I do not agree that nuclear technology is a safe technology to be used as a source of power/energy. What we are missing in our equation is a term called human factor. This is a very common term that is missed in most science and engineering projects and designs and its application in real world.
Hundred and twenty years ago, people developed cars and airplanes for masses because they could do it. Furthermore, oil and gasoline was plentiful and very cheap. Cars were much cleaner and convenient than horse carts. Nobody at that time was considering carbon dioxide emission as the source of global warming. People at that time though that everything on earth is plentiful and self maintained. Although they were aware that earth is round, their line of mentality is that earth is flat (because of their notion of abundance of everything around them). Even when rockets were invented and astronauts brought the images of earth, it took a manifestation of damage on global scale such as drought, feminine, tsunamis, wild climate changes, ozone hole, etc for people to realize that something is wrong. It took some years of investigation to realize that human factor (specifically, human collective contribution) is a major contributor to those damaging events. Carbon dioxide is a fixable problem because the problem is recyclable but it requires us to change our habits.
Again but sixty years ago, people invented plastic. A wonderful innovation. Hence, people started producing plastics in huge quantities for the masses with very wide (almost infinite) applications. At that time, no one was considering what to do with it when thrown out to garbage. Again, flat earth mentality even when people were educated and been aware that earth is round and enclosed. Now we are facing a nightmare that no one could predict. Micro-plastics can be found inside our bodies and animals, fish that we eat. Not to mention micro-plastics in oceans, seas, lakes and rivers. Plastic pollution is fixable but it is much harder because it is not so recyclable and it is more challenging that carbon dioxide problem. And again, no one considered the human factor in plastic production.
Specifically, what exactly is this human factor? There are many definitions of it. One example of human factor that can be considered is the uncontrolled demand for more than needed and compromising the efficiency. Let say that humans will always crave for more and more until it hurts just like J. D. Salinger's short story "A perfect day for Bananafish". Now with given nuclear technology and its downsides such as solid, liquid and gas form radioactive wastes, do you really think that down the line after fifty to hundred years from now, everything will be safe and okay after we will accumulate nuclear waste so that it will be pervasive everywhere? Do you really think that education and some kind of training will help mitigate this? Can you guarantee that U.S. (for example) will be free of wars, internal conflicts and other calamities? Let us assume that we mass produce nuclear technology. We produced nuclear power plants (done), nuclear mobile power plants (done), nuclear rockets and planes (done), nuclear batteries (done), nuclear sensor (done) and what next.....nuclear cars, trucks, tractors, lawn mowers, radios, artificial hearts, hairdryers, toys for children? When the catastrophe or some massive dying will occurs, and the guilty party will be the radioactive waste (which happens already albeit in slower and stealthy way), it will be much and much harder to fix than the previous problems I mentioned before. What to do with accumulated nuclear waste? How to deal with radioactive damage? When considering human factor, I do not consider even fusion reactors as a viable solution (even super clean fusion He-He reaction). In a matter of fact, I consider natural gas plants (NGP) much safer (because it is easy to fix it if breakdown occurs) and cleaner power source than nuclear reactors and NGP can be made carbon dioxide emission free (oxygen taken and oxygen returned) if properly invested, researched and implemented. The solution is there in the lab stage so far. So what is your stand on nuclear power plants? I see more politicians and wealthy communities touting the benefits of nuclear power plants fighting the global warming. To me it is a manifestation of people 'screaming for more power' for less effort without any regards for long term consequences.
1. There are many other human factor definitions:
· The psychological, cultural, behavioral, and other human attributes that influence decision-making, the flow of information, and the interpretation of information by individuals or groups. https://www.definitions.net/definition/human+factors
· Human Factors/Ergonomics is the discipline concerned with the development and application of human system interface technology to systems analysis design and evaluation. This technology encompasses human machine (hardware ergonomics), human task, (workplace ergonomics) human environment, (human environment ergonomics) and organizational-machine (macro-ergonomics) interfaces. Practitioners are engaged in developing design specifications, guidelines, methods, and tools. They also apply human-system interface technology to ensure that work systems are compatible with the characteristics of the human who operate, maintain or otherwise interact with them. Their efforts include improving the operability, maintainability, usability, comfort, safety and health characteristics of systems to improve the human and system effectiveness and to reduce the potential of injury and error. https://www.sjsu.edu/hfe/about/definition/index.html
· Human Factors – factors that influence human performance as it relates to the safety of a nuclear facility or activity throughout the lifecycle of the facility. http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/ni/training/workshop-HumanFactorsInDesignAndConstructionRegulatoryPerspective.pdf
2. Inadequate human control has caused or worsened incidents across the high-hazard industries: oil & gas, chemical, and nuclear power plants
3. To compare the safety of different energy sources, the researchers compared the number of deaths per unit of energy that is produced by them. Nuclear energy is by far the safest energy source in this comparison – it results in more than 442 times fewer deaths than the ‘dirtiest’ forms of coal; 330 times fewer than coal; 250 times less than oil; and 38 times fewer than gas. To be clear: the figures in this analysis was based on energy production in Europe where anti-pollution regulation and technologies are already well ahead of many countries in the world; in this case the death rate from fossil fuels may even be understated. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
4. The statement “To me it is a manifestation of people 'screaming for more power' for less effort without any regards for long term consequences" seems to me unargued and unacademic.
Florian Glodeanu , thanks for reply and your opinion on nuclear technology.
Regarding your statements,
1) Those definitions do well describe human factor term and they are well established. However, they describe interfaces and interactions of human vs machine in short term perspective and when machines are operating fine. They do not address a long term consequences and accumulative effect. Furthermore, this is in theory only. But in practice when business decisions are involved, there is a completely different picture. Furthermore, one must also include the unknown. Science and engineering always miss something in their design and prediction because of some unknown factor.
2) It is true. It is inadequate and probably we will never be able to control our action for 100%. I think it is our nature (and for any living thing) to be to some degree uncontrollable.
3) Well, at this point I must disagree on the issue of safety. Your reference and quote on safety is missing a big picture. Your are comparing the number of accidents that occurs in each technology. Yes, nuclear technology in terms of accidents is safer according to only technologies that you have listed. How about wind power technology, solar power (not just photovoltaic) , sea wave technology. and hydro power technology? That's not all. This is analysis based on number of accidents. One must include consequences of accidents, damages made, number of casualties, health factors, can the system be restored, how quickly the damages can be repaired, the cost of recovery, collective contribution of toxicity and waste, and etc. Comparison can be tricky, because it can be easily mistaken for comparison based on equal footing. Did they compare technologies as per investments made for R&D to eliminate waste and to improve safety? As a toy model example, 10M$ spend for gas turbine technology on by-products reduction and health safety, compared to, 10k$ on coal for the same purpose.
4) Yes, you are right. my last statement is not well argued and it is not an academic statement. Thanks for professional tip.
I agree D. Mandal and the uncertainties around it are unfounded and not ascertained. It could be the lead to sustainable energy security globally
Dear Adam,
The two ways we can consider one is necessity and other is impact on environment. Sustainability problems are there with nuclear energy.
A major environmental concern related to nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings, used reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. That is against the safety of human beings causes cancer mostly the global concern. These materials can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years. Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future. Nuclear energy is both expensive and dangerous, and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn't mean it's clean. New nuclear plants are more expensive and take longer to build than renewable energy sources like wind or solar.
Biggest question is that a risk worth taking?
I will say less risk is there but still safety is concern.
Nuclear energy is comparatively a clean energy. Concern over global warming has increased the appeal of nuclear power, which does not produce the high levels of greenhouse gases that come from fossil fuels. Nuclear advocates and public officials don't talk about it much. Denial is the default position when it comes to nuclear waste.
Positive side
If we see comparative analysis in the term of energy impact on the environment “Nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment — including air, land, water, and wildlife of any energy source. It produces no harmful greenhouse gases, isolates its waste from the environment, and requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources. Nuclear waste is recyclable. Once reactor fuel (uranium 234 and isotope or thorium) is used in a reactor, it can be treated and put into another reactor as fuel.
Ashish
Ashish Thakur , you mentioned that nuclear waste is recyclable. When a spend fuel such as uranium 234, isotopes etc are used as a fuel in another reactor, what happens to newly generated spend fuel?
Are nuclear power plants and vicinity areas sites like Fukushima and Chernobyl fixed/restored and at what cost?
What are the calculations and projections of accumulated radioactive waste over time and its impact in the future?
Dear Adam, look cost wise recycle ability issue is always there. be sure, it can be recycled at the lower scale. cost is a issue for the same.
Nuclear waste is recyclable. Once reactor fuel (uranium or thorium) is used in a reactor, it can be treated and put into another reactor as fuel.
If waste is recycled, the final waste that is left over decays to harmlessness within a few hundred years, rather than a million years as with standard (unrecycled) nuclear waste. However, recycling nuclear waste generally involves performing complex chemistry processes in a radiologically shielded area and can be rather expensive and also generate significant amounts of radioactive material in liquid form. Before we go on, must recall that whether Uranium exists in nature as 2 isotopes: the less common U-235, and the more common U-238. Conventional reactors mainly split U-235 to produce power, and the U-238 is often considered useless. When a standard reactor runs low on U-235, it must be refueled, even though there is a lot of U-238 still in there. A nuclear fuel cycle is the path that nuclear fuel (Uranium, Thorium, Plutonium, etc.) takes as it is used to generate power in a nuclear reactor.
Open fuel cycle, closed fuel cycle and breeder fuel cycle using breeder reactor can be used here for recycling. Breeder reactors can create as much or more fissile material (atoms that readily split) than they use. These special reactors are designed to have extra neutrons flying around, so that some can convert U-238 to Pu-239 (see above) and the others can run the reactor. Often, these special reactors are deemed "fast" reactors because the neutrons are moving through the reactor at higher speeds, on average. In a full breeder fuel cycle, we can get maximum use of the Uranium resources on Earth, and what nuclear scientists already know exists can last tens of thousands of years. The cycle has off course cost and proliferation concerns associated with any closed cycle.
Ashish
Nuclear energy is clean and safe given the current technology advancement and safety standards.
This a difficult and valid question. However, if God had meant us to fly he would not have given us the railways. Humans create knowledge.
Technology is giving us a vaccine against Covid and I would not like to go back to a time before penicellin. Given the effort the French through EU funding are putting into Nuclear Fusion maybe we will have better energy supply. I live in hope and optimism.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Energy