Nuclear+Philosophy

=Discussions will be divided into two categories:=


 * Discussion Advocating Nuclear Energy

Discussion Resisting Nuclear Energy**

General (neutral) information should be posted below.


 * Nuclear Power**

Canada's nuclear power contributes about 14% of the total population's electricity supply. (source: //Electric Power in Canada 1997//, Natural Resources Canada) Domestic nuclear power continues to save money at a current rate of about CDN$1 billion per year. Nuclear Plants are much cheaper to operate then fossil fuel plants, as shown in the graph below.The nuclear industry in Canada alone, currently employs 21,000 people directly, and a further 12,000 indirectly. Not only is Nuclear fuel cheap, its also a much cleaner option than fossil fuels, because nuclear plants emits no greenhouse gases, acid gases, or particulate air pollution.

[[image:http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/luec.gif width="470" height="352"]]
Well nuclear power does not expose society to a lot of radiation as many expect. In fact, one-third of radiation that Canadians obtain every year, on average, are from natural sources such as: rocks, plants, and air around us, and even our own bodies, and several hundred times less than that which is observed to have a health effect in human populations. To actually see a huge affect on one's health from nuclear power is if that person lived in the plant for his or hers entire life. Due to the low rates of radiation exposure there is no proven facts that show nuclear power reactors having a negative impact on society's health. Also plants must be regulated, meaning that if they are unsafe or in a unsuitable position the plant must immediately shutdown. Pros of Nuclear power
 * Nuclear power plants are unwilling to risk the health of society if their is something wrong with their reactors
 * Creates a lot of job opportunities
 * It is much safer to obtain nuclear power rather then coal mining
 * It is more enviromental friendly then coal
 * There is alot research and testing of the possible incidents/events at a nuclear power plant,
 * They study what equipment and actions are designed to prevent those incidents/events from having serious consequences,
 * The evaluation of the worst-possible timing and scope of those serious consequences (the worst-possible in extreme cases being a release of radiation)
 * The actions taken to protect the public during a release of radiation
 * There is training and rehearsals performed to ensure readiness in case an incident/event occurs.

Andrew A

In today's world, there are three major sources of continuous electricity: Coal (fossil fuels), Hydroelectricity, and Nuclear Fission.

Our sources for hydroelectricity are scarce. Especially in Canada, most rivers that could economically make electricity, are already doing just that. Ontario is lucky to be blessed with Niagara Falls, and that is where most of our electricity comes from. However, what happens when we need more energy? Or what about places without such an abundant source of flowing water? Reliable power can really only come from two other sources.

I know what you're going to say: what about wind or solar? I said reliable. Solar energy is great. It really is. What better than making power from the sun? Light bulbs shine, your computer plays your Youtube, and as soon as night comes along, it all shuts off. Well, night was made for sleeping anyway. Plus with all those power shortages whenever it gets too dark, people may just stop buying light bulbs, or using any electricity at all for that matter. Great solution homes.

Sarcasm aside, solar power has yet to prove itself. A solar power "plant" could consist of hundreds of acres yet only produce a fraction of the energy that could come from other sources.

Wind, too, has its problems. Similarly-sized plots of land wold be needed to harness a small amount of electricity. They are expensive, loud, and unreliable. More could be said about both these energy types, but when it comes down to it, wind and solar just aren't viable. You can read more about this in the "Electricity" portion of Fuels Of The Future page for more information.

Now that we have those pesky "renewable recourses" out of our way, its time to talk about the heavy hitters. First up to bat is all time favorite and world record holder: coal.

Now coal is a lot like Barry Bonds. Coal, like Bonds, has a dirty secret. In the process of breaking records and staying in the game much longer than they ever should, both these power-generating fellows accumulated some extra baggage. Bonds had the unfortunate task of telling the public that some of his power had come from steroid use and that he was really sorry. Coal on the other hand has left a legacy a little greater than just disappointing a few fans, 238.7 billion tons greater to be exact. Since 1980, it has been estimated that burning coal has released 238.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Now I can't give you a perfect example of how much that really is, but think of it this way: look closely at your computer screen and try to find a single pixel in the corner. Each pixel is really small; smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Now imagine there was a car for every pixel on your entire computer screen, and all these cars were parked bumper to bumper in a gigantic parking lot. Think about how massive such a parking lot would have to be.

A car weighs about a ton, and a parking lot this massive would fit about one million cars.

This entire field of cars would weigh only one million tons.

238.7 billion is 238,700 million.

That means we would need 238,700 of these one-million-car parking lots to accumulate to this weight of CO2!

Let that sink in.

P.S. One ton of CO2 takes up 556.2 m³.

Since 1980, we have put this unbelievable amount of CO2 into the atmosphere just from continuing to use coal as a fuel source.

However, I understand. There are many reasons as to why, historically, we have used coal as a primary source of electricity, and I'm not even being sarcastic. But the key word back there was "historically". We now know better and have many many (better) reasons as to why we should NOT be using coal as a resource. If the CO2 is not enough, burning coal comes with other problems too such as: acid rain, hydrogen cyanide, sulfur nitrate, disposal of ash, mining accidents, and radioactive fall out. Yeah, radioactive fall out.

Speaking of radioactive, that IS supposed to be the whole topic of this post. Here is a list of a few triumphs of nuclear energy:

1. No greenhouse gases. 2. No greenhouse gases. 3. No greenhouse gases.

For those who need a little more clarification, this includes CO2 and all that other noxious stuff we put into the air from burning fossil fuels. Nuclear power causes no direct emissions of greenhouse gases.

That is probably the single most important reason as to why we should use nuclear fuels.

By derailing every other reliable fuel source available, I have showed that nuclear power is vital to producing electricity without greenhouse gas emissions. There are many other reasons that nuclear fuels are ethical and environmentally friendly other than processes of elimination, but these will be discussed at a later. This post is officially over.

Oh but for those who were wondering: Uranium is an element in coal. When it burns, coal releases the uranium into the air. Coal power plants release up to 100 times more nuclear fall out than a nuclear power plant. Yeah. Nuts.

Out.

-Bennett

Not many words need to accompany the following chart; it speaks for itself. The information was gathered from a book by Dr. James Lovelock called //The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back - and How we Can Still Save Humanity//. Dr. Lovelock is a very interesting man who was the first to propose that the Earth is a living organism and should be treated as such. His biography can be read here: http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovedeten.htm

When looked at this way, nuclear energy is clearly the most ethical for sparing human life.
 * || **DEATHS PER YEAR 1970-92** || **DEATHS PER TERAWATT PER YEAR** ||
 * Coal || 6400 || 342 ||
 * Natural Gas || 1200 || 85 ||
 * Hydro || 4000 || 883 ||
 * Nuclear || 32 || 8 ||

The Chernobyl nuclear meltdown of 1986 is by far the world's worst nuclear power plant disaster. 30 workers and firemen died; of those, 28 died of acute radiation sickness.

This however, despite its infamousy, is far eclipsed by the worlds worst mining disasters:

April 26, 1942; Honkeiko Colliery, China. 1,549 miners die. March 10, 1906; Courrieres, France. 1,100 die in coal dust explosion. November 9, 1963; Omuta, Japan. 447 die. October 14, 1913; Senghenydd, Wales, UK. 438 men and boys are killed. January 1, 1960; Coalbrook, South Africa. 437 casualties. June 6, 1972; Wankie, Rhodesia. Explosion kills 427. May 28, 1965; Dhanbad, India. 375. December 27, 1975; Chasnala, India. 372. December 12, 1866; Barnsley, England, UK. 361. December 6, 1907; Father's Day; Monongah, WV. 361 miners lose their lives.

Those were the 10 worst mining disasters in the world. The preceding is a list of mining disasters in **just the United States** where over 30 people died.

December 6, 1907; Monongah, WV. 362 die. October 22, 1913; Dawson, NM. 263 die. November 13, 1909; Cherry, IL. 259 die. December 19, 1907; Van Meter, PA. 239 die. May 1, 1900; Scofield, UT. 200 die. May 19, 1928; Mather, PA. 195 die. May 19, 1902; Coal Creek, TN. 184 die. April 28, 1914; Eccles, WV. 181 die. January 25, 1904; Cheswick, PA. 179 die. March 8, 1924; Castle Gate, UT. 172 die. June 30, 1903; Hanna, WY. 169 die. June 8, 1917; Butte, MT. 163 die. November 28, 1908; Marianna, PA. 154 die. April 8, 1911; Littleton, AL. 128 die. February 26, 1972; Saunders, WV. 125 die. April 27, 1917; Hastings, CO. 121 die. February 8, 1923; Dawson, MN. 120 die. April 28, 1924; Benwood, WV. 119 die. December 21, 1951; West Frankfort, IL. 119 die. March 2, 1915; Layland, WV. 115 die. February 20, 1905; Virginia City, AL. 112 die. March 13, 1884; Pocahontas, VA. 112 die. July 10, 1902; Johnstown, PA. 112 die. March 25, 1947; Centralia, IL. 111 die. September 6, 1869; Plymouth, PA. 110 die. January 27, 1891; Mount Pleasant, PA. 109 die. January 7, 1892; Krebs, OK. 100 die. August 14, 1923; Kemmerer, WY. 99 die. April 23, 1913; Finleyville, PA. 98 die. April 30, 1927; Everettville, WV. 97 die. June 5, 1919; Wilkes-Barre, PA. 92 die. May 2, 1972; Kellogg, ID. 91 die. January 13, 1926; Wilburton, OK. 91 die. January 10, 1940; Bartley, WV. 91 die. November 22, 1922; Dolomite, AL. 90 die. January 29, 1907; Stuart, WV. 84 die. May 5, 1910; Palos, AL. 84 die. December 9, 1911; Briceville, TN. 84 die. November 5, 1930; Millfield, OH. 82 die. March 26, 1912; Jed, WV. 81 die. November 6, 1922; Spangler, PA. 79 die. November 8, 1910; Delagua, CO. 79 die. November 20, 1968; Farmington, WV. 78 die. January 31, 1910; Primero, CO. 75 die. February 27, 1943; Washoe, MT. 74 die. March 20, 1912; McCurtain, OK. 73 die. April 7, 1911; Troop, PA. 73 die. March 16, 1940; St. Clairsville, OH. 72 die. February 16, 1883; Braidwood, IL. 69 die. April 3, 1867; Winterpock, VA. 69 die. January 12, 1909; Switchback, WV. 67 die. July 5, 1944; Powhatan Point, OH. 66 die. July 15, 1940; Portage, PA. 63 die. August 4, 1917; Clay, KY. 62 die. December 17, 1929; McAlester, OK. 61 die. March 20, 1895; Red Canyon, WY. 60 die. January 24, 1884; Crested Butte, CO. 59 die. March 28, 1908; Hanna, WY. 59 die. June 28, 1896; Pittston, PA. 58 die. December 16, 1907; Yolande, AL. 57 die. October 8, 1910; Starksville, CO. 56 die. May 12, 1942; Osage, WV. 56 die. November 30, 1855; Coalfield, VA. 55 die. December 24, 1932; Moweaqua, IL. 54 die. May 27, 1925; Farmville, NC. 53 die. December 10, 1925; Irondale, AL. 53 die. February 20, 1925; Sullivan, IN. 52 die. October 27, 1914; Royalton, IL. 52 die. November 3, 1926; Ishpoming, MI. 51 die. December 29, 1908; Switchback, WV. 50 die. February 18, 1896; New Castle, CO. 49 die. April 3, 1905; Zeigler, IL. 49 die. August 27, 1922; Jackson, CA. 47 die. March 6, 1900; Red Ash, WV. 46 die. March 21, 1929; Parnassus, PA. 46 die. May 10, 1892; Roslyn, WA. 45 die. April 22, 1938; Hanger, VA. 45 die. August 26, 1926; Clymer, PA. 44 die. February 5, 1924; Crosby, MN. 41 die. March 18, 1839; New Richmond, VA. 40 die. November 9, 1888; Frontenac, KS. 40 die. April 20, 1910; Mulga, AL. 40 die. January 21, 1886; Newburg, WV. 39 die. September 16, 1924; Sublet, WY. 39 die. December 19, 1895; Cumnock, NC. 39 die. February 27, 1932; Boissevain, VA. 38 die. December 30, 1970; Hyden, KY. 38 die. March 4, 1881; Almy, WY. 38 die. December 9, 1926; Francisco, IN. 37 die. April 8, 1873; Gold Hill, NV. 37 die. March 2, 1910; Treadwell, AK. 37 die. August 24, 1894; Franklin, WA. 37 die. December 6, 1962; Carmichaels, PA. 37 die. February 4, 1957; McDowell County, WV. 37 die. December 16, 1913; New Castle, CO. 37 die. October 3, 1906; Pocahontas, VA. 36 die. January 26, 1924; Shanktown, PA. 36 die. October 15, 1937; Mulga, AL. 34 die. February 1, 1910; Browder, KY. 34 die. August 15, 1902; Park City, UT. 34 die. January 27, 1942; Mount Harris, CO. 34 die. December 1, 1907; Fayette City, PA. 34 die. March 17, 1925; Barrackville, WV. 33 die. January 25, 1924; Johnston City, IL. 33 die. February 3, 1882; Coalfield, VA. 32 die. November 29, 1940; Cadiz, OH. 31 die. November 16, 1915; Ravensdale, WA. 31 die. June 16, 1890; Dunbar, PA. 31 die. December 9, 1899; Carbonado, WA. 31 die. March 26, 1942; Allentown, PA. 31 die. November 20, 1901; Pandora, CO. 31 die. October 27, 1930; McAlester, OK. 30 die. November 4, 1916; Palos, AL. 30 die. September 7, 1895; Calumet, MI. 30 die.

April 26, 1986. Disaster strikes when 30 people die in a nuclear power plant. Still think nuclear power is unethical?

-Bennett

One major argument against nuclear fuels is that nuclear waste must be stored for 10,000 years before it is safe.

However, there is a number of other factors that must be considered before we stop using nuclear fuels as soon as we read "10,000 years". That number comes from a document written by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, that is 10,000 years before the uranium is as safe as a rock in your back yard. Naturally occurring uranium is not even that safe yet it does not pose a threat to the general public.

Also, several companies are working on a way to recycle spent nuclear fuel. To begin with, 97% of nuclear "waste" is the same uranium that was mined from the ground. Extracting the other 3% (mostly plutonium) is fairly simple, and after, the uranium can be put back into the reactor.

The 3% waste is made up of benign elements (such as silver), and radioactive elements with very short half-lives (such as hours or days). These wastes can essentially be ignored after a few weeks in storage. The other part of the 3% is plutonium. Plutonium is just a scary word. Eating plutonium is about equal in danger to eating the same quantity of caffeine.

Actually.

But to be completely truthful, inhaling plutonium is about 5,000 times more dangerous than eating it. Even then it isn't that bad.

“A pound of plutonium dispersed in a large city in the most effective way would cause an average of 19 deaths due to inhaling from the dust cloud during the first hour or so, with 7 additional deaths due to resuspension during the first year, and perhaps 1 more death over the remaining tens of thousands of years it remains in the top layers of soil. This gives and ultimate total of 27 eventual fatalities per pound of plutonium dispersed.”

Well if 27 fatalities is still scary after reading my previous post, you'll be glad to know that newer plants can also use plutonium as a fuel source. In fact, running a reactor for four years produces enough plutonium to run it for another year.

After many cycles of "burning" the nuclear waste, almost all radioactivity can be used up rendering it safe.

Canada and other countries are also developing a reactor that can completely "burn" **any** nuclear waste. This would include all the waste produced by less sophisticated plants also.

The problem of nuclear waste is being quickly resolved by many scientists all over the world.

-Bennett