Does anyone one know where I can find reliable information about the pro's and con's of modern nuclear reactors as an alternative to coal plants? Specifically, I'm looking for information about the coolant systems and their impact on the environment (if any), any waste products, the storage and recycling of fuel and their general safety. Preferably sources that don't require a PhD to understand.
It's for an ecoterrorist who got spooked by a global warming article and is now trying to see why everyone hates nuclear power. I've already talked about the benefits of reactors and how they produce a lot of power for little waste, but I'd like to back it up and Google's only giving me lobby groups.
Nuclear power generation resources
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Here is some information and links:
A very relevant web page for nuclear versus coal is this discussion at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory website. It shows how burning billions of tons of coal releases toxic particulates into the air including actually quite large amounts of natural radioisotopes, with it being better to live by a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant.
Data in a PDF file on the United Nations UNSCEAR website shows how worldwide radiation exposure is not a thousandth as much from nuclear power production as from natural sources; see table 4. Most artificial radiation exposure is from causes like medical x-rays, etc. rather than nuclear power.
I think part of the reason many people are so concerned about nuclear waste disposal is due to imagining that even the tiniest amount ever escaping by accident would cause much radiation exposure. To help put things in perspective, the web page on natural radioisotopes here helps.
Also, as an illustration, earth's land area counting rock down to a kilometer of depth has about at least 500 trillion kilograms of radioactive uranium distributed among approximately 400 million trillion kg of rock.
The preceding is considering approximately 1.5E14 square meter land area, 1.5E17 cubic meter volume for a layer 1km thick, 2.7E3 kg/m^3 average density, 4E20 kg mass, and 1-3 parts per million uranium concentration.
Here are more links:
Risks, pollution, and waste disposal of nuclear power, including some comparisons to coal: here
Energy analysis, including mention of external costs and comparisons to coal and other power (skim read if the first pages seem too full of uninteresting data): here
Nuclear fuel supply in the long-term: info.
Plausibility of any percentage of power generation being nuclear: here
A web page with general information on a variety of topics while having links to more detailed papers: here
I suppose I gave information above more on the pros of nuclear power than the hypothetical cons. Usual arguments against nuclear power are misconceptions about waste disposal, accidents, terrorism, radiation release, fuel supply, nuclear proliferation, waste heat, economics, and/or decommissioning. In combination, the links above address just about everything to some degree. They illustrate how cons become minor if one considers quantitative information, comparing to the alternatives.
It looks like I don't have a link specifically addressing waste heat. The CO2 greenhouse gas released by coal power is vastly more harmful than some gigawatts of local waste heat. Earth intersects a couple hundred million gigawatts of sunlight. Carbon dioxide increase has caused a radiative forcing effect of about 1.6 W/m^2 (ref.). Naturally that is smaller than total sunlight, hundreds of watts per square meter, but it is still enough to amount to orders of magnitude more effect on overall average world temperature than just waste heat directly.
Even for total world electrical generation of two thousand gigawatts with its corresponding amount of waste heat, the waste heat is a lot less significant than greenhouse gases. Besides, not only nuclear power plants but also coal power plants produce waste heat. Waste heat is just a little less noticeable for coal power because it is dumped into the atmosphere along with pollution, instead of using water cooling. In short, the effect of coal power on global warming is far more harmful than waste heat from nuclear power plants.
Aside from simply dealing with an ignorant public, the most legitimate argument in favor of coal power is that it is cheap, but nuclear power can be competitive in cost while being a lot less polluting. Nuclear power has a higher benefit to cost ratio.
A very relevant web page for nuclear versus coal is this discussion at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory website. It shows how burning billions of tons of coal releases toxic particulates into the air including actually quite large amounts of natural radioisotopes, with it being better to live by a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant.
Data in a PDF file on the United Nations UNSCEAR website shows how worldwide radiation exposure is not a thousandth as much from nuclear power production as from natural sources; see table 4. Most artificial radiation exposure is from causes like medical x-rays, etc. rather than nuclear power.
I think part of the reason many people are so concerned about nuclear waste disposal is due to imagining that even the tiniest amount ever escaping by accident would cause much radiation exposure. To help put things in perspective, the web page on natural radioisotopes here helps.
Also, as an illustration, earth's land area counting rock down to a kilometer of depth has about at least 500 trillion kilograms of radioactive uranium distributed among approximately 400 million trillion kg of rock.
The preceding is considering approximately 1.5E14 square meter land area, 1.5E17 cubic meter volume for a layer 1km thick, 2.7E3 kg/m^3 average density, 4E20 kg mass, and 1-3 parts per million uranium concentration.
Here are more links:
Risks, pollution, and waste disposal of nuclear power, including some comparisons to coal: here
Energy analysis, including mention of external costs and comparisons to coal and other power (skim read if the first pages seem too full of uninteresting data): here
Nuclear fuel supply in the long-term: info.
Plausibility of any percentage of power generation being nuclear: here
A web page with general information on a variety of topics while having links to more detailed papers: here
I suppose I gave information above more on the pros of nuclear power than the hypothetical cons. Usual arguments against nuclear power are misconceptions about waste disposal, accidents, terrorism, radiation release, fuel supply, nuclear proliferation, waste heat, economics, and/or decommissioning. In combination, the links above address just about everything to some degree. They illustrate how cons become minor if one considers quantitative information, comparing to the alternatives.
It looks like I don't have a link specifically addressing waste heat. The CO2 greenhouse gas released by coal power is vastly more harmful than some gigawatts of local waste heat. Earth intersects a couple hundred million gigawatts of sunlight. Carbon dioxide increase has caused a radiative forcing effect of about 1.6 W/m^2 (ref.). Naturally that is smaller than total sunlight, hundreds of watts per square meter, but it is still enough to amount to orders of magnitude more effect on overall average world temperature than just waste heat directly.
Even for total world electrical generation of two thousand gigawatts with its corresponding amount of waste heat, the waste heat is a lot less significant than greenhouse gases. Besides, not only nuclear power plants but also coal power plants produce waste heat. Waste heat is just a little less noticeable for coal power because it is dumped into the atmosphere along with pollution, instead of using water cooling. In short, the effect of coal power on global warming is far more harmful than waste heat from nuclear power plants.
Aside from simply dealing with an ignorant public, the most legitimate argument in favor of coal power is that it is cheap, but nuclear power can be competitive in cost while being a lot less polluting. Nuclear power has a higher benefit to cost ratio.
