriched Uranium 235! (the isotope used in bombs) The US has placed restrictions on how enriched nuclear fuel can be in order to prevent proliferation issues, and so we inadvertently force power plants to generate plutonium as a natural byproduct of having large amounts of U238 "filler" in the fuel pellets.

Unfortunately, Uranium mining is more popular than Thorium mining for reasons that have nothing to do with energy generation.

This is a political problem, not a technical one. If you make the effort to push forward the commission of thorium plants, there will be people eager to sell you the thorium.

[GenosseGeneral]

It is somewhat funny that Husar found the pic of that leviathan of a digger on a page advertising destinations for daytrips. Seems like at least some of us Germans indeed like digging over our country.

[Husar]

Where is this fear
of a nuclear wasteland coming from?

Chernobyl and Fukushima of course. You can say all day how irrelevant these are as examples for German reactors but they show what happens if anything goes wrong for whatever reason and the core melts.
And then you have the nuclear waste. Sure, the industry says it's safe and we can just dump it somewhere near or below our drinking water, forget about it and use fracking in the same region in a thousand years. Surely nothing could go wrong there. A lot of people see this differently though and think having to change containments every 100 years will also become really expensive in a thousand years. Just like destroying plants may not kill us now, but will probably reduce the oxygen supply for future generations. and then languages, signs and so on we use now are by no means guaranteed to survive the next few thousand years. So storage sites can be forgotten, signs become unreadable and future generations may make big mistakes around them, not knowing about the dangers inside.

Could you explain why?

Because if you cannot supply it with electric energy any more for whatever reason, it blows up all by itself. I know there are safety measures and they do sound good, but it's still not an inherently stable design, it's a design that you have to keep stable through constant monitoring and other efforts in order to prevent a catastrophe.

This is a political problem, not a technical one. If you make the effort to push forward the commission of thorium plants, there will be people eager to sell you the thorium.

Yes, Thorium sounds great and a lot more stable and safe.

It is somewhat funny that Husar found the pic of that leviathan of a digger on a page advertising destinations for daytrips. Seems like at least some of us Germans indeed like digging over our country.

My parents live near the digging site which (at least used to have) the largest digging machine in the world. People do indeed take trips to see these incredibly large man-made colossi at work. The fascination lies more in the engineering feat than in the whole destruction of the countryside, although most people would probably rather have that than a lack of electricity. We also had school trips to the coal power plants and the diggind site.

[Papewaio]

Approximately 165 people died in Tokyo due to fire started because of the earthquake and tsunami that took out the Fukushima reactor.

How many people died to the oldest nuclear power plant being knocked out?

Proportional responses to risk need to be done.

Coal power plants shorten the lifespan of people downwind from them.Gas plants can explode, as can gas bottles and fires caused by them maim and kill many each year. Fire byproducts such as carbon monoxide poisoning from kills thousands each year.

Yet people shit a brick because of a common prejudice mixing up nuclear weapons with nuclear power. It's like mistaking weaponised petrol (napalm) vs petrol used in cars.

The risks of nuclear power are a fraction of those compared with the issues created by coal plants. Nuclear power plants have a potential to have an impact, whilst coal plants actually daily shorten the lives of thousands.

Even if you add in nuclear weapons, nuclear power is still safer then coal. Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortened the lives of 200k people. That's half the yearly lives shortened in China from coal plants.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Chernobyl and Fukushima of course. You can say all day how irrelevant these are as examples for German reactors but they show what happens if anything goes wrong for whatever reason and the core melts.

But that's terrible logic. The Chernobyl reactor meltdown was exacerbated by the fact that the moderator used was graphite which proceeded to catch on fire when exposed to oxygen. Everything nowadays is light or heavy water.

And then you have the nuclear waste. Sure, the industry says it's safe and we can just dump it somewhere near or below our drinking water, forget about it and use fracking in the same region in a thousand years. Surely nothing could go wrong there. A lot of people see this differently though and think having to change containments every 100 years will also become really expensive in a thousand years. Just like destroying plants may not kill us now, but will probably reduce the oxygen supply for future generations. and then languages, signs and so on we use now are by no means guaranteed to survive the next few thousand years. So storage sites can be forgotten, signs become unreadable and future generations may make big mistakes around them, not knowing about the dangers inside.

A large storage facility is not needed for storage of nuclear waste. The current procedure in the US is to simply store it on site in pools and that has been working fine since the nuclear waste doesn't actually take up that much space.

Secondly, industry doesn't want to store it anywhere near water. Don't know where you got that idea. Hence, why a mountain in the middle of Nevada was chosen to be the storage location and not a swamp in Louisiana.

Thirdly, you don't need to store it that long. Things that have half lifes in the 100,000 or 1,000,000+ years are not that harmful. The dangerous elements are the ones with short half lifes that will decay very rapidly and thus pose a risk if in a concentrated form. But by their own nature, these elements decay in a matter of decades. Are you saying that it is impossible for humans to hold on to waste until 2100?

Because if you cannot supply it with electric energy any more for whatever reason, it blows up all by itself. I know there are safety measures and they do sound good, but it's still not an inherently stable design, it's a design that you have to keep stable through constant monitoring and other efforts in order to prevent a catastrophe.

Also not true. Control systems that can initiate shutdown when detecting any variations in normal operation have been around for a while. Also, another technical aspect, you can design reactors to have either a positive or negative temperature reactivity coefficient. I have personally visited a research reactor where the operator removed the control rods and just sat with us and watched the power level rise and rise...until it hit around ~250C (if I remember correctly) at which point the power level stabilized. This is because the system had a negative temperature coefficient, as the temperature increases, the reactivity actually decreases and self moderates for you.

Yes, Thorium sounds great and a lot more stable and safe.

I agree.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'd like to see us stop burning the fossil fuels not because of climate change -- the biggest culprit of which is all the billions of us breathing and giving off CO2 --

Idk why but I forgot to reply to this, probably because his past week has been finals week for me. Anyway, this statement reminded me of an article I read a while ago. You may find it interesting. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...bon_sinks.html

[Ironside]

Thirdly, you don't need to store it that long. Things that have half lifes in the 100,000 or 1,000,000+ years are not that harmful. The dangerous elements are the ones with short half lifes that will decay very rapidly and thus pose a risk if in a concentrated form. But by their own nature, these elements decay in a matter of decades. Are you saying that it is impossible for humans to hold on to waste until 2100?

You're underestimating the lethality of radiation and is forgetting the decaying chains that produces short lived intermediate isotopes. Basically, the tank storage is extremely radioactive (and requires constant cooling) and kills you within minutes, while the long term storage are dealing with things that kills you within hours.

That up to a million years storage are dropping the radiation to about 0,1% of the original value iirc.

[Husar]

But that's terrible logic. The Chernobyl reactor meltdown was exacerbated by the fact that the moderator used was graphite which proceeded to catch on fire when exposed to oxygen. Everything nowadays is light or heavy water.

I know, doesn't mean everyone does.

A large storage facility is not needed for storage of nuclear waste. The current procedure in the US is to simply store it on site in pools and that has been working fine since the nuclear waste doesn't actually take up that much space.

Secondly, industry doesn't want to store it anywhere near water. Don't know where you got that idea. Hence, why a mountain in the middle of Nevada was chosen to be the storage location and not a swamp in Louisiana.

Thirdly, you don't need to store it that long. Things that have half lifes in the 100,000 or 1,000,000+ years are not that harmful. The dangerous elements are the ones with short half lifes that will decay very rapidly and thus pose a risk if in a concentrated form. But by their own nature, these elements decay in a matter of decades. Are you saying that it is impossible for humans to hold on to waste until 2100?

It needs to be stored on site for at least 10-20 years. What happens to spent containers and where is it stored afterwards?
The mountain site under Nevada was cancelled as a storage location because of evil NIMBYs in Nevada. Your third point also reads like the ones on the industry explanation sites but Ironside and others disagree about the lethality of the waste.

Also not true. Control systems that can initiate shutdown when detecting any variations in normal operation have been around for a while. Also, another technical aspect, you can design reactors to have either a positive or negative temperature reactivity coefficient. I have personally visited a research reactor where the operator removed the control rods and just sat with us and watched the power level rise and rise...until it hit around ~250C (if I remember correctly) at which point the power level stabilized. This is because the system had a negative temperature coefficient, as the temperature increases, the reactivity actually decreases and self moderates for you.

The temperature thing is interesting and new to me, the other control systems still need electricity to work and if that fails, the entire cooling fails as well, leaving you with a very dangerous situation if the temperature reactivity coefficient is not negative apparently. How many reactors do and will have such a negative reactivity coefficient now and in the future?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Idk why but I forgot to reply to this, probably because his past week has been finals week for me. Anyway, this statement reminded me of an article I read a while ago. You may find it interesting. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...bon_sinks.html

Neat, so more humans...especially sedentary ones....equals a reduction in CO2. If we could only harness their electrical power at the same time.....

Red? Or Blue?

[Pannonian]

Neat, so more humans...especially sedentary ones....equals a reduction in CO2. If we could only harness their electrical power at the same time.....

Red? Or Blue?

Chernobyl is compelling evidence that nuclear power, especially if it goes wrong, is good for the environment.