1.) We do not, under any circumstances, want to deep six used fuel. That is valuable fuel for the future! In a few centuries we'll be digging that stuff up out of Yucca mountain to recycle it. Only 2% of the energy is used in the first pass like current US designs.
And I mentioned this a couple pages back. Glad to see that we're on the same page.
Though the reusable fuel, as I understand it, is closer to 90-95% rather than 98%. *Shrug* Still not much difference.
2.) Nuclear waste is small and easy to deal with.
To be more specific, A gigawatt range nuclear plant produces two rail cars, to include shielding, per year. A similarly sized coal plant can go through 200 cars of coal a
day.
3.) More people in the US are killed directly and indirectly by COAL production and pollution EACH YEAR than by Chernobyl AND all of the world's nuclear power combined.
Living near even recently built coal plants raises your odds of lung cancer to that of a 'former smoker'. Meanwhile, coal kills hundreds/thousands each year in China in mining accidents. Here in the USA, millions, maybe even billions, are spend treating the associated Asthma, and buildings were damaged from the acid rain.
4.) In order for nuclear power plants to be as deadly as coal on a yearly basis, they would need one significant meltdown and containment breach every month for the whole year.
Chernobyl killed around 50 directly, so that'd be 600 a year. You're still short, I think.
5.) Every coal power plant produces more radioactive waste that goes to toxic waste dumps than a nuclear power plant that goes to controlled and encased storage facilities. (because nuclear waste is small and easy to deal with)
There's more energy available in the transuranics present within most coal deposits than can be gained by burning the coal. In a nuclear power plant, said waste is contained. In coal plants, it can end up in your bricks. Funny fact: The US congress building would be too radioactive to be certified as a operational nuclear plant; indeed, it'd be classified as nuclear waste requiring special containment and cleanup. The stone used in the building is naturally radioactive.
6.) Nuclear power is cheap enough to compete now without significant subsidies.
Only Coal beats it for 'least subsidies'
7.) There is enough nuclear fuel reserves and resources to power the future's entire world population (~15 billion people) at American levels of energy use per capita, for 200,000+ years. Some experts estimate the resource at over a billion years, that is, longer than the sun will survive. But even 100,000years seems good enough for me.
Those estimates have us doing some funky things like filtering the oceans near the end, but it's doable.
8.) To use the most extreme resources counted in point #6 would likely cost about $1000+/lb of fuel to recover(current price is ~$80/lb). That would increase current electricity prices by $0.02/kwhr. Current prices are ~$0.10/kwhr, so a $200 electric bill per month would be $240 in this far flung future.
Yep, fuel costs for a nuke plant are considered 'insignificant'.
9.) There are fully functional prototype reactors that are designed so that physics prevents the reactor from being capable of melting down. Even if the operators go on strike for centuries.
Most of our operational reactors have this design.
10.) Nuclear reactors in the US have been designed for decades to withstand a direct impact by a 747 size aircraft. One plant, Florida's Turkey Point NGS, survived a direct hit by Category 5 Hurricane Andrew in 1992, with no damage to the containment.
Because of the secondary containment structure, which is supposed to withstand a worst case Chernobyl cap blow intact.
11.) I mean no exaggeration or hyperbole when I say, I am willing to move my family (wife and 11mos daughter) next to a nuclear power plant. But I would not do that for a coal plant.
Agreed.
12.) Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases. It produces zero NOx, CO, or HC. (NOx and HC are primary ingredients in smog and ground level ozone which is asthmatic.)
For that matter we can use the heat and power for various schemes to make fertilizer, ethanol, make hydrogen, etc...
To sum all of these points up, the energy security of the future via the use of nuclear energy is not a technical problem, but a political problem.
Have you been reading my notes?
