nuclear power

[DONNA1458]

this has been in the news recently what is the debate about, what is it all about. TIA

[jake-the-peg]

Current nuclear power stations involve taking large amounts of Uranium and bringing them together in a reactor 'core' - basically a lot of Uranium rods with coolant and 'control rods'

control rods go in reactor slows and gets cold, bring them out reactor gets hot and makes steam and the steam makes Electricity.

The advantages of Nuclear power are that the carbon emissions are very low or zero (depending on how you count) and it doesn't rely on dwindling fossil fuels.

The disadvantage is that it creates rather nasty waste which is difficult to dispose of and the safety issue in that if there is an accident like Chernobyl you can get a rather nasty radioactive mess - but not an nuclear bomb type explosion, that's different.....

[jake-the-peg]

ctd.

In a nutshell that's it but there are a lot of side issues -

a) Part of the radoiactive waste produces Plutonium, the raw material for atomic bombs - hence all the fuss about the Iranian nuclear program

b) Nuclear energy is very cheap unless you have to pay for decomissioning in which case it's very expensive.

c) Waste from coal power stations can be very toxic too

d) Unlike renewables like wind farms, you can control nuclear energy when you want it - you don't have to wait for the wind to blow.
...

[jake-the-peg]

ctd (again)

All of this is nuclear fission - splitting atoms. Three is another form, nuclear fusion, it's how the sun shines. For the last 40 years or so we've been making slow progress to using it.

The technology is much safer you couldn't have a Chernobyl type accident because there is only a few minutes fuel at any time. There'd be little radioactive waste and the fuel is water.

But it is very difficult and is likely to be another 40 year before you can build a power station but then in another 40 years we're likely to need it rather badly!

[Teddio]

Electricity from nuclear power stations is "reliable" i.e. it can be produced 24 hours a day unlike most renewables. No carbon dioxide is produced in the generating process so there is no contribution to Global Warming. The Windscale fire, Three Mile island and Chernobyl are examples of serious accidents but the industry has a good safety record. A coal-fired power station will use millions of tons of coal during its lifetime and this has to be mined and transported with its inherent risks. Nuclear power stations can be designed to be safer and cheaper to run than older models with lower decommissioning costs. (eg by using low cobalt steels in the reactor)

[jno]

jake, I wonder if 'rather nasty mess' doesn't understate Chernobyl a bit... for the benefit of people like Donna who are unacquainted with it: it was a calamity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaste r

[jake-the-peg]

You're right I forget sometimes that subtlties like tone of voice don't work here.

I was deliberately understating it to make the point that there is a difference between the type of explosion in a nuclear bomb and the type of explosion that happened in Chernobyl.

Not wanting to downplay that of course but it's worth remebering that coal mining also kills people - in 2004 6,000 in China and even in the US there were 28.

That's in 1 year! had those deaths been nuclear related it would have been headline news around the world.

The number of deaths as a result of Chernobyl is hugely contentious claims have ranged from 50 (nuclear industry) to 100,000 (Greenpeace)

4,000 is the estimate from the Chernobyl forum that includes pepole like the World Health Organisation.

It's important to realise that coal mining deaths affect miners who know and accept the risks whereas Chernobyl affected a lot of civillians and that makes a difference but it's still a lot of casulties

[jno]

yes, I thought I recognised a spot of British understatement there, Jake. The thing about nuclear (in my limited understanding) is it isn't necessarily immediate deaths, it's the ones who die later, often much later, of cancers they mightn't otherwise have contracted. Survivors of coalmine disasters, and their families, don't have this sort of thing to worry about.

[jake-the-peg]

Yes that's the 4,000 I think there were about 50 or so immediate fatalities