Nuclear powerplants

Zoombie · Mar 11, 2011

So, I was reading the Japanese earthquake thread, and three of their plants had their cooling systems shut down by the quake. The natural response of people was to start grumbling about how dangerous nuclear power plants are. I think that creating a discussion there would kind of be completely and utterly off topic (as the thread should be about the earthquake and resulting tidal wave and what we can do to help.)

But this issue still (to me at least) underlines the bizarre double standards we set for our power plants. See, if a load of coal burning power plants were damaged by the Earthquake and released their stores of coal waste into the air, people would be horrified, but would they be banning COAL burning power plants?

Well, they should...if only because COAL ASH IS MORE RADIOACTIVE THAN NUCLEAR WASTE.

In fact, it's 100% more radioactive! And it gets spewed into the air, not collected and put in storage spaces.

Of course, this is even more moot, as really getting killed by the radiation from a coal plant is 4 times less likely than getting hit by lightning...but still, when people bring up the word 'radiation', everyone panics.

Now, nuclear power is far from the safest means to power our cities (That would be solar power, whose only inherent dangers are byproducts in the manufacturing of the panels, and the fact that our sun might decide to randomly explode just for kicks) but it is NOT a horrible boogyman.

Neither is coal, for that matter. I was just using it as a metric.

Diana Hignutt · Mar 11, 2011

just a note: a lot of people get hit by lightning every year.

otherwise, I agree...

Zoombie · Mar 11, 2011

Well, yeah, but there are 7 billion people and a lot of lightning storms. It's bound to happen fairly often.

Really, though, this irritation is less about me getting paid 5 million dollars a year by the nuclear lobby (though that does help), but more about how we have really screwy ideas of whats dangerous sometimes.

We hammer on stranger danger, despite it being many times more likely that we'll be kidnapped or raped by someone we know.

We panic about nuclear power plants, despite the building of hydroelectric dams doing more damage to the environment and human lives.

(THIS STATEMENT IS ENTIRELY BIASED) We flip the hell out when someone robs us at gunpoint, and yet we pay taxes. (THIS STATEMENT IS ENTIRELY BIASED)

Whats up with that?

Maxinquaye · Mar 11, 2011

There are better alternatives in development than the fission uranium reactors we have today. For the poor man's version, which every town and community in the western world could afford, and which has a 0% chance of a meltdown (because it's physically impossible) there are the pebble bed modular reactors that use pebbles which heat up in close proximity to each other, and drive the turbines. If the reactor got damaged, the pebbles would separate and the reactor would cool down naturally.

There are the thorium reactors that the russians are developing. Thorium is an extremely abundant material.

Many countries with nuclear power rely on 1960s technology that have received seat belts and crash bags after construction, but it's still a Volkswagen Beetle under the safety measures.

Zoombie · Mar 11, 2011

And the ban on building new reactors in the USA has put a crimp on all of that. So instead of a newer, safer model, we get to sit around with cold war relics sitting in our backyard.

Yet building NEW reactors would be inviting disaster.

Weird.

veinglory · Mar 11, 2011

Personally I still prefer the hydroelectric dam. You mess up one bit of the environment once and get energy forever, not ever accumulating piles of waste.

Zoombie · Mar 11, 2011

I like them too...but the 1.3 million people displaced by the Three Gorges Dam might feel a bit differently. Like a lot of things in life, it's a trade off.

Maxinquaye · Mar 11, 2011

Sweden has about 50% power from hydroelectric dams. Thing is, if we build more we ruin a lot of habitats, and Swedes being green by birth and force of habit don't want to contemplate that. We have very few undammed large rivers left, and I think that's true for a lot of countries. Scandinavia is, in a way, blessed with flowing water like that as we're covered in snow for 1/4 of the year and drenched in rain for 3/4 of the year. We have lots of rivers, therefore.

A country like Germany or Marocco couldn't really rely on that powersource, which means they have to use coal or oil or natural gas... or nuclear power. I'm for nuclear power in this case. Preferably the new and modern nuclear power plants.

veinglory · Mar 11, 2011

The three gorges dam is hardly a typical example. New Zealand chose between nuclear and hydroelectric. Sucked for a couple of species of rare flightless duck, but I think we still made the right choice. Tidal difference turbines would have beeneven better but those areas are too built up now.

Zoombie · Mar 11, 2011

O' course, O' course. Different areas do things differently. As long as the planning is logical and not based off hysteria, it's good.

Blue236 · Mar 11, 2011

Have you forgotten? Both the US and Russia have seen Nuclear disasters before, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The horrors of a nuclear disaster are still being felt. The problem is cooling. If those temps go out of control, it would be like setting two more A-bombs off in Japan added on top of the devestation. The implications are far more reaching. That land will be to put it mildly unlivable. There are still towns in Russia closed off because of what happened over 30 years ago.

That is the major worry and one they are dealing with right now. The US is shipping coolant over there. It is more than just a radioactive dust cloud they are dealing with.

I have always been against Nuclear Power portrayed as a green energy source. It is stupid logic to assume that.

veinglory · Mar 11, 2011

So what situations call for nuclear? IMHO for a built up area even coal is better.

Bird of Prey · Mar 11, 2011

Nuclear is NOT the way to go. We're talking about the potential of making wastelands of vast areas, not to mention the terrible suffering of innocents. No, I have no interest in any kind of nuclear power. We have a sun; we have wind; we have water: we have three big solutions right there, radioactive free. . . .

Maxinquaye · Mar 11, 2011

Blue236 said:
Have you forgotten? Both the US and Russia have seen Nuclear disasters before, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The horrors of a nuclear disaster are still being felt. The problem is cooling. If those temps go out of control, it would be like setting two more A-bombs off in Japan added on top of the devestation. The implications are far more reaching. That land will be to put it mildly unlivable. There are still towns in Russia closed off because of what happened over 30 years ago.

That is the major worry and one they are dealing with right now. The US is shipping coolant over there. It is more than just a radioactive dust cloud they are dealing with.

None of the reactors mentioned in this thread can have a melt down. It's not possible, physically. I'd prefer if the current generation of nuclear power plants were phased out by the new types.

Zoombie · Mar 11, 2011

Bird of Prey said:
Nuclear is NOT the way to go. We're talking about the potential of making wastelands of vast areas, not to mention the terrible suffering of innocents. No, I have no interest in any kind of nuclear power. We have a sun; we have wind; we have water: we have three big solutions right there, radioactive free. . . .

If those three solutions are enough, that's fine. But if not, discounting a solution because its scary is just...stupid.

Zoombie · Mar 11, 2011

Blue236 said:
Have you forgotten? Both the US and Russia have seen Nuclear disasters before, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The horrors of a nuclear disaster are still being felt. The problem is cooling. If those temps go out of control, it would be like setting two more A-bombs off in Japan added on top of the devestation. The implications are far more reaching. That land will be to put it mildly unlivable. There are still towns in Russia closed off because of what happened over 30 years ago.

That is the major worry and one they are dealing with right now. The US is shipping coolant over there. It is more than just a radioactive dust cloud they are dealing with.

I have always been against Nuclear Power portrayed as a green energy source. It is stupid logic to assume that.

You know, the Chernobyl reactor was a shitty reactor, run by a shitty government who was more interested in covering their asses than saving lives.

Saying that we should not use reactors because of Chernobyl is like saying we shouldn't use cars because an 18th century automobile exploded at the drop of a hat. Modern cars are far safer, because we didn't have a governmental authority stamping down their foot and going, "CARS ARE DANGEROUS! NO BUILDING NEW ONES FOR YOU!"

Not a perfect metaphor, obviously, but still.

France uses nuclear power. They are an energy EXPORTER, now.

Bird of Prey · Mar 11, 2011

Zoombie said:
If those three solutions are enough, that's fine. But if not, discounting a solution because its scary is just...stupid.

Really?? Well that's gotta be the most bizarre assessment I've ever read, Z. So, um, "scary" is just stupid?? Good. I'll remember that the next time I watch a kid start to cross a highway without restraint. I mean, after all, he's gotta get home, and "discounting a solution because it's scary is just. . . stupid. . . ."

Maxinquaye · Mar 11, 2011

Thorium reactor

Because thorium reactors will make nuclear reactors more decentralized. Because of no risk of proliferation or meltdown, thorium reactors can be made of almost any size. A 500 ton, 100MW SSTAR-sized thorium reactor could fit in a large industrial room, require little maintenance, and only cost $25 million. A hypothetical 5 ton, truck-sized 1 MW thorium reactor might run for only $250,000 but would generate enough electricity for 1,000 people for the duration of its operating lifetime, using only 20 kg of thorium fuel per year, running almost automatically, and requiring safety checks as infrequently as once a year. That would be as little as $200/year after capital costs are paid off, for a thousand-persons worth of electricity! An annual visit by a safety inspector might add another $200 to the bill. A town of 1,000 could pool $250K for the reactor at the cost of $250 each, then pay $400/year collectively, or $0.40/year each for fuel and maintenance. These reactors could be built by the thousands, further driving down manufacturing costs.

Pebble bed reactor

A significant technical advantage is that some designs are throttled by temperature, not by control rods. The reactor can be simpler because it does not need to operate well at the varying neutron profiles caused by partially-withdrawn control rods. For maintenance, many designs include control rods, called "absorbers" that are inserted through tubes in a neutron reflector around the reactor core. A reactor can change power quickly just by changing the coolant flow rate and can also change power more efficiently (say, for utility power) by changing the coolant density or heat capacity. The reactor design is such that it is power-limited or inherently self controlling due to Doppler broadening.

These are entirely different kinds of reactors. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and current reactors can't be used for comparison. It's literally comparing apples and hand-carts.

Blue236 · Mar 11, 2011

Make no mistake, if the cooling system fails in those reactors they will melt down with no physical way to stop it. No design modifications can prevent that. Their backup generators are not working.

Both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were mistakes made by human error. Thus the design changes were based on the errors made by humans not the power of nature. No nuclear reactor has faced a natural disaster of this size.

(BTW Chernobyl is still up and running. Plans are underway to rebuild the concrete around reactor 4 because the concrete is failing under the intense conditions.)

I think the fact that you get unlivable areas as a consequence of Nuclear power a pretty feasible deterrent. That and you still would have to deal with all the nuclear waste. I am certain that areas of France will suffer from the consequences of their choices sometime in the future when they run out of places to properly dispose. But it what it really boils down to is "Not in my backyard."

Not comparing apples to oranges. The designs may be different but the basic fact remains the same. If the reactor cores aren't cooled, they will reach critical mass and meltdown. The design can't change the laws of physics.

Zoombie · Mar 11, 2011

Bird of Prey said:
Really?? Well that's gotta be the most bizarre assessment I've ever read, Z. So, um, "scary" is just stupid?? Good. I'll remember that the next time I watch a kid start to cross a highway without restraint. I mean, after all, he's gotta get home, and "discounting a solution because it's scary is just. . . stupid. . . ."

The dangers of nuclear power have, in my opinion, been overblown. Letting that hysteria get in the way of logical judgments is stupid. AS IS letting enthusasim for nifty technology get in the way of understanding the dangers and risks inherent in any kind of power generation.

Gregg · Mar 11, 2011

Max has it right. Apparently there are alternatives to using uranium to for nuclear power. Thorium looks promising to me.

"The issue isn’t about the science, thorium reactors have already ran successfully, its people who have to become informed and apply the pressure needed to overcome the special interests in the political arena where the regulatory barrier has the potential of thorium corralled and stopped. It’s your planet, economy and family – can we all stay uninformed, silent and bleeding our financial resources for the benefit of the special interests only because we don’t know? Nope – now you know."

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Thorium-A-Cheap-Clean-and-Safe-Alternative-to-Uranium.html

shawkins · Mar 11, 2011

Blue236 said:
Have you forgotten? Both the US and Russia have seen Nuclear disasters before.

It's fair to characterize Chernobyl as a disaster. Three Mile Island, probably not so much--I'd go with 'accident.'

If you want to be nervous about what's going on in Japan, that's not unreasonable, but I suspect the ending will be less dramatic than Chernobyl. Soviet reactor designs tended to be a bit cavalier about safety & containment. The one at Fukushima is a western design, though a bit dated. I personally would bet on a safe resolution.

Having said that, if I was downwind of the plant right now I'd probably pack up the dogs and go visit some friends.

Blue236 · Mar 11, 2011

Unfortunately, the dangers of nuclear power have actual facts backing up these claims. So, it is no exaggeration when I say people exposed were diagnosed shortly afterward with aggressive cancers. Unborn children were born with different types of disabilities and cancers. The town is still off limits to the unprotected population. All of these things have been well documented by science and medicine.

Except Max, you are still missing the basic fact. Thorium needs coolant. "A reactor can change power quickly just by changing the coolant flow rate" The problem is when you run out of coolant. You can no longer control the power change and therein lies the true danger. There is no power on earth that can stop an out of control nuclear reaction. At best you can contain it. But you certainly can't stop it.

Don Allen · Mar 11, 2011

I'm not quite sure what direction this thread is designed to take, sorry Zoombie, but currently the situation appears to be serious, bordering on catastrophic. If these reactors go into melt down, I'm guessing with the country in turmoil, the potential for a cataclysmic event in terms we may not be aware, is a distinct possibility.

shawkins · Mar 11, 2011

Blue236 said:
Unfortunately, the dangers of nuclear power have actual facts backing up these claims. So, it is no exaggeration when I say people exposed were diagnosed shortly afterward with aggressive cancers. Unborn children were born with different types of disabilities and cancers. The town is still off limits to the unprotected population. All of these things have been well documented by science and medicine.

Except Max, you are still missing the basic fact. Thorium needs coolant. "A reactor can change power quickly just by changing the coolant flow rate" The problem is when you run out of coolant. You can no longer control the power change and therein lies the true danger.

Well, there certainly is that.

Nuclear powerplants

Dragon of the Multiverse

Very Tired

Dragon of the Multiverse

That cheeky buggerer

Dragon of the Multiverse

volitare nequeo

Dragon of the Multiverse

That cheeky buggerer

volitare nequeo

Dragon of the Multiverse

New Fish; Learning About Thick Skin

volitare nequeo

Benefactor Member

That cheeky buggerer

Dragon of the Multiverse

Dragon of the Multiverse

Benefactor Member

That cheeky buggerer

New Fish; Learning About Thick Skin

Dragon of the Multiverse

Life is good

Ahhh. Sweet.

New Fish; Learning About Thick Skin

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

Ahhh. Sweet.