Europe Going Nuclear Despite Warnings

[depakid]

PRAGUE - The EU seems to be backing nuclear energy as the response to global warming and gas dependency, but civic groups warn that safety and waste processing should be preconditions for the industry’s growth.

These issues were debated in Prague May 22-23 at the second European Nuclear Energy Forum, an EU (European Union) initiative to discuss opportunities and risks of nuclear energy.

Civic groups criticised their extremely low representation at the event, seen by them as a gathering of nuclear energy supporters lobbying the EU.

“There is no energy technology free of risks. We have to live with that and do our best choices among existing possibilities,” Ulla Birgitta Sirkeinen from the EU’s Economic and Social Committee, a consultative body, told participants. “This committee has the view that nuclear energy is needed.”

“We all share the (EU) objective of reducing greenhouse emissions by 20 percent by 2020,” Nicole Fontaine, a European Parliamentarian, told participants. “Although there are many solutions such as renewable energy, reality dictates we use nuclear energy, which covers 32 percent of European energy needs.

“It doesn’t have the greenhouse effect, and it allows ensuring security of supply,” she said, hinting at the high European dependency on Russian gas, to which many believe nuclear power could be an alternative.

The EU is the biggest nuclear energy generator in the world.

Czech politicians, who named their country one of the leaders in the field, stressed that only nuclear power can ensure freedom and independence by reducing over-reliance on Russian gas.

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek attacked “ideologically motivated” environmentalist groups for their negative stance on nuclear energy, and called nuclear waste treatment a “pseudo-problem” of a political, not technical nature.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/26/9192/

[MercutioATC]

1. Let's see how they feel in 25 years when they need to encapsulate all of those nukes.

I'm anti-nuke, but for practical reasons.

Until we learn what to do with the waste and how to make them economically viable after considering encapsulation costs, I have a hard time supporting nuclear energy production.

[NNadir]

4. They won't be encapsulated in 25 years. How's your plan to encapsulate the coal waste going though

Got many mountains rebuilt?

How about all of the carbon dioxide? Keeping it balloons?

On the coal plant grounds, waiting for a permanent repository?

Or are you just being arbitrarily nonsensical and attempting to apply only to the world's safest form of exajoule scale energy criterial you don't apply to the most dangerous.

[madokie]

5. And one joule is

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

Description
One joule is the work done, or energy expended, by a force of one newton moving one metre along the direction of the force. This quantity is also denoted as a newton metre with the symbol N·m. Note that torque also has the same units as work, but the quantities are not the same. In elementary units:


One joule is also:

The work required to move an electric charge of one coulomb through an electrical potential difference of one volt; or one coulomb volt, with the symbol C·V.
The work done to produce power of one watt continuously for one second; or one watt second (compare kilowatt hour), with the symbol W·s. Thus a kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 joules or 3.6 megajoules

History
A joule is the mechanical equivalent of heat meaning the number of units of work in which the unit of heat can perform. Its value was found by James Prescott Joule in experiments that showed the mechanical energy Joule's equivalent, and represented by the symbol J. The term was first introduced by Dr. Mayer of Heilbronn.

1 coulomb is the amount of electric charge transported by a current of 1 ampere in 1 second.<1> <2><3>


It can also be expressed in terms of capacitance and voltage, where one coulomb is equal to one farad of capacitance times one volt of electric potential difference:


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

coulomb

Explanation
In principle, the coulomb could be defined in terms of the charge of an electron or elementary charge. Since the values of the Josephson (CIPM (1988) Recommendation 1, PV 56; 19) and von Klitzing (CIPM (1988), Recommendation 2, PV 56; 20) constants have been given conventional values (KJ ≡ 4.835 979×1014 Hz/V and RK ≡ 2.581 280 7×104 Ω), it is possible to combine these values to form an alternative (not yet official) definition of the coulomb. A coulomb is then equal to exactly 6.241 509 629 152 65×1018 elementary charges. Combined with the present definition of the ampere, this proposed definition would make the kilogram a derived unit.

In everyday situations, positive and negative charges are usually balanced out. According to Coulomb's Law, two point charges of +1 C, one meter apart, would experience a repulsive force of 9×109 N, roughly the equivalent of 900,000 metric tons of weight.


Historical note
The ampere was historically a derived unit—being defined as 1 coulomb per second. Therefore the coulomb, rather than the ampere, was the SI base electrical unit.

In 1960 the SI system made the ampere the base unit. <4>

[Dogmudgeon]

14. Exajoules and Quads

They measure total energy produced.

Most alternative-energy approaches are rated in capacity. When you see "500 megawatts of wind energy", it means "500 megavolts times amperes per second until the sun goes down or the wind stops". A kiloWatt-Hour is a similar measure, but it's more difficult to use in strict mathematical calculations since a Watt already uses the second as a componant term. So one kWH is calculated as 3.6 megajoules, as madokie pointed out.

Food values can be computed in joules, too; one kiloCalorie (what me commonly call a "calorie" of food) is 4187 J, so 2400 kCal of food per day is about 10 MJ. Yes, it's about 3 kilowatt hours of food. The terms "calorie", "kilocalorie", and "kCal" are being replaced by the megajoule in scientific papers.

Cardiac defibrillators are rated in joules. To work correctly, a certain amount of energy has to be transferred into a patient's chest cavity in a little less time than it takes the heart to beat. That magic number is typically 60 to 360 J delivered in about a quarter of a second.

The Exajoule (EJ) is the Metric unit that has replaced the (Imperial) Quad. The "Quad" comes from "Quadrillion BTUs". An Exajoule is 1.055 Quads -- so they are almost the same thing; the EJ is a little larger.

The total world energy usage is approximately 515 EJ (543 Quads) per year.

Fun Fact: Almost 60% of all energy is lost before it reaches its end users.

CAUTION: Use of the term "exajoule" may cause emotional reactions (typically uncontrollable laughter) from a small, but significant, number of anti-nuclearists at DU.

--p!

[TheWraith]

7. Not really. Used fuel rods can be recycled.

Some of the fission byproducts they remove from the fuel rods during recycling can be used for other things, like industrial purposes. And it's certainly cost effective, because the only significant spending is for building and maintaining. There's next to no fuel cost.

[madokie]

8. And where is this being done on a scale that would make a difference in the amount of waste

we have now as I haven't been able to find it. I say if it was possible to do on a large scale it would be, after all the nuclear power industries future depends on what to do with that highly radioactive waste. As of today it's still being stockpiled best I can find out.

[TheWraith]

9. The biggest sites are Sellafield in the UK, 2400 tons per year, and La Hague, France 1700 tons/year.

A single reactor produces an average of something like 30 tons per year, so those two facilities can handle about 136 reactors worth of spent fuel.

[madokie]

10. I'm reading could, should and would

but no is

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/23/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

what gives...

[TheWraith]

11. It is being done, but it's not more prevalent because fresh uranium is incredibly cheap.

In short, it's cheap just to buy fresh uranium for fuel rods, and store the used ones, rather than recycled the old stuff and reconstitute it.

[madokie]

12. I've heard it all now

You are kidding, right :eyes:

[TheWraith]

13. No. Why would I be?

When you do it dollar for dollar, the cost of uranium fuel and storage of the old stuff IS cheap. In fact, on a kilowatt-hour basis it's cheaper than any other fuel in existence: even dirt-cheap coal costs 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for the fuel, while uranium costs 0.5 cents per KWh.

95% of the costs of nuclear power are building the facility, maintaining it, and decommissioning it at end-of-life. Buying the uranium, and storing the old stuff, are trivial costs in comparison. You know what it costs to store a set of spent fuel rods for a year? $250 thousand dollars--and that's in a Yucca Mountain type setup, rather than just keeping them in a cooling pond. Most nuclear facilities spend more than that per year for one or two good technicians to inspect the piping. Simply put, it just hasn't been commercially necessary for us to bother recycling our fuel rods.

[Nihil]

15. I doubt that ...

> I've heard it all now

... as you appear to spend all your time with your fingers in your ears,
singing "La-la-la I don't believe you" ...

:eyes:

[madokie]

17. As I was saying they still don't know what to do with the waste, safely

Where and what do you yourself propose to do with the highly radioactive waste. My fingers are sore from typing on this keyboard looking for an answer to that and after all this time I still find no answers. I would really like to hear what your take is on this other than the usual tripe. Let me remind you I do not buy nor listen to bullshit though.
I will be the first to admit that I would love to read that there is a viable way to deal with it and that it is being done. The direct Burning of coal to make electricity is killing us, I understand that, no problem.



http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html

The major problem of nuclear waste is what to do with it. In fact, one of the biggest (and perhaps the single biggest) expenses of the nuclear power industry could eventually be the storage of nuclear waste. Currently there are several ways in which nuclear waste is stored. Most of these methods are temporary. In most cases a viable long-term solution for waste storage has yet to be found. This is because the time period for storage is so incredibly long, on the order of thousands of years.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/apr/14/nuclear.greenpolitics

Firing nuclear waste into the sun, placing it in Antarctic ice sheets so it sinks by its own heat to the bedrock, or putting it under Earth's crust so it is sucked to the molten core. These are three of the 14 options the government's advisers are considering to get rid of the UK's troublesome nuclear waste legacy.
All options are technically possible and many are potentially hazardous - either to current generations or those yet unborn. Most also have political drawbacks and are expensive, around £50bn and counting, yet it is a problem the government has decided it must solve.

Last year it appointed a committee on radioactive waste management to re-examine all possibilities to find a publicly acceptable solution to the nuclear waste problem - something that successive governments have failed to do for 50 years.

[Nihil]

18. OK, a quick try ...

First, to get the trivia out of the way:
1) I have no connection with the power industry (nuclear or otherwise).
2) I have protested against nuclear weapons and fervently wish that Pandora's
box had been closed before that little gem escaped.
3) I admit that I sometimes blur different anti-nuclear posters together so
if my previous comment wasn't true, I apologise.
4) I am in the UK so my first-hand knowledge/experience is UK-based. YMMV.

(I realise that some other posters will simply say that the above are "lies"
but what the hey.)

Ok, now for your questions.

> Where and what do you yourself propose to do with the highly radioactive waste.
> I would really like to hear what your take is on this other than the
> usual tripe.

To take your phrase "the highly radioactive waste" at face value, when it
comes to high level radioactive waste, my first preference is for the
primary waste products (used fuel rods) to be reprocessed but, if you are
not allowing that as a viable option (as you are right, it is *not* in
large scale commercial use today), my second agrees with one of the
anti-nuclear spokesmen in your 2004 link:
---
Martin Forwood, of Cumbrians Opposed to Radioactive Environment:
"... The only sensible solution is to store it where it rightfully belongs
- in above ground custom built concrete stores at the site of origin."
---

i.e., after the initial period in the cooling ponds, the "waste" should be
stored above ground at the location where it is produced - thus both avoiding
any danger due to transportation and also providing a retrievable source of
material when the reprocessing option becomes financially/politically viable.


On the other hand, if you were joining the "highly radioactive waste"
to this ...

> This is because the time period for storage is so incredibly long,
> on the order of thousands of years.

There is a relationship between the rate of decay and the intensity of
radiation produced: the more intense the output, the shorter the time
period over which that intensity is maintained. Conversely, the longer
the period of instability (i.e., over which decay occurs) the lower the
intensity of the radiation (i.e., not many 'clicks per second' on a
detector even though there _will_ be 'clicks' for thousands of years).

This is why I am far less concerned about "low level radioactive waste"
than about almost any other toxic pollutant (e.g., lead, cadmium, cyanide)
and regard it as far safer than many biological hazards (e.g., waste from
your average hospital).

I know (and was glad to read that you understand) about the impact of
burning coal to make electricity. Quite apart from the carbon dioxide
produced (also a poison but this time a gas rather than a more manageable
solid) and its impact on climate change, the assorted pollutants distributed
through the ash are a hazard that many people simply do not acknowledge
or they too would be treated with the same respect/fear/hatred as low level
radioactive waste (with a net gain for the planet & its inhabitants).


Please don't think I don't feel the same contempt for the corporations that
have mismanaged many of the US nuclear power stations or that I don't share
your concern that financially & politically corrupt *people* are the biggest
threat to world safety (via "cutting corners" in nuclear power or by any other
method).

:hi:

[madokie]

19. Thanks and my heartfelt apologies to you

for the most part I see us on the same page then :hug:

I so want to believe that there is something we can do to clean up our act.

[Nihil]

21. No apology necessary but thank you anyway!

> I so want to believe that there is something we can do to clean up our act.

In my more positive moments I totally agree with you.
In the more negative ones, I fear that we will never overcome the
attitude whereby short-term costs (hence impact on short-term profits)
are put aside for the long-term benefit of the many.

We have technological solutions for most things already (not to mention the
philosophical/ethical solutions for most others). Sadly, when the decisions
are not made on merit but are simply bought by money (for the sake of the
lust for more money), we all lose - "we" being the inhabitants of this
planet other than that tiny tiny minority with the money to force their
greed-driven way through all opposition.
:pals:

[losthills]

20. "Recycling" creates useful products.

Like weapons grade plutonium....

[Selatius]

2. Everybody's trying to follow France's lead, which powers 79 percent of its grid with nuclear energy.

In the 1970s with the Arab Oil Embargo and later the Iranian Revolution causing record price shocks in oil, the French embarked on a program of building nuclear power plants under the slogan of lack of resources of their own: "No oil, no coal, no choice." Today, France is the world's largest net exporter of excess electricity to neighbors like Italy, Germany, and the UK.

[gcomeau]

3. Good for them.

Generally, the people who hand-wring the most about nuclear power are the people who understand it the least and just go into a frenzy at the mere mention of anything with the word "nuclear" in it.

[diane in sf]

6. Big waste of money compared to conservation and renewables, waste disposal issues,

and fueling issues=bad choice.

[Vogon_Glory]

16. Bravo For The Europeans!

Bravo for the Europeans! Nuclear power means cleaner air for Europe and the rest of the planet, less damage caused by coal mining and coal burning, and less dependency on the misogynistic, intolerant patriarchies of the Middle East!

Could it be time for a rewording of that slogan used by anti-nuclear naifs from a couple of decades ago:

Nuclear? Pero Si!

:applause: :bounce:

:woohoo: