# New and improved nuclear plants may cost more than expected. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 5, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880 "2009-06-05T22:35:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/161 "2009-06-07T22:56:05Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > This is an example of a bare assertion fallacy. The assumption that such an incident can’t occur at a US plant because it is built in the United States is without basis. You are failing to understand. The incident can not happen at a US plant, because US plants are _not built_ in the manner Chernobyl was. There are very basic failures in the design of that nuclear plant, on a mechanical level. Even if the same chain of idiot thinking was followed as was over there, the xenon poisoning would not happen in the same way, at a minimum. Even if, somehow, a parallel series of failures happened, there is a containment dome. But the series of failures can’t happen, because our nuclear plants do not use water as a moderating _and_ cooling agent, nor do the rods displace the water when they are slid in. Yumpin yimminy, are you even listening to the words people are typing? What would it take to convince you that it can’t happen here, on any more than a trivial level? You can, literally, slam a 747 into Indian Point, and not care! ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/162 "2009-06-07T23:10:11Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > You pretty clearly danced around calling me an asshole. You used the word and insinuated that it applied to me. Your denial is pathetic. Your denial, rather than a retraction or apology, says a lot about how you treat people. Confirming how I’ve seen you treat people in other threads, so it isn’t a one-off. 🙂 Feel free to Pit me! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/163 "2009-06-07T23:15:09Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > You are failing to understand. The incident can not happen at a US plant, because US plants are _not built_ in the manner Chernobyl was. There are very basic failures in the design of that nuclear plant, on a mechanical level. Even if the same chain of idiot thinking was followed as was over there, the xenon poisoning would not happen in the same way, at a minimum. Even if, somehow, a parallel series of failures happened, there is a containment dome. But the series of failures can’t happen, because our nuclear plants do not use water as a moderating _and_ cooling agent, nor do the rods displace the water when they are slid in. > > Yumpin yimminy, are you even listening to the words people are typing? What would it take to convince you that it can’t happen here, on any more than a trivial level? > > You can, literally, slam a 747 into Indian Point, and not care! Chernobyl cannot happen the exact same way at any reactor that does not use that design. Your argument is essentially that Three Mile Island could not have gotten worse. [http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html](http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html) Which is what we’ve been told. The reactor partially melted down and the building wasn’t breached and large amounts of radiation not release. Now it would be nice that if there was a fully uncontrolled meltdown that the containment building would not be breached, but if it really is fully uncontrolled, it is going to continue to meltdown right through all of the concrete and steel. The reason a Pebble Bed reactor is somewhat attractive is that if they pebbles aren’t in their hopper and just spread out as per gravity on the floor rolling around that they will stop reacting. Unless the hopper jams. Which on the test one in Germany it did, and nobody thought that was possible. Well, then it didn’t get hot enough and is not designed to get hot enough to melt the hopper, only hot enough to warm the exchange gases. The thing is, we don’t know what is going to go wrong once thousands of them are in operation. We don’t really know what the high risk event is. It looks very small for Pebble Beds, but we don’t have experience with them. (I understand the Chinese are starting to use them.) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/164 "2009-06-07T23:18:31Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > 🙂 > Feel free to Pit me! Why would I want to “Pit” you? You called me an asshole in an informative discussion about nuclear energy and then dissembled when called on it. You did it for the attention, why would I do more than simply point out what you did? That would be feeding your desire for negative attention when you have positive things to contribute and derail the informative part of the discussion. It would be entirely counter-productive. Unless I just wanted to name call. Which I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/165 "2009-06-08T00:23:06Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > This is an example of a bare assertion fallacy. The assumption that such an incident can’t occur at a US plant because it is built in the United States is without basis I’m not saying it will be magically safe as if there is an aura of safety surrounding the US. I’m saying that we take safety at our reactors far more seriously. As far as I’m aware, we don’t run light water reactors where the water is used as a moderator/absorber by design. We don’t design our fuel rods in such a way that hitting the “oh shit” button and dumping dozens of rods into the reactor at the same time in an emergency displaces a signficiant amount of the coolant/moderator/absorber. We build containment domes. We don’t make the walls with a flammable material. We also, I hope, don’t have the bizarre combination of institutional arrogance and poorly trained operators that lead to the bizarre series of events. I don’t think we’d test a critical system that we know probably won’t work on a live reactor. I don’t think we’d do it during a shift in which the plant operators didn’t know what was going on. I don’t think our techs would miss the implications of xenon poisoning and just say “ah fuck it, pull the rods to get this bitch working again”. I don’t think they’d disable several safety systems to allow them to proceed with this test. I don’t think they’d then proceed with the test knowing the reactor was running under abnormal conditions. And I especially don’t think we’d make all those errors at once. Quite frankly, even knowing the USSR did almost everything internal in a half-assed way, I’m still amazed that this combination of errors could occur - even if only due to the basic self preservation instinct of the people running it. They basically did everything they could to blow up the reactor. It’s a staggering series of errors even coming from an empire whose regard for individual safety is low. So no, I think the possibility of something like that happening - even if it could, if we used the same reactor designs - is infinitesimal. At some point along those many, many errors, someone here would say “hey, guys, let’s step back and think about this” and disaster would be averted. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/166 "2009-06-08T01:02:00Z")
[Fermi nuke plant used wrong test for years](http://www.physorg.com/news91380326.html) Yep ,we do not make mistakes in the US. Well this little one with a 20 year long error for a backup diesel. We are not invulnerable to mistakes and cutting corners.The profit motive assures that they will happen. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/167 "2009-06-08T01:08:04Z")
I didn’t say no mistakes would be made. I’m sure there will be. But to have a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl, you need both unsafe design and a chain of mistakes. Read post #140 again and see if this is anything like that chain of events. I agree that any sort of mistakes are troubling and should be looked into - but even in the worst case scenario here - the backup diesels didn’t work, and the water pumps didn’t flow - then the automatic safety systems would scram the reactor and because we don’t build the scram procedure to blow up the damn reactor it would have just shut down the plant, not blown it up. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/168 "2009-06-08T01:37:39Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Now it would be nice that if there was a fully uncontrolled meltdown that the containment building would not be breached, but if it really is fully uncontrolled, it is going to continue to meltdown right through all of the concrete and steel. We have a claim, ladies and gentlemen. Is the China Syndrome possible? Let’s see! > **[Nuclear meltdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown)** > > A nuclear meltdown (core meltdown, core melt accident, meltdown or partial core melt) is a severe nuclear reactor accident that results in core damage from overheating. The term nuclear meltdown is not officially defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency, however it has been defined to mean the accidental melting of the core or fuel of a nuclear reactor, and is in common usage a reference to the core's either complete or partial collapse. > A core meltdown accident occurs when the heat g... Even the worst case scenario, you still have to go through the containment barrier before hitting groundwater, and nothing’s done that. Tends to cool down once it escapes, so it’s a question of time versus thickness. > **[Introduction to Nuclear Power](https://books.google.com/books?id=2KYVftKE9NUC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=nuclear+meltdown+containment+failure&source=bl&ots=F6mk-UfSHv&sig=YPAVSZ2llGzXWN5NIBm43fTlTI8&hl=en&ei=YmosStuWGsOptgfczfHLCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPA164,M1)** Seems to say it’s really unlikely… but I’ll need Una here. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/169 "2009-06-08T01:39:12Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > We also, I hope, don’t have the bizarre combination of institutional arrogance and poorly trained operators that lead to the bizarre series of events. After reading up on 3 Mile Island, I’ll disagree. Things can get punchy. I say this, knowing one nuke on a sub who flipped out. If plant technicians are like he was, it can get bizarre and bad. This is why Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/170 "2009-06-08T01:42:16Z")
That’s the thing - people point to three mile island as evidence that we just can’t operate reactors safely - but how many people were killed by it? 0. So even in our worst case, no (non-economic) harm was done. To me that seems like evidence that we’re taking safety and containment seriously. Incidentally, I’m not opposed to the idea that nuclear plants have more inspections and stringent requirements, even if it raises the cost. But the cost that burning coal pushes onto society at large should be accounted for in some way too. At least the newer cleaner technology that we could install but don’t because it’s too expensive should be pushed. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/171 "2009-06-08T02:02:46Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > I demand stories! I demand stories! > Correct me if I’m wrong, but if someone plowed a 747 into the dome, the fuselage, LARGELY, wouldn’t matter, but the engines would. I _think_ the military construction of the F-4 would more or less equal a 747 engine hitting, the F-4 was a really, really solid plane. > > Yes/no/maybe? I’d like your/his opinion of a larger plane hitting. > > Second Stone, Una’s name may not be known, but her expertise in this field is known and clearly apparent to us. To match her arguments, you’re going to have to do better than that. My Dad’s opinion on a 747 hitting a containment dome runs something like: ‘You’d have a bunch of dead terrorists\* and plane parts to clean up. After that a bit of patching to do on the dome.’ Basically the plane fuselage wouldn’t do jack and bigger planes might actually do less damage as the engines would miss the dome. If you want to take out a dome you need lots of explosives. You are correct that they wanted a plane with the engine in line with the impact. IIRC, they thought about doing just an engine be he decided to do the whole plane. Slee \*Assuming it was terrorists, of course. The original test wasn’t aimed at terrorists, they were thinking accident. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/172 "2009-06-08T06:08:41Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > [Quote=DSeid] > Yeah, and stupid asshole or worse is what they call people who don’t know what the fuck they are talking about and attempt to insult people who we respect over in The Pit. What of it? If we were in the Pit I’d call someone doing that that or worse but we are not, so I won’t, and we also are not on Slashdot. So Slashdot etiquette don’t matter none do it? Just because most of the world, apparently including you, have no sense of humor about themselves doesn’t mean I don’t. I’ve been ribbing everyone posting under a pseudonym, myself included, if not first. If you couldn’t pick up on that, that is too bad. I was letting everyone know where it comes from by referring to Slashdot. I’ve attempted to insult no one in this thread or forum. Unlike you, who feel free to call me an asshole. It’s a violation of forum rules, but since you are the old timer and I’m not even here a year, I’ll get the warning and you won’t. [/QUOTE] No one is gettinmg a Warning–yet. I am not really happy with DSeid’s particular response to you, but you are the one who is picking this fight and throwing _ad hominems_ around. If you have evidence that current nuclear reactors are unsafe, (as opposed to decades-old anecdotes), have at it. Otherwise, leave the attacks on other posters for the **Pit**. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/173 "2009-06-08T09:37:25Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > That’s the thing - people point to three mile island as evidence that we just can’t operate reactors safely - but how many people were killed by it? No, but trust me, there was poor training, institutional arrogance, and people trying to do something at end of shift, being punchy enough not to get it, and the next shift actually spotting the answer with clear heads… which is _similar_ to what happened at Russia, but not identical. (or don’t trust me, either way) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/174 "2009-06-08T14:55:57Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > One issue that has been largely neglected so far is the remediation and disposal of nuclear waste. While fuel elements can be vitrified and combustible low level waste can be incinerated and filtered, the biggest problem is actually with the caustic solvents and reactants used to carry and chemically separate nuclear material during the fuel processing and enrichment process. The liquid waste is particularly problematic as it can leak from vessels into groundwater resulting in long-term contamination, and transportation in casks is risky as an accident during transport could result in a leak that could contaminate any area between the processing facility and permanent storage. > Stranger One thing that rarely seems to get mentioned in these debates is a heavy-water based design (eg. CANDU) that doesn’t enrich the fuel. D2O has it’s own environmental costs of course, it either requires rather large amounts of electrial power or chemical solvent to extract from regular water. I’m not qualifed to judge which type of reactor is overall the best choice, but enriching uranium is not the only way. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/175 "2009-06-08T18:17:59Z")
I would personally put toddlers on spikes if it would hasten the transition to nuclear, because on a cost-benefit analysis, the trade-off is worth it. Anyhoo, Chernobyl isn’t an indictment of nuclear power - it’s an indictment of communism. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/176 "2009-06-08T18:31:09Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > How many do you need? Is that the litmus? You need deaths? Nuclear opponents would need a bloody awful lot of deaths before a rational case can be made for any option other than replacing fossil fuels with nuclear to the maximum extent possible. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/177 "2009-06-08T18:38:12Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > So the question I put to you Oakminster is why you feel we need to spend any more money doing tests? There is no need for further tests; the designs have been thoroughly tested. An inspector should poke his nose in at random intervals to verify that what is being built matches what is written in the specifications, but that’s a separate issue (and much less expensive than a new round of superfluous testing). ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/178 "2009-06-08T18:43:58Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Because each plant is unique. Even working from the same design, there will be differences in materials, workmanship, local conditions, security, etc. 1. Materials specifications are part of the design. 2)A standard degree of workmanship is presumed, and can be verified by occasional inspections (which, as noted above, do not require new “testing” – just a simple comparison of the actual construction to the tested design). 3)“Local conditions” is too broad to be meaningful; if you mean “the plant won’t sink into a swamp of fall over in an earthquake” then it’s covered in the “site” portion of the design specs. 4)Security is pretty much the same at any site (i.e. men with guns look around and tell you that if you don’t belong then GTFO). ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/179 "2009-06-08T18:47:43Z")
I fear that a new round of nuke plants will cause less emphasis to be put on alternative sources of energy. There is a potential for new industries in development of more friendly sources. I do not think the future is in nuke energy . It is a risky stopgap . ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/180 "2009-06-08T19:30:57Z")
“Testing” keeps getting mentioned in this thread and like the word “safety” I think it is having different meanings to different posters. What sort of onerous testing is being done or additional testing proposed (cites please or at least specific example, not just “obstructionism”) that some here object to? What sort of testing is not being done that others here believe should be done and why? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880.md?page=10)