Merged nuclear power safe?

[Nosi]

Scientifically illiterate petty fascists will oppose that too.

Power hunger will kick Green asses every time. People will forget Nuclear farts when the rolling brown/blackouts start.

 

[Belz...]

Based on the nuclear plant that's on fire right now, which has stored all of it's spent fuel there since it started, it seems to be about 100 tons a year for each reactor. But that's just the fuel rods.

Yes. Now, compare this to coal plants and their forever-toxic waste, and you'll see that nuclear waste isn't the most dangerous of the two by any stretch of the imagination.

I did and although very insightful it doesn't provide estimates of the number of nuclear power plants and nuclear power demand over the next 10 millenia. I'm wondering if he can bring in numbers for the next ten thousand years.

 

[Belz...]

.......it'll clash with my 'keep alberta nuclear free' apparel.

So while nukes are the best option, you'd rather we instead pick the ones that will do the most damage to us.

I take it your definition of "secure" is anything that's not a Chernobyl. Not a very good definition to hold if you're planning on being pro-nuclear.

Let's look at it another way: if 25 years ago they designed the worst possible car you can imagine: the Comet! One that quickly rusted away, breaks worked only on occasion, and the car risked exploding when you started it. Out of 2,000,000 customers, 30,000 died due to reasons related to the car itself. Of course the company went bankrupt. Now, 25 years later, you wonder why there aren't many cars on the road, and why people use other modes of transportation while simultaneously complaining about transit times, etc. You wonder why there wasn't a car renaissance. I answer "but think about the Comet !!! We can't take that risk! Cars EXPLODE, man !"

Do you think it would be a valid argument, knowing the real safety concerns with cars ?

 

[JihadJane]

So while nukes are the best option, you'd rather we instead pick the ones that will do the most damage to us.



Let's look at it another way: if 25 years ago they designed the worst possible car you can imagine: the Comet! One that quickly rusted away, breaks worked only on occasion, and the car risked exploding when you started it. Out of 2,000,000 customers, 30,000 died due to reasons related to the car itself. Of course the company went bankrupt. Now, 25 years later, you wonder why there aren't many cars on the road, and why people use other modes of transportation while simultaneously complaining about transit times, etc. You wonder why there wasn't a car renaissance. I answer "but think about the Comet !!! We can't take that risk! Cars EXPLODE, man !"

Do you think it would be a valid argument, knowing the real safety concerns with cars ?

Cars really were bad idea, though, and still are! Their needs have caused an immense amount of damage.

~~~~~~~~~~

Power hunger will kick Green asses every time. People will forget Nuclear farts when the rolling brown/blackouts start.

Japan is experiencing blackouts. Are people there calling for more nuclear power?

 

[Aepervius]

Doesn't the pro-nuclear lobby also have a rich history of manipulative, dishonest image management, aimed at selling something?

You mean , like the green and environmentalist nuts which use scare mongering and not science or fact ?

That is a discussion for another thread.

 

[Aepervius]

.

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

Beware of the hay fever in that strawman. Nobody ever said it was benign. What we all said is that the fear given by media is exagerated and info given by media often wrong. A meltdown is a very bad things, but not the "terrible catastrophe as bad as chernobyl" we were "informed" by media it was.

You know that between castrophal and begnin there is a full analogue scale , right ? It ain't binary.

 

[Belz...]

Cars really were bad idea, though, and still are! Their needs have caused an immense amount of damage.

Thank you for NOT answering the question.

 

[BenBurch]

I heard it was in the order of 1800 tons of fuel among the 6 reactors.

Rod assemblies are more than just the fuel.

 

[Kestrel]

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.

A news release from Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency explaining the INES Ratings for the events at Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS and Fukushima Dai-ni NPS.

They are still calling it a level 5.

 

[Hindmost]

The majority of the "waste" in fuel is the U238, and it was here to begin with. A PWR will have about 170 to 240 fuel bundles in the core each weighing about 1400 pounds (636 kg) including all the zirconium cladding and bundle supports. One third of the core is replaced every 18-24 months.

The link below shows what a decommissioned plant looks like...you can see the entire high level waste from the plant is stored on about a couple football fields...compare that with any industrial waste from coal or oil or chemical plants.

glenn

http://connyankee.com/

 

[Java Man]

Rod assemblies are more than just the fuel.

Yes and then you also have to factor in the quality of the rod. Is it new or not, is it in the core or out, how long ago was it taken out, etc. Nevertheless sheer weight gives you an estimate of how big a problem it could be. It's not like the fuel assemblies have considerably less or more fuel percentage than other plants. There's probably nothing outstanding about these rods compared to others in other plants.

 

[Java Man]

Let's look at it another way: if 25 years ago they designed the worst possible car you can imagine: the Comet! One that quickly rusted away, breaks worked only on occasion, and the car risked exploding when you started it. Out of 2,000,000 customers, 30,000 died due to reasons related to the car itself. Of course the company went bankrupt. Now, 25 years later, you wonder why there aren't many cars on the road, and why people use other modes of transportation while simultaneously complaining about transit times, etc. You wonder why there wasn't a car renaissance. I answer "but think about the Comet !!! We can't take that risk! Cars EXPLODE, man !"

Do you think it would be a valid argument, knowing the real safety concerns with cars ?

Lets look at it from yet another way. If they had put in the most basic of safety measures and not "believed it would not happen" or felt that "it's good enough" this story would have unfolded differently.

Had the storage pools been contained in the same way as the core there would be less concern right now. Had the generators been put up higher or maybe entombed in a protective snorkel equipped complex they wouldn't have failed. If the reactors had been replaced many years ago with new more secure models none of this would have happened.

There's nothing wrong with nuclear power on its own. And yes it is cost effective. And yes it pollutes less than coal and oil and gas.

But when some dim wit decides to call the shots as it's been called over the years in Fukushima it send all that down the drain. It will end up costing more to clean up than to rebuild the plants and then they'll actually have to rebuild them too. And I'm just looking at the economic impact of direct cleanup. Then there's the PR cleanup which will cost some more. There's already been a PR cost on the stock exchange. The land value will drop in the area. There's a credibility loss for nuclear power itself. And I'm still not getting to the issue of affected people.

And all the nuclear power supporters here can do is compare it to planes and cars? Pathetic. If you're so supportive then support it in a mature way. Look at the issues as a whole not as a mediocre and apologetic bunch. Point out what could have been done better. Not just say "Wohoh it fared through a 9.0 quake and tsunami". It didn't. Sure the structure did, but the complex as a whole failed to contain radiation. And it failed due to bad decisions that could have prevented the issue altogether if they had been taken correctly and without trying to pull "maximum profit" from the complex.

When I hear folks like you comparing this to cars or planes or other folk saying how good it was that it survived the quake and tsunami. I see the seeds of future reactor incidents being sowed.

Nuclear power has the potential to be a long term clean and reliable energy source. But you're undermining it by putting out silly comparisons and settling with what there is rather than demand excellence. Stop being mediocre and settle for nothing less than top notch nuclear plant operation.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Cars really were bad idea, though, and still are! Their needs have caused an immense amount of damage.

The introduction of the modern automobile has saved countless lives. It was arguably the biggest advance in urban health and sanitation. Clearing city streets of untold millions of tons of horse poop was a huge contribution to ending cholera, dysentery and the threat of bubonic plague.

 

[timhau]

there have been 3 minor earthquakes in the peace since i have lived here.
this one in 2001 was over 5 on the richter scale.

Do you know how the scale works?

I was visiting my mother-in-law today, and lived through what the radio news said was a 2.8 earthquake. Was the Sendai quake (9.0) a) little over three times or b) more than 1.5 million times as bad?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Lets look at it from yet another way. If they had put in the most basic of safety measures and not "believed it would not happen" or felt that "it's good enough" this story would have unfolded differently.

Had the storage pools been contained in the same way as the core there would be less concern right now. Had the generators been put up higher or maybe entombed in a protective snorkel equipped complex they wouldn't have failed. If the reactors had been replaced many years ago with new more secure models none of this would have happened.

There's nothing wrong with nuclear power on its own. And yes it is cost effective. And yes it pollutes less than coal and oil and gas.

But when some dim wit decides to call the shots as it's been called over the years in Fukushima it send all that down the drain. It will end up costing more to clean up than to rebuild the plants and then they'll actually have to rebuild them too. And I'm just looking at the economic impact of direct cleanup. Then there's the PR cleanup which will cost some more. There's already been a PR cost on the stock exchange. The land value will drop in the area. There's a credibility loss for nuclear power itself. And I'm still not getting to the issue of affected people.

And all the nuclear power supporters here can do is compare it to planes and cars? Pathetic. If you're so supportive then support it in a mature way. Look at the issues as a whole not as a mediocre and apologetic bunch. Point out what could have been done better. Not just say "Wohoh it fared through a 9.0 quake and tsunami". It didn't. Sure the structure did, but the complex as a whole failed to contain radiation. And it failed due to bad decisions that could have prevented the issue altogether if they had been taken correctly and without trying to pull "maximum profit" from the complex.

When I hear folks like you comparing this to cars or planes or other folk saying how good it was that it survived the quake and tsunami. I see the seeds of future reactor incidents being sowed.

Nuclear power has the potential to be a long term clean and reliable energy source. But you're undermining it by putting out silly comparisons and settling with what there is rather than demand excellence. Stop being mediocre and settle for nothing less than top notch nuclear plant operation.

There is an old saying in the legal profession; "When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table."

I'm seeing lot of furniture abuse and wasted bandwidth in your post, but little evidence and logic.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Do you know how the scale works?

I was visiting my mother-in-law today, and lived through what the radio news said was a 2.8 earthquake. Was the Sendai quake (9.0) a) little over three times or b) more than 1.5 million times as bad?

Ooo! Oooo! Ooo!

*raises hand*

I know, I know!

 

[Java Man]

There is an old saying in the legal profession; "When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table."

I'm seeing lot of furniture abuse and wasted bandwidth in your post, but little evidence and logic.

I don't see the radiation flowing back into the reactors by influence of your words. I do though see reference to many tsunamis as larger or larger in Japan's history (this century). Thus there is quite clear evidence for my statement.

If you have a counter point please explain to us why proper measures were not taken.

 

[Hindmost]

Lets look at it from yet another way. If they had put in the most basic of safety measures and not "believed it would not happen" or felt that "it's good enough" this story would have unfolded differently.

Had the storage pools been contained in the same way as the core there would be less concern right now. Had the generators been put up higher or maybe entombed in a protective snorkel equipped complex they wouldn't have failed. If the reactors had been replaced many years ago with new more secure models none of this would have happened.

There's nothing wrong with nuclear power on its own. And yes it is cost effective. And yes it pollutes less than coal and oil and gas.

But when some dim wit decides to call the shots as it's been called over the years in Fukushima it send all that down the drain. It will end up costing more to clean up than to rebuild the plants and then they'll actually have to rebuild them too. And I'm just looking at the economic impact of direct cleanup. Then there's the PR cleanup which will cost some more. There's already been a PR cost on the stock exchange. The land value will drop in the area. There's a credibility loss for nuclear power itself. And I'm still not getting to the issue of affected people.

And all the nuclear power supporters here can do is compare it to planes and cars? Pathetic. If you're so supportive then support it in a mature way. Look at the issues as a whole not as a mediocre and apologetic bunch. Point out what could have been done better. Not just say "Wohoh it fared through a 9.0 quake and tsunami". It didn't. Sure the structure did, but the complex as a whole failed to contain radiation. And it failed due to bad decisions that could have prevented the issue altogether if they had been taken correctly and without trying to pull "maximum profit" from the complex.

When I hear folks like you comparing this to cars or planes or other folk saying how good it was that it survived the quake and tsunami. I see the seeds of future reactor incidents being sowed.

Nuclear power has the potential to be a long term clean and reliable energy source. But you're undermining it by putting out silly comparisons and settling with what there is rather than demand excellence. Stop being mediocre and settle for nothing less than top notch nuclear plant operation.

Again, this is post hoc reasoning. Let’s let the event stand by itself. The safest place to be during this event was inside the nuclear plant. So far one person has died and not as a result of radiation. By what logic do you consider this unsafe? It is fair to compare nuclear with other sources of electricity. Coal, natural gas and oil have all caused many more deaths as has been pointed out and are far more polluting considering this event and others.

Based on your posts, you really don't understand what has been included in the design of these plants or how design is done in general. There is no "belief" in what could happen when designing a plant. All nuclear plants are designed assuming worst case scenarios which include missle protection, earthquake, flooding, hurricanes and tornadoes. You seem to assume that every possible natural disaster is predictable and there can't be an unseen event. Are you a lawyer?

glenn

 

[Belz...]

Lets look at it from yet another way.

Of course. Why waste time and energy adressing my post ?

If they had put in the most basic of safety measures and not "believed it would not happen" or felt that "it's good enough" this story would have unfolded differently.

Isn't it fun to critisize others when you KNOW what went wrong ? There's a reason why there's an expression "hindsight is 20/20."

Had the storage pools been contained in the same way as the core there would be less concern right now. Had the generators been put up higher or maybe entombed in a protective snorkel equipped complex they wouldn't have failed.

Depends. I'm sure I can dream up a scenario in which they would've.

If the reactors had been replaced many years ago with new more secure models none of this would have happened.

"Alright, folks. We need to replace the power station. I'm sure no one will object to a 5% increase in income tax. Anyone ? Yes, mister Java Man has his arm raised..."

And all the nuclear power supporters here can do is compare it to planes and cars?

I was simply trying to illustrate that nuclear power is held to different standards than everything else. But it went over your head because you refused to adress it.

Pathetic. If you're so supportive then support it in a mature way. Look at the issues as a whole not as a mediocre and apologetic bunch. Point out what could have been done better.

YOU're the critic, here. YOU point it out. I'm actually saying no one's to blame, here.

Not just say "Wohoh it fared through a 9.0 quake and tsunami". It didn't.

Yes it did.

Sure the structure did, but the complex as a whole failed to contain radiation.

Nothing is invincible, except woo.

When I hear folks like you comparing this to cars or planes or other folk saying how good it was that it survived the quake and tsunami. I see the seeds of future reactor incidents being sowed.

That's odd. I just see the present of evading questions, myself.

 

[bikerdruid]

Do you know how the scale works?

I was visiting my mother-in-law today, and lived through what the radio news said was a 2.8 earthquake. Was the Sendai quake (9.0) a) little over three times or b) more than 1.5 million times as bad?

yes, i do know how the scale works.
however, i think it is foolish to think, in an area where small quakes or tremors are not uncommon,
that a larger one is not possible.

japan is earthquake prone, an tremors are very common.
but, even japan has never had a quake this large.
yet, here it is.