# Still support nuke power plants? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647 "2011-03-14T11:56:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/281 "2011-03-16T20:35:43Z")
I’ve seen plenty of reports saying what’s being released. There are links galore in the GQ equivalent of this thread. So, yeah…I do blame the media for being clueless gits who are dogging this story as if it’s the only thing happening there, and for giving out as much misinformation and BS as actual facts on what’s going on. -XT ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/282 "2011-03-16T20:44:27Z")
You’ve seen reports listing the material in the clouds coming from the reactors? Where? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/283 "2011-03-16T20:52:22Z")
I’ve seen reports listing the radiation levels, which are being monitored. I’ve seen reports about tests for radioactive materials being measured in ground water both on site and in other near by cities. From the GQ thread, [here](http://dwarmstr.blogspot.com/2011/03/whats-in-steam-coming-from-nuclear.html) is a blog telling what’s in the steam…and a more [detailed analysis](http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/modified-version-of-original-post/) of what’s going on. It’s really not that much of a mystery…I mean, they know what’s actually in there, so there isn’t going to be some mystery material coming out. They are keeping track of the radiation in the area using on site meters and dose meters on the emergency personnel (that’s how they knew it was spiking and how they know how long a given worker can work in the area before they are in danger). I’m not sure what you are looking at, but even places like CNN have the basics down…there is a ton of focus on this. Out of curiosity, what makes you think the actual experts on site don’t know what’s going on? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/284 "2011-03-16T21:11:52Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Out of curiosity, what makes you think the actual experts on site don’t know what’s going on? What they know, and what they are saying may be two different things. Here is what the [head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission](http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/16/japan-quake-live-blog-death-toll-expected-to-rise-as-crews-reach-more-areas/?hpt=T1)said today: > [@](#): > > “What we believe at this time is that there has been a hydrogen explosion in this unit due to an uncovering of the fuel in the fuel pool,” Gregory Jaczko told a House energy and commerce subcommittee hearing. “We believe that secondary containment has been destroyed and there is no water in the spent fuel pool, and we believe that radiation levels are extremely high, which could possibly impact the ability to take corrective measures.” ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/285 "2011-03-16T21:18:51Z")
Here seems to be a good site with lots of info, apologies if it has been posted before. It is a blog being updated by the graduate students in MIT’s Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering. [MIT NSE Nuclear Information Hub](http://mitnse.com/) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/286 "2011-03-16T22:03:27Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > What they know, and what they are saying may be two different things. > > Here is what the [head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission](http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/16/japan-quake-live-blog-death-toll-expected-to-rise-as-crews-reach-more-areas/?hpt=T1)said today: Well, “may” and “believe” are not really facts. The situation is very serious and shitty, but after reading the more serious sources and the misleading info from many main stream sources one problem I think what is happening is that reports of the problems made are many times ignoring latest developments or efforts done to control them, IIRC there were reports that mentioned the problem of the lack of water in the pool or reactor 4 with the spent fuels rods that then caused a fire. Sure, Gregory Jaczko could had been correct, but the report already misses the fact that the fire was controlled and the radiation levels dropped. So looking at the cite from **L. G. Butts, Ph.D.** : > [@](#): > > Outlook: The fuel within these pools needs to remain covered with cooling water in order to prevent the low levels of decay heat present from causing it to melt, and also in order to provide shielding. Boiling of the water results in reduction of the water level in the pools, so if/when the pools get hot enough for boiling to begin, water needs to be added to replace what boils off. The staff of Unit 4 plan to begin pumping water to the spent fuel pool from ground level as soon as radiation levels from Unit 3 are low enough for them to return. This pumping operation should be relatively easier than injection of cooling water into the reactor vessels at Units 1-3 because the pools are at atmospheric pressure. As the radiation levels from Unit 3 lowered, this has taken place and more men are now in the location. The big problem is still in unit 3 and 2. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/287 "2011-03-16T22:10:07Z")
CNN announcing right now the US government statement. Fuel rods are burning in #4, radiation is extremely high, maybe too high to do anything to stop it. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/288 "2011-03-16T22:10:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So looking at the cite from **L. G. Butts, Ph.D.** : With all due respect, that page hasn’t been updated in 12 hours. The fluidity of the situation renders that information inadequate to judge the current conditions. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/289 "2011-03-16T22:12:00Z")
The News Hour on PBS reported the US statement, said that the Japanese are denying it, and also said that TEPCO thinks it might get power hooked back up to the mains soon. Edit: I’ve seen analysis indicating that one complicating factor is that if re-criticality of the spent rods is an issue, then introducing water might actually be a bad thing, because the water might moderate the reaction. On the other hand, they have to cool the rods. So to sum up: I don’t know. And it seems like very few other people do either. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/290 "2011-03-16T22:21:20Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > With all due respect, that page hasn’t been updated in 12 hours. The fluidity of the situation renders that information inadequate to judge the current conditions. The update in the post said 11:48 AM EST. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/291 "2011-03-16T22:56:29Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Zero as far as I know. What’s your point? AFAIK we weren’t talking about transportation, unless you are changing the discussion. We’re talking about ghg and global warming and energy, are we not? It’s important to remember how much of our energy consumption is oil. > [@](#): > > [The U.S. ranks seventh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States) in energy consumption per-capita after Canada and a number of small countries. > > The vast majority of this energy is derived from fossil fuels: in 2005, it was estimated that 40% of the nation’s energy came from petroleum, 23% from coal, and 23% from natural gas. Nuclear power supplied 8.4% and renewable energy supplied 7.3%, which was mainly from hydroelectric dams although other renewables are included such as wind power, geothermal and solar energy. 8.4% is nuke, and 7.3% is renewable. That’s not that much of a difference. > [@](#): > > IIRC, it’s something between 20-30%…closer to 20 than 30 though. See above. 20% is the percent of _electricity_ provided by nuclear, not energy. > [@](#): > > Of the electricity generated in the United States in 2006, 70% was produced from fossil fuels (mainly coal and natural gas),[almost 20% came from nuclear power](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_the_United_States), 7% from hydropower and 3% from other forms of renewable energy such as wind and solar energy.[3] The share of renewable energy, in particular wind and solar energy, has increased substantially since 2006 and is expected to increase further. > [@](#): > > How long to make it 50%? 60%? Depends on a lot of factors. Will we actually be able to build the things? How many road blocks will be put in the way? Would we be able to build newer designs, or the old style behemoth ones? If we actually could build the things, and if there was only a reasonable level of resistance, and if the capital could be raised and assurances given that starting one would actually mean it would reasonably be expected that it would eventually be finished and allowed to operate with a minimal level of hindrance, I’d say 10-20 years if we pushed it. Probably closer to 20 than 10. Maybe closer to 30 than 20 depending on the levels of resistance. > > If you would allow newer designs, open things up so that you didn’t have to jump through millions of hoops and STILL get large scale resistance, and provide some sort of capital, then it could be less. I think a pebble bed reactor costs less and can be built quicker, though they aren’t in wide spread use (and I think they produce less energy than the really big plants). That’s an awful lot of ifs. I’m trying to be realistic about what we can do now. Did you read the article about wind power in Texas? > [@](#): > > Decades, if ever. I don’t think you understand the scale. Just getting the manufacturing would be a bitch. Think about that plant in Spain. IIRC, it does 10-20 MW…and cost like 20-30 million Euros. And takes up several acres (10 IIRC). Scale that up to just 100-200 MW. Scale it up to 1000 MW (the size of a large nuclear or coal fired power plant). You see the problem? And you have to actually manufacture all the stuff you’d need…which we can’t do right now, not on those scales. Wind is the same. Big wind farms do, what? 200 MW? 300? You’d have to have turbines literally everywhere, and they cost like 1-2 million each. [Texas has 9,410 MW of wind capacity.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas) The largest farm is 781 MW. > [@](#): > > Even getting the NAMBY guys out of the way (and the same could be said for nuclear btw…if you could get them out of the way it would change the equations for nuclear) the scale of the problem is just hard to grasp. That power plant in Spain? It provides energy for (IIRC) 10-30k houses. That SOUNDS like a lot, but scale it up to 1-3 million…then scale it up to 10-30 million. It just can’t be done, and that leaves aside the huge environmental impact solar or wind would have if you tried to deploy it on these scales…not to mention the fact that neither solar nor wind is set up for continuous operations (i.e. you need to have the sun out or the wind blowing or they don’t work)…which our grid is set up to need. You’d need to come up with some way to store energy and then give it out when the sun isn’t out or the wind isn’t blowing…which means you’d need to fundamentally change the way our grid currently works. I very much agree the grid needs to be upgraded in a huge way. Can’t export those jobs overseas - let’s do it! ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/292 "2011-03-16T23:03:26Z")
Yeesh, I am seeing all kinds of conflicting reports from the media. A LA Times story from ~1 hour ago said they had power and were trying to spray water using fire hoses into the pools to cool the spent fuel rods. They also said that it has not been confirmed that the the secondary containment has been destroyed. I feel like turning of the news for a couple of weeks and just reading the final version of events because it is so hard to determine what is accurate… ---
**Author:** ![gravitycrash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@gravitycrash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gravitycrash)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/293 "2011-03-16T23:44:17Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > No, it was the pro nuclear expert, who keeps saying “We don’t know what is being released”. Someday these experts will come up with a way to sample a cloud being released from a damaged power plant and discover what is in it. > > Until then, well, we just don’t know. Nuclear science is still a lot of unknowns. NO. 100% false. Please stop it. The physics of nuclear science is well understood, be it fission or fusion. Now the engineering involved in controlling the reaction with 100% guaranteed safety may be a separate issue but don’t try and make it sound like nuclear energy is akin to magic or vodoo that we dumb apes don’t understand. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/294 "2011-03-16T23:51:07Z")
It was sarcasm. Now the official word is the fuel from #4 is burning. I’m sure they determined this by measuring what is in the cloud. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/295 "2011-03-16T23:58:09Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > The News Hour on PBS reported the US statement, said that the Japanese are denying it, and also said that TEPCO thinks it might get power hooked back up to the mains soon. > > Edit: I’ve seen analysis indicating that one complicating factor is that if re-criticality of the spent rods is an issue, then introducing water might actually be a bad thing, because the water might moderate the reaction. On the other hand, they have to cool the rods. So to sum up: I don’t know. And it seems like very few other people do either. That one, at least, is very simple - you put a boron salt in the water to absorb neutrons and prevent re-criticality. It’s a standard technique - normal backup to reactor control rods is a boron salt tank that can be added to the cooling water if control rods fail to insert for any reason. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/296 "2011-03-17T00:33:04Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > 8.4% is nuke, and 7.3% is renewable. That’s not that much of a difference. Most of that renewable is hydro, which is certainly renewable as long as the rivers run, what it is not is expandable. There are only so many places for damns and most of them are taken up already. And of course they have huge environmental costs as well. Nuclear can be scaled way up, you only need to take up a small drainage, just big enough to build a nice little reservoir. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/297 "2011-03-17T01:12:52Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > Most of that renewable is hydro, which is certainly renewable as long as the rivers run, what it is not is expandable. There are only so many places for damns and most of them are taken up already. And of course they have huge environmental costs as well. Nuclear can be scaled way up, you only need to take up a small drainage, just big enough to build a nice little reservoir. You’re right, I don’t think we’ll be greatly expanding hydro power, but then again I haven’t paid much attention to it. Hydro power has the advantage of being dispatchible, that is, it can be turned up, down, off, on easily. Well, relatively easily. Nuke is a base load power generator. They take days to get going smoothly, then they just run. You can’t turn them up or down to respond to peak loads or spikes in usage. Peak power is provided mainly by gas. A combination of peak power and intermittent sources like solar and wind hooked up to a smart distribution system eliminates the need for base load power plants. Or can eliminate the need, I should say. You can scale nuke plants up that’s true, but how many of the current dozens or 100s of plans are scaled up? If they aren’t already, you’re talking about many years before any new design gets approved. Hydro uses lots of water of course 🙂 but nuke plants, depending on their design can use a lot of water too. I’m not aware of any water issues with wind and solar. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/298 "2011-03-17T01:26:03Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Peak power is provided mainly by gas. A combination of peak power and intermittent sources like solar and wind hooked up to a smart distribution system eliminates the need for base load power plants. Or can eliminate the need, I should say. No, it can’t. There simply isn’t enough energy available from solar and wind. And how much land do you intend to cover over in the process of trying and failing? It’s amusing that it’s the so-called green side in this debate that is willing to basically pave over the planet rather than build Evil Nuclear Plants. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2011, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/299 "2011-03-17T01:29:01Z")
Pave over the planet? Are you serious? Put solar panels over every square inch that is already paved, and get back to me. ---
**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:** [March 17, 2011, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/300 "2011-03-17T02:00:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, it can’t. There simply isn’t enough energy available from solar and wind. And how much land do you intend to cover over in the process of trying and failing? > > It’s amusing that it’s the so-called green side in this debate that is willing to basically pave over the planet rather than build Evil Nuclear Plants. Where do you get these ideas? [Wind alone.](http://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933.full) > [@](#): > > a network of land-based 2.5-megawatt (MW) turbines restricted to nonforested, ice-free, nonurban areas operating at as little as 20% of their rated capacity could supply \>40 times current worldwide consumption of electricity, \>5 times total global use of energy in all forms. Resources in the contiguous United States, specifically in the central plain states, could accommodate as much as 16 times total current demand for electricity in the United States … Sun is even more plentiful and just exploiting that which falls on rooftops already would make a sizable dent. The issue is not the magnitude of the resource; it is the cost competitiveness of its exploitation. That varies per location. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=16)