Terror of nuclear power - the weakest Skeptoid episode yet?

[Hindmost]

I think there are two main issues with sending waste into space. One is that it takes a lot of energy to do so. The other is that an accident could impact the environment.

I think the solution lies in burning up the waste so it is not such a burden to deal with. There are some reactor concepts that have no high level waste at the end of the fuel cycle floating out there. The problem is getting funding for such research.

Using fast breeder technology, next generation designs will eliminate long lived waste as the Pu, U, Am can be fast fissioned. However, it won't get rid of high level waste--since it is the result of fission. All of the waste generated from using reprocessing of fuel would only be around for about 300 years. This would also extend the useable amount of fuel to about 1000 years. The technology is available, but would take a lot of money and a strong commitment from the public and government...which I don't think will happen in the US at least.

The depositories selected for nuclear waste are chosen for their geological stability. Salt domes are typically stable for millions of years and realitively dry. This is the reason they are considered excellent sites.

I agree sending the waste into space would be prohibitive from an energy point of view.

glenn

 

[Diagoras]

I agree sending the waste into space would be prohibitive from an energy point of view.

Not only that, but there's also the fear of a radioactive version of the Challenger incident. It's much safer taking a train or truck to a salt dome in the middle of the desert.

 

[shadron]

Nuclear is just scary because it's invisible and seems so exotic. It's really just another toxic substance we should be relatively careful about handling -- if you are pregnant or plan to become pregnant, you should not handle <del>U238</del> U-235.

Neither should you be siphoning gas from your tank, or breathing ammonia from washing floors. As you say, the world can be a scary place, but it will be the monsters you know that will get you If you spend your time staying away from nuclear power.

Why would we bother shooting it into space? We ought to be able to place it strategically such that it gets subducted under a techtonic plate, right? Wouldn't that be really, really safe?

1. Today's radioactive waste may well be tomorrow's gold mine. Keep it handy.
2. Of greater volume is the low level waste - things like aprons, gloves, lab boxes, concrete, all the things that can become somewhat contaminated.
3. Subduction isn't like your typical conveyor belt into oblivion. It moves mainly in fits and starts from a human perspective, by earthquake and tsunami. You wouldn't want a bunch of barrels half-enveloped by an earthquake, and the containment shattered while it is still too near the surface. Or being melted and burped up in a quick pluton.

Not only that, but there's also the fear of a radioactive version of the Challenger incident. It's much safer taking a train or truck to a salt dome in the middle of the desert.

Eh, except for the greens you may have to run over at all the stops.

 

[soylent]

Eh, except for the greens you may have to run over at all the stops.

Just as well; why would you throw away fuel, or platinum group metals, or mildly radioactive technetium(cheap catalyst with fairly unique properties, corrosion resistance in carbon steel, good beta-emitter for optoelectric nuclear batteries), depleted uranium that does not need to ever be put into geological repository and might be useful in a breeder reactor some day, gamma emitters like Caesium-137 and strontium-90 that can be used for steralization of food and medical equipment and if nothing else will become harmless within a few hundred years of storage?

We don't even put mercury into a geological repository and that stuff stays nasty forever.

 

[jj]

Of course, nuclear energy would be even better if we started reprocessing everything we have into "ugly" fuel.

'Ugly' fuel is impure, entirely reactable (safely) fuel that is completely useless for a bomb, but that allows us to use the 95% of the energy that we fail to use to date in nuclear fuel.

 

[Trevor]

I thought it was a good show. I am a big fan of nuclear power. It is far cleaner than coal or other fossil fuel power plants and its energy output is far greater than wind and solar. It is also able to be built anywhere, unlike hydroelectric dams or geothermal plants.

I think more people need to know that nuclear power is not the oogy boogy man.

I heard that hippies were trying to get a bill passed (intent on ultimately banning nuclear power plants) by means of requiring a certain radioactivity pollution minimum by all power plants. And I heard that this idea had to be canned when they realized that coal plants emit more radioactivity than nuclear power plants. I am not sure if this story is a myth. If anyone knows, let me know.

 

[jj]

I heard that hippies were trying to get a bill passed (intent on ultimately banning nuclear power plants) by means of requiring a certain radioactivity pollution minimum by all power plants. And I heard that this idea had to be canned when they realized that coal plants emit more radioactivity than nuclear power plants. I am not sure if this story is a myth. If anyone knows, let me know.

I have no idea if it's true, but I have indeed pointed several loads of environmento-dips at the facts about radiation release from coal plants. I doubt I'm the only one who has.

 

[DeGuerre]

Sorry to open this up again, but I'm a recent listener to Skeptoid, and I have some thoughts on this episode that didn't come up in the thread so far.

Note: I tried to add this as a comment to the podcast page itself, but I ran into the character limit. I've edited this slightly from what's there; this should be considered the "correct" version.

The start of the final thought from the podcast sets off all sorts of internal skeptical alarm bells:

There is a safe and clean solution to our energy crisis, gasoline prices, and global warming.​

First off, had Three Mile Island and Chernobyl not occurred, the USA would not now be covered in Generation III+ reactors, because those designs are more recent than either of those accidents. A more likely scenario is that there would simply be more Generation II reactors, perhaps with some newer designs coming on line around now. In other words, you're only generating as little active waste as you are because of the moratorium on building new reactors.

Second, nuclear power is not "clean". At best, it's "cleaner" (though, I might add, still not as clean as geothermal, hydro or the latest generation of photovoltaics). Uranium needs to be mined, transported and enriched. Mining is an inherently dirty process. Many recent mines use in-situ leaching, which has a poorly-understood environmental impact. Enrichment, in particular, uses a huge amount of energy: The US first transports the fuel to its one enrichment plant, then uses the output of two coal power stations to run the enrichment, then transports it back to the power stations.

Thirdly, and most crucially, nuclear power suffers from exactly the same inefficiencies as coal and oil generation.

According to the Monthly Energy Review, September 1998 (the figures might have changed by then), 67% of the energy input is lost in conversion, 5% is consumed inside power plants and 9% is lost in the distribution network. In particular, a significant portion of the energy created in modern power plants is sent straight up flues or cooling towers, and a significant portion of what's left is lost sending it across the country. And, of course, we then send additional additional energy to homes to heat them.

Now industry needs a lot of power, so I'm certainly not knocking the idea of large power plants. However for residential and office purposes, central power generation simply makes no sense.

You can probably tell by now that I'm a huge fan of distributed cogeneration. The technology is here, and it works. Moreover, it lets you pick the power source that makes the most sense for the local area. If it's sunny, use some solar. If you have geography that's suitable for geothermal, hydro, wave or wind, use that. Most areas at the very least have some of the raw materials for biogas already present (waste plant matter and sewerage). And, of course, hydrogen can easily be generated locally (all you need is power and water), which solves most of the problems of how to transport it to the pump.

OK, summary:

There is no single answer to the problem of energy. However, there are two main things that must be part of any complete solution.

1. Fix the inefficiencies in our current generation and distribution system.
2. Use fuel sources that are appropriate for the locale.

Nuclear power should, I have no doubt, be part of that, especially for industry. But merely going nuclear cannot solve all our problems.

 

[Quath]

First off, had Three Mile Island and Chernobyl not occurred, the USA would not now be covered in Generation III+ reactors, because those designs are more recent than either of those accidents. A more likely scenario is that there would simply be more Generation II reactors, perhaps with some newer designs coming on line around now. In other words, you're only generating as little active waste as you are because of the moratorium on building new reactors.

This one is tough because it is hard to argue possible futures. A lot of research and development was also cut due to these events as well. These events also curbed a lot of investment into nuclear. So you may have started out with more Gen 2 reactors, there may have been more development that encourages the industry to keep upgrading.

Second, nuclear power is not "clean". At best, it's "cleaner" (though, I might add, still not as clean as geothermal, hydro or the latest generation of photovoltaics). Uranium needs to be mined, transported and enriched. Mining is an inherently dirty process. Many recent mines use in-situ leaching, which has a poorly-understood environmental impact. Enrichment, in particular, uses a huge amount of energy: The US first transports the fuel to its one enrichment plant, then uses the output of two coal power stations to run the enrichment, then transports it back to the power stations.

This is a good point. (Enrichment could be done with nuclear power, not coal, so this is more of a political/implementation issue.) What I found to be the interesting take-away message is that the public is ok with the dirtiness of coal/oil but worry about nuclear. I think Brian is making the point that if someone is ok with the dirtiness of coal, they should be ok with the cleaner nuclear.

You can probably tell by now that I'm a huge fan of distributed cogeneration. The technology is here, and it works. Moreover, it lets you pick the power source that makes the most sense for the local area. If it's sunny, use some solar. If you have geography that's suitable for geothermal, hydro, wave or wind, use that. Most areas at the very least have some of the raw materials for biogas already present (waste plant matter and sewerage). And, of course, hydrogen can easily be generated locally (all you need is power and water), which solves most of the problems of how to transport it to the pump.

There are problems with many of the smaller, local energy sources. Natural gas contributes to green house problem. Many solar cell have heavy metal waste disposal problems. Many places that need energy (like heating) are in cold, overcast areas away from geothermal energy. It takes a lot of energy to generate hydrogen (which is one of the reasons that nuclear power is targeted as a way to lower the cost of making hydrogen since it can operate at very high temperatures).

There is no single answer to the problem of energy. However, there are two main things that must be part of any complete solution.

1. Fix the inefficiencies in our current generation and distribution system.
2. Use fuel sources that are appropriate for the locale.

Nuclear power should, I have no doubt, be part of that, especially for industry. But merely going nuclear cannot solve all our problems.

Despite my minor disagreements, I agree with you overall. I tend to favor a comprehensive approach to the energy issue. Now that being said, there are some designs that people are researching that has nuclear as the major source of energy like the LIFE engine which could burn nuclear waste for its energy. (I can not provide the link since I have not posted enough, but you can find it at lasers.llnl.gov.)

 

[kbmast]

Some nuclear facts

It wasn't the worst episode by a long shot. One thing I would take issue with is the later generation reactors are always safer. This isn't the case with some more modern designs, such as fast breeder reactors.

Fission in Uranium occurs more easily with slower neutrons, or thermal neutrons. Chernobyl like other Gen 1 reactors used graphite as the neutron moderator to slow the neutrons down. Water was then used as a coolant, and to generate steam. Bubbles forming in the coolant water would increase the intensity of the reaction it the reactor. This is called a positive void coefficient. The more bubbles the fast the reactor would run, the more head it would generate and the more steam would be produced. It's a positive feedback loop.

Generation II reactors use water as the neutron moderator. Either light water 95% of the time or heavy water 5% of the time, depending on how enriched the uranium placed into the reactor will be. The benefit of this is that is a bubble or steam forms in the coolant water the void created actually slows the reaction down. Because this water is being used to slow the fast neutrons to thermal neutrons for the reaction any voids in the water will inhibit the reaction. If you lose your coolant the reaction will stop. In theory this will prevent any meltdowns. This is called a negative void coefficient.

Fast breeder reactors create more fuel than they consume are in fact more unstable than a Generation II reactor even though they would be considered III+. As the name implies they use fast neutrons to power their reactions. Not only does the amount of fuel in the core increase the longer the fuel has been in the core but you're left with the same problem, that any void in the coolant creates more fast neutrons and tends to facilitate the reaction. The advantage of the breeder reactor is that it creates fuel for other reactors.

There are no fast breeder reactors in the US and only a couple in the world. I believe they're developing similar negative feedback loops for this type of reactor as well. But again, just because a reactor technology is more advanced or considered to be a later generation does not mean that it's always safer. To be honest I would have no problems living next door to a Gen II reactor.

 

[Bobby078]

"You need to go after chemical toxins way before you think about nuclear."

Is the waste totally untreatable?

I am suddenly reminded of nuclear waste being dumped off the coast of italy by the mafia. I wonder what the long term results will be.

 

[tyr_13]

Well, everyone has to make do with the technology available at the present moment. Before the VCR we had Super 8 and DVD will eventually be phased out in favor of Blu-Ray.

Today I bought my first memory stick, 2 GB for 120 SEK. Not very much storing space per monetary unit, but I couldn't afford the memory stick storing 437 Jiggabyte.

Complete derail, but SDXC.

 

[isaone]

I think it was far from the worst and in fact quite good. The anti-nuke'rs are simpler not rational or interested in actual facts when emotional appeals are so much easier and cheaper to generate.

 

[Eligbak]

Reactor design can be rather complex, and there are many different subtypes within the reactor generations. They were probably more interested in presenting the facts in a timely manner than creating a uber thorough 6 hour long movie that no one would watch.

I'd like to see this six-hour movie, or ten hours for that matter. Nobody in the world hates nuclear power more than we Germans, I suspect. If the nuclear industry gave everybody 1000 Euros every year, they wouldn't be allowed to build new reactors. That's why we'll have the old ones run a few years or decades longer than planned, and even this causes much screaming and yelping.

I have never fully bought into the idea that nuclear power will kill us all sooner or later, but I do mind radioactive desposits from one of our leaking nuclear waste sites in the ground water. So I'd be very, very interested in these apparently (almost) waste-free new reactor types, preferrably from a neutral source. Can anyone oblige?
(Providing this thread gets resurrected - sorry, I'm new)

 

[John Albert]

Even though the rods were going to packed into special containers and escorted the whole way, a Greenpeace spokesman said he was going to assemble protest at every point along the way. I have always had a problem with this sort of thinking. It seems that unless we develop some sort of 100% perfect system, some eviromentalist will not accept it. Would they prefer to return to the days when they fought governments who wanted to dump nuclear waste in the oceans?

A few years ago, I had a couple Greenpeace representatives at my door soliciting donations. Part of their 'sales pitch' was to try and alarm me with the information that a railroad in my immediate neighborhood was intended to be used for the transport of toxic, hazardous nuclear waste. Feigning alarm at this appalling state of affairs, I invited them in for a little chat.

After brewing us all a round of green tea, I sat down with them and asked for specifics about which facilities were the origin of the spent fuel, and which local railroads in the City of Chicago were to be used. I know for a fact that we have no nuclear reactors in our immediate vicinity which would be a likely source of this material, and Chicago does not lie along any reasonable paths between any of the nuclear facilities to the North or East and the state of Nevada. None of the railroads I know of in my area would be likely routes for this purpose.

They were unable to answer any of my specific questions, but insisted that nobody really knows because "the power industry is shipping all this nuclear waste in secret though our own backyards over ordinary railways in unmarked containers without the public's knowledge." So I asked how Greenpeace were able to find out about it. One of them then suggested I make a donation to Greenpeace so I could receive a newsletter to find out all about these sorts of things that "they" don't want me to know.

Of course, I thanked them for their time and sent them on their way.

Now I appreciate Greenpeace's commitment to protecting the environment, and I appreciate some of the work they do. But I have to ask, what the hell does Greenpeace want or expect to be done with all this stuff? What do they hope to accomplish by spreading wanton FUD about the handling of nuclear waste materials? Do they really believe that leaving toxic waste sitting around in densely populated areas scattered throughout the country is a better solution than transporting it to a secure and remote location?

While I don't doubt their sincerity, I believe their zeal actually gets in the way of their own common sense.

 

[Mark6]

Now I appreciate Greenpeace's commitment to protecting the environment, and I appreciate some of the work they do. But I have to ask, what the hell does Greenpeace want or expect to be done with all this stuff? What do they hope to accomplish by spreading wanton FUD about the handling of nuclear waste materials? Do they really believe that leaving toxic waste sitting around in densely populated areas scattered throughout the country is a better solution than transporting it to a secure and remote location?

Actual quote I heard from a Greenpeace activist some 20 years ago:

"We have no idea what you can do with nuclear waste. We just know what you cannot do with it."

Seriously, I am quite sure Greenpeace's goal is not to "leave toxic waste sitting around in densely populated areas scattered throughout the country" -- it is to stop its production entirely. By whatever underhanded means necessary.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here is a video of an unrecycled fuel transport cask undergoing crash tests:



Cars today are designed to sacrifice their own shells and frames in order to absorb impact energy and save the passengers. Nuclear transport casks are designed the exact opposite way. They are build to destroy and kill everything around them in a crash before suffering so much as a scratch. The engineers who design these things consider the lives of the poor schlubs who drive the trucks and trains as secondary to the importance of not allowing a leak as a result of an accident.

As long as I don't live within 100 yards of the train tracks (a 25 ton cask likely would not get tossed far even in the worst of accidents), they could ship whatever the hell they want near my neighborhood.

 

[TraneWreck]

Back up a few posts and read the thread that hindmost cited.

Three cubic meters per year means it would take nearly a century to fill up the space occupied by a single suburban house. And there are reactors technologies that can eliminate that waste. Most of that waste is, in fact, usable fuel.

I would also point out that waste is a problem (albeit an exaggerated one) based on contemporary technology.

I have far more confidence that we'll figure out better ways to deal with nuclear waste over the next 3000 years than I have confidence that we will develop a better energy system to move away from fossil fuels in the time frame necessary to deal with AGW.

It's basically a thousand-year punt.

 

[Eligbak]

I have far more confidence that we'll figure out better ways to deal with nuclear waste over the next 3000 years...

It's not only the nuclear waste that is the problem, but the whole *nuclear* issue in the public's mind.
The next big scandal has been simmering since the 1990's - Depleted Uranium ammunition and how it's related to cancer and birth defects. More is being done on this subject, and it seems to be a safe bet that breathing in DU residue is among the most unhealthy things you can do.

The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children (2006)
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=5146778547681767408&

 

[Tomtomkent]

Telling people to be scared of nuclear power because of incidents that happened decades ago is like telling people not to fly because the R101 and the Hindenberg. Later generation nuclear power stations will have better safety precautions. I might not know the exact workings, but i know enough to have seen that the way the reactions are controlled fail safe. Technology developes because when old stuff breaks down we want to replace it with the best possible product. Sure, the engineering firms could sell us the same old powerplants. But then why have a nuclear site at dungeoness when Battersea could still be spewing out coal smoke over London? Why buy a car with seatbelts airbags and crumplezones when I could rattle around in a model T deathtrap? Why have the National Grid protected by vacuum circuit breakers in an SF6 resevoir when we could still use oil filled circuit breakers full of asbestos and pcbs?

Nuclear power has been going for decade with so few inccidents you probably know most of them by name. The alternatives are gas and coal, which have far more pressing concerns.