[turtle777]

So, let's discuss the fear behind nukes.
People are extremely driven by irrational fear, and the media hype does nothing but exaggerate it even more.

1) Alternatives to nukes

In the short- and mid-term, there are NONE.
Solar and wind don't work, because they are intermittent. Plus, there just isn't enough Rare Earths to build them.

Coal, gas and oil fired plants are an option, but we have already shortage of all of these, to substitute nuclear with coal/gas/oil will most definitely mean big shortages.

Hydro power is an alternative, but can't be easily deployed, because it's heavily dependent on geographic features.

The best alternative would be geothermal power plants, but for some reason, those are flying completely under the radar of everyone.

For more a primer, read this: Amazon.com: The Impending World Energy Mess (The Environment) (9781926837116): Robert L. Hirsch, Roger H. Bezdek, Robert M. Wendling: Books


2) Safety of nukes

Nukes are very safe. I'm not saying they can't fail, because they obviously can.
But look at the track record and fatalities in the last 50 years. The only big disaster worldwide was Chernobyl.
And the impact was so much greater because the Russians didn't know how to deal with it.

People accept that certain technologies have danger.
Look a traffic fatalities: 1.2M people are killed on roads each year, another 50M are injured.

Yet, nobody stops driving, nobody outlaws cars.
Heck, we could blow up 5 nuclear power plants each year and not hit that rate of fatalities and injuries.
The fear of nukes is completely irrational and overhyped.

Plus, let's look at it from the safety angle: the US is a showcase how irrational fear makes a country LESS SAFE. After the Three Mile Island incident, the US stopped building new nuclear power plants. The result is that we have to live with older, less safe technologies (Generation I and II reactors) for longer, hence, increasing the odds of an incident in the future.

Pardon the dreaded car analogy, but imagine this:
The US bans all new cars because of traffic fatalities, but decided to leave older cars in service.
How the hell would this make traffic safer ?


Overall, the world really needs to get over the irrational fear of nukes.
Nukes are clean and dependable. The worldwide safety track record over the last 50 years is astounding.
With newer technology (Gen III and Gen IV reactors), nuclear power is a viable, heck, an indispensable energy source if we want to keep our standard of living.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

I agree, although it would be nice if we didn't have nuclear plants near West coast fault lines.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I agree, although it would be nice if we didn't have nuclear plants near West coast fault lines.

Of course. Basically, building *anything* near fault lines is high risk, no matter if nuke, high risers, highways, gas pipelines etc.

-t

[SSharon]

I think some of the fear of nuclear power is because people immediately think nuclear weapons. People get killed in coal mines and explosions at coal plants, but they don't make coal bombs. If there had never been a nuclear bomb I bet people would be much less afraid of nuclear power.

Interesting point about banning new plants forces us to use the old ones, I never thought of it that way, but it makes total sense (your point, not the ban).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

I think some of the fear of nuclear power is because people immediately think nuclear weapons. People get killed in coal mines and explosions at coal plants, but they don't make coal bombs. If there had never been a nuclear bomb I bet people would be much less afraid of nuclear power.

Yeah, but governments don't do enough edumacating to tell people that a nucelar power plant can NEVER blow up like a nucelar bomb.

Coincidentally, people are not afraid of hydro power, although there are hydrogen bombs

-t

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yeah, but governments don't do enough edumacating to tell people that a nucelar power plant can NEVER blow up like a nucelar bomb.

Coincidentally, people are not afraid of hydro power, although there are hydrogen bombs

-t

lol.

I like to blame the government as much as the next guy, but shouldn't the nuclear industry be the one promoting this type of education? My guess is that the government is equally in the dark and they themselves need some education.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I agree, although it would be nice if we didn't have nuclear plants near West coast fault lines.

From the reports that I've read or seen on TV, the reactors weathered the earthquake quite well. It was the tsunami that took out the cooling systems.

[mados123]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

From the reports that I've read or seen on TV, the reactors weathered the earthquake quite well. It was the tsunami that took out the cooling systems.

Exactly. So the question is where do you have the reactors where they are close to water for cooling but not susceptible to earthquake caused, tsunamis? Are major rivers the answer while knowing changes in water temperature kills the local marine life & its ecosystem?

[Dork.]

tl;dr.

Of course nuclear power is bad, you don't need a long post and a bunch of boring links to prove that. The nuke plant in the Simpsons makes three-eyed fish, that's all most people need to know!

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

tl;dr.

Of course nuclear power is bad, you don't need a long post and a bunch of boring links to prove that. The nuke plant in the Simpsons makes three-eyed fish, that's all most people need to know!

They should be focusing on the fact that even with a moron like Homer in charge of plant safety Springfield still hasn't been destroyed proving that nuclear power is so safe even TV's biggest idiot can manage it.

[olePigeon]

It took an 8.9 earthquake (with successive 7+ and 6+ quakes and aftershocks) and a tsunami to only turn off the power on a nuclear plant built with 50-year-old technology. Imagine if a plant was built using modern techniques and safety protocols?

It is still one of the safest and cleanest sources of energy that we currently utilize. Modern plants are even 100% recyclable. If the U.S. would actually support nuclear energy and update our power plants, we could recycle our spent fuel rods instead of burying them.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by mados123 

Are major rivers the answer while knowing changes in water temperature kills the local marine life & its ecosystem?

You could build a reservoir.

[OAW]

I think the primary issues people have with nuclear power are two-fold:

1. If there is a catastrophic failure, the damage can be widespread and long-lasting. If a coal fired electricity plant blows up the immediate area is damaged. You might get some smoke damage in surrounding areas. Perhaps some environmental damage nearby. But that's about it. OTOH a full-blown nuclear reactor meltdown can render huge areas uninhabitable for decades.

2. Issues remain with the safe storage and/or disposal of nuclear waste material.

Indeed the chance of #1 happening is highly unlikely ... but if and when it happens the damage can be catastrophic. It's a situation similar to what we saw with the BP oil spill. So the question then becomes .... are the benefits of nuclear power worth the risk of the potential damage from a worst-case scenario failure? I would say so for the most part. I certainly wouldn't want to see nuclear power plants located in heavily populated areas for sure. But given the tragedy unfolding in Japan I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of people sour on the idea of nuclear power. It seems as if they are in a race against time trying to do some MacGyver sh*t to get the situation under control because perhaps a fundamental question was never asked ....

What is Plan B if all the cooling systems fails simultaneously?

OAW

[mados123]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You could build a reservoir.

Interesting. Just like a CPU water cooling system! I assume "Nuclear reprocessing" is what you are referring to with the recycling of spent fuel? Nuclear reprocessing - Wiki
Do you know which countries are doing this now?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

2. Issues remain with the safe storage and/or disposal of nuclear waste material.

Gen 4 nuclear plants (currently under development) will do on-site recycling of more than 90% of the waste.
The waste needed to be stored will shrink a lot.

Originally Posted by OAW 

What is Plan B if all the cooling systems fails simultaneously?

Gen 3 power plants have a passive cooling system that works w/o electricity.
Not 100% fail safe, but much better than the old plants that relied on diesel generators or battery backup.

-t

[mados123]

double post, sorry.

[mados123]

Consistent with the car death analogy and other studies: Energy production as seen with coal show related deaths at 20,000+/year (along with a number of other health risks). I don't know the validity of these studies but the concerns do make sense. Of course, deaths over the year are not as sensational as the thought of all them dying at once (shudder to think) so the ADD media won't cover it the same. I also don't know how honest of a debate we have had in the past decade regarding the scientific progression of energy production in the US. {I am being generous}
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/...ws-environment

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by mados123 

Interesting. Just like a CPU water cooling system! I assume "Nuclear reprocessing" is what you are referring to with the recycling of spent fuel? Nuclear reprocessing - Wiki
Do you know which countries are doing this now?

France is currently the model country for modern nuclear power. Their power plants were designed from the beginning for nuclear reprocessing. I've mentioned France before, they have a great nuclear program. I could be mistaken, but I think almost 100% of France's municipal power comes from nuclear power plants.

[SpaceMonkey]

Currently reprocessing is not an option, politically, for the United States due to nonproliferation concerns.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Currently reprocessing is not an option, politically, for the United States due to nonproliferation concerns.

Stupid excuse. The US is just kicking the can down the road.

If we want to keep cheap & safe nuclear power, we need to go through with the whole processing chain.

Politicians needs to get a grip (as with so many things).

-t

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by mados123 

Exactly. So the question is where do you have the reactors where they are close to water for cooling but not susceptible to earthquake caused, tsunamis? Are major rivers the answer while knowing changes in water temperature kills the local marine life & its ecosystem?

In the middle of the desert cooled by treated effluent.
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

[mados123]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

France is currently the model country for modern nuclear power.

Great. How are we going to convince the proponents of "Freedom Fries" that France is ahead of the US?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mados123 

Great. How are we going to convince the proponents of "Freedom Fries" that France is ahead of the US?

They're also ahead when it comes to cuisine and obesity (or lack thereof).

What's the point of convincing some patriotic idiot that the US is not the pinnacle of human evolution in every aspect ?

-t

[mados123]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What's the point of convincing some patriotic idiot that the US is not the pinnacle of human evolution in every aspect?

You are right. There is not point trying to convince "patriotic" idiots. Unfortunately, there is the greatest push back from those modern day Luddites and the power they hold in Congress as well as funding from the Citizen's United ruling. Now if we could only get people to vote for what is *actually* in their best interest as well as get people to actually vote.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What's the point of convincing some patriotic idiot that the US is not the pinnacle of human evolution in every aspect ?

-t

Expect a visit from Sean Hannity, you ungrateful puke....

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Expect a visit from Sean Hannity, you ungrateful puke....

I did, but instead, you showed up. Go figure.

-t

[stumblinmike]

I bring smiles, he'll be bringing tears...(of pain, your pain!!!)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Gen 4 nuclear plants (currently under development) will do on-site recycling of more than 90% of the waste.
The waste needed to be stored will shrink a lot.

I seem to recall someone saying that with reprocessing in France, the amount of waste for a family of four for an entire lifetime would fit in a teacup.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So, let's discuss the fear behind nukes.
People are extremely driven by irrational fear, and the media hype does nothing but exaggerate it even more.

Funny, it seems the people with the most "irrational fear" are the ones owning/financing and building the plants.. the ones most educated about it. Actions speak louder than words. The private sector is so terrified they wont touch it without tons of government money backing. So of course the government decided to heavily regulated it they are going to be financing so much of it. If you want to start a nuc plant go ahead, and if you opt out of any government backing you can probably get out of many regulations.

1) Alternatives to nukes

In the short- and mid-term, there are NONE.
Solar and wind don't work, because they are intermittent. Plus, there just isn't enough Rare Earths to build them.

Coal, gas and oil fired plants are an option, but we have already shortage of all of these, to substitute nuclear with coal/gas/oil will most definitely mean big shortages.

Hydro power is an alternative, but can't be easily deployed, because it's heavily dependent on geographic features.

The best alternative would be geothermal power plants, but for some reason, those are flying completely under the radar of everyone.

This I agree with. We should consider nuclear when we need power, but we shouldnt just jump to it as a knee jerk reaction like republicans propose. We shouldnt pretend it's safe and cheap either. All risks and costs should be added up including government subsidies and insurance; in which case nuclear often isnt the most profitable solution.

2) Safety of nukes

Nukes are very safe. I'm not saying they can't fail, because they obviously can.
But look at the track record and fatalities in the last 50 years. The only big disaster worldwide was Chernobyl.
And the impact was so much greater because the Russians didn't know how to deal with it.

The track record has been awful compared to other power sources. And Chernobyl isn't the only significant disaster. For a piece of thought lets look at the attempted government cover up thats happening in japan. First there wasnt going to be a problem because there were back up generators & fail safes secured away from anything that could affect it in the environment. When those failed, they blamed the tsunami shorting them, and said well theres no possible chance of an explosion with these modern safe plants. Now there's been what 3? 4? explosions. They also said there was no radiation leaking and that there was no possible chance of it even though it has been leaking since right after the quake. They've been trying to cover up and downplay everything and some of it I imagine they will be successful at.... such as the number of people who eventually get cancer from this. I dont know how constantly downplaying the risks like theyve been doing is 'irrational sensational media fear mongering'.

People accept that certain technologies have danger.
Look a traffic fatalities: 1.2M people are killed on roads each year, another 50M are injured.

Yet, nobody stops driving, nobody outlaws cars.
Heck, we could blow up 5 nuclear power plants each year and not hit that rate of fatalities and injuries.
The fear of nukes is completely irrational and overhyped.

Plus, let's look at it from the safety angle: the US is a showcase how irrational fear makes a country LESS SAFE. After the Three Mile Island incident, the US stopped building new nuclear power plants. The result is that we have to live with older, less safe technologies (Generation I and II reactors) for longer, hence, increasing the odds of an incident in the future.

So you're saying we should have built all new plants and decommissioned the old ones? Is this what we should do with all products and technologies? Doesn't sound very efficient or profitable. These things are built with the long term in mind from a profitability standpoint. Why not build something that doesnt have to be rebuilt every few years when a new gen comes out? What is it thats so different from the new proposed plants that these japanese ones dont have?

Pardon the dreaded car analogy, but imagine this:
The US bans all new cars because of traffic fatalities, but decided to leave older cars in service.
How the hell would this make traffic safer ?

Overall, the world really needs to get over the irrational fear of nukes.
Nukes are clean and dependable. The worldwide safety track record over the last 50 years is astounding.
With newer technology (Gen III and Gen IV reactors), nuclear power is a viable, heck, an indispensable energy source if we want to keep our standard of living.
-t

Compare nuc to other power sources not cars. Besides people have a choice of whether not to drive, what safe car to get, where and how they drive and at what times they go out. You have no choice of what kind of power you use; once the power plant is built by your neighborhood its there to stay. And if the government banned all cars what would they replace them with? If they banned nucs which they havent, no one would notice because there'd be a replacement...scratch that they might notice cheaper, safer power.

Quite frankly Im going to be pissed if my tax dollars pay for something I never wanted then it ends up causing a national disaster like whats happening in Japan because I dunno a tornado or something knocks out the generator and the nuclear can't just be turned off.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

I think some of the fear of nuclear power is because people immediately think nuclear weapons. People get killed in coal mines and explosions at coal plants, but they don't make coal bombs.

Interesting point about banning new plants forces us to use the old ones, I never thought of it that way, but it makes total sense (your point, not the ban).

no it doesn't make sense; the old ones wouldnt be decommissioned either way unless it was profitable... And how many times have cities been evacuated 30 miles out because of a possible coal meltdown?

[subego]

That is all. Carry on.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Gen 3 power plants have a passive cooling system that works w/o electricity.
Not 100% fail safe, but much better than the old plants that relied on diesel generators or battery backup.

That's all well and good ... unfortunately that doesn't make any difference when it comes to existing reactors.

The warnings were stark and issued repeatedly as far back as 1972: If the cooling systems ever failed at a Mark 1 nuclear reactor, the primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheated. Dangerous radiation would spew into the environment.

Now, with one Mark 1 containment vessel damaged at the embattled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and other vessels there under severe strain, the weaknesses of the design — developed in the 1960s by General Electric — could be contributing to the unfolding catastrophe.

When the ability to cool a reactor is compromised, the containment vessel is the last line of defense. Typically made of steel and concrete, it is designed to prevent — for a time — melting fuel rods from spewing radiation into the environment if cooling efforts completely fail.

In some reactors, known as pressurized water reactors, the system is sealed inside a thick, steel-and-cement tomb. Most nuclear reactors around the world are of this type.

But the type of containment vessel and pressure suppression system used in the failing reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant — and in 23 American reactors at 16 plants — is physically less robust, and it has long been thought to be more susceptible to failure in an emergency than competing designs.

G.E. began making the Mark 1 boiling water reactors in the 1960s, marketing them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.

American regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.

In 1972, Stephen H. Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy Commission, recommended in a memo that the sort of “pressure-suppression” system used in G.E.’s Mark 1 plants presented unacceptable safety risks and that it should be discontinued. Among his concerns were that the smaller containment design was more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen — a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

“What are the safety advantages of pressure suppression, apart from the cost saving?” Mr. Hanauer asked in the 1972 memo. (The regulatory functions of the Atomic Energy Commission were later transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)

A written response came later that same year from Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the N.R.C. He called the idea of a ban on such systems “attractive” because alternative containment systems have the “notable advantage of brute simplicity in dealing with a primary blowdown.”

But he added that the technology had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials that “reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of nuclear power.”

Reactor Design in Japan Has Long Been Questioned

And therein lies the rub. When you are dealing with a technology that has the potential to unleash a catastrophe of epic proportions ... the fact that corporations still try to skimp on safety in their never-ending quest for the Almighty Dollar gives people reason to pause. While I think that we as a country should pursue nuclear power with the next-generation power plant designs ... I certainly won't label people as "irrational" if they are skeptical when it comes to ability of existing plants to withstand a failure on this level.

OAW

[mados123]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

We should consider nuclear when we need power, but we shouldnt just jump to it as a knee jerk reaction like republicans propose.

Anything the republicans propose should be approached with extreme skepticism.

We shouldnt pretend it's safe and cheap either.

How do you measure its cost? Solely in monetary terms? How many wars have been committed in the name oil? How many lives have been given? 20,000+ lives a year as a result of coal burning pollution and mining. Those don't seem too safe nor cheap either. How many people have died from nuclear disasters? Is it wise to have it next to a highly populated area - probably not. Then focus on the energy grid and invest in infrastructure. Do we need a better solution, absolutely.

The track record has been awful compared to other power sources.

This is just pure rubbish, unless of course, you are using a very acute metric for its track record.

For a piece of thought lets look at the attempted government cover up thats happening in japan.

Every government downplays the severity of catastrophes when it occurs and Japan has a history of this with its nuclear program. Look at 9/11 and how "the air was safe according to the EPA." It is absolutely wrong to minimize risk during a crisis but it is also not the time for definitive policy decisions then either.

I dont know how constantly downplaying the risks like theyve been doing is 'irrational sensational media fear mongering'.

What is being talked about are two different things - the gov't's reaction and the media's. If they were associated, the media wouldn't be making a big deal like the gov't over there really wasn't.

So you're saying we should have built all new plants and decommissioned the old ones? Is this what we should do with all products and technologies?

If the technology evolves for the better and people's needs change, then yes. I doubt you are using a PowerBook from 2000. You want electric cars, you need more energy production. Are you going to use more coal? Then you will have more deaths - unless clean coal tech is actual "clean." Energy conservation and product efficiency are also part of the solution.

What is it thats so different from the new proposed plants that these japanese ones dont have?

If you don't understand the evolution of nuclear technology, how can you debate its safety, profitability, efficiency, etc? I'm still learning, that is why I am open to discussion.

Besides people have a choice of whether not to drive, what safe car to get, where and how they drive and at what times they go out. You have no choice of what kind of power you use; once the power plant is built by your neighborhood its there to stay.

You have the choice to move to West Virgina then - lots of coal there.

Quite frankly Im going to be pissed if my tax dollars pay for something I never wanted then it ends up causing a national disaster.

I'm pissed off my tax dollars go to unnecessary wars where the national disaster involves the deaths of 5,885 (and counting) US soldiers and unknown life-altering injuries.

And how many times have cities been evacuated 30 miles out because of a possible coal meltdown?

Never, but that doesn't mean the population won't end up in body bags related to coal usage.

Isn't the chupacabra a mythical creature that locals have named because of their misunderstanding of what it really is?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

no it doesn't make sense; the old ones wouldnt be decommissioned either way unless it was profitable... And how many times have cities been evacuated 30 miles out because of a possible coal meltdown?

How many people have died in a coal mining accident versus a nuclear meltdown?

[mados123]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And therein lies the rub. When you are dealing with a technology that has the potential to unleash a catastrophe of epic proportions ... the fact that corporations still try to skimp on safety in their never-ending quest for the Almighty Dollar gives people reason to pause. While I think that we as a country should pursue nuclear power with the next-generation power plant designs ... I certainly won't label people as "irrational" if they are skeptical when it comes to ability of existing plants to withstand a failure on this level.

Well said.

[OAW]

Oh wow, it gets worse .....

Thirty-five years ago, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues at General Electric resigned from their jobs after becoming increasingly convinced that the nuclear reactor design they were reviewing -- the Mark 1 -- was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident.

Questions persisted for decades about the ability of the Mark 1 to handle the immense pressures that would result if the reactor lost cooling power, and today that design is being put to the ultimate test in Japan. Five of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which has been wracked since Friday's earthquake with explosions and radiation leaks, are Mark 1s.

"The problems we identified in 1975 were that, in doing the design of the containment, they did not take into account the dynamic loads that could be experienced with a loss of coolant," Bridenbaugh told ABC News in an interview. "The impact loads the containment would receive by this very rapid release of energy could tear the containment apart and create an uncontrolled release."

The situation on the ground at the Fukushima Daiichi plant is so fluid, and the details of what is unfolding are so murky, that it may be days or even weeks before anyone knows how the Mark 1 containment system performed in the face of a devastating combination of natural disasters.

But the ability of the containment to withstand the events that have cascaded from what nuclear experts call a "station blackout" -- where the loss of power has crippled the reactor's cooling system -- will be a crucial question as policy makers re-examine the safety issues that surround nuclear power, and specifically the continued use of what is now one of the oldest types of nuclear reactors still operating.

Fukushima: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest - ABC News



OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

That's all well and good ... unfortunately that doesn't make any difference when it comes to existing reactors.

So ? You can either

a) build new reactors and raise the cost of electricity
b) take the risk and continue producing cheaper electricity with older technology

Which one do you prefer ?

From a US perspective, option a) was not available for the longest time, because no new nuclear reactor permits were issued for many, many years. So POLITICIANS decided for option b).

-t

[Arty50]

Originally Posted by mados123 

Never, but that doesn't mean the population won't end up in body bags related to coal usage.

Coal Ash is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

Additionally, coal power plants are the number one source of human generated mercury. Seafood is a extremely important component of the world's food supply and it's being horribly contaminated by the mercury that we're pumping into the ecosystem.
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/sources.asp

[lpkmckenna]

I'm pro-nuke. No matter how you measure it, it's safer, cheaper, and cleaner. And we will lose another 40 years of progress because of what happened in Japan.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'm pro-nuke. No matter how you measure it, it's safer, cheaper, and cleaner. And we will lose another 40 years of progress because of what happened in Japan.

We, as in, Western society.

The Chinese and Indians won't give a shit, they know that they need nuclear power to grow their standard of living.

The West so so dumb, they think their standard of living is a given, and can't possibly decline. Fools.

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It took an 8.9 earthquake (with successive 7+ and 6+ quakes and aftershocks) and a tsunami to only turn off the power on a nuclear plant built with 50-year-old technology. Imagine if a plant was built using modern techniques and safety protocols?

Nothing made by man is free from opportunities for improvement. Other than that, commercial nuclear power has been as "good as possible" in both technology and efficiency for many decades. Commercial power companies very wisely ignored suggestions for "high efficiency" reactor designs that had the potential to make many times more energy with the same amount of fuel-with some less than desirable potentials for failure, such as the "liquid sodium" reactor whose first stage cooling was through circulating molten salt or metallic sodium through the reactor. Oh, and it achieved higher efficiency through being fueled with plutonium, too. Yikes! On the whole, I think commercial nuclear power has been pretty conservative in both technology and efficiency.

Originally Posted by SSharon 

I think some of the fear of nuclear power is because people immediately think nuclear weapons. People get killed in coal mines and explosions at coal plants, but they don't make coal bombs. If there had never been a nuclear bomb I bet people would be much less afraid of nuclear power.

There is convincing evidence that the USS Maine disaster was due to poor management of coal dust in the ships bunkers. And of course coal mines are exceptionally dangerous because of both methane gas AND coal dust... But nobody has used coal as a weapon, so it doesn't register with most people as being that dangerous.

Further, the background radiation levels around conventional coal-fired power plants are substantially higher than those around nuclear plants, but there is no regulation of the radiation that is released by crushing and burning coal, so people don't hear about it.

Originally Posted by OAW 

I think the primary issues people have with nuclear power are two-fold:

1. If there is a catastrophic failure, the damage can be widespread and long-lasting. If a coal fired electricity plant blows up the immediate area is damaged. You might get some smoke damage in surrounding areas. Perhaps some environmental damage nearby. But that's about it. OTOH a full-blown nuclear reactor meltdown can render huge areas uninhabitable for decades.

2. Issues remain with the safe storage and/or disposal of nuclear waste material.

Indeed the chance of #1 happening is highly unlikely ... but if and when it happens the damage can be catastrophic. It's a situation similar to what we saw with the BP oil spill. So the question then becomes .... are the benefits of nuclear power worth the risk of the potential damage from a worst-case scenario failure? I would say so for the most part. I certainly wouldn't want to see nuclear power plants located in heavily populated areas for sure. But given the tragedy unfolding in Japan I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of people sour on the idea of nuclear power. It seems as if they are in a race against time trying to do some MacGyver sh*t to get the situation under control because perhaps a fundamental question was never asked ....

What is Plan B if all the cooling systems fails simultaneously?

OAW

Waste disposal is supposed to be simple: congregate the waste in remote places that are hard to get to and thoroughly secured (empty desert, sealed salt caves, etc.) and leave it be forever. Except that plenty of people are afraid of anything "nuclear" anywhere near them. The americium in their smoke detectors is more hazardous than a loaded DOT/NRC certified transportation cask in their front yard, but again, they don't know about that radioactive bit on their ceilings so they freak about something else.

Fail-safe design is typically expected to be "five nines" effective (99.999%). What are the chances of a 9.0 earthquake with multiple 7 and 6 magnitude aftershocks AND a ten meter tsunami surge at the same plant? Much lower than that 0.001% the designers missed. You cannot blame planners for not expecting a 30 foot wall of water right after a tremendous earthquake, though it probably wasn't very foresightful to not protect the diesel generators from flooding. Unless they were really swept away, the generators should have been redundant and protected from floods and other hazards.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Funny, it seems the people with the most "irrational fear" are the ones owning/financing and building the plants.. the ones most educated about it. Actions speak louder than words. The private sector is so terrified they wont touch it without tons of government money backing.

This assumes that the suits that make money decisions have a clue about the technical details. Which they generally don't. They want government protection from liability if something they can't understand does something bad, that's all.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

The track record has been awful compared to other power sources. And Chernobyl isn't the only significant disaster. For a piece of thought lets look at the attempted government cover up thats happening in japan. First there wasnt going to be a problem because there were back up generators & fail safes secured away from anything that could affect it in the environment. When those failed, they blamed the tsunami shorting them, and said well theres no possible chance of an explosion with these modern safe plants. Now there's been what 3? 4? explosions. They also said there was no radiation leaking and that there was no possible chance of it even though it has been leaking since right after the quake. They've been trying to cover up and downplay everything and some of it I imagine they will be successful at.... such as the number of people who eventually get cancer from this. I dont know how constantly downplaying the risks like theyve been doing is 'irrational sensational media fear mongering'.

Coverup? It looks to me like they have been trying to figure out "what the heck is actually happening" rather than hiding anything. Devastated countryside, hard to get to locations, and multiple disaster-caused failures make it hard to figure out what the bleep is going on. Not that the operator is necessarily innocent here, just that OUR lack of news does not equate to THEIR hiding anything.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

So you're saying we should have built all new plants and decommissioned the old ones?

As the technology has improved, we've ditched most other technology-based systems in favor of better ones, right? When the hardest part of building a nuclear plant is getting regulatory permission, and what should be updated is the smallest part (the reactor itself), how would that be different from upgrading a coal fired plant with crushers, with scrubbers, and with compressed air burners? Neither plant is "cheap" to update, but there are extremely good reasons to update both types.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Compare nuc to other power sources not cars.

People don't die in uranium mines, they don't get disabling lung diseases from mining uranium, and they don't get ignored, exploited and abandoned by the mine operators. People DO die in coal-fired power plants on a relatively regular basis; crushed by mishandled coal loads, scalded to death by bad steam pipes, electrocuted doing maintenance on something that was supposed to be de-energized. Power companies don't have to publish their safety information for coal plants... So far NOBODY in the US has died from producing power with a commercial nuclear plant, and an awfully few people have been hurt. There is no comparison in the coal business.

For more info on the risks from coal use for power production, read here. Can't suggest a "government coverup" with this, as it's from Oak Ridge National Laboratory...

[smacintush]

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor

[Athens]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It is still one of the safest and cleanest sources of energy that we currently utilize. Modern plants are even 100% recyclable. If the U.S. would actually support nuclear energy and update our power plants, we could recycle our spent fuel rods instead of burying them.

They do get recycled up here in CANDU reactors which run in heavy water and straight Uranium. CANDU reactors should be used in ify locations like Japan and any other earth quake prone locations.

[Athens]

A person living beside a coal power plant will get more radiation exposure then living beside a Nuclear power plant. Lots of Radon seeps up from the ground. Some people have basements which are more radio active then even coal and nuclear power plants. Nuclear tests in the 50's to the 70s released enough global radio active material to increase the average background radiation levels by 15 points. Even today we are still 10 points above pre testing levels.

Radiation works on a curve where its beneficial for a bit before it drops off to being bad. Most radiation cant even get through paper, the ones that emit gamma particles are very short lived. We already have radioactive material in us like potassium.


The fear comes from the fact you cant see it, smell it and are ignorant of it. Oh and Hollywood didn't help and neither to dirty bombs which resulted in lots of deformations of babies fuelling the hysteria of what i can do to a person. Its rather pathetic how people are reacting to this. If anything a 9.0 quake, tons of aftershocks, and a Tsunami all hitting a plant, it should show how safe they are.

[mados123]

@ghporter:

Good stuff.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

This I agree with. We should consider nuclear when we need power, but we shouldnt just jump to it as a knee jerk reaction like republicans propose. We shouldnt pretend it's safe and cheap either. All risks and costs should be added up including government subsidies and insurance; in which case nuclear often isnt the most profitable solution.

The most profitable solution isn't always the best solution. At least when you factor other things in like human health, environment... but hey cant get in the way of the all mighty dollar can we.

The track record has been awful compared to other power sources. And Chernobyl isn't the only significant disaster.

Your on crack, on all levels with this statement.

For a piece of thought lets look at the attempted government cover up thats happening in japan. First there wasnt going to be a problem because there were back up generators & fail safes secured away from anything that could affect it in the environment. When those failed, they blamed the tsunami

Yup, dam those Japanese for designing and building a plant for a 7.5 earth quake and omg having it survive mostly intact for a 9 plus Tsunami. I mean dam man its a cover up on why it didn't collapse as it should have.

shorting them, and said well theres no possible chance of an explosion with these modern safe plants. Now there's been what 3? 4? explosions.

Yup and they where expected and had nothing to do with the plant itself. The Hydrogen build-up is a bi-product of the last ditch methods for cooling them. It was a calculated risk. The plants on their own are not exploding.

They also said there was no radiation leaking and that there was no possible chance of it even though it has been leaking since right after the quake.

The first radiation leaks where controlled releases of gas and the radio-activeness of it was very short lived. Basically to call that a leak and a continuous leak is dishonest. The current radiation issue is coming from the fire in the fuel pond, not the reactors or plants.

They've been trying to cover up and downplay everything and some of it I imagine they will be successful at.... such as the number of people who eventually get cancer from this. I dont know how constantly downplaying the risks like theyve been doing is 'irrational sensational media fear mongering'.

Look at the Cancer numbers in the Ukraine and Europe to get your facts straight. The worst nuclear disaster on this planet didn't cause much of a rise in Cancer. I doubt Japan's issue will either.

So you're saying we should have built all new plants and decommissioned the old ones? Is this what we should do with all products and technologies? Doesn't sound very efficient or profitable. These things are built with the long term in mind from a profitability standpoint. Why not build something that doesnt have to be rebuilt every few years when a new gen comes out? What is it thats so different from the new proposed plants that these japanese ones dont have?

Is this a example of Strawmen?

Compare nuc to other power sources not cars. Besides people have a choice of whether not to drive, what safe car to get, where and how they drive and at what times they go out. You have no choice of what kind of power you use; once the power plant is built by your neighborhood its there to stay.

Just like I have a choice in what car jumps the curve and hits me. Last time I checked that isnt a choice. Also a person is always free to pack up and move.

And if the government banned all cars what would they replace them with?

Bikes, walking, bus, trains, moving sidewalks... take your pick.

If they banned nucs which they havent, no one would notice because there'd be a replacement...scratch that they might notice cheaper, safer power.

NO they would notice, the black filth will be harder to wash off the car, the cancer rates will go up, the amount of acid rain will affect the environment. Oh and would be a massive power shortage so expect lots of rolling black outs.

Quite frankly Im going to be pissed if my tax dollars pay for something I never wanted then it ends up causing a national disaster like whats happening in Japan because I dunno a tornado or something knocks out the generator and the nuclear can't just be turned off.

So I guess you are pissed at the tax dollars spent on Nuclear Weapons, you know those things that Keep the US safe from invasion from every one else who absolutely hates the US.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It took an 8.9 earthquake (with successive 7+ and 6+ quakes and aftershocks) and a tsunami to only turn off the power on a nuclear plant built with 50-year-old technology. Imagine if a plant was built using modern techniques and safety protocols?

It is still one of the safest and cleanest sources of energy that we currently utilize. Modern plants are even 100% recyclable. If the U.S. would actually support nuclear energy and update our power plants, we could recycle our spent fuel rods instead of burying them.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

People don't die in uranium mines, they don't get disabling lung diseases from mining uranium, and they don't get ignored, exploited and abandoned by the mine operators.

Uhh, what? Might want to read up on uranium mining....

[turtle777]

Not in the US, because there are no Uranium mines
(I just made that up)
-t

[OAW]

As always, when something goes seriously south all the dirty laundry comes out ....

Reports: Lax oversight, 'greed' preceded Japan nuclear crisis - CSMonitor.com



OAW