18 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"All of the above" turns out to include nukes. Billion dollar loan guarantee's are now
available.
http://www.npr.org/b...wer?ft=1&f=1025

Earthquake fault lines in the US-
http://strangesounds...ted-states.html

Does Fukishima ring a bell?

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 20 February 2014 - 04:56 AM, said:

"All of the above" turns out to include nukes. Billion dollar loan guarantee's are now
available.
http://www.npr.org/b...wer?ft=1&f=1025

Earthquake fault lines in the US-
http://strangesounds...ted-states.html

Does Fukishima ring a bell?

The real disaster was the 20,000 fatalities unrelated to the nuclear plant compared to the zero directly related to the nuclear plant failure.

In comparative terms of fatalities per kWh of energy generated, nuclear is way down at the bottom of the league.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 20 February 2014 - 09:46 AM, said:

The real disaster was the 20,000 fatalities unrelated to the nuclear plant compared to the zero directly related to the nuclear plant failure.

In comparative terms of fatalities per kWh of energy generated, nuclear is way down at the bottom of the league.

So by that statement, I take it you're pro nuclear; even with all of it's issues?

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 20 February 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

So by that statement, I take it you're pro nuclear; even with all of it's issues?

What do you consider to be its issues?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 20 February 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

What do you consider to be its issues?

The dangers of nuclear waste and it's long term storage are well known, so I won't waste time on retelling those hazards.

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 20 February 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

The dangers of nuclear waste and it's long term storage are well known, so I won't waste time on retelling those hazards.

Long term storage is a political rather than a practical issue..
Vitrification, stainless steel canisters, and burial in a geologically stable underground depository addresses that.
Even without those processes, the radiation levels are very significantly attenuated by burial at relatively modest depths.
I looked into this a while back on another forum but I can't remember the actual figures.

NIMBYism is where the problem lies.

[still learning]

In principle, I'm in favor of new nuclear electricity generating plants.

James Hansen has a new article on his website on energy, renewable and nuclear worth a read, in my opinion.  Not an easy read though (by mass media standards anyway),  fifteen pages in which you'll want to pay attention, plus some more linked information that I'd recommend.  See http://www.columbia....raftOpinion.pdf

I'm in favor of new nuclear electricity because I don't see how renewables can do the whole job of replacing fossil fuels.  I haven't yet seen a convincing case made that enough renewables generation (and enough electricity storage so that fossil backup isn't needed) can be built in time.  

I don't think though that the US electricity industry as currently organized is the right setup for nuclear power.  The perceived need for ever increasing quarterly profits fosters cost-cutting, fosters cutting corners, deferring maintenance, reducing staff.  Not what you want at your local nuclear plant.

I also don't see how US public opinion can be swayed to favor nuclear electricity.  As Hansen says, some anti-nuke folks use the same sort of disinformation tactics that climate denial folks use.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 20 February 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

What do you consider to be its issues?

It's stories like these that give people pause.
http://www.nytimes.c...&pgtype=article

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 26 February 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:

It's stories like these that give people pause.
http://www.nytimes.c...&pgtype=article

From the article:

Quote

This most likely minimized the contamination that reached the surface, according to the mine’s monitors, who were on hand to reassure anxious Carlsbad residents at a town-hall-style meeting Monday night. The monitors told the residents that there had been no health risk at all and that the radiation levels detected near the mine’s surface — far from town — were well below concern.

But yes, people fear it. Irrationally so, in my opinion.
Mention Fukushima and it's the power station that springs to mind for most people. Not the 20,000 fatalities unrelated to it.

The article relates to nuclear bomb waste. I don't know how this is treated in comparison to the nuclear power station wastes nor how radioactive it is.

In general, I'm in favour of nuclear power as part of the mix. At least it reduces the amount of fossil fuel generation. Sure, wind, solar, wave, and tidal do too but there remain some issues to be resolved.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 26 February 2014 - 05:53 AM, said:

From the article:
"The monitors told the residents"-no risk...blah blah.
Much like duke energy told those folks along the river after the coal ash spill.
Sure, one is energy and the other is bombs but both nukes (nuclear submarines fall into that too)-the
potential hazard is there.
Better than coal? Probably. Or at least until something leaks; and if it's man made; it will leak-eventually.

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 26 February 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

Do you remember Professor Heinz Wolff?

[Besoeker]

Besoeker, on 26 February 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

Do you remember Professor Heinz Wolff?

OK. Maybe not.
He was portrayed, or portrayed  himself, as the archetypal mad scientist on British television and probably in other English speaking countries.

A link:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Heinz_Wolff

A charismatic character.

Besides his television appearances who wrote newspaper articles. A good many years ago I came across one in the Daily Telegraph magazine section.It was a light-hearted article on risk. It may have been where I first came across the statement:

"No human endeavour is entirely without risk."

As I said, it was light-hearted and was comparing leisure activities - the number of incidents resulting in injuries per incidence of participation in the activity. The, perhaps surprising conclusion, was that it was recreational fishing that had proportionately the highest number of incidents.

So, back to energy sources. All, being human endeavours, pose risks to varying degrees.

Over the past few weeks, you have mentioned a number of train derailments that had disastrous consequences.
We regularly hear about mining fatalities in China.And who knows how many that we don't hear about?

UK has had, over the history of mining, had about 200,000 fatalities. Aberfan was mining related disaster killing 144, mostly children.

I regularly have to sit through safety training - mandatory and carried out by a third party. The Piper Alpha disaster routinely gets brought up. It was a North Sea oil platform. Most of the crew died - 167.

These are just a few of the many.
By way of contrast, there have been three major nuclear plant incidents that I can recall of in my entire lifetime. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
There were no fatalities with the first and the third. Chernobyl was some tens including those who knew they were going to be exposed dangerous levels of radiation while the were attempting rescues.

Nuclear has the lowest number of fatalities in proportion to the energy generated. Even rooftop thermal has more pro-rata.

I suppose the argument might "what about when we have a biggie?"
We already have.

As I see it, the world has three major sources of energy. Fossil, hydro, and nuclear. Ditch a couple of them right now and and we won't be able to function as developed nations. Trade, communications, manufacturing..all would be affected. Including the manufacture of solar cells.

Much as you or me might like them, we are stuck with conventional - for now.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Man made tanks leak; for bombs or energy.
http://www.nytimes.c...tml?ref=science

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 02 March 2014 - 06:53 AM, said:

Man made tanks leak; for bombs or energy.
http://www.nytimes.c...tml?ref=science

If there is a problem, how it gets dealt with determines the consequences. Piper Alpha is a prime example.

And you can't argue with the statistics that Nuclear power has, by some margin, the fewest fatalities per unit of energy than any other source.

[still learning]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 02 March 2014 - 06:53 AM, said:

Man made tanks leak; for bombs or energy.
http://www.nytimes.c...tml?ref=science

It is worth noting that the leak mentioned is from the inner tank into the outer tank, not out of the outer tank.  Quoting from the NY Times article you linked to:  "The leak is into a space between the two walls of the tank. Radioactive waste has not reached the environment."   Seems to me that's why the double walled tank, reduces the likelihood of stuff leaking all the way out.  According to the article, the double walled tanks date from the 1960's and 70's.  Looks like they now need replacement.  Guess the sensible thing to do now is to not count on the tanks lasting for more than thirty years, to plan for periodic replacement.  Maybe try to improve the design or the material quality or the workmanship in an effort to get them to last longer.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

still learning, on 02 March 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

It is worth noting that the leak mentioned is from the inner tank into the outer tank, not out of the outer tank.  Quoting from the NY Times article you linked to:  "The leak is into a space between the two walls of the tank. Radioactive waste has not reached the environment."   Seems to me that's why the double walled tank, reduces the likelihood of stuff leaking all the way out.  According to the article, the double walled tanks date from the 1960's and 70's.  Looks like they now need replacement.  Guess the sensible thing to do now is to not count on the tanks lasting for more than thirty years, to plan for periodic replacement.  Maybe try to improve the design or the material quality or the workmanship in an effort to get them to last longer.

I know; I read the piece before I placed it here.

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 02 March 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

I know; I read the piece before I placed it here.

Then it should give you peace of mind that such containment is in place.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"Thoughts on nuclear power" -
expensive.
(Readers may have to hit the translate into English button)

http://www.lejdd.fr/...ucleaire-655350

Waste storage issues-
(line in piece-
"has to be disposed of deep below ground where it can be isolated from all living things
for tens of thousands of years." may not be accurate.)
http://www.bbc.com/n...onment-26425674

More info here-
http://www.world-nuc...-and-Realities/

http://www.epa.gov/r.../docs/radwaste/

http://www.technolog...gy1/rwaste1.htm

[Besoeker]

From the myths and realities link you posted:

  

Quote

1.  The nuclear industry still has no solution to the 'waste problem'

Many people quite reasonably feel that the nuclear industry shouldn't continue operation without having a solution for the disposal of its radioactive waste. However, the industry has in fact developed the necessary technologies and implemented most of them - the remaining issue is to ensure that the proposed solutions are acceptable to the public.

NIMBYism?

Transportation is also dealt with in the article linked to.

Quote

6.  Even if put into a geological repository, the waste might emerge and threaten future generations

The reality is that with today's spent fuel or vitrified high-level waste (HLW), extra layers of protection come from the multi-barriers of stable ceramic material, encapsulation, and depth from the biosphere that are designed to prevent any movement of radioactivity for thousands of years. A stable geological formation, within which the waste will be disposed, also constitutes a highly reliable barrier.

As I said, it isn't the technology that is the limitation.