Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant

[Octavo]

Again gentlemen/ladies (as the case may be), I want to thank you for enlightening me. As self proclaimed critical thinkers, you've offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims to truth that I can see here. The problem must surely be with me then.

I can only say two things at this point with all sincerety and good will: Best wishes to you and I hope none of you ever have to live through a nuclear accident in your own back yard.

Cheers,
Sparks

Posts like this annoy me no end. Sparks, you've clearly not bothered to honestly read and understand many of the posts in this 17 page thread. Your concerns have been answered ad nauseum and in great detail with evidence and facts at every stage. How you can now claim not to have seen any evidence is completely beyond me. Whether you agree with the evidence or not is immaterial, but to claim not to have seen any? Perhaps you skipped the last 16 pages of evidence then.

I've lived my entire life with a nuclear reactor on my doorstep (well, within 30kms anyway) and I've visited it a few times and the nature reserve that surrounds it. It is one of the most beautiful and unspoilt spots in all of Cape Town. The hard working people that keep the plant running have had to endure the usual media hype around nuclear any time Koeberg so much as hiccups and yet that plant has continued to provide us with clean, cheap power for over 20 years.

I think it's high-time we started appreciating the people that keep our lights on more and stopped demonising what is quite clearly a solution that we cannot do without at this point.

I like to think that I'm a skeptic and I have taken the time to read this thread in an honest manner. I've tried to put aside any preconceptions and biases* and I came inescapably to the following conclusions:

a) Renewables are perhaps more viable than many pro-nuke advocates are usually comfortable admitting
b) Despite this, it is clear that renewables simply cannot provide the capacity required fast enough, and cost effectively enough
c) We should be replacing our baseload coal plants with nuclear - as it is clearly the only source that can provide that sort of capacity quickly and cheaply enough.

* I am quite willing to admit that I started out with a pro-nuke attitude, based entirely on my own experience with nuclear power which has been nothing but positive, however I did my best to remain impartial while reading all of the posts.

 

[Lonewulf]

a) Renewables are perhaps more viable than many pro-nuke advocates are usually comfortable admitting

I'm perfectly comfortable admitting that I would like Renewables to be a very viable solution. I really would.

However, it's hard for me to do in good conscience, as I have yet to be suitably convinced that wind energy or solar energy will be good in all locations, all the time. I'm all down with using them as much as we can, but I do not see how they can effectively replace all modern forms of power.

If we went with Greenpeace, we would get rid of all coal plants, all nuclear plants, AND all hydroelectric plants, while going go pure geothermal, solar, and wind. And we'd do it overnight.

Sorry, but... there's optimism, there's wishful thinking, and then there's being ◊◊◊◊◊◊* insane.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

In regards to an earlier comment on nuclear disasters...

What is the power source with the greatest danger of a catastrophic failure resulting in great loss of life and extreme destruction of communities?

Hydroelectric

 

[Hindmost]

Sparks: A complete strawman. Your statements about chernobyl and Fermi are just incorrect.

try this link for an accurate account of what the consequences of chernobyl

http://www.iarc.fr/chernobyl/briefing.php

Comparing Chernobyl with its lack of a containment building and postive water coeficient with a commercial plant having a containment and a negative temperature coeficient is just a logical fallicy. (false analogy)

Fermi 1 was a prototype reactor. Two fuel assemblies partially melted when a piece of metal blocked flow. There was no radiation release.

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/deco...r/enrico-fermi-atomic-power-plant-unit-1.html

BUZZO, Schneibster, Luddite, lonewulf, Ziggurat and others all supported data with links with logical statements providing lots of evidence. I suggest you read the whole thread.

glenn

 

[luddite]

I am pressed for time of late, but I wanted to add about plutonium. If swallowed, it will just run through your body and end up in the toilet. Not as much of a problem actually.

Wasn't Litvinenko poisoned with plutonium in his food?

 

[Dumbledore]

If we listen to Greenpeace on the matter of nuclear power, we would have to condemn the whole of nuclear power generation and any of its possible developments simply for two incidents, 3 mile island, and Chernobyl. Given the rest of nuclear power generation history it is clear to see that nuclear power can be used reliably and safely, France comes to mind! It is great to see that at least some people understand this despite all the bad hype about nuclear power.

 

[luddite]

Reactors are designed in the West so that they cannot "go up." Criticality is limited to well below the threshold of nuclear detonation, by the composition of the fuel alone; there is only 5% fissionable material available, and the inert remainder increases its absorption of neutrons with increasing temperature. This is called a "negative temperature coefficient," and it guarantees that even in the event of maximal catastrophic failure, total meltdown of the entire contents of the core, the nuclear reaction will die out because the multiplication ratio will fall below one. No civilian reactor ever built violates this principle; Chernobyl and one other reactor, in Bulgaria, were designed with positive temperature coefficients, and the one in Bulgaria was deactivated and disassembled after Chernobyl. No one but an insane person would ever build another such reactor.

The Canadian CANDUs have positive void coefficients. Like Chernobyl, they use unenriched uranium. This link is just from Wikipedia, but the reason I looked is because I thought I had heard this somewhere before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient

 

[Ziggurat]

Wasn't Litvinenko poisoned with plutonium in his food?

No, it was radiactive polonium 210 (Po), not plutonium (Pu). Po210 has a short half-life, only 138 days, so it's much more active than plutonium.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

The Canadian CANDUs have positive void coefficients. Like Chernobyl, they use unenriched uranium. This link is just from Wikipedia, but the reason I looked is because I thought I had heard this somewhere before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient

Yes but the CANDU is different in every other way. It's moderated by heavy water, not a solid moderator which cannot be removed, and obviously not flammable. It is surrounded by water, as opposed to being cooled by pipes interwoven with the fuel. It doesn't have the same sort of pressure vessel as a light water reactor, but it does have a containment vessel which is similar. It also always has a containment dome.

The problems with Chernobyl were numerous. The fundimental issue was the political system. Here's a reprint of something I wrote elsewhere:

It’s really not an issue of “abilities” of the engineers though, but rather has to do with the culture and the standards. In the Soviet Union the system was very bad and safety was very poor, even though they had some of the best scientists and engineers in the world.

Basically the beurocrats up top wanted the plant built as they said. If they said “we want this done by next year” and you were an engineer you couldn’t say “Sorry but thats not enough time to do this safely” because doing so would mean loosing your job. Nuclear engineers had very good jobs, good homes and such. Much of the country was in poverty so you did not want to loose that.

What would end up happening is that anyone who “caused trouble” was a problem. The leadership wanted things to happen and they didn’t ask how. Most engineers and supervisors just tried to cover their own ass. They would not report problems but try to make it not their issue. “Yes, I was aware that could be an issue but it was on the orders of the supervisor. I alerted Dimitry and told him that it needed to be taken care of. Dimitry is to blame”

The supervisors didn’t want anyone to know if there was trouble in their plant. If they reported “We have a safety issue and we need to fix it” the response would be “None of the other plant operators reported safety problems like this! Can’t you handle your own plant? Maybe you should be replaced”

It was a very very very bad system which Russia is just recovering from today. Things were unenforced. Work was shoty. Things were secerative so there was little oversite. If you walked into a plant and saw a safety violation you basically would want to walk out and say “I see nothing. I didn’t even notice that. It’s not my problem”

But it wasn’t the technical skills of the engineers. There were many human errors and Chernobyl reinforced how important it is to take things seriously and be very careful about safety.

 

[Octavo]

a) Renewables are perhaps more viable than many pro-nuke advocates are usually comfortable admitting

I'm perfectly comfortable admitting that I would like Renewables to be a very viable solution. I really would.

However, it's hard for me to do in good conscience, as I have yet to be suitably convinced that wind energy or solar energy will be good in all locations, all the time. I'm all down with using them as much as we can, but I do not see how they can effectively replace all modern forms of power.

That wasn't aimed at anyone in particular - I was just saying that I think many pro-nuke advocates downplay the viability of renewables. The reasons for doing this may include a lack of knowledge about advances in renewables or perhaps a perception that it will hurt their argument.

Note that I'm not saying that renewables are the answer, or that they can replace most of our energy needs - in fact I don't believe that. I very much agree with you that nuclear power will have to bear the brunt of the burden, but I have also realised (thanks to this thread) that renewables DO have their place and can (in the right circumstances and areas) be very useful.

I sometimes get the impression from ardent pro-nuke activists that renewables are a complete waste of time and are really just a toy for DIY enthusiasts and I think the point I was trying to make is that that is a bit unfair. The trick is to work out the balance - and if I had to pull numbers out of my ass, I would go for about an 80/20 split (80% nuclear, 20% renewables)

That's a pipe dream of course, but I hope I clarified my point a bit better.

 

[Lonewulf]

I understand, Octavo, I just wanted to dispel the notion that I, at the very least, do not dismiss renewables altogether; I know you weren't referring to me, but I just wanted to make that clear. I also believe that more pro-nuke proponents accept renewables as a viable source of secondary energy than you will see anti-nuke proponents accepting nuclear energy as a viable source of secondary energy, much less primary energy.

 

[Abooga]

In regards to an earlier comment on nuclear disasters...

What is the power source with the greatest danger of a catastrophic failure resulting in great loss of life and extreme destruction of communities?

Hydroelectric

What?

Source?

I think that´s B.S. Hidroelectric (unless you build a dangerous dam) is probably the safest and most eco-friendly of energies.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

I like renewable... where they work. I mean, I wish the Flying Spaghetti Monster had made the earth with more areas with high temperature geothermal features reasonably near the surface or some other sort of renewable energy source more avaliable.

I've said before that solar is basically useless as a major power source. Satellites, space probes, remote locations, backup power for certain systems - it's great for that. But the energy density is just too low and the need for space inherently too high for major power for residences/industry/transportion.

Wind power is somewhat better, but it's too grid-destabilizing to use for more than a a relatively small portion of electricity. Denmark can do it because even though they get 20% of power from wind, they're really connected to a much larger grid in the rest of europe. Also it's really only useful at all in places with reliable, sustained relatively fast winds. And even there, it takes tremendous amounts of realestate.

Yes, there are some places that the land (or water) is avaliable that are close to demand with good winds where it can be a viable and even profitable source of additional energy - but really I think we need to get out of the mentality that "Every little bit helps" and therefore concentrate all the efforts and funds toward things which can only provide a relatively small portion of energy needs.

Really, cutting CO2 emissions from power generation by 10% ain't gona cut it. We need to cut them as much as reasonably possible. It's already too late to stop global warming, but it's not too late to make a big dent in it.

Furthermore, I simply find the side effects of burning coal to be... intolerable. It's bad for the environment and health in so many ways from mining to acid rain to CO2 to heavy metals. It's what I consider the number 1 problem for air quality. And "clean coal" only helps so much. Natural gas fired plants are better, but not 100% and natural gas is not abundant enough in areas which need power.

Conservation is also good, but it can only do so much. All the conservation measures implemented in most of the world have not reduced energy demand - they've only managed to slow it's growth by some. And when conservation becomes too stressed as the foundation of energy policy, you inevitably have "Energy Rationing" and that can have economic consequences as well as be a major limiting factor to the things that a society can do.

I don't see much that can really fill the need aside from nuclear energy.

And what really gets me so irritated about the anti-nuclear activists is the use of such stupid terminology. We need to swtich to "Green Energy" GOD that term goes right through me. It's intentionally vague and more vague than the term "renewable" even. Why? Because otherwise you'd have to present an actual viable source. If you just say "Green energy" or "Good energy" or "Happy Energy" you can gloss over the whole thing.

The other thing that comes up a lot is "distributed generation." Again this doesn't really address the problem. It's more a philosophy about how power should be generated than a solution. You can put solar cells on the roofs of every house in a town and you'll only notice a big difference in your wallet. And "distributed generation" and "microgeneration" doesn't even work well with wind power, since tall wind turbines get better air currents and "wind farms" located in optimal areas always do better than turbines just stuck around the place.

It irritates me a lot. I don't want "nuclear energy" as much as I want energy that is economic, avaliable, CO2-Free and can provide the power needed. I don't see much alternative. And the risks/waste of nuclear pale in comparison to many other sources.

 

[Lonewulf]

What?

Source?

I think that´s B.S. Hidroelectric (unless you build a dangerous dam) is probably the safest and most eco-friendly of energies.

"Eco-Friendly", sure, if you don't like rainforests.

Brazil to flood rainforest

The government's plans run counter to advice from experts at the World Commission on Dams (WCD), an independent body of international experts, who say dams should be avoided in areas rich in species -- like the Amazon which is home to an estimated 30 percent of the world's animal and plant species.

Wikipedia agrees:

Hydroelectric projects can be disruptive to surrounding aquatic ecosystems. For instance, studies have shown that dams along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of North America have reduced salmon populations by preventing access to spawning grounds upstream, even though most dams in salmon habitat have fish ladders installed. Salmon spawn are also harmed on their migration to sea when they must pass through turbines. This has led to some areas transporting smolt downstream by barge during parts of the year. In some cases dams have actually been demolished, e.g. the Marmot Dam, because of impact on fish. The final phase of the Marmot Dam removal was completed on Saturday October 20th, 2007, when the temporary dam was demolished and the river started to flow freely for the first time in 100 years[5]. This was the largest dam removal project in the US. Turbine and power-plant designs that are easier on aquatic life are an active area of research.

Generation of hydroelectric power changes the downstream river environment. Water exiting a turbine usually contains very little suspended sediment, which can lead to scouring of river beds and loss of riverbanks. Since turbines are often opened intermittently, rapid or even daily fluctuations in river flow are observed. For example, in the Grand Canyon, the daily cyclic flow variation caused by Glen Canyon Dam was found to be contributing to erosion of sand bars. Dissolved oxygen content of the water may change from pre-construction conditions. Water exiting from turbines is typically much colder than the pre-dam water, which can change aquatic faunal populations, including endangered species. Some hydroelectric projects also utilize canals, typically to divert a river at a shallower gradient to increase the head of the scheme. In some cases, the entire river may be diverted leaving a dry riverbed. Examples include the Tekapo and Pukaki Rivers.

Large-scale hydroelectric dams, such as the Aswan Dam and the Three Gorges Dam, have created environmental problems both upstream and downstream.

A further concern is the impact of major schemes on birds. Since damming and redirecting the waters of the Platte River in Nebraska for agricultural and energy use, many native and migratory birds such as the Piping Plover and Sandhill Crane have become increasingly endangered.

And carbon emissions?

Greenhouse gas emissions

The reservoirs of hydroelectric power plants in tropical regions may produce substantial amounts of methane and carbon dioxide. This is due to plant material in flooded areas decaying in an anaerobic environment, and forming methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. According to the World Commission on Dams report, where the reservoir is large compared to the generating capacity (less than 100 watts per square metre of surface area) and no clearing of the forests in the area was undertaken prior to impoundment of the reservoir, greenhouse gas emissions from the reservoir may be higher than those of a conventional oil-fired thermal generation plant.[6]

In boreal reservoirs of Canada and Northern Europe, however, greenhouse gas emissions are typically only 2 to 8% of any kind of conventional fossil-fuel thermal generation. A new class of underwater logging operation that targets drowned forests can mitigate the effect of forest decay.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric#Environmental_damage

As for people killed:

Dam failures

Failures of large dams, while rare, are potentially serious — the Banqiao Dam failure in Southern China resulted in the deaths of 171,000 people and left millions homeless. Dams may be subject to enemy bombardment during wartime, sabotage and terrorism. Smaller dams and micro hydro facilities are less vulnerable to these threats.

The creation of a dam in a geologically inappropriate location may cause disasters like the one of the Vajont Dam in Italy, where almost 2000 people died, in 1963.

But it's not EEEEVIL nuclear, so it's okay!

 

[DRBUZZ0]

What?

Source?

I think that´s B.S. Hidroelectric (unless you build a dangerous dam) is probably the safest and most eco-friendly of energies.

Not all of these are hydroelectric dams, however there is no shortage of examples of how even modern dam structures can and do fail, not always due to bad engineering but also due to unanticipated rain fall, unstable ground and such:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/dams/failure.html
http://simscience.org/cracks/intermediate/death.html
http://simscience.org/cracks/intermediate/failures.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dam_failures

As you can see there have been recent major failures with loss of life and property as well as more than a few narrowly avoided disiasters in the past few years. Also, more minor incidents which caused deaths and loss of property are not always listed.

Here are some examples of modern hydroelectric dam failures with multiple lives lost in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Barnes_Dam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teton_Dam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_pumped_storage_plant (no deaths, but severe injuries and extreme devastation of the area)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_Hills_Reservoir (the classic example - although this dam was primarily for containing a water supply, hydroelectric operations were planned to be added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam (A seemingly "modern" concrete dam built in the 1920's and not unlike many remaining in use today failed killing hundreds)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camará_Dam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malpasset (Another concrete dam killed hundreds and wiped communities off the map)


Of course, if you want the granddaddy of all dam failures, there were the twin failures of the Banqiao and Shimantan Dams in China in 1975.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimantan_Dam


At least 26,000 people died directly from the failure. The death toll from famine and disease directly attributable to the dam has been cited as up to a quarter of a million. Five million buildings destroyed. 10 million people left homeless.

Given that is in China, and it's unknown how well the dams were maintained and designed, but it still should not be taken lightly. And if nothing else - it's no more irrelevant than bringing up Chernobyl in the context of nuclear energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam (killed thousands)

 

[Hindmost]

Wasn't Litvinenko poisoned with plutonium in his food?

If it is who I think it is...it was Polonium.

glenn

Opps...didn't realize Ziggurat already answered this...

 

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Vent Radioactive Gas?

No

Venting Radioactive Gas Prevents Explosion. Vent Radioactive Gas?

Yes

Sound Safety Horn?

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Vent Radioactive Gas?

No

Venting Radioactive Gas Prevents Explosion. Vent Radioactive Gas?

Yes

Sound Safety Horn?

Yeah nuclear plants do vent radioactive gas on occasion. So does my basement. Actually the nuclear plant not far from me was built in an area once used as a granite quarry. The have been known to get high readings for radioactive gas discharge during certain weather patterns. It was traced to radon seeping from cracks in the granite.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not all of these are hydroelectric dams, however there is no shortage of examples of how even modern dam structures can and do fail, not always due to bad engineering but also due to unanticipated rain fall, unstable ground and such:

I don't think this made your list because it wasn't actually a dam failure, but the Vajont Dam disaster was also pretty bad. Wiped out an entire village and killed about 1900 people. But the dam itself actually (and somewhat remarkably) remained intact through the entire ordeal. Basically, a major landslide on the mountain above the dam dumped a huge amount of rock into the resevoir, and resulted in a giant wave of water that overtopped the dam. So dam disasters are possible even if the dam itself doesn't fail.

 

[Schneibster]

Oops again.