If Nuclear is so safe, then why do we have to go to such messures to dump the waste?

Question

I recently posted a question about using clean renwables insted of nuclear and many of the answers presumed nuclear is safe.
If it is so then why do we have to go to such messures to dump the waste from it.
Why dont all the people in favour of nuclear volenteer to keep the waste from it in there back gardens, surley if it's so safe they wouldnt have a problem with this idea?

As a surfer i know about waves how they are made and the energy that emulsifies in them. air pressure gives the waves energy, wind produced by air pessure, the moon giving us tidal power, unless the moon gets blown up that energy will always be there, just as the air pressures will be. So the energy is there, it's very real. Mix it with wind power, solar, and possibly hydro and that will gives us a hell of a lot of energy. Maybe not enough for the whole world but the uk at least could be self sufficient with all the resources we have.

Answer 1

Ask the people of Las Vegas. If that mine/bunker they are burying it in starts leaking, they'll be the first ones affected.

Yeah, nuclear energy is clean-ER than some other things, and it's relatively cheap, but I think the dangers of using it WAY outweigh any economical benefits we'll get from it.

Protect the public first, than start worrying about money.

Answer 2

There are three potential dangers from nuclear power: meltdown, terrorist raids, and waster disposal.

Meltdown, like at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and threatened by all the old plants, is an engineering problem. And most people who follow this are convinced that the engineers have come up with some very highly reliable ways to make meltdown extremely unlikely.

Terrorist raids are a problem. But newly designed plants could be constructed to be defensible against this threat.

So, fo two out of the three threats, they are very solvable.

The waste problem i still a problem. In the USA there is quite a large amount of waste not in permanent storage. But this is basically a political problem. There are proposed solutions, but the solutions have been continually opposed mainly on NIMBY (not in my back yard) grounds. No one wants it. So, I would agree that until the permanent storage facilitiy is approved, constructed and open, that no more plants should be built.

We do however have to find some new, non depleting sources of electricity. People object to wind and solar, as well as to nuclear. Nuclear at least has the advantage that it works, it is relatively cheap (if the waste problem is dealt within advance) and does not require huge highly visible gear.

As electic power generation becomes more of an issue, there will be a lot of pressure to solve the various public opinion issues and get more energy flowing into the system.

Answer 3

We don't really have to go to such measures, I don't think. Not compared to other waste management jobs.

Nuclear energy involves waste management because the waste is produced in a solid form within your plant. You got the stuff locked up and you /can/ manage and dispose of it.

By comparison, the waste from fossil generation has been traditionally dumped into the atmosphere with little or no treatment or control. Climate change is the price we're paying for that waste management policy now. The measures involved in tackling that are quite a lot more extensive than radioactive waste management!

I don't think nuclear technology should be demonised because the waste is handled responsibly.

And by way of perspective, radioactive waste makes up only 1% of the total inventory of toxic waste we've stockpiled (in Europe at least). All of it requires permanent management.

It's worth remembering too that the radioactive portion of our toxic waste is much better funded than the other 99% and has already been paid for as a fraction of the cost of nuclear electricity.

Answer 4

Launching into the sunlight would value a lot of money once you concentrate on that you'll want a rocket a large thanks to *no longer* explode, and all the gasoline that it would take for a finished de-orbit burn the completed way into the picture voltaic. Dumping perfect right into a volcano *frequently* would not reason an explosion, in spite of the indisputable fact that it would must be heavier than the rock to sink, and the kit would have were given to resist melting. in spite of the indisputable fact that it sinks, it would arise once extra if the volcano erupts or there's a magma flow with the flow. it would not sink very far inspite of the reality that it really is heavy sufficient, and it will be hard to examine *the position* it went. in case you position it someplace and enable the lava hide it, then it is going to change into very resembling a 'geological repository' like Yucca Mountain.

Answer 5

It depends on your definition of safe. Every method of generating energy has risks--even fusion will when we perfect it.

Nuclear fission simply allows us to delay the negative consequences for 35-250 millennia, dependign upon the isitopes involved.

Ultimately, when our space technology has achieved a sufficient level of reliability, we will be able to simply send the waste into the sun. No, it won't hurt the sun! It won't even be a burp, compared to the size of our natural fusion reactor.

Roundabout, there's no such thing as completely safe energy.

Answer 6

Isn't the point that it is safe with strict precautions. Anything is fallible and the potential is clearly there; undoubtedly there will be an accident at some stage. We have to minimise its impact. If you wish to maintain a civilisation to the present technological level, then nuclear power is the only realistic option.

Answer 7

Nuclear isn't safe, its that it is a cleaner source of energy than burning fossil fuels.

Answer 8

unless you cover the country in various types of renewable energy sources, renewables are not reliable enough. you need to put in massive over capacity to generate power and even then its unlikely it would be able to provide a reliable power supply. So the choices facing the nation are not renewables OR Nuclear OR Fossil Fuel, its renewables AND Nuclear AND Fossil Fuel. As said before unless people are prepared to sign up for occasional power blackouts and probable frequent brown outs. Nucelar & Coal/Oil plant works best when its left to run continuously, indeed Oil & Coal plant has severe problems if started and stopped. Gas plant can be started quickly with relatively littel impact on plant life.

other natnions can and do dispose of their nuclear waste in deep underground repositories, usually in granite, but virtually no one wants it stored in their backyard (just as virtually no one wants a wind farm, hyrdo dam or tidal barrage in their backyard).

One of the problems we have in this country is the breaking down of redundant plant generating a great deal of low leve waste - in my view we should leave the irradiated plant where it is encased in concrete rather than break it down into tiny pieces and create a huge volumne of waste. we should cease reprocessing nuclear waste (that was alwasy a fig leaf afaik to extract weapons grade nucelar material).

mind you one effective way of getting rid of nuclear waste is the holy grail of some nuclear scientists in a fast breeder or even fusion reactor.

so lets look at he proposed renewable alternatives

even if you were to cover vast areas of land or sea with wind turbines it wouldnt work they dont always work, (either the machinery fails, not enough or too much wind)

basic physics is against wave power, yes there is energy int he waves but its erratic and non predicatable (wave strength is determined by preceeding wind strength - not much wind = not much energy in the waves, its the 'wrong type' transferrign sufficent energy from waves into an elecrtical generating plant is difficult. one of the reasons not much money has gone into it is predciseley because scientists dont see much future from it.

Solar power works, even in this country but agin generating very low amounts of power, unless you cover virtually every bit of land, and even then I doubt you'd get enough power to meet current needs. its great a the margins, its great for battery recharging on things like boats & caravans, its great for heating doemstic water. it doesn't work for hugh power high current use.

Thebest renewable sources (in terms of reliability and dependability) are without doubt water based:

hydro (depends on the geology of the proposed site (and the chances of gettign a hydro scheme approved now are near zero due to psuedo environmentalists)

tidal barrage (again depends on the geology - the only major one Im aware of is in rfrance built 30..40 years ago). attempts have been made to build int he UK (there are several promising sites but again blocked by psuedo environmentalists

tidal power: (there are some interesting experiments going ahead at present using wind turbine style propellors suibmerged in the water. however its experimental, not proven and there are doubts whether it will generate sufficient power. tidal strenght is not constant it runs over a 6 hour cycle (either up/in or down/out) with half the strength in the middle of the cycle).

rernewable power generation is hideously expensive and unreliable, you need the fossil fuel & nucelar plant aswell as the renewables to guarantee supply, so why have the renewables?

we know that greenhouse gasses are a siginificant risk to the environment so fossil fuels in my view are the choice of last resort.

So unless the environmentalist lobbies that are so set against nuclear and fossil fuel based power can suggest a mechanism of storing power (there is one [the stored watrer scheme at Bangor]) then we are stuck with a requirement for baseload power generation, always on power supply. failing that we need to get used to a life with reduce or no power

In my opinion we should consider building tidal barrage schemes (there are 3 or 4 that coudl work well - the Mersey, the Severn, Morecombe Bay and the Solway firth, others could alsow work eg the Clyde

in order to try to resolve our current/prediucited power shortage (and there is a significant predicted shortage as older nuclear & coal fired plant reaches the end of its life) then we need to do something urgently.
-we should continue with tidal power research, who know sitr may actually work
-we should try to identify and build more hydro schemes.
-we should stop subsidisng the awfule wind turbine schemes (if they are economic withoiut the subsidy then fine, but if it requires government subsidy to work then bin 'em)
-we should build some baseload (reliable power plant) which probably means nuclear, Im not keen on fossil fuel for environmental reasons
-keep gas as a standby top up power supply at peak demand
-we should ceae reprocessing nuclear waste

The other alternative, which has a certain attraction to me is that all the environmentalists who insist that ONLY renewable power should be built is that they volunteer (possibly at gunpoint) to hamsterlike operate a power gerneration wheel by pedalling or running, untill they come to their senses.

Answer 9

anything is safe if properly done. water is safe but you can drown in it.

Answer 10

i don't think nuclear is safe