Mr Parker I agree ,
I should probably change 'the big issue is people ’ into ‘one of the largish issues’
cheers
Yucca Mountain is still going forward. In the mean time waste is basically held in pools and holding tanks at the site of the nuclear facility. AFAIK there has never been a serious problem from this. The issue is mostly one of security…its expensive to provide security for hundreds of sites…while easier and cheaper to do so for one huge site.
Waste handling is another issue that the anti-nuclear crowd use as a level to stop the creation of new nuclear facilities…all the while blocking the completion of Yucca Mountain (and literally costing the country billions of dollars in cost over runs as this thing drags out decade after decade). However, think of it this way: Lets say that there WAS a major nuclear waste spill at one of these power plants. What would the effect be? Ok, hold that thought. Now…assuming you believe in GW and that CO2 is the primary factor (forcing?), AND you believe that cutting CO2 greatly will have a calming effect. Further, assuming you think that GW will cause world wide changes in climate resulting in some pretty nasty times ahead.
Ok…so, which is worse? A local radiation spill that can be cleaned up…or at worst walled off and abandoned (a la our Russia pals)? Or a global disaster effecting not thousands or 10’s of thousands (or even millions if we go over the top on some nuclear disaster)…but billions?
Only because you and the environmental anti-nuke crowd define moving forward by having to have a central place (good for 10,000 years, etc etc)…ignoring that while the current system we are using for holding the waste is sub-optimal, its also been relatively safe thus far. And that, while nuclear is a very real LOCAL risk, GW is a GLOBAL one. Finally that of all the power sources I know of, nuclear is the only non-CO2 producing technology that is scalable to our current power needs in the time frames we are talking about.
-XT
You’re a little touchy on this one xtisme. I don’t know why you assumed I’m in the “anti-nuke” crowd. I’m all for nuclear power.
It isn’t at all clear that Yucca is going forward. EPA has yet to issue new standards after the 2004 remand, and that is only the first step in many that will have to happen before Yucca even gets certified, much less constructed.
And on-site storage has more problems than just security. The main one, that I pointed out in my last post, is that the feds are having to pay for it. Another is that communities are less likely to accept a new plant if they know that the waste from that plant will also be stored in the community.
Chernobyl was badly designed, staffed by undertrained technicians, and doesn’t bear much resemblance to modern nuclear power plants. Three Mile Island scares people, but remember, no one died or was injured. The failsafe systems at Three Mile Island worked exactly the way they were supposed to. The other nuclear accident that compares to Three Mile Island is the Windscale Fire, and again, no one was hurt or injured.
Yes, I am. I’ve also been very sick lately, so I’m rather like a bear with a sore tooth. Apologies.
Well, I have friends that work there…according to them its going forward. YOu are correct that all manner of efforts are underway to slow it down, halt it or at least throw as many roadblocks in its way as humanly possible.
True enough (though I think security and securing the waste are the major expense). Part of that is a very real problem…part of it is a perception issue. And part of it is one of those cost to benifit ratio/risk analysis thingies. If the cost of NOT doing something to reduce CO2 emissions is greater than the risk of doing something in a sub optimal way as an interrim measure until something better can be devised…
-XT
The article (if we are still talking about that) states due to the need for uranium and prospective uranium shortages we would need breeder reactors to make plutonium, which would lead to a proliferation of weapons grade material.
Could this be overcome with a mix of breeder reactors and light or heavy water reactors burning mixed oxide fuel (MOX)?
One set of breeders to make plutonium and side step the fuel shortage, and some H/LWRs to burn it up thus keep it out of anyones hands?
If you believe “The failsafe systems at Three Mile Island worked exactly the way they were supposed to,” you haven’t studied TMI. We got lucky with TMI.
If you believe failsafe systems in general are “safe,” you haven’t studied the history of them.
If you believe modern plants are better designed, you’ve made a mental shortcut in the phrase “supposed to be better designed.”
If you believe any complex, high-throughput modern system is failure-proof, you haven’t read Charles Perrow. His Normal Accident theory meshes well with historical evidence (a lot of industrial accidents) and common sense (accidents happen).
If you think the only alternative to global warming is fission power, you’re not thinking very far outside the box. It’s a classic false dichotomy.
Sailboat
Here’s a better cite for Normal Accident Theory as pertains to Three Mile Island.
The Columbia University Earth Institute is not insane.
Perhaps it comes down to what we mean by “going forward.” It is true that the government is still trying to make it happen. What is not clear is whether they will succeed. In my view, the chances are slim. Of course, even if they succeed, Yucca is legally allowed to hold only 70,000 tons, which is not even enough to deal with the waste currently being produced without an increase in the number of plants.
Hopefully people will start to come around to the cost-benefit analysis as you lay it out.
It’s interesting to note, however, that the history of distrust of nuclear waste disposal is largely the government’s fault. The first major nuclear disposal project in Lyons, Kansas was revealed to be unsafe (and genuinely so) by state actors who were overseeing the project despite federal government protest. Since that time, and because of many similar gaffes, many people just don’t trust the feds to get this one right. Those people aren’t irrational, even if it is time to put the past behind us.
This is one of those cases where, as always, it’s worth bothering to see what the actual report (a pdf) actually says. The relevant paragraph is:
Some of the phrasing there is fuzzy and they don’t cite the last statement, but it seems pretty clear that the 3.4 per year figure is meant to be representative of what we might expect to build given current regulations, not an historic high.
The statistic you guys are reacting against is presumably that point screwed up either in an over-zealous press release or in a sloppily written Gruaniad piece.
I don’t get that from the article at all. Reading the PDF, it’s clear that they are talking about the construction rate in France alone. Because otherwise, they are way, way off. As I quoted the IAEA in my other message, between just 1980 and 1990, 227 new reactors came online, for an average of 22.7 new reactors per year.
So either they are totally wrong, or they are talking about France alone. In which case… who cares? What does the build rate of reactors in France have to do with anything? Maybe they just built them as they needed them, not as fast as they possibly could. For that matter, the same goes for the whole world - we’ve never built reactors as fast as we possibly could. We’ve build them as we needed them and as they made economic sense.
The article uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand to manufacture a problem that doesn’t exist. Or possibly the authors of the newpaper article did. Either way, it’s not an accurate representation of reality in any way, shape or form.
Couple things.
First, name one system that is failure proof. Just one power system that you can guarantee will never fail. Asking for totally accident proof nulcear power plants while running a system that is a running accident is not exactly the smartest thing in the world.
Second, the real cause of the problem at TMI, according to my source*, was two fold. The first was equipment provided confusing information to the operators. Second, the operators screwed up. You can fix the first, the second is a bit harder to do but it is basically training.
Third, what mature and scalable technology is presently availble to meet our energy needs that can be deployed within 10 years?
Slee
*Turns out my father was at TMI. He flew out to the accident on the day it happened. The V.P called my house asking for him. My Dad ran a nuclear reactor safety division for about 20 years. He was also asked to head the clean up of TMI but declined because he preferred research to the clean up of TMI which he considered ‘busy work’, lots to do but not much real thinking involved.
A fallacious argument, as it is every bit as impossible to significantly reduce power consumption overnight as it is to build large numbers of nuclear power plants overnight.
The fact that building the needed capacity takes time is all the more reason to get cracking on it immediately.
Citing Chernobyl as a reason not to build nuclear power plants is like citing the Gulag as a reason not to send criminals to prison.
So, it’s the anti-nuclear-power crowd using the “they just can’t run that fast (after I kneecapped them)”. Color me unimpressed.
The current regulations are not a product of those opposed to nuclear power. They are based on the recommendations of the National Academies of Science.
It’s not just regulations, it’s the constant litigation nuclear power plants face. Litigation that traditionally has succeeded in getting stop work orders, orders for regulatory compliance reviews, environmental impact studies, you name it. There are groups who will use the courts to throw anything at nuclear power construction, hoping some of it sticks. And even if it doesn’t, by slowing down construction and making these companies absorb huge delays and legal fees, they make nuclear power riskier to invest in and more expensive, which prices it out of the market.
If the regulations aren’t biased, then don’t say “it’s not *just *regulations.” If you think they are biased, please demonstrate this.
As for lawsuits, perhaps you can cite for us an example of this frivolous litigation.
In my view, if the responsible party fails to do an EIS or is not compliant with regulations, the resulting delay is the fault of that party, not the challengers. Indeed, getting an injunction requires a demonstration that the party enjoined is likely going to lose on the merits. Litigation isn’t a magic wand that opponents can wave at nuclear power to slow it down. They actually need valid legal arguments.
Here’s a fabulous example of a better-designed modern plant, and we didn’t have very long to wait, did we?
Quake in Japan causes nuclear accident
There appear (so far) to have been more than one accident, if one counts the waste barrels tipping over as a separate issue.
Design specifically cited…hrm. And who could have predicted an earthquake in Japan?
Sailboat