Merged nuclear power safe?

[BenBurch]

Actually, you forgot the punchline to that joke. The only viable source of Americium is in nuclear reactors. Its the only element that is industrially produced.

True, I guess I thought that was obvious because I know it too well.

 

[tyr_13]

So the earthquake and tsunami hits. The oil refineries go up in huge balls of fire, the dams break and add to the flooding, various other plants spew toxins everywhere, and people are worried about the safety of the nuclear power plants which haven't even melted down and will not explode?

Those plants got hit by a huge earthquake, and aftershocks, and all the other effects. If this isn't a great case for the safety of nuclear power plants, what is?

 

[Java Man]

The worst nuclear accidents in history occurred in countries that did not have capitalist economies.

True, but the principle behind the decision is the same. Some godlike feeling that it won't happen to me. Doesn't matter if its a CEO or Mao, they're both human.

We don't do that because the powerplant is rated for 40+ years. You don't knock over a perfectly safe and functional nuclear reactor five years after construction because someone has just designed a better one.

You don't throw out a brand new car when you find that next years model has a better safety rating, do you?

Yes, but then again it isn't five years after it's been constructed. It's been well over forty. Couldn't they have upgraded or changed the facility. Maybe one reactor at a time over the years? And no I don't change my brand new car, but if it is troublesome or I find a car with a better rating I eventually change it a lot sooner than its expected life span. So maybe not the following year, but two or three down the road. The car is good for 10 or maybe more years though.

No, they didn't. A 9.0 earthquake came along and destroyed everything.

The point is that it doesn't matter if a 9.0 earthquake did it or a fly on the wall cracked the dome. Whatever the cause is people might still be dead and its radiation could spread over a huge area. So its the odds of not happening which is very small vs the potential damage which is very large if it does happen. This constitutes a considerable risk once you multiply both values in. Yes radiation issues from nuclear power plants are very rare and far apart, but people are still suffering problems from Chernobyl. So although safe and the accidents rare, the scars are deep and long lasting.

Yes the worst nuclear accidents happened in non capitalistic states. But it wasn't because capitalist radiation is nicer on the skin. Its because the system is more open and better prepared to communicate and handle such issues. We're not prone to keep the lid on it so long and let it escalate. But don't fool yourself. If by a fluke accident (and remember Murphy's Law) it were to happen it will be as serious as any of those "commie" incidents.

 

[Java Man]

We're already at tens of thousands of deaths, BD.

How many have died at Fukushima so far?

The tens of thousands dead were due to the earthquake and tsunami. We can not control nor anticipate such things and we have no say on when they will strike and where people will find themselves when they do. But we can control our energy production systems because we build them. We not only get to choose what we do, we get to be responsible for them as well.

 

[Christian Klippel]

The tens of thousands dead were due to the earthquake and tsunami. We can not control nor anticipate such things and we have no say on when they will strike and where people will find themselves when they do. But we can control our energy production systems because we build them. We not only get to choose what we do, we get to be responsible for them as well.

You may want to read what you have written there.

First you say that people can not control or anticipate things like quakes and tsunamis (and thus their magnitude as well), but then you also want people to do exactly that when it comes to power plants.

Either you can anticipate what might happen, or you can not. They anticipated a certain level of earthquake being safe, but it was stronger than that in the end. Also, it is not the quake that caused the trouble at these plants, but the tsunami that resulted from it. In fact, the plants did just fine in case of the quake. They did exactly what they were supposed to do.

And about your other argument about radiation spreading so far and wide in case of a disaster, you have to be aware that Tschernobyl was a completely different type of reactor. And that with "western" reactor types, the radiation that could escape through things like water and vapour is usually very short half-life stuff that would decay very, very quickly. While it is possible that some of the nastier stuff can escape as well, the risk is much lower and also it would be way smaller amounts.

These kinds of reactors simply do not blow up like Tschernobyl did. In fact, they just can't.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[JSFolk]

I'll go on record as being tentatively pro-nuclear power... but as long as it's properly regulated. Reading stories like this, though, make me worry.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984206,00.html

I'm sure that nuke plants can be run safely, and I'm sure they can be run profitably, but those two don't necessarily have to be the same thing.

 

[Aepervius]

here's a timely news bit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-europe-12724981
Tens of thousands of people have protested in Germany against the government's plans to extend the life of its nuclear reactors.

Yeah. Ignorant people (not an insult , a fact) getting their news from sensionalist media protest in the street against the safest source of energy. Does it surprise you ? Me I am jsut sick and tired of the mass media.

If a revolution comes , they should be the third on the wall after politician and lawyer.

 

[Aepervius]

If you take iodine tablets, the excess (meaning, more than your body needs) non-radioactive iodine in the pills will help flush the body of any radioactive iodine you might have absorbed.

Actually this is not how it works, if I recall correctly. You take the iodine before the contamination, pumping your thyroid full of iodine saturating it, then all *additional* iodine you swallow won't be absorbed by the thyroid since it is saturated and will be eliminated by the body. You can't flush out radioactive element that way, since radioactive isotope are chemically identical to the normal isotope.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

True, but the principle behind the decision is the same. Some godlike feeling that it won't happen to me. Doesn't matter if its a CEO or Mao, they're both human.

Except that it does matter. One actually has a proven record of being worse than the other by multiple orders of magnitude.

Yes, but then again it isn't five years after it's been constructed. It's been well over forty. Couldn't they have upgraded or changed the facility. Maybe one reactor at a time over the years?

That's exactly what they were planning to do. The unit that failed was going to be decomissioned this month with two brand new units planned for construction and to go online in 2016.

Maybe one reactor at a time over the years? And no I don't change my brand new car, but if it is troublesome or I find a car with a better rating I eventually change it a lot sooner than its expected life span. So maybe not the following year, but two or three down the road. The car is good for 10 or maybe more years though.

Not if your car costs a billion dollars, you won't.

The point is that it doesn't matter if a 9.0 earthquake did it or a fly on the wall cracked the dome. Whatever the cause is people might still be dead and its radiation could spread over a huge area. So its the odds of not happening which is very small vs the potential damage which is very large if it does happen. This constitutes a considerable risk once you multiply both values in. So although safe and the accidents rare, the scars are deep and long lasting.

You said that the people of Japan gambled on this reactor meeting fulfilling its design pourpose and meeting its projected lifetime and they lost. This is not true, they got exactly what they were hoping for out of it. It did its job for 40 years and is now permanently shut down (minus a few days). And it performed spectacularly well given the circumstances. The containment held against punishment that far exceeded it's design and no large scale releases of radiation occurred.

You seem to have missed several experts and people who have access to experts telling you in this thread that your doomsday scenario is not possible.

Yes radiation issues from nuclear power plants are very rare and far apart, but people are still suffering problems from Chernobyl.

Chernobyl is the Godwins law of nuclear debates. Comparing western reactors to Chernobyl constitutes automatic loss of debate.

Yes the worst nuclear accidents happened in non capitalistic states. But it wasn't because capitalist radiation is nicer on the skin. Its because the system is more open and better prepared to communicate and handle such issues. We're not prone to keep the lid on it so long and let it escalate. But don't fool yourself. If by a fluke accident (and remember Murphy's Law) it were to happen it will be as serious as any of those "commie" incidents.

NO...IT...WON'T.

Why aren't you listening to what people are trying to tell you. You're basically telling us that a semi-trailer truck can be used in a formula one race and frankly, it's bull@#$%. Yes, Formula-1 racers and semi trucks are both internal combustion engined wheeled vehicles with rubber tires... but semis just can not meet the speed, endurance and maneuverability of the F1 racer. Similarly, you can't squeeze a Chernobyl out of the Fukushima reactors.

 

[DC]

Except that it does matter. One actually has a proven record of being worse than the other by multiple orders of magnitude.





That's exactly what they were planning to do. The unit that failed was going to be decomissioned this month with two brand new units planned for construction and to go online in 2016.



Not if your car costs a billion dollars, you won't.



You said that the people of Japan gambled on this reactor meeting fulfilling its design pourpose and meeting its projected lifetime and they lost. This is not true, they got exactly what they were hoping for out of it. It did its job for 40 years and is now permanently shut down (minus a few days). And it performed spectacularly well given the circumstances. The containment held against punishment that far exceeded it's design and no large scale releases of radiation occurred.

You seem to have missed several experts and people who have access to experts telling you in this thread that your doomsday scenario is not possible.


Chernobyl is the Godwins law of nuclear debates. Comparing western reactors to Chernobyl constitutes automatic loss of debate.



NO...IT...WON'T.

Why aren't you listening to what people are trying to tell you. You're basically telling us that a semi-trailer truck can be used in a formula one race and frankly, it's bull@#$%. Yes, Formula-1 racers and semi trucks are both internal combustion engined wheeled vehicles with rubber tires... but semis just can not meet the speed, endurance and maneuverability of the F1 racer. Similarly, you can't squeeze a Chernobyl out of the Fukushima reactors.

other experts say if the vessel brakes it could be even worse than Chernobyl as the rods in Japan were much longer in use.

And that came from experts that are not only working in the postoffice of real experts.

 

[Nosi]

However, if you want a device that everybody uses and few people think of as a radiological device, look up; Most smoke detectors have an ionizing source that is Americium, about one micro-curie of it.

Looked up: Got three.

 

[Nosi]

Those plants got hit by a huge earthquake, and aftershocks, and all the other effects. If this isn't a great case for the safety of nuclear power plants, what is?

That is not what the news heads leave people thinking. They are leaving people thinking "melt down" to "Chernobyl" to "Oh Godzilla's coming!"

 

[LoudHoward]

Does anyone have any information on how long this is expected to go on? It's now been more than three days since the control rods were inserted.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

other experts say if the vessel brakes it could be even worse than Chernobyl as the rods in Japan were much longer in use.

And that came from experts that are not only working in the postoffice of real experts.

The people you are referring to are not experts in nuclear engineering.

 

[DC]

The people you are referring to are not experts in nuclear engineering.

yes they actually are. But different to you, they are experts and are not only working for experts........

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

The dark would rank as positively hazardous.

Lots of hazardous things happen in the dark. You can stub your toe in the dark. You can even catch a disease in the dark.

Oh, and you might be eaten by a Grue...

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

yes they actually are.

Prove it.

Show us these experts and their degrees.

 

[DC]

Prove it.

Show us these experts and their degrees.

did you do so for the experts you refer to?

 

[Nosi]

Why aren't you listening to what people are trying to tell you. You're basically telling us that a semi-trailer truck can be used in a formula one race and frankly, it's bull@#$%. Yes, Formula-1 racers and semi trucks are both internal combustion engined wheeled vehicles with rubber tires... but semis just can not meet the speed, endurance and maneuverability of the F1 racer. Similarly, you can't squeeze a Chernobyl out of the Fukushima reactors.

It must be very late, but I just had a vision of someone trying to squeeze a Fukushima like a koosh ball to get at the Chernobyl reward inside.</derail>

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

did you do so for the experts you refer to?

Yes, I did.

The Canadian Nuclear Society has issued a statement on some of the claims made in the Canadian media by a representative of the anti-nuclear movement:

CNS Response to Gordon Edwards

This is a response from the Alberta Branch of the Canadian Nuclear Society to comments made by Mr. Gordon Edwards concerning the events at the Fukushima-I nuclear power generating station, in Japan. It was written by Dr. Susanna Harding, with the assistance of Duane Pendergast, head of the Alberta Branch, and Jeremy Whitlock, Chair of the Education and Communications Committee

History of the plant: The reactor in question was ordered by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) in 1965, with construction beginning in 1966. The plant first went critical in October of 1970 and was formally commissioned and put into operation on March 26, 1971. It is a General Electric BWR-3 (boiling water reactor) with an electric power output of 460 megawatts. Over the years it has operated quietly and without incident, but due to its age had been scheduled for decommissioning on March 26, 2011. It is a first generation BWR.

Plant characteristics: This type of plant has a steam generator directly over the nuclear core, with that steam then piped directly to the turbine driving the electric generator. This has certain thermodynamic advantages although at the cost of enhanced maintenance issues. The pressure vessel which houses the reactor core is equipped with electrically driven circulation pumps as well as with a steam driven emergency circulation pump. There exists a system for direct injection of water (ECCS, or Emergency Core Cooling System) which does not depend on electrical power. The entire reactor assembly is housed in a concrete containment structure designed to prevent the release of radioactive material in the event of a breach of the pressure vessel or the associated plumbing. This plant has emergency diesel generators for use when other forms of electrical power are not available.

Safety features: The plant is designed using a "defence in depth" concept. The nuclear fuel is encapsulated in zirconium alloy fuel rods (or pins) designed to contain fission products and gasses produced during operation. Even though water is circulating around these fuel rods, the encapsulation prevents the radioactive material from being taken up into the water. The reactor is equipped with several types of cooling system, at least two of which do not require electrical power to operate. The entire assembly is contained in the pressure vessel, which houses the reactor and which can be isolated from the generator turbine in event of emergency. The control rods mechanisms are designed to shut down the reactor in event of loss of power. Finally, the entire system in enclosed in a purpose-built structure, the containment, intended to keep that which is inside, inside.

Cooling and Meltdowns. A nuclear reactor continues to produce heat even after the reactor is shut down. In order to maintain safe conditions this heat must be removed. Normally this is done with electrically driven circulation pumps which drive cooling water through the core and take the heat to a heatsink. If the water level in the core drops below the top of the fuel, the exposed fuel (which is no longer being cooled) will heat up and warp. In extreme cases this could result in rod failure, thus releasing fission products into the cooling water. However in no case can this result in a nuclear explosion or detonation. The amount of heat generated decreases over time as the more volatile radioactive materials within the core decay, following a trend known as a "decaying exponential curve".

Venting and ECCS. If it becomes necessary to use the ECCS then the pressure within the reactor pressure vessel must be decreased to ambient pressure. This is because use of the ECCS assumes no electrical (or steam) power is available to drive pumps that could force water into the pressure vessel against a head of steam. Venting is normally done in two steps, not both of which might be necessary. First, the reactor pressure vessel is vented into the containment. Then, if necessary, the containment is vented through filters to the outside. At this point gravity fed water can be injected or (as is happening at Fukushima) water supplied by a fire truck can be used to cover the reactor core and cool it.

Fukushima and Chernobyl. The Fukushima-I reactor is a water moderated boiling water reactor. The Chernobyl RBMK reactor was a graphite moderated boiling water reactor. In the Chernobyl incident the reactor was driven into an unstable operating regime by operator action. The RBMK reactor then had an uncontrolled power spike of 100 times full power which blew the roof of the reactor building off (there was no containment structure) and exposed a glowing hot mass of graphite (carbon) to the atmosphere. The resulting chemical fire of carbon mixed with radioactive material burned for several days with results that are well known. The ensuing blast destroyed any capability to cool or control the RBMK reactor. At Fukushima there is no carbon, nothing to burn, such a scenario is not possible here. The Fukushima reactor underwent a controlled shutdown and maintains the capability to be controlled and cooled.

Fukushima and Three Mile Island. TMI-I was a pressurized water reactor (PWR) supplied by Babcock and Wilcox. Due to operator error and poor design the reactor was driven into a state where the core was unintentionally exposed. Without cooling the tops of the fuel assemblies warped and some ruptured. While this was fatal to the use of that facility (and expensive to the shareholders) very little radioactive material was released into the environment. This is very similar to what would happen at Fukushima if the core were to be exposed.

Seawater cooling. News reports have that the reactor at Fukushima is being cooled with seawater, pumped in by fire truck. In order to do this, it is necessary to vent the reactor pressure vessel sufficiently that the pump can move the water into the core. Additionally, the seawater which is being used is doped with boric acid. Boron is a neutron absorber, and it is standard operating procedure in circumstances such as this to add boron in order to ensure that the core stays dead, and to aid in suppressing residual heat generation.

Prognosis. News reports have that there has been damage to the containment building, though there have been conflicting news reports indicating that the damage was confined to an outer building and that the containment is intact. Even if the containment integrity has not been compromised, the focus is now, by whatever means, of keeping the core covered. If the core can be kept covered then the fuel rods will not rupture and there will be minimal environmental impact. It will take approximately ten days to two weeks to bring the heat generation rate down to the point where a core melt is no longer an issue.

Dr. Susanna Harding holds a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Calgary, an M.Sc. in nuclear engineering from the University of Virginia, a B.S. in engineering physics from the University of Santa Clara, and additional degrees and certifications. She is a licensed Professional Physicist, a member of the Canadian Nuclear Society and of the American Nuclear Society, and works as a nuclear engineer in the US for a company which designs and manufactures safety and radiation monitoring systems for the nuclear power industry. Her background includes hands-on experience with nuclear reactors.
​

Here is Dr. Hardings linkedin profile.

Your turn. Put up or shut up.

EDIT: I've also linked previously the qualifications of several of my other contacts at the CNS:

I talk to this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy and this guy.