It is right up until it isn’t.
And that lasts for about 45,000 years.
Other than that, what isn’t to like?

It doesn't create CO2, so some would say yes. but it does create radioactive waste that remains dangerous for hundreds or thousands of years. Fortunately, the amount generated is not huge, but it's enough to be a problem finding suitable storage locations.

flashguy

I just had an idea... why not pay Elon to shoot the waste into space past our gravitational field and then the sun would just suck it in eventually and recycle it?

I'm still trying to figure out what is so bad about Carbon Dioxide... is that not what plants breath? Why are we trying to suffocate the trees?

There is over 90,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste in the US alone; that is a LOT of space shots…

https://armscontrolcenter.org/...n-the-united-states/

Nuclear power is at least as green as every other type of power. All types of power production has some type of ill environmental effect, be it the harmful mining and chemicals that go into solar cell production, or coal, or the greenhouse gases (if you buy that) that come from oil and natural gas. The biggest disadvantage to nuclear power at this point is its expense, however if fossil fuel power production becomes increasingly taxed and otherwise regulated and/or priced out of existence (at least as we know it now) then nuclear will be the only option to maintain our current lifestyle. And frankly, American nuclear power has been an overwhelming safety success. We build in redundancy that other nations skimp out on and that has resulted in a tremendously safe means of power production in this country. Chernobyl never could have happened in the US due to the flawed design of the Soviet RBMK reactor, coupled with the unsafe operational arrogance of the reactor operators and plant management. Similarly, Fukushima would never have happened in the US as we (a) never would have allowed the plant to be built there and (b) would have required backup pumps with redundant (non grid) power sources to be in place as a condition of licensure. I’m a huge advocate for nuclear power, and frankly feel that it’s the only long term feasible solution until we crack nuclear fusion power production and/or make some similar breakthrough.

Question wrt nuclear waste. Wouldn’t we have a lot less of it if we’d allow the use of breeder reactors? I was always under the impression that France gets more out of their fuel and produces less waste because they use breeders, but the Carter Administration banned their use here.

A) There are newer reactor designs which are far cheaper, and safer, and which consume some of that nuclear waste.

B) Fossil fuels produce radiation as well - it’s a know thing to use a Geiger counter on used drill stem pipe, before making a fence from it.

C) The safest thing to do with the radioactive waste, would be to put it into the glass marbles, then drop them on the sea floor, somewhere where the crust subducts. (Puts the stuff back into the core, where it came from)

And, anyone savvy enough to get to it, would be savvy enough to make it.

Isn't the reason we don't reprocess spent fuel rods because of one of the START treaties?

JP

Nuclear power is the greenest source of energy we have available to us.

Aglifter has good information.

I grew up as the son of a cesium farmer so I am well versed from the lectures of my dad.

the idea behind a breeder reactor is that the waste product is a weapons grade fissionable material - the military wanted the materials

if you're looking for a type of reactor that produces something with a 'less toxic' waste stream then consider the CANDU model of PHW reactors that uses non-enriched yellow cake uranium.

Aside from the radioactive waste, the biggest impact most reactors have is water use. Of course, most power plants use a lot of water, so it isn’t unique to Nuclear. Uranium mining has the same problems as most mining, but if you are looking at the full lifecycle of power generation, the mining impact isn’t that different than all the mining you need to do to build solar panels.

The radioactive waste isn’t even that much of a problem in terms of safety. The problem is how expensive it gets to keep it stored safely for centuries. Storage really only needs to do two things: keep air and water from getting in and out of the containers, and last long enough that you don’t have to replace the containment vessels every few decades and create even more waste. The rest of the job is just keeping an eye on things to check for leaks, and making sure crazy people don’t try to steal it. It isn’t a hard thing to do, you just need to keep doing it for about 2000 years. There are already objects or buildings mankind has preserved for that long, it’s just a matter of making it a priority to keep the storage sites and vessels maintained.

Still, we would like the waste to be safe with shorter timescales if we can manage it, and there is still research going on into other designs that either create less waste or waste that decays much faster. Are any of those designs on the brink of being built commercially? Not that I know of, but people haven’t given up on nuclear fuel cycles that don’t make as much long-lived nastiness as current designs. The problem isn’t really the science. Building small test reactors to prove the concept is manageable and has been done in some cases. However, turning that basic design into a full commercial power plant is a massively expensive task and takes years and years of design reviews and approvals. That isn’t necessarily bad, but it does make progress on new designs very slow.

So I guess the short answer is that Nuclear doesn’t produce much undesirable waste, but the waste it does produce requires looking after for a really long time. Also, nuclear reactor cores tend to produce a blue glow, not green, so if anything I would say they are blue…which is, oddly, the color that Germans use to denote something being environmentally friendly.

- Bret

I'd say the newest nuke plants are very green and way safer than old ones.

(I have an electrical engineering degree from UT focused on power engineering/industrial engineering)

It is important to place them in areas without natural disasters and away from major population centers imo.

Nuke plants could be the key that makes renewables like wind, water and solar provide all our power with zero carbon emissions.

Problem with wind and solar is when it isn't windy or sunny you don't get power and you can't exactly tell the wind to blow.

Having a good base level of nuclear power would be great, and if we did this there would be no CO2 emissions from power plants if that could be augmented by renewables like water, wind, solar, geothermal.

(moving towards a world with electric cars powered by gas power plants isn't saving anyone)

Nuclear Energy can be done safely and efficiently, look to France, if we redid it here but with more layers of safety measures and regulations on what the plants would have to be in order to prevent dangers from a meltdown.

Also the USA has a huge under the mountain nuke waste depot already for storing waste that could store any amount of the current tiny pellets that nuke plants use.

How long has it been since a new reactor was approved in the US? 40 years? I can’t think of a single technology that hasn’t made huge advances in that time frame. I’d imagine new reactors would be smaller and safer.

I’m sure someone can chime in.

NO energy production is 100% "green." Windmills kill birds and sometimes catch fire or spill their lubricating oil. Hydroelectric dams displace and kill fish and submerge scenic canyons (e.g., Hetch Hetchy and Glen). I saw (from a distance) a fire at a solar plant, billowing black smoke and flame. Growing and harvesting ⁹the corn for ethanol takes more energy than it saves. Mining and smelting the metals for electric car batteries has numerous problems. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Yes. If the French can get over 75 percent of their power from nuclear, why can’t the U.S.?

I already know the answer.

Interesting thread, thanks.

Talk of newer tech nuclear power and concerns about natural disasters, earthquakes or tsunamis, ie. Throw in terrorism or outright attack, is any newer nuke tech less problematic or are the results of a catastrophe SHTF no matter what?

Godzilla says it is.

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
I just had an idea... why not pay Elon to shoot the waste into space past our gravitational field and then the sun would just suck it in eventually and recycle it?

I'm still trying to figure out what is so bad about Carbon Dioxide... is that not what plants breath? Why are we trying to suffocate the trees?

Well, it might work to send the nuclear waste into space, but it would be pretty expensive, and what if the rocket crashed?

About the CO2, I've been consistently stating that it is not a pollutant and necessary for plant life (and by extension, animal/human life--we all eat plants). The mania to reduce CO2 is misguided.

Regarding nuclear power, there are alternatives to using Uranium--Thorium is one. Article: https://newatlas.com/thorium-nuclear-power/18204/
It has been known for a long time that Thorium could be used in a power reactor, but governments originally nixed the idea because Thorium reactors don't produce material that can be used for bombs, and neither do the processes the put Thorium to use. Perhaps it is time to start building Thorium ractors.

flashguy