• 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?

r-j said:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Pu-239 is produced artificially in nuclear reactors when a neutron is absorbed by U-238, forming U-239, which then decays in a rapid two-step process into Pu-239. It can then be separated from the uranium in a nuclear reprocessing plant.
Weapons-grade plutonium is defined as being predominantly Pu-239 with less than 7% Plutonium-240.

Pu-240 and Pu-239 are not separated by reprocessing.

Pu-240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission, which can cause a nuclear weapon to predetonate. To reduce the concentration of Pu-240 in the plutonium produced, weapons program plutonium production reactors irradiate the uranium for a far shorter time than is normal for a nuclear power reactor. More precisely, weapons-grade plutonium is obtained from uranium irradiated to a low burnup.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade
Click to expand...

I'm sorry R-J, but will you please explain how any of this is a reason for countries with existing nuclear programs to not build nuclear reactors?
 
r-j said:
Yep, and as it turned out, for damn good reasons. Melting nuclear fuel, exploding reactor buildings, vast areas contaminated by nuclear materials, a continuous cloud of radioactivity spewing from multiple melted reactor cores, huge amounts of damaged fuel rods, hundreds of thousands of people evacuated, vast economic devestation, fear and uncertainty, and a problem with no solution in sight, much less any point where anyone can say it will be safe again.

Sometimes fear is the right response to great danger.
Click to expand...

So I highlighted where you're just wrong, the rest is either technically true but not how your characterize it or not the fault of the reactor problem itself. It's like you went back over the thread to find the last post that didn't have all the science laid out for you disputing what you're saying so you could ignore it.


No, it is exactly what scientists had predicted would happen at some point. We know now that reactor one, the first to blow up, was not from the tsunami at all. It was the earthquake, which was nowhere near full strength at the plant. The earthquake caused it to start melting down before the tsunami even hit.
Click to expand...

And if the tsunami hadn't hit, it would have been manageable.

It's an alarming wake up call to the entire world. There are spent fuel rods all over the world, and most of them are at risk from any failure of the reactor they are right next to. This is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Yes it's a wake up call, to update nuclear plants.
 
In my opinion many countires will have no choice but to use Nuclear power if they are to avoid power cuts on a regular basis. This is espeicially true with the ever increasing oil prices.
 
tyr_13 said:
So I highlighted where you're just wrong, the rest is either technically true but not how your characterize it or not the fault of the reactor problem itself. It's like you went back over the thread to find the last post that didn't have all the science laid out for you disputing what you're saying so you could ignore it.
Click to expand...

I think it's important to point out that the post of yours that he quoted was from March 14. Which is very shortly after the incident. It's no surprise that by that time we did not have all the facts at hand. And at that time, it did not look as if a core meltdown happened, from the data available.

Funny how r-j always omits those pesky little facts. I would call that willfully deceiving people.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Fukushima fearmongers are stealing our Jetsons future

Hysteria now completely disconnected from reality

As the situation at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant slowly winds down, the salient facts remain the same as they have been throughout: nobody has suffered or will suffer any radiological health consequences. Economic damage and inconvenience resulting from the quake's effects on nuclear power have been significant, but tiny in comparison to all other human activities – the nuclear power plants in the stricken region have suffered less damage and caused less trouble to local residents than anything else that was there.

Despite this background, the details of which are now largely uncontested, hysteria continues to grip large sections of the news media and the internet.
Click to expand...

From the Reg.

Not a new article, but a good read.

ETA: I think it overstates it's case a bit. Some workers have suffered burns and could suffer delayed effects from this. that falls definitely in the realm of 'health consequences'.

But the general point stands.
 
Last edited:
And so it begins:

Bayer threatens to quit Germany over nuclear shutdown
German companies may relocate production to countries with lower energy costs


Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima catastrophe in Japan could lead to some of the country's major companies relocating elsewhere in search of cheaper energy.

Marijn Dekkers, head of Bayer, the pharmaceuticals group, said: "It is important that we remain competitive compared with other countries. Otherwise, a global company like Bayer will have to consider relocating its production to countries with lower energy costs."
Click to expand...


linky
 
Eddie Dane said:
And so it begins:

Bayer threatens to quit Germany over nuclear shutdown
German companies may relocate production to countries with lower energy costs

linky
Click to expand...

Did you see the other article linked in the sidebar?

German nuclear shutdown forces E.ON to cut 11,000 staff

The financial effects of the Fukushima nuclear power crisis continued on Wednesday as Germany's E.ON announced that plans by its government to shut the country's reactors in response to the Japanese disaster would result in up to 11,000 job losses.

As fears mounted that the nuclear shutdown would significantly increase Germany's industrial operating costs – weakening its competitiveness in an already fragile global economy – E.ON announced a swing into the red, a dividend cut, the redundancies and profits warnings for the next three years.

Germany's biggest utility, which on Friday announced an average 15% price rise for its five million domestic UK gas and electricity customers, took a €1.9bn (£1.7bn) charge relating to plant closures and a new tax on spent nuclear fuel rods, pushing the group to its first quarterly loss in 10 years – a second-quarter deficit of €1.49bn.​

That's some seriously biased reporting by The Guardian, this is not an effect of the Japanese quake and tsunami. The disaster in Japan had zero effect in Germany. This is purely the result of the German government abandoning reason for fear and hysteria. And now thousands of Germans are suffering for it.
 
Whole Europe will suffer, as it shares the energy market and grid. But what did you expect .. they are just politicians. And actually I do think people in Germany really don't want nuclear energy, so in a way it's democracy in progress. Except sometimes will of the crowd is not the best idea .. Germany should know.
 
Is this phasing-out of nuclear power something they actually intend to do, or is it just a meaningless gesture to collect votes? Sounds like an incredibly difficult and costly project, almost like phasing out railways.
 
A question about France.

I see a lot anti nuke people in other fora claim that France is in deep doo-doo because they have to upgrade or replace all their nuke plants in the near future as these are all getting old. This is part of their argument that nuclear doesn't make sense financially and will always require state support.

What's the deal with France's aging fleet of nuke plants?

I see a lot of people trying to shoot down the French success story.
 
Dr.Sid:

Well, it is true that _some_ people in Germany do not want nuclear energy. However, by numbers they are a minority. Problem is that, through the green party, they have a strong foothold in our government. Another problem is they way the public is informed. While there are "polls" and "dialogues", they use heavily loaded questions and misleading statements. That has led us to the situation we are in now.

Safe-Keeper:

Yes, they really want to phase out the nukes. In fact it was already decided quite some years ago to slowly phase them out. But then, with the new government, that was postponed. Now Fukushima happened and all of a sudden they want to phase out nukes at a faster pace.

This leads to quite some obvious as well as non.obvious problems. For example, some reactors were just refueled shortly before that decision, and are now switched off. Not only does that mean massive losses for the operators, but it could also some legal consequences. We have a tax on nuclear fuel since a while. That means the operators had to pay loads of money just for these taxes, for stuff they can no longer use now. Will be interesting to watch that particular train wreck.

Eddie Dane:

While i have no real info about the situation in France, one just has to look at the current state to see that such arguments are pretty much nonsense. See, electricity costs about half of what they charge here in Germany. However, they have comparable taxes, etc. Now, they also have a lot more reactors in operation than we do.

If they would need lots of money from the state, how comes they have comparable taxes? If nuclear energy is so expensive, how comes they charge about half the price than we do? And anyways: the end consumer pays for it anyways, one way or the other. Either through taxes, or through increased energy cost. The current reality simply doesn't fit what we are told there.

And then, every plant has to be replaced at some day. Every plant needs servicing. Even the renewables.

----------

Speaking of renewables. Just to give you guys and gals an impression how utterly wrong it is what they do here in Germany.

Germany is developing a fusion reactor of the "Stellarator" design. After a previous experimental reactor they are now building a new, bigger one, called "Wendelstein 7-X"

Here is the part that really makes me angry. The whole budget for this reactor currently is 423 million Euro. It is planned to be operational in 2014, and the whole thing started on 2005. That is 9 years for the 423 million.

Now, the subsidies (through the EEG, for example) in Germany for _only_ photovoltaics is around 17 billion (!) Euros in 2011 _alone_ (!!). However, PV only contributes less than 2% to the energy demand, and that is for all PV systems installed until today.

Add to that the fact that Germany is a pretty lousy place for photovoltaics anyways, due to the little sun we have here throughout the year.

Just compare these number. 17 billion for one year for stuff that makes virtually no sense at all, and 423 million for 9 years for a highly promising project and research. Imagine if they would pump those 17 billion into that project at once.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Last edited:
Dr.Sid said:
Whole Europe will suffer, as it shares the energy market and grid. But what did you expect .. they are just politicians. And actually I do think people in Germany really don't want nuclear energy, so in a way it's democracy in progress. Except sometimes will of the crowd is not the best idea .. Germany should know.
Click to expand...

Actually having discussed the issue with my colleagues, the problem is not that german are anti nuclear per see, it is that they want to avoid the apocalyptic consequence they were told by various politics (among them green) if nuclear energy is used. When properly explained advantage and disadvanatge and risk of nuclear energy, as well as the reality of waste storage, the average folk is quick to recognize they have beem "had".

The ultimate result of this shameful pack of lie served to the german folk , is now hitting home. And the one which lied, almost certainly won't have to suffer any hard consequence.
 
Aepervius said:
Actually having discussed the issue with my colleagues, the problem is not that german are anti nuclear per see, it is that they want to avoid the apocalyptic consequence they were told by various politics (among them green) if nuclear energy is used. When properly explained advantage and disadvanatge and risk of nuclear energy, as well as the reality of waste storage, the average folk is quick to recognize they have beem "had".

The ultimate result of this shameful pack of lie served to the german folk , is now hitting home. And the one which lied, almost certainly won't have to suffer any hard consequence.
Click to expand...

The politicians present the switch to renewables as possible and pain free.
But if industry starts to pack up and leave at this stage already, that last lie won't stand for long.

I hope industry will provide much needed "feedback" on the situation sooner rather than later.

Still. Getting out of nukes is a deeply moral issue to the Germans.
And I mention once again the shameful -shameful- fear mongering of the usually level-headed ZDF that I described in detail earlier in this thread.
So I know on what information the majority are acting. They have been lied to in a most terrible way.
 
Eddie Dane said:
The politicians present the switch to renewables as possible and pain free.
But if industry starts to pack up and leave at this stage already, that last lie won't stand for long.

I hope industry will provide much needed "feedback" on the situation sooner rather than later.

Still. Getting out of nukes is a deeply moral issue to the Germans.
And I mention once again the shameful -shameful- fear mongering of the usually level-headed ZDF that I described in detail earlier in this thread.
So I know on what information the majority are acting. They have been lied to in a most terrible way.
Click to expand...

As stated by others, no technology is risk-free. It is a matter of comparison. Coal-based technology took many more lives than uranium-based technology. And how many deaths would result closing all power plants on earth. Decisions about what to do and what not to do are very difficult.
.
====================================
Breach of rule 6 removed.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, for the folks here who can understand German, this is interesting to watch:

Quo vadis Deutschland?
ifo-TUM Symposium zur Energiewende

Especially the presentation from Hans-Werner Sinn is eye opening. Compare that to the next one from Martin Faulstich, who happily lies to the people when he says that if windmills get from 5MW to 10MW, you can replace 1000MW nuke with just 100 windmills. Funny how in their world the wind is constantly blowing... Oh, and he proposes, among other things, a system were the power companies simply limit the amount of energy available to households.

Greetings,

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom