Life after death: Nuclear power is clean, but can it overcome its image problem?

News Type: Opinion — Seeded on Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:30 AM EDT

Article Source: The Economist

technology, co2, nuclear-power, nuclear-energy, nuclear-waste

IF YOU want to make an environmentalist squirm, mention nuclear power. Atomic energy was the green movement's darkest nightmare: the child of mass destruction, the spawner of waste that will remain dangerous for millennia, the ultimate victory of pitiless technology over frail humanity. And not even cheap. Well, times change. The followers of Rachel Carson and the Club of Rome in the 1960s and 1970s had not heard of the greenhouse effect, but today's greens have. And they know that nuclear reactors are the one proven way to make carbon-dioxide-free electricity in large and reliable quantities that does not depend (as hydroelectric and geothermal energy do) on the luck of the geographical draw. What a dilemma for a thoughtful tree-hugger.

Published to:

Marilyn L's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Nuclear? No Thanks, Science And Technology
Regions: none

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

9.6

6.3

2.5

{"commentId":2036558,"authorDomain":"marilynl"}

Marilyn L

Not my position re nuclear power generation, but I thought this would provide a look at what proponents of nuclear power say. Let's hear what you think about this pro-nuclear argument.

{"commentId":2036558,"threadId":"297608","contentId":"1605062","authorDomain":"marilynl"}

1 vote

#1 - Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:32 AM EDT

{"commentId":2037132,"authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}

FDBryant3

I don't understand why we don't use more nuclear power. At this point in time it is the most immediately available clean power generation source.

{"commentId":2037132,"threadId":"297608","contentId":"1605062","authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}

5 votes

#2 - Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:14 AM EDT

{"commentId":2037611,"authorDomain":"dungbeetlemania"}

dungbeetlemania

I'm sorry, but I disagree. They're saying that nuclear power is nice and clean, just as long as you ignore the waste. This is true of coal, oil, in fact anything else, too. It is the waste of fossil fuels, not the fuels themselves, that have got us into this mess.

None of these ideas deals with the question of nuclear waste. But that is largely a political problem, not a technical one. Though it sounds like a cop-out, the best answer really is to bury the stuff for the time being. That should be done in places where it can easily be recovered for reprocessing one day when technology has caught up. But it is also worth noting that buried, unprocessed waste cannot be used to make bombs.

No, it is not only a political problem. We thought pumping the CO2 into the air was fine, but the air got full up. The same will happen with nuclear fuel as geologically stable areas are filled and it becomes more expensive, harder, and dodgier to try to get rid of it.

Our forefathers left us the global warming gift, let's not leave our children the nuclear one.

{"commentId":2037611,"threadId":"297608","contentId":"1605062","authorDomain":"dungbeetlemania"}

2 votes

#3 - Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:07 AM EDT

{"commentId":2038000,"authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}

FDBryant3

Somehow I have a hard time believing that we could fill up the areas with nuclear waste before we come up with a way of putting it to use or render it inert.

Worse case scenario - we have to begin blasting it into the sun.

{"commentId":2038000,"threadId":"297608","contentId":"1605062","authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}

2 votes

#3.1 - Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:44 AM EDT

{"commentId":2038721,"authorDomain":"dungbeetlemania"}

dungbeetlemania

I have to disagree I'm afraid. In order to safely bury nuclear waste you have to have an area that is above the water-table and will have zero significant geological events in the next 10 000 - 100 000 years. The area must also be similarly unsuited to human use (farming, settlement etc) for the same period of time. Areas like this are actually pretty rare.

On top of this, we need to find a way to mark the area as absolutely off-limits to people 50 000 years into the future, who may have little understanding of our society and, if there has been some calamity in the meantime, the whole concept of nuclear fuel may be alien to them. Some steps have been taken in this regard (sorry, you need a subscription for the whole article).

As for blasting it into the sun - nice idea, except that conventional rockets have a failure rate of around 1%, meaning that for every 99 successful launches, one launch would spray radioactive waste over a massive area.

Given what we are coming from, I just think it is madness to embark on another road that produces harmful waste we cannot yet deal with.

{"commentId":2038721,"threadId":"297608","contentId":"1605062","authorDomain":"dungbeetlemania"}

2 votes

#3.2 - Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:53 AM EDT

{"commentId":2041764,"authorDomain":"Brad-Leclerc"}

Brad Leclerc

In order to safely bury nuclear waste you have to have an area that is above the water-table and will have zero significant geological events in the next 10 000 - 100 000 years. The area must also be similarly unsuited to human use (farming, settlement etc) for the same period of time. Areas like this are actually pretty rare.

How about a site that has been studied and worked on for the last 30 years to do just that?

{"commentId":2041764,"threadId":"297608","contentId":"1605062","authorDomain":"Brad-Leclerc"}

1 vote

#3.3 - Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:51 PM EDT

{"commentId":2043482,"authorDomain":"dungbeetlemania"}

dungbeetlemania

I didn't say there are none, but very few. This is one American site, and can not accept the world's nuclear waste for the next few hundred years.

{"commentId":2043482,"threadId":"297608","contentId":"1605062","authorDomain":"dungbeetlemania"}

1 vote

#3.4 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:21 AM EDT

{"commentId":2041875,"authorDomain":"pmags"}

magz

This is dangerously seductive ground. Its the easiest to spool up but the most difficult to put to bed, safely. My feeling is that we should harness the energy present in nature: solar, wind, tidal, geothermal,hydro. Granted, efficiencies of scale and fabrication are a concern (solar cells are notorious for toxic byproducts in production, and hydro has enormous immediate environmental effects by mere virtue of their size), but Three Mile Island and Chernobyl should not be so easily forgotten.

{"commentId":2041875,"threadId":"297608","contentId":"1605062","authorDomain":"pmags"}

#4 - Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:08 PM EDT

{"commentId":2042221,"authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}

FDBryant3

Neither should the lessons of countries like France who have been using nuclear power for over 30 years.

People like to bring up Three Mile Island as an example of why we shouldn't - what they don't consider is that the safety procedures worked and could have a been a disaster wasn't. Since then lessons have been learned and those procedures improved upon.

Chernobyl was an example though of what happens if you don't build to the highest standards.

You are right in that this incidents should not be forgotten but that doesn't make them reasons not to use nuclear power.

{"commentId":2042221,"threadId":"297608","contentId":"1605062","authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}

2 votes

#4.1 - Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:07 PM EDT

{"commentId":2052055,"authorDomain":"energynet"}

energynet

Will only make a couple of quick comments...

Wall Street is not touching it. The numbers would scare anybody except centrally planned government operations. At the beginning of 2007 the NEI predicted it could build a new reactor for less than $2 billion. In February one reactor in Florida got an estimate of up to $12 billion...

{"commentId":2052055,"threadId":"297608","contentId":"1605062","authorDomain":"energynet"}

2 votes

#5 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:40 AM EDT

{"commentId":2053999,"authorDomain":"marilynl"}

Marilyn L

Thanks, energynet. I was hoping you'd stop by, just to see what's being said. I think it's important to understand the arguments in order to better communicate the alternatives.

{"commentId":2053999,"threadId":"297608","contentId":"1605062","authorDomain":"marilynl"}

1 vote

#5.1 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:35 AM EDT

{"commentId":2061244,"authorDomain":"energynet"}

energynet

No problem...

The Wall Street Journal had an article about the high prices last week.. They should have come out with it in March, which would have spared a lot of pain that is now gonna be felt in South Carolina and Georgia. Florida and Texas just doesn't matter due to all the money down there.

Even though I'm not seeding nearly as much as I used to, I'm still reviewing about 700 plus nuclear news stories a week at this point, with the whole Iran issue probably being the most covered nuclear story in history. My guess is that there has been over 100 stories a week worldwide on the Issue going on for nearly 4 years now...

{"commentId":2061244,"threadId":"297608","contentId":"1605062","authorDomain":"energynet"}

1 vote

#5.2 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:54 PM EDT

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"297608","isPrivate":false}

MARILYN L

Backyard

Life after death: Nuclear power is clean, but can it overcome its image problem?

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: