• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

One of the arguments we hear quite a lot of is that nuclear would be completely uneconomic if the costs of decommissioning were factored in. I have no idea if this is true or not.

Rolfe.
 
gumboot said:
I don't really understand the scale. According to Wikipedia, to even qualify for Level 4 (the first "accident" level) the following criteria is used:




As far as I'm aware no one has actually died from radiation, have they? Or is this a "or" criteria rather than an "and" criteria?
Click to expand...

From what i understand it is an "or" criteria. If you take a look at the Fact-Sheet provided by the IAEA, you can see that they list some examples, and these don't have each criteria fulfilled for their respective level.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
France has the worlds most well developed civilian nuclear power generation program. More than three quarters of their electricity comes from nuclear power. In the nuclear community, few question their expertise and experience.

If the french (and by this I mean french engineers, not activists and media) are considering Fukushima a 6, then I would give their opinion serious consideration.
Click to expand...


At first blush it doesn't seem remotely as serious as the Kyshtym disaster (the only level 6 disaster thus far).

Bear in mind that the INES is a logarithmic scale.
 
Rolfe said:
One of the arguments we hear quite a lot of is that nuclear would be completely uneconomic if the costs of decommissioning were factored in. I have no idea if this is true or not.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Should be in the business model. You don't get financing unless you factor in closure of business units. I can't think of an example where it doesn't cost to close.
 
Rolfe said:
One of the arguments we hear quite a lot of is that nuclear would be completely uneconomic if the costs of decommissioning were factored in. I have no idea if this is true or not.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what they say here as well. However, reading the AtG ("Atom Gesetz", the law that regulates all things about nuclear facilities), it seems to say that the owner of the facility is fully responsible for disposal of wastes and stuff regarding the facility. There is nothing in it that says that the government has to pay anything for that (albeit they can in special circumstances).

Also, i just checked, and there is tiny exception about insurance/liability in it. The owner is only liable up to a limited amount in case the disaster is a cause of war and the like. In case of natural disaster, the government can hand out some money for recovery. But generally, it's all up to the owner.

So i really wonder how the people came to such arguments. Concerted effort? Exaggeration of tiny exceptions in the law? Probably both, i think.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: Of course, everything that i can find that supports the view that the government has to pay, etc., comes exclusively from anti-nuclear or green organizations.
 
Last edited:
What about the costs of waste management for thousands of years? How can we even begin to work out the likely costs for that?
 
JihadJane said:
'Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment'

Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan).
Volume 1181, December 2009

...concludes that, based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

...

In his foreword, Dr. Dimitro Grodzinsky, chairman of the Ukranian National Commission on Radiation Protection, writes about how "apologists of nuclear power" sought to hide the real impacts of the Chernobyl disaster from the time when the accident occurred. The book "provides the largest and most complete collection of data concerning the negative consequences of Chernobyl on the health of people and the environment...The main conclusion of the book is that it is impossible and wrong "to forget Chernobyl.”

In the record of Big Lies, the claim of the IAEA-WHO that "only" 4,000 people will die as a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe is among the biggest. The Chernobyl accident is, as the new book documents, an ongoing global catastrophe.
Click to expand...

That book is insane. None of the numbers presented conform with reality and none of them have a good source.
 
Rolfe said:
One of the arguments we hear quite a lot of is that nuclear would be completely uneconomic if the costs of decommissioning were factored in. I have no idea if this is true or not.
Click to expand...

It cost about $200 million to decommission a nuclear power plant reactor about 40 miles from where I live. This job was rather straightforward, different designs or a reactor that suffered a core meltdown could easily cost a lot more to take apart.

Considering how expensive large power plants are to construct, this is hardly prohibitive. The last coal plant built in this area cost well over $1 billion.
 
ceptimus said:
What about the costs of waste management for thousands of years? How can we even begin to work out the likely costs for that?
Click to expand...

Well, what about it? If the greens had not lobbied so vehemently, resulting in not building fast breeders, requiring to vitrify spent fuel so that it can't be reprocessed or reused, blocked the development of new reactor technology... Well, then we would not have the waste problem that we have now. At least not to this extent.

So, that finger is one that the greens have to point at themselves for a large part.

Oh, and it's not as if the production of the materials needed for solar panels and windmills has no impact either. Let alone the impact that will be caused by things like hydro storage, etc.

Of course, running the fuel through a reactor once and then disposing it is simply stupid for many reasons. But as said, the greens have a _huge_ share in why that is so right now.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Latest update from the World Nuclear News on why contamination from radiation far beyond the Fukushima site is no real concern. This article summarizes nicely what I and others have been saying here for days...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-UK_advisor_reassures_on_contamination_fears-1803114.html
The UK government's chief independent scientific advisor has told the British Embassy in Tokyo that radiation fears from the stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant are a "sideshow" compared with the general devastation caused by the massive earthquake and tsunami that struck on 11 March...

... Speaking of a worse-case scenario at the stricken plant, Beddington said that if workers were unable to keep the reactors sufficiently cooled, you can get "the dramatic word 'meltdown'." He noted, "What a meltdown involves is the basic reactor core melts, and as it melts, nuclear material will fall through to the floor of the container. There it will react with concrete and other materials*... that is likely*... remember this is the reasonable worst case, we don't think anything worse is going to happen."
*
"In this reasonable worst case you get an explosion. You get some radioactive material going up to about 500 metres up into the air," Beddington said. "Now, that's really serious, but it's serious again for the local area." He said that even if there was the worse weather situation, with strong winds pushing the release towards Tokyo, there would still be "absolutely no issue.* The problems are within 30 kilometres of the reactor."
Click to expand...
 
Belz... said:
You mean drilling a deep hole in the bedrock and letting things sift there for 10 millenia ? How hard is that ?
Click to expand...

Not hard as long as your round robin through all those deep holes you dug up is 10 millenia. If not, then you'll end up with a hot potato at some point.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
France has the worlds most well developed civilian nuclear power generation program. More than three quarters of their electricity comes from nuclear power. In the nuclear community, few question their expertise and experience.

If the french (and by this I mean french engineers, not activists and media) are considering Fukushima a 6, then I would give their opinion serious consideration.
Click to expand...
.

interesting.
the tone of the discussion is changing 30 pages and a few days into the crisis.
it is now not so benign......
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I expect you to feel this way about a technology invented by jews.

Do you know how many people have died at Fukushima, BD?
Click to expand...

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

How many have died at Fukushima so far?
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
Tens of thousands of Germans don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Click to expand...

bikerdruid said:
.

interesting.
the tone of the discussion is changing 30 pages and a few days into the crisis.
it is now not so benign......
Click to expand...


like i said....the tone of the discussion is changing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom