Nuclear Plants - Environmental issues/jobs controversy

[rc_riddle]

Going back a little to the coal fired energy which powers us to turn on the lights, I read a piece of grafitti on my local,(Wakefield) electrical distribution centre, which said ,'Shut Drax!'
I wonder how these pratts would have reacted if Drax powerstation had suddenly shut down and they could not turn on the lights or watch they're 'victory' on TV

[Mad Koala Bear]

The chimney at Drax was built as high as it is because it was cheaper to put the pollutants 'out of harms way' as the thinking went in those days, than to make the effort to clense the effluent.

[2cheap]

The biggest problem with getting Nuke Plants accepted by the public is that the media and activists have managed to keep the folks ignorant of new reactor designs and safety features.

For example, there is the pebble bed reactor:
http://www.pbmr.co.za/
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

I wouldn't have known they existed by reading newspapers and magazines like Scientific American.
I only discovered they really exist after reading a Science Fiction series (Legacy of the Aldenata by John Ringo)

[Jeff Vader]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

We are led to believe that the risk of a catastrophic nuclear disaster, equivalent to Chernobyl, is extremely low. But the consequences of such an incident are extremely bad, and this tends to get downplayed by proponents of nuclear power. Here are a couple of things to reflect upon.

There is still an excusion zone, a circle around the nuclear plant with a radius of 30kms, where Ukraine and Belarus prohibit human settlement or activity. Applying simple mathematical theorems, the land area of this zone is 3.14x30kmx30km=2826 square kilometres. Just how badly the contamination has polluted the environment is not clear. A hard core of people still live there in defiance of the law and the authorities have given up trying to get rid of them, merely warning them they disobey the rules at their own risk. Wildlife has flourished with the end of organisied human society in the zone, but some species, especially birds which feed on insects and worms from the contaminated soil, appear to have declined severely there.

The lead contaminant was Caesium137 apparently. The theoretical half life is 30 years. Every thirty years the contamination should be half as severe as it was 30 years ago. But the soil contamination isn't reducing anything like as fast as this. There are predictions that the ''ecological half life'' will not expire for 180 to 320 years. See this link:http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...hernobyl-soil/

Bear in mind the Chernobyl reactor did not melt down, thanks to the self sacrifice of Ukrainian fire fighters who went into the reactor to put out the fire, knowing they would definitely die from radiation exposure. A melt down would have been worse, how much worse I do not know.

I don't think I want to take this risk.

I reckon that it is possible to make a nuclear-powered electricity station that is almost foolproof.

I say almost foolproof as the depths of human stupidity haven't yet been reached and to make it that safe might mean that the electricity coming from it is expensive relative to that produced by oil/gas/coal fired power stations.

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

This has a lot of technical stuff for a layperson, but basically people acted beyond their remit and expertise (the designer wasn't consulted) and also didn't ask for permission - the scientific manager wasn't consulted either. There were flaws with the design, the test could/should have been stopped, operating procedures were poor, some operators were unaware of possible consequences of what they were doing.... all these contributed to the overall disaster.

The twisted irony of it all was that the test was for a SCRAM - a rapid reactor shut-down that went wrong. The accident has led to improvements in safety and design, but no matter how good and safe the reactors are made there is one problem we haven't solved yet - what to do with the waste.

Until we come up with a solution more advanced than trying to hide an elephant under the front door mat I'm going to stick to energy conservation and things like wind, wave and solar which at least are renewable.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Jeff Vader

I reckon that it is possible to make a nuclear-powered electricity station that is almost foolproof.

I say almost foolproof as the depths of human stupidity haven't yet been reached and to make it that safe might mean that the electricity coming from it is expensive relative to that produced by oil/gas/coal fired power stations.

I am sure the state of the art has moved on since they built Chernobyl in the 1970s.

As far as I remember though, the Great and Good were telling everyone then that the reactors were very safe and we needn't worry. They weren't saying, ''actually, the designs are really crap just now, we're employing ignorant lowlifes to build them, the sort who'll take a pee into the reactor core casing concrete while its still setting, just to create serious hazards decades later, more ignorant lowlife morons who'll pour radioactive waste into holes in the ground where it'll get into the drinking water supply...But its OK. Forty years from now, we're planning to bring in much better reactor designs and employ much better people to run the show, it'll all be fine then.''

I totally discount and ignore any reassurances offered by people attached to the nuclear industry. My opinion is that they have forfeited their credibility due to decades of persistent false promises and reassurances, so I filter out their reassuring words today like white noise.

[Jeff Vader]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I am sure the state of the art has moved on since they built Chernobyl in the 1970s.

As far as I remember though, the Great and Good were telling everyone then that the reactors were very safe and we needn't worry. They weren't saying, ''actually, the designs are really crap just now, we're employing ignorant lowlifes to build them, the sort who'll take a pee into the reactor core casing concrete while its still setting, just to create serious hazards decades later, more ignorant lowlife morons who'll pour radioactive waste into holes in the ground where it'll get into the drinking water supply...But its OK. Forty years from now, we're planning to bring in much better reactor designs and employ much better people to run the show, it'll all be fine then.''

I totally discount and ignore any reassurances offered by people attached to the nuclear industry. My opinion is that they have forfeited their credibility due to decades of persistent false promises and reassurances, so I filter out their reassuring words today like white noise.

But aren't the mushroom clouds so pretty ? And when everything glows in the dark we can do away with street lighting - thus saving even more energy.

I remember reading a line in something a long time ago, I think it was a spoof on nuclear power and after a particularly disastrous accident the spokesman said - The fact that we can have an accident like is this is proof of just how safe the technology is.

[gwminge]

I used to work at a nuclear panderplant

[danton]

Scientist and conservationist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia Hypothesis (the earth is one large organism which self corrects) says he would have a lump of uranium in his garden.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were inherently critical designs which would not have been built here. The U.K.'s Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor's were expensive to build and less powerful than (chiefly U.S. designed) Pressurised Water Reactor's but much, much, safer. TMI was a PWR.

Arguments against nuclear power were predicated very largely on safety and the danger of nuclear weapon proliferation. Thanks to A.Q. Khan we now have had the proliferation without having had to lift a finger. Meanwhile, we closed the coal mines, we import oil and gas from questionable countries and have too little domestic energy generation to counter any 'disruption of supply'.

Wind turbines are wrecking the landscape of the wilder parts of the U.K. in ways which would have had Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth setting fire to themselves outside Parliament were if not for the fact they are acting as cheerleaders for this 'rape of the countryside'. I once used to opine that if the U.K. were covered in wind turbines we might produce enough electricity to run a chocolate factory; however, since Kraft have snaffled those jobs I suspect it may be now just enough to run the nation's traffic lights.

[IronMan]

Nuclear energy is probably the best source of energy in the long term but so many people have no clue about how it works, they just buy into the whole idea that a reactor can blow up like a bomb, which is total BS. My dad worked at the Hanford site for over 30 years starting back in the mid 70's. I grew up there and we didn't have four eyed fish swimming in the water or a plethora of birth defects. In fact the vitrification program could have begun as far back as the 70's if it weren't for bureaucrats and ignorant fools like Jimmy Carter creating this fear in the minds of the public.

[Kobalt]

Some of the Problems with nuclear power:

Mining: In Australia miner have to work under bad conditions. Big lakes of poison are created. Ground water table drop.
Search for "Uranium - is it a country". Interesting and free movie.

Transport: Risk of accidents and theft.

Conditioning: Creation of big amounts of waste. Polluting of the environment (In Europe they pump liquid nuclear waste directly into the sea).

Power plants: Risk of meltdown (maybe low risk but extreme damage). Loss of small amounts of radiant material even under normal operation. Risk of terroristic attacks (Like plane crashes). Creation of big radiating plants that have to be dismantled sometimes (extreme expensive). Very expensive to operate (Normally only possible when supported by the government). Running out of fuel.

Final disposal: at the moment no secure storage facility exist on this planet where nuclear waste can be stored for the needed time. Again risk of theft, pollution and terroristic attacks.


Why we have to decide between nuclear and coal plants? Are there no other options?