[cmeisenzahl]

It almost seems like free energy. And I suspect that we now have the technology to do it more carefully than we did 30 years ago. Doesn't Europe, France in particular rely heavily on nuclear power for electricity?

What are your thoughts? I'm not trolling here or looking for this to spin off into a political debate, honestly interested in the topic.

Thanks,

Chris

[turtle777]

I don't care as long as it comes out of my outlet.
[/blabla]

-t

[waxcrash]

A couple of interesting facts about the state (Illinois) that I live in…

Of the 31 States with nuclear capacity, Illinois ranks first.

There are 30 countries with commercial nuclear capacity. To appreciate the size of the State's nuclear industry, consider this: if Illinois suddenly became an independent country, its nuclear capacity would rank 8th in the World.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear.../statesil.html

http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?docid=1080

[macaddict0001]

I like it, it barely pollutes it is virtually unlimited and its nearly foolproof.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

It almost seems like free energy.

You don't have to pay for the disposal of the nuclear waste?

Also note that uranium is a limited resource like oil. So nuclear power will not solve mankind's energy problem in the long run.

[El Gato]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

It almost seems like free energy. And I suspect that we now have the technology to do it more carefully than we did 30 years ago. Doesn't Europe, France in particular rely heavily on nuclear power for electricity?

What are your thoughts? I'm not trolling here or looking for this to spin off into a political debate, honestly interested in the topic.

Thanks,

Chris

It's not free energy per-se, if you take into account the externalities of using nuclear. That is to say, there are additional costs that are not present in the actual cost of electricity (what you pay on your bill). Up-front capital costs are obviously high, but what does it cost to transport the waste and where do you store it? What happens to property values around the plant? Nuclear is relatively carbon-free (so health effects are minimal), but I doubt anyone would still want to live near a plant - so will there be displacement costs? What about when it comes time to decommission the plant?

France currently has an active program researching nuclear power - it's quite a large program from what I understand.

To give an example, 1 megawatt (MW) is enough to power roughly 400 homes for a year. An average nuclear power plant can supply around 4000 MW (obviously this can be more or less depending on the size of the plant). Off the east coast, in waters 30 to 100 meters in depth, it's estimated that deep-water wind farm installations could generate 600 GW (not MW, but giga-W).

Wind technology isn't to a point yet where we could take advantage of this, and in the future we'll likely use a mixture of wind, solar, biomass, ethanol, and other renewables. But there isn't a sense of urgency in our federal government to take our country in this direction. On the state-level, places like California, Pennsylvania, and even Texas (the second-largest state in terms of wind power generation) are taking steps towards energy-independece, but the federal government seems pretty clueless in this regard.

[wdlove]

I think that we need more nuclear power. The wave of the future. The process for construction needs to be speeded up.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by wdlove

I think that we need more nuclear power. The wave of the future. The process for construction needs to be speeded up.

Unfortunately Environmentalists will never let that happen. They are so against us using Nuclear Power that we might as well go back to the dark ages. Until they change their stance nothing is going to happen.

[SuvsareRetarded]

I think they need to realize it's light years better than coal or oil for making energy. If I remember correctly, America hasn't built an additional powerplant since 1970 something.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

I think they need to realize it's light years better than coal or oil for making energy. If I remember correctly, America hasn't built an additional powerplant since 1970 something.

Environmentalists are part f that as well as the NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) Effect.

[olePigeon]

The problem with nuclear power is that it produces a LOT of radioactive waste. You have store it someplace. Usually it's deep under ground. Is that safe? Debateable. However, the other problem is that all that radioactive waste has to be shipped to the proper disposal areas. During those sometimes hundreds-of-mile treks, a lot of things can happen.

Another problem (though not a serious one, just an annoyance) is that we're only harnessing a tiny fraction of the energy released during the nuclear reaction. Relatively speaking, when compared to other forms of energy, nuclear power is the least efficient means in terms of how much we get out of how much we spend.

Personally, I think Fusion is the way to go. It's closely becoming a reality with new breakthroughs in temperature control and doesn't have the same problem as nuclear does with harsh, readioactive byproducts.

[memento]

Some interesting points.

Fusion is a nuclear reaction, so I would still consider this as nuclear power. We still have decades before it is possible to sustain a fusion reaction and make it commercially viable. I personally believe that we will eventually get there and use it. I look forward to that day. In the meantime, the nuke plants of today are fission.

Environmentalists are a major roadblock to any advancement in power. They will only be happy if we live in the dark ages. They are unrealistic about this. Wave power will be opposed for destroying the marine habitat long before we can get 600GW (and I highly doubt that number anyway).

Nuclear fuel does not get "used up". It is essentially unlimited. What happens when people thing of the fuel as being used up is that the by-products of the reaction eventually "clog" the fuel pellets and the uranium becomes less effective. The answer to that is to reprocess and "clean" the fuel so that you can use the uranium again. This is what France does.

NIMBY comes from a lack of understanding and FUD propogated by enviros. Aside from the aesthetics of having a processing facility of ANY kind, I would welcome a nuke plant over just about anything else.

Thermal efficiency might be low for a nuke plant, but they still kick out boatloads of power.

[ironknee]

three words
three - mile - island

[11011001]

Originally Posted by ironknee

three words
three - mile - island

wasn't a big deal.

There have been far worse accidents in the oil industry. Think of oil spills, or sour gas leaks. There has been more damage to human lives and the environment from oil than from anything else. The environmentalists have just been so successful at manipulating the publics view that no one considers nuclear safe in comparison.

Personally, I find it hypocritical that the environmentalists are actually doing more damage to their beloved planet by holding back nuclear energy then they would be by supporting it. More nuclear = less oil = less CO2, less land damage, less oil spills, more global warming, etc..

[El Gato]

Originally Posted by memento

Environmentalists are a major roadblock to any advancement in power. They will only be happy if we live in the dark ages. They are unrealistic about this. Wave power will be opposed for destroying the marine habitat long before we can get 600GW (and I highly doubt that number anyway).

This is complete BS. It has nothing to do with a desire to live in the dark ages, rather that our resources be used in the most cost efficient and sustainable way possible. Nuclear energy produces nuclear waste that needs to be put someplace - this is not efficient nor sustainable.

Deep-water wind (not wave) installations have been explored as floating wind systems that can be deployed in a number of water depths and areas or by attaching them to existing decommissioned oil rigs. Both of which will not further disturb marine habitats.

The cost of energy for wind systems has also been decreasing and, with subsidies (which the oil and gas industries receive as well), is on par with traditional energy sources - around 2 to 4 cents per kWh. This has all come about without major federal support.

Look at countries like Denmark who receive nearly 20% of their total energy consumption from wind and is planning to hit 50% by 2025. Germany produces over 16,000 MW from wind and Spain's wind market has been growing continuously at rates over 30% for the past 5 years. Look at the success that these countries have had and tell me that renewable sources are not a viable option.

Why would you choose anything else? Why would you choose an energy source that has a horrible byproduct when there are clean energy sources all around? Why would you choose to put more money into developing an energy source that has no long-term sustainability?

By the way, that number (600 GW) comes from the US Department of Energy.

Originally Posted by memento

NIMBY comes from a lack of understanding and FUD propogated by enviros. Aside from the aesthetics of having a processing facility of ANY kind, I would welcome a nuke plant over just about anything else.

Thermal efficiency might be low for a nuke plant, but they still kick out boatloads of power.

This, I agree with. The environmental movement over the past, I don't know, 20 years or so has been decidedly negative with its message. "Don't cut down trees - you'll die." The message needs to be more positive by showing the benefits of clean energy choices, rather than all the doom and gloom.

I don't think any of this will take hold until there is a way to make money on it, then the large corporations will take over. You can already see this happening in the market - GE is the largest wind system manufacturer in the US (4th in the world, I believe), Shell started Shell Renewables, and BP has BP Solar. With the money that these companies are pouring into these programs, it doesn't appear to be just a greenwash.

People are finally waking up to the fact that at some point in time, we will have to make a complete switch to a new energy source - and it's best if we start now. Not only can we be energy-independent, but building up new industries means new jobs, a strong economy, and a technology advantage for our country.

[f1000]

One Word: Chernobyl

[Weyland-Yutani]

I consider nuclear power to be what it is: a cleaner and better solution for the environment than combustibles. Of nuclear power, fusion is superor to fission and way more desireable. Wind energy and solar energy are also desireable but they are more polluting than fusion, which I would say is they holy grail of power creation.

cheers

W-Y

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by f1000

One Word: Chernobyl

Now a concrete bunker.

[Rolling Bones]

Electrical power doesn't come from the nuclear fission, it comes from steam turbines.

We could use dead people and left over hemp stalks to heat the water to make the steam.

[El Gato]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Wind energy and solar energy are also desireable but they are more polluting than fusion, which I would say is they holy grail of power creation.

This is curious. How do wind and solar pollute?

[El Gato]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Wind energy and solar energy are also desireable but they are more polluting than fusion, which I would say is they holy grail of power creation.

This is curious. How do wind and solar pollute?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ironknee

three words
three - mile - island

Precisely why we need new plants.

All of our nuke plants are from that era, you'd imagine one built with today's technology could perhaps be safer and more efficient.

On the topic of disposal, I remember reading an article in Wired about 6 or 7 years back, where someone suggested making a pitch black 6' high set of synthetic brambles in the Nevada desert, and storing nuclear waste under that.

The heat generated by absorption, as well as the thorns, could act as warning to an entirely different society with a different language (i.e. the people living here 10,000 years from now).

There's still the engineering problem of making brambles that can last that long, as well as transporting waste accident-free (as was mentioned above).

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ironknee

three words
three - mile - island

Which released less radiation into the environment than one would get going though a complex medical procedure-Check out Robert Heinlein's "Expanded Universe." He testified before Congress about this; TMI was a Bad Thing, but it was NOT the horror story Chernobyl was-and THAT was caused by the Soviets using an incredibly stupid design and over working the technical staff.

There was a more serious reactor accident than TMI; it was the Enrico Fermi plant south of Detroit. That reactor suffered a near catastrophic coolant failure as well, and the reactor itself was damaged more than TMI's. But because there were no vapors vented, and because it happened so fast from start to finish that there wasn't time to make the fuss that was made over TMI during the accident, few people knew about it. The difference between TMI and Fermi was that the Fermi crew was significantly more alert-and more awake-than the TMI crew. Again, working technical people past a certain point means that they make mistakes. DUH! Airline and military pilots are limited to a certain number of mission hours before mandatory crew rest. They're grounded until that crew rest is completed, and in the Air Force, if you interrupt crew rest, the clock starts over from zero. Why shouldn't that sort of thing apply to nuclear plant operators (or physicians, for that matter)?

The problems with disposing of waste from uranium reactors are vastly overblown because they're much more complex than most people understand, and what those people do understand has been abstracted far beyond where it should be. In short, most fuel rods can be reprocessed to produce (fewer) new fuel rods, reducing the overall waste by a huge factor, but nobody wants a major reprocessing plant anywhere near them, nor to have spent fuel shipped in or new fuel shipped out.

They DO want to pay less for electricity, and as long as you don't factor in the financial burden of storing rather than reprocessing the fuel, uranium powered nuclear fission reactors make VERY CHEAP electricity. Too many alarmist op-ed pieces, too many poorly researched Sunday supplement stories, and too much FUD means that we still depend on fossil fuels (much of which are still imported) for too much of our electricity production.

By the way, why is storing radioactive waste underground more dangerous than leaving radioactive rock underground in the first place? Particularly when you know where the waste is, can seal it in better than uranium ore is sealed into rock, and you can package the waste so that it will be protected from anything but a continent-altering seismic event. I just don't get the logic there.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ironknee

three words
three - mile - island

Which released less radiation into the environment than one would get going though a complex medical procedure-Check out Robert Heinlein's "Expanded Universe." He testified before Congress about this; TMI was a Bad Thing, but it was NOT the horror story Chernobyl was-and THAT was caused by the Soviets using an incredibly stupid design and over working the technical staff.

There was a more serious reactor accident than TMI; it was the Enrico Fermi plant south of Detroit. That reactor suffered a near catastrophic coolant failure as well, and the reactor itself was damaged more than TMI's. But because there were no vapors vented, and because it happened so fast from start to finish that there wasn't time to make the fuss that was made over TMI during the accident, few people knew about it. The difference between TMI and Fermi was that the Fermi crew was significantly more alert-and more awake-than the TMI crew. Again, working technical people past a certain point means that they make mistakes. DUH! Airline and military pilots are limited to a certain number of mission hours before mandatory crew rest. They're grounded until that crew rest is completed, and in the Air Force, if you interrupt crew rest, the clock starts over from zero. Why shouldn't that sort of thing apply to nuclear plant operators (or physicians, for that matter)?

The problems with disposing of waste from uranium reactors are vastly overblown because they're much more complex than most people understand, and what those people do understand has been abstracted far beyond where it should be. In short, most fuel rods can be reprocessed to produce (fewer) new fuel rods, reducing the overall waste by a huge factor, but nobody wants a major reprocessing plant anywhere near them, nor to have spent fuel shipped in or new fuel shipped out.

They DO want to pay less for electricity, and as long as you don't factor in the financial burden of storing rather than reprocessing the fuel, uranium powered nuclear fission reactors make VERY CHEAP electricity. Too many alarmist op-ed pieces, too many poorly researched Sunday supplement stories, and too much FUD means that we still depend on fossil fuels (much of which are still imported) for too much of our electricity production.

By the way, why is storing radioactive waste underground more dangerous than leaving radioactive rock underground in the first place? Particularly when you know where the waste is, can seal it in better than uranium ore is sealed into rock, and you can package the waste so that it will be protected from anything but a continent-altering seismic event. I just don't get the logic there.

[SVass]

For ghporter: If they factor in the cost of liability insurance for disasters and design the plants to prevent manufacture of weapons grade material, I would have no objection. Unfortunately, neither is part of the current design. Most industrial companies are interested in manufacturing more of their current designs at a profit than of making something new and improved. sam

[Spliffdaddy]

"By the way, why is storing radioactive waste underground more dangerous than leaving radioactive rock underground in the first place? Particularly when you know where the waste is, can seal it in better than uranium ore is sealed into rock, and you can package the waste so that it will be protected from anything but a continent-altering seismic event. I just don't get the logic there."

I agree.
Radon almost certainly kills more people than all the nuclear power plants combined. Decaying radioactive elements are already under your feet. What's a few more gonna matter?

[Kevin Moon]

Storage of nuclear waste wouldn't be that big of a problem if Yucca mountain would be used instead of blocked. This mountain was chosen because of the geology and mineralogy. The rock type is what is know as a zeolite which effectively is a natural barrier against radioactive material. Zeolites prevent radioactive materials from passing through them and dissipate the heat created by the material as it breaks down. So if a leak was to appear it would be locked away and would not get into the groundwater. Water may pass around the waste in 10-20,000 years but the radioactive waste filtered out. Many people do not know about zeolites thus don't understand the importance of Yucca Mountain. Very few places are stable with the hydrology and the mineralogy to make such a place suitable.

[subego]

Just by chance, happened to be reading this, which is sort of a bizarre travelogue through the remains of Chernobyl.

Thought some may find it interesting.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

It almost seems like free energy. And I suspect that we now have the technology to do it more carefully than we did 30 years ago. Doesn't Europe, France in particular rely heavily on nuclear power for electricity?

What are your thoughts? I'm not trolling here or looking for this to spin off into a political debate, honestly interested in the topic.

Thanks,

Chris

Its the best option for most countries include oil rich countries like Iran. I am totally for it.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego

Precisely why we need new plants.

All of our nuke plants are from that era, you'd imagine one built with today's technology could perhaps be safer and more efficient.

On the topic of disposal, I remember reading an article in Wired about 6 or 7 years back, where someone suggested making a pitch black 6' high set of synthetic brambles in the Nevada desert, and storing nuclear waste under that.

The heat generated by absorption, as well as the thorns, could act as warning to an entirely different society with a different language (i.e. the people living here 10,000 years from now).

There's still the engineering problem of making brambles that can last that long, as well as transporting waste accident-free (as was mentioned above).

The Candu design is one of the best out there, and many countries are buying them.
http://www.candu.org/candu_reactors.html#advantage some facts on them

[The Godfather]

This is what I think:
In 2007, the U.S. will need it so bad that they will license fusion technology from Russia/France/Japan.

[Athens]

fusion dosen't work yet

[f1000]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Which released less radiation into the environment than one would get going though a complex medical procedure-Check out Robert Heinlein's "Expanded Universe." He testified before Congress about this; TMI was a Bad Thing, but it was NOT the horror story Chernobyl was-and THAT was caused by the Soviets using an incredibly stupid design and over working the technical staff.

An exploding coal-fired power plant doesn't have the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people; an exploding nuclear reactor does. Engineering cannot guarantee the construction of a fail-safe reactor. At best, good engineering can only minimize the chances of one failing catastrophically.

You dismiss Chernobyl as being a consequence of Soviet incompetence. American technical prowess may have delayed such an accident from occurring here, but it hasn't eliminated the possibility of one. The history of the American nuclear power industry is rife with near catastrophes, and Three-Mile Island was simply the tip of the iceberg.

Moreover, our vaunted engineering couldn't prevent the loss of not one, but two Space Shuttles. It couldn't prevent the flooding of New Orleans. It also couldn't prevent the collapse of The World Trade Center, a complex that held approximately 50,000 people. You might argue that the WTC was not an engineering failure but a human one; nay, you might even say that the WTC was destroyed by a deliberate act of sabotage. The point is that sabotage or no sabotage a failure did occur, with significant casualties. Who's to say that a state-of-the-art nuclear reactor couldn't be disrupted by saboteurs as well?

Our best laid plans can easily go awry. Would we be willing to accept a Chernobyl occurring only a few miles from Philadelphia, Houston, or Manhattan? It isn't without good reason that past generations put a hold on the expansion of the nuclear power industry.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by f1000

An exploding coal-fired power plant doesn't have the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people; an exploding nuclear reactor does. Engineering cannot guarantee the construction of a fail-safe reactor. At best, good engineering can only minimize the chances of one failing catastrophically.

You dismiss Chernobyl as being a consequence of Soviet incompetence. American technical prowess may have delayed such an accident from occurring here, but it hasn't eliminated the possibility of one. The history of the American nuclear power industry is rife with near catastrophes, and Three-Mile Island was simply the tip of the iceberg.

Moreover, our vaunted engineering couldn't prevent the loss of not one, but two Space Shuttles. It couldn't prevent the flooding of New Orleans. It also couldn't prevent the collapse of The World Trade Center, a complex that held approximately 50,000 people. You might argue that the WTC was not an engineering failure but a human one; nay, you might even say that the WTC was destroyed by a deliberate act of sabotage. The point is that sabotage or no sabotage a failure did occur, with significant casualties. Who's to say that a state-of-the-art nuclear reactor couldn't be disrupted by saboteurs as well?

Our best laid plans can easily go awry. Would we be willing to accept a Chernobyl occurring only a few miles from Philadelphia, Houston, or Manhattan? It isn't without good reason that past generations put a hold on the expansion of the nuclear power industry.

Coal power plant wont kill tens of thousands from exploding, but instead contributes to the slow deaths of millions with pollution. I can't see a WTC attack on a Nuclear power plant, military has orders to shoot down planes that come any where near a Nuclear plant. The shuttle is just a crappy example. And the flooding of New Orleans could have been prevented engineering wise, all it would have taking was money and wil. I think the est was 16 billion to do it right. Nuclear power is safe.

[greenamp]

2 words: matter, antimatter.

[JoshuaZ]

No nukes no nukes no nukes.

The Japanese are super afraid of nuke power plants. Several small, highly published incidents have caused mass fear in the population. Even though it is the best option for a nation with no natural energy sources (besides the ocean).

Plus the whole atom bomb thing kind of puts a negative spin on the breaking of atoms.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by greenamp

2 words: matter, antimatter.

And where, pray tell, do you expect us to find antimatter?

[f1000]

A little light reading for the younger generation.


The Stationary Low-Power Reactor (SL-1)

The Stationary Low-Power Reactor (SL-1) was located at the National Reactor Testing Station (which is now INEEL) in Idaho. SL-1 was an experimental reactor, a prototype, used for training and increasing knowledge of reactor operations. It was designed to be used to provide power in the arctic at military installations and produced 3 mW of electricity. It went online in August 1958, the smallest reactor to produce electric power at that time, it had 1,100 hours of operation in January of 1961. The little reactor had been shut down for regular maintenance in December of 1960 and was due to be restarted the next day, January 4, 1961 so the three men on the 4:00 pm to midnight shift had quite alot to do. The crew consisted of Richard Legg, a 25 year old Electricians Mate in the Navy; John Byrnes, also 25 an Army Specialist; and Richard McKinley, a 22 year old in the Army.

New instruments had been installed on the SL-1 during its down time. This had made it necessary to disconnect the control rods from the control rod drives which raised and lowered them when the reactor was operating. It was this crews job to reconnect the rods to the drives so the reactor would be ready to restart in the morning. The previous crew had finished adding the instrumentation upgrades and it looked like everything would be ready on time. SL-1 had been having a few problems, showing signs of wear. The boron plates that helped control the reactivity level were warping, there were signs of some kind of gunk in the cooling water, and most bothersome of all the cadmium control rods had been sticking. In order to assure that the control rods would respond when needed the crews were instructed to exercise them on a regular basis by raising then lowering them to see that they moved smoothly.

The control rods were used to shut down the reactor, there were 9 rods altogether. As a part of the design the control rods could be manually removed from the core when they weren't connected to the drive. Each of the rods was seven feet long with cadmium inside and clad in aluminum. The cadmium was what made them work, it absorbed neutrons preventing enough from being present to start or maintain a nuclear chain reaction. As they were withdrawn the chain reaction would start and the reactor would begin producing power. Number 9, the control rod in the center position, was the key. Because of where it was located and the geometry of the fuel rods, it could start the reactor by itself if it were raised 16 inches.

Byrnes, Legg, and McKinney were assigned to reconnect these control rods to the drive mechanism and to do this they would lift each rod about four inches and attach it to the drive. Byrnes and Legg were experienced reactor operators, McKinney was being trained. The experienced men had done this job previously and were familiar with the procedure. In order to do the work they would be at the top of the reactor, inside the silo shaped reactor room which was attached to the metal building where the control room was located. There was a stairway from one to the other. During the day there were up to sixty people in the control room and adjoining rooms but the night shift was quieter. The SL-1 facility was operated by Combustion Engineering as a contractor for AEC.

At 9:01 pm the alarm went off at the fire brigade and security office where it was relayed by radio to a variety of personnel at their homes. By 9:10 the fire brigade and security men arrived at the SL-1 site. The alarm could have sounded for several different reasons so they had not known what to expect except that they had expected something, they didn't see anything amiss - no fire, no smoke, no damage visable, and no sign of the night shift. The men began walking toward the control room building but they still saw nothing. In full protective suits and carrying radiation meters, the Assistant Fire Chief and his men approached the buildings and the Chief stepped inside the door.

His meter immediately went off scale, it only read up to 25 rads an hour, and he stepped back out. Two more men went inside the door and walked a short way, but they too had to leave. Still no one had seen the crew and it was so quiet. About 9:30 a couple of physicists came from another reactor and one of them had a meter that would read up to 500 rad per hour. They went inside and headed for the control room but when they got close the meter spiked to 200 rads per hour and they turned around.

An impromtu meeting was called and a plan was devised. With such high levels of radiation no one would be able to go inside for more than a minute or two and then only once. An organized, systematic search would have to be conducted in relays to limit the time of exposure for each team. They would have to keep track of who went in and for how long because the levels in the building were obviously lethal. They knew that they had to try, the crew were still missing and presumably inside somewhere. At 10:30 a Class 1 disaster was broadcast, just after that the Head of Health Physics and his colleague arrived from Idaho Falls, 40 miles away. Ed Vallerio, the Senior Health Physicist at the site was quickly briefed. He and Paul Duckworth were already in their protective gear when they arrived, they put on their Scott masks and ran into the building and up the stairs to the reactor.

As soon as they got to the top of the stairs they noticed the debris everywhere. As they stepped into the room their meters shot up to 1000 rads per hour, then they saw two of the crew. One of them, Richard Legg, was alive. Vallario and Duckworth grabbed Legg and got him onto a stretcher. At the top of the stairs they set him down and ran to get the next team. Five men went in next and some picked up Legg and brought him out while the others checked Byrnes to be sure if he was dead, he was. Legg was placed in a panel truck and rushed off to meet an ambulance, but he died before they could get him there. Four more men ran into the building to look for the third man, McKinley, who was still missing. At first they didn't see him either, then they looked up and spotted him. McKinley was hanging from the ceiling impaled by a control rod and quite obviously dead.



The rescue team left the building. By that time the panel truck carrying Legg's body had returned. The rescue mission was over. A decontamination truck arrived and all the men who had been inside the building were stripped and scrubbed then driven to the dispensary. All further efforts were put off till morning. It was decided at 6:00 am to remove Legg from the truck which had by now been contaminated. The body was giving off 400 rads per hour so precautions had to be observed by the five men who removed his clothing. Legg was then placed back into the truck and covered with lead aprons to block some of the radiation. The entire vehicle was taken to a large hot cell at the Chemical Processing Plant where the corpse was placed in ice, water and alcohol to attempt to remove some of the radiation.

A plan was worked out to retrieve Byrnes from the reactor room floor utilizing several teams in relays. The body was recovered about 7:30 pm and taken to the Chemical Processing Plant emitting 400 rads an hour. McKinley's body posed a real problem, both the beam next to it and the body were reading 1000 rads per hour, there was no way a person could climb out and get him down. Photographs were taken to help plan the recovery. A crane was brought alongside the building and a net rigged to the boom. This was positioned under the body and a series of teams climbed through the outside door and slowly pried McKinley loose. The body dropped into the net and was taken to the Chemical Processing Plant.

Now that the crew had been recovered attention turned to determining what had happened and cleaning up, which would take months. None of the instruments were on at the time of the accident since the reactor was shut down so the cause of the accident was arrived at through reconstructing bits and pieces of information and formulating the best possible theory. It appeared from the examination that the central control rod, number nine, had been withdrawn about 20 inches leading to a power surge which produced steam quickly in the core and forced the water against the lid of the reactor vessel so hard that the entire thing had lifted 9 feet into the air. The highly enriched uranium in the fuel rods had allowed the excursion to produce the equivalent of 20,000 MW in a few milliseconds. It was theorized that the central rod had stuck and when additional force was applied the rod jumped.

An autopsy was conducted on each of the crew members and it was found that all of them were soaked with cooling water from the reactor. In addition, the force of the blast had been sufficient to hurl bits of fuel like shrapnel, all three men were loaded with it. It was not possible to determine the dosage of radiation they were exposed to. Plans were made for burial, certain restrictions applied "burial in a perpetual care cemetery with adequate records of the grave locations; the graves would not be reopened with the express permission of the AEC; the coffins would be surrounded by at least 12 inches of poured concrete and at least three feet of packed earth".

The bodies had been soaked in the alcohol, ice and water mixture for 20 days to leach out as much radiation as possible. It was necessary to remove the heads and hands for burial as radioactive waste because they had absorbed so much radiation. The rest of the bodies were placed in lead lined coffins and flown by military flight to the airfield nearest the cemetery chosen by their families. SL-1s reactor vessel and core were removed and the buildings were torn down. by July 1962 the decontamination of the site had been completed. The men who did the work could only spend 8 minutes of an hour shift inside the buildings so it took 18 months. The excursion that had caused it all lasted 1/500th of a second.

http://www.megazone.org/ANP/
http://www.radiationworks.com/sl1reactor.htm

[Athens]

Your point is?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by f1000

An exploding coal-fired power plant doesn't have the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people; an exploding nuclear reactor does. Engineering cannot guarantee the construction of a fail-safe reactor. At best, good engineering can only minimize the chances of one failing catastrophically.

You dismiss Chernobyl as being a consequence of Soviet incompetence. American technical prowess may have delayed such an accident from occurring here, but it hasn't eliminated the possibility of one. The history of the American nuclear power industry is rife with near catastrophes, and Three-Mile Island was simply the tip of the iceberg.

Moreover, our vaunted engineering couldn't prevent the loss of not one, but two Space Shuttles. It couldn't prevent the flooding of New Orleans. It also couldn't prevent the collapse of The World Trade Center, a complex that held approximately 50,000 people. You might argue that the WTC was not an engineering failure but a human one; nay, you might even say that the WTC was destroyed by a deliberate act of sabotage. The point is that sabotage or no sabotage a failure did occur, with significant casualties. Who's to say that a state-of-the-art nuclear reactor couldn't be disrupted by saboteurs as well?

Our best laid plans can easily go awry. Would we be willing to accept a Chernobyl occurring only a few miles from Philadelphia, Houston, or Manhattan? It isn't without good reason that past generations put a hold on the expansion of the nuclear power industry.

The design of a vessel-type fission reactor is very old and very stable. It is not "vaunted American engineering prowess," it's just simple, basic engineering. Chernobyl was built in the same model as the University of Chicago fission experiment-and the UofC experimenters were very lucky they didn't let it go any farther than they did. Chernobyl's reactor was built from flamable blocks of graphite, holding the uranium SLUGS in their places, with cooling provided by water pumped through channels in the graphite. That's a DUMB design, and was decades out of date when the accident occurred.

A typical non-Chernobyl (not American) reactor has the uranium formed into pellets and held in stainless steel tubes that are immersed in a vessel full of water. The only way anything can happen to the fuel rods in such a reactor is for the water level to fall too low, which takes multiple failures. In the graphite block design, it takes active effort to manage how fast the water is pumped through the blocks to keep the flow fast enough to cool the fuel but slow enough to pick up enough heat to produce steam. In the vessel design, the water is heated and flows out to the heat exchanger because the exit is simply at the top; cool water can return passively, without any pumping action, though there are usually a number of pumps involved to manage the speed of steam production.

This has nothing to do with the fact that foam broke off the external fuel tank of the Columbia and caused catastrophic damage to the leading edge of the wing. There is only the smallest connection to Challenger; the launch crew was overworked and sleep deprived, and should have had fresher people making the launch decision. Mentioning the Space Shuttles is a pretty poor argument against nuclear power in general.

New Orleans' levees are a completely different issue. They were designed and built with a completely different set of design parameters than they wound up having to face. Your car is designed to protect you against a head on crash; if it fails do protect you because it gets run over by huge earth moving equipment, is that a design failure? Nope, and again this is a poor arguement against nuclear power in general.

Further, nuclear power plants are designed with disaster in mind, rather than the way the WTC was designed, with the possibility of localized fires in mind. There's a very interesting video out there on the Internet that shows a fully fueled F-4 fighter being flown into a wall that represents the OUTSIDE wall of a reactor containment building; the airplane disintegrates in an amazing fireball, and the wall gets scorched. That's it. Similar tests have been done with a 707, with similar results. Oh, and the WTC didn't have armed guards to prevent sabotage either, though U.S. nuclear power plants do.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I'm kind of annoyed with some of the "environmentalist" comments in here. I'm certainly a bit of what I would term an environmentalist myself (as can be seen in the pol lounge ), but there is a significant difference between that and being a fanatic. I think it's obvious that the vast majority of people who care about the environment don't have large problems with scientifically viable energy sources besides coal. Unfortunately, it's the idiots with their fanatical "causes" that cause lots of the problems.

That's like saying someone who believes in animal rights is a PETA member, or someone who is anti-abortion kills abortion doctors. It's simply not true; unfortunately, it's the radicals who get all the attention and the press.

Anyways, the way I see it, Canada has most of the uranium, so I'm all for helping the home economy....

greg

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

No nukes no nukes no nukes.

The Japanese are super afraid of nuke power plants. Several small, highly published incidents have caused mass fear in the population. Even though it is the best option for a nation with no natural energy sources (besides the ocean).

Plus the whole atom bomb thing kind of puts a negative spin on the breaking of atoms.

Nuclear Power != Nuclear weapon

The uranium used in Fission is not the same grade as that used in warheads, and doesn't have the same kind of power (This word used loosely). And for a nation that that's 'super-afraid' they still have ten nuclear power facilities.

Anyone know how many Nuclear Submarines have had 'incidents'?

[Volks]

Nuclear power and waste is an immense threat to us all. There is no safe way to store, transport, bury or get rid of nuclear waste. All nuclear power plants should be dismantled and banned forever. We don't need this kind of problem.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by Volks

Nuclear power and waste is an immense threat to us all. There is no safe way to store, transport, bury or get rid of nuclear waste. All nuclear power plants should be dismantled and banned forever. We don't need this kind of problem.

I have an Aunt and Uncle who work for the Department of Energy, There are surprisingly safe ways to store Nuclear waste.

Oil has significant dangers associated with it (perhaps not as great as nuclear, but still significant) Should we ban oil refining?

[Volks]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

I have an Aunt and Uncle who work for the Department of Energy, There are surprisingly safe ways to store Nuclear waste.

Oil has significant dangers associated with it (perhaps not as great as nuclear, but still significant) Should we ban oil refining?

So all the evidence of nuclear waste mismanagement along with the well documented disasters that have occured in the past, plus the incredibly dangerous properties of nuclear waste itself (such as lasting thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands, etc.) coupled with the fact that humans are not perfect and will make mistakes that could ruin the environment literally forever -- all these things are no problem, because your aunt and uncle work for DOE, a government agency whose job is to put out propaganda convincing everyone of the benefits of nuclear power (without mentioning the waste or by products) and say it's safe.

Great job. You've really convinced me.

[Kevin Moon]

There are safe ways to store the waste. I posted about why Yucca Mountain is a safe and natural barrier to preventing nuclear waster from escaping. Natural barriers preventing nuclear waste from escaping is the best solution for storage long term. Yucca Mountain could store the waste for many millions of years due to the geology and the mineralogy of the area.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by Volks

So all the evidence of nuclear waste mismanagement along with the well documented disasters that have occured in the past, plus the incredibly dangerous properties of nuclear waste itself (such as lasting thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands, etc.) coupled with the fact that humans are not perfect and will make mistakes that could ruin the environment literally forever -- all these things are no problem, because your aunt and uncle work for DOE, a government agency whose job is to put out propaganda convincing everyone of the benefits of nuclear power (without mentioning the waste or by products) and say it's safe.

Great job. You've really convinced me.

My Aunt and Uncle are Engineers. They work dang hard to establish safety and maintain it. I brought them up because I've talked to them about it. I feel like they're accomplishing safety with what they do. Since this thread has nothing to do with Government Propoganda, I'll stop there.

LA puts out enough Pollution to damge the ecosystem. We've done little to nothing to change that. What I'm saying is, generally speaking, Nuclear power is safe, efficient, and clean. People read about isolated incidents and the whole thing is invalid.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by El Gato

This is curious. How do wind and solar pollute?

They are a visual pollution, because they need much area to make sufficient energy. Granted it is the least damaging type of pollution but it is pollution. Dams are even more polluting in this way, because they need a huge area of land submergedin water to function.

cheers

W-Y

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by 11011001

wasn't a big deal.

There have been far worse accidents in the oil industry. Think of oil spills, or sour gas leaks. There has been more damage to human lives and the environment from oil than from anything else. The environmentalists have just been so successful at manipulating the publics view that no one considers nuclear safe in comparison.

Personally, I find it hypocritical that the environmentalists are actually doing more damage to their beloved planet by holding back nuclear energy then they would be by supporting it. More nuclear = less oil = less CO2, less land damage, less oil spills, more global warming, etc..

lol i lived through that and i can tell you it was tense. scary

[El Gato]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

They are a visual pollution, because they need much area to make sufficient energy. Granted it is the least damaging type of pollution but it is pollution. Dams are even more polluting in this way, because they need a huge area of land submergedin water to function.

cheers

W-Y

That was my point with deep-water installations - at most you'll see a speck on the horizon. This is where the big push is coming from in the industry - to get offshore and capture the higher wind speeds. Denmark already has had much success in this area, as well as Germany, and I believe that there is an offshore farm in the works in China. You can also look at distributed wind systems where a few turbines are set up on farmland (where there generally are not people around) and the farmer is compensated for the use of his/her land.

Besides, is a wind or solar farm any more visually polluting than a nuclear plant?



I guess the point is that not everyone is going to be happy, but we should be looking for energy sources that have the least cost to society. The loss of a vista is a cost to those who value it, but does that compare to the health costs if nuclear waste isn't stored properly (yes, yes, storage is safe - can you guarantee that? would you want to live in the area?)?

This is the political cost that comes with nuclear. This speech by Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania touches on this and why he's choosing to bring new sources of energy into his state.