Nuclear Power

Originally posted by twhitehead
For the same reason that we have less fatalities for aircraft than we do for cars. We are more careful about how we run our aircraft. If we had equivalent safety procedures for nuclear and coal powered power stations the coal powered ones would have fewer fatalities.

Nonsense, fatalities caused by coal and oil plants come mostly from pollution. You can't be "careful" with air pollution, you can't contain it like nuclear waste.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Nonsense, fatalities caused by coal and oil plants come mostly from pollution. You can't be "careful" with air pollution, you can't contain it like nuclear waste.

Actually you can -almost. Economical technology already exists to filter out all the smoke particles and poisonous gasses to prevent local fatalities -the only bit that is generally too expensive to deal with at the moment is the CO2 component but that only causes fatalities indirectly by causing the greenhouse effect and has no significant immediate local effect on peoples health. It may eventually become generally economical to dispose of this CO2 by carbon burial but that might take quite a few decades more of research by which time it would be too late.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Actually you can -almost. Economical technology already exists to filter out all the smoke particles and poisonous gasses to prevent local fatalities -the only bit that is generally too expensive to deal with at the moment is the CO2 component but that only causes fatalities indirectly by causing the greenhouse effect and has no significant immediate ...[text shortened]... ial but that might take quite a few decades more of research by which time it would be too late.

All the soot particles and hazardous gases? I don't think so.

Why not doing as the coal industry does? Just let the waste out in the air.

Nuculear industry doesn't do that. They collect it and they store it somewhere.

When the coal industry take care of their waste, CO2 and soot and sulfur and all other waste, thenI, and the planet, would be happy.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Why not doing as the coal industry does? Just let the waste out in the air.

Nuculear industry doesn't do that. They collect it and they store it somewhere.

When the coal industry take care of their waste, CO2 and soot and sulfur and all other waste, thenI, and the planet, would be happy.

FabianFnas agree 🙂 Coal power has been around for years... To compare it with nuclear is like comparing a horse drawn cart with a car ... yes you can get so far in the cart but! . Gradually oil and coal reserves will depleate (quite soon for oil) and if we don't have a big powersource like nuclear filling this in, we move from gas to , hybrid to electric cars etc eventually.... things will get difficult! it must be invested in now.

I think renewable energy solar , wind etc is good to. but practically it can't power a national grid , better applied localy.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
All the soot particles and hazardous gases? I don't think so.

Why on earth not? -such filters have been in use for years!

Electrostatic precipitators are used to filter out ALL the soot and smoke particles

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

“…ESPs continue to be excellent devices for control of many industrial particulate emissions, including smoke from electricity-generating utilities (COAL and oil fired),
…” (my emphasis)

While all the poisonous gasses such as sulphur dioxide can be removed by a combination of other types of filters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization

“…Before flue gas desulfurization was installed, the emissions from this power plant in New Mexico contained excessive amounts of sulfur dioxide.
…”

And to remove oxides of nitrogen:

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

…etc -thus all the poisonous gasses can be removed economically except CO2 which is still the unsolved problem which is why it would still be unacceptable to continue to burn fossil fuels even with full use of all these filters.

Hmm, but why aren't these filters used on a large scale?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Hmm, but why aren't these filters used on a large scale?

They ARE used on a wide scale and have been for years -hello to the modern world.

I work in the environmental field, and yes these devices are used in almost all large-scale facilities. They are indeed effective, however to claim that these devices can remove pollutants from the air steam with perfect efficiency is overstating the case. They work, but nothing's perfect.

The real question is which consequences we are prepared to live with. Coal-fired generation plants are some of the worst polluting both in terms of air pollution (CO2, NOx, SOx, mercury, etc...) and residual wastes (non-hazardous bottom ash and hazardous fly ash), but they deliver electricity cheaply and reliably. Natural gas fired generation plants improve on coal-fired emission levels (especially in terms of CO2, SOx and heavy metals) and produce almost no residual waste, but they are subject to the availability and price of natural gas. Nuclear plants can deliver much more energy than coal with virtually no air pollution, but they can be expensive depending on the situation (although they can also be run very competitively if the loading is high enough) and effective disposal of residual high-level radioactive waste remains a difficult problem. Hydroelectric dams provide renewable energy with virtually no air pollution or residual waste, but they can be expensive to build, rely on the availability of large rivers, displace large areas behind the dam which can severely impact local wildlife, and impact fish routes and spawning grounds. Wind power produces renewable energy with virtually no emissions, but it is intermittent depending on the prevailing wind conditions, requires large numbers of turbines to provide adequate power, can impact bird migration and communities, and cause nuisance strobing effects.

Many of these impacts can be mitigated with appropriate emission control technology like ESPs and scrubbers, though I can tell you from experience that companies overwhelmingly choose those technologies that cost the least that also provide the bare minimum in compliance with environmental regulations. Of course, if the company can derive some other benefit from applying a more effective technology (such as government grants, reduced approval requirements, image boost and competitive advantage for "going green", etc...), they will often employ it, but the justification to the shareholders will invariably be in terms of increased profits.

Originally posted by PBE6
I work in the environmental field, and yes these devices are used in almost all large-scale facilities. They are indeed effective, however to claim that these devices can remove pollutants from the air steam with perfect efficiency is overstating the case. They work, but nothing's perfect.

The real question is which consequences we are prepared to live wit ...[text shortened]... , but the justification to the shareholders will invariably be in terms of increased profits.

…however to claim that these devices can remove pollutants from the air steam with perfect efficiency is overstating the case.
..…

didn’t know that. I thought they could remove everything but CO2. Pity.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…however to claim that these devices can remove pollutants from the air steam with perfect efficiency is overstating the case.
..…

didn’t know that. I thought they could remove everything but CO2. Pity.[/b]

No, you're right, they can. It's just a question of how much companies are willing to spend, and what their requirements are. ESPs and scrubbers are very common, but their performance depends on several factors like exhaust flow rates, temperature, concentrations of non-affected compounds or particles that "get in the way" and/or consume resources that should be used for the target species, voltage/power and cleaning frequency for ESPs, neutralization compound concentrations and blowdown rates for scrubbers, etc... In some cases it may be possible to achieve very high removal efficiencies, but it may not be economical to do so if the legislative requirements don't require such high reductions in pollutants.

My comment about "overstating the case" is more a jab at the marketing teams who sell these technologies. It's like buying a kazillion gigahertz screamer of a PC "as advertised!!", and watching it die a slow death because of Windows, spyware, registry errors and virus checkers. 🙂

Originally posted by PBE6
....and watching it die a slow death because of Windows, spyware, registry errors and virus checkers. 🙂

The funniest part is that the spyware and virus checkers are happily co-existing whilst doing their slowdown work.

I read somewhere that in China where the regulations were not well enforced and coal power is common that the pollution was quite bad in some places - though they were doing something about some of them.

To add to your summary of power sources, here in cape town we have a nuclear power station with two reactors. They must bring one down every now and then for refueling, and occasionally if there is any form of problem we may end up having both down. I strongly suspect that because of the greater safety requirements and refueling requirements, nuclear power stations tend to be off longer than coal power stations.

From Above ;
'Nuclear plants can deliver much more energy than coal with virtually no air pollution'

Isn't that what we need? The arguments about Coal vs Nuclaer safety are interesting , but a bit mute:

Nuclear is intrinsically more hazardous in the short term - the technology is more complex. Perhaps when it was new, in the 1940s it was to dangerous to be used. However most accidents came from nuclear enrichment for weapons not power plants as such.

But it offers huge amount of energy. - compatible with economoic & population growth. Where as coal is a declining commodity (gas even more so) , dirty, cannot accomodate growth without melting ice caps, & significant pollution.

I'm not saying coal's bad I think it's natural we use it a lot as it's easy. But in the next few years we must start switching. covering already inferior coal powers stations in pollution filters which make them run slower is a very short term fix.

Originally posted by Black Star Uchess
From Above ;
'Nuclear plants can deliver much more energy than coal with virtually no air pollution'

Isn't that what we need? The arguments about Coal vs Nuclaer safety are interesting , but a bit mute:

Nuclear is intrinsically more hazardous in the short term - the technology is more complex. Perhaps when it was new, in the 1940s it was ...[text shortened]... powers stations in pollution filters which make them run slower is a very short term fix.

How much does it cost to store waste till it's safe?

Originally posted by Black Star Uchess
The arguments about Coal vs Nuclaer safety are interesting , but a bit mute:

The safety issue is not just one of actual safety but also public opinion. Most people would rather not have a nuclear power station next door. Having said that I live rather close to what I believe is the only nuclear power station in Southern Africa (and possibly Africa).

But it offers huge amount of energy. - compatible with economoic & population growth. Where as coal is a declining commodity (gas even more so) , dirty, cannot accomodate growth without melting ice caps, & significant pollution.
But coal can be made clean (except for the CO2 perhaps) the question is whether or not it is enforced.
Nuclear power has its own dirt, it just isn't immediately released into the atmosphere but consists of spent nuclear fuel and radio active water and other substances.

I'm not saying coal's bad I think it's natural we use it a lot as it's easy. But in the next few years we must start switching. covering already inferior coal powers stations in pollution filters which make them run slower is a very short term fix.
Its not about how slow they run but about money.
Also, nuclear is not the only alternative by a long shot.

I must point out that I personally do support nuclear power, I just don't think it is as simple as you portray.