Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant

[JoeEllison]

The fact of the matter is that coal plants actually spew more radioactive material than any nuke...even TMI. (don't compare with chernobyl...that plant didn't have a containment.) There is uranium in the coal along with carbon 14.

Having worked in the industry for a long time, I can say American workers to a good job. The nuclear industry is the most regulated industry in the US. (and should be) Considering all the regulations, testing and inspections a plant goes through, they are safe. I would rather work there than any other type of plant. And the safety record is great.

glenn

Hmmmm... interesting.

I can imagine the safety records are decent now, but in this age of deregulation, especially if a bunch of plants start going up really quick, I feel concerned about quality. And I don't doubt the American worker... I don't trust the guy he works for.

 

[Belz...]

I can imagine the safety records are decent now, but in this age of deregulation, especially if a bunch of plants start going up really quick, I feel concerned about quality.

So you admit it's okay... but speculate that it's not going to be in the future and thus justify your objection to it ?

 

[Hindmost]

Hmmmm... interesting.

I can imagine the safety records are decent now, but in this age of deregulation, especially if a bunch of plants start going up really quick, I feel concerned about quality. And I don't doubt the American worker... I don't trust the guy he works for.

With the growing pains the industry went through over the years, the regulations are reasonable at this time...10CFR50 is one big regulation and it is not going to be deregulated as there is no reason to reduce the requirements. So many of the retrofits performed are now standard in the plants and won't require construction delays and licensing delays which can be big drains on utility financing. The reactor designs are quite mature now...the next generation with interently safe fuel is just the ultimate safety feature. Education of the public is also needed...sooooooooooooo many people don't understand the first thing about a reactor and really have a fear of the unknown. I would venture to say that a query on whether or not a nuke plant can blow up like a nuclear weapon would result in at least half the US population saying yes. Hmmm...gotta see if any stats are available on that.

As far as quality, I never saw a company cut corners where safety was concerned. The consequence for not meeting the reg guides can be quite painful for the utility. Construction worker qualification is also intense...they don't let just anyone weld up the reactor components. Nuke welders can make a bunch of money with the skills they have. Other crafts have to be similarly proficient. What is most important is the testing...all safety related welds have to be x-rayed...hydro testing...every interlock must be tested...containment has to be leak checked...etc. That was the fun part for me.

Now, the fact that the US nuke industry was gutted by the problems of the past and lower demand due to conservation in the 70s and 80s and cancellation of plants, the industry will not be able to meet much demand quickly. Heavy vessels take a long time to make and the US doesn't have that capacity anymore. We would look to Japan and possibly Korea--where my old company sold its heavy vessel manufacturing equipment to. However, it is not possible to build 100 plants. Even the Japanese can't build more than a few vessels a year. Since fewer people are taking up engineering in the states, we have a problem with all energy production...not just nuclear. There won't be sufficient qualified engineers or crafts.

glenn

 

[luddite]

With the growing pains the industry went through over the years, the regulations are reasonable at this time.

Just a question, Glenn.

We're likely to see some serious upheavals in the next century. The US has had unparalleled growth largely due to cheap oil, which is about to end. Can you be confident that the same level of care will be maintained over the lifetime of a nuclear plant built today? More important, can you be confident of the level of care that will be required over the duration of the time required to secure nuclear waste? Let's even ignore the isotopes with long half-lives. Columbus discovered America just over 500 years ago. Since then whole empires have formed and died.

I watched the movie "Everything is Illuminated" where, at one point, the characters travel on a highway. The shot is taken off the highway, with a thin nuclear waste sign in the foreground, tilting over and rusted and barely visible in the dirt. I have no idea if this shot was real or set up, but I do know that the Russians have urban reactors even in cities like Moscow, and a fairly haphazard record of waste disposal, with hundreds of "low-hazard" sites scattered across the city. The worst part is that the locations are irregularly recorded and frequently forgotten. Here's a longish article on the issue, with the part I found most distressing:

Accurate records of locations and quantities were neither kept nor disclosed until recently. As the city expanded outward, these dumpsites were unearthed or built upon. In one case, radioactive waste was found buried under a thin layer of sand in the playground of a day-care center at Moscow's Kurchatov Atomic Energy Institute.

http://www.ce-review.org/99/20/szyszlo20.html

Now, I certainly hope we're doing better than that in the west, but the care that should be required will need to go on for hundreds of years. For some of the waste, thousands or even tens of thousands of years are required. Can you really be reassured by bills recently passed by Congress?

 

[tracer]

The fact of the matter is that coal plants actually spew more radioactive material than any nuke...even TMI. (don't compare with chernobyl...that plant didn't have a containment.) There is uranium in the coal along with carbon 14.

Only because the "spew" doesn't include the high-level and low-level radioactive waste that is contained and disposed of. I'll bet that if the high-level waste containment facility in a nuclear power plant were ever to be (say) blown up by some terrorists with dynamite, the amount of radioactive material released would be FAR in excess of what we experienced even at Chernobyl.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'll bet that if the high-level waste containment facility in a nuclear power plant were ever to be (say) blown up by some terrorists with dynamite, the amount of radioactive material released would be FAR in excess of what we experienced even at Chernobyl.

Why on earth would you think that? Chernobyl had an exposed and ongoing chain reaction, with radioactive isotopes being continually generated by that reaction and thrown into the air by a raging fire from the burning graphite moderator. Waste containment isn't undergoing any chain reaction. As such, other materials which come into contact with that waste will not get activated to any significant degree. Chernobyl was a perfect storm. Blowing up a waste facility wouldn't produce anything like that amount of contamination unless you spent days wiring up explosives directly to each spent fuel rod. And that's not a credible terrorist scenario.

 

[Belz...]

Only because the "spew" doesn't include the high-level and low-level radioactive waste that is contained and disposed of. I'll bet that if the high-level waste containment facility in a nuclear power plant were ever to be (say) blown up by some terrorists with dynamite, the amount of radioactive material released would be FAR in excess of what we experienced even at Chernobyl.

That's an interesting, if useless, hypothetical.

 

[Hindmost]

Just a question, Glenn.

We're likely to see some serious upheavals in the next century. The US has had unparalleled growth largely due to cheap oil, which is about to end. Can you be confident that the same level of care will be maintained over the lifetime of a nuclear plant built today? More important, can you be confident of the level of care that will be required over the duration of the time required to secure nuclear waste? Let's even ignore the isotopes with long half-lives. Columbus discovered America just over 500 years ago. Since then whole empires have formed and died.

I watched the movie "Everything is Illuminated" where, at one point, the characters travel on a highway. The shot is taken off the highway, with a thin nuclear waste sign in the foreground, tilting over and rusted and barely visible in the dirt. I have no idea if this shot was real or set up, but I do know that the Russians have urban reactors even in cities like Moscow, and a fairly haphazard record of waste disposal, with hundreds of "low-hazard" sites scattered across the city. The worst part is that the locations are irregularly recorded and frequently forgotten. Here's a longish article on the issue, with the part I found most distressing:



http://www.ce-review.org/99/20/szyszlo20.html

Now, I certainly hope we're doing better than that in the west, but the care that should be required will need to go on for hundreds of years. For some of the waste, thousands or even tens of thousands of years are required. Can you really be reassured by bills recently passed by Congress?

If I could predict the future that well, I would apply for the challenge. I can't guarantee anything for any industry. Can anyone guarantee the biochemistry industry won't accidently create a superbug that kills half the planet.

With oil in short supply, the world needs to develop and harness other forms of energy. If that is not done, the problems will be worse. If the transition is slow enough, then the upheaval will be mitigated to having economic recessions. Personally, I think the world is in trouble when it comes to energy...and nothing is being done to correct that in the US. 6.5 billion people will grow to about 8-9 billion by 2050. I read awhile ago that 3 billion people would be the most this planet could handle from a sustainable resource viewpoint. Sorry I don't have a source.

That article you posted is disturbing, but it is not fair to compare Russia with the rest of the worlds standards. The old USSR used to dump reactor cores from their subs into the ocean.

I hearby predict fusion power will become the available in 20 years making all other power sources obsolete...NOT.

glenn

This is starting to depress me a bit...

 

[Lonewulf]

Just a question, Glenn.

We're likely to see some serious upheavals in the next century. The US has had unparalleled growth largely due to cheap oil, which is about to end. Can you be confident that the same level of care will be maintained over the lifetime of a nuclear plant built today?

So we're supposed to give up on nuclear power altogether because "someday", someone "might" supposedly go ahead and become careless and get rid of decades of research and requirements?

I said that wind and solar entirely replacing coal and nuclear energy throughout the entire world was a pipe dream at best. This seems to be a "pipe" nightmare. While we're using hypotheticals, can you be confident that some mad scientist won't hijack solar energy and use it to power a death ray that could wipe out the entire U.S.?

 

[luddite]

Can anyone guarantee the biochemistry industry won't accidently create a superbug that kills half the planet.

I'm concerned about work done in many fields. The willing creation of hazardous materials worries me.

That article you posted is disturbing, but it is not fair to compare Russia with the rest of the worlds standards. The old USSR used to dump reactor cores from their subs into the ocean.

No, I specifically didn't compare Russia with any other country today. Though if you're serious about replacing coal with nuclear, you're going to have to put reactors in some pretty sketchy places.

My question was about the odds that the same sort of stability and order would remain in all places where nuclear waste was buried.

Of course, as we discussed, the uranium source countries may be responsible for making sure the waste is held properly. So imagine if Canada sells uranium to the Chinese to replace part of their coal program. Canada is in no position to make sure the Chinese do anything. So does that mean they don't get a nuclear programme? It's only for the currently wealthy and stable economies? Come to think of it, Canada is in no position to make sure the Americans do anything either. Oh sure, we'll play nice for now, but I'm not going to put any bets on how pushy governments can get when their economies are threatened. So maybe it's the opposite. Maybe we should sell uranium only to tiny developing countries which we can invade if they get ornery.

At this point I'm musing in my rambling way. These are not serious suggestions. They are random thoughts about what kinds of trouble we might have. It's unsettling.

 

[luddite]

So we're supposed to give up on nuclear power altogether because "someday", someone "might" supposedly go ahead and become careless and get rid of decades of research and requirements?

Well, yes. Your answer may differ.

I think you have to weigh the probability of the "might" and the potential dangers carelessness would cause against the advantages of nuclear power today and the alternatives available.

Surely we can agree that if we could get energy by banging rocks together, we wouldn't be playing with nuclear. It's the perceived lack of smarter options that makes us willing to take these risks.

What I was suggesting to Glenn was that he had incompletely weighed the total risks. He was talking about regulations for US power plants today. I was just pointing out that a lot of other risks would be involved.

I don't expect everyone to come to the same conclusions. I don't expect everyone to evaluate the risks in the same way. But I do think we need to have some common understanding about where the potential risks might be.

People who support nuclear power often highlight the few deaths in nuclear plants, for example. But that's not what the people who are against nuclear worry about anyway, so it's a moot point.

I said that wind and solar entirely replacing coal and nuclear energy throughout the entire world was a pipe dream at best. This seems to be a "pipe" nightmare. While we're using hypotheticals, can you be confident that some mad scientist won't hijack solar energy and use it to power a death ray that could wipe out the entire U.S.?

Funny you should mention that. There are serious proposals to get our energy from giant microwave beams. The risk is that if we lose control of them, they can start microwaving huge swaths of inhabited areas in unpredictable ways.

There are other pipe dreams, like mining the oceans with iron filings or sending back solar rays with giant arrays of mirrors to deal with global warming.

If we wait long enough, we may have to, in our desperation, resort to trying all these things. But they are desperate and uncertain methods. I advocate putting our energies in the tried-and-true low-tech methods. When I was a child, our emissions were a fraction of those we have today. Life was not so bad. If we add some innovations like insulation and triple glazing, we can reduce emissions even more.

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/...power_from_space_in_china_and_indonesia.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7014503.stm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0GER/is_2001_Summer/ai_76896195

But to answer your specific question. Yes. I am confident that solar panels are incapable of powering death rays. If solar technology changes, I'm prepared to change my mind. There are serious proposals for giant solar arrays in the Sahara, so maybe. But nuclear waste is hazardous now. I don't need a mad scientist. All I need is a seismic shift creating a leak in the containment facility. I've spoken to many engineers who say that it's impossible to build a containment facility to last for hundreds of years without considerable chance of failure.

Or consider the uranium tailings, none of which are contained to my knowledge, anywhere in the world. Whole subdivisions have been built with them in the United States by contractors who didn't realize what they were dealing with. Here's just the first article I found that refers to this:

In the Southwest U.S. and in Port Hope, Ontario, many homes and schools were built using the sand-like uranium tailings as construction material. As a result, some of the buildings ended up with levels of radon gas and radon daughters even higher than those permitted in the mines.

http://www.ccnr.org/uranium_deadliest.html

So, if this kind of thing happens in the United States today, what level of confidence can we have for the next few centuries?

I must also take issue with the first sentence of this paragraph. I agree that you've stated (more than once) that solar and wind can't replace nuclear and coal. But that doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.

To begin with, you're starting from a point where we need to replace x kilowatts with x kilowatts. That's wrong. Because the most economical way to address demand is conservation.

Every sane renewables program begins with conservation. Target at least 50% load reductions through conservation. Certainly if you look at the wedge diagram in a previous post of mine to Glenn, you'll see that in the emissions reduction program proposed for Canada (and this was not a renewables program), the largest chunk by far was attained through conservation. It's a huge resource. I should point out that the emissions reductions obtainable by moving to nuclear were the slimmest sliver of the lot.

Can solar/wind/biomass make up the balance? A lot of people on this site think so. You're looking at global numbers and coming up with .4% But you're ignoring the fact that many countries already have 5%, 10% or even 20%. The reason solar and wind have such low penetration in most of the world is that they're expensive compared to coal or, in some cases, hydro. Take away coal and wind starts looking pretty good. I have to say that for industries that have developed independently with little government input or support (and with hostility in some cases), the wind and solar industries are actually doing well.

As I said, in Ontario, the government recently introduced a program to pay people for energy generated through renewables. They targetted 100 MW of solar this way over the next decade. That target was reached in 6 months, with solar developers planning for more.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=48336
http://www.thestar.com/article/215273
http://www.cansia.ca/solarcurrents/SolarCurrents_June_2007.html

Finally, the implication of your incredulity that renewables could replace nuclear and coal seems to indicate that you believe nuclear could replace nuclear and coal. And I'm pretty sure that using currently available technology (which is all we've got available at this juncture when emissions reductions are urgent), you're mistaken about nuclear potential.

It can reduce the need for conservation a bit. It can't just replace all our coal. There's not enough uranium, there aren't enough engineers, long lead-times are necessary and current nuke plants are dying.

 

[luddite]

This link shows the lifetime capacity factors of candu reactors. If you look at it, some of the older reactors show a poor capacity factor--not uncommon for any type of tecnology--early design issues. It also provides the definition of capacity factor in the first sentence. Using the formula outlined, there is no room for different interpretations. This is why I believe that Pembina cherry picked the worst data and didn't consider improvements over the last 40 years or the sucess of more modern designs. Capacity factors are standard over the industry and that is why I indicate they don't lie.

How can Pembina cherry-pick if it's a standard? I'm not trying to nit-pick here, just trying to understand. Pembina has a lot of credibility, even among my pro-nuke power worker associates. I don't think they make stuff up. I'd like to account for the discrepancy. All you're telling me is that you stand by your numbers.

Again, using natural gas to make electricity to me is a crime...such a valuble resource should be reserved for heating homes.

I completely agree. Only telling you what my government's idea is.

I made a mistake. I wanted to point out that Canada's installed nuclear capacity is about 34% of the total, however, the contribution from nuclear is about 50% of the total electrical energy due to high capacity factors.

Oh, on the contrary, I made a mistake. I think you had it right. I flipped my numbers. But you first quoted a percentage for Canada, which I think was correct. The source you list here is the OPA, which indicates that now you're talking about Ontario numbers. And I assume you're right.

Finally, I don't consider this a fight--I hope you don't either. We are both presenting reasonable data and reasonable arguements. I never have intention to pick a fight nor do I intend to be harsh...it would serve zero purpose.

Good. Trading information is good, even if we come to different conclusions.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's not enough uranium, there aren't enough engineers, long lead-times are necessary and current nuke plants are dying.

It's not clear how much uranium is out there. Known reserves are adequate for current plants for quite some time, and capacity hasn't been increasing for a long time for mostly political reasons. That also means nobody has really been doing serious prospecting for new reserves for quite some time as well, because there was no reason to do so (doing such exploration costs money, and even if they found new reserves, there'd be no payoff).

 

[luddite]

The fact of the matter is that coal plants actually spew more radioactive material than any nuke...even TMI. (don't compare with chernobyl...that plant didn't have a containment.) There is uranium in the coal along with carbon 14.

Again Glenn, I think you're missing the concern.

First of all, I doubt anyone is proposing that we expand our coal program.

Secondly, you're talking about emissions during normal operations. Whereas most people are concerned about radiation emitted in screw ups. There's also the radiation in tailings and spent fuel.

So we're not talking about the same things. It's more an argument about whether the lower fuels costs of nuclear justify public investment in the industry given the known hazards of tailings, the unknown but probably small risk of serious catastrophes and the unknown risks and costs of dealing with spent fuel. There are also risks in transportation.

I don't know how we measure these things, and honest men may disagree.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Again Glenn, I think you're missing the concern.

First of all, I doubt anyone is proposing that we expand our coal program.

Are you kidding? Seriously, that's a joke right? There are coal plants under construction now. In Texas, where they have more wind power than any other state in the US they're popping out coal plants.

Coal is at the center of plans for gasification, carbon-capture, combined-cycle coal and all that other stuff that is about 90% fantasyu.

Secondly, you're talking about emissions during normal operations. Whereas most people are concerned about radiation emitted in screw ups. There's also the radiation in tailings and spent fuel.

Which is why nuclear plants have to be built to high standards of safety. pressure vessles, secondary containment vessles, containment domes, fuel rods made of high density ceramics packed in zirconium alloy tubes.

Nuclear energy would have an impeccable safety record if not for the cornor-cutting in the Soviet Union.

So we're not talking about the same things. It's more an argument about whether the lower fuels costs of nuclear justify public investment in the industry given the known hazards of tailings, the unknown but probably small risk of serious catastrophes and the unknown risks and costs of dealing with spent fuel. There are also risks in transportation.

I don't know how we measure these things, and honest men may disagree.

Honest men may disagree, and I disagree. I also think your assessment is a bit off on the dangers and costs long-term. However I find your argument respectable and I don't take issue with your views beyond strongly disagreing.


When I hear people saying that Bush is pushing for nuclear plants to kill babies and that nuclear waste is hurting the spiritual energy of mother earth and allowing the freemasons to mutate babies just to be evil. Or that every case of cancer within 50 miles of a reactor is necessarly the fault of the reactor...

That stuff I cannot "respectfully" disagree with.

 

[luddite]

It's not clear how much uranium is out there. Known reserves are adequate for current plants for quite some time, and capacity hasn't been increasing for a long time for mostly political reasons. That also means nobody has really been doing serious prospecting for new reserves for quite some time as well, because there was no reason to do so (doing such exploration costs money, and even if they found new reserves, there'd be no payoff).

I know that there are different assessments out there, but here's one from the Energy Watch Group which states:

The temperature of the earth’s climate is rapidly rising as the combustion of fossil fuels continues to heat up the atmosphere. Some experts have suggested focussing more heavily on nuclear energy to secure our future energy supply. However, this scenario does not offer us a viable alternative: as a group of independent experts recently discovered, our global uranium reserves will be depleted even before the end of this century. “Even if we take into account that uranium prices will rise dramatically and that this will raise interest in exploiting previously uneconomical uranium mines, our uranium reserves will be fully depleted in 70 years at the latest“, says Dr. Werner Zittel, energy expert at Ludwig Bölkow Systemtechnik GmbH in Ottobrunn. He is one of the key figures of the Energy Watch Group that has taken up the cause of conducting critical and politically unbiased analyses of our future energy supplies. “All suggestions to expand nuclear energy production overlook the fact that the raw material reserves needed for this technology are severely declining and don’t permit further expansion.”

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Press_Uranium_29-11-2007.pdf

Uranium has quadrupled in price already over the last few years. I don't think we can rely on a steady supply to save us.

 

[luddite]

Are you kidding? Seriously, that's a joke right? There are coal plants under construction now. In Texas, where they have more wind power than any other state in the US they're popping out coal plants.

Coal is at the center of plans for gasification, carbon-capture, combined-cycle coal and all that other stuff that is about 90% fantasyu.

Sorry, of course you're right. I meant nobody on this thread. And honestly, people who oppose nuclear don't tend to be rooting for coal, even of the carbon-capture variety. In fact it's my pro-nuclear buddies who are all for clean coal as well.

When I hear people saying that Bush is pushing for nuclear plants to kill babies and that nuclear waste is hurting the spiritual energy of mother earth and allowing the freemasons to mutate babies just to be evil. Or that every case of cancer within 50 miles of a reactor is necessarly the fault of the reactor...

Well, that's a bit flaky. Remove the flaky language and hysteria and you have some reasonable concerns mixed with some misunderstandings.

People who worry about nuclear catastrophes can end up doing a lot of research about emissions from regular operations. These are not trivial, but I'll grant you that the deaths from coal-induced asthma dwarf the death rates from nuke-induced coal. I've mentioned this to them myself. The case against nuclear is not a health case from regular operations. It isn't if you look at the stats, and it isn't from the point of view of anyone who's against nukes. They all get involved for different reasons (living next to mines, concerns about terrorism, concerns about military uses, fear of accidents, etc) and just start reciting the risks of regular nuclear operations. It's especially interesting to me when anti-nuke friends who are smokers tell me about the cancer risks from living near a nuke plant.

 

[luddite]

Customers are encouraged to conserve from the utilities.

I can't speak for all the world, but in my experience, utilities promote conservation because they are paid to do so. That's true in Ontario. I also know that's true in California and in New York State.

At least in Ontario, the natural gas utility is particularly problematic because they collect public money for their conservation program:

https://portal-plumprod.cgc.enbridg...control=SetCommunity&CommunityID=284&PageID=0

and then try to fill their capacity by encouraging new users and uses:

https://portal-plumprod.cgc.enbridg...control=SetCommunity&CommunityID=521&PageID=0

I was particularly frustrated when I went to a presentation about the future availability of natural gas where the representative from the natural gas distribution company talked about their conservation programme, then segued right into the necessity of maintaining market share, and talked about how they were promoting natural gas for electricity generation.

 

[Pidge]

I know that there are different assessments out there, but here's one from the Energy Watch Group which states:

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Press_Uranium_29-11-2007.pdf

Uranium has quadrupled in price already over the last few years. I don't think we can rely on a steady supply to save us.

The fuel rods for a fission reactor make up a tiny portion of the overall cost of the plant. The price would probably have to increase nearly a hundred fold (well, 25 fold now...) to actually have in impact on wholesale price of the electricity produced.

 

[Pidge]

I was going to post the following link last night, but gave up in disgust in trying to argue a point (which I didn't really seem to have!)

Greenpeace have a list of all the incidents in the nuclear industry Calendar of Nuclear Accidents and Events

My observations of this lists:
- It includes a number of events that I would consider non-events (i.e. incidents that have zero to negligible impact, or where process/systems/technology were in place to prevent any external impact.)*
- There seems to have been a awful lot of incidents
- The lists provides enough information to be able to identify an incident, and provides casualty numbers if any, but seems to leave it to the readers imagination of how bad an incident is.
- When taken in isolation, it is hard to qualify how bad the events listed are compared with other industries/technologies.


* the first incident listed, a spill of 4 tonnes of heavy water, being one of the non-events - I am assuming that the heavy water was just nearly pure Di-Deuterium Oxide, with immeasurable amounts of Di-Tritium Oxide, and that the chemistry of D or D₂O being indistinguishable from H₂O, which I could be wrong about - I think spilling 4 tonnes of soda water would be more harmful.