Still support nuke power plants?

Anti-nukers are similar to anti-vaxers because anti-nukers have precluded most research and technological innovation into nuclear power generation for decades.

There are some nifty theoretical designs (and some not theoretical but made it into testing) that have a lot of promise. Some of these designs are “inherently safe” which means they self-regulate and cannot melt down even if you tried to make them do that. The actual physics of the reaction prevent a melt down. In other words, the very laws of nature protect you and not fallible human designs or fallible humans running them.

Others, breeder reactors, were stopped for political considerations. Breeder reactors eat the waste fuel made by the reactors we have today. Part of the political issue is they produce plutonium and there are fears of proliferation.

For that there are Breed & Burn designs, such as the Traveling Wave Reactor, which can use U238 that is literally sitting in piles around the country. It is estimated there is enough of that lying around to supply power for another 1,000 years using this technology. When that runs out you can process seawater to get all you need effectively making it a near limitless supply. The plutonium it creates is almost immediately “burned” so no proliferation worry. The reaction is self limiting…turn it on and it runs for 60 years…you cannot make it melt down. The waste it produces can be reprocessed and put into the next generation of TWRs.

There is a good deal of research and testing left to be done on these so one will not be built tomorrow but we have already sat on our hands for 30 years or more.

Guess you are happier with the waste from burning coal though as if it is somehow preferable. :rolleyes:

And again.

As is clear from my posts in this thread, I am not categorically “anti-nuke”, and I have been, if anything, reassured by how these 40 year old reactors have fared even under these most extreme circumstances. But this mantra that one is either for nukes or for coal, this concept that nuclear power would, if not for the moonbats, be replacing all the aging coal plants, is disingenuous and tiresome.

They are not the only two cards in the deck.

Renewables can play a very sizable role even in the near term. Natural gas plants may not be as carbon neutral as nuclear but they are a heck of a lot better than coal, currently a well supplied resource (and should be for a few decades any way), and able to be built quickly and inexpensively.

The best balance for any region will depend on their own specific local circumstances. Good wind and or solar resources? Domestic natural gas or needing to be imported from Russia? So on. In some circumstances more nuclear makes more sense than it does in others. It need not be an either or discussion.

I’ve been reading through this thread and honestly have a mixed perspective on the topic, but I do have a question for Gonzomax.

Given your statement:

“They are run by operators who will cut costs every time they can jeopardizing safety You are OK with that? The regulators and inspectors get under control of the industry allowing the plants to put off repairs and training to increase profits. Does that bother you? They hide and cover up problems. Are you comfortable with that?”

Do you / would you ever fly commercially? I ask this because it seems like the same logic you’re imploring in the above quote would rule out something like commercial air travel (e.g., airlines will cut costs every time they can jeopardizing safety, regulators are under control of the industry so repairs are put off to increase profits, etc.). In addition to the risks, we know there have been a significant number of large-scale, horrific accidents that resulted from air travel. Of course, this logic could be applied to a number of different scenarios, but air travel was the first that came to mind. Based on your line of logic, I presume that you’d never, ever travel by air. Is this true?

Well, to make the case convincingly I have to get you to believe in climate change and the predictions made by the IPCC. I don’t know where you stand on this issue, but I am not GIGObuster, I don’t have the patience to go through all the evidence again and again. If, however you do believe that the rising seas, the melting glaciers and polar caps, the animals that are migrating northwards and upwards in elevation, the earlier spring thaws, the longer growing seasons, and the myriads of direct temperature measurements are not just a dastardly plot of Al Gore’s, well then most groups have predicted that climate change could be incredibly devastating by the end of this cetnury. Millions dying, mostly due to disease and starvation, flooding, drought, extinctions, it’s not good.

This is the main reason I think nuclear is better than natural gas. There is also the fact that nuclear has a better track record that natural gas. Just last year 7 people were killed and 52 people were injured in the San Bruno pipeline explosion. The whole neighborhood was leveled. 5 people were killed last month in an explosion in Allentown, PA. The list goes on. These types of accidents do not really make the news, but they happen all the time. Just wiki pipeline accidents. Nuclear has a much better safety record, and for all the hyperbole in this thread, it cannot be denied. There has not been a single death due to nuclear power in the united states in the last decade.

I will tomorrow, I have things to do tonight.

The thing is when you talk about theoretical or even anything that is significantly different than the current 50-year-old plans we basically use, you’re talking about something we aren’t going to see for 30 years.

I’m all for continued research in the area. Who knows? We could have people living on Mars in 30 years. Sorry, that’s a little snarky.

More seriously, we’ll have working Fusion power by 2018, so new nuclear power plant ideas better hurry up. Sometime shortly after 2018, we will have infinite power so cheap it won’t even be metered, except nominally to pay the guy who answers the phone.

Even more seriously, what are we going to do to add more capacity until 2018? That’s only seven years away. Unfortunately, it currently takes something like 13 years to complete a nuclear power plant.

I understand, but Chernobyl was a worst case, the core melted down then exploded and all the radiation was spread to its furthest extent. I don’t know if it could have been any worse, but I doubt it. The newer plants are much safer, the physics don’t even allow a meltdown. There is still danger in the case of a terrorist attack, but there was a video up thread showing a core being unaffected by a fighter jet ramming it at >500 mph. The change of a major accident leaving Paris uninhabitable is remote in the extreme.

True, but such is the nature of the beast, yes?

When she was good, she was very, very good
But when she was bad she was rabid…

  • Percy Dovetonsils

Try me, make a rational statement. Back it up with facts. Try to leave out all the conspiracy theories about uncaring governments and unprovable accusations of corporations poisoning the populace to make a buck.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
They are in the same building, yes. But you put a duck in a horse barn that doesn’t make it a horse. Google “spent fuel rods reactor number four” and you get a dump of cites talking about the spent fuel rod pool being located at Unit 4. That is not the same thing as being within reactor number four.
[/QUOTE]

I have no idea where you think they are, but they are being stored IN the reactor. I’m unsure if you grasp this and are making some other point, or if you think the spent fuel rods were just sort of stacked outside, perhaps in a barn with the horse or something…but the rods were being stored IN the reactor. The reason is that the reactor was offline and, well, it IS a containment vessels after all. Designed to, well, contain nuclear fuel rods.

Except that they ARE in the reactors primary containment vessel. Where did you think they were??

If you want to either pretend or you actually think it bolsters your case then that’s fine with me…it’s no skin off my nose. For anyone following along though, hopefully they can see the information for themselves…not that it’s central to the discussion. Apparently, being cranky last night I managed to set you off for some reason and you’ve decided to focus on this as a gotcha issue against me. If it makes you happy and content to have gotten me, even if it’s not true, then I’m all for making you happy, 'luci. Live long and prosper my moonbat friend.

-XT

The spent fuel rods were in the containment building, which has blown up. They were at a higher floor closer to ground level. That is why they are using fire hoses to try and keep them cooler. The roof and walls are gone. That of course is not a problem.

xtisme, I don’t know where you’re getting your information regarding the spent fuel rods, but I believe you’re inaccurate. The location of the spent fuel rod pools as I understand it is the same as stated by elucidator. They are located outside of, and at a higher level than the reactor vessels, in the same reactor building.

Here is another good summary from my usual cite. It gives the facility layout and discusses the spent fuel storage arrangements.

I agree.

I absolutely want to see efforts continue in renewable and “green” energy.

Thing is, from my reading, few if any of those can possibly account for a sizable percentage of energy production required in the US.

Fantastic if somewhere can make use of wind power or solar. You will still need the bulk of energy production to come from gas/coal/nuclear power. Coal and gas, while we still have plenty for some decades, is ultimately a finite resource. That leaves nukes and given the time to research and develop and deploy new nuclear plants (on the order of decades) efforts towards it need to begin today and not in 30 years.

Fusion power would be great but it has been “20 years away” for the last 50 years.

As a reliable means of energy production don’t hold your breath. Perhaps someday they will get there…I really hope so.

As for the others I mentioned the physics is well understood. They can work and we know they can work. To be sure there are some engineering hurdles…and not simple ones…to be overcome but there is no reason to think they can’t be dealt with.

I suppose, technically, the issues facing fusion power are engineering ones as well (they already have achieved ignition and do so regularly) but the hurdles facing them are truly stupendous.

Even if we do not go for fancy Traveling Wave Reactors out of the gate current reactor designs are far safer than the 40-year old reactor in Japan. For instance, there are ways to allow natural convection to continue to suitably cool a reactor so, even in a total loss of power, the reactor cools itself.

The spent fuel rods are next to the containment vessel but not in the containment vessel.

Here is a diagram: http://tylerbaird.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/fukushima_reactor.png

I’m sorry XT, but you are completely wrong on this one. The spent fuel rods are NOT stored in the reactor vessel, or even within the primary containment. They are stored in deep steel-lined, concrete-walled pools ABOVE the reactor containment. Above the pool level was a steel-framed, steel sheet building, and on reactors 1 and 3 the steel sheet walls of those buildings have been blown away by hydrogen explosions. The pools are literally open to the air now on those buildings, like very deep swimming pools with rods stored at the bottom. That’s why they’ve been able to top up those pools with long-range fire hoses and helicopter water drops.

This image shows a cutaway plan of the GE Mark I reactor building: http://nei.cachefly.net/static/images/BWR_illustration.jpg

Note the spent fuel pools on the top level above the reactor. Now compare it with the plan and reactor building photo in this blog column: Thoughts on Fukushima-Daiichi – Energy From Thorium

You can see that the top part of the reactor building “cube” has lost its walls, and the fuel pools will now be exposed, not that they were hermetically sealed or anything in any case. That big steel-clad space with the rail crane was like any big workshop or warehouse, with people able to walk about inside. The depth of the water above the rods in the pools provided all the radiation shielding necessary. It’s not at all a design I’m impressed with, though.
In other news, the fires in reactor building 4 do not seem to have been “fuel pool fires” (I’m doubtful that the zirconium cladding of the fuel rods can actually burn in the manner that people have speculated) and contrary to the reports of Gregory Jaczko, the fuel pool in building 4 is not and was not empty.

**“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 Wednesday. “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.”… **

Jaczko had good reason to make that statement: the wall of building 4 has collapsed and the fires were initially thought to be due to hydrogen from reaction of hot zirconium cladding with steam, or even worse, burning zirconium metal. However, it turns out that the steel lining to the fuel pool in building 4 is intact, the fire was probably burning lubrication oil, and the helicopter overflights reported water still in the pool.

I’ve read about them. I believe more current designs are safer, relatively speaking. Nothing is “oh shit” proof though. I think most serious or almost serious accidents in nuclear plants are due to human fuck ups. Is it worth it? Take the case of Zion Nuclear Power Station

This sort of thing will always be a danger in the nuclear industry. By “danger” I don’t mean radiation, I mean a huge financial cock-up that will never pay for itself.

As far as making them truly impervious to earthquake, tsunami, asteroid strike… is that worth it? How much does that add to the cost? Is it realistic? I don’t think so. It’s like when you buy a house on the beach and you know if a tsunami hits you’re out of a house. People can’t afford to make their homes tsumani proof so they don’t. If the worst happens, the worst happens. But nuclear power plants are a very different monster than just someone’s beach house.

All those people in Japan evacuated. Did they need that? They already had a huge earthquake, then they get hit with a tsunami, and then the nuke plant goes tits up? In hindsight, during a record-breaking earthquake and tsunami is precisely when you *would *expect a nuke plant to go tango uniform. Nothing to see here. Do we really want to build things that, when the worst happens, are exactly the last things we’d want around?

The past couple of pages have revealed a lot of misunderstandings, misinformation and out-of-date information on all sides. I’m going to try and clarify a few things, for what it’s worth:

The reactors are each contained in big steel pressure vessels - basically thick-walled steel boilers. Water fills these “nuclear boilers” and leaves through a pipe as steam, passes through turbines to generate power, passes through a condenser (a tube cooled on the outside by seawater) to turn it back into liquid water, and returns back to the reactor. This is a closed, sealed loop and in all the Japanese reactors IT HAS NOT BEEN BREACHED. The reactor fuel is still sealed in heavy metal pressure vessels. At Three Mile Island all cooling was lost to the reactor and the fuel rods melted down to liquid and slumped to the bottom of the pressure vessel, which must have been glowing red-hot for days, but nothing escaped the pressure vessel. Then the pressure vessel itself is in a Containment Building which is also fully sealed and super-strong. Which leaves the big question, why did any radioactive material escape at Three Mile Island? Why has any radioactive material escaped in Japan?

From one point of view, just letting a Three Mile Island-style meltdown occur in the first place is actually the safest thing to do. Drain all the water and let the thing rip. The containment will have to remain sealed off for decades and the plant is a write-off but at least nothing gets out.

Generally people will try and put fires out rather than let them burn themselves out in a safe manner, and reactors are no different. The reactor operators prevent a meltdown by circulating cooling water through the reactors and removing the heat. Unfortunately in Japan, the multiple redundant cooling systems were either not functional or had limited functionality after the quake and tsunami. (It’s not just that the emergency power-generating diesels were swamped: - there were two other emergency cooling systems that were powered by steam pressure (of which there would remain plenty for days) and one driven by direct-drive diesels independent of the power diesels. A LOT of stuff had to punk out for what we’ve seen to occur.) The problem comes with water and a heat source you can’t turn off, together in a sealed system.

The reactor operators have been trying to keep the reactors cool but their ability to circulate water has been limited or absent. Instead they’ve been letting the reactors cool by boiling off the cooling water. This means of course that the steam pressure builds up in the vessel and loop, so the steam has to be periodically vented to the outside world. At first this steam was only radioactive from neutron activation: it didn’t contain any radioactive material from the reactors but had itself been made radioactive due to neutron bombardment while passing through the fissioning reactor. Venting this steam is a release of radioactive material, but not a dangerous one. Its radioactivity only lasts a few tens of minutes. If you have plenty of ultra-clean water to replace that being boiled off, you could do this for some time. However, the boiled-off coolant water has reportedly been topped up using seawater, which might mean the ultra-pure make-up water tanks were cracked by the earthquake or swamped by the tsunami. Seawater is full of salts and suspended solids which can be activated by neutrons much more readily than the water itself. This is a smaller issue than you might think though because the reactors are no longer fissioning - there’s a not a lot of neutron radiation inside the pressure vessels any more.

Unfortunately the boiling-off method of cooling has not been successful in keeping the reactors immersed in water. The water level dropped in all three reactors, “exposing” the fuel rods. (Of course they were still contained in the pressure vessel and Containment Building.) This let the fuel rods overheat and almost certainly rupturing their zirconium claddings. Exactly how hot the rods have got isn’t known - they may have just warped a bit and split their claddings, or they may have melted at their tops and dripped liquid zirconium like wax into the bottom of their pressure vessels. Hence all the arguments about whether “meltdown” has occured or not. Nobody knows. All we really know is that the closed-loops of the pressure vessels still hold pressure so they haven’t leaked, and that the water-level instruments in the pressure vessels are still giving readings.

The problem with the ruptured fuel rods is that now, other radioactive elements can enter the cooling water, and the steam still needs to be periodically vented, carrying those elements with it. Fission by-products like iodine, cesium and strontium, which have appreciable half-lives and are biologically available. They can become incorporated into people’s bodies (e.g. strontium 90 can substitute for the calcium in our bones) and remain there, irradiating cells and acting as carcinogens. This of course is a Bad Thing but you should keep in mind that we already have radioactive elements incorporated into our bodies, e.g. potassium, and so quantity is still important. A small amount of strontium 90 incorporated into your bones can still be insignificant compared to what’s already there. This is important to keep in mind since we can identify strontium 90 and other isotopes in miniscule amounts by the gamma-ray spectra of their decay, and you WILL be detecting radioactive strontium, iodine etc. from this incident in the USA and you WILL be eating and drinking it. In tiny amounts, but it will happen. Read about bananas and keep a sense of perspective: http://chemistry.about.com/b/2010/03/08/bananas-are-radioactive-2.htm

As it happens, the radioactive steam wasn’t vented directly into the atmosphere. It was bubbled through the wetwell first - a donut-shaped, half-full tank of water, which scrubs a lot of the radioactive material out of the steam. They could also try to time the venting operations for when the wind was blowing out to sea. Finally, venting wasn’t directly into the air but into the top section of the reactor building, for reasons I don’t know. It may have been an effort to contain the radioactivity by allowing the steam to condense on the steel sheet walls and run to the storage pool floor, limiting the contamination to the reactor site. This failed rather spectacularly when hydrogen in the steam (possibly generated by chemical reaction between steam and the fuel rods’ zirconium cladding) explosed and blew the top parts of three of the reactor buildings apart. Another explosion in the wetwell of reactor 2 has stopped it from holding pressure and means that any steam venting from reactor 2 is probably no longer being scrubbed by the wetwell.

So: to re-iterate, all the reactors are still entirely contained within their pressure vessels, which are still entirely contained within their Containment Buildings (drywells), which are themselves contained in somwhat damaged Secondary Containments (the concrete reactor buildings.) All radioactive material releases FROM THE REACTORS have been a result of venting steam from the boiled-off water being used to keep those reactors cool.

Yes.

That or toss the modern industrial society in the bin.

The Bhopal disaster killed over 20,000 people and injured 500,000 more.

Texas City disaster a ship with fertilizer exploded killing 600 and cause massive damage.

Ajka alumina plant accident released 35 million cubic feet of caustic sludge and buried towns.

Centralia Pennsylvania disaster made an entire town permanently unlivable.

Deepwater Horizon spill caused who knows what damage to the Gulf.

Baia Mare cyanide spill dumped 100,000 cubic meters of cynaide contaminated water into a river.

Banqio Dam collapse killed 25,000…maybe as many as 150,000 or more.

The list is long.

Now, if you want to argue all that stuff should go away and we should go back to hanging out in the trees fine.

But if you expect an industrial society then all those dangers, and more, come with it.

Thanks for that write up Matt!

Radioactive Japanese Banannas

Band Name!