Nuclear Power (spun off from Japan earthquake discussion)

[scott441]

This is the very reason not to build them, The Unknown. It's like mother nature is getting the blame again. I live within a 100 miles of Diablo Cyn. and I still say no one has the right to risk my ass to make money, and this is what the bottom line is.

Originally Posted by randolph

Conquistidor

Risk Mitigation?
There are still Mark 1 reactors in this country. Their containment vessel is much less robust that subsequent GE plants. That said, there has been no failure of any Mark 1 containment vessels. However, we still don't know if one has failed in Japan.

The Japanese were well aware of the risk of placing nuclear plants on the East coast of the country and they planned carefully. They assumed a potential tsunami created by a 7.2 earthquake to be the maximum. They built a 25 foot breakwater wall around the plant. They installed backup diesel generators to maintain water levels in the reactor in case of a failure.
Well, instead of a 7.2, they had a 9.0! A 9.0 is many times more powerful than a 7.2 and the tsunami created, rushed over the breakwater as if it wasn't there. Severe damage was done to the plant including the diesel backup generators.
Mother nature seems to have a habit of doing in man's the best laid plans.

[MistressStevie]

Originally Posted by scott441

This is the very reason not to build them, The Unknown. It's like mother nature is getting the blame again. I live within a 100 miles of Diablo Cyn. and I still say no one has the right to risk my ass to make money, and this is what the bottom line is.

Life is full of risks. Airlines fly planes over your head all the time. Some drop. That is a risk.

Trucking Companies drive trucks to bring food to you. Some are involved in accidents. Another risk.

Society is a balancing of risk and it never gets to zero. If you look at the increases in average life span which have gone up consistently for the last 150 years of technological innovation we are doing something right.

-mS

[scott441]

Originally Posted by MistressStevie

Life is full of risks. Airlines fly planes over your head all the time. Some drop. That is a risk.

Trucking Companies drive trucks to bring food to you. Some are involved in accidents. Another risk.

Society is a balancing of risk and it never gets to zero. If you look at the increases in average life span which have gone up consistently for the last 150 years of technological innovation we are doing something right.

-mS

Yes, but the common thing about the risks, you quote, is they are all single events and much less impact. I know all it takes is for one of those to happen and your still dead, but at least i have to be in the area for it to happen. I can be a hundred miles away from a plant, and it can still kill me.

[smc]

Originally Posted by MistressStevie

Life is full of risks. Airlines fly planes over your head all the time. Some drop. That is a risk.

Trucking Companies drive trucks to bring food to you. Some are involved in accidents. Another risk.

Society is a balancing of risk and it never gets to zero. If you look at the increases in average life span which have gone up consistently for the last 150 years of technological innovation we are doing something right.

-mS

It is true that life is full of risks, but your examples are patently false equivalencies -- although I must give you credit for the cleverness of referencing planes dropping on people on the ground rather than mentioning the risk to actual passengers on airplanes.

[randolph]

Humans don't seem to mind taking risks skiing, racing cars, parachuting, taking drugs, smoking and of course drinking. We enjoy taking risks. The problem is when the risk is imposed upon us, then it becomes a big problem.
A nuclear accident is viewed as an extreme threat because we have no control over it. The chances of being affected by radiation from Japan even if a meltdown occurs are extremely small and far less than smoking a cigarette. Four hundred thousand people a year die from smoking in the US. If that many people were dying from radiation a national emergency would be declared!
It's all relative.

[MistressStevie]

Originally Posted by smc

[Y]our examples are patently false equivalencies -- although I must give you credit for the cleverness of referencing planes dropping on people on the ground rather than mentioning the risk to actual passengers on airplanes.

Hey, it was early and the coffee had not worked. My examples are not all the way patently false as they do involve other people doing things for a profit that impacts somebody else in their normal course of daily activities. I was not intending that they be on the same order of magnitude. So far the greatest damage from a western (including Japanese) nuclear accident has been minimal releases of radioactivity--AND NO (zero) deaths. Japan may change that death total by a number slightly and we will have learned how to build safer power plants everywhere as a result. All deaths bug me. But keep perspective here--Bhopal and the Union Carbide accident there were responsible for around 5,000 deaths, tremendous suffering, and so forth.

I am pro-nuclear power if that is not already evident. But more than anything I am totally against not learning how to do things better next time. And if we want to have power for our computers, it has to come from somewhere. I want that somewhere to be clean safe and cheap. If nuclear cannot compete on that it should go away. Coal is the only thing cheaper that we know of right now and it is fraught with dangers also.

-mS

[Tread]

Originally Posted by MistressStevie

So far the greatest damage from a western (including Japanese) nuclear accident has been minimal releases of radioactivity--AND NO (zero) deaths.

That is not true. I don?t have looked deep into the matter so there is more.

3 deaths, January 3, 1961, Idaho Falls, Idaho, US, SL-1, National Reactor Testing Station
2 deaths, September 30, 1999, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan, Tokaimura uranium processing facility
5 deaths, August 9, 2004, Fukui Prefecture, Japan, Mihama Nuclear Power Plant

March 28, 1979, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, US, Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station - 2
It released radioactive steam in the environment. 6 years later, cancer rates went at peak 150% up on the contaminated side (where the wind blew) compared to the not contaminated side.

Cancer rates are higher and life expectations are lower near nuclear plants. It looks that there are many deaths caused by it, but direct causal connection is difficult to prove.

It doesn?t have to be a western plant or accident. The Chernobyl disaster caused radioactive fallout over most of Europe. And in some areas mushrooms, plants and animals are still harmfully contaminated.

Plutonium 239 and Uranium 238/235 have huge half-life times. It must be stored, buried or protected at minimum 1 million years. Mankind exists about 160,000 years. It can't be estimated what happens in this time, and how many will get harmfully radiated over that time.
How to tell understandable warnings and instructions over a period much longer than humans exists?
Who will notice if radioactivity, out of deep geological repository or a buried nuclear plant, reaches ground water? Test storage showed leaks (not to ground water yet) in less then 50 years.
Radioactive resources are already or will be taken away (legal or illegal) from closed nuclear plans, nuclear submarines, radioactive waste and contaminated areas. No one checks if your car is build with steel from nuclear submarine with a meltdown.

[ila]

Originally Posted by MistressStevie

....I am pro-nuclear power if that is not already evident. But more than anything I am totally against not learning how to do things better next time. And if we want to have power for our computers, it has to come from somewhere. I want that somewhere to be clean safe and cheap. If nuclear cannot compete on that it should go away. Coal is the only thing cheaper that we know of right now and it is fraught with dangers also.

-mS

Acutally hydro electric power is cheaper and cleaner than coal.

[MistressStevie]

Originally Posted by ila

Acutally hydro electric power is cheaper and cleaner than coal.

You are 100% correct in that Ila. There are limited number of opportunities to build additional hydro-electric plants with existing environmental regulations in the US. There was a turbine blow out in Russia a couple years back that had some major damage. -mS

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by scott441

This is the very reason not to build them, The Unknown. It's like mother nature is getting the blame again. I live within a 100 miles of Diablo Cyn. and I still say no one has the right to risk my ass to make money, and this is what the bottom line is.

Your comments are really not relevant to the situation in Japan. It wasn't the Unknown that did in the reactors. Japan is right smack on the ring of fire. It is known that 9.0 quakes are possible. The reactors were built on a shore where it is known that tsunamis are possible. It's not the Unknown that caused this disaster, it was planning by beaurocrats and engineers who dismissed the possibility that Known dangers could happen.

In the US there are PLENTY of places to build nuclear reactors that are not on a fault, not where tsunamis can happen, not where hurricans are a danger, not where flooding can happen, not where there's a lot of tornados, etc. Humanity didn't get to where it is by having a defeatist attitude. When problems arise we can figure out how to design around them. I guess in Japan's case they were running out of options to power their country and unfortunately accepted known risks.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Your comments are really not relevant to the situation in Japan. It wasn't the Unknown that did in the reactors. Japan is right smack on the ring of fire. It is known that 9.0 quakes are possible. The reactors were built on a shore where it is known that tsunamis are possible. It's not the Unknown that caused this disaster, it was planning by beaurocrats and engineers who dismissed the possibility that Known dangers could happen.

In the US there are PLENTY of places to build nuclear reactors that are not on a fault, not where tsunamis can happen, not where hurricans are a danger, not where flooding can happen, not where there's a lot of tornados, etc. Humanity didn't get to where it is by having a defeatist attitude. When problems arise we can figure out how to design around them. I guess in Japan's case they were running out of options to power their country and unfortunately accepted known risks.

In their planning, they anticipated a tsunami and built a 25 foot high seawall. The tsunami was so big, it's hard to say weather any seawall would have stopped it. One town on the coast built a 30 foot seawall and the wave went right over it. A tsunami is very different from a storm wave. A storm wave is just a big regular wave. A tsunami is like a flash flood, a vast river with tremendous momentum able to smash everything in its path.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It wasn't the Unknown that did in the reactors. Japan is right smack on the ring of fire. It is known that 9.0 quakes are possible. The reactors were built on a shore where it is known that tsunamis are possible. It's not the Unknown that caused this disaster, it was planning by beaurocrats and engineers who dismissed the possibility that Known dangers could happen.

They prepared for quakes and tsunamis, but thought they can predict nature similar to this statement:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Japan's quake was a 9.0. The max that San Andreas can produce is an 8.0, and that's not under water. Japan's quake was, which caused the tsunami. So while the 'big one' thats coming in california will be bad, it won't be as bad as the one in Japan.

The San Andreas Fault is partly under water, and there are many smaller faults that can become a bigger one.

The Unknown is what is not expected. Who would have expected 10 years ago that a passenger plane hits the Pentagon?
What if a happening like the one in Tunguska hits a nuclear plant? I know it?s very unlikely, but the outcome and especially the long term effects are absolutely unpredictable. Whole countries could be uninhabitable for 100,000?s of years.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

In the US there are PLENTY of places to build nuclear reactors that are not on a fault, not where tsunamis can happen, not where hurricans are a danger, not where flooding can happen, not where there's a lot of tornados, etc.

But they don?t do it. And no one can predict the weather or volcanic activity. Can you guarantee that in these ?safe? places is always enough water in the rivers to cool the fuel rods or is anyone prepared to transport the rods in a harmless way to a ?secured? place?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Humanity didn't get to where it is by having a defeatist attitude. When problems arise we can figure out how to design around them.

Does humanity have a single convincing idea what to do with nuclear waste? And who pays for it?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Tread

They prepared for quakes and tsunamis, but thought they can predict nature similar to this statement:



The San Andreas Fault is partly under water, and there are many smaller faults that can become a bigger one.

The Unknown is what is not expected. Who would have expected 10 years ago that a passenger plane hits the Pentagon?
What if a Meteorite like the one in Tunguska hits a nuclear plant? I know it?s very unlikely, but the outcome and especially the long term effects are absolutely unpredictable. Whole countries could be uninhabitable for 100,000?s of years.



But they don?t do it. And no one can predict the weather or volcanic activity. Can you guarantee that in these ?safe? places is always enough water in the rivers to cool the fuel rods or is anyone prepared to transport the rods in a harmless way to a ?secured? place?



Does humanity have a single convincing idea what to do with nuclear waste? And who pays for it?

There is no doubt in my mind that humanity would be much better off today if nuclear bombs and energy had never been invented. It just adds to all the other human woes we have to contend with.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Tread

What if a happening like the one in Tunguska hits a nuclear plant? I know it?s very unlikely, but the outcome and especially the long term effects are absolutely unpredictable. Whole countries could be uninhabitable for 100,000?s of years.

Tunguska? Seriously? You're worried about a comet striking a nuclear power plant? You say very unlikely, but I still don't think you grasp how unlikely that is. And you're blowing the danger way out of proportion. Not 100,000s of years. More like decades - if this extremely unlikely event happened.

Originally Posted by Tread

But they don?t do it. And no one can predict the weather or volcanic activity.

As long as you build outside of tornado alley, and away from the gulf you'll do fine with the weather. And I'll give you another chance on figuring out how to avoid dangers from volcanoes lol.

Originally Posted by Tread

Does humanity have a single convincing idea what to do with nuclear waste? And who pays for it?

Why not bury it in a subduction zone? Like 1000 ft down or so away from human activity. Even with a half life of 100,000s of years, there's no worries. It's taken down to the earth's mantle.