Nuclear near disaster in Sweden

[greenman3610]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/6/215626/8851

The emergency -- called by some the most dangerous international nuclear incident since the destruction of the Russian Chernobyl plant 20 year ago -- occurred when two of four generators shut down, officials said.
"It was pure luck that there was not a meltdown," nuclear expert and former Forsmark director Lars-Olov Höglund told The Local. "Since the electricity supply from the network didn't work as it should have, it could have been a catastrophe."

He said without power, the temperature would have been too high after 30 minutes and within two hours there could have been a meltdown.

[Poll_Blind]

1. Shit! n/t

PB

[lovuian]

2. WHOAH!!!

What a mess that would have been WHOAH!!!

[blogslut]

3. One more scenario that

illustrates the dangers of global warming. IMHO nuclear power is evil on its own. Throw in the possibility that reactor cooling towers could malfunction during excessive heat brought on by global warming...

[Lindacooks]

4. Yes, and the fact that many of the rivers used to cool the reactors

are running dry in the heat, so the reactors have to be shut down.

I will not support any means of power generation that creates more problems than it solves: nuclear waste, potential for large-scale disaster, incredibly expensive and constantly overrunning cost estimates, etc. etc. etc.

[longship]

7. No to nukes!

I agree. As a person with a physics education, I have to firmly agree that nuke power is not a nice thing. Even if the plants could be operated safely (which, in theory they can, but in practice ?????) there are too damned many issues with the spent fuel, which is not naturally of this earth and remains horribly dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

Just say, "no to nukes."

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. Issues with spent fuel?

This is somehow better than dumping gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

[Lindacooks]

15. Nobody said it's better.

But having tons of radioactive waste on our hands, in my opinion, is worse.

Have you ever known anybody with cancer? That's the big risk with radioactive waste. It's a horrible disease, very insidious, and you can be exposed to radiation and not even know it.

And yes, C02 and global warming are huge concerns. But we can do something about that (if we ever get leadership with a brain). But radioactive waste is here forever.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. I understand your concerns, but I don't agree.

Having tons of radioactive waste is worse than global warming, which may well wipe out millions of species and billions of humans? I don't understand this logic at all. This is definitely a lesser-of-two-evils situation, and in my opinion nuclear is by far the lesser of the two evils.

Don't take this to mean that we shouldn't invest in other non-polluting energy sources. We should. But right now, we need to do whatever we can do right now to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. And nobody I've spoken to believes that solar, wind, and tidal power will make the nut on their own.

[Odin2005]

31. You're expecting the nucleophobes to have logic?

The word "radiation" srikes fear into people more then any other enviromental hazard as a result of the nuclear arms race, hence people act as if it is qualitatively different then any other hazard.

[Lindacooks]

60. Excuse me?

Don't you dare say that about me.

I have had friends who worked in the nuclear industry die of cancer. My husband had cancer. I have seen friend's children die of cancer.

If there's one thing I am good at, it's logic and logical reasoning skills. How dare you.

Anybody who thinks that nuclear energy is the solution to the world's energy and environmental crises is the one with the logical reasoning problems.

Why don't you try defending the enormous cost of nuclear energy to me?

Would you volunteer to have radioactive waste stored in your backyard?

Do you live near a nuclear power plant?

...

I didn't think so.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

115. I understand that you view this as a personal and emotional issue.

And I am very sorry to hear about your losses. However, I would like to point you to this study:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4629461.stm

The basic findings of this study are that, of all cancer deaths in nuclear industry workers, 2% are caused by radiation. No additional risk was found for people living near power stations.

Now, I understand your worries about relatives or friends in the nuclear industry, but I will tell you right now that it's nothing compared to the rates of serious, life-threatening illness for coal miners. I come from coal mining country. I've seen the effects first-hand.


Why don't you try defending the enormous cost of nuclear energy to me?

Cost isn't the issue. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions is the issue.


Would you volunteer to have radioactive waste stored in your backyard?

Yes, for the same reason I'd live next to a nuclear plant (see my post #113)

[index555]

109. we CAN reduce the nuclear waste problem dramatically

Ref: Scientific American , Dec 2005 "smarter use of nuclear waste"
According to this article we can eliminate %98(!) of the nuclear waste by reprocessing and reusing it.
not only that but the final unusable waste would be of isotopes that would decay to background levels in a few hundred years, not tens or hundreds of thousands of years.(!!) in another 50 years we might even find a use for that.(?)
This along with replacing our current nuclear plants with smaller , current "inherently self limiting" designs as opposed to the 30-40 year old designs we have now(which are not self-limiting)
For those who don't know, an "inherently self-limiting reactor" is designed so that there is no way for it to run out of control or melt down.
If it gets too hot , the reaction slows down, causing it to cool.
even in total, catastrophic loss of coolant , the reaction shuts down, the reason that the reactors are smaller is so that they can radiate sufficient excess heat to the outside to prevent anything from melting. they are designed in such a way that"more heat=slower reactions"
They are designed not to NEED any emergency backup system {that could possibly fail, as evidenced by the events in Sweden)
These "slow-down", and "shut-down" features are built in to the design , and do not rely on control rod position or any mechanical system (such as cooling pumps)which could fail, or be accidentally(or deliberately) be set or controlled improperly .
These designs now exist, however it has been the incredibly vocal opposition of the "no nukes" people that has prevented them from being built.

As far as other alternative power sources are concerned? WE NEED TO INVEST FAR MORE IN EVERY ONE OF THEM! our energy problem is not simple and there is no simple solution to it.
We also need to PROMOTE ENERGY CONSERVATION!
I read an article(I believe it was on MSN) about a group of architects who were designing "green" energy efficient buildings for the reconstruction or New Orleans, THIS IS GREAT! We can (if we have the determination) turn the tragedy into a triumph by rebuilding GREEN! think of the advantages of reducing the energy bills of the poor residents there by as much as %75.
not to mention the reduced energy consumption overall.

I reject the arguments of the extreme "no-nukes is good nukes" bunch , while I don't think nuclear is the whole solution,intelligently used it IS part of the solution.

[jpak]

127. Reprocessing is uneconomic, dirty and dangerous.

Russia's Mayak reprocessing complex dumps large quantities of radionuclides directly into lakes and rivers - it's rendered large areas near the plant uninhabitable...

http://193.71.199.52/en/international/russia/nuke_industry/siberia/mayak/27922.html

http://www.seattle.battelle.org/russreg/ResourceCenter/MayakChemicalCombine-RussiaPlutonium.htm

The UK's THORP reprocessing plant had a major accident last year...

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-11-02.asp

Japan's Rokkasho-mura reprocessing plant will cost >$20 billion (if they ever complete it) and will produce plutonium at a cost of >$2000 per kilogram

http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_9/9-2/puend.html

In the US, the defunct West Valley commercial reprocessing plant produced ~1200 kg of plutonium nitrate and 600,000 gallons of high level liquid wastes. It will cost taxpayers (not the plant owners) $4-8 billion to decommission and decontaminate the site.

$4 billion for 1200 kg of Pu???????

such a deal

(not)

[Codeblue]

110. The thing is...

True, nuclear power may well be able to turn back global warming by stopping coal plants from polluting the air. But we already have a problem with nuclear waste.

Imagine the problems with nuclear waste we would have if we had to build thousands more of them everywhere. It would be a disaster to the environment on par with global warming in my opinion. Sure, we saved the world from global warming, but now we have to deal with this NEW issue.

I agree, we need to do something about global warming. But nuclear power could cause as many problems as it solves.

[Jeroen]

27. I agree, but excess CO2 will be in the atmosphere for over 100.000 years

It will take a very long time before excess CO2 is absorbed by the oceans (and they get more acid in the proces)
http://currents.ucsc.edu/04-05/06-13/ocean.asp

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

38. Precisely why...

...drastic cuts are needed ASAP.

[Lindacooks]

61. And you think three MILLION years is better?

"According to a report from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the United States as of 1983 to decay to background levels."

http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_waste_body.html

[Jeroen]

88. No, but I believe that we have to reduce CO2 emmissions now

If I was in charge (God forbid) I would terminate private / corporate ownership of cars to begin with.
Make public transportation free (this can be done in Europe)
People would still be able to, occasionally, rent hybrid cars for their own purposes (moving etc)
People who live in isolated locations/communities should be allowed to use hybrid / electrical vehicles to travel between transfer stations only.

Increase the cost of energy (by taxing) and make it income dependable.
Tax revenues should be used for research and development of alternative energy sources and subsidising renewable energy.
Further, I would introduce dynamic (indexed) energy rates: by use and necessity.
For example: you could determine the yearly average energy use of a household.
This average will depend on the geographical location, m3, number of people and so on.
Energy used below this average has a fare (flat) rate (necessary energy).
Energy used above this average has a much higher,increasing rate.

Tax kerosene, make diesel for shipping more expensive.
Flying will become much more expansive (but I am willing to sacrifice my holidays for the future of our children)
This will also reduce the crap we (Europe/US) import from Asia and it will reduce outsoursing.

Consumer products that are not strictly necessary should be more expansive.
Processed and prepared food should be more expensive (prefab meals, processed salads in plastic - that sort of nonsens)
Unhealthy foods and products (fast-food, alcohol, cigarettes, candy and so on) should be extremely expensive by taxing.
This tax should be used to subsidies healthy - natural - foods and education programs on food and wellbeing.
(A lot of people underestimate the real costs (on healthcare, environment, animals) of these foods and products )

Economists will argue that all of the above will kill the economy – and some will say: the fun.
But the thing is: we have to adjust our way of life. It is the only way.
And I believe we will be happier if we do so. Now we have to work so hard and for what?

Life would be better if we cook our own food, eat healthy and simple.
If our kids play outside - in a natural, clean and healthy environment (therefore public transportation)
If we have to work less and spend more time with our families and friends.
Take a look around: all that s**t we have to maintain and worry about.

hmm...I guess that makes me conservative

[Lindacooks]

89. I believe that too!

I just think nuclear is the wrong way to go. There are too many problems, the industry is controlled by people who just want to make more money and more money, and they're also a good target for terrorist attacks.

While solar and wind are simple, individuals can use them, there's no waste, and very little maintenance. And they are efficient. There are two large windmills in my town; each provides 40% of the power for the colleges that own them; each cost $1 million. Cost, REAL cost, for nuclear power plants? Closer to $1 billion, with constant maintenance and surveillance, and waste.

[jpak]

90. The last few nuclear power plants actually built in the US

cost $5-7 billion each.

and that doesn't include the cost of decommissioning or spent fuel disposal...

[Lindacooks]

102. Thanks for that info!

I knew they were expensive, but that's just ridiculous.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

116. Hmm...

Do you think the whole economies of scale thing would change this if we started building plants in large numbers? I'd be curious to know exactly where the money goes on building nuclear plants. Do you have links to any data of this type?

Thanks.

[jpak]

126. That was the end result of economies of scale

Instead of getting cheaper, nuclear power plants became much more expensive to build as the inudtry expanded. Nuclear power plants were built for a few hundred million dollars in the late '60's - by the '80's and '90's they became multi-billion dollar White Elephants.

More nuclear power plants have been canceled in the US (110) than were completed (104).

The stranded costs for these canceled plants exceeds $112 billion.

How many hybrid automobiles, light rail systems, wind or PV farms and Energy Star appliances could we buy with $112 billion????

(a lot)

The US wasted $112 billion on canceled nuclear plants and will spend >>>$65 billion to dispose of spent nuclear fuel.

Such a deal....

[Jeroen]

92. I guess you are right. Nuclear is dangerous and has longterm problems

Anyway, Good post. Thanks. It is a good reminder to 'rethink my own waste management and energy use'. Here in Holland the government is increasingly promoting nuclear. The debate is on the horizon and there is a lot to think about.

[Lindacooks]

106. Thanks, Jeroen.

I just can't get behind an industry with so many problems and so many potential disasters.

I'm always reminded of a cartoon I saw in the 1980s that had a large, well fed energy industry lobbyist, who was saying, with a sneer on his face:

"You want coal? We own the coal mines.

Nuclear? We own the power plants.

Natural gas? We own the drilling rights.

Solar energy?

Uh...


Um...


Er....


Solar energy isn't feasible.

[index555]

108. yikes!

Exterminate the economy is more like it.
let's see,
government control of where you can go,what you can eat,what you can own. Wow sounds great:sarcasm:
but on the other hand we really wouldn't have to work so hard,in fact the only people with jobs would be public transportation and the bureucrats that tell you what you can do.
While I do agree many changes need to be made , your"solution" IMO would be more destructive than constructive.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

122. And entirely unnecessary.

The technology to reduce carbon dioxide already exists. It's a matter of political will and investment to get it into use. I think the political will to do that would, just about by definition, be way less than doing what is suggested in post #88, and the net result would be a lot better for everybody.

[jpak]

49. Yucca Mountain will cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars

The current price tag is >$65 billion - and rising.

The Nuclear Waste Fund will only cover $28 billion of this.

Taxpayers will pick up the rest.

That's $30+ billion that could provide tax credits for domestic PV and solar hot water systems, mass public transit, tax credits and loan guarantees for farmers to develop wind/solar/biogas/biomass projects, tax credits for homeowners to retrofit their homes with Energy Star windows and mo' betta insulation, tax credits and rebates for Energy Star appliances, tax credits for energy efficient (not necessarily hybrid) vehicles - or a whole host of energy efficiency and/or renewable energy initiatives that would have a REAL impact on US greenhouse gas emissions.

But no - we have to throw that money **quite literally** down a hole in the ground.

So yeah, I see a problem here...

[Lindacooks]

62. Thank you. You're right.

That's what nuclear lovers don't think about - the actual cost of nuclear power. That whole industry has been so heavily subsidized it's sick.

And why? Because they have lobbyists, well paid lobbyists who have influenced policy. Solar and wind power companies do not have well-lined pockets.

[JuniperLea]

81. That's what I'm saying!

Follow the money! Who is making all the money? I'll bet you dimes to donuts that it's the same people who are mixing up the Kool-Aid the pro-nuke people here are gulping down.

And I won't call them names... let them show their own ignorance. Pisses me off when people condescend and assume others don't know a damn thing, call names, etc. Makes you wonder how much nuke stock they own.

Looks like this issue has hit you close to home. I for one will much sooner listen to you than self-appointed "experts" who can't even keep their cool and a civil tongue in their heads (fingers on their keyboards).

[jpak]

94. and they had Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force too

Which was a revolving door for the nuclear lobby.

None of the utilities that are taking advantage of ChimpCo's MegaNukeBucks largess care about global warming.

Especially the Southern Co. which was a charter member of the infamous green-wash Climate Coalition.

None of the proposed new nuclear plants will replace existing coal fired plants.

And all these nucularwannabee utilities have plans to build lots more fossil-fired capacity.

It's a scam...

[Lindacooks]

107. Yes, it sure is.

And I don't see the nucleophiles lining up to have waste storage facilities built in their neighborhoods.

[Odin2005]

97. The results of global warming will bring down Western Civilization.

Tens of billions or collapse of society, your choice.

[jpak]

98. And after the fall of Western Civilization who would take care

of the spent fuel repositories???

Who would monitor and mitigate radionuclide releases???

The Nuclear Priesthood????

I think it's immoral to place such a burden on future generations of Americans.

Also, the notion that it's either nukes or global warming is rather silly.

Energy efficiency and renewables are far more effective and sustainable means of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear power.

period.

Oh yeah - it's Peak Oil and Peak Gas and Peak Uranium that will bring down "Western Civilization" - not global warming.

[JuniperLea]

53. Ludicrous response

There are plenty of other means of generating or harnessing energy, all of which have been virtually ignored while nuclear energy has been crammed down our throats.

Time for the lies to end, the money to be followed and intelligent means of generating energy employed.

[Swamp Rat]

5. Forsmark is 60 miles north of Stockholm

:hide:

[Poll_Blind]

6. I keep hitting the Recommend button but it only registers once.

And that sucks.

PB

[Theres-a]

9. Rec'd

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[converted_democrat]

10. K&R.. n/t

[w4rma]

8. Do I trust Republicans to run a nuclear reactor? No.

And it would be Republicans running it, cutting corners at every opportunity, because it is they who are lobbying for them.

All I have to do is look at how poorly Republicans have been running the country to refuse support to nuclear reactors being run in the same manner.

The things are overly expensive, also. They require *alot* of money to build and maintain. More than most any other type of power, to my knowledge.

[JuniperLea]

56. Another excellent reason to just say no to nukes! n/t

[Ghost Dog]

12. Yes, we read here in Europe at the time (two days later)

that this was a problem with the batteries failing to start up these two (out of four) generators.

[Stockholm]

13. More info for those interested

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=4525&date=20060805

[marions ghost]

14. from the article you posted...

Sweden has closed down two of its original 12 nuclear reactors since 1999 as part of a plan to phase out nuclear power over the next 30 or so years, or when the reactors' lifespan expires.

Nuclear power accounts for nearly half of Sweden's electricity production.

[truebrit71]

16. I'd like to hear the responses from the pro-nuclear crowd here at DU....

...about this little 'incident'...

I have been accused of being an idiot for my 'No Nukes' stance here by someone who claims to be an 'expert' about the technology...

I'd like to hear what that rocket scientist has to say about this...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. OK, I'll give it a shot.

How many people have nuclear power plants killed?

How many have fossil fuel plants killed?

How many will die if we don't drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions?

I'm not pro-nuclear. I'm anti fossil.

[MadHound]

19. How about anti fossil and nuke?

It doesn't have to be an either/or deal. We do have a couple of other choices that are clean, renewable, and that can do the job. The first one is wind, which according to a 1991 DOE survey, can power the entire country into the forseeable future. In addition we have solar, which has become a very viable alternative, especially with thin film photovotaics now on line.

It doesn't have to be a choice between the lesser of two evils, we can make the right decision on this issue without endangering ourselves. It is high time that we did so.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. Let me be more specific.

I am anti-excessively-large-carbon-dioxide-emissions. I think it is the fundamental long-term worldwide problem of the 21st century.

The first one is wind, which according to a 1991 DOE survey, can power the entire country into the forseeable future.

I'm all for the development of any technology that reduces carbon dioxide emissions, but I'm hesitant to put all of our eggs in one basket. Any basket, including nuclear and wind.

[MadHound]

26. Well then let's put our eggs into several different

Non-polluting baskets, rather than oil and nukes. Let's put them into wind, solar, geo-thermal, biodiesel, and many other non-polluting, renewable energy sources.

As you correctly state, petroleum is too polluting, and nuclear has at least two big problems that we've yet to overcome. The first is human error, the second is radioactive waste. Until we fix those problems, nuclear is the Russian Roulette of the energy world. You may only hear a click on the first three pulls, but on the fourth. . . And when there is an emergency with nukes, it is a huge, probably multi-generational problem.

But we do have a full complement of energy generating options that are quite less polluting, are renewable, and that can power this country. I think it's time we started putting them to good use, don't you?

[Odin2005]

28. Fools who think wind and solar will save everything...

...are engaging in eco-anarchist fantasy based on an ideologically-lead dislike for nuclear enegy and centralized power generation, that's my experience at least.

[druidity33]

32. nothing saves everything... n/t

[MadHound]

35. LOL, and those who think our current energy production model

Is the end all and be all of how to power a country are even bigger fools. Go read up on your history about those empires who over relied on singular energy based empires, such as Britain(coal) and the Dutch(wind). Where are those empires today? Oh yeah, that's right, dead and gone, reduced to a small fraction of what they once were.

And friend, since I work in the nuclear industry, my dislike for nuclear energy is certainly not ideologically driven, but is instead reality driven. I know what problems the nuclear industry entails from the inside out, from corrossion problems to human error to waste. This is reality friend, not some sort of fantasy land where nuclear advocates reside still basking in the notion of electricity so cheaply produced that it can be given away. There are real problems with the entire industry, and if you pull anybody who works in it aside they will tell you the same.

Let's explore one of the bigger ones, the nuclear fuel supply. Where is the vast majority of fuel going to come from to supply all of these reactors? Certainly not from the US, oh no, we've already mined out most of our uranium and fashioned it into bombs. No, this fuel is going to come from Africa, more specificly South Africa. So instead of the US being bent over a foreign oil barrel as we currently are, we're going to be bent over a foreign uranium rod. That's not progress friend, that is simply supstituting one bad situation for another. Not a very bright idea.

Then there is the quiet but growing crisis of mothballing old reactors. As this fleet of aging reactors is forced to shut down, there are huge problems to be encountered. Namely, what to do with them. You can't simply tear them down wily nily, to much exposure for the workers and surrounding area. No, the simple fact of the matter is that these reactors have to be mothballed. Put into cold storage with a small crew to babysit them into perpetuity. For while you can remove the fuel, the waste, the tools, etc., there is one thing that cannot be safely removed, and that is the containment vessel itself. And given how extensively this containment vessel has been irradiated over the thirty-fifty year life span of the reactor, once you mothball a reactor you're going to have to babysit it not for years, but for generations. Another nuclear waste mess that we have no clue how to deal with other than passing the problem along to future generations and hoping for the best. And still you propose that we increase the number of reactors in this country, until fifty years from now we have mothballed reactors dotting the landscape like cancerous tumors, every single one of them simply a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Sorry friend, these are but a few reasons that people both inside the industry and outside it think nuclear power is not the answer. Until we solve these problems, we should stick with clean, renewable alternatives. Besides, as history has shown us, putting all of our energy eggs in one basket is a sure recipie for disaster.

Thus we should explore our options, solar, wind, geo thermal, biodiesel etc. These technologies are off the shelf, ready to go now. It is high time we started using them. This isn't fantasy land friend, this is reality. Time to face up to it and start doing the right thing, and that is powering our country with clean, renewable alternatives. Otherwise our country will collapse, like other countries before us who put all their energy eggs into one basket. Read your history friend, so that you don't repeat those pesky mistakes.

[Odin2005]

41. I never said I wanted nuclear only.

I want nuclear and renewables to be used TOGETHER.

[MadHound]

45. Sorry, but from the tone of your posts, it was sounding like

You wanted nuclear exclusively. Still and all though, with the problems, both long and short term that nuclear brings to the table, it is best that we leave it out of the mix. Rather, like I've said earlier, let us go with a basketful of clean, renewable, off the shelf technologies like wind, solar, biodiesel, biomass, geo thermal, etc.

Nuclear has so many problems that we should just let it die out with this current generation of aging reactors.

[JuniperLea]

67. Excellent post!

It encompasses much of what I've read on the subject.

We need to remember this is, and has been, a neo-con run nation and many good ideas in the area of energy have been stifled by big energy companies and the politicians who enable special interests.

I think we should follow Sweden's lead and phase out all of our nuclear power plants. We should also be looking at where they are transitioning the need for power to!

[jpak]

46. 22 states currently have Renewable Portfolio Standards

None have Nuclear Portfolio Standards.

The US installed 2700+ MW of new renewable capacity last year and will install >28,000 MW of new renewable capacity by 2015.

NO new nuclear plants have been ordered by US utilities since 1973 and 110 plants have been canceled since then.

Dick Cheney's Nucular Giveaway Pinata (the 2005 Energy Bill) served up ~$12 billion subsidies for new nuclear plants - including a 1.8 cent per kWh production credit (i.e., taxpayers will PAY new nuclear plant operators to produce electricity).

How many have been ordered????

ZERO

If they were ordered today, ChimpCo MIGHT be able to bring 6000 MW of new nuclear on-line by 2015 (at the earliest).

That's 6000 MW of new nuclear vs. 28,000 MW of new renewables by 2015.

Looks like the eco-anarchists are winning...

:P

[Ignis]

50. How about the fantasy of risk-free nuclear power?

What's the current fantasy from the pro-nuke crowd regarding how we (and hundreds of generations of our grandchildren) deal with the radioactive waste that is produced as a byproduct of nuclear power? Are we still going to bury it in concrete bunkers under the ground in earthquake zones, or are we going to shoot it into orbit and hope that this orbit never decays?

Because, after all, the tiniest mistake in the handling of radioactive waste can have tragic consequences for millions of lives today and hundreds of generations of our grandchildren. And this doesn't even take into account the risks of industrial accidents (or sabotage) during the course of generating the aforementioned waste!

It's amazing to me that the pro-nuke crowd pays lip service to Reason, yet so often invokes Faith when attempting to explain away the risks involved with nuclear power.

[index555]

111. not entirely risk-free but far better than what's current

Ref: Scientific American , Dec 2005 "smarter use of nuclear waste"
According to this article we can eliminate %98(!) of the nuclear waste by reprocessing and reusing it.
not only that but the final unusable waste would be of isotopes that would decay to background levels in a few hundred years, not tens or hundreds of thousands of years.(!!) in another 50 years we might even find a use for that.(?) < my speculation only>
This along with replacing our current nuclear plants with smaller , current "inherently self limiting" designs as opposed to the 30-40 year old designs we have now(which are not self-limiting)
For those who don't know, an "inherently self-limiting reactor" is designed so that there is no way for it to run out of control or melt down.
If it gets too hot , the reaction slows down, causing it to cool.
even in total, catastrophic loss of coolant , the reaction shuts down, the reason that the reactors are smaller is so that they can radiate sufficient excess heat to the outside to prevent anything from melting. they are designed in such a way that"more heat=slower reactions"
They are designed not to NEED any emergency backup system {that could possibly fail, as evidenced by the events in Sweden)
These "slow-down", and "shut-down" features are built in to the design , and do not rely on control rod position or any mechanical system (such as cooling pumps)which could fail, or be accidentally(or deliberately) be set or controlled improperly .
These designs now exist, however it has been the incredibly vocal opposition of the "no nukes" people that has prevented them from being built.

As far as other alternative power sources are concerned? WE NEED TO INVEST FAR MORE IN EVERY ONE OF THEM! our energy problem is not simple and there is no simple solution to it.
We also need to PROMOTE ENERGY CONSERVATION!
I read an article(I believe it was on MSN) about a group of architects who were designing "green" energy efficient buildings for the reconstruction or New Orleans, THIS IS GREAT! We can (if we have the determination) turn the tragedy into a triumph by rebuilding GREEN! think of the advantages of reducing the energy bills of the poor residents there by as much as %75.
not to mention the reduced energy consumption overall.

I reject the arguments of the extreme "no-nukes is good nukes" bunch , while I don't think nuclear is the whole solution,intelligently used it IS part of the solution.

[Massacure]

117. Spent fuel can be reprocessed multiple times.

The United States had an experimental reactor called the Integral Fast Reactor which reprocessed the fuel on site and would have made the spent fuel less radioactive than the original mined ore in 300-400 years. Its not outside the realm of possibility to hold on to something for that long.

Too bad Clinton had to axe that research during his presidency.

[truebrit71]

58. As opposed to pro-nuke apologists that tell us there's nothing wrong...

...with nukes, and even if a plant went KERBLAMMO!!! everyone would be fine....


:eyes: :puke:

[JVS]

103. How about pro-actually-having-energy?

[Lindacooks]

64. How many people CAN nuclear power plants kill?

And nuclear power plants have already killed at least 100,000:

"Chernobyl, Ukraine — A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers."

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406

[NNadir]

20. This incident, was the only level 2 INES incident in the history of

Sweden.

Here are the INES levels:

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

Here is a description of Level 2, the only such incident ever to occur in Sweden:

Level 2
This is an incident with no off-site impact, a significant spread of contamination on-site may have occurred.

or

Overexposure of a worker.

Examples: The Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant July 2006 incident.

Now let's cut to the chase:

If this were a coal mine collapse in Sweden, not one anti-nuclear activist would be inspired to post. When coal miners are killed in great numbers in the world - like 50 people in Mexico - and I post a thread, and bump 70 or 80 times, I can't get a rise out of anyone.

If this were Mercury poisoning from the coal fired smokestacks of Germany contaminating small children everywhere in Sweden, not one person would be inspired to outrage because this is exactly what is happening and no one gives a shit.

Say "nuclear" though and everyone is up in arms.

This incident is clearly not even close to Chernobyl. No one was injured. It's not even clear than anyone has been hurt. But you would have to know something about nuclear power to understand that, and you would have to know something about Chernobyl.

Nobody complains when millions of tons of coal ash get dumped into rivers; no one cares when billions of tons of carbon dioxide threaten to make life on earth impossible. They'd rather get all excited and worked into a tizzy because there was an imperfect operating condition somewhere on earth and focus on the one person who agrees with their preconceived notions, even if there are lots of equally sophisticated people who disagree.

In the nuclear case, everybody is so worried about what could happen that they are completely indifferent to what is happening.

I have a word for this situation: Ignorance.

In a short while, our atmosphere is going to begin to collapse in a spiral of destruction we can only barely grasp. Hundreds of millions, maybe billions of people may die in these events, numbers far greater than the already huge number of people who die annually from air pollution, a number already too high and measuring in the millions. When that happens, I hope everyone will spend their days diverting themselves from reality by focusing for hours on whether or not someone may actually have been injured by the events at Forsmark. I will bet my life - which is now becoming worthless - that people will still be talking about dangerous nuclear power.

They'll probably be, in the year that the last child starves, the last crop dies, the last drop of water flows into the river, the last ice cube of a former glacier melts, some dunderhead somewhere issuing all sorts of platitudes about how wonderful windmills are.

[podnoi]

22. Trouble is "one bad incident" is one too many

You are comparing industrial accidents to something that could kill millions and contaminate whole cities for 100s or 1000s of years. That is the trouble with nuke energy. Sure the record is not "that bad". But it must be absolutely perfect,or we are in deep do-do.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

30. Bingo!

:yourock:


I'm sick of ignorant people acting as if death and disease caused by radiation is somehow qualitatively worse then death by chemical poisons. The amount of suffering cased by nuclear accedents are far more offset by the prevention of a GW-caused dieoff. Besides, we won't be using nulcear plnats for ever, they will be obsolete once we ger fusion.

[jpak]

48. Chernobyl vs. Minamata

which was worse????

clue: Chernobyl

[Lindacooks]

105. LOL!

Fusion? What a pipe dream.

And you should know this: nuclear waste isn't going to be obsolete along with the plants.

Sheesh.

[MadHound]

39. Again, you are caught up in binary thinking

Either coal or nukes, one or the other. But the thing is that we can discard both, and instead supply all of our energy needs with a basket of clean, renewable alternatives that don't pollute the air, nor present the long term danger that nuclear does. Solar, wind, geothermal, biodiesel, biomass, all of these and more are off the shelf technologies that we can start using NOW to supply are energy needs.

[Odin2005]

42. You can't get all energy entirely from renewables.

NNadir has zillions of posts on that.

[jpak]

47. Nonsense

There is no law of physics, chemistry or biology that prevents renewables from providing 100% of the nation's energy.

Maine currently produces ~50% of it's electricity (~1050 MW) from hydro, biomass and trash-to-energy plants.

There are >1000 MW of new wind, tidal and wave energy projects underway in the state.

Maine will produce ~100% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

Furthermore, a recent study concluded that bio-refineries at existing paper mills could provide the state with up to 50% of its current transport and liquid heating fuel needs.

If everyone in Maine drove an energy efficient vehicle (or used public transit in cities) and used wood with biofuel backup to heat their homes, Maine could provide 100% of its electricity, and 100% transport and heating fuels from renewable sources.

Dirigo etc...

(and where is all that spent fuel from (the now defunct) Maine Yankee nuclear plant going to end up?????)

[NNadir]

44. Oh really?

You are caught up in not thinking.

Prayer and daydreams still don't create energy.

I'm not some dumb kid. I've been hearing this chant for some 50 years now, and it is wishful thinking that it is delaying the only shot we have surviving what is a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, fucking serious emergency.

You seem to think the solution is to repeat platitudes. Do you actually know anything at all about energy and the associated issue of energy waste.

I've addressed all of this silliness in my journal in oodles of posts that appeal to something that is called science which involves a concept called data.

If the "solar will save" us crowd really believes this is going to happen why is it that after 50 years of loud shouting and talk renewable energy produces less in percentage terms of our electrical energy than it did in 1994?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x62456

Nobody is trying to stop the "basket of clean renewables." I think that anyone who has a brain - and that would exclude a large portion of the people who discuss energy - wants as many renewables as possible. But the fact is that renewable energy is limited in what it can. Energy is not magic. It is not produced by prayer.

When the "clean basket" of renewables lead to the deforestation of England in the 17th century, they turned to coal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x55148

Here are my repeated chants, that differ in the "solar will save us" chants in that they are connected with something called reality:

1) If you are anti-nuclear you are pro-coal. Coal and nuclear are the only continuously available scalable forms of energy available on an exajoule scale everywhere on the planet.

2) There is no such thing as risk free energy. There is only risk minimized energy. That energy is nuclear energy.

3) Global climate change is real and it is happening now and not in some cute future when they'll be lots and lots of research dollars that will magically produce exajoule quantities of solar energy or any other pet renewable scheme.

4) The lives of billions of people are at risk. Mostly they are poor people, but let's be clear that many people who are not poor will be impoverished by climate change.

5) The banning of energy technology will require billions of deaths as well.

6) Inaction through appeal to fantasy is the same as doing nothing.

[MadHound]

51. OK oh so knowledgable one

What are your proposals to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste we'll be generating? Store it Yucca Mt. BZZZZT! Wrong answer, to many localized faults in the area for safety's sake, and besides, the EPA has gone and performed dye tests on Yucca Mt. And guess what, once that dye was introduced through the cracks in the floor of Yucca Mt., it showed up in the groundwater of Las Vegas two weeks later. There goes one city.

Same problem exists with virtually every single underground storage facility ever considered, too many cracks leading to too much groundwater that too many cities use as their drinking water. Now I can hear you now, make those casks and drums out of some material that will last a long, long time. But then guess what, you are running into prohibitively expensive costs. Do you know what it cost for a fleet of of containers to transport radioactive medical samples? Six of them run almost to a million dollars, and they could roughly hold a volume of two gallons each. Now, start multiplying that kind of durability out of the thousands of pounds of waste that is generated every month, and your operating costs go through the roof. Whoops

Then there is the problem of what to do with the reactors that are having to be mothballed every fifty years or so. Can't dismantle them. Can't let them sit there by themselves. No, they've got to have at least some functionality so that a skeleton crew can babysit them into perpetuity. And a new generation of reactors will get mothballed roughly every fifty years, simply due to the physics of containment vessels and the wear and tear of highly toxic chemicals and the pressures that reactors undergo. So now we have ever increasing numbers of mothballed reactors dotting the landscape, whoops, increased cost there. Not looking good.

And then there is the matter of where are we going to get the fuel. Currently the US gets most of its fuel from Africa due to the fact that there is little domestic uranium left in the ground. So, if we switch to a nuclear heavy energy policy like you propose, within the next twenty five to fifty years, instead of being bent over an oil barrel, the American public will be bent over a uranium rod. Not the brightest of long term thinking there friend.

So instead, why not go with an energy policy that is clean, renewable, and that can fulfill all of our needs domestically. Off the shelf technologies that could provide us a basketful of energy alternatives and more than enough energy to fulfill our needs now and in the future.

Wind is the most promising. A 1991 DOE report on the US's harvestable wind energy found that there was enough havestable wind energy in three states, N. Dakota, Kansas and Texas to provide all of our electrical needs, including factoring in for growth, through the year 2030. Not that I'm proposing that we put all of our wind farms in those three states, but it is an example of just how much wind power we have. Clean, renewable, and to a certain extent with our power grid system, transferable.

Then there is algae based biodiesel. It has the potential to fill all of our fuel needs, and revitalize the agricultural sector<http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html> And then there is the secondary sources, like solar. With the new thin film photovoltaics coming on line, they offer a panacea of low cost power that can be built right into the house. What a concept, eh? And along with biomass and geo thermal, we can easily fulfill all of our energy needs cleanly, safely and renewably, something that neither our current model, nor your nuclear model can do.

You ask why these renewables aren't being utilized more, well I think that it is because the oil companies and the nuclear industry, along with all of the rest who have a vested interest in the status quo currently control our economy and goverment. Compare the subsidies that coal, nuclear and oil get every year as compared with the pittance thrown to alternative power sources. And yet with that pittance of money, and the energy of a group of pioneering people, they have shown that what was scorned set of technologies now has the muscle to power the entire country, now and into the future.

It is high time that we got out of the current energy model. You're right, it is killing people now, and it will continue to kill people in the future, either through air pollution, toxic waste, nuclear accidents, or radioactive waste. Rather let us devote our energies to putting our country onto renewables. These are off the shelf technologies now that are fully capable, especiall when used in combination, to fulfill all of our energy needs cleanly, renewably and domestically. Time to put away those deadly energy models of the past, and work towards a clean energy future. Anything else spells death for us.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

69. The 129I, 131I, 90Sr and 137Cs produced by the so-called Oklo reactor were

highly mobile and released from the site.

And that's the real concern with Yucca Mountain.

Conditions in YM will produce highly corrosive aqua regia gas that will rapidly corrode the spent fuel casks and release these highly mobile radionuclides into the environment.

That's why the DOE is spending billions on exotic alloy "drip shields" and other measures to retard the corrosion process.

This not a trivial problem that can be ignored or wished away by nuclear proponents.

[MadHound]

74. Geez, and you're calling me out for emoting?

Your post is nothing more than one, long, angry emotional screed that somebody dared to disagree with your POV. And worse yet, it is somebody in the nuclear industry who is doing so. So instead of debating this matter rationally, you instead resort to ad hominem attacks, insults, assumptions, and putting words in my mouth. Pitiful, absolutely pitiful.

And setting yourself up as the most knowledegable one in this debate, all on the basis of some barely referenced screeds made on an anonymous political chat board does not make you the most, or even adequately informed person in this discussion. I have years of real world experience in the nuclear industry friend, with access to references and resources that you probably have absolutely no clue even exist. I know the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power from a position that few can ever attain, yet you are presuming that my opinion is baseless and meritless. Yeah, right.

And as for your attempt to cast this as a debate about coal vs nuclear, well friend, that is clearly a red herring, and something that should be above such an oh so knowledgable mind as yours:eyes: But apparently such binary thinking is the fashion these days, and thus all other options are discarded.

And I can see why you discard them, because from the little that you've wrote about, your knowledge of alternative energy sources is minute, and it shows. You obviously haven't been keeping up on the literature, nor on the latest technical advances, and commercial applications. Nope, to you the world is black and white, coal or nuclear, and anything that disrupts this binary world view is discarded as either impossible or irrelevant. How sad, really.

But all of this leads me to another question, namely why are you selling this snakeoil so damn hard, flying in the face of facts, discounting alternatives, discarding reality? I mean really now, the last time I heard so much pimping of nuclear power was at the ANS and NEI meetings, and yet even they stayed within the realm of the real world.

So I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You obviously, for whatever irrational reason, are dead set against anything else excepting nuclear power, and you are willing to mangle facts, skewer stats and throw anything other alternative overboard. Fine. I however will continue to dwell here, in the reality based world, where there is a plentiful abundance of clean, renewable energy alternatives, ones that aren't based on a finite fuel source, or have such serious downsides like both coal and nuclear do. And as a nuclear energy professional with years of experience, I will continue to stack my knowledge of this industry up against such anonymous, uninformed internet posters such as yourself any day of the week. Have a good day:hi:

[JuniperLea]

83. Snake oil!

Exactly! I wonder how much nuke stock this guy owns.

I'll bet there are a handful of people who are making the lion's share of cash on nuclear energy worldwide. That's how energy corruption/management works.

[jpak]

55. The US is limited in its uranium supplies

and unlimited by its renewable energy resources.

US uranium production peaked in 1980 (43 million pounds) and has declined to ~2 million pounds per year today.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0903.html

US reactors used 62 million pounds of yellowcake in 2003, and US utilities imported 66 million pounds of yellowcake in 2004.

The US is in keen competition with the UK, France, Spain, Germany, Sweden, China, Japan, India and South Korea for a dwindling global supply of uranium.

..and nuclear power is supposed to "save us" from global warming????

Don't think so.

[JuniperLea]

68. Step away from the Kool-Aid!

You're talking like you have just od'd... seriously.

Why do YOU think we haven't made significant strides in alternative energy? Duh! You are posting on a political discussion board. If you haven't gleaned the answer to that question by now, I fear the Kool-Aid poisoning may have already set in!

[NNadir]

73. Let's see...um...why do I think that...hmmm...gee...well...

Maybe becaused I looked at the most recent data?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/NNadir/19

Look I don't give a fuck about how much energy is produced by renewable means. I accept all of it. My argument, in case it's mysterious, is that it's not enough.

We need nuclear energy, desperately. We will not survive without it.

[JuniperLea]

84. If you think we know all there is to know about renewable

You are dreaming... and you are falling victim of the Kool-Aid.

You don't think the oil cartel, OPEC and all the US oil companies haven't kept a lid on information in this area?

Wake up, dude. It's 2006. This isn't your grandfather's world anymore. You can't find everything you need to know in a library... nor can you find it on the internet. It comes from real people working in the actual field of interest.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

93. Look, kid... and I laugh YET AGAIN!!

You have no idea whatsoever to whom you are speaking, what my experience or age is, how long I've done what in this world and how many children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces I have that I desperately want to protect.

I happen to make my living giving crucial advice and masterminding the research behind development of media, product and industrial projects, as well as technical writing, PR, IR and M&A. I think I know a tad about how business works, kid. All of your condescension, rudeness, name calling and self-righteousness will not make up for the fact that you know about 1/10th of what you think you know.

The most critical element is not to ignore data, but to put your heart and soul into the wrong data.

You don't know jack, dude. You may think you do, but your "data" links are outdated and inefficient at best. They only show what those in control want you to know.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. No conceivable nuclear accident could kill millions.

I can't even imagine what possible source you've got for that figure, but it's nonsense. Nuclear reactors are not like nuclear bombs. Not at all.

[truebrit71]

34. Ummm, so the lingering effects of a massive radiation leak...

...WOULDN'T wind up killing millions?

Puhleez.... :eyes:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. No, actually.

First of all, define "massive" radiation leak. Chernobyl, which is the worst case scenario for a nuclear plant accident, didn't kill millions of people.

This is what I mean. You're not citing any evidence to support your conclusions. Do you know anything about radiation?

[truebrit71]

54. When I say massive, I am talking about a complete meltdown...

...you know, China Syndrome-type stuff...

Stuff that makes Chernobyl look small in comparison...

Chernoybl hasn't killed millions YET...what about the lingering after-effects that will continue for generations? They don't count?

I know enough about radiation to know that ANYONE that says that it's alright is full of shit...

NO NUKES!!!!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

112. Yes, but the problem with that...

Is that the so-called "China syndrome" is fiction. It doesn't exist. It never did. Not in old reactors, and certainly not in new ones.


Chernoybl hasn't killed millions YET...what about the lingering after-effects that will continue for generations? They don't count?

It does, actually, and if you had bothered to read the material NNadir cited above, which I will link to again, you would know that the idea of Chernobyl killing millions of people - in this or any generation - is complete rubbish.

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf

Read that and explain to me where you get "millions of deaths" or anything even remotely like it, from Chernobyl.


I know enough about radiation to know that ANYONE that says that it's alright is full of shit...


Yet every fact or scenario you cite is fiction. Why is that?

[truebrit71]

118. So massive doses of radiation is perfectly fine then?

Gimme a break...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

120. Yes, that's exactly what I said.

Thank you for continuing the fine anti-nuclearist tradition of refusing to actually discuss the problem on any sort of practical level.

[truebrit71]

124. Thanks for bringing the pro-radiation arguments to the fore...

...again...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

128. Every single one of your posts...

...in this thread has contained some kind of veiled insult towards everyone who doesn't agree with you. I have tried to contribute to this thread in a positive way (see some of my posts below) without attacking anybody. However, your continued inability to communicate in anything other than an exceptionally hostile and reactionary way leaves me with no choice but to ignore your comments on this issue from now on. I'm sorry that has to be the case, but it's pretty obvious that the concept of "debate" using "facts" has little meaning to you.

[truebrit71]

129. Excellent! Mission Accomplished. NO NUKES!!!

.

[MadHound]

119. A nuclear meltdown is fiction? Wow, I'll go tell the guys in ops

That hey, they don't need to worry about those safety procedures anymore, because Yibbehobba says that a nuclear meltdown is fictional.:eyes:

The term China Syndrome is slang for nuclear meltdown, specifically when the core breaches the bottom of the containment vessel and starts going into the Earth. Granted, the core probably wouldn't go down much more than fifteen meters, but it could indeed have a nuclear meltdown that drops it out the bottom of the contain vessel, hence the term China Syndrome.

And God helps anybody in the surrounding area if a core in meltdown hits any water source on the way down. Massive radioactive steam release that could kill people over a pretty large surrounding area, depending on how and where the wind is blowing. And if the worst case scenario does occur, yes indeed a million people could be killed over a period of time. Hell, there were serious concerns(that were never really addressed) about cow's milk from Wisconsin containing radioactive fallout back in the seventies. Remember, the half life of most of these isotopes is thousands upon thousands of years.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

121. Fine, perhaps fiction isn't the correct word.

Perhaps the best way to phrase it is "so entirely unlikely as to be irrelevant in any reasonable risk management based discussion of the relative merits of power technologies."

yes indeed a million people could be killed over a period of time.

Do you have a cite for this?

[MadHound]

123. Nuclear meltdown is just one human error away,

And that is at any plant, anywhere. Look at Chernobyl, they actually got lucky with that one, due to where the core breached. Rather than continuing on down into the earth, the reactor construction actually channeled the molten core into a series of stairways and other concrete obstacles that cooled the core down and impeded its progress. Blind luck that it wasn't worse than it was. All due to human error.

As far as killing a million people goes, no, it hasn't happened yet. But it is indeed possible. Let's say that the MIT reactor(or frankly any reactor located close to a river) has a problem, and the shit hits the fan. A nuclear meltdown occurs, and the molten core drops ten to fifteen meters, into the groundwater system that is usually close to the surface around rivers. The core, made of highly enriched uranium, hits that water and you have a huuuuge plume of radioactive steam. If the wind is blowing from the west or northwest, tens of thousands of people are going to be breathing in that steam, or the radioactive particles that are in the air, all across the Boston metro area. Cancer city.

And remember, this is but one scenario. Various others can occur, and sadly they are all just one human error away, day in, day out. Oh, and don't forget that we have a whole fleet of aging reactors that are starting to irreparibly corrode thus creating more risk.

Yes friend, it is long odds, but not that long, and in the end the law of large numbers always wins.

[JuniperLea]

70. Hasn't killed a million... yet

We have no idea what the long-term effects will be. The cancer rate and birth defects for those in the "cloud" path is on the rise. Shouldn't those people be counted? And shouldn't the future people effected be counted?

Isn't there a cumulative effect of more and more nuclear waste?

I still say we follow Sweden's lead and phase out all nuclear power.

[NNadir]

77. Gee. We're running out of time.

Some of these people might die of old age first.

As it happens, the laws of something called physics means that so called "nuclear waste," is the only form of energy waste that has a theoretical maximum. This is because of a condition known as nuclear equilibrium, which has been operating on the earth since it formed several billion years ago. Since radioactive fission products (and not all are radioactive) decay as they are formed, there is a position which is a function of half-life, power level, and time at which they will decay as quickly as formed. This situation does not apply to carbon dioxide, however.

It actually happens that the only way to reduce the radioactivity of the planet involves the use of nuclear power in certain types of fuel cycles.

Sweden will not phase out nuclear power and it hasn't done so. The Ringhals plant was just uprated.

I say we phase out fossil fuels. There is a word for the game of attempting to phase out nuclear power before phasing out fossil fuels by the way: It's called "suicide."

[JuniperLea]

79. guess they didn't check with you first

"Sweden has closed down two of its original 12 nuclear reactors since 1999 as part of a plan to phase out nuclear power over the next 30 or so years, or when the reactors' lifespan expires."



http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=4525&date=20060805

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

85. Fission product equilibrium??? Not so.

There is NO fission product "equilibrium" in an operating nuclear reactor.

Without the fission of 235U they don't work. Fission products constantly accumulate in the fuel pellets until their concentrations poison the fission chain reaction.

The half-lives of 90Sr and 137Cs are ~30 years. The half-life of 239Pu is ~24,000 years.

There is no way that these fission products can decay fast enough to balance their production (the definition of equilibrium).

Pseudoscience nonsense of the highest order...

[NNadir]

37. Um, have you noticed millions of killed people by Chernobyl?

Here's a paper with 477 scientific references studying the health of the exposed population at Chernobyl. It's 115 pages long.

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf

Puhllllllllleezzzze indeed. If you don't know what you're talking about, just make stuff up.

Let's see if you can locate "millions of dead," here.

Let's see if you can find as many dead as those who died from coal mining accidents last year or as many people who died from air pollution.

Ummm, so the constant lingering and immediate effects of fossil fuels don't wind up killing millions every damn year?

No puhleez is required since obviously you don't give a flying fuck about the latter case. It's not as sexy.

[podnoi]

65. That is an ignorant response

Have you been to Ukraine or Belarus? Do you know what is filling their hospitals?
I have. I have family still there.
These countries do not have nearly the kind of data gathering capabilities you seem to be convinced they have. For goodness sakes, it is hard enough to correlate cancerclusters in the US.

I have relatives in crimea my friend who's hair fell out from drnking Dneiper water while all this was occurring and have had serious health problems, yet southern Ukraine is not even considered a seriously effected area and is mostly unstudied in relation to Chernobyl. Please! Get a little more real.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

43. No, it wouldn't

A few thousand maybe, not millions.

[jpak]

78. Then why do we have a Price Anderson Act that limits the liability

of nuclear plant operators????

Cuz the potential cost of a nuclear accident in terms of lives and money are so great that nuclear plant operators would (a) not be able to buy liability insurance or (b) not be be able to afford it even it was offered.

[Odin2005]

29. Nuclear plant meltdowns arn't nuclear detonations

The uranium in nuclear plants in many times less enriched then in a nuclear warhead. A meltdown is the result of steam buildup causing the ceiling over the reactor to break open. Newer reactor designs are meltdown-proof, so you people using Chernobyl are just scaremongering. Also, a meltdown doesn't kill millions. Chernobyl killed a few dozen people directly and raised the cancer rate in nearby areas by a small but significant amount (I consider the estimates many tens of thousands dead to be BS, since the collapse of the USSR causing a decline in healthcare is a more reasonable explaination).

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

80. And the Titanic was unsinkable

who is making the money on nuclear plants?

[Lindacooks]

86. "Meltdown-proof?"

So you'd be okay with us building one in your backyard?

And don't say yes just to prove your point.

NOTHING human beings have ever built has EVER been totallyl 100% free from problems. NOTHING.

And we aren't 'using' Chernobyl. It happened. It's a lesson of what can happen to other countries and other people.

And, finally, I'll believe Greenpeace over you any day.

[Odin2005]

95. "I'll believe Greenpeace"

There's your problem...

[jpak]

96. Greenpeace rules

:evilgrin:

[Odin2005]

100. When the CO-FOUNDER of Greenpeace supports nulcear energy...

that's is a sad indictment of what it has become since it's founding. a buch of naive, idealistic yuppies.

[jpak]

125. Patrick Moore cofounder of Greenpeace, Stewart Brand (Whole Earth Catalog)

James Lovelock (Gaia) are environmental contrarians that have made a lot of money preaching their wacko views on genetically modified organisms, pesticides and nuclear power to audiences of right wing fools that pay good money to hear these lies.

and they are well funded by RW groups and corporations that want to spread the Good News about this Brave New Nuclear Powered GMO World...

http://www.envirotruth.org/quotes4.cfm

BTW Patrick Moore thinks global warming is a good thing...

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060113/BUSINESS11/601130327/1071

Greenpeace co-founder praises global warming

Global warming and nuclear energy are good and the way to save forests is to use more wood.

That was the message delivered to a biotechnology industry gathering yesterday in Waikiki. However, it wasn't the message that was unconventional, but the messenger — Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. Moore said he broke with Greenpeace in the 1980s over the rise of what he called "environmental extremism," or stands by environmental groups against issues such as genetic crop research, genetically modified foods and nuclear energy that aren't supported by science or logic.

Hawai'i, which is one of the top locations nationwide for genetically modified crop research, has become a focal point in the debate about the risks and value of such work. Friction between environmentalists and other concerned groups and the biotech industry surfaced most recently in relation to the use of local crops to grow industrial and pharmaceutical compounds. Last year that opposition halted a Big Island project planning to use algae for trial production of pharmaceutical drugs.

Zero-tolerance standards against such research by environmental groups delay developments that could help those with unmet basic needs, Moore said. Instead Moore called for compromise rather than confrontation on the part of the environmentalists.

"There's no getting away from the fact that over 6 billion people wake up each day on this planet with real needs for food, energy and materials," he told those attending a luncheon at a three-day Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy.

<more>

Can you say "wacko"????????

[Lindacooks]

104. Nope. There's YOUR problem.

I'll also believe the evidence at hand and my experience.

And, in answer to some of your other posts, with that ridiculous choice of nuclear energy or greenhouse gases, you are presenting what is known in the study of logic as a false dichotomy:

"...alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more alternate options which have not been considered. The two alternatives presented are often, though not always, the two extreme points on some spectrum. Instead of such extreme simplification and wishful thinking, considering the whole spectrum, as in fuzzy logic, may be more appropriate."

From Wikipedia's logic discussion.

Where are any of your links or logic? Or do you just prefer to make snide comments and leave it at that?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

113. I would.

Hell yes I'd have one on my back yard. And I'm not saying yes just to prove a point, because I see reducing carbon dioxide emissions as a moral imperative. Which is why I don't drive my car any more often than is absolutely necessary, don't leave lights on in my house, and only run my heat in winter as often as necessary. In fact, it would be hypocritical of me not to accept such an arrangement (living next to a nuclear power plant) while still supporting their use because, let's face it, somebody is going to end up living next to them. And if it meant taking just one coal-fired plant out of use, then it would be more than worth it, given the tens of thousands of people who've already died this year because of pollution from coal fired plants, the millions of people who will most certainly die in the future because of the pollution, and the tens of millions, if not billions who may die if we don't do something about this problem.

[Lindacooks]

130. Good for you. You're one in a million, probably a billion.

But again, you're buying into the false dichotomy that it's either coal or nuclear. If we put the amount of money into solar and wind that has gone down the nuclear hole, I would venture to say we'd be close to energy independence at this point. Four to five BILLION dollars for each plant? And nowhere to put the waste? Come on.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

131. I'm not advocating a nuclear-only solution.

I'm advocating nuclear as part of a low-emissions energy solution.

[druidity33]

33. you asked for it...

and you got it!

an awful lot of snarkiness in those replies though...

i don't take being called a fool lightly...

nor do i think anyone should.

let's all get along...

[lonestarnot]

21. Solar and wind.

[JuniperLea]

52. NO NUKES!!!!

NO NUKES OF ANY KIND!!! No matter how they spin nuclear energy, it is as dangerous as hell!! It IS HELL!!!

There are plenty of other options.

Have we ever followed the money on this? Who own, builds, runs the world's nuke plants? They are the bastards who have led us all down the garden path and have lied to us consistently about nuclear energy.

[Monk06]

57. When high temperature pebble bed reactors replace conventional

reactors dangers of meltdown will be a
thing of the past.

[jpak]

59. Not so

A German research pebble bed reactor malfunctioned and released radioactive material into the surrounding countryside back in 1986.

Pebble fuels are graphite composites and can burn or produce explosive gases when exposed to air at operating temperatures.

Furthermore, proposed pebble bed reactors do not have robust containment buildings - a loss of coolant accident would release large amounts of radioactive materials.

PBMR = a pig in a poke

Don't believe the hype...

[Monk06]

66. Thanks for the info. Question do the new Chinese PBMR's represent a

technological improvement over the older German
reactors?

The Chinese reactors are much smaller and scaleable.

The use much less fuel per unit. My sense after reading
about the Chinese research reacto (which is going into production soon)
is that smaller isolated units are much safer than large PBR's

[jpak]

72. They are all rather small, <120 MW and share the same problems

One of the biggest is quality control during pebble fuel manufacture.

No one has produced these on a mass scale and there are enough mechanical flaws the pebbles that have been produced to warrant concern - especially as the pebbles are mechanically cycled though the reactor core.

Also, these designs lack in-core instrumentation that allows reactor operators to monitor conditions through the entire core. Basically they are flying blind.

There are also MAJOR problems with the South African PBMR program (the one most publicized in the US)...

http://www.greenclippings.co.za/gc_main/article.php?story=20050906225942941

http://www.greenclippings.co.za/gc_main/article.php?story=20050907124003759

http://www.greenclippings.co.za/gc_main/article.php?story=20050907152609665

[Monk06]

75. Well you just ruined my happy face Uranium mining story.........

:spank: :banghead: :spank: :banghead: :spank: :banghead: :spank: :banghead:

[jpak]

76. Just doin' my part....

:evilgrin:

:hi:

Also forgot to mention that PBMR fuel has a much higher 235U content than light-water reactor fuel (8-20% as opposed to 3-4% for LWR fuel).

and a lot of that remains in the pellets when they are spent (3-4% 235U after burn-up - equal to the 235U content of fresh unirradiated LWR fuel).

and because of their composition, it's nearly impossible to reprocess spent pebble fuel to extract the remaining (usable) uranium.

If PBMRs come into widespread use, they will greatly accelerate global uranium depletion rates...

[Monk06]

82. jpak, if you're going to beat the crap out of me I'd prefer that you do it

all in one go. That way I get to heal faster.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

Your info is really top notch though. I'll
take it into account when I discuss Uranium
mining

[jpak]

87. LOL! - sorry

:blush:

[index555]

114. thank you

also please read post 109

[eviltwin2525]

99. The problem is that this planet....

can only support about 2 billion humans.