Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant

[sparks]

Greetings:
Nice thread all the way around, very engaging and informative. I'm not a physicist nor a nuclear engineer, but I would like to make a few points if I may.

1. No question about it, we need an alternate energy source for many reasons not the least of which includes politics and environmental considerations.

2. Nuclear fission proponents sight the following points in thier arguments in favor of pursueing a 'nuclear energy future':

a) New reactor designs are safer--no doubt here, as we gain more and more experience designs will get better and better.

b) Waste disposal isn't the problem it once was.

c) Making comparisons with military or Soviet reactors is pointless because those are so different from commercial US reactors.



Now then:

New reactor designs are (most likely) safer due to our increased experience with nuclear (fission) power. However, designers are human beings. Contractors and construction personnel are human beings. Reactor operators are human beings. And human beings make mistakes.

Waste recycling and containment is also a human endeavor and as such, mistakes will be made. Further, are any of the recycling and containment schemes mentioned in this thread really active today? If they are that means that spent fuel rods are being transported from reactor sites to the recycling and storage facilities. This is being done by human beings. And human beings make mistakes.

No one wants to see one of thier reactors suffer a problem, let alone a major catastophe. Not the military, not the commercial sector. Yes, the goals are different and so any given reactor solution is different, but let's ignore the absurdity of re-inventing the wheel every time some one needs a wheel. These people, including the Soviets, are smart. They are not evil. They are of good moral fiber. They have sons and daughters just like everybody else. They are human beings. And human beings make mistakes.

And mistakes have been made be they military or commercial concerns by almost everyone who delves into nuclear energy. We don't hear about the military mistakes here in the US for obvious reasons of national security, but they happen nonetheless.

We are all human beings. And human beings make mistakes.



Should we be willing accept the risk that must accompany those mistakes?



If a nuclear plant suffers catastrophic failure, land areas the size of US states can be made unlivable for decades, perhaps longer. The number of people killed outright or by radiation induced disease can be conservatively estimated at tens of thousands.



Should we be willing to accept this kind of risk, knowing that, sooner or later, it will in fact happen because we are all human beings and human beings make mistakes?





I just can't see it right now, in spite of the excellent thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

If a nuclear plant suffers catastrophic failure, land areas the size of US states can be made unlivable for decades, perhaps longer. The number of people killed outright or by radiation induced disease can be conservatively estimated at tens of thousands.

Conservatively estimated at tens of thousands? Where on earth did you get that from? Even Chernobyl didn't kill tens of thousands.

And frankly, Chernobyl wasn't the result of simple mistakes. It was the result of a design that was almost perfectly tailored to make sure that any serious mistake ended in catastrophy. You couldn't do what happened at Chernobyl with a western reactor even if you wanted to. Yes, we can't be sure western designs won't have mistakes, but the Chernobyl design was not the result of mere mistakes. It was the result of designers who clearly didn't even try to design for safety. Who else but the Soviets would design a power reactor with a positive thermal coefficient?

Should we be willing to accept this kind of risk, knowing that, sooner or later, it will in fact happen because we are all human beings and human beings make mistakes?

Except the scenario you depict really isn't what's at risk. And if you think it is, you need to find out why Chernobyl was the monumental disaster it was. It wasn't merely mistakes, it was deliberate design decisions which could only be accepted (and they were accepted) in a system as disfunctional as the USSR.

 

[Schneibster]

Pebble bed reactors are as close as anyone has come to mistake-proof; if everything goes wrong all at once, they just sit there. They don't burn, they don't melt down, they don't explode, and they don't leak.

The people who designed and built Chernobyl made design decisions that, as Zig points out, led to an unsafe reactor. Their priority was not safety. It was almost inevitable that Chernobyl would fail, and when it did so, that that failure would be catastrophic. No reactor ever designed in the West has ever been permitted to have the kinds of design problems Chernobyl had; simply having a culture in which liability is an issue was and is the best guarantee of that.

As far as transportation of the materials, first, civilian reactor fuel, spent or new, is far safer than many chemicals routinely transported on railroads and in trucks in most industrialized countries today. Second, pebble bed fuel is safer still.

As Zig says, the scenario you depict is not connected to reality. Read what is written in this thread. The risks of not moving forward outweigh those of moving forward. By a lot.

 

[sparks]

You really believe the Soviets wanted several billion dollars of Soviet State Property to go up in radioactive smoke?

********. Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but it kinda seems like that's what you're saying.

As for tens of thousands-- If a reactor goes up and the wind is blowing over a major population center.....well there you are. They don't need to die right away to die nonetheless.

I don't recall "depicting a scenario". I merely assert that humans make mistakes and given enough time with nuclear reactors catastrophic mistakes get made. It's a matter of statistics.

 

[sparks]

BTW




http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406

You did ask where I got it. Doesn't make it accurate, true.


But again: Should we be willing to accept this kind of risk?

As for PBRs--I must confess ignorance as to how they are so much safer than other designs. My bad for not looking deeply enough into the details of them and how they operate. Perhaps you could provide a link with comprehensive info? Thanks. On the other hand,

"Pebble bed reactors are as close as anyone has come to mistake-proof; if everything goes wrong all at once, they just sit there. They don't burn, they don't melt down, they don't explode, and they don't leak. "

sounds all to familiar and one helluva lot like famous last words.

Back to Chernobyl for just one last observation: Both of you (Schneibster and Ziggurat--and one or the other or both) suggest that the designers and operators and indeed the Soviet State itself by it's "dysfunctionality" are responsible for the meltdown.

Glad you agree with me. But it was a mistake no matter how you choose to dissect it, and we are all capable of the same, yes even here in the West. The citation here would obviously be TMI, occurred as a result of human error on several levels--just like Chernobyl did. We are all humans, and humans make mistakes. Doesn't matter a wit WHY we err. The reasons are legion. But there's no getting around the fact that we do err. Simple mistake--complex mistake--irrellevant. A mistake by any other name is just as deadly when it happens with something as powerful as nuclear fission.

 

[Schneibster]

You really believe the Soviets wanted several billion dollars of Soviet State Property to go up in radioactive smoke?

********. Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but it kinda seems like that's what you're saying.

Nope. What I said was, they didn't care if several billion dollars of Soviet State Property went up in radioactive smoke, and because of their ideology, they didn't believe it would despite being told so by their scientists and engineers.

As for tens of thousands-- If a reactor goes up and the wind is blowing over a major population center.....well there you are. They don't need to die right away to die nonetheless.

Chernobyl did, and tens of thousands didn't. Furthermore, not one single person died at or because of the Three Mile Island accident, despite a great deal of publicity. It was estimated that a single person might have died of cancer who might otherwise not have, but that person cannot be identified; it is merely a statistical estimate given the number of people exposed and the level of exposure. TMI was so named because it was three miles from Harrisburg, PA, USA.

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.

I don't recall "depicting a scenario". I merely assert that humans make mistakes and given enough time with nuclear reactors catastrophic mistakes get made. It's a matter of statistics.

Whether you recall it or not, the fact remains that you have postulated an impossibility. Reactors are specifically designed not to do what you postulate; they cannot detonate, and if they melt down, they do so within a containment that prevents general release of radioactive material to the environment. No one in their right mind would design or build one any other way; of the only two ever designed or built any other way, one failed catastrophically and the other was decommissioned as soon as possible thereafter.

You have been affected by hysterical arguments made by individuals who do not understand how nuclear reactors work, and fear what they do not understand. I recommend a strong dose of reality. It is the only cure.

 

[Schneibster]

You did ask where I got it. Doesn't make it accurate, true.

But again: Should we be willing to accept this kind of risk?

If it is not accurate, why would you expect that there is "this kind of risk?"

 

[sparks]

Schneib:
I merely admit the possibility of Greenpeaces figures being wrong. I don't think the figures are wrong, but as a reasonable person, I must accept the fact that they may be since I didn't count the corpses myself.

This makes your question moot: I do think the figures are accurate, therefore, there is a risk--and a damned big one.

And while I admit that competent and responsible reactor design precludes nuclear detonation as such (and this is never ever what I was talking about anyway) once fuel melting begins, the geometry that all else depends on is lost and at that point, it's a craps shoot as to what will happen next. I hear your point about the fuel not being able to go 'critical' and explode in a nuclear fashion. I simply don't believe you know what your talking about. If the reactor can chain react in a self sustained manor, then it already has gone "critical"...according to classic definitions of the term. Did you mean something else? Let's ignore the fuel melting through the containment vessel, hitting ground water and exploding into the atmosphere that way.

You have pointed out that reactor design precludes a meltdown into groundwater, and as far as I know, even Chernobyl didn't go that far. On the other hand, once the reactor lid blew off and the graphite fire started, it really didn't matter if the molten fuel reached groundwater or not, now did it?

And as far as me being hysterical: Better safe than dead my friend.





But, I could be wrong!

 

[Lonewulf]

You have pointed out that reactor design precludes a meltdown into groundwater, and as far as I know, even Chernobyl didn't go that far. On the other hand, once the reactor lid blew off and the graphite fire started, it really didn't matter if the molten fuel reached groundwater or not, now did it?

LOL, people still think that Chernobyl can be reproduced simply? This is hilarious. Do you even know how the Chernobyl plant was built, and why it's majorly different than present designs?

And as far as me being hysterical: Better safe than dead my friend.

Better good risk assessment than fear produced by ignorance, hysteria, and sometimes even lies.

Greenpeace has a track record of being heavily dishonest to pursue it's own agenda.

But, I could be wrong!

If you think that Chernobyl is comparable to modern plants, then believe me, you are.

 

[Ziggurat]

You have pointed out that reactor design precludes a meltdown into groundwater, and as far as I know, even Chernobyl didn't go that far. On the other hand, once the reactor lid blew off and the graphite fire started, it really didn't matter if the molten fuel reached groundwater or not, now did it?

No, it didn't. But the process you describe is precisely the result of the inherently unsafe design - both in terms of the likelihood of an accident and in terms of the severity of the accident after it happened.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Light_water_graphite_reactor_(RBMK)

The US uses pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors. Both types use water as the moderator. In the event of a cointainment vessel explosion, there's no graphite moderator there to catch fire, and if the water boils, this loss of moderation will also stop the reaction.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

I found out some more information about waste disposal which might be interesting. France, which has about 90% nuclear power generation (and actually more than 100% of consumption because it exports electricity). They have implimented a reprocessing program which is quite good - they are quite experienced.

They "age" spent fuel for about three years and then reprcoss the uranium and plutonium for refueling. They generate about 1600 cubic meters per year of low and intermediate level waste. (This is the sort that is not considered in need of special monitoring and includes nuclear medicine waste, contaminated items and such). These are basically put into steel "55 Gallon" drums and filled with concrete and burried in a designated landfill.

The "High level waste" which is the stuff you have to worry about is vitrified into a molten glass and then encased in stainless steel casks. They generate about 160 cubic meters of the vertified waste per year. (NOTE: This is not the amount of waste alone. The containers are about 90%+ non-radioactive material that encases them).

This is about enough to fit in two-car garage easily. Currently the material is being held at a monitored site. It is expected to have a decay to the equivalent of natural material time of 200 to 400 years. The plan as of now it to hang onto it for the next few decades, not only to assure that the material keeps as well as they expect it to, but by that time the danger will be considered very minimal.

Pretty impressive for running your whole damn country on nuclear energy and producing that little waste.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

If it is not accurate, why would you expect that there is "this kind of risk?"

The "risk" associated with a nuclear reactor is hard to quantify. What is known is that there has not been a plusable senerio which would lead to wide dispersal and contamination of an area from a contained light-water pressurized reactor, and certainly not with a containment structure of the sort used in all US and European reactors of the last few decades.

All I can say is that the risk is small enough that I would very gladly bet my life on it and not feel at all nervous. I would bet the lives of everyone I know and never feel like I was taking a "liberty" with other's well fair any more than I would by not advocating that everyone go into a bunker to avoid being hit by a meteor, because... quite frankly... it won't happen. I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I will say it simply *won't* happen. And if I have to eat those words... well that's a hypothetical question... because I'm pretty damn sure I won't.

What I can't do in good faith would be to put anyone downwind from a coal fired power plant. Honestly, I don't think I could operate one if I was given one because I could not live with myself knowing all the harm I was doing to so many.

But a nuclear plant.. no I'd loose no sleep over that.

Unless it were an RBMK sort of design. That would scare the BEJESUS out of me and I'd probably never leave the control room where I'd sweat bullets looking at the dials all day and night...

 

[sparks]

Thanks for your input Ziggy, Lone, and Schnieb.

Only after looking at the last few post do I realize that we're talking at odds, to wit: Ziggy is answering a reply I made to Schnieb and visa versa. I could have prevented that and didn't. Sorry. If you go back and read the posting carefully, you see what's what and meant for whom. Changes very little in the end.

You may be right Lone on Greenpeaces record: But then again, who doesn't distort facts to bolster their own position? As for reproducing Chernobyl--Let's all hope that one never happens again. I really don't understand the reference to reproducing it--the statements I made are based on after-the-fact forensic analysis done several years ago, once it was safe to send robots into what's left of the reactor vessel--I'm sure you've seen clips of this on the tv. Pictures of the reactor lid, some 2000 tons, sitting sideways in the opening, and the entire bottom of the vessel blown downward about 2 feet below where it should have been to 'contain' even a popcorn fart. And yet they got lucky and the molten fuel was not hot enough to melt/burn down into groundwater. But still, that was one hell of an explosion, nuclear or not.

As for comparing the Chernobyl design to modern designs, yes I do know the difference. But my point still stands: Back in the 50's all this **** was said about nuclear power. And now here we are at the dawn of the new century and the **** starts all over again with the same rhetoric. Phuck the rhetoric, show me something substantial that I can buy.

You speak of risk assesement: This is exactly to my point all along. I don't think there is a "safe-enough" reactor design that makes the risk, no matter how small, worthwhile when so many lives are at stake in case of a catastrophe. All any of us can do is to reduce those decimal points closer and closer to zero risk. We can never reach zero risk. Almost zero, but never absolutely zero. And anything other than zero is just too much based on what could happen. Nuclear power is just that: Really powerfull, and not something to be dealt with lightly, and certainly not in a commercial (profit driven) environment. The temptation to cut costs by reducing man-power, routine maintenance, etc. is just too great and it must eventually lead to disaster.

PBRs--I love the notion. Last time I heard this **** was 50 years ago when breeder reactor were suppossed to make energy so cheap we wouldn't need meters on our houses anymore. Then, Detroit almost got nuked by the Enrico Fermi Breeder. One load of fuel, it was a disaster from start to finish, and never re qualified to operate again after they shut it down--after they got it back under control--after some intitial testing. It never made any substantial electrical power at all.

Hysterical? No. It's just that I've heard this particular **** before, and I'm still not buying it...at least until you guys change your tune and sing me something new.

 

[Lonewulf]

You may be right Lone on Greenpeaces record

I am.

But then again, who doesn't distort facts to bolster their own position?

Anyone that actually cares about the truth, and doesn't want to scare people with lies.

Sorry, but I'm not in the habit of trusting known liars. I guess you are, which is why you're here today.

I'm sorry, but as soon as you use lies as a weapon in your arsenal, then your "ends justify the means" tactics has just pretty much spit in the face of the ends.

I really don't understand the reference to reproducing it

We do not make reactors anything like Chernobyl was designed. Sorry, but keep trying to use scare tactics, but it won't work because I actually know the difference between a modern reactor and Chernobyl.

You speak of risk assesement: This is exactly to my point all along. I don't think there is a "safe-enough" reactor design that makes the risk, no matter how small, worthwhile

I disagree.

Hysterical? No. It's just that I've heard this particular **** before, and I'm still not buying it...at least until you guys change your tune and sing me something new.

Ditto on all accounts.

I've heard your particular brand of hysterical bullspit before, and I'm still not buying it.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

What a coinkydink. I was just bitching about how Greenpeace makes meaningless protests and then doesn't offer any solutions right here: http://depletedcranium.com/?p=157

 

[Schneibster]

Schneib:
I merely admit the possibility of Greenpeaces figures being wrong. I don't think the figures are wrong, but as a reasonable person, I must accept the fact that they may be since I didn't count the corpses myself.

Actually, they are wrong- by a couple orders of magnitude, according to the UN. Here is the report. It states that about 30 people died, and a few hundred were injured, mostly among those working to contain the disaster. In the decades since, approximately 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer- note, cases, not deaths, thyroid cancer is eminently treatable in most cases- have occurred as a result of Chernobyl, and more can be expected in coming decades. As far as a hundred thousand people dying, here is the quote from that report:

There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident.

The report is by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, established in 1955 to report on all such matters to the general assembly. This committee is associated with UNEP, the UN Environmental Program, not with the IAEA as has been erroneously (dishonestly?) asserted elsewhere. I'm sorry, but Greenpeace's agenda is notorious; given a thoroughgoing report from a reputable agency that gainsays Greenpeace, I have absolutely no hesitation in rejecting their assertions without further ado. And no hesitation labeling it as hysteria, either. It is unreasoning fear, incapable of being swayed by logic or fact. I have no use for such, and neither should anyone else.

This makes your question moot: I do think the figures are accurate, therefore, there is a risk--and a damned big one.

It would appear that the facts say you are wrong. Sorry about that.

And while I admit that competent and responsible reactor design precludes nuclear detonation as such (and this is never ever what I was talking about anyway) once fuel melting begins, the geometry that all else depends on is lost and at that point, it's a craps shoot as to what will happen next. I hear your point about the fuel not being able to go 'critical' and explode in a nuclear fashion. I simply don't believe you know what your talking about. If the reactor can chain react in a self sustained manor, then it already has gone "critical"...according to classic definitions of the term. Did you mean something else? Let's ignore the fuel melting through the containment vessel, hitting ground water and exploding into the atmosphere that way.

You are incorrect. Here is why: the criticality of a reactor is dependent not merely upon the amount of nuclear material present, and not merely upon the amount of fissionable nuclear material present, but also upon the presence of not merely neutrons, but neutrons of the appropriate energy level. The majority of neutrons released during fission are too fast to be absorbed by the U-235 nucleus; they must be slowed to increase the probability of absorption, which is required for fission. The materials that slow the neutrons are called "moderators." Without these materials, the neutrons are too fast, and the mass of fissionable material becomes subcritical. In a civilian reactor, only 5% of the uranium present is fissionable U-235, and that's only just after refueling; the other 95% is non-fissionable U-238. If the fuel melts, those proportions will be the same; there is no difference in melting point between the two isotopes. Without the moderator, the mass is subcritical and will not continue to react.

No matter what happens, if something goes wrong, the reaction stops. In the worst case, the entire bundle of fuel rods melts into a puddle of slag at the bottom of the containment, and the reaction stops. Nothing gets out of the containment.

As to whether I know what I'm talking about, if you were not aware of what I just said before I said it, and given what you said I have no hesitation in asserting you were not, I would have to then assert that the evidence shows that you are not competent to make that judgment, and that you would attempt to do so indicates flaws in your judgment beyond issues of competence or incompetence.

You have pointed out that reactor design precludes a meltdown into groundwater, and as far as I know, even Chernobyl didn't go that far. On the other hand, once the reactor lid blew off and the graphite fire started, it really didn't matter if the molten fuel reached groundwater or not, now did it?

It has been repeatedly shown (not merely asserted) that Chernobyl was improperly designed, an accident looking for a time to happen. The mere fact that it had a positive temperature coefficient of reaction was sufficient to guarantee a problem, all other facts aside, and to ensure that when that problem occurred, it would be disastrous.

As a matter of fact, had things stopped with the reactor lid blowing off, it would still have been contained. It was not until the ceiling of the containment was breached and oxygen entered the containment and was available to the graphite that the fire started; and this fire was the major cause of the widespread dispersion of radioactive contaminants.

And as far as me being hysterical: Better safe than dead my friend.

You need to work on your reading skills. I never said you were hysterical.

But, I could be wrong!

I've presented evidence that leads strongly toward that conclusion.

 

[sparks]

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

 

[Lonewulf]

As self proclaimed critical thinkers, you've offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims to truth that I can see here.

Either that, or you're entirely blind and can't read posts.

Evidence has been provided that greatly surpasses any evidence you have provided. So, indeed, the problem must be with you.

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.

I would willingly live near a modern nuclear power plant, no questions asked.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

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

Hey thanks for the best wishes. I sincerely hope wish that you never get hit by a large meteorite.

Or attacked by a liger after it escapes from the wreckage of a C-130 which had to make a hard landing after colliding in mid air with a beautifully restored B-17G on it's way to an airshow, while the C-130 carrying the liger was taking it to a celebration of cross-breeding as decreed by the Queen of England and to be held on Prince Edward Island with Nancy Reagan, Jim Carry and Ringo Star presiding over the festivities and cutting the official figure-eight shaped cake on board the royal yatch with boxer-briefs on their heads...

What? It could happen, right?

 

[Schneibster]

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.

Considering you could read the bulk of what I've said on Wikipedia with little effort, verify that it's true from controlled sources (books) with very little more, and considering you've been provided with references linked for you to examine from impeccable sources associated with the UN, and specifically with the UNEP, which has an environmentalist agenda, I'd have to say that the problem is definitely with you.

As a critical thinker, I would say that anyone who appears as uninterested in evidence as you have shown yourself to be probably has an emotional agenda that they are not prepared to give up so that they can learn the truth and judge for themselves what the facts of a matter are, and what actions those facts imply. Generally, folks with emotional agendas have had those agendas set by other folks who are good at manipulating peoples' emotions, and who have agendas of their own that often have little to do with what they say they are doing. Personally I like to follow my own agenda.

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

And the same to you.