Nuclear power fears

[leftysergeant]

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.

It probably isn't allowed under the rules of this forum.

The 'different geography' also implies that they have to do things differently there, as they do with their office buildings, housing and warning systems.

The Japanese do nearly everything a bit differently, usually with far superior results. But when they screw it up, OY!

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.

So why would we expect less cautious people like American utility company executives to take every precaution? It takes the threat of massive fines and, where aplicable, a union job action to get some of our energy comanies to run a mine shaft ventilating system.

There have been no deaths due to this event YET, while tens of thousands have died due to the quake and the tsunami.

Edited for clarification of what I think an important point. People do not always fall over dead on the spot when they surpass their lifetime's allowance for radiation exposure.

 

[JoelKatz]

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.

You call it a rational design feature to prevent hydrogen from damaging the containment.

So why would we expect less cautious people like American utility company executives to take every precaution? It takes the threat of massive fines and, where aplicable, a union job action to get some of our energy comanies to run a mine shaft ventilating system.

And you'll note that if you want to encourage the construction of nuclear reactors, one of the things you pretty much have to do is limit liability. It's a fair question how good an idea that is. We do it for airlines and many other types of companies that don't have nearly as good a safety record as the US commercial nuclear power industry does. And there are no realistic safer alternatives.

 

[TraneWreck]

First, all of the plants survived the earthquake, it was the tsunami that caused all of the trouble.

Second, as was mentioned above, human error played a large role in exposing the fuel and allowing the meltdown sequence to start.

Now, it's a matter of fact that these two things can never be totally avoided (with a generic natural disaster of unprecedented strength representing the tsunami's impact), but we're up to 50 years of nuclear power and this is the second disaster in a functioning, well-run facility, with Chernobyl being the third.

Even as bad as Chernobyl was, there's no comparison between the safety records of the nuclear power industry and the fossil fuel industry. Toss in that whole Global Warming thing, and even this terrible disaster in Japan doesn't begin to bring the risk of nuclear power up to the risk of continuing to rely on fossil fuels.

If there were some non-fossil, non-nuclear option that was viable as an immediate replacement, that would be the best case scenario, but there just isn't one at the moment.

 

[leftysergeant]

First, all of the plants survived the earthquake, it was the tsunami that caused all of the trouble.

It's always something for which no adequate plan existed.

Now, it's a matter of fact that these two things can never be totally avoided (with a generic natural disaster of unprecedented strength representing the tsunami's impact), but we're up to 50 years of nuclear power and this is the second disaster in a functioning, well-run facility, with Chernobyl being the third.

Chernbyl is not finished damaging the environment.

If there is any major radiation plume released, it will cross some of the most productive fisheries left on earth. I already can't fish for cod in Puget Sound because of what the commercial fishing companies did when some drooling moron decided that they could police themselves. If they ever recover, we might find that we can't eat them because they make us glow in the dark.

It just keeps piling up.

 

[technoextreme]

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.

Actually, I all ready called this idiocy out on another forum but the explosions are impossible to prevent. If you use your brain and think a little bit instead of pontificating then you will realize why its hard if not down right impossible to stop it.
Lets see you have:
Hydrogen and Oxygen
High temperatures for ignition
What *********** else do you expect?

 

[sarge]

So, Nuclear Power is safer than most every other type of power generation and there are not many options anyway? If this is true, then yes, calls for a moratorium on US nuclear power plant development are an over reaction.

As a practical matter, just how quickly are we throwing up new nuclear power plants anyway. Is the pace of development so rapid that we can't practice due dilligence and institute leassons learned from the multitude of recent accidents in the nuclear power industry?

Also, as posted above, there's a big difference between the nuclear power plant where I live

Sharon Harris? I drive right by there several times a year. Progress Energy will use the electrical generator for the damaged Three Mile Island reactor when they expand Sharon Harris in the next few years.

 

[JoelKatz]

As a practical matter, just how quickly are we throwing up new nuclear power plants anyway. Is the pace of development so rapid that we can't practice due dilligence and institute leassons learned from the multitude of recent accidents in the nuclear power industry?

Quite the reverse. The pace is so glacial that if we do anything to slow it down further, for practical purposes there might as well be none at all. Any attempt to slow the pace of nuclear power will simply mean that more dangerous options will be chosen. But that seems almost inevitable anyway, so perhaps no real harm will be done. This is for reasons that have very little to do with safety and everything to do with economics.

 

[Dymanic]

Wind power receives fifteen times the subsidies that nuclear does.

I'm curious as to where you got that number (and what numbers were used to calculate it). When you go calculating subsidies, the first challenge is to define that, and not everybody does it exactly the same way.

One of the things that makes a nuke plant risky from an investment standpoint is that it's hard to predict all of the costs in advance. Include decommissioning and waste storage, and allow for the possibility (however small you may calculate it to be) that you might incur cleanup costs for some kind of accident, and you're dealing in a lot of uncertainty. Investors usually refer to this as "risk". If, as an investor, you're not comfortable with that much risk, then one way the government might make the project more attractive to you would be to shift some of that risk to the taxpayers by promising to bail you out later on if things don't go your way. (The US government provides this kind of service to oil companies as well. Big time.)

A promise like that qualifies as a "subsidy" under most definitions, just as does the promise to guarantee a loan. But the actual cost to the government of providing such a subsidy is tough to calculate due to the very uncertainties it is intended to mitigate.

 

[JoelKatz]

I'm curious as to where you got that number (and what numbers were used to calculate it). When you go calculating subsidies, the first challenge is to define that, and not everybody does it exactly the same way.

For example, is the Price-Anderson Act a subsidy? And if so, how do you calculate its value?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price–Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
Among other things, the act makes it impossible to collect punitive damages in the case of a nuclear accident.

 

[TraneWreck]

It's always something for which no adequate plan existed.



Chernbyl is not finished damaging the environment.

If there is any major radiation plume released, it will cross some of the most productive fisheries left on earth. I already can't fish for cod in Puget Sound because of what the commercial fishing companies did when some drooling moron decided that they could police themselves. If they ever recover, we might find that we can't eat them because they make us glow in the dark.

It just keeps piling up.

Yes, and it still causes only a fraction of the harm to the planet that fossil fuels do. You play the Chernobyl card, I give you West Virginia. Trump.

 

[Corsair 115]

Chernbyl is not finished damaging the environment.

True, but on the other hand, the effect on human health in the area has been overstated according to an IAEA report on the subject released in 2005, a "three-volume, 600-page report and incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists, economists and health experts, assesses the 20-year impact of the largest nuclear accident in history."

The press release for the report can be read here. In regards to environmental affects, here's some of what the press release highlights:

What was the environmental impact?

Ecosystems affected by Chernobyl have been studied and monitored extensively for the past two decades. Major releases of radionuclides continued for ten days and contaminated more than 200 000 square kilometers of Europe. The extent of deposition varied depending on whether it was raining when contaminated air masses passed.

Most of the strontium and plutonium isotopes were deposited within 100 kilometers of the damaged reactor. Radioactive iodine, of great concern after the accident, has a short half-life, and has now decayed away. Strontium and caesium, with a longer half life of 30 years, persist and will remain a concern for decades to come. Although plutonium isotopes and americium 241 will persist perhaps for thousands of years, their contribution to human exposure is low.

What were radiation-induced effects on plants and animals?

Increased mortality of coniferous plants, soil invertebrates and mammals and reproductive losses in plants and animals were seen in high exposure areas up to a distance of 20-30 kilometers. Outside that zone, no acute radiation-induced effects have been reported. With reductions of exposure levels, biological populations have been recovering, though the genetic effects of radiation were seen in both somatic and germ cells of plants and animals. Prohibiting agricultural and industrial activities in the exclusion zone permitted many plant and animal populations to expand and created, paradoxically, "a unique sanctuary for biodiversity."

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

lefty: The meltdown will a) have no chance to mess with us and b) current reactors aren't that design.

 

[MattusMaximus]

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.

No, we are not looking at another Chernobyl. Read this to learn some actual facts about the situation and the physics & engineering involved instead of repeating the hysteria spread by too many media outlets.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm curious as to where you got that number (and what numbers were used to calculate it). When you go calculating subsidies, the first challenge is to define that, and not everybody does it exactly the same way.

Energy Tribune, Wind Power: The Truth Blows

This was made by a JREF forum member, Tony. You can either contact Energy Tribune or send him a PM and ask how he got his numbers for wind and nuclear subsidies.

 

[MattusMaximus]

If there is any major radiation plume released, it will cross some of the most productive fisheries left on earth. I already can't fish for cod in Puget Sound because of what the commercial fishing companies did when some drooling moron decided that they could police themselves. If they ever recover, we might find that we can't eat them because they make us glow in the dark.

There is practically zero chance that a radiation plume on the scale of Chernobyl will be released. This is not another Chernobyl.

It just keeps piling up.

I agree, the amount of b.s. being piled up by too many people is quite large. The fear-mongering by the media doesn't help, either.

 

[TraneWreck]

Another thing to remember is that nuclear power has been astonishingly safe over the first 50 years of its existence. That's when we'd expect the most trouble, given the newness of the technology. Like everything else, it's only going to get safer from here on out (assuming we, as citizens, keep pressure on our leaders to maintain strict regulations and monitoring of the plants).

 

[a_unique_person]

Actually, I all ready called this idiocy out on another forum but the explosions are impossible to prevent. If you use your brain and think a little bit instead of pontificating then you will realize why its hard if not down right impossible to stop it.
Lets see you have:
Hydrogen and Oxygen
High temperatures for ignition
What *********** else do you expect?

Over a period of several days, they can't get a cooling system going to prevent the temperature rise. Or even provide a means of venting the buildings, which serve no radiation containment purpose? Finally today, they decide to ask the US for help. They couldn't do that earlier?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Over a period of several days, they can't get a cooling system going to prevent the temperature rise. Or even provide a means of venting the buildings, which serve no radiation containment purpose? Finally today, they decide to ask the US for help. They couldn't do that earlier?

If accurate, I agree they messed up on that count.