What's the problem with nuclear power?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nuke plants create steam, which is a greenhouse gas. Sorry to burst your nuclear bubble.

The quantities of steam released from the cooling towers are fairly trivial in terms of temperature and quantity. There is far less of a local climatic effect then there is from creation of large bodies of water in the desert from major dam projects.

[Chemical Ollie]

Go Iran!

[Adam Smith]

What's The Problem With Nuclear Power?

The problem with nuclear power, in the United States at least, is that it is subsidized even realtive to other forms of electricity generation.

When nuclear plants were first built in the 1950's, potential operators could not find anyone willing to write them insurance against catastrophic failure (eg, Chernobyl, or something post 9-11). In response, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, which stated that the US government would absorb any uninsurable liability costs in the event of catastrophic failure. This amounts to a huge subsidy to nuclear operators. Since the public pays this cost, and not the operators, it tilts the choice of generation in favor of nuclear at the expense of oil, gas, hydro or whatever.

A second subsidy is the disposal of waste. The US Department of Energy currently ships nuclear waste by railroad from its processing plant at Fernald, Ohio (Near Cincinnatti) to a another site at Hanford, Washington. The waste moves in special casks designed to withstand a 70 mph collision. The casks move on dedicated trains which travel no more than 35 mph, and require all trains they meet to travel at no more than 35 mph. Obsiously such operations are very expensive. The US Department of Energy is currently suing the participating railroads, claiming that dedicated 35 mph trains are not necessary. (This is in part looking ahead to shipping much larger quantities to Yucca Mountain, NV.) If DOE wins its suit, this will amount to a further subsidy. [Edit: I did some of the risk analysis for the railroads in this case.]

Third, the original nuclear plants are just beginning to reach the end of their design lives. The cost of decommissioning the reactor at the first plant that was retired (Shippingport, PA, IIRC) was MUCH greater tahn expected. These larger decommissioning costs were not reflected in the original choice of generation.

Questions of the speed of global warming aside, I think a better solution is to impose an appropriate carbon tax on CO2 sources. In a widely cited article in the American Economic Review, William Nordhaus (Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale) calculated that a carbon tax of about 50 percent on the price of coal would balance the costs and benefits of global warming. This tax would raise wholesale electricity prices in the US by about 25 percent, and retail prices by about 12 percent. These estimates were based on three assumptions. First, that carbon emissions from all fuels are taxed appropriately. Second, that carbon emissions from all countries are taxed appropriately (ie don't let developing countires out of Kyoto restricitons). Third, that income taxes are reduced appropriately to compensate for the impostion of the carbon tax.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You mean, politically, or economically?

Well the politics of the economics . Americans probably wouldn't go for massively state-run electricity generation. They'd see their taxes rise and ask why can't the private market do it.

Uh, tell that to TVA, WAPA, BPA, etc. Not to mention huge amounts of state and public agency run power enterprises all over the US, including "liberal" states like California (30% public entity supplied power) and "conservative" states like Arizona and Wyoming.

People wouldn't see their taxes rise, since revenues would be derived from power generation, and the only real question people ask is whether power supplies will be stable and whether prices will be higher or lower than with the regulated utilities, public agencies, or a structured marketplace.

[Dis]

old generation nuclear power still isn't as safe as it could be. Although safe enough for me. I worked in naval nuclear reactors. I have been inside reactor compartments. I was not concerned. Though naval nuclear power is a bit safer than old generation civilian nuclear power.

On the new boomer subs. You can get cooling to the core through natural circulation alone! Even if all the pumps fail, you are still in good shape.

But the new generation of nuclear reactors are simply amazing. There is no reason not to use them.

But no new reactors have opened up since three mile island. So...

[Dis]

Originally posted by DanS


Vastly overblown. Coal-fired plants put out a lot more radioactivity than nuke plants. And you can put the radioactive waste in the Nevada desert.

Eventually, we will be able to launch it in to space and give it a heave-ho toward the sun.

yeah thanks . You realize they are putting that waste only 60 miles from my city

[Dis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nuke plants create steam, which is a greenhouse gas. Sorry to burst your nuclear bubble.

[Gibsie]

"It's unethical, in my view."

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Starchild
Yay. The greens are coming around to my point of view.

And why don't you believe in global warming when the current consensus among climate scientists is that it's happening? Even if it's not caused by mankind, it's still a good idea to have a zero net emmission policy.

Wishful thinking methinks

No, I support the idea of complete nuclear power, however I do have reservations in trusting the organisations to run the places with responsibility and without taking shortcuts. It is one place where shortcuts cannot afford to be taken. The disposal of nuclear waste is another problem...

[GePap]

As someone who worked about 50 yards from the site of the very first controlled nuclear reaction, I must support Nuclear power.

[Dis]

Although a poster earlier had a comment about the availability of uranium.

It is not a renewable resource. I do not recommend going 100% nuclear power. But I do recommend maintaining existing contributions.

But as I said, the new generation of fission reactors looks real promising. Much safer than older versions. It seems silly not to use them because of some irrational fear.

[Provost Harrison]

Go fusion!

[DanS]

But don't worry, Dan. You guys may be shown to be dead right to use power (and emit CO2) as though there is no to-morrow.

See above. This is immaterial to the discussion. I am positively inclined toward nuclear for other reasons and would therefore make a good ally to the greens who promote nukes.

But in any event, we all know that Aliens cause global warming. I especially like the following...

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

[DanS]

How much weight would we be lifting for dilution and containment, compared to the weight of radioactive material?

I'm talking decades here, MtG. Centuries maybe. Long-term. When we have the problem of low cost launch solved.

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nuke plants create steam, which is a greenhouse gas. Sorry to burst your nuclear bubble.

water vapor a greenhouse gas?

and don't coal power plants generate steam on top of the pollutants?