IAEA Forms Nuclear Fuel Bank 224
Kemeno writes "The International Atomic Energy Agency voted on Friday to form a nuclear fuel bank to help developing countries acquire nuclear fuel without having to enrich uranium themselves. Warren Buffet contributed 50 million dollars to a pool of 150 million with contributions from many different countries. The goal of the program is to provide countries with a source of low-grade enriched uranium suitable for fueling reactors but not for creating nuclear weapons."
IKEA forms nuclear fuel bank (Score:2)
This has to be the best addition to the IKEA catalog yet! Grab my tape measure, allen key and let's go shopping!
Re:IKEA forms nuclear fuel bank (Score:5, Funny)
Mitigate Proliferation risk? (Score:3)
Can you poison the fuel used in the rods so that it can't be used in weapons at all without starting the enrichment process over from the beginning? I understand that you need 70-90% U-235 for a weapon and only about 3% to run a reactor. But 3% enriched fuel is a better starting point for making a weapon than raw ore, is it not?
Re: (Score:2)
Come Mr. Bigglesworth
*places pinky to mouth*
Re: (Score:3)
prerequisites (Score:2)
government solidly in control
government elected by people
people lack severe ethnic/religion/language/race bias
not about to get blitzkreiged by a neighbor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing about a free society is armed or not there is always going to be some level of violence. You just can't get around that unless you are just going to start collaring ever suspicious character and even then you will still have some crime. There are people who just don't think and act like the rest of us and the social factors of society are not going to result in the same behavior in those individuals that most of us exhibit.
When it comes to people caring small arms I think an armed society is a p
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mitigate Proliferation risk? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mitigate Proliferation risk? (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't have enrichment capabilities, whether you start at 3% or at 0.1% is pretty much irrelevant. And assuming you could have those enrichment capabilities, using enough 3% enriched material to reach the 70-90% you state for a usable amount of weapon-grate material will required a huge quantity of low-grade fuel. This fuel quantity, most likely way above the consumption of your power plants, will raise red flags before you can do anything with it. Also, I bet someone will notice that not spent fuel rods come out of your reactors...
The risk of someone in a 3rd world county of using this fuel in an enrichment process is ridiculously low. I would be more worried about the possibility to see this fuel disappear due to corruption or lack of proper security and see it end up in dirty bombs.
Enrichment for weapon grade fuel production is way overrated and is more a modern political lever than a real threat.
the risk is high (Score:2)
Once you have reactor grade fuel, you can create plutonium. That only requires an easy chemical separation, so you won't be needing centrifuges.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you have reactor grade fuel, you can create plutonium. That only requires an easy chemical separation, so you won't be needing centrifuges.
I don't know if this is the case, but I'll assume it's true. Luckily plutonium is tricky: there are several isotopes in it all the time, and no one separates them. Some of the isotopes want to do things that stop the runaway nuclear reaction.
So uranium is ridiculously hard to enrich and plutonium is ridiculously hard to explode. We're very lucky this happens to be the case. North Korea's first nuclear test is widely regarded to have fizzled because they couldn't handle plutonium properly, for instance. It's
Re:the risk is high (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with Pu is that only the 239 isotope is suitable for weapons, and if you have too much 240 or 241 (more than about 3%) then it isn't stable enough to fission when you want it to. Pu-240 and -241 spontaneously fission, leaving daughter products that absorb your neutrons.
Isotopic separation isn't done with Plutonium because the atomic weights of the isotopes are too similar. Cascading centrifuges won't get the job done, and chemical separation won't get the job done.
In order to create Pu-239 for weapons purposes, you have to use a ridiculously short fuel cycle in a specially configured reactor - it's quite obvious to the inspectors that will undoubtedly be required to be present should you sign contracts with the IAEA to get this fuel.
Re: (Score:3)
Well this proves the questionable value of the "troll" marking - I'm actually a recognized expert on this subject and everything I have said here can be verified.
Check out Carson Mark's (former head of the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos) treatise on exactly this topic "Reactor-Grade Plutonium's Explosive Properties": www.nci.org/NEW/NT/rgpu-mark-90.pdf.
Excellent (Score:4, Interesting)
2. getting rid of people who oppose nuclear power in the developed world.
2. build nuclear plants.
3. synthesising gasoline and diesel fuel [aaenvironment.com] with nuclear power.
4. no more CO2!!! profit!
Notice: no ?????? mark step.
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear energy is the cleanest *base load power source* currently in existence. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun isn't always shining, and the alternatives are constant hydro (which doesn't lend itself to be put anywhere you want) and coal (which emits more radiation every year than nuclear power plants due to the uranium deposits in the coal that is burned, not to mention the massive amount of CO2 per ton of coal burned). People like you are the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's so clean, why doesn't the US or any other country have any non-temporary place to stock and guard the ashes for the next 184000 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Political NIMBY-ism. See: Yucca Mountain.
(Yucca Mountain would be made obsolete if we would reprocess the "waste" and load it back into the reactor, btw.)
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear 'waste' is a really misleading name. In most cases, it's classified as waste for political, rather than technical reasons. It can often be reprocessed into fission fuel or used in decay-driven reactors like RTGs or betavoltaics. And that's ignoring things like hospital x-ray machines, which are powered by... nuclear waste. As are the machines that sterilise hospital equipment and drive radiotherapy - you might be surprised at how much nuclear 'waste' ends up in hospitals.
The entire concept of
Re: (Score:3)
Or, instead of storing a material that is 99% fuel and 1% neutron poison, you remove the 1% and recycle the 99%.
It's called nuclear fuel reprocessing, and it's being stopped by antiquated "anti-proliferation" concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
Alright you need a ton of energy to make a photovoltaic cell - but you still get a net energy profit, and its not like we're running low on Silicon or anything...
Still better than radioactive waste...
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Radioactive waste is a false argument. Breeder reactors would allow you to use up radioactive "waste" until it reached a point where it could be safely landfilled. Politics is the issue, not technology is the issue with regards to this in the US.
Long dead argument (Score:3)
Give up on the old shit that was shown to be shit and learn about something from the last quarter century instead. You've just been conned by Westinghouse
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly what's true in the 1970s is still true today. I mean, it's a good thing all of us have extra rooms in our houses to hold computers so that we can access this website. Otherwise the Commies might invade!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I am a nuclear engineer, and I can assure you that Westinghouse has virtually no interest in pursuing the ongoing, active research in fast reactor development. They build large light-water reactors for utilities. Metallurgy has come a long way since the 1970s -- what was once too expensive to contemplate is on its way toward economic viability.
This is, incidentally the same argument that solar PV folks make in order to justify continued R&D. You may dismiss it as BS for that reason alone, but you'd be f
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather listen to these people than some random commenter or on Slashdot.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=smarter-use-of-nuclear-waste [scientificamerican.com]
http://energyfromthorium.com/ [energyfromthorium.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Pretending that the first world can survive without a base load power supply that is more environmentally friendly than coal is counterproductive bullshit that halts progress. I'd much rather live with the consequences of having to store used nuclear waste instead of burning off the numerous toxins in each ton of coal.
Even if my post regarding breeder reactors was incorrect, reprocessing spent fuel with $CURRENT_NUCLEAR_TECHNOLOGY is still a valid method of handling the fuel.
Continue to complain about nucle
Re: (Score:3)
So, how about those French people. Defying the laws of physics and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
Now only if we could monetize the cost of having useable fuel sitting around for hundreds of thousands of years in order to compare the cost of reprocessing...
Re: (Score:2)
If Mr. Buffet really wants to change the world... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nuclear waepons (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For a perspective on the role of nuclear weapons in US foreign policy see here: Empire and Nuclear Weapons [fpif.org]
In addition to using nuclear weapons, the US has also threatened to use nuclear weapons on more occasions than all other nations combined.
Re: (Score:2)
A basic reason nuke plants put out a lot of radioactive waste is the the rational solution of reprocessing the waste is very actively discouraged. Even the development of the tech has been discouraged. And the reason is fear of nuclear proliferation because most of the current fuel cycles produce plutonium. Hmm, this issue is also why we do not have a lot of breeder reactors and people complain there is not enough fuel to support nuclear energy. It happens that now a lot of countries existentially need
"Sjee, I wonder why." (Score:2)
Perhaps, it's because, the more nations get nuclear weapons, the more likely that an incident will happen which escalates into the end of the world? Everyone on Earth should be worried about nuclear proliferation, not just the U.S. I don't want to debate whether the U.S. was right or wrong to use nuclear weapons to end WWII, because as a rule, I generally like to not take responsibility for the decisions of past generations, or to re-fight old wars. But, as a practical note, I will say this - when only one
end of the world? (Score:2)
As best I can tell, given the 99% kill everything figure, you are assuming a nuclear war would extinct homo sap sap? I think not. I figure there are some astronomical stuff that can do us, but doing ourselves? Not quite yet.
End of the world stuff is popular with some now and I think the rhetoric should be avoided.. But for most people, say a 2 billion to 6 billion die off (over the next couple centuries) will *look* like the end of the world. But this is more a lack of tech then too much tech, or some
Re: (Score:2)
I've always heard that a major nuclear war, while it wouldn't kill off everything directly in the nuclear blasts, would kick up so much dust and ash that it would create a 'nuclear winter', with lack of sunlight killing off most of the plant life, with most of the animal life (including humans) dieing of radiation sickness and subsequent starvation. I suppose no one knows for sure, but I for one would rather not test the hypothesis on ourselves, to see who's right.
Borat (Score:2, Insightful)
Hello Nuclear Fuel Bank? My name Borat. I want make withdrawal, benefit my nation Tajikistan.
Re: (Score:2)
Borat's from Kazakhstan, Tajikstan is a completely different country.
Good for consumer bad for banks (Score:2, Funny)
When there is deflation, this is good for the consumer as he or she gets more product per dollar. When there is inflation the opposite is true.
Since we know nuclear fuel has a half-life, the currency these banks base their loans upon is deflating... While this is a bad thing for the bank, with a well supported backing this can only be good for the consumer!
A deflating currency is a great investment, even if only in the short term. And regardless of the demand, it naturally will deflate!
Half-life economic
Fuel cost (Score:2)
TFA implies that nuclear fuel costs ~ $2 million/ton. And that 80 tons is needed 'to refuel one reactor'. Both seem awfully high to me. I always thought a reactor contained a few tons of Uranium at most.
Re:give a man a fish (Score:5, Insightful)
So from your sarcastic comment, you believe that it's a good idea for, say, the Somali warlords to have nuclear weapons? Fascinating.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No I think he is saying "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for life."
I don't think any current nuclear powered countries would appreciate their fuel supplies controlled and rationed by a central body.
If this is the best way, lead by example and have your fuel supplies controlled by a third party.
Oh.. you don't want to do that? National security issues? I thought so.
It is pretty hard to eat your own dog food.
Re: (Score:2)
I got that part. It was the "only the white man..." part that seemed a little, well, stupid. Of course racist, too, but it was against caucasians so it's OK.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it was more a reference towards imperialism , "The Whiteman's Burden" being fine example of that time.
It already is rationed (Score:2)
Likewise, most of all of EU nations import it since they do not have any.
So, the facts destroy your arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
No that is economically rationed, rather than rationed by one central body.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps we started WWI? Nope. Germany invaded others
Or WWII? Nope. Germany invaded others
Or Korean war? Nope. Communist Korea invaded south.
Or Vietnam? Nope. Communist nam invaded french held nam
Or Desert Storm I? Nope. Iraq invaded Kuwait
Or We started the nightmare in eastern Europe? Nope.
Or Afghanistan? Nope. Afghanistan launched it against the USA when they backed terrorists.
Or Desert Storm II?
Re: (Score:2)
by that standard nobody has ever started a war ever.
Did Austria-Hungary start world war 1? Nope. the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serbian nationalist did.
which is of course crap and just an excuse but that's how politics works.
Did the US start the United States occupation of Haiti? Nope. the uppity locals threatened American business interests.
etc etc
there is always an excuse.
Always.
Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian not afghani.
Of course, on nearly all of the other cases, it was larger nations invading smaller nations and our standing up for them.
how noble that sounds.
It even sounds reasonable as l
Asimov's Foundation (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism_(Foundation) [wikipedia.org]
The Foundation presents nuclear (atomic) power as a religion, allowing their uncivilized neighbors access to the technology without understanding how it worked. Maintenance is done through ritual and ceremonies.
The original story was published in 1942.
Well sure (Score:5, Interesting)
So long as the Chinese are now white.
And the Indians.
Of course those are just the two major non "white man" countries with nuclear weapons. Other countries have nuclear power, but not weapons. Brazil and Taiwan to name two.
The thing is it would be nice to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of crazies and unstable countries. Nuclear weapons aren't dangerous, and even can help prevent war, but only when they are in the hands of people who are loathe to use them. So long as they act as nothing but deterrents, they are fine. Not saying we might not be better off without them, but when they play only a deterrence role there's no problem.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, is something good for everyone. Modern reactors are very safe. It is a good way to cheaply supply a lot of energy, and a society needs energy to improve quality of life. Poor countries face many challenges, but energy is one of them and nuclear energy could really help out.
This creates a problem though. If they can turn the energy tools in to weapons, well then you can end up having nuclear arms in the hands of people who would use them out of spite, ignorance, etc. If you don't believe that have a look at the Vice Travel Guide to Liberia. We are talking about places where soldiers sacrificed children and ate their hearts.
Thus you can see while getting them nuclear power would be nice, countries want to make sure they don't get nuclear weapons with it.
I don't particularly mind the US or China having nuclear weapons. I really can't see either ever using them capriciously. I would mind Liberia or Congo having them because all it takes is whatever warlord gets them having an attack of the crazies and a lot of people are going to die.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
'Modern reactors are very safe. '
Insurance companies don't believe that for some reason.
Re:Well sure (Score:5, Insightful)
'Modern reactors are very safe. '
Insurance companies don't believe that for some reason.
Well, yes. They can make more money that way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All nuclear reactors, at least in the west, are insured. Not only so, they are a sought-after risk because of their high engineering and operational standards. Beyond the cover for individual plants there are national and international pooling arrangements for comprehensive cover.
Perhaps the World Nuclear Association has some bias or they're refering to something different than you are. It's hard to evaluate that since you don't include a source, though.
Re:Well sure (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with insuring a nuclear reactor is that, if it does fail, the cost is going to be so huge that it would immediately bankrupt pretty much any insurance company. This means that the policy ends up needing to be underwritten, typically by several different underwriters. Setting up this kind of policy is hard for any but the largest insurers, but because the risk is so low it's then very profitable.
Compare this with insuring a house, for example. It's significantly more likely that there will be a claim, but the claim is likely to be relatively small - small enough that you can cover it from the policy payments from other customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you get a Katrina. Sorry but I still vote for the Thorium fuel cycle, much more difficult to react so it's much less likely to run-away on you, and much more proliferation resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
WRONG.
Yes, you *can* insure a reactor. Why not? (And what government would allow the operation of such a facility, without insurance?)
Insurance is just spread risk. Offer insurance to 2,000 reactors and 50,000 similiar-risk projects; charge the appropriate amount, with profit and risk-weighting, and you'll be fine.
Thank you for playing the Slashdot "offer a silly opinion and see how many fools mod it up" game, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance companies don't believe that for some reason.
It's not what they believe. It's what they don't know and the size of the don't knows. Some of them are physical (like the infamous "meltdown") and some of them are political (like being liable to pay out to a zillion people for a radiation leak that couldn't hurt one person).
Re: (Score:2)
Its kinda like flood insurance. Its often not that the risk of an insurable event is high but if something did happen the potential costs could be be so very very high. I am almost a little surprised these things get private insurance given the governments policy on flood insurance.
Also just because these new reactors won't meltdown does not mean a major dispersal of radioactive materials can't happen. Imagine if a freak F5 tornado hits the facility dead on! An insurer could be paying medial and clean u
Re: (Score:3)
Considering a reactor containment dome can take a direct hit from an A380, fully loaded, it can probably shake off a tornado. Those big towers you see are only for cooling, the reactor is under a giant concrete dome.
Re: (Score:2)
And Brazil had a nuclear weapons program and gave it up. Then there's Pakistan, decidedly non white... and North Korea too.
So the OP is decidedly ignorant of the nuclear geography of the world, or just ignorant period.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear weapons aren't dangerous, and even can help prevent war, but only when they are in the hands of people who are loathe to use them. So long as they act as nothing but deterrents, they are fine. Not saying we might not be better off without them, but when they play only a deterrence role there's no problem.
They're harmless as long as they're just lying around, sure. But there has to be a system in place for their use, wouldn't be much of a deterrent otherwise. And those systems cannot be perfect, there will be and have been grave errors of judgement, occasions where a nuclear strike was way too likely for anybody's comfort level. Things happen, people make errors, and wielding that much destructive force the probability for errors needs to be zero. And it isn't.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, is something good for everyone. Modern reactors are very safe. It is a good way to cheaply supply a lot of energy, and a society needs energy to improve quality of life.
Nuclear energy is not cheap. A large part of its
Re: (Score:2)
This creates a problem though. If they can turn the energy tools in to weapons, well then you can end up having nuclear arms in the hands of people who would use them out of spite, ignorance, etc
These countries will be subject to stringent control through the IAEA safeguards program. Which means this: any hint of an enrichment facility being constructed, and the country is completely cut off from any outside help, be it nuclear physics education or uranium trading etc.
An enrichment facility capable of producing anything remotely usable for weapons is a hell of a lot harder to build than a facility used for creating nuclear fuel. The whole point of this is to keep these countries from building e
The crazy people have the bomb (Score:3, Interesting)
You are a few years too late. North Korea already has nukes for one, Iran is close, Egypt have has been working on it for years, and in Israel it's getting close to having a crazy fascist get the keys to the nuclear bombs let alone Pakistan and a few former Soviet republics.
A country even more batshit crazy than warlords in Africa already has the bomb. Just last week they shelled South Korea to extort m
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know who Warren Buffet is or anything about him...?
Re:give a man a fish (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that old saw again. This program would allow countries to run nuclear power plants without having to develop a hugely expensive supporting industry. The same way African countries currently import cars rather than having to develop a car industry from scratch. It's just another way of bootstrapping the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
...yes, because all those third world countries have proven themselves to be politically stable enough to handle the responsibility. Just look at that paragon of responsibility - Pakistan. Surely the world is better off now that there is a nuclear armed nation slowly deteriorating into islamic fascism. It will end well. Really.
This kind of comment would be better aimed at ending the various aid and loan schemes developed countries use to buy off the various dictators-of-the-week. Except in that case ab
Re: (Score:2)
...yes, because all those third world countries have proven themselves to be politically stable enough to handle the responsibility.
They're every bit as stable as Pakistan is.
Re: (Score:2)
That is precisely my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about "needing to be taken seriously". The problem is that we know that nuclear war would royally fuck up the entire planet and kill most people - so countries that are batshit crazy (like Iran) that can't be trusted not to just start nuking every one who they don't like don't start a nuclear war and kill the entire human race.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not going to get the countries that have them to give them up - however, the ones that do have them have shown to be responsible enough not to start a nuclear war. You won't get an argument from me about the US getting into lots of pointless wars, but the wars that the US gets into aren't "lets eradicate a country / race / religion off the map" - which is very different from the type of wars these third world dictatorships talk about waging if they get nuclear weapons.
I'd be just fine with them havi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a) a country which has never attacked any other country in recent history i.e. 200 years.
b) a country which has started/participated in almost 50 wars, has done coup in at least 10 countries and has used 2 atomic bombs?
Re: (Score:3)
You got a spare 200 kiloton CONTAINED reactor to rent?
Re: (Score:2)
Power? Weight!
P.S. We will gladly test your spare reactor if you ship it for free and guarantee return freight if we don't like it.
Re:Uh wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you smoking?
Many developing countries have grids where the lights go out on a regular basis because of a the lack of baseload generation capacity. They are in desperate need of baseload (coal, nuclear, gas or hydro) to stabilize their grids and meet demand. You cannot do this with PV - period. Nuclear is the least environmentally damaging option and the lowest cost low emission technology.
Notably Vietnam and Bangladesh have recently signed agreements with Russia to build two VVER nuclear power plants in each country. Vietnam looks to be about to conclude a contract with Japan for two more reactors.
Re:Uh wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And what do you do during the evening, night, and early morning when there's no or too little sunlight? Oh, right, you burn natural gas [blogspot.com]. I suppose that's not the worst outcome in the world. I suppose it's better to burn natural gas part of the time, than to burn coal all of the time.
I suppose you could also supplement solar with wind - sun doesn't shine at night, but the wind often blows, so you might be able, with the combination, to get enough power, but it will be expensive power with current technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not radily ideologically opposed to solar power. I just think that *right now*, the economics of it currently don't make sense. Also, Solar generally needs very large land-use (although, I think I've seen somewhere that you can do things like graze livestock on land with solar panels (or mirrors in the case of solar thermal), if you raise the panels/mirrors up high enough. People like to make the claim that nuclear is 'too expensive', but on a per-unit basis, the figures I've seen show solar to be 2-3x
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, I agree - I think the economics of solar *will* improve over time (I also think the economics of nuclear will improve over time). I also think that there are places in this world, like that Sahara project you mention, and places like Texas, Arizona, NV, CA, etc. where solar makes sense (once the tech is cheap enough). I also often see solar proponents making sort of ridiculous suggestions - like, for example, I live in the Great State of Ohio. As far as I know, the economics of solar d
Re:Uh wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Solar thermal may be cheaper than PV but is still a lot more expensive than nuclear. The Arithmetic adds up to Nuclear [bravenewclimate.com]
I'm not aware that there is any solar thermal plant in existence that has anything like the 90% capacity factor of nuclear. Andasol 1 and 2 in Spain as I understand it have 7 hours of storage. The most likely scenario for solar thermal is that it is backed up by gas in the immediate future.
Re: (Score:2)
On the topic of Andasol - Andasol 1 is the first large scale salt storage system now - I'd consider that still experimental. And there is growth potential in my opinion. No doubt that with the current implemented tech, you need gas backup, but that is not a fundamental point against the technology.
Re:Uh wait... (Score:5, Informative)
Nice to see the fine slashdot tradition of making bold, unsupported statements, declared as absolute truth, is still alive and well.
"to what is essentially a very expensive environment-ruining nuclear-timebomb"
Oh, really? Please, do, provide some actual *science and engineering* based source for this assertion. Before you trot out the old "Chernobyl", do note that *nobody*, except *nobody* is building any plants that are similar to the Chernobyl design, and that modern designs have multiple layers of safety in their designs that Chernobyl lacked. If Nuclear Reactors are so dangerous, so environment ruining, such ticking timebombs, how come in 60 years of nuclear plant operation, Chernobyl is the *one and only* accident which released any significant radioactive material into the environment? Modern plant designs are very safe, and even in the very unlikely event of a meltdown accident, are extremely unlikely to release any significant radioactivity into the environment.
Unlike you, I'll provide a source for my assertions: Ted Rockwell's Nuclear Facts Report [learningaboutenergy.com]. Now, that report is very long, but it's also well supported with bibliography references to many sources, including peer-reviewed studies by professional engineers and scientists.
You might bring up Three Mile Island, or Davis-Besse. Three Mile Island was unfortunate, but was only a disaster for the investors who payed for it. It got worse than it should have, but even in that situation, only a very small amount of slightly radioactive (very slightly) steam was released from the plant, but no other radioactive materials or radiation was released. TMI had an actual meltdown, and it wasn't an environmental or public safety disaster.
In the meantime, the nuclear plants being built now have been built with better safety designs than older generation II plants - a TMI type incident, although we can't call it completely impossible, is much more unlikely than it was with the TMI design. The Nuclear Industry has spent many Billions of dollars on R&D to design new, safer plants, and shepherd those new designs through strict regulatory oversight bodies like the NRC to get them approved.
I truly don't believe those new power plants are at all "environment-ruining nuclear-timebombs".
About the waste - the truth is, we should be recycling the spent fuel. The only proper, responsible final 'disposal' for spent nuclear fuel is to seperate out the short lived 'true waste' products from the rest of the fuel, and keep re-using the fuel until it's all converted to short lived waste. We *have* the technology to turn our current nuclear waste, which is radioactive for 100,000+ years into short-lived waste which essentially becomes non-radioactive after about 200 years - I think we *can* safely store the waste for 200 years, but I've never heard anyone who thought we could really store it for 100k+ years.
Sometime, try googling for "Integral Fast Reactor" - it's a fascinating read.
Finally, on your comment, "They should just give them free photovoltaics - you can just set a mini-plant in any of the villages". Really, do you really think a few PV panels in a village is going to provide enough power? For what? Each household can run one or two LED or CFL lights? What if that village needs power for running a water treatment plant, or a desalination plant? What if they want to have businesses and small industry which need enough power to run machinery, commercial refrigeration units, etc? What if the villagers want heat, hot water, and electric stoves in their homes, instead of burning wood or coal for those needs? You think a few PV panels in town and on the roof will provide enough power for all that? What about the big cities? Even the most undeveloped countries usually have at least a Capital city, if not a few others? What about future growth? That small village, as it gets access to clean water and power, might start to
Re:Uh wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
I truly don't believe those new power plants are at all "environment-ruining nuclear-timebombs".
I'm as big a proponent of IFR technology as anyone, but it is head-in-the-sand thinking to expect that waste from this program is going to be recycled any better than we've done for the last 30 years. Practically nobody is doing it today, ain't no way third world countries are going to be the ones that start doing it even half right.
Re: (Score:3)
Err, perhaps I wasn't clear. I agree that Fast Reactor technology is going to start in more developed places - China and India, I believe, already have plans to build some, here in the U.S. GE-Hitachi recently announced they have reached an agreement with the DoE to build a prototype PRISM plant (PRISM is the commercialized version of IFR, from what I understand).
When I made the statement, "I truly don't believe those new power plants are at all 'environment-ruining nuclear-timebombs'", I wasn't referring t
Irrational Environmental Regulations (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is used correctly nuclear power is not a cheap energy source. As nuclear power plants cut corners they find creative ways to ruin the environment
The problem is that the cost of nuclear power is inflated by the regulations that the anti-nuclear lobby imposed upon everybody as a very effective form of sabotaging the nuclear power industry.
Different from all other power systems, you cannot find examples of how the nuclear power plants have ruined the environment by "cutting corners". What they are doing is storing nuclear waste "temporarily" but in a highly secure way at the power station plants, instead of moving them to the non-existent "permanent" waste storage facilities.
The reason why permanent storage facilities do not exist is only because politicians have never agreed on where those facilities should be located and how they would be constructed. each time some proposal comes up it's immediately shot down by the anti-nuclear lobby.
The anti-nuclear lobby is financed by the taxes we, the citizens, pay. There are NGOs all over the world that get tax-exempt status because they are officially "pro-environment" organizations. Perhaps Wikileaks should tell us how much those NGO directors get in salaries (or do you remotely believe that everybody who works for those organizations is a volunteer?)
Re: (Score:3)
The reason why permanent storage facilities do not exist is only because politicians have never agreed on where those facilities should be located and how they would be constructed. each time some proposal comes up it's immediately shot down by the anti-nuclear lobby.
Although you're right that no permanent waste repositories have yet been completed, one is currently being built. The Onkalo waste repository [wikipedia.org] is being consturcted right here in Finland, and its one of those things that I'm especially proud as a Finn. Granted it is relatively small (designed to contain only all of our nuclear waste, and we're a small country by any comparison) but still, it's a project that gives a lot of important information and shows that permanent waste disposal sites are possible. The l
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason we don't have permanent nuclear waste repositories is every time they identify another perfect site, it get NIMBYd to death by local (where local = < 5000 km) uninformed 'interest groups'.
As for the 'very long term' thing: we only have to be really worried is the time it takes for the highly radioactive isotopes to decay. People seem to forget that you can have 'highly radioactive' short-half-life, short lived radioactive substances, or you can have long lived, long-half-life, low grade r
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying highly radioactive substances have a short half-life, which makes sense, intuitively. On the other hand, it seems to conflict with common assumptions,
Welcome to marketing!
That's exactly how lobbying works, use common assumptions to reinforce what you are trying to sell, forget about science and the truth.
About the Wikipedia article on nuclear waste, it seemed pretty balanced as I read it. Care to point out what conflicts you found? It says there that high level radioactive waste has a short life and that "It is a common misconception that nuclear waste has to be stored in a cave after its 20-year decommissioning process"
Re: (Score:3)
The pro-nuclear side downplays the risks in face of hardly a year going by without some reactor having to shut down due to supposedly harmless technical problems, while going on about nuclear power having no CO2 emissions.
I used to work at a power company [furnas.com.br] that had a couple of nuclear plants.
Every time they had to shut down a nuclear plant for some reason it was front page news. Yet the other couple of dozen or so hydro power plants we operated were shut down routinely for a number of reasons, and the press never took care to mention that.
In the end, the nuclear plants were the most reliable, by very far, in the whole system.