Nuclear power fears

[houdin654jeff]

I've seen an online petition circulating about cutting the funding for American nuclear power stations because of the tragedy in Japan. I feel the fear is misplaced as the earthquake that caused the damage to the nuclear stations in danger of melting down was the 5th highest ever recorded and a full magnitude point higher than the strongest quake ever recorded in the lower 48.

From what I can tell, the worst nuclear incident on American soil, Three Mile Island, resulted in no deaths (at worst, 2 cancer deaths, not necessarily linkable to the incident) and the US nuclear industry has had a pretty good safety record besides.

Is this fear unfounded? Are people just reacting rashly to a horrible crisis in a country with a different geological makeup? Your thoughts.

 

[Dymanic]

What funding? The Obama administration has offered to co-sign some loans is all I know about. If nuclear is all that, it shouldn't ever be necessary for the government to actually pay anything on them, right? Doesn't look like investors are exactly climbing over each other to get on board anyway. So isn't it basically a case of some folks, mostly as a symbolic gesture, pushing for the negation of a (hopefully) mostly symbolic gesture?

Oh and welcome to the forum!

 

[Ziggurat]

Are people just reacting rashly to a horrible crisis in a country with a different geological makeup?

Yes.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I've seen an online petition circulating about cutting the funding for American nuclear power stations because of the tragedy in Japan. I feel the fear is misplaced as the earthquake that caused the damage to the nuclear stations in danger of melting down was the 5th highest ever recorded and a full magnitude point higher than the strongest quake ever recorded in the lower 48.

From what I can tell, the worst nuclear incident on American soil, Three Mile Island, resulted in no deaths (at worst, 2 cancer deaths, not necessarily linkable to the incident) and the US nuclear industry has had a pretty good safety record besides.

Is this fear unfounded? Are people just reacting rashly to a horrible crisis in a country with a different geological makeup? Your thoughts.

Yes and yes.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What funding?

You read my mind!

AmerenUE here in St. Louis has been trying to get Missouri to allow a rate hike so that consumers pony up the money for construction of a new nuclear plant here. These are private businesses, aren't they? They pay dividends to shareholders, so I hope they're not getting taxpayer funding in addition to what we pay as consumers.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

You read my mind!

AmerenUE here in St. Louis has been trying to get Missouri to allow a rate hike so that consumers pony up the money for construction of a new nuclear plant here. These are private businesses, aren't they? They pay dividends to shareholders, so I hope they're not getting taxpayer funding in addition to what we pay as consumers.

It's actually in the interest of the government to fund nuclear power upfront.

Since, you know, public utilities are generally needed for a variety of things.

ETA: The reasoning is also they get paid back from the profits/

 

[leftysergeant]

Is this fear unfounded? Are people just reacting rashly to a horrible crisis in a country with a different geological makeup? Your thoughts.

If you can be sure that no reacotor isa likely to be so damaged by an earthquake that you can't shut it down at once, the fear is unfounded.

As it is, we may be looking at another Chernobyl. And I'm down-wind of it and pissed off.

Shriek all you want to about how modern reactors are not supposed to be subject to catastrophic failures on a Chernoibyl scale.

The WTC wasn't supposed to fold in on itself from an aircraft strike.

 

[maddog]

If you can be sure that no reacotor isa likely to be so damaged by an earthquake that you can't shut it down at once, the fear is unfounded.

As it is, we may be looking at another Chernobyl. And I'm down-wind of it and pissed off.

Shriek all you want to about how modern reactors are not supposed to be subject to catastrophic failures on a Chernoibyl scale.

The WTC wasn't supposed to fold in on itself from an aircraft strike.

In other words, yes, it's unfounded.

"another Chernobyl"... which killed a whopping 32 people. Clearly, nuclear power is much more dangerous than any other form of electricity. Good thing coal / oil / gas / etc. never explodes or pollutes. Good thing silica and zinc processing for solar power is so insanely clean and pure that there's no pollution from that.

 

[leftysergeant]

In other words, yes, it's unfounded.

"another Chernobyl"... which killed a whopping 32 people.

So far. That we know of. We need to wait another ten-20 years to tally the final results.

 

[geni]

What funding? The Obama administration has offered to co-sign some loans is all I know about. If nuclear is all that, it shouldn't ever be necessary for the government to actually pay anything on them, right? Doesn't look like investors are exactly climbing over each other to get on board anyway. So isn't it basically a case of some folks, mostly as a symbolic gesture, pushing for the negation of a (hopefully) mostly symbolic gesture?

Tends to be a fair amount of indirect subsidy in the form of various guarantees.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Shriek all you want to about how modern reactors are not supposed to be subject to catastrophic failures on a Chernoibyl scale.

We're not shrieking. We are correcting your hysterical fear mongering with accurate scientifically sound information. That you keep up your hysterics and we keep correcting you isn't shrieking.

You are simply wrong, we're just telling you.


As many times as it takes.

The WTC wasn't supposed to fold in on itself from an aircraft strike.

9/11 truther-speak. Nuff sed.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

As it is, we may be looking at another Chernobyl. And I'm down-wind of it and pissed off.

There will not be another Chernobyl. You are not downwind of anything but seagull farts and walruses fornicating on rocks.

This has been explained to you over and over and over again by qualified experts, but like a 9/11 truther, when told something you don't want to hear, you just stick your fingers in your ears and add them to the conspiracy.

 

[Corsair 115]

These are private businesses, aren't they? They pay dividends to shareholders, so I hope they're not getting taxpayer funding in addition to what we pay as consumers.

So are pro sports teams. Yet they often get public dollars to help pay for new stadiums. (The average figure over the last twenty years or so is that taxpayers pick up one-third of the cost of a new park/stadium/arena.)

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Wind power receives fifteen times the subsidies that nuclear does.

 

[houdin654jeff]

The WTC wasn't supposed to fold in on itself from an aircraft strike.

Wait, wait, wait... you're telling me that there are buildings that are TESTED against aircraft strikes? That before they build anything, they build a scale model and fly model planes into it just to check? The things you can learn...

Anyway, it just seems a panicky reaction where everyone is throwing out the facts of what actually goes on at nuclear plants. Yes, Chernobyl was a disaster, but the official body count is still 32. Three Mile Island, the worst nuclear incident on American soil, has (at best) 2 cancer related deaths allegedly linked to it, maybe. The actual number is closer to zero. Much closer. In fact, it IS zero. Nuclear energy is dangerous in the wrong part of the world, but it should just be another option until someone finds a better one.

 

[Skwinty]

Wait, wait, wait... you're telling me that there are buildings that are TESTED against aircraft strikes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#Empire_State_Building_incident

It was partly because of this incident that Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft

 

[leftysergeant]

Wait, wait, wait... you're telling me that there are buildings that are TESTED against aircraft strikes? That before they build anything, they build a scale model and fly model planes into it just to check? The things you can learn...

Question is, were they tested against the possibility of the worst case earth quake's making it impossible to go through the proper shut-down sequence to secure the rods and prevent damage to the core?

Were they tested against the possibility that people would freak out and run to cover their own sorry butts when it seemed like they might have a building collapse around them?

Were they tested against the possibility that someone might rush a step somewhere and release radioactive vapor as in the last major incident they had in Japan?

Hello? Does it mean nothing to any of you that a people so anal retentive about following protocols that hundreds of their young men would make torpedo guidance devces of themselves can't keep a lid on their nuclear plants when the compost meets the ventillating device?

Would you like some corporation with the safety policies of, shall we say, Massey Energy to get a license to run a nuke plant?

 

[JoelKatz]

Question is, were they tested against the possibility of the worst case earth quake's making it impossible to go through the proper shut-down sequence to secure the rods and prevent damage to the core?

These accidents do reveal a design flaw in the reactors. Yes, the quake was greater than they were designed to withstand, but it wasn't the magnitude of the shaking that caused the problem.

However, for rational people, this should have almost no impact on their judgment of how safe nuclear power is, the same way individual air accidents don't impact rational people's assessment of how safe air travel is.

Statistically, nuclear power was already one of the very safest methods of power production. Now that a previously unrecognized failure mode is being recognized, it is even safer than it was.

This would be so even if all three plants completely melted down.

 

[a_unique_person]

I've seen an online petition circulating about cutting the funding for American nuclear power stations because of the tragedy in Japan. I feel the fear is misplaced as the earthquake that caused the damage to the nuclear stations in danger of melting down was the 5th highest ever recorded and a full magnitude point higher than the strongest quake ever recorded in the lower 48.

From what I can tell, the worst nuclear incident on American soil, Three Mile Island, resulted in no deaths (at worst, 2 cancer deaths, not necessarily linkable to the incident) and the US nuclear industry has had a pretty good safety record besides.

Is this fear unfounded? Are people just reacting rashly to a horrible crisis in a country with a different geological makeup? Your thoughts.

It depends. Four explosions, (hydrogen, not nuclear) reminds me of that saying, the first time is tragedy, the second time farce. I don't know what word you use for the fourth time.

The 'different geography' also implies that they have to do things differently there, as they do with their office buildings, housing and warning systems. In the light of the Indonesian experience with a deadly tsunami, I would have expected a review of their procedures and standards in light of new evidence of what a major quake could do. The total design did not cope with the tsunami, but a rethink of location of the backup generators on low ground near the sea, or an increase in the size of the battery backup could have prevented all this without having to do anything to the nuclear plant itself. Relatively speaking, the cost would have been negligable.

There have been no deaths due to this event, while tens of thousands have died due to the quake and the tsunami. But now the nuclear industry is once again in trouble, when it didn't need to be. Imagine how much it's image would have been vastly improved if easily implemented changes were made in the light of the Indonesian experience of a large tsunami.

Another problem was the use of old style designs that date back to the 1960s. A Japanese politician claimed that they would have been updated long ago to a more modern design that is a lot less susceptible to the power failures that caused the problems in this situation, because of public opinion. I don't know how true that is.

You also have to wonder at this

Fuel rods at the No. 2 reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant were fully exposed Monday, following Friday's deadly earthquake, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said. The plant operator said water levels fell as fuel for pumps that are used for seawater injection operations ran out.

How could they let the pump run out of fuel?


http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/77854.html


I have read claims that the pump was unattended when this happened.

 

[C_Felix]

(Unjustified) Fears are usually a result of poor education about the topic at hand.

Over the past few days, I've had to explain that it is impossible for a nuclear power plant to blow up like a nuclear bomb.

(Then I explain why and how it is impossible.)

Also, as posted above, there's a big difference between the nuclear power plant where I live (just outside of Raleigh, NC) as opposed to one built in a very earthquake prone region.