Because I think you shouldn't talk about pros and cons of nuclear power without talking about the pros and cons of other forms of energy production, here a little more detailed list:
1.) "Renewable" energy
Cons:
*often unreliable, most efficient only at specific locations
- requires good energy storage capabilities and a good energy grid
- requires large areas of land to generate significant amounts
*relatively clean
- has no problems with long term usage
Cons:
*dependent on the amount of sunshine - required energy increases in general with decreasing production
- relatively low output while using huge areas of land
Pros:
*simple technology
- helpfull for hot tap water
*for electricity production huge plant required, same problems as other heat based power plants. 1.1.2) Photovoltaic:
Pros:
*no huge plants required Cons:
*Higher technology requirements 1.2) Wind power:
1.2.1) Land based:
Cons:
*unreliable
- birds are sometimes caught
- ugly in the landscape
*relatively cheap 1.2.2) Offshore:
Cons:
*higher technology requirement
- long transportation distances, especially to the center of large landmasses
*relatively reliable compared to other renewable sources
- relatively strong energy output
1.3.1) Pumped storage hydroelectricity
Cons:
*areas of land get flooded (economic damage)
- requires mountain area
- doesn't produce energy of its own
*excellent flexibility and ajustability to energy requirements
- high efficiancy for energy storage
- can store huge amounts of energy
Cons:
*areas of land get flooded (economic damage)
- requires mountain area
- blocks natural flow of water with impact for the wildlife (fish)
*high energy production
- reliable
Cons:
*blocks natural flow of water with impact for the wildlife (fish)
- low energy production
*otherwise low environmental impact 1.3.3) Tide-based (there are different forms, not going into details)
Cons:
*usage of shore land
- afaik energy peaks at set times
- can only be used at a cost
*reliable 1.4) Geothermic:
Cons:
*high cost to set it up
- afaik rather low energy production
- not every place is suitable
*reliable
- low environmental impact
2.) Heat based
Cons:
*cannot run at full capacity during hot weather (cooling problems)
- environmental damage if water used for cooling is pumped back into the environment (increased temperature can kill fish)
*can basically be built anywhere where sufficient cooling can be ensured
- reliable
*pollution via CO 2 Pros:
*cheap
- easily adjustable
*extreme environmental pollution in addition to the general CO 2 problem Pros:
*very cheap
- available in huge amounts
*limited supply
- valuable for other uses (oil)
*less environmental damage than coal 2.2) Nuclear (fission)
Cons:
*slow adjustability
- production of nuclear waste
- increased radiation levels in the vicinity
- accidents with large regional impact
*low to no CO 2 production
- appart from the radiation, low to no impact on the environment
- huge energy production
Cons:
*highly radioactive waste
- limited uranium supply
*relatively safe
2.2.2) Integral fast reactor/Fast breeder
Cons:
*less safe than Boiling water reactor/Pressurized water reactor (sodium/water reaction) Pros:
*no highly radioactive waste
- basically unlimited fuel
Cons:
*not available yet
- radioctive waste
*unlimited fuel
- safe
- huge energy production
I know I didn't include ALL disadvantes/advantages, especially concerning the question of mining/gathering the fuel, but apart from that it should be more complete than other lists in this thread...
[edit]
Can someone tell me how I can format the list properly?
edited 27th Mar '11 8:23:52 PM by Uchuujinsan
Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/New post because the old one was long enough already:
That's not really true. Energy emition due to radiation of 1mol uranium-235 or plutonium is higher than that of 1 mol C13 even during the first few seconds, the factor only increasing as the time increases (due to the slower decay of the former). The last time the subject came up I actually took the time to make more detailed calculations and look for examples, though I'm too lazy to do it this time.
You are also ignoring the fact that decayed material can again be radioactive - meaning that one mole of material x can decay "twice" while one mole of material y could decay only once. In addition a dosis can't be more than deadly, so as long as you are over that threshold, the statement wouldn't apply anyway (the low half-life material would remain deadly for a shorter period of time).
Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/I think the premise is "All else being equal."
If we're assuming that radiation is "energy" (not a physics major here, go wikipedia it), then just by thermodynamics you know that it's "giving off energy" and if you want it to give off its energy in a non-threatening fashion, the slower it gives off energy, the less threatening that energy is.
But yeah-the assumption that all low-halflife materials are automatically less deadly is wrong.
Well, "all else being equal" never happens together with "different half-life". Even then it doesn't solve the "deadly dosage problem". If a place is sufficiently irradiated to be uninhabitable a longer half-life doesn't help me at all. It only means it will be uninhabitable for a longer period of time.
Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/- dependent on the amount of sunshine - required energy increases in general with decreasing production
- relatively low output while using huge areas of land
You forgot:
- Vital parts are on the outside of the building. Requires frequent replacement of reflectors due to wear from exposure, creating a large amount of chemical waste.
edited 27th Mar '11 7:30:08 PM by Pykrete
What's that "chemical" supposed to mean? Though it's only an issue with plant based solar energy - because I didn't mention plant based solar energy specifically, there was no good spot to include it (unless you consider glass to be "chemical"...)
Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/Means you have to repeatedly manufacture concentrating reflector arrays made to pretty stringent purity specifications, and the processes that entails have chemical leavings. PV arrays like you might install on your roof mean you have to make a lot of silicon panels, which in turn leave behind toxic heavy metals like chromium and mercury during manufacturing.
Both have to be cleaned very frequently unless you want your power shut off by bird crap or water stains, often using even more chemicals.
Please stop using "chemical" like it's something bad. That's akin to the dihydrogen monoxide hoax
. Water is a chemical substance.
Not saying that there isn't a problem that I didn't mention, but stop misusing* "chemical" please.
Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/The colloquial use of "chemical waste" is assumed to be of the toxic kind unless specified otherwise (and most often includes heavy metals that may or may not even be in a compound). Don't get too pedantic.
While we're at it,
- The glassmaking necessary for solar power is fired by fossil fuel anyway — granted much less than an entire coal plant, but you're still screwed if you run out.
edited 27th Mar '11 8:11:19 PM by Pykrete
The colloquial use of "chemical waste" is to call anything "chemical waste" that's both "waste" and a "chemical" to imply that it is heavily toxic wheather it actually is or not to make it sound bad, often due to a lack of understanding about the chemical substances involved. That's why I'm opposing that usage.
It's like calling every elevated level of radiation (like near nuclear powerplants) "radioactive contamination".
You surely would have called it scaremongering if I would have filed "radioactive contamination of the surrounding area" under "Cons" of nuclear power. :/
Sure, mercury for example is highly toxic. It's not like it's a disadvantage for you to be more precise...
Surrounding materials also makes up the bulk of fission waste too, IIRC.
I was ignoring the secondary reaction to establish a basis built purely on individual particle decay. I also did not account for number of neutrons emitted. Then again, considering a solid mole of U-235 will explode, it's not as interesting to look at.
Fight smart, not fair.I have to admit technically there is a general correlation between energy output due to radiation and half life but such a statement is very misleading* , like calling nuclear power "dangerous" just because the danger is above zero (you'd have to have better reasons to justify such a statement imho). There are far too many factors for the dangers of radiation, making people believe that just because something has a long half life it's not a problem is imho quite dangerous. Trivially something with an infinite half life poses no risk at all (because that means it's not radioactive) on the other hand something with a half life of zero has no risk of damaging anything not immediatly there.
A longer half life increases the risk of actual exposure, that's why it's a problem.
Thread Hop to keep the other thead on topic. (responding to a question about how I feel about nuclear power)
I would much rather have a nuclear power plant "in my back yard" than any other type of power plant. "Renewable energy" plants ether take up so much space that they have a large effect on the environment (wind farms), are only viable in certain areas (hydroelectric), and/or require a ton of rare, not-easily gotten or recycled materials (the materials solar power requires). Other "non-renewable energy" plants (coal, gas, oil) are much more likely to have pollution problems and have HUGE problems with fire (how many people are killed in coal mine fires each year?) than nuclear power plants.
I can go on and on, but I'll try to sum up why I think safety is a non-issue: The military has been using it for a LONG time; Japan's plants were OLD, about to be decommissioned, not designed for that level of an earthquake (which was significantly higher than anyone's predictions), and still managed to stay mostly intact; new types of reactors have significantly fewer risks than the plants that most people think about.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!I begrudgenly accept nuclear power as risky, but useful, and better then coal(marginally). No matter what, i don't like the idea that a few mistakes and large parts of a population are radioaactive and parts of a nation uninhabitable. It does produce alot of energy though, and until solar power can energey storage become alot more effiecent and feasable, it's gonna be there.
I'm baaaaaaack@Joesolo
Well, from what I hear, a lot of the newer plant designs are designed to be more fail-safe, run at cooler temperatures, produce less waste, and generally be a lot safer. But ironically constantly cutting funding for the plants means we don't have the money to replace the older less-safe plants with the newer safer ones.
Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)- Pros- It doesn't emit greenhouse gases.
- Cons- Irrelevant, compared to the fact that it doesn't emit greenhouse gases.
Serious nuclear accidents (as in large amounts of radioactive pollutants released) are invariably the fault of human idiocy: Soviets built jury-rigged nuclear plants, with reactors often being a goddamned steel-graphite puzzle'. The Japs, meanwhile, chose to build their largest nuclear central on a fucking sea cliff in a tsunami-prone area, failing to consider that earthquakes would'' sometimes be accompanied by floods.
Other plants have small-scale incidents that are generally fixed quickly.
edited 29th Oct '11 1:26:47 PM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.I'm largely of the opinion that nuclear power is an unnecessary novelty, when it comes to terrestrial endeavors.
I'll laugh at you if you think anything but nuclear power will work for heavy-duty space exploration, though.
I am now known as Flyboy.![]()
I know people who are in the reactor building business. Human error and screwing up is pretty much a constant. That starts with building the powerplant to begin with. No perfect design will protect you from this.
Chernobyl was "just human idiocy". It surely wouldn't happen again, would it (that was an argument for a long time)? Then came Fukushima, "just human idiocy".
Well, onwards to the next time idiocy of the ones responsible will lead to catastrophe. It certainly wouldn't happen again :/
Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/

Yes, quite droll.
Love truth, but pardon error. - Voltaire