Talk:Nuclear Fission Power

From Pete Ashdown Campaign Collaboration Wiki

Since it's possible (even likely) that Pete will disagree with large portions of what I have to say about nuclear power, I thought I'd write a first draft of the way I'd write the article and put it here on the talk page. Please comment/debate Swillden 08:34, 12 January 2006 (MST)

Any response to my arguments below?--pashdown 09:31, 3 April 2006 (MDT)

[edit] Proposed Draft Text

Power from nuclear fission is a nearly ideal power source in every way but one -- it's politically impossible.

Nuclear Power is:

• Clean. Nuclear power plants produce no particulates, generate no carbon dioxide, sulfur, radiation, or any waste products other than hot water and a small amount of fuel waste and have less impact on the local environment than a typical office complex.

I've seen both the Atlas tailings in Moab and the burying of waste in the West Desert. The process itself is clean, but the extraction of Uranium most certainly is not. Although I support the idea of recycling waste as other countries do, I think the initial extraction has many concerns along with the disposal of old equipment and tools with radioactive exposure.--pashdown 12:04, 13 January 2006 (MST)

• Safe. Nuclear power is the safest large-scale power generation technology we have. Three-Mile Island, the worst nuclear disaster in US history, injured no one. Chernobyl did a great deal of damage, but affected far fewer people than coal power kills annually, and that was a reactor design that was considered unsafe and was then pushed past its limits with most of its failsafes intentionally disabled. Modern designs are physically incapable of meltdown no matter what is done to them, better by far even than the Three Mile Island design.

What are some of the modern designs and how long is their track record? I've heard of pebble-bed, but I understand that the pebble manufacture is difficult and wasteful.--pashdown 12:04, 13 January 2006 (MST)

• Plentiful. Nuclear power is not really 'renewable', but has the capacity to supply the world's energy needs for hundreds of years to come (with fuel reprocessing).

Do we have enough Uranium supply?--pashdown 12:04, 13 January 2006 (MST)

• Reliable. Like coal and oil-fired power generation plants, nuclear plants produce power on demand. While solar and wind power provide tools for reducing the demand on the primary power source, nuclear energy can be the primary power source.

The problem with nuclear power is the question of what to do with the waste. Reprocessing and the use of fast breeder reactors would dramatically reduce the volume of waste, and fast breeders further produce waste products with a much shorter half-life, dramatically reducing the length of time the waste must be stored (to about 300 years).

Utah is particularly well-suited to the use of nuclear power. Although the impact of a plant is quite minimal, public perception is that nuclear power is dangerous. Utah has vast amounts of unoccupied land, allowing plants to be located far from any population centers and mitigating the percieved danger. Utah also has large areas of unoccupied, geologically-stable land that makes an ideal storage area, particularly for the short-lived wastes that are produced. Finally, Utah has ample supplies of uranium. Rejuvenating the Utah uranium mining industry under an appropriate regulatory model would have another beneficial effect: it would provide a good way to fund the cleanup of the messes created during earlier, unregulated and unmanaged uranium mining operations.

A history of failure is not a template for success. Are there examples of safe uranium extraction that don't leave behind a mess for taxpayers to clean up? What of the health cost to the miners involved? Is it better or worse than coal?--pashdown 12:04, 13 January 2006 (MST)