Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumRussia Unveils Detailed Plans To Build 21 New Nuclear Power Units By 2030
This is in addition to the ten reactors currently under construction.
The plan, released in a document published by the government’s official online portal for legal information, includes the construction of five new nuclear power stations with two units each, three new power plant units at locations where a commercial nuclear installation already exists, and the addition of one new unit at an existing plant site.
...snip...
The plan also approves the addition of a Generation IV BN-1200 type sodium-cooled fast reactor at the Beloyarsk nuclear station. The site already hosts one operational fast reactor unit of the BN-600 type and the construction of a BN-800 type is expected to be completed in 2014. The BN-800 reactor will be the final step to a commercial plutonium cycle breeder reactor, which uses mixed uranium-plutonium fuel. This is seen as a major step towards reducing plutonium stockpiles stemming from reprocessing used nuclear fuel from other plants. It is a pool-type system where the reactor, primary coolant pumps, intermediate heat exchangers and associated piping are located in a common liquid sodium vessel.
...snip...
The government plan says that the first unit at the Kursk 2 nuclear station will begin commercial operation by 2020. Another eight blocks will enter into service by 2025 and the remaining 12 by 2030.
http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2013/11/22/russia-unveils-detailed-plans-to-build-21-new-nuclear-power-units-by-2030
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Do they have any plans for storing the waste? What about detailed plans for dealing with an accident - or will they just throw disposable workers at it?
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)But that's because the service life of these units is at least 60 years... putting dismantling closer to 80-90 years from now or later.
The answer to the rest of your questions is "yes". Russia reprocesses their waste and the cited portion of the article makes clear that they expect this to continue. Plant design makes clear that the units are nothing like Chernobyl.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Novaya Zemlya?
They reprocess but like every other country in the world they have no long term storage of the "reprocessed" waste. Some reprocessing goes to MOX which, I'm sure you are aware, is an abysmal fuel (just ask TEPCO) but that only affects an insignificant part of the waste. Some is low level but most, both intermediate and high, is in "temporary" storage ponds. There is no plant that can vitrify large amounts of waste and no evidence that vitrified waste will not become cracked and porous in the long term.
As to the "designed" life of 60 years as far as I know the closest to that is the H B Robinson, no other nuclear plant in the world has operated for close to 60 years. BTW would you trust the ex-USSR to design a power reactor given the safety record?
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio
You don't understand the science. If you reprocess / recycle the waste; then it is NOT long-lived.
See my post below and the interview with nuclear physicist Dr. Charles Till. Dr. Till tells you what the lifetime of the waste is if you recycle; and it is NOT "thousands of years".
Again; you are stuck in this "It's going to last a long time" FALLACY.
100% WRONG on the lifetime of the plants. ALL nuclear power plants are designed to last MULTIPLE decades.
Evidently you don't understand that is not such a difficult thing to do. The reactor "innards" i.e. the core is replaced at regular intervals.
The only other "wear" item is neutron embrittlement of the reactor vessel. However, this was an anticipated potential problem that has not panned out as a real problem in practice. Measurements on power reactor vessels show that neutron embrittlement is actually MUCH, MUCH LESS than had been anticipated, and hence the reactor vessels WILL last for DECADES.
Evidently you don't understand that just because we don't have reactors that are 60 years old; that doesn't mean that we don't know what they are going to be like in 60 years. As stated above, our measurements show that the reactors age more GRACEFULLY than had been anticipated.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)How exactly are the highly unstable atoms that are the source of the radioactivity suddenly rendered radioactively stable? The point of reprocessing is to remove some of the most unstable and long lived isotopes then concentrate and immobilise them in a matrix that can be "safely" stored - except no country in the world has such a safe storage facility and no vitrification process has yet been approved for such storage.
If, as you falsely claim,
As to reactors lasting for decades you will be aware that all reactors have problems with metal failure, both welds and bulk metal, due to the high levels of radioactivity altering the structure of the metal itself. You will also be aware that the pumps and turbines of all power stations have to be replaced at regular intervals because because they cannot be guaranteed to work for decades.
You have either chosen to believe the vile propaganda of the nuclear industry without doing any of your own checks or you are one of those used to disseminate such propaganda.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)Who said that they are? The most "unstable" elements (that is... the ones with the most activity) a seperated from the rest. See your next error.
The point of reprocessing is to remove some of the most unstable and long lived isotopes
Those are contradictory cases. Try again please.
then concentrate and immobilise them in a matrix that can be "safely" stored
Well... no actually. The point of reprocessing is to recover usable fissile material to use as fuel, and then break out the bulk of the material that is not the "most unstable" (because that's easy to deal with)... leaving a small amount of the dangerous waste. Then some paths involve trying to immobilise that remaining waste... but most of the goal of reprocessing is achieved even if they never do that. Far less waste needing storage and fuel available for the next cycle.
As to reactors lasting for decades you will be aware that all reactors have problems with metal failure, both welds and bulk metal, due to the high levels of radioactivity altering the structure of the metal itself.
Actually... I'd bet that she knows a great deal more about it than you appear to. Neutron embrittlement is reversible and is certainly not a problem for all parts of a reactor.
You will also be aware that the pumps and turbines of all power stations have to be replaced at regular intervals because because they cannot be guaranteed to work for decades.
That's a normal part of plant maintenance and is assumed in the longer lifespan estimates.
FBaggins states
Neutron embrittlement is reversible and is certainly not a problem for all parts of a reactor.
Correct!! IF and that's a BIG IF, metal becomes unacceptably brittle it; the embrittlement is reversible by ANNEALING
You just heat the metal; and that gives the atoms the energy they need to return to their normal lattice positions that they were knocked out of by high energy neutrons.
It's easily fixable; but for the SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT it's a big problem that is unsolvable.
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)That is a lie
You are saying that Plutonium and other unstable radio-nucleotides do not produce high levels of radioactivity for centuries or even millennia.
That is a lie
You are implying neutron embrittlement is reversible in situ and is the only problem with irradiated metals
That is a lie
I am saying you are a thoughtless apologist for a dangerous and, with luck, dying industry. You personally always have been such an apologist and you continue to be.
You claimed, falsely, that Fukushima had had no melt downs.
You claimed, falsely, that the corium had not exited the containment.
You claimed, falsely that 300 tonnes of water escaping from storage tanks was a couple of buckets full.
You have claimed that the inhabitants of the Prefecture would soon be returning - that remains a falsehood.
You have claimed that there would be no detectable radiation reaching the US West coast.
There are times when I hope you are paid for your continued distortions and proselytising on behalf of the nuclear industry but I actually think that you are just deluded.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)Nope... what I said was that "most unstable" and "long-lived" are contradictory. The higher the activity level, the shorter the half-life. That's a simple fact.
Also - fissile Plutonium isn't "waste" in a recycling program. It's removed and used in new fuel.
The point of reprocessing is that some of the former "waste" isn't waste (it's useful)... and some of it isn't dangerous (thus doesn't require high-security storage for millenia)... and some of it is very short-lived (so you can store it much easier and wait for it to decay away). There is material that remains dangerous for a long period of time (too short-lived to be of no threat... but too long-lived to decay away in a few decades - call it "anti-goldilox)... but it's a very small fraction of the original waste (thus reducing the storage problem substantially).
You are implying neutron embrittlement is reversible in situ
I'm not "implying" it. I'm flat out stating it. And it's certainly not a lie. It's simple physics.
and is the only problem with irradiated metals
What I also implied (correctly) is that neutron embrittlement requires... wait for it... neutron radiation. That's in a pretty limited portion of the plant.
I am saying you are a thoughtless apologist for a dangerous and, with luck, dying industry. You personally always have been such an apologist and you continue to be.
How ironic that this is the only statement to fail to correctly label as a lie.
You claimed, falsely, that Fukushima had had no melt downs.
Untrue. I labeled it a meltdown from the very beginning. I challenge you to find a post that backs up your dishonest claim
You claimed, falsely, that the corium had not exited the containment.
Untrue. Because it isn't false. The evidence to date shows that all three cores remain within the primary containment - specifically refuting claims that it was melting through several feet of concrete into the ground under the reactor. We may very well find that some got out through a breach in the torus (recognized as possible at the time -certainly for unit 2)... but there's no evidence for that to date.
You claimed, falsely that 300 tonnes of water escaping from storage tanks was a couple of buckets full.
Nope. Never claimed that. The volume of a ton of water at sea level and normal temperatures is pretty constant.
You have claimed that the inhabitants of the Prefecture would soon be returning - that remains a falsehood.
Can you provide a link to that claim?
You have claimed that there would be no detectable radiation reaching the US West coast.
Nope. I never said anything of the sort. I challenge you to back that up. I remember clearly discussing such detection at great length mere days after the accident.
There are times when I hope you are paid for your continued distortions and proselytising on behalf of the nuclear industry but I actually think that you are just deluded.
There are times when I hope that your fevered ravings of what you remember me claiming are chemically induced (with prescription of course)... but sometimes I wonder.
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio states
You are saying that Plutonium and other unstable radio-nucleotides do not produce high levels of radioactivity for centuries or even millennia.
This is like pulling teeth!!
NO - if you reprocess / recyle; then the Plutonium gets recycled back to the reactor where it serves as FUEL. The Plutonium fissions.
When that happens; it is no longer long-lived Plutonium; it is short-lived fission products.
If you read the interview with nuclear physicist Dr. Charles Till of Argonne National Lab:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: And you repeat the process.
A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.
Do you read the part where Dr. Till says the waste becomes ONLY fission products
If the waste becomes only fission products; then that means it is NOT Plutonium. Plutonium is NOT a fission product.
Plutonium is a fuel. Fission products are the "ash".
I don't know WHERE you found me making the rest of the FALSE claims you refer to.
OH - I forgot; you can just MAKE UP stuff to support your argument.
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)It is not and cannot be.
Firstly the only items that can be reprocessed are the fuel rods nothing else. The highly radioactive concrete and steel, moderators and control rods, primary coolant and coolant pipes that makes up the containment cannot be reprocessed; it is and will remain for centuries as high level waste.
Secondly, fuel rods cannot be completely reprocessed only the pellets. The cladding and the associated structures are destroyed and become high level waste. The cladding is not re-used.
Thirdly, the fuel pellets cannot be completely reprocessed, the last I heard reliably (about 20 years ago) was that only 50% of the fissile material can be recovered and processed into new fuel. I was told, by an unreliable source (a site worker) that the new plant can recover 80% of the fissile material. All the remaining material is high level waste.
Now Dr Till claims that
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio,
I explained that earlier when I told you that the Congress OUTLAWED reprocessing / recycling in 1978.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Acts of 1982 and 1987 stated that it would be the policy of the USA NOT to reprocess; and to use a "once through" fuel cycle with geologic disposal.
I am telling you what is technically possible. Congress decided what the USA would do; and they decided to build Yucca Mountain.
You do realize that the French who do reprocess / recycle are NOT tunnelling out a mountain.
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio,
You didn't read the interview with Dr. Till.
Argonne developed a NEW PROCESS; instead of the previous chemical processing (PUREX or REDOX ); Argonne developed a metallurgical process also called pyroprocessing.
You DO reuse ALL the material. because the reprocessing is done AT the reactor, in the high radiation area.
It doesn't matter that material is radioactive. The reason you don't want recycled fuel to be intensely radioactive when the chemical process is used is because the recycling is not done on site. That means the recycled fuel has to be shipped and handled by humans.
The Argonne process dispenses with all that. The reprocessing is done on site and remotely; so it doesn't matter if material is radioactive; it just gets re-used.
The reprocessing doesn't have to be 100% efficient. The material is recycled over and over; so eventually the total process approaches 100% efficiency.
You haven't made the case that 100% efficiency is necessary. This is a common ploy for the anti-nukes; argue that something is not 100% efficient because nothing is. The problem for them is that it doesn't have to be.
Are you 100% efficient when you clean the ashes from your fireplace? NOPE! There will still be some residue in the fireplace. Does it matter? Does it prevent the fireplace from being used? NOPE!! Will ash accumulate because you are not 100% efficient? NOPE. After 5 years down the road; do you think much of the ash that remains in the fireplace after cleaning was created during a fire you had last week? NOPE!! Over the years; even though you aren't 100% efficient; you will get nearly 100% of last week's fire's ashes. In the meantime; it doesn't prevent you from using the fireplace.
Likewise here. Again THIS HAS BEEN DONE Argonne operated the IFR pyroprocessing for OVER A DECADE and there were NO PROBLEMS.
The pyroprocessing technology works.
We aren't using this technology, because as Dr. Till explains; our Congressional leaders LIED to each other and passed laws to prevent the use of the technology.
A technology isn't a failed technology because politicians outlaw it based on LIES they told each other.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)And no - repeat no - human process is 100 % efficient.
You are lying to yourself, just do not expect anyone else to go along with it
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio,
In the self-contained IFR fuel cycle; the cladding is reused.
Cladding isn't harmed or destroyed due to use in a reactor. The cladding will have some radioactivity; but as it is going to go right back into the reactor; that's no concern.
I'm NOT lying to myself. I attempting to CORRECT the ERRORS of someone who is spreading anti-nuke PROPAGANDA; most of which has been concocted or fabricated out of NONSENSE because the originator is CLUELESS about nuclear technology.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)back and forth with great interest. You have accused the poster of lying. This is a serious accusation and I for one would like to see links to the back up the allegation. I am perfectly willing to take your word for it provided you can provide me with links where the poster says the things you claim they say.
How about a link to just one claim:
You claimed, falsely, that Fukushima had had no melt downs.
Please provide a link to where the poster makes this claim.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Kevin,
Some people argue themselves into a corner by LYING and when called on it have NOWHERE to go.
So they make up CRAP and make FALSE allegations.
We have another such one.
PamW
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)which accomplishes nothing, and more links. So far, you have provided some links, so I am more interested in your explanations. But as someone who was in the middle of a MAJOR flame war of this type years ago (concerning digital voting) I am sadly familiar with emotional arguments, unsubstantiated statements and ad hominem attacks.
So, a bit of advice: You will probably not convince Inatglio of anything, but many other people are watching the exchange in hopes of learning something. I am guessing that most really would appreciate more facts and less name calling. I understand that people can be VERY aggravating and I have certainly lost my temper on many occasions, but I hope other can learn from my mistakes.
David
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio,
You don't know the science. The long lived isotopes, i.e. the actinides; are also REACTOR FUEL.
When you recycle the long-lived isotopes back to the reactor, they get burned as fuel ( as Dr. Till describes ), and you end up with short-lived fission products instead of long-lived actinides.
It's not just the reprocessing. Reprocessing just allows you to RECYCLE. The recycle means that you can BURN the long lived isotopes to short-lived fission products.
The reason the USA needs Yucca Mountain is that the US Congress in 1978 OUTLAWED the reprocessing / recycle in the USA. Additionally, in the Nuclear Waste Policy Acts of 1982 and 1987; the Congress said that it would be the policy of the USA NOT to reprocess / recycle but instead to use a "once through" cycle with geologic disposal in a repository which is Yucca Mountain.
Evidently you don't understand that the waste problem the USA has is driven NOT by the technology; but by POLITICAL decisions.
I'm a SCIENTIST; and I am NOT believing any industry propaganda. YOU are the one that is PARROTING anti-nuclear propaganda that I've heard many times before.
The embrittlement of reactor vessel metal is VERY WELL STUDIED by the SCIENTIFIC and ENGINEERING communities; so there's no need to have to rely on industry. My data is from SCIENTISTS and is NOT industry propaganda as you are IRRESPONSIBLY and RECKLESSLY accusing me of disseminating.
YOU are the one that is disseminating propaganda from the anti-nukes.
Pumps and Turbines have MOVING PARTS and they wear. That's why they need replacement.
The reactor vessel doesn't "wear" except in the sense of neutron embrittlement which is monitored and test for; and it is NOT BAD as expected.
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)as you do not appear to know that actinides are not all nuclear fuels or that not all radio-isotopes of those actinides that are used as fuels are suitable for use in nuclear reactions I rather think you are arguing from weakness. Are you also saying that substances such as Chromium 51 does not exist, for it has a half life of 21 days and decays by gamma emission and electron capture? Similarly are you saying that Iron 59 cannot exist or that it cannot decay to cobalt 60?
You also seem completely ignorant of the actual processes of reprocessing and enrichment. Yes, some reprocessed material can be enriched to be fuel but plutonium (one common impurity) is not a particularly popular fuel and limited in use by international treaty whereas MOX (which includes some Pu) has been produced but barely used because of all the problems associated with it. If you doubt that then ask why TEPCO were turning away from the use of that fuel. One big problem with reprocessing is the cost and the transport. I'll leave you to work out why, but you might like to check how many plants that can handle fuel for reprocessing exist world wide.
As you observe embrittlement (one of several processes that alter the physical properties of metals in nuclear reactors) is a well studied problem and, as it cannot be corrected in situ, can only be ameliorated by selecting marginally less vulnerable materials, by thickening the walls of pipework and by reducing the number of welds and stressed components, such as bolts. However it still existes and is still a primary cause of cracks. As to pumps and turbines these highly stressed machines are essential to the proper functioning of reactors so they need to be tested and replaced constantly.
Your claims to know your science rather wilt in the face of your incompetent use of capitals and bolding. You also claim your information coming from "scientists" then the question becomes "Which scientists?" Would these be the same scientists and engineers who depend on the nuclear industry for their jobs? because that rather undermines their impartiality, on exactly the same way that the impartiality of scientists working for the tobacco industry was undermined and the same way that scientist working for the oil industry are often far from impartial.
Oh, and an engineers joke, "How do engineers differ from doctors?" The punchline is why you do not want to trust nuclear power.
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio
as you do not appear to know that actinides are not all nuclear fuels or that not all radio-isotopes of those actinides that are used as fuels are suitable for use in nuclear reactions
WRONG AGAIN!!!
I invite you to go to the Brookhaven Nuclear Data Center:
http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/
specifically the nuclear reaction data base:
http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/sigma/
You will find that you are WRONG AGAIN; ALL actinide isotopes have non-zero fission cross-sections.
GEESH - you would think that this person wouldn't FABRICATE claims that can be SO EASILY disproven.
You "think" it does any good to LIE?
WRONG about embrittlement. First; it has been found not to be as big a problem as anticipated. However, there are procedures for annealing in situ.
Why don't you LEARN something before making such easily disproven claims?
NO - I'm talking about scientists like myself whose paychecks are from Universities. My paycheck says University of California at top.
PamW
what I said is accurate
Not all actinides are nuclear fuels because the energy produced does not sustain a chain reaction. Thorium is an example though salting it with neutron producer (U233) can force it to produce a sustained reaction but on it's own, no.
Not all radio-isotopes of those actinides that are used as fuels are suitable for use in nuclear reactions because they cannot sustain a controllable chain reaction for example U235 is suitable as a fuel; U238 is not.
I think my case is proven.
Referring to your qualifications as a "scientist" I would think you would be aware that you could pile up 50 tonnes of U238 (you know the one with the symbol U atomic number 92 position 4 in the actinide series) and not have any sort of sustainable chain reaction.
intaglio
GADS - Think about it!!!
You want to destroy the actinides. You don't need for the actinides to break even on energy.
You use the fissile isotopes to keep the reactor critical - but then those neutrons will transmute ALL the actinides.
What you are saying would be a problem if we attempted to run the reactor ONLY on transuranic actinides.
You don't need to do that; you use the fissile isotopes to do that.
It works like an incinerator. The incinerator runs on gas; but it burns combustible materials even if you couldn't sustain the fire with those materials alone.
You evidently don't know much about nuclear physic at all.
Your case isn't proven; you just demonstrated conclusively that your powers of reasoning couldn't figure out what is essentially the nuclear analog to how an incinerator works.
Evidently you also don't know that U-238 is "fissionable" because it fissions for neutrons above a threshold energy of about 1 MeV. Because it is a threshold reaction U-238 is not "fissile" but it is "fissionable"
I think intaglio has hoisted himself on his own petard and clearly demonstrated he doesn't know good science when he sees it
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)you are unaware of the properties of actinides
You just shout and pretend it makes you right.
If ... if ... you are a science student take your foolish ramblings to your supervisor and ask their advice.
PamW
(1,825 posts)NO - I'm well versed in the properties.
One more note to my resume; I worked for Dr. Till at Argonne when the IFR reactor was being designed.
I worked on the IFR reactor design effort.
"Fused salt"????? There was a MOLTEN salt reactor.
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)You will be aware that British usage for molten salts is "Fused"
Now please enlighten me how U238 is not an isotope of the actinide series element Uranium. If is such an isotope please specify the chain reaction process in line with your claim that it can spontaneously undergo a sustained chain reaction
Please enlighten me how Thorium, an element in the actinide series, sustains a chain reaction without first being salted with a neutron donor.
Please enlighten me how a reactor that is not slated for complete decommission until 2037 has been removed.
Please enlighten me how a "scientist" who claims a knowledge of matters nuclear can be ignorant of the extent and international importance of the Sellafield site - one of the very few reprocessing plants on the planet.
Please, from the heights of your impeccable knowledge, why it is that this reprocessing plant requires a vitrification facility and how it is running out of space for the storage of high level waste because there is no where on the planet that can store the high level waste for the millennia that will be required. Whilst you are at it you might also want to explain why there is so much thought being given to how to mark such high level repositories so that future generation do not open them in ignorance.
PamW
(1,825 posts)First - "Fused" as used in SCIENCE doesn't mean molten.
For example, "Fused Silica" is NOT molten. We're speaking about SCIENCE; then we use the scientific terminology. The fact that the British have a non-standard terminology that is INCONSISTENT with scientific terminology is THEIR problem.
I didn't say the actinide element had to sustain a chain reaction. I just said that it has to be fissioned. Evidently you don't understand that those are NOT the same meaning. I gave the analogy with the incinerator that I guess went over your head. Let's try it again; and put some mental effort into it this time.
Suppose I have a material that is combustible; but won't sustain combustion by itself, or his hard to ignite. Think charcoal briquettes. They are hard to ignite unless you put some kindling material like newspaper, or you soak them with lighter fluid. However, suppose you put those hard to burn briquettes in an incinerator that was fed by gas. The gas fuel keeps the incinerator going; and with that steady flame; the charcoal is eventually going to burn even though it would be hard to start it burning by itself.
If you want to destroy a non-fissile actinide like U-238. Uranium-238 is not fissile but it is fissionable U-238 WILL FISSION if the energy of the neutron is above about 1 MeV. Some of the U-238 in a reactor fissions due to fast neutrons directly from fission. When Enrico Fermi derived the "four factor formula"; one of the factors is the "fast fission factor" to account for fission of U-238:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-factor_formula
U-238 WILL fission if the neutron inducing the fission is over 1 MeV in energy which is why it is called "fissionable".
Nuclear weapons can get a fair amount of their energy from fissioning U-238.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_weapon
The neutrons released by fusion will fission U-238. This U-238 fission reaction produces most of the energy in a typical two-stage thermonuclear weapon.
( You will find the above quoted line just above the bold heading "Fusion" )
So U-238 DOES FISSION; so it can be destroyed in a reactor by fission. The U-238 doesn't have to sustain the neutron production; any more than a combustible material being incinerated in an incinerator doesn't have to keep the incinerator going. The fuel gas does that.
This is so simple. I really find it very hard to explain it unless you put some mental horsepower in. I can explain it to you; but I can't understand it for you.
Please enlighten me how a reactor that is not slated for complete decommission until 2037 has been removed.
Evidently you don't know there were TWO Windscale reactors. There's only ONE now that is slated for 2037.
But where is its TWIN. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire
Look at the picture. There were TWO IDENTICAL reactors with twin exhaust towers.
Use Google Earth or Bing Aerial to look at Sellafield now; there is only ONE reactor with that large tower still standing. That is the one that will be dismantled in 2037. But its TWIN has already been dismantled.
GADS - you're British and you DIDN'T KNOW that Sellafield had TWO Windscale reactors.
...and this person claims that I'm the IGNORANT one when it comes to Sellafield.
GEESH!!@!
PamW
caraher
(6,278 posts)I'd not heard the term before as I am a physicist, but intaglio is clearly correct that "fused salt" means the same thing as "molten salt." A quick Googling of the term pulled up multiple references to the term in scholarly works; here's one in a magazine and here's one from an old review article. You'll note that the author affiliations are Purdue University and Ohio State.
You're weird assertion that somehow a British term is not "scientific" is as pointless as someone nitpicking a post for using curies rather than Bq. It's all equally "scientific;" nature doesn't give a shit what you choose to call something or what arbitrary units you use to measure it. A fellow named Feynman has some nice tales about the difference between naming and knowing you might find educational, were you to find some downtime between forays to assorted online forums declaring everyone you disagree with WRONG.
Pro tip: it does wonders for your credibility to acknowledge when someone mentions something you didn't know before and say, "I'd never head that expression before - thanks!" rather than denigrate words used in an unfamiliar way as if they were an affront to the GODS of SCIENCE.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)It has to be enriched, usually with U235. With minimal U235 (less than 0.3%) the active isotope U238 is termed "depleted" and, falsely, regarded as safe for use in munitions as it is both self sharpening and pyrophoric. Indeed, because it is so dense it is used as shielding especially in some medical machines. Your lack of knowledge in this area show you to be an ignoramus.
Molten and fused may nor be the same in your country but over here salts that are in the molten state are commonly referred to as fused.
As for the rest of your rant and the denial of the existence of the Calder Hall reactor, your denial of BNF's time-line for the dismantling of the early reactors, your stupidity in confusing cooling towers with the reactors themselves, your denial of the current name of the site all I can do is assume you are a know nothing, unable to absorb new information and unable to admit fault
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio states
Not all actinides are nuclear fuels because the energy produced does not sustain a chain reaction.
We have here the perfect example of the difference in thinking modes between anti-nukes and others.
We typically laud the clever person that thinks OUT of the BOX.
In this case, we have a clear example of doing the opposite; which is IN the box thinking.
The question is how to destroy an actinide. One way would be to fission the actinide because then it will become two short-lived fission products instead of one long-lived actinide.
In order to fission the actinide, the actinide must have a non-zero fission cross-section; which they all do.
However, in the quoted sentence above; intaglio adds ..because the energy produced does not sustain a chain reaction
Intaglio has ADDED an UNNECESSARY CONSTRAINT. Not only must the actinide to be disposed of be fissionable; but this actinide has to be capable of SUSTAINING the chain reaction.
It is clear to any clever thinker that this constraint is UNNECESSARY because the job of sustaining the chain reaction can be handled by another material; such as Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239.
Hence intaglio has jumped INTO the box and he has boxed himself in. With the added UNNECESSARY constraint; there is no solution that also fulfills the UNNECESSARY constraint.
It like solving a system of simultaneous equations, and the person attempting the solution has added an incompatible constraint, and thus over-determined the system; and voided any solution.
The clever mathematician AVOIDS such self-induced FAILURE and thinks out of the box.
That seems to be a common thread with anti-nukes. They FAIL to avoid over-constraints that void all solutions.
That's why they FAIL. The scientists can see the solutions; but the anti-nukes have added self-defeating constraints.
This is why the scientists are clever and intelligent.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)If they cannot sustain a chain reaction they are not nuclear fuels they are inert piles of metal.
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio states:
It is necessary for nuclear fuels to sustain a chain reaction
intaglio,
I explained that!!! You want to destroy actinides like Americium by fission.
You don't use the Amercium as fuel.
You use U-235 or Pu-239 as the fuel; and U-235 and Pu-239 WILL SUSTAIN the chain reaction.
But you also put in the Americium which will be fissioned into short-lived fission products.
Can't you understand my analogy with the incinerator?
You have some wet wood that can't sustain combustion that you want to destroy.
You put it in a gas incinerator. The wet wood doesn't have to keep the fire going; the gas sustains the fire.
The wet wood will eventually be consumed by the gas-fueled fire.
This is so SIMPLE.
I can explain it to you. But I can't understand it for you
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)I can't understand why this is being questioned.
It's not as if this is someone's proposal to do something that has never been done before.
This is something that HAS ALREADY been done!!!!
Nuclear physicist Dr. Charles Till led a group of scientists ( including me ) in actually doing this some 30 years ago; starting in the 1980s and going for more than a decade into the early 1990s. Dr. Till was interviewed by Richard Rhodes for PBS's Frontline program:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: The fission products.
A: Fission products. But none of the long-lived toxic elements like plutonium and americium or curium, the so-called manmade elements. They're the long-lived toxic ones. And they're recycled back into the reactor ... and work every bit as well as plutonium.
Q: So they go in, and then those are broken into fission products, or some of it is. Right?
A: Yes.
Q: And you repeat the process.
A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.
Everyone can see where Dr. Till says that the actinides, the "long-lived toxic elements like plutonium, americium, or curium" are "recycled back to the reactor" where they "work every bit as well as plutonium"
That's a doctoral-level renown physicist saying that. Then we here have one of our local anti-nukes who is evidently not a scientist, and appears to have only an elementary school level understanding of science; and the anti-nuke is disputing the world-class physicist, and telling us that this all can't be because actinides won't sustain a chain reaction.
Argonne National Laboratory ACTUALLY DID this for over a decade; and the anti-nukes ( like those who FABRICATE NONSENSE to support their ill-considered contentions) states that it can't happen.
It's really difficult attempting to educate some people at times; there's just not the mental horsepower.
I feel like I'd have better luck attempting to teach quantum mechanics to the cat.
The good thing about science is that it is true whether or not you believe ( or understand ) in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)could you give me a synopsis of your credentials and expertise on the topic.
Thanks!
PamW
(1,825 posts)The punchline is that the doctor has to work on his subject; while it is still functioning.
However, that doesn't mean we can't trust nuclear power.
There's no reason that engineers have to work on the nuclear power plant while it is still running.
Shutdown the plant to work on it; and let another nuclear plant do the job.
There's nothing "unsafe" about that.
HECK - you cars and airliners are worked on while you are not driving in them or flying in them.
You consider those safe.
Hence, the last sentence above is 100% WRONG; just like the rest of the flotsam in the above posts.
PamW
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I understand that pumps, turbines, etc, wear out and must be replaced in conventional as well as nuclear plants. However, are not these parts radioactive in a nuclear plant and don't they have to be disposed of? If so, how radioactive are they and how can they be disposed of?
Also, could you give me synopsis of your credentials?
Thanks!
Last edited Fri Nov 22, 2013, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)
Kelvin,
I'm a scientist with a national laboratory; and I have a PhD from MIT.
Early in my career; I worked for Dr. Till on the design of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR).
Take a look at this diagram of a PWR from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/animated-pwr.html
You see that the reactor is cooled by the "yellow" loop of water. That's the reactor coolant.
The turbine and Rankine steam cycle working fluid is the blue loop.
Radioactivity is NOT "contagious" - you don't catch it like the cold. Professor Richard Muller of UC - Berkeley points that out in his book "Physics for Future Presidents"
Only materials exposed to the neutrons in the reactor become radioactive. That includes impurities in the water.
But the reactor coolant doesn't leave the containment building.
The turbine / generator and all the other Rankine steam cycle equipment in a PWR reactor power plant are just as if the source of energy was a coal boiler.
PamW
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)But if the water in the cooling system water contain impurities which can become radioactive, wouldn't that radioactivity then be transferred to the pumps and turbines by the same process? What am I missing here?
Kelvin,
That's why I referred to Professor Muller's book. One of the great MYTHS that the anti-nukes have conned people into believing is that radioactivity is "contagious". That is all you have to do is expose a non-radioactive material to a radioactive one, and the non-radioactive material "catches" radioactivity.
In order to make something radioactive; you have to change the nucleus; alter the number of protons and / or neutrons in the nucleus.
Radioactivity won't do that. Alpha radioactivity is the nucleus of Helium-4 - two protons and two neutrons. Unless the alpha has been accelerated to extremely high energy by a cyclotron; it will repel the nucleus and not interact with it.
Beta radioactivity is electrons. Electrons can't change the number of protons / neutrons. In fact the electron is only 1/2,000-th the mass of either a proton or neutron; so beta radioactivity can't make something else radioactive.
Gamma radioactivity is electromagnetic waves; like X-rays. Therefore they can't alter the protons / neutrons; they don't have any mass.
The way you make something radioactive is to hit it with neutrons; but that will happen only IN the reactor.
Contrary to a popular misconception among anti-nukes, radioactivity is NOT "contagious". You don't make some non-radioactive material radioactive merely because it was in the vicinity of some other radioactive material.
That's how it appears in the movies, for those that get their science education from Hollywood.
University of California - Berkeley Physics Professor Richard Muller makes this point in his book, "Physics for Future Presidents" on page 121:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6DBnS2g-KrQC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=Muller+radioactivity+contagious&source=bl&ots=_0kXRDDnzu&sig=Wk6u3EEXz7vsIkNdqGAwG-OzCOw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N2WlT--EL4rYiAL8htDuAg&ved=0CFoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/03/ask-a-nuclear-physicist-is-radiation-contagious-and-other-questions-about-japan
So NO the Rankine steam cycle pumps and turbine are NOT radioactive in a PWR nuclear power plant.
PamW
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)are not emitting the correct particle, i.e. neutrons, to induce radioactivity in other materials?
I note that the site you sent me to says this about the PWR:
PWRs keep water under pressure so that it heats, but does not boil. Water from the reactor and the water in the steam generator that is turned into steam never mix. In this way, most of the radioactivity stays in the reactor area.
Not being picky, but I do pay attention to the way government can use, and misuse words, so I am cautious. If "most" of the radiation stays in the reactor, what is found outside the reactor?
PamW
(1,825 posts)Impurities in water that goes through the reactor can be activated.
However, the water that goes through the pumps and turbine ( blue loop ) doesn't go through the reactor:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/animated-pwr.html
So the Rankine steam cycle is uncontaminated.
Secondly, the impurities that are in the water that go through the reactor can be activated since they are exposed to reactor neutrons.
However, those impurities that are radioactive will emit alpha, beta, or gamma radiation which does NOT make new radioactive material.
So those items are NOT radioactive.
Look at it this way; the only atoms that get radioactive are ones that physically go INSIDE the reactor.
PamW
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)the impurities in the water become radioactive, but do not emit neutrons, so they can't irradiate other matter.
Cool.
PamW
(1,825 posts)YOU GOT IT!!!
Your statement above is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
The elements that become radioactive in the reactor; which are principally beta-emitters meaning that they emit electrons; do NOT emit neutrons. Therefore, they can't make other materials radioactive.
Radioactivity is not "contagious".
Give yourself an "A+" for understanding.
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Is it magic or are pumps used?
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio,
Pumps are used.
However, as Kelvin now understands above; the materials that get activated in the reactor are principally beta-emitters.
Beta-emitters emit electrons. In order to make something radioactive; you have to change the nucleus. Electrons from beta emitters are NOT part of the nucleus.
So the radiation from beta-emitters CAN NOT make something radioactive.
To make something radioactive; it has to be exposed to neutrons.
The neutrons are IN the reactor core.
The pumps are OUTSIDE the reactor and NOT IN the reactor.
So the material that comprises the primary reactor coolant pumps is NOT made radioactive.
Understand???
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)Kelvin inquires
Not being picky, but I do pay attention to the way government can use, and misuse words, so I am cautious. If "most" of the radiation stays in the reactor, what is found outside the reactor?
An extremely small amount can be found outside the reactor.
For example, a very small amount of those impurities "plate out" on the pumps and steam generators. As you understand, that radioactive material won't make the pump or the steam generator itself radioactive; but impurities can attach themselves to these parts.
In his book, "Physics for Future Presidents", Professor Muller addresses the issue of radioactivity being "contagious". Radioactivity can't make atoms that are not radioactive originally, radioactive because they "caught" radioactivity. However, radioactive material can contaminate something. Professor Muller analogizes that to a clean material getting dirty.
However, that contamination can be cleaned off. You may recall some time back in the news, and as a discussion on this board; Canada's Ontario Hydro was going to ship some old replaced steam generators from the Bruce Nuclear Power Plant on the shores of Lake Huron in Ontario to Sweden for decontamination. The metal of the steam generators themselves was NOT radioactive. However, some of the radioactive impurities were clinging to the walls of the tubes of the steam generator.
The plan was for the Swedish firm Studsvik ( part of the Swedish nuclear industry ) to clean the steam generators. Those steam generators were each the size of a school bus. When cleaned of radioactive material, the amount of radioactive material would fit inside the volume of a pill bottle. This small pill bottle would be suspended in the middle of a 55 gallon drum and the void would be filled in with concrete. Then the 55 gallon drum of concrete with a pill bottle sized bit of short-lived radioactive material would be shipped back to the Bruce plant to be stored. The now radioactivity free steam generator would then have its metal recycled as recyclable iron.
However, that plan didn't materialize because of objections about shipping the slightly radioactive steam generators to Sweden. So Ontario Hydro has to store these school bus sized old steam generators; when they could have just been storing a couple 55 gallon drums of concrete, each with a pill-bottle sized amount of short-lived radioactive material inside.
So you are correct. Most does mean "most" radioactivity stays in the reactor. A very small amount; as above; a pill-bottle sized quantity of short-lived radioactive material for every school bus sized chunk of reactor cooling plumbing.
So most of the radioactive material in the PWR is to be found IN the reactor vessel. A very small amount is to be found outside the reactor vessel; but INSIDE the containment building.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I am not anti-nuclear since I do understand that in theory, reactors, especially 4G reactors could be built and operated much more safely with fewer problems than current reactors (which are VERY old),
BUT...
I have a pronounced distrust of allowing any commercial entity to operate these reactors for profit. As soon as profit is in the equation, there is pressure to cut costs, which means skimping on training, safety and materials. I would trust engineers to design safe reactors, I just have no faith that my local electric company will build/operate it safely, since doing so would cut their profits.
I see lots a great engineering ideas to make nukes safer, but so far, no commercial incentive to do so. Utilities will not build new plants without government subsidies and guarantees, and politicians are loath to approve something that could be the next Fukushima.
I fear that our energy dilemma is going to result in VERY bad decisions in the future, We will continue to burn fossil fuels regardless of the environmental damage, and when push comes to shove, many countries will turn to nuclear fuel, but will build reactors that will ultimately cause massive economic damage when they fail due to profiteering.
The choice is greed or extinction, and we have pretty much already decided on greed.
Not you or I, of course, but our political masters to appease their corporate masters.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Kelvin states
I have a pronounced distrust of allowing any commercial entity to operate these reactors for profit. As soon as profit is in the equation, there is pressure to cut costs, which means skimping on training, safety and materials. I would trust engineers to design safe reactors, I just have no faith that my local electric company will build/operate it safely, since doing so would cut their profits.
Kelvin,
How do you feel about airlines? Do you think airlines are going to skimp on safety just to make a buck, and put the lives of their customers and employees at risk?
I don't know how this "skimp on safety to make a buck" crap got started; but it's just not true. Airlines realize that skimping on safety is just not worth it. The gains to be had are paltry. If you skimp on safety; and maybe save a few thousand dollars; then the airline loses an airliner costing tens of millions of dollars. In addition, they lose valuable employees, and they lose customers. Who wants to fly on an airline that is "accident prone".
NO - the airlines realize that the ONLY way their industry survives is by upholding the HIGHEST standards of safety. In the last decade, we've seen that really pay off; as we have had years with some of the best / safest airline operations.
The nuclear industry is the same. The CEOs of the nuclear industry know that if they screw up; they lose an investment of BILLIONS of dollars and years of time. It just isn't worth it.
It would be like you not replacing the brake pads on your car. You might save a few bucks; but you could die in a crash if you can't stop. Is it worth it?
The big thing that soured CEOs on building new nuclear power plants was the Shoreham incident. The utility, LILCO, essentially did everything correct, and the NRC was prepared to issue them an operating license. The problem was that then New York Governor Mario Cuomo packed the New York Public Utilities Commission with anti-nukes. They get to decide on the price that LILCO could charge for power. They decided that LILCO could charge NOTHING.
A nuclear power plant has to "earn its keep". It has to earn the money the utility borrowed to build it. Since they couldn't charge for Shoreham's power; LILCO had no way to pay back the loan; and was forced into bankruptcy, and non-existence. It is a repeat of THAT that has nuclear utility CEOs afraid of nuclear power. We, in essence, have to BRIBE them to take on chance on that risk. That's why we have the loan guarantees.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I would say the most recent example would be putting the fuel pool ABOVE the reactor where any damage to the reactor can the compromise the integrity of the new/spent fuel rods. Also, putting reactors in major tsunami/earthquake zones. It was a great cost-cutting move.
U.S. corporations have a LONG history of putting profit before safety. The only reason the record improved is greater government oversight. Unfortunately, government oversight is now on the decline, so it is back to trusting corporations to police themselves.
You are perfectly correct that "CEOs of the nuclear industry know that if they screw up; they lose an investment of BILLIONS of dollars and years of time" but your next sentence, "It just isn't worth it." is simply wrong.
CEO's get a major part of their salary based on profits. If a cost-cutting measure will put an extra quarter million or more in his pocket he will do it. So what if the measure results in some disaster down the line costing the company billions? He probably won't be there when the problem blows up, and if he is, he will just pull the ripcord on his platinum parachute and bail with tens of millions.
And in some cases, companies make so much money that even MAJOR disasters costing billions of dollars are not a problem since the company makes that kind of money quarterly. BP isn't sweating the Deep Water Horizon disaster because everybody from the local police up to the Coast Guard answers to them. The Exxon Valdez was a pretty nasty disaster, but other than the captain, the environment, and Alaska fisherman, nobody really suffered. Exxon drug out the court case for TWO decades and got the fines and civil judgments reduced. Initially they were ordered to pay $5.28 billion in damages, actual and punitive. But, they didn't like that so they appealed to the 9th Circuit and the award was cut in half. They still didn't like that, and their friends on the Supreme Court cut the damages to $507 million in 2008. Five years later they have only paid 75% of that and are in court fighting to avoid paying the rest plus interest.
So, after 24 years, Exxon has paid only $380 million in punitive/actual damages, or a bit less than $16 million a year. They can find that kind of money lying around in their soda machines and couch cushions.
So, again, while I believe it is possible to build much safer reactors, I do not trust any for-profit utility to do it. The people who ultimately make decision that endanger the safety of the public are in no way held accountable, and the profits far outweigh the losses. In the case of the nuclear industry, the companies know they can simply walk away and stick the people with the bill.
I agree with you that the politics shouldn't overrule science, but neither should a P&L statement overrule public safety.
Yes, the airlines are much safer today, but remember they had to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Kelvin,
The "contention" is that a CEO will skimp on safety for reward; but I sure haven't seen that; and I know the industry.
The CEOs in the nuclear industry know that their reward would be PALTRY; and they risk YEARS of rewards if they screw up.
That's why it is JUST NOT WORTH IT!!!
Where did you get the idea that they can walk away and stick the taxpayer with the bill??
That is anti-nuclear PROPAGANDA. The Price-Anderson Act contains NO such provision.
In the event of an accident; the whole industry including nuclear utilities not responsible for the accident have to contribute to the
Price-Anderson fund. There is a limit on those.
However, that limit is for the utilities that are NOT at fault.
There's no walking away from a nuclear accident.
PamW
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)They didn't scrimp on safety to get Fukushima Daiichi operating? If not, WTF do you think happened there?
A catastrophe like this is always the result of a convergence of numerous failures. No scrimping? You sure about that?
PamW
(1,825 posts)TEPCO - I'll grant you TEPCO.
My remarks, I should say; are limited to US corporations.
The standards set by the NRC are much tighter than what Japan had.
Fukushima couldn't have been licensed in the USA; and I don't know whether it was greed ( Japanese Corps. don't reward CEOs as much as we do in USA ),
or what it was that led to such lax standards at Fukushima.
Maybe it was because they don't reward the CEO as much. The CEOs in the USA have a "good thing" and the last thing someone in that position would want to do is jeopardize that "good thing" by driving the company into non-profitable status. A bad accident will do that. So CEOs in the USA don't "temp fate".
There seems to be a better "espirit de corps" in the USA; the people in the industry want to "do it right".
Perhaps it is because so many came out of Admiral Rickover's Navy. The Navy has a great record with nuclear power. The US Navy has lost 2 nuclear subs; USS Thresher and USS Scorpion; but NEITHER was due to a nuclear accident with the reactor.
The Navy, like NASA; has the "can do" spirit. So perhaps the non-commercial training before going commercial has something to do with it.
In a way, the nuclear industry getting its people from the US Navy mirrors the airlines getting their pilots from the US Air Force.
I haven't seen scrimping in the US nuclear industry.
PamW
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The laws says all sorts of nice things. For example, the law says it is illegal to torture people. We torture people, and just don't call it torture. The law is for little people, like you and I, not for corporations. Seen anyone prosecuted for the massive fraud that caused the 2nd Great Depression in 2007?
If you had a Fukushima-type disaster in the U.S. the utility company can declare bankruptcy and that's the end of that. The law may say that a utility company can't walk away and stick the tax payer with the bill, but they can. If the cleanup costs exceed the value of the company, then game over and the government (tax payer)is on the hook. Even if the company has more than enough money to cover the expense, it will litigate its way out of paying (see my example of the Exxon Valdez in the previous post).
Again, I trust engineers to design safer reactors, but not corporations to build and operate them without problems. There are WAY too many examples of corporations putting profit over safety. Ask the residents of Bhopal if you require an example.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)You're kidding, right? You're still holding on to the notion that something at Fukushima was impacted by MOX?
but that only affects an insignificant part of the waste.
Not really. That and the U235 that's recovered represent a comparatively high percentage of the fissile material that the fuel started out with (allowing them to make new fuel without much of the mining otherwise required).
Some is low level
Some? Sorry... thats' not true. The largest proportion of the original "waste" is U238... and that's simply not dangerous. You're surrounded by the stuff.
In short, most of the dangerous stuff doesn't last very long and most of the stuff that lasts a really long time isn't very dangerous. The volume of dangerous+long-lived material is comparatively very small (and thus could be buried pretty easily).
As to the "designed" life of 60 years as far as I know the closest to that is the H B Robinson, no other nuclear plant in the world has operated for close to 60 years.
So? Don't fall for the ridiculous notion that "if it has the word 'nuclear' in the title... it's pretty much the same"
. It isn't at all uncommon for the newer reactor designs to plan for an initial 60-year run (with the very real probability of an additional 20-year option after that and some that could exceed 100 years if experience over the next 60 years occurs as projected).
Hoover Dam opened three quarters of a century ago... how much longer will it survive? There's nothing about nuclear reactors that keep them from being designed for longer lives. Better metallurgy, planning for replacement of major parts, fewer wear items, etc. all play a part.
BTW would you trust the ex-USSR to design a power reactor given the safety record?
See above. All russians are the same? Or just all Russian reactors?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)TEPCO used to use MOX in 4 and, I believe, that 2 and 3 were still using it but the problems with MOX, e.g uncertain supplies (find our where those rods had to come from) and poorly understood reaction dynamics. That is why MOX is an unpopular fuel and why reprocessing is uneconomic.
Oh, if the Hoover Dam fails then several thousand people will die or be harmed at the time but rescue efforts will be able to start immediately and within a year people will be moving back. The effect will not last for years and decades with an ongoing death toll and damage to the world at large. I think you may be using false equivalence, so not even a nice try.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)Entirely untrue. Unit 3 was the only MOX unit and it had just received it's first load (1/3 of a core) in the previous refeuling outage. Thus there isn't even any spent MOX in the spent fuel pool (though there would be a handful of unused assemblies).
And MOX is hardly an "unpopular fuel"... it's used in lots of reactors... and planned for many more. The fake hype about MOX at Fukushima was just so that people could fit the word "plutonium" into their articles (nonsense of course... since all spent fuel has plutonium in it)
Oh, if the Hoover Dam fails then several thousand people will die or be harmed at the time but rescue efforts will be able to start immediately and within a year people will be moving back. The effect will not last for years and decades with an ongoing death toll and damage to the world at large.
You're not seriously trying to compare an imagined failure of Hoover Dam to Fukushima and pretend that the Dam would be less damaging... are you?
It wouldn't be "several thousand"... it would be tens of thousands. Lake Mohave and the Davis dam would fail as well... then Lake Havasu and the Parker dam would go. A few little towns (like... say... Las Vegas) would have no water supply and 3GWs of their power generation would be destroyed. No water... no power... no irrigation for crops - in the middle of a desert. That's a heck of a lot more "uninhabbitable" than a radiation level that might cause a few hundred deaths from cancer if you stayed instead of evacuated.
If you think that the population of the area would return a year later... you're nuts.
But we weren't talking about how much damage it would do if it failed... we were talking about the ability to design substantial steel and concrete structures to last for many decades. It's most certainly possible to design reactors that could (with appropriate maintenance) last a century.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)6 Months? A year?
How long will Fukushima be poisoning the environment? 10 years? 20? 200?
How long before the town is again inhabitable? 10 years, 20 years?
How long will there be a raised incidence of cancer because of Fukushima? 10 years? 50 years?
How long before the residents now evacuated can recover all their possessions?
How long before TEPCO finds it has turned back 10,000 site workers who have reached their maximum allowable dosage?
How long will the fishing in the Prefecture be poisoned because the fish have too high a load to be sold?
How long will it take to clean the contaminated water now stored on site at Fukushima?
How will the contaminated ground water be cleared?
How long will the coffer dam isolating the site from sea and ground water incursions have to be maintained?
How long before the cracked concrete in the "dry well" can be repaired? - because that is where much of the cores from the melt-downs are, not in containment.
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio,
Professor Richard Muller points out in this article:
The Panic Over Fukushima
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332
that the radiation at Fukushima is only ONE-THIRD the radiation of Denver Colorado due to natural sources.
We allow people to live in Denver Colorado with THREE TIMES the radiation levels that the Japanese are excluding people from.
One of these days; the Japanese will "wake up".
The Japanese didn't wait after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were irradiated; and they turned out fine in post-War years.
PamW
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)So let's see... how many posts of you being insulting just to try to evade (unsuccessfully) attention for your errors will I have to survive after I point out that the drywell is part of the primary containment? So it isn't possible to have something "in the dry well" that is "not in containment".
How long will the fishing in the Prefecture be poisoned because the fish have too high a load to be sold?
It appears "not very long" is the answer.
http://fukushimaupdate.com/fukushima-fisheries-to-resume-trial-fishing-after-samples-prove-safe/
How long before TEPCO finds it has turned back 10,000 site workers who have reached their maximum allowable dosage?
Oh goody... a math problem. Let's see... as of late August there were 134 workers that had exceeded their annual dose limit. Call that roughly two and a half years and at that pace it will take about 181 years for 10,000 site workers to reach their annual limits.
Of course... that's an annual limit. The number of workers that had exceeded lifetime limits was still in the single-digit range at the time.
How long will there be a raised incidence of cancer because of Fukushima? 10 years? 50 years?
I held off on all the other "when can they go home" questions because that impacts this one. There doesn't appear to be a high enough dose rate among the general public to cause an identifiable increase in cancer rates. There was a study that estimated doses for people who remained rather than evacuated... and it just barely crossed the statistical threshold for infants.
And how long will the land beneath those dams be uninhabitable?
The land beneath the dams was never inhabitable... and would not become so without moving the river.
I jest at your expense of course... but it's really a ridiculous comparison. Even if a town near the plant is permanently uninhabitable (not the case), you really think that there's a comparison? Tens of thousands of people dying (and hundreds of thousands having to leave), entire towns destroyed (no question of when you can come back and pick up your purse)... and you really think it's comparable to an event where nobody has died, very few (if any) will get cancer (almost certainly an entirely treatable cancer) and you can't return to your home for some number of years?
Really?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Actually the 134 were those who have exceeded safe lifetime dose limits. The turnover of staff due to reaching the (newly raised) government dosage limits but not yet exceeding is very high as evidenced by the constant 25% shortfall in staff (Reuters Oct 2013. Many of those workers are not even issued dosimeters (RT Nov 2013)
Comparisons to dams was your idea not mine. I just followed your contorted logic.
You claim that entire towns have not been destroyed, but ignore the fact that they cannot be inhabited, whereas if town are destroyed they can be rapidly rebuilt and rapidly inhabited.
Regarding fish the following is an NHK report quited in ENE news July 2013
Prefectural officials said 1,037 becquerels of cesium were discovered per kilogram of Japanese sea bass. That’s more than 10 times the government safety limit.
They said it is the 3rd highest level found in marine products in the region. Higher levels were only previously detected in April 2011 — one month after the Fukushima nuclear accident. ...
They admitted they don’t know why such a high dose was detected more than 2 years after the accident. ...
You are aware of the problem of latency in cancer calculations? Because, of the thousands who will die from radiation induced cancer, most have yet to appear. However the increase in childhood thyroid cancers does appear to be increasing in Japan as a whole. I have also seen an unreliable report of an increase in Leukemias.
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio states
You claim that entire towns have not been destroyed, but ignore the fact that they cannot be inhabited, whereas if town are destroyed they can be rapidly rebuilt and rapidly inhabited.
intaglio,
This is WRONG
As University of California - Berkeley Physics Professor Richard Muller points out in:
The Panic Over Fukushima
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332
The radiation level in Fukushima ( excluding the immediate vicinity of the plants ) is ONE-THIRD the radiation level in Denver, Colorado that Denver gets from NATURAL sources, principally the Uranium in the granite that underlies Denver.
The USA allows people to live in Denver where the radiation level is THREE TIMES what it is in most of Fukushima.
So how is Fukushima "uninhabitable"? It's only "uninhabitable" by government decree based on the hysteria fostered by the anti-nukes.
Japan once had two cities that were obliterated and neutron-irradiated ( making fallout ) by two atomic bombs; Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fortunately back then, Japan didn't have the uneducated anti-nukes to foster hysteria about radiation. In a few months, Japan started rebuilding and resettling Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they have been inhabited for the last 60 years.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio states
How long will there be a raised incidence of cancer because of Fukushima? 10 years? 50 years?
This is one of the questions that is like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
The "question" also makes an ASSUMPTION of "fact" ( "wife beating" above ) that may NOT be true.
If intaglio had read Professor Muller's article:
The Panic Over Fukushima
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332
he could have asked the question, "How long will there be a raised incidence of cancer in Denver, Colorado?"
Intaglio makes an UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION that there is an increased cancer rate in Fukushima.
As per Professor Muller's article; the radiation levels in Denver, Colorado are THREE TIMES that of Fukushima, and we don't see increased cancer rates in Denver, and as Professor Muller points out, the actual measured cancer rates in Denver are BELOW the national average.
Too many people are uneducated in the fact that radiation exposure doesn't automatically equate to higher cancers. The human body, and other organisms on this planet have radiation damage repair mechanisms. We had to evolve them just as we had to evolve an immunity system. The environment is not "germ-free"; there are many common pathogens in the environment that have the potential to do great damage. Ever see the ravages that AIDS takes on one of it victims? But the AIDS virus itself doesn't do that. The AIDS virus destroys the immune system. The pathogens that actually ravage and kill the AIDS victim are the every day pathogens that we all have around us. So the only way for us to live on this planet was to evolve an immune system that combats those pathogens.
Likewise with radiation. The bulk of the radiation you get is NOT from nuclear power, or nuclear weapons tests, or medical X-rays...or any of the other man-made radiation sources. The bulk of your radiation exposure is due to Mother Nature. So you have a radiation damage repair mechanism; and recently scientists have found that mechanism even more effective that originally believed:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/
“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, a world-renowned breast cancer researcher with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”
So Bissel and her colleagues have DISPROVEN the old LNT ( Linear No Threshold ) theory which was only a hypothesis, an assumption; from the beginning. So radiation exposure does NOT automatically mean increased cancer.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio,
The Plutonium that is in MOX is in the reactor ANYWAY
The Plutonium comes from transmutation of U-238; which is 96% of the fuel.
So reactors have Plutonium in them anyway; and 40% of the energy a reactor produces comes from burning Plutonium.
You have fallen for the anti-nuke propaganda that there is something "wrong" with MOX.
This is what happens when people don't have any scientific training beyond elementary school.
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio,
Contrary to what you may have heard; dismantling a nuclear power plant is not a big stumbling block.
We've had a number of nuclear power plants totally dismantled in the USA.
For example, consider Michigan's Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant. Here's the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rock_Point
which shows a picture of the nuclear power plant when it was operating on the shores of Lake Michigan.
However, if you click on the coordinates in the upper right hand corner; and click on through to Bing Aerial view; you will find the site of the former nuclear power plant EMPTY.
The anti-nukes like to attempt to make people think that dismantling a nuclear power plant is terribly difficult and just can't be done. However, just because they don't know how to do it doesn't mean that more intelligent people don't know how.
As for the waste, Russia is not like the USA and forbids reprocessing / recycling of the waste.
The only reason the USA has a nuclear waste problem is that we don't allow reprocessing / recycling ( courtesy of the anti-nukes )
Read how recycling works with this interview with nuclear physicist Dr. Charles Till of Argonne National Lab:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: And you repeat the process.
A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.
With recycliing; the waste eventually becomes SHORT-LIVED as Dr. Till explains. There's no reason to have to store waste for thousands of years if you manage the fuel cycle properly. Unfortunately, Congress forbade our nuclear industry from doing that to exacerbate the problem; all at the behest of the anti-nukes.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Calder Hall at Windscale/Seascale/Selafield has been in process of dismantling for years and it still has nor been completed.
Essentially the core of any reactor has such high levels of radioactivity that not even robots can operate with a life of more than a couple of hours. Recently they managed to get a remote operated camera inside the de-fueled reactor vessel at Calder Hall and this was bruited as a triumph. The company hired to do the dismantling has still nor developed tools that could operate in that environment.
What the publicity calls dismantling is the de-fueling of the reactor and the removal of the fuel elements from the site. Associated with this is the removal of intermediate level waste (machinery and structure). The actual primary cooling circuits and the reactor vessel remain intact and are at similar levels of toxicity as the fuel.
intaglio states
Essentially the core of any reactor has such high levels of radioactivity that not even robots can operate with a life of more than a couple of hours.
BALONEY!!! That is just a bunch of FABRICATED CRAP. You obviously don't have ANY credentials in nuclear science or metallurgy; so why do you MAKE UP CRAP!!!. Why can't you just be honest that you don't know the science?
I showed you that plants were dismantled in the USA; and how do you think they got dismantled if robots fail after a few hours.
The answer is they don't; and you just MADE UP CRAP.
What I refer to as "dismantling" is what the NRC calls "dismantling" and it is the complete removal of the whole plant as with Big Rock Point.
Did you even LOOK at the site like I suggested. There's NOTHING there but a big rectangular area of dirt.
Now if things where like you claim; how did that happen?
The answer is you FABRICATED the CRAP about the vessel being too hot to deal with.
When the reactor is operating; at refueling outages; they defuel the reactor and send DIVERS in to check the vessel, for Heaven's sake!!
http://www.post-gazette.com/technology/2007/01/18/Why-some-divers-want-to-work-in-nuclear-reactors/stories/200701180364
"Too hot for robots" is BALONEY
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)You are ignorant of the mechanisms of atomic fission, you are ignorant of the metallurgy of stainless steel, you are ignorant of the actual facts of reprocessing and you are ignorant of failure modes of complex systems. All you have is random capitals and a childish infatuation with, to quote Einstein, "a hell of a way to boil water,"
You will also choose to ignore the words of Professor John Goffman an employee of the USAEC , “The nuclear industry is waging a war against humanity.”
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio
More of intaglio's FABRICATIONS and MADE UP CRAP
Everything I have said is FACTUALLY CORRECT
As I've said in the past; I'm a scientist with a PhD from MIT.
What are your credentials, intaglio??
Based on what you answer; I have some question to see if you are authentic.
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio,
Go find me an actinide with a ZERO fission cross-section!!!
You are LYING and you know it.
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Now tell me how they are wrong.
U238 is not suitable as a nuclear fuel, that is an isotope of uranium
Thorium in general is not suitable as a nuclear fuel unless salted because it does not sustain a chain reaction
Both of these are actinides.
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio,
We want to fission the element to destroy it. It doesn't have to be a suitable fuel.
Put your brain in gear and follow along.
Suppose I have something that is a poor fuel but is still combustible; like wet wood.
You can't build a fire with wet wood.
However, suppose I put that wet wood in an incinerator that is fed by gas.
The gas fuel keeps the fire going; and eventually that fire is going to burn up the wood.
The same is true in the nuclear case. The U-238 or thorium is like wet wood.
We fuel the reactor with U-235 or Pu-239. Those fissile elements act like the gas fuel for the incinerator and keep it going.
As long as the U-238 or thorium has a non-zero fission cross-section; which the DO; then they can be fissioned and transmuted into short-lived fission products.
Neither the U-238 nor the thorium has to sustain the nuclear reaction; the U-235 and Pu-239 will do that.
Just as the wet wood doesn't have to sustain the flame of the incinerator; the gas fuel does that.
My Lord; a CHILD could understand this; but it appears to be beyond the mental capabilities of some.
I can explain it to you. But I can't understand it for you.
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)You will also choose to ignore the words of Professor John Goffman an employee of the USAEC , “The nuclear industry is waging a war against humanity.”
Gofman was a scientist in the employ of the AEC.
However, he made some assertions that we now know are WRONG
At the time, Gofman and the AEC "parted ways" over the dispute.
In the years thereafter, Gofman said anything that would discredit the AEC.
Lots of people who leave an employer under non-friendly conditions are disgruntled and say bad things about the previous employer.
That doesn't automatically make them right.
In the case of Gofman; recent research has shown his conjectures to be 100% WRONG.
Gofman stated that radiation effects followed a Linear No Threshold (LNT) formula.
We know LNT is "conservative" in that it OVERPREDICTS the somatic effects. But Gofman said it wasn't an overprediction.
We now know that Gofman was WRONG. There are radiation damage repair mechanisms.
For example, the work of Mina Bissel of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/
“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, a world-renowned breast cancer researcher with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”
Dr. Bissel's last statement is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to Gofman.
The judgement of SCIENCE is that Gofman was WRONG.
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)intaglio,
There used to be TWO Windscale reactors; Windscale Pile 1 and Windscale Pile 2.
At present; one can go to Bing Aerial and see that there is only ONE Windscale reactor now standing.
One of the Windscale Piles has already been dismantled and carted away.
Whatever they did with that reactor; they can do for its twin and for the Calder Hall reactors.
We have someone here arguing that it is not technically possible to do something; when it has already been done.
The British just have to get around to doing it. They did it with one of the reactors; that's the "proof of principle" that it can be done.
BALONEY on that LIE about robots not being able to dismantle. If that were true; where did that other Windscale Pile go to?
Perhaps you could tell us WHICH ISOTOPE is responsible for this robot-killing radiation.
If you can't do that; you might as well just admit that you MADE IT UP!!
PamW
intaglio
(8,170 posts)and has been for some years. This is part of a policy because "Windscale" became a byword for contamination. They tried naming it Seascale but that was too similar.
Selafield reactors
Windscale 2; shut after the fire as too hazardous to use.
The final dismantling of these piles is not expected before 2037 - if ever.
Calder Hall generating plant and plutonium production facility. Closed 2003, external demolission near complete, contaminated fuel ponds still not cleared, video inspection of inside of reactor March? this year.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Yes - I know the site is "Sellafield"; but the two original reactors are still called Windscale.
You keep arguing; but you NEVER do what I ask. You agree that there were TWO Windscale reactors as shown in the picture.
Now go fire up Google Earth or Bing Aerial and LOOK AT SELLAFIELD
Try to find the two reactors. You will only find ONE
One of the reactors has been dismantled. You claim above that something was buried in place.
OK - Windscale 1 may have been buried in place. What is stopping the UK from burying Windscale 2 in place.
I.e. Britain could do with Windscale 2 EXACTLY what they did with Windscale 1.
If it was acceptable to demolish Windscale 1 and bury it in place; then the UK could do the exact same thing with Windscale 2.
There's NOTHING stopping you from doing the same thing to Windscale 2.
If someone claims it is too radioactive to touch Windscale 2; then why wasn't the SAME true for Windscale 1.
The UK dismantled and buried ONE of a pair of TWIN reactors; and now intaglio wants to claim that the disposal of the second Windscale reactor is some type of INSURMOUNTABLE problem.
Do with Windscale 2 what you did with Windscale 1.
SIMPLE as THAT. However, I'm going to guess that intaglio will still portray it as some unsolvable problem.
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)I note here that intaglio wasn't able to specify the radioisotope that was responsible for all the intractable problems.
As I said; I take that to mean it was ALL a BIG FABRICATION.
There's no technical problem that forces the UK to wait.
The nuclear weapons facilities can be dismantled any time the UK government makes up its mind to do so; and provides the funding.
As I showed, some of the longest running nuclear power plants in the USA; like Big Rock Point; have been shutdown, completely dismantled, and their components disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner. That leaves only a big empty patch of dirt; as one can see by going to the Wikipedia entry for Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant, and using the coordinates link in the upper right corner, one can click on through to Google Earth or Bing Aerial and see what is present day just an empty patch of ground:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rock_Point_Nuclear_Power_Plant
In the present day aerial view, one can still see the stone breakwater that was near the condenser coolant inlet / outlet that is also visible in the picture of the plant while it was operating available at the Wikipedia website.
Nuclear power plants HAVE been shutdown / dismantled / carted away
You can see with your own eyes the COUNTEREXAMPLE to all the uninformed, and hysterical hews and cries of the anti-nukes that an old nuclear power reactor is "too radioactive" to deal with or handle; or that robots will be "burnt out" by the radiation.
If you can't do anything with the power plant because it is "too radioactive", then WHAT HAPPENED to Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant?
Did ALIENS with more advanced technology use their "disintegrator beams" on it?
Did someone use MAGIC to say "Abra Cadabra - presto chango - no nuclear power plant".
The anti-nukes tell us NOTHING can be DONE.
But there is the evidence before your eyes; a picture of a site that once contained a nuclear power plant; and now our satellite images can show us what we recognize to be the same site with NOTHING THERE.
How does one explain that?
It's EASY to explain. Kelvin above states that he doesn't like it when someone says someone is LYING.
However, facts are facts. If someone says that a nuclear power plant can't be dismantled because it's "too radioactive" to handle and that robots will be fried by radiation in an hour; then they are LYING.
Simple as that.
The anti-nukes just love to peddle a SELF-SERVING LIE that the dismantlement is an INSURMOUNTABLE and UNSOLVED problem; and therefore one should oppose nuclear power. The EVIDENCE clearly shows that is just a SELF-SERVING LIE
The best thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It takes a peculiar mind to find comfort in that.
AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory
DOCUMENT ID: E77-01
YEAR: 1976
DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal or Magazine Article
PUBLISHER: Foreign Affairs
In this landmark piece from 1976, Amory Lovins describes the two energy choices then facing the nation. There is the "hard path" and the "soft path". This path resembles federal policy of the time and is essentially an extrapolation of the recent past. The hard path relies on rapid expansion of centralized high technologies to increase supplies of energy, especially in the form of electricity. The second path combines a prompt and serious commitment to efficient use of energy, rapid development of renewable energy sources matched in scale and in energy quality to end-use needs, and special transitional fossil-fuel technologies. This path diverges radically from incremental past practices to pursue long-term goals. Lovins argues that both paths present difficult—but very different—problems. The first path is convincingly familiar, but the economic and sociopolitical problems then facing the nation loomed large and insuperable. The second path, though it represents a shift in direction, offers many social, economic and geopolitical advantages, including virtual elimination of nuclear proliferation from the world. For Lovins, it is important to recognize that the two paths are mutually exclusive. Because commitments to the first may foreclose the second, Loins argues that we must choose one or the other—before failure to stop nuclear proliferation has foreclosed both.
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Countries with centralized, authoritarian governments would seem to be ideal candidates for favoring nuclear power.
Iterate
(3,020 posts)Monopoly or near monopoly corporate control will do just as well. Preferably it's with one big plant and one big switch, with a spare of course.
This has the advantage that it's easy to explain and sell; it's a one line fix. And you only have to deal with other oligarchs in the construction, distribution and operation.
That spare though, it has to be used as well, but we can sell that power by running factories all night and loading the peasants with wasteful devices. We shall call these devices "appliances", and our citizens shall be called "consumers". It has a nice ring to it.
Uh, but now we need a spare for our spare. Hmm, plus our one big plant is not quickly responsive to demand. We can use coal and gas for the daytime peak. If anyone notices, we'll invent "baseload".
Some of those messy villagers may complain, but fuck 'em.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)CFLDem
(2,083 posts)of announcing their return to the world stage and to intimidate the West through nuclear technologies. It really is hard to teach old dogs new tricks.
Green is turning a corner and, as Fukashima shows, there is no need for such risky nuclear technologies.
hunter
(38,311 posts)Green isn't compatible with this industrial civilization.
The only way to quit fossil fuels is to quit fossil fuels.
There are two ways to accomplish that: one is nuclear power, the other is to shut down most industry.
With the nuclear power option you ride in an electric vehicle to work. With the green option you get to work using the power of your legs.
At this point I figure Mother Nature will shut down most industrial civilization in her traditional manner, by killing many humans. We could shut down most industry in an orderly manner more to our liking, but we probably won't.
France and Russia have decided to keep the lights on and the trains running by the use of nuclear power. It's not an unreasonable choice and they will be less responsible for the climate catastrophes to come than those nations that continue to burn fossil fuels.
As bad as the accident at Fukushima is, it's still a lesser catastrophe than coal or tar sands mining.
PamW
(1,825 posts)EXACTLY!!
That is precisely what the major climate scientists like Hansen are saying.
It's my theory that a goodly fraction of the so-called "environmentalists" are not really environmentalists at heart.
NO - they hate the industrialized societies that we have constructed.
Being for the environment is only their EXCUSE for being against the industrialized society.
So nuclear power is incompatible with their desires; they don't want to have their cake and eat it too; they don't want to have both the industrial society and be kind to the environment.
They want to destroy the industrial societies; and they are using environmentalism as their convenient "excuse".
So, of course, that type of so-called "environmentalist" ( the disingenuous type ) wants to destroy the industrialized societies; so they are the ones that oppose nuclear power.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)"As bad as the accident at Fukushima is, it's still a lesser catastrophe than coal or tar sands mining" we don't want coal nor tar! we want solar and wind power!! But its not happening because the nuke and coal industry is too fuking powerful to allow any changes!!!
hunter
(38,311 posts)Walk out to your electric main and shut it off.
Take apart your car and recycle the pieces.
There. Done.
I burn about a hundred gallons of gasoline a year driving around in my own car and I still feel bad about that. I can't quit gasoline. My wife and I have managed to avoid commuting since the mid 1980's but we've not yet lived in a place where it's more hassle to own a car than not.
Whenever I cut back my electric use to an amount I could conceivably afford to support with solar, it simply doesn't seem worth the trouble.
I was in Home Depot a couple of months ago and a guy there was hard selling solar, "No cost to you! Just pay what you normally pay on your electric bill!"
So I told him what I pay on my electric bill, and he said "Oh...then. Keep it up!" and walked away to hit on the next customer.
I live in a mild climate and cook with gas. We do heat our house somewhat, but no air conditioning. We have friends here who don't heat or cool their houses ever. The weather never gets cold enough to freeze pipes or hot enough at night that it's impossible to sleep.
If we restructure society in such a way that green power is adequate then it really doesn't matter if we are using green power or not. In such a society we could probably power the entire state of California on hydroelectricity and a handful of natural gas plants, turning back the clock to the days of two lane highways and a railroad depot in every town.
PamW
(1,825 posts)As I recall; California gets about 11% of its electric generation from hydropower.
It gets about 27% from natural gas.
I'm glad you can get by with little energy. I attempt to keep my electric use as low as I can; but it's not trivial.
The vast majority of the USA needs energy to either stay warm or stay cool. In addition, much of the industry of the USA, and the jobs of all those people out there; depends on electricity.
In fact, the use of electricity correlates with the standard of living in a country.
That's why those nations with poor standards of living are attempting to get as much electric power as they can.
Is this the time to tell poor nations and peoples you can't have a better life because we have to hold down electric use?
How about we generate power in a manner that is abundant and doesn't endanger the planet.
If you listen to the scientists, like climate scientist Hansen; you'd know how to do it.
PamW
Hydro and Diablo Canyon have a larger share.
If one could track the electrons moving through my house most of them would be moved by natural gas.
My favorite electric appliances are my coffee maker, my microwave oven, and my washing machine.
I could afford enough solar panels to run our family internet servers, cell phones, tablets, laptops, LED reading lights, and night lights, enough to keep us from tripping on the way to the bathroom at night.
I already own enough solar capacity to charge the cell phones, laptops, wireless router, and a few LED reading lights.
I do not want to wash clothes by hand. Been there, done that. And when I'm in my most impoverished places I usually don't wash clothes. The oxygen in the air is adequate. But it's not a good way to inspire the confidence of potential clients.
PamW
(1,825 posts)The PG&E mix of generating capacity includes:
27% natural gas
25% nuclear - the 2-unit Diablo Canyon plant
11% hydro
The rest is a mix of renewables, geothermal ( the Geysers ), wind turbines ( Altamont Pass near me )...
So yes; most of your electrons 27% are moved by natural gas, and running a close second at 25% is nuclear power in the form of a single nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon.
If you are using solar to avoid tripping on the way to the bathroom at night, then you are also using batteries, and have all the environmental downsides of that industry.
PamW
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Chernobyl wasn't enough for them, was it!
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Not much help against climate change, so it's entirely an economic move.
They should just be coming online in time for Russia's next collapse. Whoopee!
Aaron8418
(18 posts)I think that's the last thing anybody needs is more nuclear power plants, if we new a way of disposing of it without harm or it taking a life time to become stable then by all means go for it. Nuclear waste is something we don't need, so many people die from that crap.
PamW
(1,825 posts)What people are dying because of nuclear waste?
Do you think that people die from the normal operation of a nuclear power plant?
Even nuclear power plant accidents; fewer people die than airliner crashes.
Nobody died because of Three Mile Island.
Nobody will die due to Fukushima; in spite of all the hype; the radiation levels aren't that high.
Chernobyl is a different story. There were about 30 people killed in the early days of the Chernobyl accident.
There may be about 4000 that get some type of cancer; mostly curable types.
But nuclear power has a better safety record in terms of injuries and deaths, than the commercial airline industry.
PamW
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
LMAOROFL!!!!
Cleita
(75,480 posts)after the evidence of how dangerous they are from Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and most recently Fukushima. I know you are in favor of nuclear energy, but you are so wrong.
PamW
(1,825 posts)What evidence from Three Mile Island?
You do know that NOBODY was injured as a result of TMI don't you?
Do you realize how much Fukushima has been HYPED.
We don't expect that people will be dying as a result of Fukushima.
There were about 30 people killed as a result of Chernobyl.
So with ALL the nuclear power accidents; fewer people have been killed or injured than from an average airliner crash.
Do you think we should terminate all airline travel; it has a safety record MUCH WORSE than nuclear power.
PamW
Cleita
(75,480 posts)harmless, you know the waste that takes fifty thousand years to become harmless? And that's for plants under normal operation. Fukushima has been hyped??? Where is your evidence?
PamW
(1,825 posts)Cleita,
Where did I say radioactive waste is harmless? Radioactive waste CAN cause harm; and that's the reason we don't let radioactive waste loose into the environment.
If you are a supporter of solar panels; you do know that the byproducts from solar panel manufacture consists of a lot of toxic waste ( just like the computer chip business ). Are these byproducts harmless? NOPE - they consist of a bunch of fiendishly toxic crap. So should we abandon solar power because it produces a bunch of toxic crap?
How about instead; we still have solar power; but we keep the toxic crap isolated from the environment. Of course, this toxic crap is stable; so it doesn't decay and it doesn't go away. So by using solar power, we've signed up for isolating this crap from the environment for all eternity.
A similar situation occurs with nuclear power. The radioactive waste is radioactive and therefore can cause harm; so we isolate it from the environment. Just like with the toxic byproducts of solar cell manufacture; we keep that stuff out of the environment so it won't hurt anybody.
However, the nuclear waste has an advantage. It DECAYS. For example, one of the most radioactive constituents of nuclear waste is Iodine-131. You may have heard a lot about I-131. However, Iodine-131 is radioactive with a half-life of 8 days. Iodine-131 radioactively decays into Xenon-131:
I-131 --> Xe-131 + e
The Iodine-131 decays into Xe-131 and a high energy electron which is the beta radiation. As long as the electron is high-energy and moving fast, then it can cause damage, and you have to shield yourself from it.
However, in less than a second, and a total travel of a few feet in air; that electron, because it is charged feels the "drag" force from all the other electrons in the air and it slows down and becomes just an ordinary harmless electron. So the harmful energy of the beta radiation gets DISSIPATED as a little bit of HEAT in the air.
That Xenon-131 atom is also harmless. Xenon is a noble gas; it is INERT. It doesn't take part in any chemical reactions including any chemical reactions that could be harmful to human tissues.
So the byproducts of the radioactive decay are HARMLESS. So all we have to do is wait long enough for the radioactive Iodine-131 to decay into harmless byproducts. The time you need to wait is about 20 half-lives, and since the half-life of Iodine-131 is 8 days; you need to wait about 5 months.
So if you keep your radioactive Iodine-131 isolated from the environment for 5 months; then the byproducts, Xenon-131 and electrons are harmless and can be released to the environment without ill effects. That's different from the toxic waste from solar panels which has to stay isolated since they don't decay.
So for each radioactive material, there is a time to wait until it becomes harmless.
Want to see stuff that USED TO BE radioactive waste? Look around you!! EVERYTHING that you see around you that is not Hydrogen and not Helium was once radioactive!!!
The only "indigenous" elements to the Universe that were created in the Big Bang are Hydrogen and Helium. EVERY other element from Lithium on up was created by the STARS. All the elements up to Iron are the byproducts of nuclear fusion. The elements higher than Iron were created in the thermonuclear explosions of stars going supernova.
When all these elements were created; they were created as RADIOACTIVE species. Then they decayed to the stuff we see around us now. In fact, some of the material hasn't finished decaying yet. You know that bananas are a good source of Potassium which our bodies need. However, a certain fraction of all Potassium is Potassium-40 ( K-40 ). The half-life of K-40 is 9 Billion Years. The Earth is only about 4.5 Billion years old. So the Potassium-40 hasn't had long enough to all decay yet. That's why bananas are slightly radioactive.
As far as Fukushima being hyped, I refer you to an article written by Professor Richard Muller of the Physics Department at University of California - Berkeley. Professor Muller is also the author of the book, "Physics for Future Presidents" and teaches a class for non-science majors on Physics at UC-B. Professor Muller has this to say:
The Panic Over Fukushima
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332
Professor Muller points out that the radiation levels in Denver Colorado are THREE TIMES the radiation levels of Fukushima ( with the exception of the immediate vicinity of the reactors ).
The USA allows people to live and work in Denver, Colorado with THREE TIMES the radiation level of Fukushima; while the Japanese government has isolated Fukushima due to the radiation levels.
In 1945, Japan had two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were neutron irradiated by the two atomic bombs, and that made those cities radioactive. ( That's where fallout comes from; it's the neutron irradiated "stuff" on the ground that becomes radioactive when exposed to bomb neutrons, and then is flung to the winds. )
However, back in 1945, Japan didn't have the "professional fear mongers" that we have now. The Japanese started rebuilding Hiroshima and Nagasaki a few months following their destruction, and those cities are now viable cities, and have been for over 60 years.
THAT is my EVIDENCE of HYPE!
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
Cleita
(75,480 posts)But even if everything about nuclear power were perfectly safe and anyone whom seem to know as much as you do knows that's not true, the whole safety issue is a moot point, when it takes fifty thousand years to make nuclear waste safe. This is a well known fact. Any industry that creates that kind of waste should be considered criminal. All the byproduct of solar and what you mention do not require fifty thousand years to be rendered non-toxic and safe.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)"Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far."
'http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/10/chernobyl-nuclear-deaths-cancers-dispute"
And this is what you said, in case you delete.
85. What evidence????
What evidence from Three Mile Island?
You do know that NOBODY was injured as a result of TMI don't you?
Do you realize how much Fukushima has been HYPED.
We don't expect that people will be dying as a result of Fukushima.
There were about 30 people killed as a result of Chernobyl.
So with ALL the nuclear power accidents; fewer people have been killed or injured than from an average airliner crash.
Do you think we should terminate all airline travel; it has a safety record MUCH WORSE than nuclear power.
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)darkangel218,
Do you realize that report to which you refer has been DISCREDITED by the scientific community.
The only people who cite that report are the professional anti-nukes.
You might want to catch the documentary "Pandora's Promise" in which environmentalists that now support nuclear power take up this issue of the Belarus report and show that it has been DISCREDITED
Why not cite a more reliable source such as the United Nation's UNSCEAR panel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[13] An UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The Chernobyl Forum predicts the eventual death toll could reach 4,000 among those exposed to the highest levels of radiation (200,000 emergency workers, 116,000 evacuees and 270,000 residents of the most contaminated areas); this figure is a total causal death toll prediction, combining the deaths of approximately 50 emergency workers who died soon after the accident from acute radiation syndrome, nine children who have died of thyroid cancer and a future predicted total of 3940 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia.[14]
In a peer reviewed publication in the International Journal of Cancer in 2006, the authors of which, following a different conclusion methodology to the Chernobyl forum study, which arrived at the total predicted, 4000, death toll after cancer survival rates were factored in, the paper stated, without entering into a discussion on deaths, that in terms of total excess cancers attributed to the accident
Of course, even the figure of 4,000 is highly speculative
In any case, it really shouldn't matter. Chernobyl was a FLAWED REACTOR and is analogous to the Hindenburg disaster of the aviation industry.
Does it really make ANY difference how many people died in the crash / fire of the Hindenburg? Instead of the 98 people that were killed by the Hindenburg crash; suppose 4,000 died due to the Hindenburg.
How is that pertinent to modern air travel. We aren't building any more hydrogen-filled Hindenburg zeppelins; so it is ILLOGICAL and IMMATERIAL to discredit modern aviation travel because of how many people died on the Hindenburg, be it 98 or 4,000.
Likewise; NOBODY is contemplating building or operating any more Soviet-era RBMK reactors like Chernobyl Unit 4. So it is ILLOGICAL and IMMATERIAL to ascribe the 4,000 deaths as in any way predictive of the risks of future nuclear power plants.
What would you say if someone said that the Hindenburg was predicative of the risks of flying in a Boeing 777; "because both are flying vehicles".
Wouldn't you say that such a comparison would be foolish and downright stupid?
A Boeing 777 is NOT the Hindenburg; so the deaths in the Hindenburg crash are not predictive of the safety, or lack thereof, in a Boeing 777.
Likewise; the Chernobyl RBMK reactor was NOTHING LIKE a US-style light water reactor; nor anything that anybody has on the drawing boards.
The Chernobyl RBMK had a whole series of TECHNICAL FLAWS that US-style light water reactors don't have. Therefore, the light water reactors just plain CAN NOT HAVE a Chernobyl-style or Chernobyl-degree accident. So why even bring Chernobyl into the picture? It doesn't tell us anything useful.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You can keep your wiki stats to yourself. Hundred of thousands have died and continue to die because of the effects of Chernobyl, and now same thing will happen with Fukushima.
Are you denying that tons of radioactive water has and continue to sip into the pacific? Are you denying that at any time now , if another big earthquake happens ,the whole plant could explode and cause a catastrophic disaster? Are you denying that all the nuke plants are ticking time bombs?
Lol.
I don't need answer, btw. You and your nuke propaganda are blocked. Goodbye.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Shades of Monte Python and the Holy Grail.
The scientific community DISCREDITS the self-serving claims that hundreds of thousands of people will die due to Chernobyl. As pointed out in the documentary "Pandora's Promise", there are lots of people who returned to their homes and are living in the quarantined zone. They don't have particularly high rates of cancer.
Science tells us that a Chernobyl-scale effect will NOT happen with Fukushima. Here's the testimony of the emminent health physicist Dr. John Boice in his testimony on Fukushima to Congress:
http://hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf
The above poster gives me another chance to reiterate my anti-nuke IQ Test:
Suppose I have a given amount of radioactive material; "X" Bq of radioactivity and the following cases:
A) I take 1 gallon of water from the ocean and dissolve the "X" Bq in it; and dump it back into the ocean.
B) I take 100 gallons of water from the ocean and dissolve the "X" Bq in it; and dump it back into the ocean.
C) I take 10,000 gallons of water from the ocean and dissolve the "X" Bq in it; and dump it back into the ocean.
D) I take 1,000,000 gallons of water from the ocean and dissolve the "X" Bq in it; and dump it back into the ocean.
Now for the anti-nuke IQ Test; which of the above cases is the worst; ( or are they all the same ).
The answer to that question will give one an indication of the IQ of the anti-nuke.
The anti-nukes just LOVE to quote how many gallons of water; but for some reason, they shy away from telling the ACTUAL AMOUNT of radioactivity. I "wonder" why that is? (NOT!!)
YES - I am most emphatically denying that they are anything like "ticking time bombs".
They are the detritus of a major accident; and have to be cleaned up.
However, NO LEGITIMATE scientist would refer to them as anything like "ticking time bombs".
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
MFM008
(19,808 posts)why wouldn't they turn to solar? Chernobyl was and still is a disaster. Step away from the Vodka people.
