Is the building of new nuculer power plants a good idea.

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Good to hear. We had an operating nuclear reactor at university and it didn't hurt me.

School (snort)! I used to take mine apart. I worked with it, and loved it, and even watched them put it together and helped deliver the baby.

You can optimize security of power plants like you can optimize security of ships, air planes and cars. But with nuclear fission principle there is a risk in the end.

Define "risk". Again, you have to study the various types of reactors. There was a moderate risk of contaimination and damage with the old type reactors due to a terrorist threat, very much most of that coming from keeping the radioactive waste on site in facilities not designed for long term storage. The chance of a towelhead peircing all containment levels and dispersing contamination from the core to the environment has always been very slim.

With the lower peak power densities of modern reactors, the resultant lower peak core temperature, and moder techniques of moderation, the risk to the public from any towelhead event is practically nil.

I know, there are benefits, but German governments decided not to build new nuclear power plants since Chernobyl accident, no matter, what design. There are remaining terms for nuclear power plants which are still in operation. Maybe a future government changes it's mind, when oil becomes more expensive, but at the moment, there are decisions and laws and they have been there for the last 25 years.

Oh, so the German government wet their pant, pulled their heads down inside to take a look like any good turtle, and haven't come out since. What you're saying is that the German government is ignorant and desires to remain so. That's a shame. Germany used to by an innovative and respected leader in the field of engineering and science.

And please, recall that while I'm seriously sneering at Germany, I sneer at all countries whose leadership has left their balls and their brains back in the clubhouse. The US has been following the political lead of a bimbo actress and our energy policies are being set because she starred in a movie about a broken reactor. "Hanoi" Jane Fondle and "The China Syndrome". The Left in the US is clearly the most pathetic bunch of people in the world, without exception. In fact, I'd be glad to match our Left against anyone's. I'm sure ours will find the saltpeter at the bottom of the manure pile.

All I can say to you, sir, is to ignore your government, study the issues, and understand the practical aspects. The highest priority of the nuclear power industry is safety. No one wants a broken reactor, least of all the people who paid for it and who're responsible for paying off the damages in case of an accident.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The Chernobyl Hysteria:

BBC News - 15,000 dead

About 15,000 people were killed and 50,000 left handicapped in the emergency clean-up after the Chernobyl nuclear accident, according to a group representing those who worked in the relief operations.

The number of invalids caused by the radiation has multiplied twelvefold since 1991, says Viacheslav Grishin, president of the Chernobyl League.

UIC - 28 dead immediately, a few more later
The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel and without proper regard for safety.
The resulting steam explosion and fire released at least five percent of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind.
28 people died within four months from radiation or thermal burns, 19 have subsequently died, and there have been around nine deaths from thyroid cancer apparently due to the accident: total 56 fatalities as of 2004.
An authoritative UN report in 2000 concluded that there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to most people exposed. This was confirmed in a very thorough 2005 study

How's 300,000 to 400,000 grab ya? The bidding war continues, obviously.

This kind of hysteria is successful because people are too lazy to understand the facts for themselves. Similar tales were told after Three Mile Island. No one was injured during or after TMI, no one was killed.

Personally, the direct count of 30 or so killed in the explosions themselves is probably accurate. I have to question any assertion that no one was killed in the downwind plume of contamination. Mikhail Gorbachev refused to tell the world that anything was wrong. He lied about it, in fact, and it's only plausible that the odd peasant downwind would be sacrificed to preserve the image of the Communist idyll.

 

[Volker]

Define "risk".

Risk is the product of probability of an accident per events per time period and the consequence in deaths or lost money per event (I borrowed it from wikipedia).

Again, you have to study the various types of reactors. There was a moderate risk of contaimination and damage with the old type reactors due to a terrorist threat, very much most of that coming from keeping the radioactive waste on site in facilities not designed for long term storage. The chance of a towelhead peircing all containment levels and dispersing contamination from the core to the environment has always been very slim.

And how about the chances of corruption, deceit or angry employees?

What you're saying is that the German government is ignorant and desires to remain so.

No, this is what you're saying.

This is what other governments think about nuclear power phase-out.

It was introduced in Sweden (1980), in Italy (1987), in Belgium (1999), and in Germany (2000) and has been discussed in several other European countries. Austria, the Netherlands, and Spain have enacted laws not to build new nuclear power stations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out

This is what German population think according to a poll from last year by a conservative newspaper.
http://www.welt.de/data/2005/08/02/754178.html

It says, 75 % are pro nuclear power phase-out, 13 % would keep the old nuclear power plants without time limits, 11 % would like to have new power plants.

Oh, yes, Jane Fonda is pretty good.

All I can say to you, sir, is to ignore your government, study the issues, and understand the practical aspects. The highest priority of the nuclear power industry is safety. No one wants a broken reactor, least of all the people who paid for it and who're responsible for paying off the damages in case of an accident.

No one wants to have a refinery burning, which he owns, but it happened before. They have a lot of safety facilities there and refinery technology is well-known to mankind for a longer time.

 

[Blind man]

The nuclear power industry has been stalled for 20 years by the ecolooneys and other obstructionists.

While i somewhat agree that the eco crowd can be quite looney, and shouldn't be the only factor in deciding whether or not to persue these technologies; what most people don't realize is they are really the only ones that actually give a damn anymore. The investors in the power plant don't give a damn, the government hardly gives a damn, so your left with the "looneys" being the only voice for the environment. Wanna change this? Figure out some method of making government and big business act ethically and responsibly without having to be pressured by groups like these, but good luck with that.

 

[tecoyah]

Technology has changed....and will continue to do so. Next generation plants are the only viable step for the immediate future in my opinion, and well worth the investment.

"Today there are 441 nuclear power reactors in operation in 31 countries around the world. Generating electricity for nearly 1 billion people, they account for approximately 17 percent of worldwide electricity generation and provide half or more of the electricity in a number of industrialized countries. Another 32 are presently under construction overseas. Nuclear power has an excellent operating record and generates electricity in a reliable, environmentally safe, and affordable manner without emitting noxious gases into the atmosphere."

http://gen-iv.ne.doe.gov/

 

[Volker]

Technology has changed....and will continue to do so. Next generation plants are the only viable step for the immediate future in my opinion, and well worth the investment.

"Today there are 441 nuclear power reactors in operation in 31 countries around the world. Generating electricity for nearly 1 billion people, they account for approximately 17 percent of worldwide electricity generation and provide half or more of the electricity in a number of industrialized countries. Another 32 are presently under construction overseas. Nuclear power has an excellent operating record and generates electricity in a reliable, environmentally safe, and affordable manner without emitting noxious gases into the atmosphere."

http://gen-iv.ne.doe.gov/

Yes, ok, Mr. Putin revealed plans today, that Russia will help China to buid 27 nuclear reactors until 2030. Russia itself will build 40 reactors until 2030 for Russian needs. It's ok for me.

In your diagram, I see, Generation IV starting 2003 will have safety enhancements.
Looks like, there is still room for safety enhancements.

 

[tecoyah]

Looks like, there is still room for safety enhancements.

And there always will be....the nature of the beast.

 

[Volker]

And there always will be....the nature of the beast.

Yes, ok, this is true for every way to win electrical energy.
According to Japanese study the risk of fission is relatively high compared to other ways. Fusion is not perfect, but much better. I talk about the diagram at page 23.

http://www.nifs.ac.jp/itc/itc12/Okano.pdf

 

[The Mark]

As far as I know, nuclear power plant designs are safer today then they were at the time of the various disasters.

Chernobyl, for one, was a design that was slightly flawed, and the plant operators made mistakes.

Today, with more automation, stricter safety rules, better plant designs, etc. etc...... It would seem that a new plant would be even safer than one of the current plants....which are still in operation today.

So I very much think that there should be new nuclear plants constructed.

Maybe even to replace some of the older designs.

But there is still the problem of the nuclear waste from those plants.

Newer plants can be built to lessen the ammount of nuclear waste generated, but there would still be some.

As far as I know, there are various plans for burying the nuclear waste, but I still think my idea earlier in this thread has some merit.

Launch the waste in a rocket aimed at the sun.:mrgreen: That would get rid of it permently, and any radioactive stuff that came back would be mixed in with the stuff naturally coming from the sun, which is for the most part kept at bay by various natural defenses such as the earth's magnetic field and the atomsphere.

Of course, as Volker so kindly pointed out, the rocket could blow up on the launch pad.

Although this, as with nuclear plant diseasters, is less likely than a few decades ago, it still is a possiblity. So it would seem that you would need to protect the container containing the nuculer waste from such a problem.

Of course, it would be a bit expensive to launch all the nuclear waste into space.:mrgreen:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Risk is the product of probability of an accident per events per time period and the consequence in deaths or lost money per event (I borrowed it from wikipedia).

Actually, I was hoping for a number, and if I was really lucky, it would be compared with the probability of any individual citizen getting hit by a bus, or struck by lightning, or suffocating in a gas chamber.

And how about the chances of corruption, deceit or angry employees?

And how about those low power density reactors that ameliorate the risk from such predictable problems?

Start talking about the technical aspects of the problem, dude.

No, this is what you're saying.

That's only because I don't beat around the bush.

This is what other governments think about nuclear power phase-out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out

This is what German population think according to a poll from last year by a conservative newspaper.
http://www.welt.de/data/2005/08/02/754178.html

It says, 75 % are pro nuclear power phase-out, 13 % would keep the old nuclear power plants without time limits, 11 % would like to have new power plants.

Well, they ARE europeans, after all. I probably shouldn't have expected any different. After all, the governments of those countries do represent the people.

Oh, yes, Jane Fonda is pretty good.

Yeah, she even starred in a movie where she had sex with the character played by her father. She wished she could shoot down US bombers flying over Hanoi, while she was sitting at an anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi, and over-all she's been a totally typical liberal socialist married to a socialist capitalist.

No one wants to have a refinery burning, which he owns, but it happened before. They have a lot of safety facilities there and refinery technology is well-known to mankind for a longer time.

Yeah, accidents do happen. That's why one should invest in modern high-tech nuclear facilities that reduce not only the risk of accidents but the consequences.

But it's good to see Europe demanding an increased dependence on towelhead oil. I can foresee all sorts of benefits to the US if we have the sense to go nuclear and Europe doesn't.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Chernobyl, for one, was a design that was slightly flawed, and the plant operators made mistakes.

SLIGHTLY? The cheap bastards didn't have a secondary containment system, that's how the mess got scattered all over central europe.

But there is still the problem of the nuclear waste from those plants.

Not a problem at all. I already adressed that issue.

Launch the waste in a rocket aimed at the sun.:mrgreen: That would get rid of it permently, and any radioactive stuff that came back would be mixed in with the stuff naturally coming from the sun, which is for the most part kept at bay by various natural defenses such as the earth's magnetic field and the atomsphere.

That's lunacy. I build spacecraft, and launch failures, sometimes really pretty ones, are a fact of life. Not to mention the costs involved. Building rockets to lift those kinds of payloads would cost amazing amounts of money.

Although this, as with nuclear plant diseasters, is less likely than a few decades ago, it still is a possiblity.

The word is "probability", almost a guaranteed certainty.

So it would seem that you would need to protect the container containing the nuculer waste from such a problem.

Making the container to survive a catastrophic launch failure isn't impossible, but how economical is it to build a 3000 lb container to safely carry 500 lbs of crap, and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to launch one payload?

Hey, I work in the spacecraft industry. If you can convince the government to give me a such job opportunities, I should thank you, no matter how silly the idea might be.

 

[alphamale]

The number of plant deaths from nuclear plant operation is a very tiny miniscule fraction of the people who die in coal mines and the deaths from air pollution from oil-fired and coal-fired energy generation.

 

[Volker]

She wished she could shoot down US bombers flying over Hanoi, while she was sitting at an anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi, and over-all she's been a totally typical liberal socialist married to a socialist capitalist.

It's just a feeling, but somehow I'm starting to get an impression, you don't like her.

Yeah, accidents do happen. That's why one should invest in modern high-tech nuclear facilities that reduce not only the risk of accidents but the consequences.

If one decides to build new nuclear power plants, then they should be designed this way.

But it's good to see Europe demanding an increased dependence on towelhead oil. I can foresee all sorts of benefits to the US if we have the sense to go nuclear and Europe doesn't.

I'm not sure about Europe, but Germany gets most of the oil from Russia. The number 2 supplier is Great Britain with Norway being number 3 and Libyia being number 4. France produces around 80 % of the electrical energy with nuclear power plants. Russia can give us energy, too. We have a power supply lines network crossing Germany reaching to Siberia and Portugal. As long as we can afford the money, it doesn't look so bad for us.

 

[earthworm]

Not near me, please. You can have as many nuclear plants as you like in America.
I hope, they are safe.

It is this selfish attitude that hurts our energy development and our nation.

Possibly the small country of France has more plants than we; every one is in some man's back yard.
And "safe this, safe that"; there is far too much consideration on "safe", and little on economics and national well-being !
America must move on into the 21st century and shred its ignorance and fear !

 

[The Mark]

SLIGHTLY? The cheap bastards didn't have a secondary containment system, that's how the mess got scattered all over central Europe.

Indeed. I was being a bit sarcastic when I said slightly. Heh.

Not a problem at all. I already addressed that issue.

With the underground storage idea. A very good idea, but I'm sure someone will have a problem. Someone always does.

That's lunacy. I build spacecraft, and launch failures, sometimes really pretty ones, are a fact of life. Not to mention the costs involved. Building rockets to lift those kinds of payloads would cost amazing amounts of money

Making the container to survive a catastrophic launch failure isn't impossible, but how economical is it to build a 3000 lb container to safely carry 500 lbs of crap, and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to launch one payload?

Hey, I work in the spacecraft industry. If you can convince the government to give me a such job opportunities, I should thank you, no matter how silly the idea might be.

Oh. :doh I don't have your knowledge, so I’ll agree with you. You are probably right.

My idea was a bit wild, but if you ever have nuclear waste in space, you know where to put it.

I must admit that I presented this idea knowing that it was not very (if at all) feasible. Thus the :mrgreen: markings.

The word is "probability", almost a guaranteed certainty.

Again, oh. I'm probably a bit misguided by the fact that there is more attention focused on launch successes than on failures. Understandably.

 

[Stinger]

The one that bothers me the most is how they will despose of the radioactive waste from the plant.

Yucca Mountain until we unlock fusion.

 

[stsburns]

Other, Yes but ONLY if they reuse the rods instead of disposing them and making some place radioactive.

 

[The Mark]

Other, Yes but ONLY if they reuse the rods instead of disposing them and making some place radioactive.

As far as I know, even with this idea (which I think is part of some new plant designs), there will still be some radioactive waste----though not as much.

From what I've seen, most if not all new plant construction would result in better nuclear plants across the board. Safer, less waste generated, more defenses against the extremely slight chance of a meltdown or such, etc.

 

[Volker]

It is this selfish attitude that hurts our energy development and our nation.

Possibly the small country of France has more plants than we; every one is in some man's back yard.
And "safe this, safe that"; there is far too much consideration on "safe", and little on economics and national well-being !
America must move on into the 21st century and shred its ignorance and fear !

Yes, it is somehow selfish to not want to live beside a nuclear power plant.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

I've been living within 12 miles of a nuke plant my entire life. I have several relatives that work there. Never once considered it a problem or had a concern.

Your irrational fear of nuke plants is based in ignorance.

What about the FACT that Nuke Plants use/generate radio active
materials. And just because the ship it deep into the Nevada
ground does not make it disappear.

Look we can make more Nukes and have cheaper energy "NOW"
but we will have to deal with the radio active by products(Spent Rods)
sooner or later!

So why don't we just bite the bullet and Ramp up a "Clean Energy"
industry in the U.S.?

If we started investing in Solar, Wind, Hydrogen and other clean energies
we could/would be world leaders! Because all countries will be forced to
use clean energy sooner or later! Look at China, India, and even Japan

And I know having a viable "Clean Energy" industry will not happen overnight.
And we should not expect it to! i.e. we don't expect the Cars of the 1920's
to be like the cars of today!

 

[Kandahar]

Yes, it is somehow selfish to not want to live beside a nuclear power plant.

You're damn right it is. It's selfish because you're perfectly willing to endure massive amounts of pollution from oil and propagate a violent oil-centric foreign policy, all because you have irrational fears of the nuclear bogeyman.

 

[earthworm]

The people of Europe are the same as us, can easily be led around by fear and are of the herd mentality...

I wonder what reason they give specifically for their new found fear of nuclear ??
Chernobyl ?
They must be smarter than that

Our fear (one of them) was the disposal of spent rods, that no longer seems to be a problem...
So, lets get going !

 

[Kandahar]

What about the FACT that Nuke Plants use/generate radio active
materials. And just because the ship it deep into the Nevada
ground does not make it disappear.

Actually it DOES make it disappear. Why else would we do it, if it didn't? As for the generation of radioactive materials, I suggest you look at the number of deaths caused by nuclear accidents. That's certainly an acceptable risk for the enormous benefit of no longer being dependent on oil.

Look we can make more Nukes and have cheaper energy "NOW"
but we will have to deal with the radio active by products(Spent Rods)
sooner or later!

If by later, you mean in thousands of years, that's probably true. What's your point?

So why don't we just bite the bullet and Ramp up a "Clean Energy"
industry in the U.S.?

Nuclear power IS clean energy. It generates absolutely no pollution.

If we started investing in Solar, Wind, Hydrogen and other clean energies
we could/would be world leaders! Because all countries will be forced to
use clean energy sooner or later! Look at China, India, and even Japan

There's no reason that we can't invest in those things while also investing in nuclear power. No single source of energy is the answer. Nuclear energy, however, does have the promise of becoming the most economically feasible of those alternatives to oil, and in the shortest amount of time.

And I know having a viable "Clean Energy" industry will not happen overnight.
And we should not expect it to! i.e. we don't expect the Cars of the 1920's
to be like the cars of today!

Unlike the technology for advanced solar, wind, and hydrogen power, the technology to build economically feasible nuclear power plants exists today. If we wanted to, we could get started on them now and be free of oil in a very short time.

While you may demagogue the issue and hold out for a different technology that you perceive as being safer, all you're doing is propagating our oil dependence because you're unwilling to settle for a 99% acceptable solution in the meantime.

This is not an issue that reasonable people can disagree on; people who oppose nuclear power are simply being unreasonable. Opposition to nuclear power is based entirely on anti-scientific hysteria. Period.

 

[Volker]

You're damn right it is. It's selfish because you're perfectly willing to endure massive amounts of pollution from oil and propagate a violent oil-centric foreign policy, all because you have irrational fears of the nuclear bogeyman.

I don't propagate a violant oil-centric foreign policy, this is where you start becoming irrational.

 

[Volker]

The people of Europe are the same as us, can easily be led around by fear and are of the herd mentality...

I wonder what reason they give specifically for their new found fear of nuclear ??
Chernobyl ?
They must be smarter than that

Our fear (one of them) was the disposal of spent rods, that no longer seems to be a problem...
So, lets get going !

Yes, for Germany Chernobyl was the reason to stop building nuclear power plants. One of them was almost ready for operation, but it was stopped, when the Chernobyl accident happened. They sold it to China later.

The disposal of spent rods is still a problem. The energy industry and the government are looking for place and it looks like Gorleben will be this place, but so far it is still a problem.