Can Nuclear Reactors be Made Safe?

[Lionel Mandrake]

Whether or not we continue to generate power from nuclear reactors, the danger from existing spent fuel rods will remain with us for thousands of years. So the question of safety needs to be separated from the question of how to generate power.

For nukes to be made safe, there needs to be effective government regulation. Once upon a time, this was the duty of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).



Unfortunately, the AEC also had the job of promoting all things nuclear. The conflict of interest was intolerable, so the AEC was abolished in 1974. The regulatory duties were taken over by a new agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).



The non-regulatory duties of the AEC eventually were combined with those of other agencies to form the Department of Energy.



This sounds like an improvement, but lately the NRC has been accused of being entirely too cozy with the industry that it is supposed to regulate. This, once again, is an intolerable situation. The rules governing the nuclear industry will not keep us safe if those rules are designed primarily to protect the industry itself. For example, the level of threat from terrorists that the industry must address should be based on threat assessment, not on what the industry is willing to do. This point was made by Elizabeth Kolbert in a recent New Yorker article:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/03/28/110328taco_talk_kolbert

It is evident that the US public is not adequately protected by the NRC. This must change, regardless of how we generate power in the future.

[Atman]

1. No.

No.

[Prometheus Bound]

2. No, especially since the regulatory agencies are dominated by company men.

[BrookBrew]

3. Are the thousands of reactor years between incidents worth it?

Yes. Everything carries risk. People died digging the coal burned to generate power used to run some of the computers used to post here. Other PC's power sources dump tons of carbon from natural gas.

Others create nuclear risk.

Unless there is a cold fusion miracle next week those are the breaks. That said the more regulation the better. Regulation is why the Navy has a very long history of safe reactor operation.

Edit:clarity

[Lionel Mandrake]

7. As a physicist

I can assure you that there will be no cold fusion miracle. And yes, there is risk everywhere.

Of all the fossil fuels, natural gas produces the least amount of carbon dioxide per unit of energy. Coal produces the most.

[BrookBrew]

10. Agree and best handle so far..

mandrake was a Classic. I remember the cold fusion "miracle" in the news, boy was everyone excited.

[Lionel Mandrake]

35. Several of us have Strangelovian user names.

The cold fusion experiments never did make sense. If all that heat was being generated by fusion, where were the neutrons? The experimenters would have been killed by the neutrons, but it didn't happen. The real explanation is sloppy calorimetry, i.e., there never was any cold fusion.

[kristopher]

24. Evaluation shows nuclear power is a third rate solution to climate change.

You'll find the abstract and link to Jacobson's paper here:
Nuclear Junkies Begin Rehab Here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150


Also, did you see know that Germany set to abandon nuclear power for good.

[BrookBrew]

26. Germany will buy base load from french reactors. I think MIT (real scientists)

published some information on how cost determines energy sourcing. I mean assuming they are able to actually turn their reactors off.

I also saw that the cost of power will go up greatly. I bet BWM expands their plant in SC..

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

[kristopher]

32. You mean the department at MIT that lowballed the estimated cost in order to get funding?

MIT's 2003 study uncritically accepted nuclear energy data claiming that they could build 5 reactors by 2010 and in the process the economy of scale would result in a price decline from the then supposed $2500/kw to $1500/kw.

On the basis of that study a whole host of policies were implemented and the nuclear INDUSTRY was provided $18B in loan guarantees. The actual cost for the reactor proposed but not yet under construction is now said to be around $8000/kw.

Given their support for the "student" who distributed the fraudulent letter making false claims immediately after the Fukushima accident, they are IMO are skirting some serious problems with the ethics committee at MIT.


Former NRC Commissioner Bradford has identified what he calls the 6 myths of nuclear power. I call them lies because the industry that is paying PR agencies to insert them into the public consciousness know they aren't true.

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.


All of those claims are false.

[BrookBrew]

33. MIT does not build reactors. The names on that study are still there

and not employed by westinghouse or ge.

You are copying and pasting. Care to have a real discussion?

[kristopher]

36. That they are still there is good for them, but I worry about their students.

I suspect there are ethics complaints in the wind.

Consider first the nature of a COI. As defined (p. 6) in a classic 2009 US National Academy of Sciences report (Lo et al. 2009), ‘‘conflicts of interest are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. Primary interests include promoting and protecting the integrity of research,’’ the quality of scientific education, and the welfare of the public, whereas ‘‘secondary interests include not only financial interests...but also other interests, such as the pursuit of professional advancement.’’ What happens when one applies this COI definition to nuclear-cost studies that are performed/funded by nuclear interests? The circumstances of the nuclear industry’s performing/funding nuclear-cost studies (whose results could affect industry profits)—may ‘‘create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest,’’ scientific integrity, may be ‘‘unduly influenced by a secondary interest,’’ nuclear-industry financial interest.

[BrookBrew]

38. Link. Link to MIT study in context or its just slander(nt)

[LAGC]

65. He's good at it (slander).

He never cites his sources, just cuts-and-pastes the same unsubstantiated bullshit from discredited "experts."

[kristopher]

What i'm good at is real research.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x734833

[BrookBrew]

110. That is a link to DU, feel free to link OUTSIDE of this site.(nt)

[Motown_Johnny]

25. what is your opinion of the "hot tub" nuclear reactors?

http://gizmodo.com/#!326125/hot-tub-nuclear-reactor-could-power-cities

^snip^

About the size of a hot tub, this portable nuclear reactor in development by Hyperion Power Generation could be buried in a small cement casing within the ground and provide maintenance-free power to 25,000 homes for 5-years.


http://gizmodo.com/#!5054950/backyard-nuclear-reactor-should-be-ready-to-ship-by-2013

^snip^

Our fuel is very unique. It's uranium hydride. UH3 is the chemical formula. Low-enriched, about 10 percent -235, the rest is U-238. By comparison, bomb-grade fuel is about 98 percent enriched.

The waste that comes out of our reactor after powering 20,000 homes for 8-10 years is about the size of a football. Using coal and gas over the same time frame, the waste stream for just you, after factoring in CO2 emissions, would overflow Mile High Stadium in Denver. So our waste stream is very concentrated, and yes, we have to do something with it, but there are known ways of dealing with it. For security reasons, we're not disclosing what will happen to it, but it's not going to just sit in some bucket somewhere. Recycling was "baked in" to our reactor design from the beginning





Ever since I heard of this I thought we could give people a choice. Bury one of these near where you live or build wind and solar farms near where you live. I'm betting if we did that wind and solar would be pretty popular.


Is this to good to be true? It seems that way to me but I know very little on the subject. It seems like it would be far better than what we are using for nuclear power now.



Edit to add: Thanks for pointing out that cold fusion is a pipe dream. Most people still don't grasp that fact.

[defendandprotect]

53. Consider FRAKING for gas --- !!!

GERMANY SET TO ABANDON NUCLEAR POWER FOR GOOD !!

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/23-7

[kristopher]

23. Nuclear Junkies Begin Rehab Here

Nuclear Junkies Begin Rehab Here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150


Also, did you see this?

Germany set to abandon nuclear power for good
Berlin -- Germany stands alone among the world's leading industrialized nations in its determination to abandon nuclear energy for good because of the technology's inherent risks.

Europe's biggest economy is betting billions on expanding the use of renewable energy to meet its power demands instead. The transition was supposed to happen slowly over the next 25 years, but now it is being accelerated in the wake of Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant disaster.

Chancellor Angela Merkel says the "catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions" has irreversibly marked the start of a new era....

[defendandprotect]

54. Kindergarden: Don't use nuclear reactors to boil water for steam - !!!

[hunter]

90. Don't use gasoline to move people - !!!

Drill very deep hole. Pump oil. Shoot people who believe it is their oil. Spill oil. Transport oil in giant supertanker. Spill more oil. Pretend to clean up oily mess. Pay bribes to bad people. Refine oil into gasoline. Burn and poison people in refinery. Pay more bribes to bad people. Transport gasoline to gasoline station. Mine metal. Poison people with mining waste. Kill people in mining accidents. Pay more bribes to bad people. Refine metal. Poison people with refinery wastes. Shoot people who believe it's their metal. Shoot or bribe people who complain about being poisoned. Transport metal. Make car. Transport car to dealer. Buy car. Fill car with gasoline. Drive car to grocery store.

-or-

Walk to grocery store.

[defendandprotect]

100. That would be an interesting thread --

Sure hope that oil wasn't the earth's ballast -- !!!

[grahamhgreen]

78. There are not "thousands of years between incidents", each incident LASTS thousands of years, so

the incidents are actually continuous.

[originalpckelly]

4. Unsafe at any speed. EOM.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. No. Safe enough? No.

Safe storage of "useless" stuff for tens of thousands of years?

[Lionel Mandrake]

17. Spent fuel is a problem that won't go away.

Which do you think is least dangerous:

1. to store spent nuclear fuel rods at the reactors that made them,

2. to store them in a repository like Yucca Mountain, or

3 to reprocess them in a "breeder" reactor?

[kristopher]

28. Breeder technology is either too expensive or increases proliferation risk

MIT's 2003 study rejected reprocessing as a viable alternative to the once through fuel cycle; largely for those two reasons. They accepted nuclear energy data claiming that they could build 5 reactors by 2010 and in the process the economy of scale would result in a price decline from the then supposed $2500/kw to $1500/kw.

The actual cost for the reactor proposed but not yet under construction is now said to be around $8000/kw.

Now you suggest that an even more expensive technology is needed for wastes even though all existing market ready designs and the necessary facilities are saddled with far more problems than we have now.

Former NRC Commissioner Bradford has identified what he calls the 6 myths of nuclear power. I call them lies because the industry that is paying PR agencies to insert them into the public consciousness know they aren't true.

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.


All of those claims are false.

[BrookBrew]

31. Proliferation.. we have 3000MT stockpile. I guess MIT is not a good source?

as for nuclear the proof is in the pudding. The rate in my area, supplied by nuclear plants is a fraction of that in places nuclear does not exist.

Bottom line nuclear works. Until a base load technology replaces it you have exactly 2 choices for base load.

burning dead animals and splitting the atom.

[kristopher]

34. No, MIT Dept of Nuclear Engineering is not a credible source

They uncritically accepted nuclear INDUSTRY data claiming that they could build 5 reactors by 2010 and in the process the economy of scale would result in a price decline from the then supposed $2500/kw to $1500/kw.

The actual cost for the reactors proposed but not yet under construction is now said to be around $8000/kw; and there is every reason to believe that is still too low.



MIT is identified in this paper in a not so flattering light. This para explains conflict of interest for you. Instead of being lauded, those at MIT should probably consider carefully the potential effect an ethics violation may have on their career.

"Consider first the nature of a COI. As defined (p. 6) in a classic 2009 US National Academy of Sciences report (Lo et al. 2009), ‘‘conflicts of interest are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. Primary interests include promoting and protecting the integrity of research,’’ the quality of scientific education, and the welfare of the public, whereas ‘‘secondary interests include not only financial interests...but also other interests, such as the pursuit of professional advancement.’’ What happens when one applies this COI definition to nuclear-cost studies that are performed/funded by nuclear interests? The circumstances of the nuclear industry’s performing/funding nuclear-cost studies (whose results could affect industry profits)—may ‘‘create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest,’’ scientific integrity, may be ‘‘unduly influenced by a secondary interest,’’ nuclear-industry financial interest.

Sci Eng Ethics DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y
Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette

Abstract
Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research. Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research. Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity. Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using ‘‘overnight’’ costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes. If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them.

Former NRC Commissioner Bradford has identified what he calls the 6 myths of nuclear power. I call them lies because the industry that is paying PR agencies to insert them into the public consciousness know they aren't true.

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.


All of those claims are false.

[BrookBrew]

37. I'm sorry you did not link anything. Pretty sure MIT is credible and the dozen or so

people who compiled that data (twice) are still employed there.

Please post a link relevant to the info I posted from MIT, I did, it is only a common courtesy. Remember that link should come from a real source, like JAMA or NIH, not common dreams or pravda.

[kristopher]

40. They shouldn't be.

As identified by former NRC Commissioner Bradford these are 6 "myths" deliberately spread by the nuclear industry to misinform a gullible public.

I'm less constrained on an internet forum.
The 6 lies of the nuclear industry

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

If you have faith that these are true, then produce peer review studies specifically designed to test those statements and present it.

I can tell you right now though, that there is no such evidence. All claims in the literature that nuclear is necessary are presumptive and unsupported by analysis. All analysis that examines the question directly conclude that nuclear is a poor (literally third rate) solution to AGW.

[BrookBrew]

41. I linked data, you are hitting ctrl v, that may indicate

you have no data to back your opinion.

[kristopher]

42. You make claims that cannot be supported and think a false appeal to authority is proof?

Your link is not an argument. The way it works is that you have to address a question, (I gave you six to choose from) and then make an argument showing that claim to be true of false.

Posting a link means nothing without that link leading to support for the argument made - specifically.

You are doing nothing more than sharing an opinion crafted for you by an industry trying to make money. Don't you feel silly for being taken in?

[BrookBrew]

43. Like I said MIT does not build reactors, you imply some COI, but link nothing

I feel silly for interacting with a person who will not bother to back up their OPINION with any fact.

Have a good day. Feel free to link that data any time.

[kristopher]

45. Do you not understand what an actual citation is?

Do you know the difference between peer reviewed academic publications and junk on the internet?

You were given the abstract for the COI article. The entire article is support for what I said. YOU must read it. IF you do not have journal access you need to go to a library and obtain a copy. That is how research, instead of internet propaganda, actually works.

However, I suspect you do have access and that you now have a copy on your hard drive. You know those stories about people doing things on Facebook that get them in trouble

MIT is extensively discussed and the article in totality is specific to the subject of COI and the nuclear industry. It is very persuasive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=728120&mesg_id=728772

[LAGC]

66. You're just using circular "logic."

You keep referring to the same unsubstantiated chart with no source.

If you want to win any one over to your side, you're going to have to do better than that.

[BrookBrew]

71. Yes It is something placed in a link. Hosted on a webserver, not a circular post back here

owned by JAMA, NIH, MIT or someone. You linked NOTHING. Dont link a sentence behind a paywall (which you did not even link to) and expect me to find that sentence in the trillions of words on the internet.

You do understand what a hyperlink is?

[bananas]

91. No, a citation is not something placed in a link. nt

[bananas]

93. You probably don't understand what "due diligence" or "the google" are, either.

Entergy, Exelon, Constellation, Moody's, S&P, Keystone, all came up with costs much higher than MIT.
The CEO of Entergy said "the numbers just don't work" and the others came to the same conclusion.
MIT used industry numbers which are way too low.

[BrookBrew]

96. The numbers are based on point in time costs. NG access

is related to ability to frac and mine it. You know, fracking is very popular.

[kristopher]

98. No the numbers were based on uncritical acceptance of nuclear industry claims

Natgas has absolutely nothing to do with MIT's cost projections which were that the price would decline by 40% from the 2003 cost. The price of construction instead tripled at least.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x734833

[BrookBrew]

101. Cost. Unlike the alternatives is real and could actually deliver.

unlike the renewable, which in no way shape or form can provide a base load.

The report underscores that cost must be backed by the state. You know like how germany is temporarily backing renewable so they can win a local election?

[kristopher]

103. Yeah, that's why in an analysis of the need for nuclear the MIT report refused to address renewables

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x734833

[BrookBrew]

105. That is a link to DU, feel free to link OUTSIDE of this site.

you know to original data..

[CreekDog]

80. are you saying nobody can quote something unless it has a weblink?

what if something isn't published on the web? it's not legitimate, even if it's sourced?

[bananas]

92. Nobody believes the MIT costs, and by nobody, I mean nobody who matters.

The companies which looked at building new reactors did their own due diligence and did their own independent cost analysis.
The CEO of Entergy, one of the biggest nuclear power companies in the US, said "the numbers just don't work".
Exelon and Constellation came to the same conclusions.
That's why they decided not to build new reactors.
In its 2009 update, MIT admitted its 2003 cost estimates were too low.
But their 2009 estimates are still too low.
Nobody believes them - nobody who matters - nobody who is willing to put their own money behind it.

[diane in sf]

64. The people in Sacramento got rid of their nuclear plant which lowered power costs there

and removed a disaster waiting to happen on an active fault line.

[xphile]

49. Perhaps you should refer to the "spent fuel" by it's proper name

Nuclear waste.

Nuclear energy is not worth the waste and the risks it produces. Whitewashing this disaster doesn't change that.

[Lionel Mandrake]

51. Spent fuel is just one kind of nuclear waste.

Other kinds of waste include some that are only slightly radioactive. All must be dealt with.

I'm all for calling things by their proper names.

[xphile]

85. The nuclear industry prefers to use the term spent fuel because it sounds

more benign than nuclear waste which is what it is. People hear nuclear waste they think of stuff that's leftover from building bombs ore something. Those spent fuel cells are nuclear waste but you won't hear them referred to as such. The word waste has a connotation that the nuclear industry does not want associated with their waste products.

[Lionel Mandrake]

99. No, they call it spent fuel because that's what it is.

They are fuel rods, not fuel cells.

[gateley]

6. No. One accident has wide-spread and long-term consequences - and do we want

radioactive, toxic landfills?

Not worth it when there could be other, safer sources of energy available

[buddysmellgood]

9. We already have radioactive landfills. You'd be amazed at the amount

of low-level radioactive waste that is collected from hospitals, clinics, universities and corporations.

[gateley]

18. Good point - even more reason not to add to the mess. nt

[defendandprotect]

59. Because "radiating" people is something we call "medicine" in USA ... !!!

GERMANY SET TO ABANDON NUCLEAR POWER FOR GOOD !!

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/23-7

[WatsonT]

75. Until we can guarantee that literally every ounce

of medical waste can be safely and permanently disposed of I think we should close down all our hospitals.

[BrookBrew]

12. The problem is between could be and "are"

Did you know that the United Stated detonated multiple kiloton nuclear weapons in Nevada. If memory serves over 50...

Just sayin.

[gateley]

21. Did I know? Seriously? I may have heard something mentioned about it at

one time...

Of COURSE I know! I'm old! At that time people clambered to the top of the hotels in Vegas, put on 'protection' (sunglasses!) and watched the show! And we didn't stop there or after bombing Japan. We, and others, have really behaved irresponsibly -- especially in more recent years when we DEFINITELY knew better!

:hi:

[BrookBrew]

22. It would have been pretty cool to watch a megaton shot..

my wager is the outcome in japan is a tiny fraction of the impact of shooting these off in the open air.

The end is 'neigh crowd should bracket their expectations on these tests. Pretty sure all the fish in the ocean and birds in the sky did not drop dead.

[gateley]

27. Pretty sure all that testing, plus the all the testing done subsequently, contributed

mightily to our almost-epidemic of thyroid disorders and cancers.

Do you think radiation is harmless? Would you do the job the workers in the Japan plants are doing?

Just because people are aware of the hazards and feel that exposure isn't harmless does not mean they are "in the end is nigh bracket". Pretty insulting.

[BrookBrew]

29. Nope, not harmless. But all the fish in the ocean will not be

poison next week.. Given the choice between sitting on my ass and letting a plant explode killing my family and putting my life on the line to try and fix the plant, I would risk my life.

People make this call all the time.

Yes testing had an impact, but it is measured. Comparing the released radiation in just the smallest test in nevada to japan would enlighten the fear spreaders.

[gateley]

50. Gotta disagree - all the fish in the ocean will not be poisoned, but far too many

will be affected in a negative way. It's not an innocuous substance, this shit has consequences -- and its effects are cumulative. Add the fish you eat with "acceptable" levels of radiation, with the exposure to our TVs, screens, phones, dental and medical X-rays, and all those 'negligible' levels add up to something that might, just might, hurt you.

I had thyroid cancer. I'm the first person in my family EVER to have had it, my sister-in law has thyroid problems, my brother's boss and two co-workers do, too. Your thyroid seems to be a magnet for radiation. We're all different ages and come from different areas. Oh, one of my best friends is on thyroid medication, too. It's like when you get a new car and you suddenly see everybody driving the same thing? When I found out I had thyroid cancer I discovered I was SURROUNDED by people who had conditions, too. And just try to get an appointment with my endo. I've never researched if it was this widespread before those 'glowing' days in Nevada, but I'm guessing it wasn't.

But by all means, chow down!

[defendandprotect]

55. Nukes are for infallible people -- also helps if they're idiots -- however....

we're now going to be faced with radiation sweeping over the Pacific and over the

USA and onward to the Atlantic and Europe!!!

Meanwhile ....

GERMANY SET TO ABANDON NUCLEAR POWER FOR GOOD -- !!!

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/23-7

[LiberalFighter]

8. YES

On an uninhabited planet in an unknown galaxy.

[Shagbark Hickory]

102. Of course. Simple.

Just shut down the reactors and put up solar panels and wind turbines. These sprawling facilities are vast wide open spaces.

[TheCanadianLiberal]

11. They are safe.

And anyone who says otherwise is clueless. Nuclear is and can be made safe with one of the best designs being the Candu reactor.

We can get rid of the fuel easily by putting it back in the ground where we got it from, another option would be to send it to space. I'm sure uses for it will come along in the future too.


As it is Nuclear reactors are safe when built well. The only in Japan was never designed to stand up to what it did.

[buddysmellgood]

15. The waste is the problem. Once you factor in the cost of dealing with the waste,

it's too expensive.

[neverforget]

16. Shooting it up into space is a good idea

until the rocket fails/explodes/crashes

[Prometheus Bound]

30. "And anyone who says otherwise is clueless."

Count me among the clueless then.

As I follow the news on the most recent nuclear disaster, it just doesn't look as safe as you say.

[defendandprotect]

56. Germany says NO! Germany Set to Abandon Nuclear Power For Good -- !!!

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/23-7

And would you be saying that if you lived in Japan?

:nuke:

[defendandprotect]

81. If what you are saying was true, PRIVATE businesses would be interested ... they're NOT!!!

These things can only be built if taxpayers subsidize them -- and if we

accept responsibility for them!

And, btw, how do we evacuate the tri-state area effected by the plant in upstate

NY - ?

Are the Japanese having no problems with evacuations with most of their roads gone?

Took them more than a week to get "electricity" in to cool the plants!!

[grahamhgreen]

89. Was the Fukushima plant safe? Yes or no, please.

[buddysmellgood]

13. The reactors we have, have a pretty good track record compared to

coal. Modern reactors would be even safer. The waste is another issue and I don't think it can be separated from the issue of how the energy is made. The thing is, no one has built a modern reactor and by the time it could be done, solar, wind, wave etc. will be in charge.

[defendandprotect]

57. Nonsense .. . we have no way of knowing how much radiation they've been spewing ....

how many cancers are enough for America?

Leukemia?

And nuclear waste --

GERMANY SET TO ABANDON NUCLEAR POWER FOR GOOD!!

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/23-7

[buddysmellgood]

72. Don't you think the people who work at the reactors everyday would show

some indication?

[defendandprotect]

79. How do you know they don't -- ?

Plus, I'm sure you know the lessons of our plants in the US making their

exhaust stacks higher -- and the end result being destruction of forests in Canada?

It's always based on corporate lies -- and moving waste off to other places --

like Nevada - and Mt. Yukka --


What did we know about GE and Hanford before that closed?

[WatsonT]

76. We measure radioactive levels

So yeah, we do know.

[BrookBrew]

14. Interesting Pictures

Guess where this is... Nevada. I wonder if everyone in the US dies of cancer in 1950's.. The second is a quarter megaton shot..

?w=450&h=304

[unkachuck]

19. No....

....as long as human beings operate nuclear power plants, accidents, cost cutting, carelessness, poor engineering, Mother Nature and the unexpected will continue to bring forth nuclear catastrophes....

....how big and how many, depends on you....

[diane in sf]

20. No, and it doesn't matter because they are also way more expensive than efficency and wind

and solar will soon be cheaper as well.

[Gregorian]

39. Maybe the Thorium cycle.

It appears to be a slower, more controlled cycle with waste materials that have much smaller half-lifes than the present nuclear cycle we're using.

But I'm thinking it's still playing with fire, and probably not cost effective.

[backscatter712]

46. Thorium is the only way to fly if you're going nuclear.

An LTFR is muuuuuch safer than a conventional reactor, burns its fuel completely so as to leave little waste, in fact, can be used to burn waste from conventional reactors, and can't easily be used to build bombs.

[kristopher]

48. Even IF what you say is true (it isn't) when would you expect we could get NRC approval

for the as yet undesigned reactor? India has bee trying to make it work for about 20 years and claims to be about halfway there.

South Africa threw a ton of money at the PBR and failed in about 15 - 20 years.

Since wind is already less expensive than coal and solar is less than natural gas for peaking power, and since solar is set to decline below the cost of coal by 2020, who the hell is going to buy a dinosaur that costs too much and poisons everyone within 200 miles when it breaks?

[LAGC]

67. President Obama has allocated $800 million towards this technology.

A break-through may be right around the corner. Yet you want to give up on nuclear already? Shame on you.

[kristopher]

69. With nuclear "the breakthrough" has been "right around the corner" for 50 years.

In 2002 they said they would have 5 new reactors built by 2010. They have none.

The said it would be $1500/kw to build, the planned project (financed in large part by TEPCO because merket said no - wonder how that is going to unfold) is coming in at $8000/kw right now ind if history is a guide it will go up even more.

THE SMR is going to require a very long approval process, including, if it is to be mass produced, a controlled and tightly regulated supply chain? Do you have any idea how slow the government moves?

It is AT LEAST 20 years away IF it proves economically and technically viable with no problems along the way.

Renewables will be a done deal by then.

[defendandprotect]

82. Obama: "Oil rigs these days don't spill" ... that was just before BP disaster -- !!!

[grahamhgreen]

88. When they get thorium to work, we can revisit nuclear.

[Zorra]

44. There is a way, yes.

Dismantle all of them and in 10,000 years the radiation in them might no longer be dangerous.

[TheMadMonk]

47. 100% safe? No of course not. Many, many times safer...

...than the coal from which we currently obtain the lions share of our electricity? It has never been anything but safer in terms of both worker and civilian casualties. Statistically, not even one full Chernobly per year brings Nuclear close to parity with Coal, without using the figures put forward by the anti-nuke lobby themselves. Even then, parity is only just barely achieved.

Throw in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? See if that can't skew the anti-nuke figures far enough to make it look properly unsafe? Um, in less than 10 years Coal is back out in front and streaking ahead.


This (Fukushima) event? If it's final death toll surpasses that of this year's worst coal mining accident I will be be most surprised.


Can we build reactors which make an event as severe as Fukushima effectively impossible? Yes there are several possible avenues to limiting the worst possible accidents (absent an external force blowing the reactor to kingdom come) to catagory 5 or below.

• Liquid fueled thorium reactors can in theory operate entirely without any external intervention (ie control rods, etc.) The thoriun cycle also produces waste products which are much shorter lived than those of either uranium or plutonium and in considerably smaller quantites to boot.
  
• Free neutron beam reactors would never contain enough fuel to cause a problem capable of escaping the physical confines of the fuel assembly.
  
• There is nothing wrong with the pebble bed design/concept. The major problem there is fabricating the fuel pebbles to sufficiently close tollerances. I suspect this problem could be solved by handing it to the semiconductor industry.
  
• We could put the reactors at the bottom of 100m deep reinforced shafts with provision for flooding that shaft in an extreme emergency.
  
• It is well within our engineering capabilities to float entire reactor complexes in liquid and isolate them from earthquakes entirely, if we felt it truly necessary.
  
• We could scale back and limit maximum reactor power to 50-100 MW per unit. Which would make it possible to build structures capable of withstanding and containing even a full excursion event internally and withstanding anything short of a direct hit with a nuke externally.

"We" the public could also get to grips with the huge difference between irradiation and radioactic contamination. If people had properly understood that critical difference, The power plant operators could have begun venting steam the moment they were able to get any external water supply at all connected. Able to vent steam at will, they would have had far more control over reactor core temperatures, limiting damage to those cores. Without that damage, venting operations would not be carrying tiny bits and pieces of broken reactor core into the environment as is happening now. As a result of attempting to avoid irradiation early in the crisis, we now have considerable widespread contamination to deal with AND a crisis far more severe than it need have been.

[defendandprotect]

58. False choices ... it's not nukes or coal -- it's GREEN alternative energy ... solar/wind ....

GERMANY SET TO ABANDON NUCLEAR POWER FOR GOOD -- !!

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/23-7

[WatsonT]

74. No they aren't

they're talking about not using it to produce electricity domestically.

They're still going to import electricity from nuclear plants in France.

That is simply NIMBY in action.

"We oppose nuclear power . . . here, but it's fine in your country"

[TheMadMonk]

112. I answered the question which was asked: "Can it be made safe?"

And right now, like it or lump it, the single biggest energy source for generating electricity is coal. Thus it is the obvious baseline for comparison.


I actually happen to like most of the "green alternatives" on offer. Will be adding solar to the house myself as soon as I put a new roof on. And I certainly believe each will have to play it's part if we're to mittigate (and eventually reverse) Global Climate Change.

However, the material I see here which claims to demonstrate how a 100% "renewable" energy ecconomy can be achieved in "no time flat" seems to have a number of fatal flaws. It assumes an enormous degree of cooperation between multiple parties with oftimes conflicting desires/goals and it presumes sufficient synergy amongst the various parts to compensate for the shortcomings of individual technologies. I also suspect such a broadly distributed system would be enormously vulnerable to malfeasance.


All the complexity of operating a nuclear reactor and more, run by a bloody committee? Yeah nothing could possibly go wrong there.


The nuclear reactor operations manual at least does us the justice of assuming we're all lazy, self serving, gits seeking instant gratification and sets out the procedures which prevent those sterling qualities from interfering in day to day operations.

[defendandprotect]

52. No --!! ... and Germany Now Set To Abandon Nuclear Power For Good -- !!!

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/23-7

[Lionel Mandrake]

60. German policy is more complicated than that.

Nuclear power won't disappear from Germany any time soon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556830/Germany-to-stay-nuclear-in-Merkel-U-turn.html

[defendandprotect]

61. Germany is ACCELERATING it's transition from nuke to renewable energy ...

Nuclear reactors have not been popular in Germany -- especially after Chernobyl!!


The transition was supposed to happen slowly over the next 25 years, but is now being accelerated in the wake of Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant disaster, which Chancellor Angela Merkel has called a "catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions."

Berlin's decision to take seven of its 17 reactors offline for three months for new safety checks has provided a glimpse into how Germany might wean itself from getting nearly a quarter of its power from atomic energy to none.

In Germany, the producers of renewable energy - be it solar panels on a homeowner's rooftop or a farm of wind mills - are paid above-market prices to make sure their investment breaks even, financed by a 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour tax paid by all electricity customers.

[suffragette]

63. I saw speculation that Merkel took this stance to try to better

her party's position in the election in Baden-Württemberg.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,751044,00.html

Looks like it didn't work, so maybe that's part of why she's ditching it early:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110322-710355.html

But note, it's the Greens who are gaining.

And in Germany, they have people who have pushed through initiatives such as the one below that change the equation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x653404#653704
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x653404#653948

[defendandprotect]

83. Thanks for the links -- "archived" and I've never seen them--!!!

Somewhere in the linked OP -- it discusses our waiting for energy industry to give us

green alternatives!

I don't think so -- I think we've been looking to government to get corporations to stop

SUPPRESSING development of alternative energy!!

And, as mentioned in another post quoting Japanese member Kono ... if I recall correctly -- ?

suppressing development of alternative energy, and keeping information from Diet members and the public. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the current election campaign law. End Summary.


And of course we've had the same happening here in America -- remember Cheney?

And Iraqi oil being divvied up -- pre Iraq war??

[suffragette]

94. Agree on the suppressing

and as I noted in the thread I linked even the positive aspects such as producing more energy that had been anticipated in much shorter timeframe were treated as a negative rather than a positive.
That certainly came out in the article about the Pacific NW wind power.

On the post about Kono, I think you're referring to this info from Wikileaks:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x653404#658652

And, yep, same thing.

[Lionel Mandrake]

104. Merkel is a clever politician.

I think she plans to revert to her pro-nuclear stance once the furor over the Japanese disaster has died down.

[suffragette]

111. Sadly, I agree with your assessment of this

Once that spotlight turns elsewhere, it's back to how it was there.
Much as has happened in the Gulf here with all the recent drilling permits.

[kristopher]

70. It isn't any longer. It's been simplified - nuclear is toast.

[BrookBrew]

109. Sound and Fury devoid of reality.

plants in the US are continuing construction (3) only real impediment is the cost of burning NG. Cheaper of course to dump CO into the air.

[Zoeisright]

62. NO.

Anybody who thinks otherwise can go live near one. If you think they're safe, pony up or shut up.

[jtuck004]

68. Yes. We build the tomb first, then put the reactor inside.

Be able to run in virtually any condition that doesn't blow up the moutain (you have to set a limit) and it needs to be able to fuel and offload fuel into storage with no power. And no possibility of a radioactive discharge, so you have to build monster capacity into the ground with it.

But yes we could. And cheaper than irradiating a quarter a small country every 25 years, unless people are counted at very low value.

[ProudDad]

73. NO... (n/t)

[grahamhgreen]

77. No. They built the Diablo canyon reactor with the earthquake supports

BACKWARDS!

From the mining, to the cooling water killing fish, to the leaks, and the waste that lasts for tens of thousands of years, even if they build them properly, they are not safe.

Maybe when they get thorium working we can reconsider.

Right now, they need to be banned and mothballed. Replaced with wind, solar, tidal, hydro, and wave.

We can do it. All we need to do is to stop believing their propaganda.

[defendandprotect]

84. BACKWARDS? Were they able to correct it -- ?

Whatever the earthquake estimations -- as we see in Japan where the reactors were

built to withstand a 7 -- seismic activity is increasing due to Global Warming --

earthquakes will continue to happen more often and be more severe.

This earthquake in Japan was a 9 -- with more than 300 aftershocks -- still in high

ranges - 8, 6, 4 --

And what of Tsunami? Fortunately, this time it seems to have simply "washed" over

the storage areas -- but looks like had it hit differently it would have take all

ten of the reactors out????

[grahamhgreen]

86. No, not really..... but they still approved the plant! (link)

"The company updated its plans and added structural supports designed to reinforce stability in case of earthquake. In September 1981, PG&E discovered that a single set of blueprints was used for these structural supports; workers were supposed to have reversed the plans when switching to the second reactor, but did not.<6> Nonetheless, on March 19, 1982 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decided not to review its 1978 decision approving the plant's safety, despite these and other design errors.<7>"

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


A true WTF!

[defendandprotect]

95. Hard to believe ... but true!

[spanone]

87. not as long as humans run them. we cheat. you can't cheat with nuclear. you die.

[BrookBrew]

97. How many dead in japan from nukes? less than 10,000(nt?)

[grahamhgreen]

106. We won't know for the next 240,000 years.

[BrookBrew]

108. Yeah. god help downwind SOCAL from Nevada where we detonated 1MT bombs

in the open air. I bet that the results of this incident are statistically less than that event...

just a guess.

[grahamhgreen]

113. I would think you are right, but the event is still ongoing...

[Lionel Mandrake]

114. That's about 10 half-lives of Pu-239.

Pu-239 is a fissionable isotope of plutonium. After 240,000 years only a tenth of a percent of the original Pu-239 will remain. But U-235 (into which Pu-239 decays) has a half-life of 700 million years, so most of it will still be around.

The dominant uranium isotope, U-238, has a half-life close to the age of the earth. Any U-238 that was present will still be there after 240,000 years.

What makes spent fuel rods so radioactive is neither plutonium nor uranium, but relatively short-lived fission products. After a mere 10,000 years, most of those will be gone. ;-)

[Taverner]

107. We will never know