[blockquote]CLEAN? I keep hearing the word "clean" used to describe nuclear power. What is clean about nuclear waste? Yep, it can be made relatively safe, but most of the really nasty stuff will be around for thousands of years. As for it being cost effective...that is another myth. When they cook the numbers they always forget to include the government subsidy, the insurance that only we the government can provide since no private insurance compay is willing to take the risk of paying out when there is an accident. Plus they usually only expense the cost of nuclear waste storge for only the first five year. A lot of it has half-lives in the thousands of years.[/blockquote]
I found this comment over at a mainstream media news site. I haven't studied the economics of nuclear power, and if what is said is true, then that would remove me as a supporter of nuclear power. As such, I request a clarification from one more knowledgeable in the area.
Can't comment on the rest of your post, but the following sounds pretty non sequitur to me:
Havvy:Plus they usually only expense the cost of nuclear waste storge for only the first five year. A lot of it has half-lives in the thousands of years.
It was my understanding (read: I could be very wrong) that they took nuclear waste and buried it deep underground, using concrete or lead for radiation-shielding purposes (this is, of course, a very simplified description of what's happening). There are no ongoing costs in managing already buried waste, thus bringing half life into it doesn't follow. There are, obviously, ongoing costs with storing new waste as it is created.
EDIT: As I said, I'm not very sure about this, so I urge you to do some research regarding how nuclear waste is stored before you use the above for trying to shoot down whoever made your quoted comment. All I can say is that according to my pretty hazy memory, is that what that guy said about storing waste vs half life was bunk.
None of the technologies is clean.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
It's pretty much an established fact that Nuclear power is the highly subsidized by the government; I know it was a topic Milton Friedman would touch on from time to time (that the nuclear power plants would have to pay their own insurance)--IIRC the government also helps out quite a bit with the initial construction, as well.
The CATO institute also mentioned these exact same things, and went on to say that nuclear power is, in essence, the Republican's solar/wind/renewable energy and that all you had to do was take the standard "lefty" environmental speech and replace all the incidences of "solar", "wind", and "renewable energy" with "nuclear" and you had the Republican speech.
The government also makes nuclear waste disposal a bit of a hastle here in the US, as well: http://mises.org/daily/3536
IMHO, the best energy we have right now is coal; once the global warming crap is played out/debunked completely, then I think it'll take its rightful place as king.
Resident Christian Anarcho-Capitalist.
As far as I know, all forms of energy are subsidized by government, and clean is a relative adjective. I am asking about whether nuclear energy would survive without government subsidies (and no subsidies in other energy markets either).
I'm really not sure; it's hard to say, but from I can imagine the insurance is absolutely massive....as are the construction costs.
Ryan: [blockquote]CLEAN? I keep hearing the word "clean" used to describe nuclear power. What is clean about nuclear waste? Yep, it can be made relatively safe, but most of the really nasty stuff will be around for thousands of years. As for it being cost effective...that is another myth. When they cook the numbers they always forget to include the government subsidy, the insurance that only we the government can provide since no private insurance compay is willing to take the risk of paying out when there is an accident. Plus they usually only expense the cost of nuclear waste storge for only the first five year. A lot of it has half-lives in the thousands of years.[/blockquote] I found this comment over at a mainstream media news site. I haven't studied the economics of nuclear power, and if what is said is true, then that would remove me as a supporter of nuclear power. As such, I request a clarification from one more knowledgeable in the area.
First, the fuel came out of the ground in the first place! How can it hurt to put it back? Second, having a long half-life is good, from this perspective -- that means it's not very radioactive (non-radioactive stuff has infinite half-life! Should we be all worried about that?); it's the short half-life stuff you don't want to be around. Third, the line about "only expense the cost of waste storage for five years": I don't know how they cost it, that sounds short, but it isn't actually relevant: you can calculate the price today for something with ongoing costs infinitely far into the future; that price will not be infinite (that's why you can buy a house, for example. Usually, when you do something like that, you pay it off over a period of time (i.e., a mortgage) -- but whether you pay for it in cash today, over 5 years, or over 30 years, you're still paying for the same thing)
Fission is a very efficient form of energy production. As far as the waste, you have to look at from the point of how many MegaWatts(MW) of energy you're producing per gram of material used. I doubt you would find a man made energy source that has the efficiency of a nuclear reactor. The large cement stacks that are integral of all nuclear power plants don't expel waste but water vapor (low carbon foot print). Overall, fission reactors are clean. The waste of course is in the form of the nuclear rods once they have been depleted. However, they can be enriched again. In addition, there is the contamination issue of the containment vessels and systems because they are pulverized with alpha and beta radiation. Of course, there is the issue of subsidization from the government which has already been mentioned. Personally, the physics makes perfect sense as a very efficient energy source. However, government intervention in the industry has totally destroyed any feasible, economically sound outcome.
However, rarely do I ever hear anyone bring up the following issues:
If global warming is such an issue why hasn’t there been a general ban on reactors that release water vapor into the atmosphere? I was quite surprised to learn that water vapor is one of the worst green house gases. It has a much higher heat capacity than CO2.
Uranium is a very scarce resource. Depending on demand their may only be enough supply for the next 35-60 years. Thus, it's not a renewable energy resource.
Then there are the time scales of building a nuclear reactor. It literary takes 30 years in planning and development.
The true savoir of a viable energy resource is fusion energy. However, this technology is far from being harnessed or developed economically. Fusion would provide the cleanest and a endless supply of energy.
CATO recently evaluated recent proposals on nuclear energy.
http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=ncomments&id=324
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9740
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4290
This article makes a lot of good points. I highly recommend reading it:
http://mises.org/story/3536
assimilateur: It was my understanding (read: I could be very wrong) that they took nuclear waste and buried it deep underground
It was my understanding (read: I could be very wrong) that they took nuclear waste and buried it deep underground
Nobody actually has long term storage yet. The US had plans to bury it under a mountain in Nevada, but I read that's now been shelved.
czelaya: Uranium is a very scarce resource. Depending on demand their may only be enough supply for the next 35-60 years. Thus, it's not a renewable energy resource.
About 98% of "spent" reactor fuel is still perfectly usable uranium (and some plutonium), which could be recycled...you can build reactors that'll burn U238...besides, thorium is a better fuel -- less waste, more secure (i.e., harder to build a bomb out of), safer, and more abundant than uranium. There's enough nuclear fuel to last millions of years, at least.
Breeder reactors are awesome.
"I was quite surprised to learn that water vapor is one of the worst green house gases. It has a much higher heat capacity than CO2."
Late comment, but I have for a long time wondered about this too. It seems like a question with an obvious answer, just so match that I have even feared asking it to save appearing like an idiot. But then again, I used to also wonder why or how World War 2 got America out of the great depression...
It certainly causes me to raise an eyberow when I hear people wax lyrical about hydrogen fuel cells.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
well there are two sides of technology the first side is the clean one, remember because of technology we have these amazing energy efficient cars that produces less cfc's and are also energy efficient hich means it clean but...................
the other side is the unclean one which is generally talking bou't production wastes or wastes that came from the production of some products
but still it doesnt matter either there are two sides of technology what is important is how we humans or "homo sapiens" deal with technology and ho we keep our surroundings clean
hope this helps
thx
toronto exotic massage