Talk:Nuclear power

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Uranium mining

It appears that industry would nearly disappear without nuclear power. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Pro-nuker

I've done some basic fixes, including making some statements general where before they applied only to LWRs. I think the current state of this article is way too anti-nuke, but I understand that's not a popular or even consensus opinion despite IMHO the obviousness of the documented facts, so I leave it as-is. The problem is that it's one of policy, not of basic scientific facts, which makes it harder to argue.

The quick argument in favor of nuclear is:

A- There's no alternative if we want 1- an industrial lifestyle 2- to avoid avoid a billion+ people die-off, and 3- fix global warming. Wind is too intermittent and too costly to provide power for the grid and gas for our cars (and ships, and airplanes). Solar less-so, but still not good enough. Battery tech is too expensive. Conventional tidal designs is too expense. Conventional geothermal is cost effective only in a small number of areas. Continue down the list. See the following links for good intro discussion of the basic physics on these issues:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/warm-and-fuzzy-on-geothermal/

and more.

(Note that the professor is not a big nuclear supporter. He's more of a pessimist.)

B- It's not that bad / it's better than the alternatives. Reprocessing can lessen the waste in volume by quite a large amount, and with new breeder reactors and fast spectrum reactors (or even LFTR), we can "burn" a lot of the existing waste, leaving stuff that's hazardous for about 300 years. With new designs, the chances of accidents are very low, and if you honestly compare the harm of accidents of nuclear to say coal, the conclusion is obvious. More people die in a single coal mine accident than have ever died from radiation poisoning from accidents in nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power should certainly get more attention, especially in the form of Thorium. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Rather than seem like a fanboy or whatever, I tried not to let my enthusiasm for LFTR show, but I do stay current on the energyfromthorium.com forums, which overall seems to contain reputable knowledgeable posters. LFTR answers most of the legitimate complaints/questions of the anti-nuke side. To be fair, there's also IFR, CANDU, and various other options, which all have more appealing characteristics than light water reactors. It's unfortunate that no one seems interested in LFTR. Even worse is when people dismiss it ignorantly, thinking they know all they need to. For example, even the "Do The Math" professor made very basic mistakes which shows a complete lack of due-diligence - at one point he said LFTR uses liquid sodium!

Especially in light of studies such as this which indicates that, even factoring in nuclear disasters (and even the nuclear bombings of Japan), the number of lives saved by nuclear power is well into 7 digits. While the article already indicates (in several places) the relative harmlessness of nuclear power, I think that study should be added somewhere, if only because it offers some real numbers of lives saved. Onychoprion (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Radioactive Wasteland

The radioactive wasteland is not mentioned in the paragraph about nuclear accidents. I think this is an important factor to calculate the real impact to the population of such areas. The area 20 kilometers around the reactors of fukushima was evacuated and many people lost thier home. The german wikipedia states a number of 62000 people. The public authorities restricts the access to the 20 kilometer area. Nobody could say how long this situation continues.

Also in chernobyl the contaminated area is around 4300 square kilometers and around 300000 people were evacuated. The situation has not changed since 1986. The are is still wasteland. Today in bavaria (part of germany) hunting of wild pig requires safety precaution. These animals have such a high rate of contamination that they have to be handled with care and are not allowed to be used as food.

Also the statement "... and furthermore it was also caused by criminal stupidity." is not feasible. It conciliates by using the false argument that only in not "real" developed countries such accidents could occure. Fukushima shows the opposite in two ways: 1. Japan is an high tech country and they cannot handle the problem. It is still immanent. 2. The operator company Tepco had a very intransparent information policy and at the beginning of accident they try to downplay the situation.

Further more such accidents could happen in any country having nuclear powerplants even if they use different types of reactors. Nobody is really able to calculate the risk. Already for small machines like bicycles it is very complex to calculate the failing risk (for example which reoccuring force during cycling is necessary to rupture the frame). Now consider the safety calculations for a nuclear powerplant. It is far more complex.

Additionally the idea that only full educated and responsible persons operate such big machines is naive. Also the investigations shows that the operators at chernobyl had planned an experiment and during this experiment the accidents has happend. The chronology of the accident shows that also human flaws such as a missed shift change and other carelessness attitudes provoke such outcome.

As an example the oil spill at Deepwater Horizon shows in several aspects how large facilities are manged by operators in general: A worker touched unintentional a control switch which regulates the engine of some pipe rods. The foreman does not report this incident to the technician so that the rupture of the rubber-joint of the Annular Blowout-Preventer was never seen. On battery of one control unit was exhausted. The investigators assume that this battery was the reason of the failing dead man's control. There was also a significant leak of the hydraulic. Against all recommendations there was no automatic or remote initiation for the Blowout-Preventer. It was a simple blast hole not a double-walled as the internal study of BP suggest.

In brief: 1. Nonskilled workers 2. Foreman underestimate the situation / does not report incidents 3. Missing or postponed machine care 4. Saving on safety equipment 5. Manager ignores risks 6. Cost pressure

This example shows that in western countries some high tech facilities are operated sloppy. Of course many companies have high standards but this does not protect us from carelessness and greedy incompentent worker, foremans, and managers. This is not considered at all in the article. This problem is brushed under the carpet.

If you have less sensitive technology like wind power, gas-fired power plant, oil-fired power plant, solar parks and so on the failures of a few does not harm the mass. ^{— Unsigned, by: 88.152.170.60 / talk / contribs}

wrt food restrictions due to chernobyl, can you cite a single example where something went awry because they weren't followed? they are just paranoid recommendations made by a few random doctors, not really enforced or cared about by anyone but greenpeace --81.175.225.92 (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fissionable and Fertile Isotopes

In the section Breeder Reactors begins with the following statement: "Breeder reactors are reactors capable of transmuting low-quality fertile or fissionable material, such as thorium or depleted uranium, respectively, into more highly fissionable materials such as uranium-233 or plutonium".

Depleted Uranium is a form of Uranium predominantly consisting of the isotope Uranium-238 with an amount of the *fissile* isotope Uranium-235 less than natural. Uranium-238, and therefore depleted Uranium, is fissionable under limited circumstances such as under fast neutrons. Uranium-238 and therefore depleted uranium is in fact fertile, but not *fissile*. Natural Thorium whilst predominantly the isotope Thorium-232 also contains trace amounts of Thorium-229 that is believed to be fissionable.

I suggest changing "highly fissionable materials" to "high-quality fissile materials", and consider something like "transmuting low-quality fertile and fissionable material, such as natural thorium and depleted uranium, into ..." ^{— Unsigned, by: 199.64.0.253 / talk / contribs} 05:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"either fission or fusion"

So is radioactive decay, as in an RTG, actually excluded? Or should the lead be altered? —Kazitor, ^pending 02:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor Radioactive decay means the disintegration of an atomic nucleus, which is fission. The difference here is that the split is spontaneous rather than induced. Nerd (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd it's not spontaneous fission, it's just regular alpha emission. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor But an alpha particle consists of two neutrons and two protons tightly bound together. This is not gamma emission or electron capture. A part of the nucleus is spit out here. (No pun intended.) Nerd (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

As all debates tend to go, we're arguing definitions here :) As far as I can tell, alpha decay is not classified as fission. I did some quick research and it seems that only spontaneous fission counts as non-neutron-induced fission; alpha decay (despite the He-4 nucleus) is not fission. Let's please not argue definitions, I just want to know whether the lead should be edited. —Kazitor, ^pending 03:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor True, that. It appears I was wrong, according to a quick search on Wikipedia. (Oh, no! I don't know enough physics!) Please go ahead. You have my full support.

Do you happen to be interested in or knowledgeable about Generation IV reactors, by the way? I think we should talk briefly about them. A few designs are mentioned already. Nerd (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd Woo, we managed to avoid a painful internet debate! High-five!

But to the point at hand, do you think RTGs count as nuclear power? I would think yes and have an idea of how to rephrase it.

And sadly no, I do not know much about such reactors and writing substantial paragraphs is not one of my strong points. I can still do fact-checking and spelling corrections though. —Kazitor, ^pending 03:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor High five! Yes, I do believe RTGs count as nuclear power generators. After all, what they do is converting the heat released by nuclear reactions into electricity. Nerd (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have with me a book on nuclear energy (written by an actual expert) with a wonderful discussion on various promising Generation IV designs. I will load the bombs into the hangar. I just need more time. :-) Nerd (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I have since added this article to my watchlist and have changed the lead. The truth about nuclear power will be revealed! —Kazitor, ^pending 03:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Femtotechnology

Just as nanotechnology is "anything 1 - 100 nm", femtotechnology must be "anything 1 - 100 fm". Therefore nuclear technology would count. lol Newton1030 (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)