View Single Post
Old 08-14-2018, 04:44 PM   #38 (permalink)
RustyLugNut
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 982
Thanks: 271
Thanked 385 Times in 259 Posts
I hear these arguments over and over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
Nuclear power is the dumbest way possible to boil water. It takes at least 20-30 years of construction / deconstruction to get 50 years of production. And we have poisonous and radioactive waste that will be here for tens of thousands of years.

Just great!
Yet, the same people who believe in the cleanliness of solar and wind ignore the huge waste streams implied in the production and maintenance of these renewable sources.

Nuclear power is in an infant stage. What? Yes, the power plants in the majority of the worlds nuclear collection are half a century old! Modern designs will be more compact and produce lower volumes of waste.

Much of the cost of construction is due to legislation and protest. If we could modularize and standardize components costs would come down drastically instead of a custom construct for each plant. Also, the costs of security could be better distributed if reprocessing of spent fuel was done on-site.

And waste? The fearful populace forces the governmental overseers to err on the side of overt caution. Chernobyl's fall out zone has radiation below background over most of the outlying fallout area. It is still a forbidden zone. And Chernobyl was a stupid design. Why has radiation fallen so low so fast if the nuclear waste lasts thousands of years? Just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the really bad stuff is gone in a matter of years. Stuff like cesium and iodine are awful as they are ingested and retained. But, they have short half-life spans. 30 years or less. Modern nuclear power plants can avoid fission paths that minimize the more dangerous trans-uranics. The activated metals that make up the structure of a reactor can be simply simply stored on site until they "cool down".

For the giga-watts of power a nuclear reactor can produce in it's lifetime, the waste is small in comparison.

I dare you to find out the recycling costs of many square kilometers worth of solar cells and millions of wind and tidal generators and compare that to a few thousand tons of easily handled nuclear "waste".

And you can find a thousand years worth of nuclear fuel on most continents. Better yet, the ocean holds another thousand years or so of nuclear fuel dissolved in it's trillions of tons of water with the theorized replacement from undersea magma up-wellings from the earths core.

Practical fusion power may not happen in our lifetimes, but practical fission power should.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to RustyLugNut For This Useful Post:
aerohead (08-15-2018)