Nuclear Power Stations - Yes or No

[Kestrel]

Actually the fact that the plants were farking expensive to build, many of them had to be redesgined midbuild because of the Chernobyl design flaw, and the low price of oil meant that enrichment didn't even look that appealing, and you had a recipe for the failure of Nuclear power in the US.

I have to point out the US commercial nuclear plants didn't have the major design problems present at Chernobyl. They all had containment systems, none of them build up a supercritical reaction in fractions of a second and only one used graphite as a moderator.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

yes

 

[GreyICE]

I have to point out the US commercial nuclear plants didn't have the major design problems present at Chernobyl. They all had containment systems, none of them build up a supercritical reaction in fractions of a second and only one used graphite as a moderator.

They still took redesign and reengineering because the causes of the disaster were poorly understood and highly counter-intuitive. Obviously the correct reaction to Chernobyl was to design and redesign to make sure that no existing reactors could undergo the Chernobyl reaction, which may be part of the origin of the 'legal costs' myth (actually it's just common sense, when you note a reactor has just rendered a ton of land utterly uninhabitable, it's good to check if yours are going to do the same thing).

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Plant designs are pretty safe anymore. Chernbyl was bad plant design that no reasonable regulatory body would allow to be built again. Three Mile Island was human error -- the plant instruments were fine, but Homer Simpson or whoever was in charge that day didn't believe them. I hope they've found a way to prevent that.

The only thing that bothers me about nuclear power is what a bomb might do to it. Sure, the reaction will shut down, but a containment system that has been blown up doesn't work.

ISTR wrt Three Mile Island that the problem was actually poor engineering design. The water cooling control valve that was supposed to open when signaled to do so by the operator did not open because it was manually locked. In the control room the indicator said FLOW ON but in actual fact the valve remained closed. If there had been a feed back from the value to indicate its actual position, the problem would have been identified immediately and not taken hours.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If we compare apples to apples, existing nuclear power supplies and equipment are not a very enticing alternative to existing renewable energy sources. Counting cradle-to-grave reactor costs they aren't that cheap, and counting only the uranium we know we can set our hands on, if the world built ten times as many reactors as we now have the world would run out of uranium very quickly.

Don't even mention fast breeders - they're disasters waiting to happen and they only exist because they're good for making weapons-grade material.

It's funny that you are acknowledge the existence in the third paragraph of your post but completely ignore them in the first. Your claim is based on fear and superstition. It's no different from saying "gas stations are only good for making napalm" or "video cameras are only good for making child porn".

If you think that breeder reactors are only good for making bombs, then maybe you should never be trusted with one?

Global uranium reserves are sufficient to provide all of earths energy needs for roughly 8,500 years, BTW. And that's not counting thorium supplies.

They are not magical genies that transform nuclear waste into daffodils, or if they are nobody has demonstrated that it's a cost-effective energy solution

France has.

Oil is cost effective at more than twice todays prices, remember?

 

[Cynic]

ISTR wrt Three Mile Island that the problem was actually poor engineering design. The water cooling control valve that was supposed to open when signaled to do so by the operator did not open because it was manually locked. In the control room the indicator said FLOW ON but in actual fact the valve remained closed. If there had been a feed back from the value to indicate its actual position, the problem would have been identified immediately and not taken hours.

As I understand it, that's almost the complete opposite of what happened. The drain valve was stuck open and because the indicator lights for the motor that controlled the valve was dark, they assumed it must have been closed, causing them to exacerbate the problem by overriding automatic safety pumps trying to suppliment the coolant.

On one hand, the design of the system was kind of screwed up because the indicators were kind of ambiguous. On the other hand, the operators weren't very well versed with the true implications of their own instruments. Had they done nothing at all after shutting the reactor down, everything would have been fine and they'd have eventually interpreted the signs properly. It took the next incoming shift -- free of the first crew's faulty assumptions -- to recognize the problem for what it was, but by then it was too late.

So basically, human error plus not the best control design. Without the interference of its own operators, the plant would have protected itself from that.

 

[BenBurch]

Yes, of course. Nuclear is vital.

 

[WildCat]

But blaming environmentalists for all the problems is a fun meme, and some people can't let it go (like the DDT-mosquito-malaria myth).

Funny, I never once mentioned environmentalists in my posts.

Keep building that strawman Grey!

 

[GreyICE]

Funny, I never once mentioned environmentalists in my posts.

Keep building that strawman Grey!

*Yawn*

I suppose your hypothetical legal costs were caused by Martians then.

Still, it's nice to see consistency on these boards, why admit you were wrong when you can grab a term, prop it up, and run away flinging poo?

 

[GanipGnop]

We're So Safe We Can't Be Insured

Nuclear Power is far from safe or cheap. In commercial nuclear power's infancy insurance actuaries who's sole job is to assess risk found that nuclear power was way too dangerous to insure. So the US government came up with a little thing called the Price Anderson Act in 1957 to absolve plant owners and investors from a majority of the financial responsibility due to an accident. This was done with the understanding it would only be a temporary measure until the nuclear industry could prove it's safety record. That was over 50 years ago and they still need Price Anderson to do business, if the industry put it's money where its mouth is and eschewed Price Anderson I'd be less worried. Price Anderson only covers the first 10 billion Chernobyl has cost more than 500 billion.

Insurance actuaries aren't eco-weenies and they certainly weren't in the 1950's. Private individuals cannot buy insurance to cover nuclear accidents in the US you are at the mercy of a government that took 5 days to get water to New Orleans after Katrina for your compensation.

I'd read through the Union of Concerned Scientists website on the matter before I started a wish list. Many UCS member were industry insiders with much more knowledge on the subject than most of us

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/

 

[WildCat]

*Yawn*

I suppose your hypothetical legal costs were caused by Martians then.

Still, it's nice to see consistency on these boards, why admit you were wrong when you can grab a term, prop it up, and run away flinging poo?

Yeah, because NIMBYs are as rare as Martians...

 

[GlennB]

Yes. The only serious issue is that nuclear power plants cost a buttload to build. Nuke plants are a lot greener than coal plants.

They also cost a buttload to mothball at the end of their life. For a long time. Not to mention waste products along the way ...

An old linky

 

[WildCat]

They also cost a buttload to mothball at the end of their life. For a long time. Not to mention waste products along the way ...

If you read the links I supplied earlier this cost was included.

Coal leaves a lot of stuff to clean up also, and it's spread out over a much, much wider area. Not to mention all the extra carbon in the atmosphere.

Wind and solar require very large footprints, and manufacturing them is far from clean.

There's no free lunch when it comes to generating power.

 

[WildCat]

Nuclear Power is far from safe or cheap. In commercial nuclear power's infancy insurance actuaries who's sole job is to assess risk found that nuclear power was way too dangerous to insure.

You'll find that in the last 50 years nuclear power has a far lower body count than coal does. It's not even close actually.

 

[Fnord]

If you were in charge of a nation with ample coal supplies (centuries worth) but also a good proportion of the world's uranium, would you at least examine and evaluate the use of nuclear power?

Yes.

I would also examine and evaluate hydro, solar, wind and fusion as power sources. Heck, if ZPE were more than just a scientific curiousity, I'd investigate that too!

 

[Hindmost]

Yes, nuclear's proven record and the worlds continuous need for more and more energy makes it a needed source.

glenn

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

 

[Fnord]

Putting a nuke plant ever hundred miles or so along the coastline would also make desalinization a little more cost-effective (IMHO).

 

[Hindmost]

I will see if I can answer a few of the stuff in this thread...I may not have enough energy. I can speak mainly from US experience.

On the legal/licensing issue....this has been a big cost of building the plants in the past. This is not a lawyer type of thing. The licensing people are engineers that act like nuclear lawyers. The past licensing process was performed in two steps...construction and operation. A utility applied for a construction permit, build the plant and during that process, applied for an operating license. During this process...anyone on the planet that felt like it could disrupt the process and say:" I heard there were problems with quality at the plant." EVery crackpot comment had to be investigated. This delayed plants a bunch during high inflation periods in the US. The plant I worked at had 18 months of responding to allegations--the cost was enormous in finance and engineering along with the delay to making power.

For new plants in the US, there will be a one step licensing process giving the utility combined construction and operating license. There is a strict set of tests, inspections and analysis that must be followed and proven as implemented to get the license. Once that is done, the random allegations will not be permitted. The standards for which the plant is built have not be reduced and have been modified to accommodate newer designs. 10CFR50 still rules.

New plants in the US are designed for 60 years of operation. Many older plants are applying for life extensions to 60 years as well. Construction of new plants should be less as the plants are being standardized and will have modular construction. If we get this going correctly, we might be able to build standard plant in about 4 years. When I worked in Korea, they were builing plants in about 5-6 years--so it can be done in a reasonable time frame.

The cost of razing a plant is not that much when integrated over 40-60 years. It is about 0.1 cent per KWH and is sequestered during the plant's operation life in the US.

OK...let me have it...

glenn

 

[Hindmost]

Nuclear Power is far from safe or cheap. In commercial nuclear power's infancy insurance actuaries who's sole job is to assess risk found that nuclear power was way too dangerous to insure. So the US government came up with a little thing called the Price Anderson Act in 1957 to absolve plant owners and investors from a majority of the financial responsibility due to an accident. This was done with the understanding it would only be a temporary measure until the nuclear industry could prove it's safety record. That was over 50 years ago and they still need Price Anderson to do business, if the industry put it's money where its mouth is and eschewed Price Anderson I'd be less worried. Price Anderson only covers the first 10 billion Chernobyl has cost more than 500 billion.

Insurance actuaries aren't eco-weenies and they certainly weren't in the 1950's. Private individuals cannot buy insurance to cover nuclear accidents in the US you are at the mercy of a government that took 5 days to get water to New Orleans after Katrina for your compensation.

I'd read through the Union of Concerned Scientists website on the matter before I started a wish list. Many UCS member were industry insiders with much more knowledge on the subject than most of us

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/

Do you have evidence for chernobyl costing 500 billion dollars? That is a lot of money.

Price anderson was implemented for similar reasons to worker comp. It actually makes a profit for the US govt.

glenn

 

[GanipGnop]

We've Had Some Accidents But Thank Dumb Luck ....I mean skill

You'll find that in the last 50 years nuclear power has a far lower body count than coal does. It's not even close actually.

Oh, well that totally explains why the nuclear industry can't get insured ... Oh, wait you're stuffing a strawman. Are the coal suppliers buying insurance actuaries or could it be one reactor accident could cost more than all the power the nuclear industry has generated? What happens when terrorists attack a coal fired power plant? If they blow up their homemade nuke next to it does it send out a massive fallout cloud 500x the size of the original bomb? If nuclear supporters are so sure of their safety and security prowess why don't they take the full burden of risk? I'm sorry but if you can't get insured there is a reason and that reason hasn't changed in 50 years. As a matter of fact terrorism has made ever nuclear facility a huge target for their first nuke. The insurance problem has nothing to do with NIMBY either it entirely has to do with reactor safety. How many lower order accidents and near misses do you know about? Can you name at least twenty of them? How large and deep was the unknown crack in the Davis-Besse reactor vessel? How many months did they knowingly operate the reactor after the problem was discovered? If you don't know the answer you need to do some research with a critical eye.

If you're not going to read the link I previously posted at least look at the titles of the articles in these link. Does any of it ring a bell, if not you really need to do some reading.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/sabotage_and_attacks_on_reactors/

As for track records Timothy Treadwell has a perfect track record living with Alaskan Grizzly Bears for 13 years and then they ate him and his girlfriend.