Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Is world safe enough for more nuclear reactors?
Friday, June 10, 2011 8:08 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
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.
Friday, June 10, 2011 8:29 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Friday, June 10, 2011 8:48 AM
DREAMTROVE
Friday, June 10, 2011 8:57 AM
HARDWARE
Friday, June 10, 2011 9:19 AM
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.
Friday, June 10, 2011 9:24 AM
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.
Quote:If there are none, why pile on the woes?
Friday, June 10, 2011 10:46 AM
Friday, June 10, 2011 2:22 PM
RIONAEIRE
Beir bua agus beannacht
Friday, June 10, 2011 4:16 PM
Friday, June 10, 2011 4:41 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: First off, anyone can post anything they want, remember?
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...
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.
Monday, June 13, 2011 8:02 PM
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 5:31 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 6:16 AM
SKYDIVELIFE
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:59 AM
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:28 PM
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:56 AM
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 6:06 AM
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.
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.
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"
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 8:49 AM
BYTEMITE
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).
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.
Quote:And reprocessing doesn't happen in the US because of protests by environmentalists about transporting spent fuel.
Quote:But they want to scream about spent fuel rods laying about nuclear plants. Transport. Scream. In situ. Scream. Make up your fucking minds!
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:46 AM
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:50 AM
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:15 AM
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:27 AM
Quote:I would still like to hear an alternative to fossil fuels, and nuclear power.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:19 AM
FREMDFIRMA
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:24 AM
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 1:35 PM
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:09 PM
Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:13 AM
Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:19 AM
Saturday, June 18, 2011 9:43 PM
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
Quote:I hope Germany enjoys their rolling blackouts.
Quote:fuel reprocessing cannot create as much waste as it takes in
Quote:But weren't you all for leaving radioactive waste laying all over?
Sunday, June 19, 2011 5:37 AM
Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:26 AM
Quote: Only in high concentrations is it measurable, and harmful.
Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:34 AM
Quote: Nuclear is a fear buzzword for the hippie generation
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.
Quote: That is your alternative. Take your pick.
Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:38 AM
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.
Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:47 AM
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.
Quote: But that little engine you speak of could end up destroying everything too, or at least destroying notable portions there of.
Sunday, June 19, 2011 11:33 AM
Sunday, June 19, 2011 3:02 PM
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.
Monday, June 20, 2011 5:40 AM
Monday, June 20, 2011 6:12 AM
Monday, June 20, 2011 6:16 AM
Quote:first show me any industry that prepares for 2 record setting disaster events at the same time.
Monday, June 20, 2011 6:44 AM
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015 7:04 PM
JAYNEZTOWN
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL