REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Is world safe enough for more nuclear reactors?

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 19:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3337
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, June 10, 2011 8:08 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


One of my main fears about nuclear power:
Quote:

Japan's woes, Mideast unrest fuel fears about expansion plans for atomic energy

Imagine a country where corruption is rampant, infrastructure is very poor, or the quality of security is in question. Now what if that country built a nuclear power plant?

It may sound alarming but that is what could happen in many developing countries which are either building nuclear power plants or considering doing so — a prospect that raises serious questions after Japan's experience handling a nuclear crisis.

A trove of U.S. diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and provided to Reuters by a third party provide colorful and sometimes scary commentary on the conditions in developing nations with nuclear power aspirations.

In a cable from the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi in February 2007, concerns are raised about storing radioactive waste in Vietnam, which has very ambitious plans to build nuclear power plants. Le Dinh Tien, the vice minister of science and technology, is quoted as saying the country's track record of handling such waste was "not so good" and its inventory of radioactive materials "not adequate."

In Azerbaijan, a cable written in November 2008 describes the man who would have the responsibility for regulation of a proposed nuclear program, Kamaladdin Heydarov, as "ubiquitous, with his hands in everything from construction to customs."

"He is rumored to have made his fortune while heading up the State Customs Service, and is now heavily invested in Baku's rampant construction boom," says the cable, which followed a meeting in Baku between Heydarov, the minister of emergency situations, and then U.S. Special Envoy Frank Mermoud.

Even in India, which already has a well developed nuclear industry and plans to build 58 more reactors, eyebrows can be raised. The security at one nuclear facility visited by a U.S. delegation in November 2008 is described in one cable as only "moderate" with security officers performing bag and vehicle checks that weren't thorough, a lack of cameras in key areas, and some parts having very little security at all.

In response to the disclosures, a Vietnam government official said that the quotes attributed to Tien were "completely ungrounded" and that the country manages radioactive waste in compliance with local laws and recommendations from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

An Azeri official said the government had not taken a decision to construct a nuclear reactor but instead had a plan to conduct a feasibility study into the construction of a nuclear research reactor, which was the subject of talks with the IAEA and had been put off until 2012 from this year. Heydarov could not be reached for comment.

A senior official at India's atomic energy department, A.P. Joshi, said it hadn't previously heard of the security doubts and therefore couldn't comment on them.

Seeking more stringent rules

The anecdotes illustrate risks ranging from corruption to poor oversight and bad infrastructure. The dangers have been thrown into stark relief by two shattering events half a world apart — the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan and the popular unrest that has brought unprecedented political turmoil to the Middle East.

This helps to explain why leaders of the Group of Eight nations late last month sought more stringent international rules on nuclear safety.

The speed with which the operator of the Japanese nuclear plant lost control, and the subsequent meltdowns of three reactors, ensuing explosions and overheating of fuel rod storage pools, were a wake-up call for nuclear regulators.

If in a modern, stable democracy, there could be apparently lax regulatory oversight, failure of infrastructure, and a slow response to a crisis from authorities, then it begs the question of how others would handle a similar situation.

"If Japan can't cope with the implications of a disaster like this," said Andrew Neff, a senior energy analyst at economic analysis and market intelligence group IHS Global Insight, "then in some ways I think it's a legitimate exercise to question whether other less-developed countries could cope."

Regulation, corruption concerns

For many, rule No.1 for a safe nuclear program is a regulator with at least some semblance of independence from government or corporate influence.

Critics worry that authoritarian governments will not tolerate an authority with even pretensions to partial independence or transparency of decision-making. While nuclear authorities in the West have also faced criticism for being too close to the industry they regulate, they are at least open to media and lawmaker scrutiny.

Rampant corruption in some developing countries could also lead to corners being cut in everything from plant construction to security, critics say.

For Najmedin Meshkati, a professor at the University of Southern California, the dilemma for regulators in authoritarian countries can be summed up by a saying in his native Persian: "the knife blade doesn't cut its handle."

If you have a government regulator overseeing the building of a plant by a government utility," said the nuclear expert, "then there is no way the knife will ever cut its handle."

Samuel Ciszuk, a senior analyst at IHS Energy, cited the example of Saudi Arabia, which was reported this month to be planning to build 16 nuclear power reactors by 2020 at a cost of more than $100 billion.

"In countries where you have an authoritarian, personalized power system in place, the very idea of a completely independent oversight body is anathema," he said.

A spokesman for King Abdullah City for Atomic and Reusable Energy, the Saudi center for nuclear research and policy, did not respond to phone and email requests seeking comment.

Led by the increasingly hardline President Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan is an interesting case where poor regulation and corruption meet. It ranked 134th out of 178 countries in Transparency International's 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index.

More at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43347282/ns/us_news-security/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 10, 2011 8:29 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


So. What are you, us, or anyone gonna do about it? If you're gonna keep generating these "We're all going to die!!!!" posts every day, at least try to find some possible solutions. If there are none, why pile on the woes?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 10, 2011 8:48 AM

DREAMTROVE


Steam. It's pretty scary.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 10, 2011 8:57 AM

HARDWARE


So, we should continue to dick with other countries plans. Which is exactly what got us into our current predicament. Having some insight into the Inshallah mindset any attempt will be late, massively over budget and most likely filled with corruption and shoddy work. Which means it will probably never ben completed or stalled at the fueling stage until decay overtakes the plant. If they want to waste their money trying to build a nuke plant, who are we to stop them?

Or are you saying that foreign threats now need US government intercession? Where does that line get drawn on how MUCH we intercede? Do we go as far as dropping bombs to stop it?

I say let them spend money and try to build it.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 10, 2011 9:19 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Having some insight into the Inshallah mindset any attempt will be late, massively over budget and most likely filled with corruption and shoddy work.
Having lived in Afghanistan and experiencing the Inshallah mindset, that made me giggle, it's so right on! Think I've posted before about my dad's frustration. Sent over by Pan Am to create a national airline, he learned early that they were quite content to let the planes fly until they fell down in the desert (literally!), then walk away and grab a camel. If we sent them to the US for training, they didn't want to go home. It's a very valid statement.

That doesn't mean, to me, that it would never be completed. And there's also the corruption aspect of, say, Russian culture, in which case--as is true right now--it might be completed, a different group come to power, and aspects of it get stolen or sold to other countries.

Please note that Ididn't propose anything, I merely put up an article which expressed my biggest fear about nuclear energy. Address the author if you want to know what his alternative sugestions might be, not me. I'm for renewable energy for US, and hope other nations do too, but I don't have any power over anyone, nor do I want to.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 10, 2011 9:24 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


First off, anyone can post anything they want, remember?

Second,
Quote:

If you're gonna keep generating these "We're all going to die!!!!" posts every day, at least try to find some possible solutions.
I don't believe I post "we're all gonna die" material either every day (since I'm not even here every day) or even often, so where that's coming from I don't know. Well, your feelings toward me, probably. As to some kind of rule that if we post something, we have to propose solutions, I must have missed that one... I think a few others might have, as well...especially PN...so you might want to address that to them, too.
Quote:

If there are none, why pile on the woes?
I put up something from the news I thought might be of interest, as I do every time I'm here and have the time and inclination. That's all. I post news stories on all kinds of things, as I thought everyone here had the right to do? If you don't like what I post, please don't bother reading or responding; skip to something that you find more interesting. Please.



Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 10, 2011 10:46 AM

DREAMTROVE


Chernobyl was built in 1966; Fukushima in 1967; Three Mile Island in 1968.

The first nuclear reactor to go online for regular power production was Dresden 1, in October, 1960, at argon national labs. The first reactors to go up for commercial use were during the 1960s. Argon discovered a flaw in the reactor design in 1967, and started redesigning the system to provide a closed loops system that would shut itself down and would not require pressurizing to operate, which was seen as the source of risk. The project started building in 1984, and a prototype reactor was built, but Congress pulled the plug on the reactor due to "Anti-nuclear activism." so, we are left with old reactors.

The anti nuke crowd started out as "ban the bomb" but in the 1970s was transformed into "nuclear free" with help from massive funding from API, the American Petroleum Institute, aka Cheney's Sect Energy Commisision (not so secret, I know an insider who gave me the whole list. The industry lobby provides almost all the funding for anti-nuclear activism.

In ten years will reactors from the 1970s start failing? Probably not. Some improvements were made, but another reactor from the 1960s will fail. We should consider updating early reactors, starting with the oldest.

Nuclear is a fear buzzword for the hippie generation, and, sure, dangerous if you're in the direct vicinity of a meltdown, but not as dangerous statistically as bathtubs.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 10, 2011 2:22 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I didn't used to be opposed to nuclear power, but I am now, we can't control the forces etc. We can't stop other countries from starting, but we can finish up with it ourselves and encourage others to as well, or not to start it. But yeah, we can't _stop them.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 10, 2011 4:16 PM

DREAMTROVE


Riona,

Consider it this way:

A power station is a giant steam engine. You can use a small very powerful source that will run for very close to forever, which is dangerous... or you can use the same weak burning agent that you've been using for centuries.

Here's the hitch: If you want more of the old fuel, you're going to have to destroy the planet to get it.

It's an either or, unless we stop using electricity. And yes, if you and I do, the rest of the world will go on using it.

Read Niki's first post on her other thread, on coal:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=48688

That is your alternative. Take your pick.

Long term, yes, Hardware has the solution. It's going to be a decade getting there, and a decade of actually trying. Until then, these are the options we're given.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 10, 2011 4:41 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
First off, anyone can post anything they want, remember?


True. And anyone can criticize what folk post. You've done so, as I recall.

Quote:

Second...I don't believe I post "we're all gonna die" material either every day (since I'm not even here every day) or even often...

Seems pretty frequently to me. Although maybe not every day, you often post two or three a day in the gloom and doom category.

Quote:

If you don't like what I post, please don't bother reading or responding; skip to something that you find more interesting. Please.


Sometimes I am interested in what you post, even if I don't agree with the slant your choice of cites portrays. Then again, sometimes it's like you are trolling the internet for the most apocalyptic stuff you can find to re-post here. If you got a right to post it, I got a right to say I don't like it, and vice-versa.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 13, 2011 8:02 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I know what you're saying DT. But that little engine you speak of could end up destroying everything too, or at least destroying notable portions there of. This is my new stance, courtacy of the recent events in the world.

Why can't society use solar? All that needs to happen, as far as I know, is that it needs to be made more affordable and available and a bit more officient. Admittedly though I don't know all that much about power so it might take more to get solar up and running.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 5:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No, the world is NOT safe enough for nuclear reactors. Why are we even asking the question?

Two reasons:

1) SHIT HAPPENS.

Sometimes even "unimaginable" shit. Like a 9 earthquake and 45-foot tsunami. Let me give you a few more examples of "unimaginable" shit:

The earth is hit with a giant solar flare, and ALL of the electronics, transformers, and even motor windings in and around a nuclear power plant get fried.

A meteorite strikes near a nuclear power plant.

Operator error.

It's impossible to design for these things. There is no way to design for the unimaginable, and even if you could, the plant would then become impossibly expensive.

To repeat myself, so the point doesn't get lost: SHIT HAPPENS.

2) SPENT FUEL.

Yanno, we have quite literally thousands of tons of spent fuel and highly contaminated waste and we STILL haven't figure out what to do with it. It's hanging about at nuclear power plants like a pack of lost puppies with no home to go to.

That stuff is hot- thermally, radiologically- for tens of thousands of years. We've never had a civilization that lasted even half as long... how the f*ck can we ensure that this stuff doesn't get out? Hell, there are dozens of Seebeck effect plutonium-powered capsules scattered all over creation, many of which have been lost in just the past 20 years.

I have visions of a a future where hot springs in northern Japan are known by the locals to kill anyone who bathes in them, and they use these hot springs to kill suspicious guests and local criminals. Maybe call it "the bath of the god of death" or some such.

NOT SAFE.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 6:16 AM

SKYDIVELIFE


SignyM,

I agree about the spent fuel part.

Yet, wind/solar/etc are not enough to supply our energy needs.

If someone were able to come up with a clean-energy alternative that:

1. Did not need huge tracts of land.

2. Was efficient.

3. Cost effective.

4. Gave out more energy than it took to produce.

5. Did not destoy the land/air/water that it was based from.

Then I think we would all be for it. But the problem is, none of them do.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:59 AM

HARDWARE


Reprocessing is how you get rid of spent fuel. You get depleted uranium (militarily useful) and you get more nuclear fuel. Oddly, every country BUT the US reprocesses spent fuel.



The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:28 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh goody... militarily "useful" nuclear materials. For the same reason that nuclear reactors are unsafe, nuclear weapons are unsafe. But more so.

BTW- If "every" other nation reprocess spent fuel, then what is ALL that fuel (in dry casks and ponds) doing at Fukushima? Why does Germany bury it in granite rock?

www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html

Seriously, dude.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:56 AM

HARDWARE


Do you have a problem understanding the English language? Or perhaps it is just ignorance, the original definition thereof. Depleted uranium is a non-radioactive, heavy metal usually used as a projectile in a sabot round. It is also used as a layer in composite armor for tanks. While it can be dangerous as any heavy metal can be if vaporized, like when it hits a target, it is depleted of radioactivity and inert.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 6:06 AM

HARDWARE


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh goody... militarily "useful" nuclear materials. For the same reason that nuclear reactors are unsafe, nuclear weapons are unsafe. But more so.

BTW- If "every" other nation reprocess spent fuel, then what is ALL that fuel (in dry casks and ponds) doing at Fukushima? Why does Germany bury it in granite rock?

www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html

Seriously, dude.



From your own link.

Quote:


If the used fuel is reprocessed, as is that from UK, French, Japanese and German reactors, HLW comprises highly-radioactive fission products and some transuranic elements with long-lived radioactivity. These are separated from the used fuel, enabling the uranium and plutonium to be recycled. Liquid HLW from reprocessing must be solidified. The HLW also generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling. It is vitrified into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass, encapsulated into heavy stainless steel cylinders about 1.3 metres high and stored for eventual disposal deep underground. This material has no conceivable future use and is unequivocally waste. The hulls and end-fittings of the reprocessed fuel assemblies are compacted, to reduce volume, and usually incorporated into cement prior to disposal as ILW. France has two commercial plants to vitrify HLW left over from reprocessing oxide fuel, and there are also plants in the UK and Belgium. The capacity of these Western European plants is 2,500 canisters (1000 t) a year, and some have been operating for three decades.


"Dude" you need to come on. Read your own data before you try to refute mine. Yes, there is waste that is not processable to any further extent. At least until we come up with a viable self-sustaining fusion plant. But it is classified as intermediate level waste, not has hot as the actual nuclear fuel.

Uranium mines might be a good spot for storage. And reprocessing doesn't happen in the US because of protests by environmentalists about transporting spent fuel. But they want to scream about spent fuel rods laying about nuclear plants. Transport. Scream. In situ. Scream. Make up your fucking minds!

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 6:17 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
So. What are you, us, or anyone gonna do about it? If you're gonna keep generating these "We're all going to die!!!!" posts every day, at least try to find some possible solutions. If there are none, why pile on the woes?

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Yeah, Niki - stop with the conversation. It upsets Granpa.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 8:49 AM

BYTEMITE


Er, what? All Uranium is radioactive, including depleted Uranium. It's just Uranium 238 isn't useful for nuclear power, and Uranium 235 is. Though you can convert Uranium 238 into Plutonium 238 through a series of decays, which IS good chain reaction fuel, and done through reprocessing as you say.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_Uranium

Depleted uranium (DU; also refered to in the past as Q-metal, depletalloy, or D-38) is uranium with a lower content of the fissile isotope U-235 than natural uranium (natural uranium is about 99.27% uranium-238 (U-238), 0.72% U-235, and 0.0055% U-234).




And even if the other forms of Uranium weren't radioactive, which they are, a "lower content of fissile material" doesn't mean "no fissile material".

Once atomic weight becomes higher than a certain mass (Bismuth is the last of the non-radioactive elements), the nucleus is unstable. Always.

Quote:

"Dude" you need to come on. Read your own data before you try to refute mine. Yes, there is waste that is not processable to any further extent. At least until we come up with a viable self-sustaining fusion plant. But it is classified as intermediate level waste, not has hot as the actual nuclear fuel.


This is correct. But intermediate level waste is still hot. It is not "inert" or "depleted of radioactivity."

Quote:

And reprocessing doesn't happen in the US because of protests by environmentalists about transporting spent fuel.


What I heard is that reprocessing doesn't happen in the US because the military is worried about creating weapons grade Plutonium that could be stolen.

Quote:

But they want to scream about spent fuel rods laying about nuclear plants. Transport. Scream. In situ. Scream. Make up your fucking minds!


I'd like them to leave it in situ. Whenever they want to move it, especially over in friggin' Europe, they think, "hey, let's dump it in Utah and piss Bytemite off! Utah's a wasteland anyway!"

Of course, if they leave it in situ and they contaminate all the nearby residents, or something like an earthquake happens and everything gets screwed up, and the public wants them all shot, that's on them. It's not the fault of the people who didn't want the stuff transported that apparently the folks in question can't safely handle the stuff (which is itself strong evidence that not letting them transport is a good decision).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:46 AM

HARDWARE


If DU is so dangerously radioactive as you claim, then why is it used as radiation shielding?

In other news; all unstable isotopes eventually decay to lead.

An example is the natural decay chain of 238U which is as follows:
decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years to thorium-234
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 24 days to protactinium-234
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 1.2 minutes to uranium-234
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 240 thousand years to thorium-230
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 77 thousand years to radium-226
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 1.6 thousand years to radon-222
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 3.8 days to polonium-218
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 3.1 minutes to lead-214
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 27 minutes to bismuth-214
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 20 minutes to polonium-214
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 160 microseconds to lead-210
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 22 years to bismuth-210
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 5 days to polonium-210
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 140 days to lead-206, which is a stable nuclide.

4.5 billion years means that it is barely radioactive. You are in more danger of being in th e presence of a heavy metal than you are of radiation from DU. You probably get more radiation exposure from your smoke detector than you will from DU.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:50 AM

SKYDIVELIFE


I would still like to hear an alternative to fossil fuels, and nuclear power.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:15 AM

BYTEMITE


I didn't say it was dangerously radioactive, I said it wasn't inert. Whether it's dangerous or not really varies depending on circumstances and person.

The thing is about half-life, is that even long half lives can have an appreciable impact if there is enough concentration or exposure, or if a person already has sensitivity or susceptibility. It's not so much that the stuff is not dangerous, but rather that the government has deemed the stuff "safe enough" from some acceptable baseline of risk, usually 1:1 million chance of a negative exposure effect such as cancer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:27 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I would still like to hear an alternative to fossil fuels, and nuclear power.


The problem isn't that there's no alternatives, the problem is all the existing infrastructure is geared towards obtaining, processing, or using one or the other. We're already invested, so to speak, and the existing infrastructure tends to make this all cheaper than the alternatives.

But, for me, it goes Fossil Fuels < Nuclear Power < Individualized Energy. You don't need huge wattage and outputs from ginormous government monopolies and powerplants with half the funding embezzled out of them if you're not directing the electricity over long distances. As such, I believe the efforts to force citizens to choose between fuels is a false dilemma. None of the given or expected answers truly benefits the citizenry, or solves the problem. Eventually, the citizenry may have to take the solutions into their own hands.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:19 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Hmm, regarding "hot" spent fuels - here's a notion that occured to me last night, just food for thought.

Grind to rough powder, and employ a catalytic reaction of some kind that produces useable energy while it also eventually renders the "hot' material inert, or close to it.

There's GOT to be a way, Nature and Physics all but demand it, unless Newton which wrong, which I highly doubt - anyhow, we need to think, wonder, and investigate possibilities other than just shove it somewhere and forget about it, yanno ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:24 AM

FREMDFIRMA



On a personal amusement note - I COULD go ask Davey the Radboy if he has any ideas, hehehe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

Admittedly, the guy is brilliant, quite Sparky in fact, problem is the idea of even the most basic safety precautions never seems to occur to him - genius idiocy at it's very finest.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 1:35 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I hope Frem's idea would work, then we could get rid of the spent stuff while still using nuclear for a little while to get everyone used to the idea of no longer using it for power, it would also give us more time to come up with a new plan, because we can't keep using nuclear power forever in my opinion, dangerous dark force etc.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:09 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I would still like to hear an alternative to fossil fuels, and nuclear power.
HEY! I have a really new idea! It's called conservation!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


HW, I misread your post since mostly I only have time for drive-bys. OTOH, there is a lot of evidence piling up that DU is harmful. Among other things, even without residual radioactive contamination it is a heavy toxic metal which binds to DNA and mimics estrogen in the body. When it is used as a round, it aerosolizes into micron-sized particles that are easily inhaled and (of course) ingested. That's just off the top of my head- I'm sure I'll find more when I do some research. So before YOU go puffing up the 1000 wonderful uses of DU, you might want to research its safety.

AFA fuel reprocessing... it's not the panacea you seem to think because it creates as much waste as the fuel that was reprocessed. So there is still a huge amount of radioactive waste, which is a witches brew of radioactive elements, some of which are worse than the original fuel.


Finally, you never addressed the SHIT HAPPENS part of my post. I note for the record that Germany is committed to shutting down its nuclear reactors, and this is a nation with a rational and successful approach to nuclear safety and nuclear waste. Why? Because of the "shit happens" problem, one which humans can NEVER avoid entirely.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:19 AM

HARDWARE


First, I did mention DU's danger when vaporized and as a heavy metal. But since the most common way for DU to become vaporized is to be in a vehicle that is hit by a DU long rod penetrator fired from an M1 Abrams, I think the recipients probably have more pressing worries than heavy metal poisoning.

Second, I hope Germany enjoys their rolling blackouts. You can't take 25% of your power plants offline without replacing them with something else. So, their choices are;
A) Build coal or natural gas plants to replace their nuclear plants.
B) Buy electricity from someone else, which is just a shell game. Either the nuclear capacity or the pollution goes somewhere else.

Third, fuel reprocessing cannot create as much waste as it takes in because the output process is new nuclear fuel. This would be a violation of the conservation of energy principle. (OTOH, it would be great if it did, we'd have transporters and replicators pretty soon!) So the products are new fuel, DU and intermediate level waste. Intermediate level waste is better than high level waste any day of the week.

But weren't you all for leaving radioactive waste laying all over?


The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 18, 2011 9:43 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I wanted to get back to this.

Quote:

the most common way for DU to become vaporized is to be in a vehicle that is hit by a DU long rod penetrator
DU isn't just harmful to combatants. It contaminates every battlefield where it has been used including places like Fallujah. Funny you should forget that.
Quote:

I hope Germany enjoys their rolling blackouts.
Germany has been steadily building out its alternate energy sources for more than a decade. They seem to think they're ready for the transition, but I'm sure you know much more about their situation than they do! In the other thread about tree-huggers, you asked for examples of a planned economy being cleaner than a "free market" one. Well, here is one example.
Quote:

fuel reprocessing cannot create as much waste as it takes in
Reprocessing creates a huge amount of liquid waste contaminated with stuff that is even more harmful than uranium. Hanford is a great example of a reprocessing site.
Quote:

But weren't you all for leaving radioactive waste laying all over?
I'm for not creating it in the first place.

And son (May I call you son? You seem very young to me.) we have Sellafield (Windscale), Chernobyl, and Fukushima as vivid lessons of the "SHIT HAPPENS" principle, which you still have failed to address.

So, let's get back to the original question: Is the world safe enough for more nuclear reactors? The answer is: The world isn't safe enough for ANY nuclear reactors.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 19, 2011 5:37 AM

HARDWARE


The liquid waste can be processed to remove the contaminants. Once they are precipitated out of the water it is safe for the environment. Other chemicals comprise the intermediate level waste.

Once DU become vaporized and airborne it enters the environmental cycle where it is carried to the ground by the water cycle. And, please try to remember that it is a vapor. Only in high concentrations is it measurable, and harmful.

Time will tell in Germany. I hope they can make it work with renewable energy. I think Merkel is playing a shell game. Give me an update in 20 years.

Definitely don't call me son.

The nuclear cat is out of the bag. How do you propose to get it back in?

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics - RAH

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


HW, there are so many things that "can be" done... we COULD run our reactors to be safer, after all. BUT WE DON'T.

WHEN something horrible goes wrong, what is the WORST POSSIBLE thing that can happen? When a coal-fired plant blows up, you'll kill people at the plant. But when a nuclear power-plant blows up? Hell.... you'll kill people thousands of miles away for decades to come.

Oh, and...
Quote:

Only in high concentrations is it measurable, and harmful.
Do a google search on birth defects and cancers in Fallujah.

And, for the record, I will not call you "son".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:34 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


DT:
Quote:

Nuclear is a fear buzzword for the hippie generation
Bullshit. I won’t even go INTO your claim
Quote:

in the 1970s was transformed into "nuclear free" with help from massive funding from API, the American Petroleum Institute, aka Cheney's Sect Energy Commisision (not so secret, I know an insider who gave me the whole list. The industry lobby provides almost all the funding for anti-nuclear activism.
I’ve learned it’s not worth the time or effort to challenge your most out-there claims, but really...!

You make the argument that the only options are coal or nuclear, from what you wrote
Quote:

That is your alternative. Take your pick.
But that’s a fallacy and you don’t address other forms.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:38 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Geezer,
Quote:

Seems pretty frequently to me. Although maybe not every day, you often post two or three a day in the gloom and doom category.

sometimes it's like you are trolling the internet for the most apocalyptic stuff you can find to re-post here.

If it “seems” that frequent to you, maybe you should consider that you are reading what I post through your own preconceptions. I would sincerely appreciate your pointing out all these doom and gloom issues I put up “frequently”, because it’s not my intent, and I don’t believe it’s so. Anti-right-wing, yes, but doom and gloom? No.



Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:47 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I agree with Riona:
Quote:

We can't stop other countries from starting, but we can finish up with it ourselves and encourage others to as well, or not to start it.
If one is saying “they’re doing it, so why should we stop”, that’s not a very good argument.
Quote:

But that little engine you speak of could end up destroying everything too, or at least destroying notable portions there of.
That point, made by others as well, is to me a very valid one. The storage thing has always bothered me, but now on top of that there’s the problem of nuclear plants being affected like Fukishima, without the government being serious about protecting their population and the danger of them providing fuel, etc., to potential terrorists via change in politics, like Russia.

I was against nuclear, as were many of my fellow “hippies” from the very start, NOT because of anti-war sentiments but because we believed nuclear was dangerous...forty-five years ago. I was part of a protest at a nuclear plant, and it wasn’t about anti-war sentiments at all. Ever.

The alternatives CAN’T produce all we need currently. But that’s simplistic, and is so for exactly the reasons that have been enumerated. It’s not the current system, and there are monied interests who want to keep the current system, and who have exercised the power to do so. It would take work, conservation, changes in politics and more to change over, but I don’t believe nuclear is the answer at all.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 19, 2011 11:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Ain't just hippies - Michigan is home to not only all too many rightwingnuts, but also many old school conservatives who lack the extremism and nuttery of the more modern flyers of that banner.

Generally they weren't best pleased about Fermi in the first place, having valid concerns which those pushing for it never did manage to address.
And then we almost lost Detroit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_1

Do you have any idea how long such folk hold a grudge ?

McCain, on his campaign trail, came up here and decided to give a speech about the glory of nuclear power - to folk who were around back in 1966, just down the road a ways from Fermi.
It did *NOT* go over well, let's just say that.
(I was actually there, having the time, a press pass, and being curious about McCain)

So it's not just hippies, oh hell no.
I won't comment further cause with me the whole Nuclear thing is in conflict with my religious principles, and that's not an argument of hard science, but the rather softer venue of philosophy.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 19, 2011 3:02 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


This just in:
Quote:

A new report says Japan's tsunami-ravaged nuclear plant was so unprepared for the disaster that workers had to bring protective gear and an emergency manual from distant buildings and borrow equipment from a contractor. The report, released Saturday by plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co., is based on interviews of workers and plant data. It portrays chaos amid the desperate and ultimately unsuccessful battle to protect the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant from meltdown, and shows that workers struggled with unfamiliar equipment and fear of radiation exposure.

The report revealed insufficient preparations at the plant that TEPCO hadn't previously acknowledged. It said plant workers had a disaster drill just a week before the tsunami and "everyone was familiar with emergency exits," but it apparently did not help them cope with the crisis.

When the Unit 1 reactor lost cooling functions two hours after the quake, workers tried to pump in fresh water through a fire pump, but it was broken.

A fire engine at the plant couldn't reach the unit because the tsunami left a huge tank blocking the driveway. Workers destroyed a power-operated gate to bring in the engine that arrived at the unit hours later. It was early morning when they finally started pumping water into the reactor — but the core had already melted by then. They eventually ran out of fresh water and had to switch to sea water, which meant scrapping the reactor. Other workers were tasked with releasing pressure from Unit 1's containment vessel to avoid an explosion. But first they had to get the manual, which was not in the control room but in a separate office building at the plant.

To activate an air-operated part of the vent, workers had to borrow a compressor from a contractor. And the workers who had to get close to the unit for the venting had to get protective gear from the offsite crisis management center, 5 kilometers (3 miles) away from the plant. It took an hour just to put on air tanks, coveralls and face masks before the first two workers headed for the reactor building.

After repeated failures, workers managed to vent the containment vessel. But an hour later, the Unit 1 building exploded, damaging similar preparations at two other units, forcing workers to start all over and causing further delays.

The report also said workers borrowed batteries and cables from a subcontractor on the compound to set up a backup system to gauge water levels and other key readings.

TEPCO and the government have said they aim to bring the reactors to "a stable and cold shutdown" by January. But some experts say the plan is too optimistic because high radiation, contaminated water, debris and other obstacles have already caused delays.

Meanwhile, more radioactive water is pooling at the plant. Workers scrambled to restart a key cleanup system, which was shut down Saturday hours after beginning full operations because a component reached its radioactivity limit faster than expected.

More than 100,000 tons of contaminated water at the plant could overflow within two weeks if action is not taken.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2078569,00.html#ixzz1Pm2
WoaI2


What a clusterfuck, on so many levels! That pretty much illustrates my feelings against nuclear...the human factor. Just one component of the things that can go wrong, and potentially different in each country, under each government, and depending on the company running the facility. No thanx.

Is the world safe enough for more nuclear reactors? I say "no", at least as long as humans do the planning, building, maintaining, etc.!


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 20, 2011 5:40 AM

HARDWARE


You are losing sight of the fact that it took a devastating earthquake AND a tsunami to make the plant fail.

Quibble all you want, but first show me any industry that prepares for 2 record setting disaster events at the same time.

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics - RAH

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 20, 2011 6:12 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Not quibbling. Didn't take two disasters to do in Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, and again, my worry is governments that won't hold companies accountable, companies who will skimp to enhance their bottom line, and governments changing which potentially allows all sorts of problems (re: Russia), as well as the fact that anything which can't survive as many disasters as come along without endangering not only itself but the rest of the world isn't for me. Wind turbines fall down, solar panels break, so what? Dams are a problem, in more respects than potential disasters, but nothing will make me in favor of nuclear, sorry, unless they can do something with ALL the spent fuel and guarantee their safety...neither of which is being done currently.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 20, 2011 6:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hardware

Quote:

first show me any industry that prepares for 2 record setting disaster events at the same time.
Show me any other industry that HAS to.

SHIT HAPPENS.

The problem with nuclear shit happening is that- unlike a chemical plant or power plant blowing up- the result is more than local. More than international. It's worldwide. And it's the gift that keeps on giving and giving and giving and giving. There are STILL farms in northern England that are banned from production because of Chernobyl. You still can't hunt game or pick mushrooms from forests in Germany.

This is not the first, second, or even third serious nuclear power accident in world history. Each one took a series of failures, which nobody would have ever dreamed would have happened.

BUT SHIT HAPPENS.

The disaster at Chernobyl wasn't caused by profit-seeking, it was caused by a safety test. A safety test, for god's sake.
The problem at TMI was initiated by workers repairing pumps on a unit that wasn't even connected to the one that was online.
We've had a record-breaking snowfall in the Rockies. Now, we have record-breaking floods, and not one but TWO nuclear reactors are at risk.

WHEN SHIT HAPPENS, WHAT IS THE RESULT, AND ARE YOU PREPARED FOR THE CONSEQUENCES?

Given the consequences of nuclear accidents, do you think we've shown ourselves to be fully capable of dealing with the technology? So far the evidence shows that we are not.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 20, 2011 6:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


COOPER PLANT

Quote:

NPPD, which owns and operates the Cooper power plant, said the “notification of unusual event” it declared was made as part of emergency preparedness procedures the station follows when flooding occurs. [...]

Water levels at the Brownville gauge increased approximately two feet in a 24-hour period from 5:30 a.m. Saturday to 5:30 a.m. Sunday.

By Sunday morning, the river stage at Brownville had reached 44.4 feet, surpassing the previous record crest of 44.3 feet set in 1993 flooding. By 3 p.m., the Brownville gauge was at 44.7 feet, the equivalent of 901.2 feet above sea level. Three hours later, the level had risen another half foot.





FT CALHOUN
Quote:

Officials said on Friday that the plant is on the lowest emergency status, but they are prepared if it rises another 10 feet.

"We have a lot of margin of where we are today. And, if things were to progress, we still have margins and actions to be able to address that," Bannister said.
"I can assure you a Fukushima event will not occur at Fort Calhoun," Gates said.

Officials said the situation is totally different than the nuclear power plant in Japan that was hit by both earthquake and tsunami. They said they are confident with weeks they've had to prepare.

OPPD said they will not restart the reactor until the river stabilizes.



HARDWARE, I think what you are saying is that the technology can be safe. But IMHO no technology is ever 100% safe. People make mistakes. Nature throws us knuckleballs. Parts fail. Planes fall out of the sky. Building collapse. Power lines fail and chemical plants blow up. It's in the nature of things.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 7:04 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Somne dirty oldass reactors in States, I support energies that are alternatives to oil and normally support whatever that new plan for public safety but then we must examine if reactors need to be updated ASAP and if they can't afford this can we afford to dismantle? Not sure how true this is....a news vid on new events is out there....waste/shutdown? team from the Department of Public Service to investigate the incident?








NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:42 - 4886 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:16 - 4813 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:37 - 427 posts
Pardon all J6 Political Prisoners on Day One
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:31 - 7 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, December 4, 2024 07:25 - 7538 posts
My Smartphone Was Ruining My Life. So I Quit. And you can, too.
Wed, December 4, 2024 06:10 - 3 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Tue, December 3, 2024 23:31 - 54 posts
Vox: Are progressive groups sinking Democrats' electoral chances?
Tue, December 3, 2024 21:37 - 1 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:35 - 962 posts
Trump is a moron
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:16 - 13 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, December 3, 2024 11:39 - 6941 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Mon, December 2, 2024 21:22 - 302 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL