Is Nuclear Power Worth the Risk?

Hmmmm.

One of the problems of nuclear waste is that it requires storage for many thousands of years. The financial costs are enormous and well outweigh the value of the energy produced. There are also obvious ongoing security and geological risks. The way we are going there is no guarantee that a highly technological society will survive and our forest-living descendants may not be well placed to look after it.

Because the military require materials from the industry for bomb production, there is a vested interest in promoting civil use. No nuclear power industry has ever been viable without massive government underwriting of various kinds.

The figure of 80 (I think) deaths a year in the UK is estimated from dental x-rays. People seem to be prepared to live with that risk, or perhaps aren't aware of it. More would probably die of infections and heart impacts if their teeth weren't fixed. These risks are measurable and limited and counterbalanced by health benefits.

The problem with nuclear power plants is that the risks should something go very wrong are enormous, localised, dramatic and very long term. Chernobyl is still smouldering away isn't it, and by no means safe.

I would prefer to put up with a lot of visual and other impacts from renewables in order to avoid burdening us and future generations with the problem of nuclear plants and nuclear waste.

A "detail" that is lesser known is the tendency on the continent for nuclear plants to employ sub-contractors to do the dirty chores, like cleaning and so on.

And because sub-contractors are not so honest, employing pauperized unorganized workers, those workers will sometimes accept crossing the exposition limit, or conceal themselves their exposition status, in order to keep their job and survive economically.

More about the French accident here.

What a disaster for tourists and locals in the Avignon region!

soubresauts wrote:

More about the French accident here.

What a disaster for tourists and locals in the Avignon region!

Quote :

The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) inspected the Tricastin plant on Thursday and found that existing prevention measures were deficient and that its operator, Societe Auxiliaire de Tricastin (Socatri), had been too slow to inform authorities about the leak.

The ASN is to submit a report to the state prosecutor for possible legal action against Socatri. The company is a subsidiary of the French nuclear giant, Areva.

The safety inspection found that "security steps aimed at preventing any further pollution were not completely satisfactory", the ASN said.

The inspectors also found "irregularities" at the site's operations at the time of the leak.

Socatri has been ordered to implement "a reinforced surveillance plan, including analysis of the surrounding rivers and ground water".

French Ecology Minister Jean-Louis Borloo said on Thursday that there was "no imminent danger" to the local population.

Socatri has said tests of the groundwater, local wells and the rivers show they have not been contaminated.

One anti-nuclear organisation has said it will take legal action against ASN, saying it had delayed sounding the alarm.

France is one of the world's most nuclear-dependent countries, with 80% of its electricity coming from nuclear power.

Just like our nice Minister Gormley down in Cork. Very reassuring.

During Tchernobyl the authorities told us the nuclear cloud had stopped at the French border...

Anyway, more seriously, sub-contractors are definitely a problem in such sensitive areas.

arnaudherve wrote:

During Tchernobyl the authorities told us the nuclear cloud had stopped at the French border...

Anyway, more seriously, sub-contractors are definitely a problem in such sensitive areas.

Do you live near a nuclear power station arnaudherve?

No but in front of the nuclear submarines.

arnaudherve wrote:

No but in front of the nuclear submarines.

Just sticking a few googled bits and pieces here for future reference

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=cost+nuclear+power&btnG=Google+Search&meta=


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion

Auditor #9 wrote:

Just sticking a few googled bits and pieces here for future reference

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=cost+nuclear+power&btnG=Google+Search&meta=


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion

Would anyone like to explain to me in words of not more than three syllables why and how subs are nuclear powered?

From a little bit of reading it seems that the heat generated from a controlled nuclear reaction is used to heat water and the steam is used to propel turbines.
The ships then either use the turbines to propel the vessel or use it to generate electricity which is then used to power a motor.
As for the why I really couldn't say

Why: to avoid refuelling at the surface level from a fuel transport vessel, or a port.

It allows you to remain hidden longer at the bottom, and remaining hidden is strategic efficiency. You can hide anywhere deep enough on the globe.

They just mosey around deep in the ocean for months at a time, carrying all those nuclear missiles targeted at cities like Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, etc. For security, like. With a crew trained to do without sunshine, fresh food, and a healthy outlook on life. Marvellous stuff.

When you're carrying so much nuclear fissionable material in the payload, you might as well carry a little more as fuel.

I presume the nuclear engine is quieter than an internal combustion engine, an added advantage.

AfricanDave wrote:

From a little bit of reading it seems that the heat generated from a controlled nuclear reaction is used to heat water and the steam is used to propel turbines.
The ships then either use the turbines to propel the vessel or use it to generate electricity which is then used to power a motor.
As for the why I really couldn't say

It's amazing they are steam powered, ultimately, not just nuclear powered. They used to use diesel engines but internal combustion uses air so they swapped the power source for nuclear. They must be handy little reactors all the same. The air gets recycled and water from the sea is distilled etc. If you believe wikipedia they said one french sub's reactor could last for 30 years without changing the fuel which is impressive if not actually cool if they weren't for war (couldn't they use them to explore Titan or something interesting?)

There's an explanation HERE though it's not in 3 syllables.