Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: moot on March 12, 2011, 07:00:00 AM
-
Off shoot from the Japanese quakes/nuke trouble thread.
I'll start with this : Nuke has a bad rap as being "not worth the risk". As E.G. GhostFT argues:
warhed you sound to have a good knowledge about nuclear power (i like to read it btw.)
but in all respect for me the risk is not worth, thats why i dont support nuclear power.
A demonstartion startet earlier at a german nuclear power plant, maybe this event will
show the danger, because there is no 100% guarantee. Me & my family dont need that.
But can GhostFT and others anti-nuke quantify this comparison between nuclear and other power sources like coal?
A study by Harvard University found about 100,000 cases of premature death annually due to exposure to pollution, and tens of millions of cases of asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, casualty ward admissions and various other ills. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/11/1097406506445.html)
Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year, including 2,800 from lung cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study released Wednesday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/
... Chernobyl: about 50 dead and a few thousand badly affected.
Nuclear could take coal's place faster than solar or wind. Waiting for solar/wind would mean .. something like millions of deaths more due to coal.
-
i just dont want Tschernobyl or Fukushima at my door. Everything else is natural and
we do have to live with it, like the natural radiation.
I have no problem to live beside a coal or gas or wind power plant.
Sorry, but the debate is over for me ;)
-
You never do debate.
You'd rather have millions insidiously slowly dead than orders of magnitude less quickly killed casualties.
More radiation from coal than nukes (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html)
Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article.
Also there are alternatives to classic nuclear, e.g. Thorium.
Also completely ignores secondaries like global warming. What is the ecological cost of coal versus nuclear? All because no one takes the time to actually dig up the facts & figures.
-
sorry moot, you know what happened today, and you post numbers about how save all is,
its sickens me, sorry.
-
I'll kick this off by saying, I believe our future would be better off with a strong dependence on wind, water, and solar power.
At least in this country however, our grid is not capable of supporting that.
Currently in the USA, we are very near approaching the point of demand overcoming supply of energy.
This leaves us with some major issues, are costly nuclear plants, with their safe and green operation, worth the price to build and run? As opposed to cheaper and more harmful Coal and Gas operations.
My opinion is yes. The designs of modern plants waiting to be built are smaller and more cost efficient.
I'll explain the USA's current nuclear waste situation if anyone has any questions on that worrisome subject.
-
sorry moot, you know what happened today, and you post numbers about how save all is,
its sickens me, sorry.
No idea what this means other than possibly an appeal to emotion. The facts are facts. If today's Japanese tragedy is sickening then.... What do you say about the millions dead by coal? Where's the outrage there? How about some consistency instead of finger pointing?
-
Amen moot, I have seen the effects of a coal or gas plant on the surrounding population. Even if
you include Chernobyl I would imagine nuclear is magnitudes less harmful to the environment. If you
don't included it there isn't even a conversation about it.
Strip
-
There seems to be a worry that being close to a nuclear power plant will expose you to harmful radiation doses. This just is not true. I know people who've worked inside plants for 40 and 50 years. I've worked in one for close to 8 years. We're all fine and probably even at a lower risk for cancer.
Living close to a coal plant however does expose you to harmful pollutants.
How can you argue this?
-
I've got a ton of documents saved up over the years on this topic. I never took the time to read deep into it, but it's always been clear to me that nuclear is nowhere near as dangerous as it's made out in general public. Just one pic and a link..
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5055/5519225399_ef453a6028_o.jpg)
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf
This is in Europe Ghost, right around your family's area.
-
There seems to be a worry that being close to a nuclear power plant will expose you to harmful radiation doses. This just is not true.
i dont meant that, i meant an event like an earthquake, like what happened in Japan AND living close to a Nuclear power.
But you Pro Nuclear people are free to live there. But not me.
-
Thorium reactor meltdown is impossible IIRC. How about that? If we ignore for a moment the total incongruency of your preferring millions dead from coal to 50 dead + a few thousand gravely ill everytime we get a Chernobyl; keeping in mind Chernobyl is a worst case scenario.
No thorium meltdowns nor explosions, and less waste. Also no proliferation issues.
-
sorry moot, but i'm not in the mood of copy/paste tons of links & diagrams about how dangerous nuclear power plants are.
I started posting today here because of what happened in japan and now i ended up surrounded by Pro nuclear fans
pointing at me and how all save is and everything else kills *lol*
-
i dont meant that, i meant an event like an earthquake, like what happened in Japan AND living close to a Nuclear power.
But you Pro Nuclear people are free to live there. But not me.
No one outside of the plant has been harmed due to radiation or contamination, they were safely evacuated before the explosion. Which every plant on earth has detailed out in procedure. Plants have an emergency control center, which includes their own weather forecasting to predict paths of radiation releases (which never happen). The public is always the company's first concern when an event happens.
Us nuke workers also live nearby our plants, along with our families. We are not shady people from far away working carefree. A safely operated plant is in our interest not only for our community's safety, but for to guarantee we are allowed to operate and maintain our careers.
When accidents happen, we do everything we can to minimize exposure to the public. Which is what happened in Japan as well.
There is no other source of energy capable of meeting demand without harming the public.
-
sorry moot, but i'm not in the mood of copy/paste tons of links & diagrams about how dangerous nuclear power plants are.
You don't need to copy paste anything, so far your argument is not fact based but philosophical. I'm copy pasting because I want to stay brief; and can you really pretend that overwhelming evidence makes something less credible? No sense in writing up anything longer if you're not even going to debate. As it is you only have some one liners about your family. And those already aren't accurate, or at least not consistent with their basis - the relative proportion of nuclear and other energies' net lethality. If you want to instead argue that it's ok for "some other families" to suffer by the millions just so your family has less chance to live next door to a nuke plant, then say so explicitly. At least it'll be clear that you're accepting a double standard - that many others dying slowly is better than a few dying mostly quickly.
I started posting today here because of what happened in japan and now i ended up surrounded by Pro nuclear fans
pointing at me
I'm not pointing at you but your arguments. There's nothing to win or lose here, it's just an electronic argument to hash things out. You've made some assertions and now you can't back them up. It has nothing to do with who is right or wrong. Only what is true or false. It's false that nuclear nets more death and suffering than coal. Solar and wind will take more time to develop enough that they can substitute for coal, than nuclear would. Waiting that long for solar and wind to develop would net more deaths than ramping up nuclear till solar and wind take over.
And the pro nuclear gang bang quip is wrong too. See my question to Warhed below.
and how all save is and everything else kills *lol*
You keep saying that and I still don't know what it means.
There is no other source of energy capable of meeting demand without harming the public.
Thorium? Isn't it expected to be cleaner and safer to operate than current "classic" fission?
-
If you guys want to have a meaningful discussion about this topic, you need to ratchet back the emotional stuff, IMO.
What's going on in Japan is not a problem with nuclear fission. Its a problem with other infrastructure being damaged which in turn is affecting the plants ability to cool the reaction. We don't know what or why, we just know there is a problem. Why don't we wait until all the facts shake out until we start damning Nuclear power as being ultimately un-safe, especially considering this was pretty much a 500-year-type natural event.
-
sorry moot, you know what happened today, and you post numbers about how save all is,
its sickens me, sorry.
Heh, just how many people have died this week to the nuclear accident? Big fat zero. 4 have been injured in the blast, non critical.
The fallout will be dangerous, yes, but compared to the tsunami death toll and the resulting biohazard it's a minor thing.
-
well moot, i'm not here to back up anything, really. I could talk for hours about the danger of nuclear, there is an ongoing
debate here in germany about the produced nuclear waste and where to put it, this is another danger from nuclear power,
its danger we have to deal with "forever" compared to our lifespan.
On the other side our views differs that much i doubt our debate will lead to anything, since tschernobyl killed only 50 people (your words).
-
well moot, i'm not here to back up anything, really. I could talk for hours about the danger of nuclear, there is an ongoing
debate here in germany about the produced nuclear waste and where to put it, this is another danger from nuclear power,
its danger we have to deal with "forever" compared to our lifespan.
On the other side our views differs that much i doubt our debate will lead to anything, since tschernobyl killed only 50 people (your words).
So, you could talk for "hours" about the dangers of nuke power?
Well how about laying down some facts to support your argument as opposed to blathering emotion driven nonsense.
I don't know why you fellas even try with this question dodging fellow.
-
The USS Thresher(SSN-593) sank in 1963 and the USS Skorpion sank in 1968(?) to date there has been no signs of radiation leakage. The hulls were crushed , but the reactor core is intact. That being said, reactors in the United States are built to a higher standard and the safeguards are very thorough. The beneifts of Nuclear power far out weigh the risks. There is still an underground fire burning in a coal mine near Centralia, Pennsylvania. I have been there and it is a ghost town.
-
blathering emotion driven nonsense.
at least you write bright arguments for this thread, wise man.
-
Selective quoting is flawed basis for argument. My words weren't only 50 people killed but 50 people killed and a few thousand (say 4,000) gravely affected. If I'd add something to that, it's that Chernobyl isn't only "a worst case scenario" but also a single data point in a so far similarly sparse dataset. And like at least one other here said, but I haven't cause it's still developing, so far no Japanese deaths except for one or two people who were at ground zero.
Really the only argument I've made so far is that coal and other current alternative energy sources to nuclear are responsible for more deaths and other casualties than nuclear. I'm all ears to evidence to the contrary, though it's gotta be more convincing than "think of my family" or less vague than "we're debating it in my country". There's "debate" in the USA and from what I've seen it (and a number of other things relying on nukes, space probes for instance) is pretty skewed by misinformation in the public and corruption in politics.
If you're closed to any evidence to the contrary of your convictions then you can just say so. It's not clear if you're just convinced I'm out to troll you or whatever holier than thou motivation to keep dodging my arguments, or if you really are just that convinced that nuclear is undoubtedly more dangerous. And if the latter then why not just pick one of the things I've pointed out and show how it's wrong? I'm all ears.
So again my assertion: nuclear has killed and otherwise harmed less people than most other energy solutions. Nuclear would be a safer and cleaner alternative to coal, is the only alternative to coal that can be ramped up relatively quickly (easily quicker than wind / solar), and in replacing coal the net result would be cleaner and safer energy.
I'm all ears to how exactly you weigh the nuclear waste issue as more harmful to people than coal/oil/etc's effects.
-
We can't go full nuclear yet as the world's supply of nuclear fuel would only last just under 50 years fueling those plants.
A nuke fuel rod contains 99% of -238 isotope and 1% 239 isotope... the current reactors only use the -239 portion to generate power, leaving behind the -238 as waste. Scientists are trying to design a reactor that will use the -238 waste fuel rods as fuel... if they can pull this off then the world's supply of power could be satisfied by these new, safer reactors.
-
Selective quoting is flawed basis for argument. My words weren't only 50 people killed but 50 people killed and a few thousand (say 4,000) gravely affected. If I'd add something to that, it's that Chernobyl isn't only "a worst case scenario" but also a single data point in a so far similarly sparse dataset. And like at least one other here said, but I haven't cause it's still developing, so far no Japanese deaths except for one or two people who were at ground zero.
Really the only argument I've made so far is that coal and other current alternative energy sources to nuclear are responsible for more deaths and other casualties than nuclear. I'm all ears to evidence to the contrary, though it's gotta be more convincing than "think of my family" or less vague than "we're debating it in my country". There's "debate" in the USA and from what I've seen it (and a number of other things relying on nukes, space probes for instance) is pretty skewed by misinformation in the public and corruption in politics.
If you're closed to any evidence to the contrary of your convictions then you can just say so. It's not clear if you're just convinced I'm out to troll you or whatever holier than thou motivation to keep dodging my arguments, or if you really are just that convinced that nuclear is undoubtedly more dangerous. And if the latter then why not just pick one of the things I've pointed out and show how it's wrong? I'm all ears.
So again my assertion: nuclear has killed and otherwise harmed less people than most other energy solutions. Nuclear would be a safer and cleaner alternative to coal, is the only alternative to coal that can be ramped up relatively quickly (easily quicker than wind / solar), and in replacing coal the net result would be cleaner and safer energy.
I'm all ears to how exactly you weigh the nuclear waste issue as more harmful to people than coal/oil/etc's effects.
Moot, should we really say something like "coal is responsible for more deaths than nuclear"? Directly attributing deaths due to coal power plant emissions is a very dicey proposition. Personally, I think current nuclear, and future nuclear technology is the only credible commercial power generation method that will allow the world to meet energy demand going forward, but I think its tough to make an apples to apples comparison of coal deaths to nuclear deaths. This argument tends more towards the emotional side of the argument, IMO, than the practical, rational side of the argument (i.e. comparing fatalities isn't the strongest argument that can be made in support of nuclear).
-
hey moot...irony...an electric power plant has an electrical outage :lol
in the case of a nuke plant...chernobyl...or worse :uhoh
in the case of a coal plant...no more smoke for a while :D
we are all being constantly subjected to various forms of radiation every single day...people living near high power lines get more than people that live out in the boondocks...nuke power is not "safer" than coal, hydro or other alternatives, regardless of how people try to spin it...the current events in japan are absolute evidence of that, and no scientist in the world can diminish the dangers or the long term environmental impact of such events with b.s. statistics.
-
We can't go full nuclear yet as the world's supply of nuclear fuel would only last just under 50 years fueling those plants.
A nuke fuel rod contains 99% of -238 isotope and 1% 239 isotope... the current reactors only use the -239 portion to generate power, leaving behind the -238 as waste. Scientists are trying to design a reactor that will use the -238 waste fuel rods as fuel... if they can pull this off then the world's supply of power could be satisfied by these new, safer reactors.
Known supply. Uranium mining is very inactive. Finland has massive natural reserves of uranium that are completely unmined for example.
-
Moot, should we really say something like "coal is responsible for more deaths than nuclear"? Directly attributing deaths due to coal power plant emissions is a very dicey proposition. Personally, I think current nuclear, and future nuclear technology is the only credible commercial power generation method that will allow the world to meet energy demand going forward, but I think its tough to make an apples to apples comparison of coal deaths to nuclear deaths. This argument tends more towards the emotional side of the argument, IMO, than the practical, rational side of the argument (i.e. comparing fatalities isn't the strongest argument that can be made in support of nuclear).
I'm purposefully trying to make it easy for Ghost to counter argue. I've got loads of articles and studies saved on relative harmfulness of energy sources but never dug into them. I'm really not trying to pull a fast one on Ghost or anyone else anti-nuclear. The evidence I've seen is overwhelming and I wouldn't pass up an opportunity for so much evidence to be proven wrong.
That said, yes, the data I've seen suggests as much - coal clearly more harmful. I'd be glad to go back and dig into everything if Ghost or others are willing to do more than one-liners.
Sorry to be so wordy but I want to be esp. clear lest some think I'm being less than honest.
We can't go full nuclear yet as the world's supply of nuclear fuel would only last just under 50 years fueling those plants.
A nuke fuel rod contains 99% of -238 isotope and 1% 239 isotope... the current reactors only use the -239 portion to generate power, leaving behind the -238 as waste. Scientists are trying to design a reactor that will use the -238 waste fuel rods as fuel... if they can pull this off then the world's supply of power could be satisfied by these new, safer reactors.
Assuming for argument's sake that were true, you've still got Thorium.
The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be (55 min) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8)
Thorium Remix 2009 - LFTR in 25 Minutes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHdRJqi__Z8) - redux of above link
Thorium Remix 2009 - LFTR in 16 Minutes (http://v3.bcast.co.nz/videos/245874/thorium-remix-2009-lftr-in-16-minutes) - redux of redux above
hey moot...irony...an electric power plant has an electrical outage :lol
in the case of a nuke plant...chernobyl...or worse :uhoh
in the case of a coal plant...no more smoke for a while :D
we are all being constantly subjected to various forms of radiation every single day...people living near high power lines get more than people that live out in the boondocks...nuke power is not "safer" than coal, hydro or other alternatives, regardless of how people try to spin it...the current events in japan are absolute evidence of that, and no scientist in the world can diminish the dangers or the long term environmental impact of such events with b.s. statistics.
Right, so debunk the evidence I've already posted. So far single digit death count in Japan, versus how many dead to e.g. coal pollution?
in the case of a nuke plant...chernobyl...or worse :uhoh
Or worse? How have more than 50% of historical nuke incidents been worse than Chernobyl?
edit- Thorium links
-
Right, so debunk the evidence I've already posted.
don't have to...the nuke plants in japan are giving a live demonstration as we speak.
tell you what...go stand inside a coal fired plant when it loses power...then go stand inside a nuke plant when it loses power...then come back and tell us which one you felt safer in. with all that data you have amassed, did you happen to grab any info on where the spent fuel rods are disposed of? i'm sure somewhere in there the words "safely disposed of...." appear...when in reality there is no such thing as "safely disposed of" as long as they remain on this planet.
i'm not an advocate for coal or nuke power...the waste from either is very hazardous...and both are environmentally destructive...but if a coal plant has a mechanical failure, even to the point of exploding...the kill radius isn't going to be measured in miles for the next 50 years.
-
sorry moot, but i'm not in the mood of copy/paste tons of links & diagrams about how dangerous nuclear power plants are.
I started posting today here because of what happened in japan and now i ended up surrounded by Pro nuclear fans
pointing at me and how all save is and everything else kills *lol*
I don't think they are so pro nuclear. They are just stating historical facts and studies.
The same as calling you pro coal. :)
don't have to...the nuke plants in japan are giving a live demonstration as we speak.
tell you what...go stand inside a coal fired plant when it loses power...then go stand inside a nuke plant when it loses power...then come back and tell us which one you felt safer in. with all that data you have amassed, did you happen to grab any info on where the spent fuel rods are disposed of? i'm sure somewhere in there the words "safely disposed of...." appear...when in reality there is no such thing as "safely disposed of" as long as they remain on this planet.
i'm not an advocate for coal or nuke power...the waste from either is very hazardous...and both are environmentally destructive...but if a coal plant has a mechanical failure, even to the point of exploding...the kill radius isn't going to be measured in miles for the next 50 years.
Coal plant is more of a threat when operating. :)
-
go stand inside a coal fired plant when it loses power...then go stand inside a nuke plant when it loses power...then come back and tell us which one you felt safer in.
non sequitur
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
-
with all that data you have amassed, did you happen to grab any info on where the spent fuel rods are disposed of? i'm sure somewhere in there the words "safely disposed of...." appear...when in reality there is no such thing as "safely disposed of" as long as they remain on this planet.
I have a better idea - why don't you tell ME where all that burnt fossil fuels is disposed of.
In exchange, I'll tell you what happens to nuclear fuel rods: someone will dig a very long tunnel. It will be lined with a lot of concrete, and buried under a lot of rock. Nuclear fuel (which has been carefully sealed in glass and stuck into bomb-proof containers) will then be placed at the end of that tunnel. When said tunnel has been filled beyond a certain point, it will then be sealed repeatedly, and signposted with many languages to the effect of 'if you can read this, GTFO'.
Now since my first line was a rhetorical question, let's look at what happens with the by-products of fossil fuels: they get dumped into the atmosphere. Yes, that's right - all that toxic and/or not-very-good-for-you stuff you really shouldn't be breathing gets dumped into the very stuff you do breath.
So let's compare the two. With nuclear waste, the stuff gets buried underground in very secure containers that aren't going anywhere anytime soon. With the products of fossil-fuels, the stuff gets dumped in the atmosphere for everyone to inhale. Now you tell me which one you think is safer.
-
I live about 30 miles from a nuclear plant and about 2 from a coal plant...neither one worry me.
The coal one had a accident this past Tuesday and they are still down..all I know is I saw fire, fire trucks, the cooling towers stop running, and a jet fly over.
And I'm still not worried :P
-
I live about 30 miles from a nuclear plant and about 2 from a coal plant...neither one worry me.
The coal one had a accident this past Tuesday and they are still down..all I know is I saw fire, fire trucks, the cooling towers stop running, and a jet fly over.
And I'm still not worried :P
That's subjective, to say the least ;)
-
I have a better idea - why don't you tell ME where all that burnt fossil fuels is disposed of.
In exchange, I'll tell you what happens to nuclear fuel rods: someone will dig a very long tunnel. It will be lined with a lot of concrete, and buried under a lot of rock. Nuclear fuel (which has been carefully sealed in glass and stuck into bomb-proof containers) will then be placed at the end of that tunnel. When said tunnel has been filled beyond a certain point, it will then be sealed repeatedly, and signposted with many languages to the effect of 'if you can read this, GTFO'.
Now since my first line was a rhetorical question, let's look at what happens with the by-products of fossil fuels: they get dumped into the atmosphere. Yes, that's right - all that toxic and/or not-very-good-for-you stuff you really shouldn't be breathing gets dumped into the very stuff you do breath.
So let's compare the two. With nuclear waste, the stuff gets buried underground in very secure containers that aren't going anywhere anytime soon. With the products of fossil-fuels, the stuff gets dumped in the atmosphere for everyone to inhale. Now you tell me which one you think is safer.
ya know...many years ago some government agencies spun the same yarn about old chemical/biological waste that was disposed of in some deep underground tunnels at one point...some years later it was found that, it wasn't exactly the truth...ironically, it was the same government agencies that many years earlier failed to tell american citizens truthfully how dangerous the radioactive fallout was that traveled across the country while nuclear bomb testing was being conducted in nevada and utah...
i lived 2 blocks from a coal fired plant for 5 years in a state where the same agencies that say nuke power is safe have a tight fist on anything that spews anything into the air...i've seen more hazardous waste at an exxon refinery in louisiana...i've seen first hand how waste and emmissions from harzardous chemicals get treated in a vinyl manufacturing plant...i've seen how the waste from metal coatings plants gets treated and disposed of...i felt safer by the coal power plant.
if you are willing to put your family within a few blocks of a nuclear power plant...then you can talk about how much safer it is...if you're argument was reliability, i wouldn't argue...but you're arguing safety based on government controlled data from a government that has a very long history of endangering it's citizens while using scientific data to downplay the dangers.
-
So let's compare the two. With nuclear waste, the stuff gets buried underground in very secure containers that aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
thats exsactly what i was talking with moot,
its just not secure. In germany 126,000 barrels of radioactive waste, some of which are leaking where found at
the Asse II waste storage facility. Now ask the people what live around/near Asse.
Securely store hot radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years, sure! lol
-
ya know...many years ago some government agencies spun the same yarn about old chemical/biological waste that was disposed of in some deep underground tunnels at one point...some years later it was found that, it wasn't exactly the truth...ironically, it was the same government agencies that many years earlier failed to tell american citizens truthfully how dangerous the radioactive fallout was that traveled across the country while nuclear bomb testing was being conducted in nevada and utah...
i lived 2 blocks from a coal fired plant for 5 years in a state where the same agencies that say nuke power is safe have a tight fist on anything that spews anything into the air...i've seen more hazardous waste at an exxon refinery in louisiana...i've seen first hand how waste and emmissions from harzardous chemicals get treated in a vinyl manufacturing plant...i've seen how the waste from metal coatings plants gets treated and disposed of...i felt safer by the coal power plant.
if you are willing to put your family within a few blocks of a nuclear power plant...then you can talk about how much safer it is...if you're argument was reliability, i wouldn't argue...but you're arguing safety based on government controlled data from a government that has a very long history of endangering it's citizens while using scientific data to downplay the dangers.
No, I'm arguing safety based on my own logic - I really don't give a flying f*** about what the government has to say on the matter. I'm saying that nuclear waste poses little threat when stored and handled correctly. Even if it is not always handled correctly now, in about 20 years from now I suspect it will be. Time moves on, technology matures and people learn more about how to do certain things. I'd be willing to bet that when the first fossil-fueled power plants started up, they weren't very environmentally friendly - but that was a long time ago now, and since then we've learnt that pollution is bad, and that it's better if you don't pollute - and as a result, modern fossil fuel plants are probably a lot cleaner than such plants a few decades ago. I see no reason to believe that nuclear power won't take a similar path.
-
Belial, you by Limerick ?
-
thats exsactly what i was talking with moot,
its just not secure. In germany 126,000 barrels of radioactive waste, some of which are leaking where found at
the Asse II waste storage facility. Now ask the people what live around/near Asse.
Securely store hot radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years, sure! lol
Can you please actually post some logical reasons as to why you think nuclear power is unsafe?
And that thing in Germany sounds like an epic failure on a grand scale. Storing nuclear waste in a former salt mine? Everything I've heard in the past would make me think that's the last place you should be sticking nuclear waste. So you'd be better off blaming the people who had that bright idea rather than the nuclear waste itself.
And this is how it's meant to be stored. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Onkalo_waste_repository)
-
if you are willing to put your family within a few blocks of a nuclear power plant...then you can talk about how much safer it is...
Gyrene,
I live in a town with a nuclear plant north of it, and one to the south. The one to the south is 10 miles as the crow flies. I have no problem living this close or even closer if I had to. My grandfather built it, and I know how it was constructed. My mother helped write some of the NRC codes that are in place to govern nuclear facility construction and operation. I have zero worry about that plant. We also have a coal-fired plant about 5 miles away. I'd much rather live 5 miles from a nuclear plant than a coal-fired plant.
I still think it will be interesting to see what happens with this latest incident. The combination of one the largest earthquakes ever recorded plus what's probably going to be the most destructive tsunami in history puts this incident in a special category that you really shouldn't judge nuclear power by. Besides, we don't know yet exactly what's caused the problem, just that there is one.
-
Can you please actually post some logical reasons as to why you think nuclear power is unsafe?
And that thing in Germany sounds like an epic failure on a grand scale. Storing nuclear waste in a former salt mine? Everything I've heard in the past would make me think that's the last place you should be sticking nuclear waste. So you'd be better off blaming the people who had that bright idea rather than the nuclear waste itself.
And this is how it's meant to be stored. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Onkalo_waste_repository)
Yossarian,
Geographically speaking salt deposits (consequently salt mines) are one of the best places to store nuclear waste. Furthermore, your link has problems of its own, the biggest being increase ground water flow through the fractured rock.
You need to find a new source of your info...
Strip
-
Yossarian,
Geographically speaking salt deposits (consequently salt mines) are one of the best places to store nuclear waste. Furthermore, your link has problems of its own, the biggest being increase ground water flow through the fractured rock.
You need to find a new source of your info...
Strip
Ok - I was going on my memories of reading about various salt mines which had caved in - my bad.
But about that Finnish waste site: based on this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4948378.stm), what I've read makes it look like even if there were increased water flow, it wouldn't matter much. The waste will be encased in copper, which doesn't react with water.
Edit: this is an page on the Finnish repository: http://www.packagingtoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=45467 (http://www.packagingtoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=45467). It does seem to imply that the Finns are being quite careful about this.
-
I'm saying that nuclear waste poses little threat when stored and handled correctly. Even if it is not always handled correctly now, in about 20 years from now I suspect it will be.
see, there's the kick in the pants..."stored and handled correctly"...does not happen with government agencies or the employees and i know that as fact...and 20 years from now, the stuff that was stored 20 years ago will still have been handled and stored incorrectly according to what is known now...exactly like the crap that was stored 50 years ago and still poses a serious danger...it's more expensive and dangerous to dig it up and fix the problem than it is to deal with the consequences...do some research into superfund sites...and take note as to how many have been abandoned due to lack of funds.
when they run out of safe places to bury the waste what then? you want to let them bury it in your back yard?
keep in mind the best efforts of intelligent men have more often than not had unforseen consequences...
-
I've got a ton of documents saved up over the years on this topic. I never took the time to read deep into it, but it's always been clear to me that nuclear is nowhere near as dangerous as it's made out in general public. Just one pic and a link..
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5055/5519225399_ef453a6028_o.jpg)
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf
This is in Europe Ghost, right around your family's area.
Statistics? Give me a break. You are comparing thousands of coal plants and their casualties to a handfull of nuclear plants. I bet if there where more nuclear power stations than coal you would see a reversal of your data. "Coal kills more than nuclear power" No kidding. There are more coal plants. Sad thing about nuclear power is that the deaths attributed to its accidents are generally unaccounted for. People involved in radioactive accidents rarely stay at the same location and are not monitored thereafter. Take chernobyl for instance. The cancers created by that catastrophy are still plaguing those people. Does your out of date data refresh itself each year to account for these people? How about the thousands of other poor johnnys that die of thyroid cancers that are un-justly attributed to natural causes.
Served in the submarine force, I have a good idea how this power is used, so I'm not oblivios to the topic. The effects of the use of radioactive material have yet to be calculated. You cannot say its use is "SAFE" because there is not one person on the planet that has the answer to that yet. 500 years from now re-enter new data into your excel graph and tell us what you come up with.
-
"My" data. Uh huh.
"Coal kills more than nuclear power" No kidding.
The data is on a power basis. Deaths and casualties per watt hours.
Take chernobyl for instance. The cancers created by that catastrophy are still plaguing those people.
Never said otherwise.
You cannot say its use is "SAFE"
Never did. So you're not reading what I said, when you counter argue "what I said". Sounds to me like you've got an agenda, or at least are too prone to knee jerk arguments for proper debate.
-
Take chernobyl for instance. The cancers created by that catastrophy are still plaguing those people.
The only thing Chernobyl seems to illustrate is what you can get if you do the wrong thing to a poor design. It does not fairly represent the risks posed by more modern, better maintained and designed reactors that you would find in the USA or the EU.
-
And really. Taking extreme scenarios for nuke but regular coal operation as basis for comparison, that's not what you'd call objective. The Japanese plant failed due to the worst earthquake in records, and correct me if I'm wrong - not because of the earthquake itself but flooding from the tsunami. And the plant design itself had much lower limits than this earthquake, yet it apparently took the quake in stride and only failed due to supporting hardware (ie not the reactor itself) failures from flooding, and this design is 40 years old as well. So how about we compare apples and apples, say an extreme coal related scenario from decades ago... E.G. Buffalo Creek. Or the sludge dam failure in Martin county KY in 2000.
Paranoia about government hiding or denying nuclear damage.. How about coal industry hiding its damages? You seldom get anywhere with conspiracy theories. What you get is FUD and instigation of more public paranoia.
-
Off shoot from the Japanese quakes/nuke trouble thread.
I'll start with this : Nuke has a bad rap as being "not worth the risk". As E.G. GhostFT argues: But can GhostFT and others anti-nuke quantify this comparison between nuclear and other power sources like coal?
A study by Harvard University found about 100,000 cases of premature death annually due to exposure to pollution, and tens of millions of cases of asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, casualty ward admissions and various other ills. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/11/1097406506445.html)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/
... Chernobyl: about 50 dead and a few thousand badly affected.
Nuclear could take coal's place faster than solar or wind. Waiting for solar/wind would mean .. something like millions of deaths more due to coal.
The counter to this argument of course is. How do we know many of these same people woudnt have come down with the same diseases?
2 examples are. My father in law drank heavily and smoked cigars every day for 60 years. Lived to be 84.
A lady I used to work with was the epitome of a health freak. Marathon runner and life long athlete. Never smoked,only had the occasional drink She died of lung cancer at age 50.
Each form of energy has its inherent risks. The problem with nuclear its what to do with the waste. And in the event of something really going wrong. it can REALLY go wrong.
-
Lies, damned lies, and statistics...
Industry, government, and the military have systematically suppressed or manipulated epidemiologic research showing detrimental effects on human health from accidental or occupational exposures to ionizing radiation. This leads to conflicts of interest and compromised integrity among scientists in the radiation health establishment, it stifles dissemination of “unwelcome” findings and endangers public health. Key words: radiation health effects; research censorship; conflicts of interest; scientific whistleblowers; Chernobyl; Three Mile Island.
Manipulating Public Health Research: The Nuclear and Radiation Health Establishments, RUDI H. NUSSBAUM, Professor Emeritus of Physics and Environmental
Sciences, Portland State University, Portland, OR
http://web.me.com/rdupuy/APLP/Dossier_Nucl%C3%A9aire/Entr%C3%A9es/2007/10/2_Nuclear_Radiation_Health_Manipulated_files/IJOEH_1303_Nussbaum.pdf (http://web.me.com/rdupuy/APLP/Dossier_Nucl%C3%A9aire/Entr%C3%A9es/2007/10/2_Nuclear_Radiation_Health_Manipulated_files/IJOEH_1303_Nussbaum.pdf)
The accumulated experience of the past six decades provides ample evidence of adverse health effects in workers in the nuclear fuel cycle, the potential for disastrous accidents that lead to widespread environmental contamination, the unresolved problems of permanent and secure storage of high-level radioactive wastes, and the extraordinarily high costs of building additional nuclear power generation facilities. Some of these problems are ignored in the current public discourse, perhaps because of the immediacy of the need to solve the problems of carbon-based fuel. Given the availability of alternative carbon-free and low-carbon options and the potential to develop more efficient renewable technologies, it seems evident that public health would be better served in the long term by these alternatives than by increasing the number of nuclear power plants in the United States and the rest of the world.
Nuclear Power and Public Health, Richard W. Clapp, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/113-11/editorial.html (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/113-11/editorial.html)
-
I actually started this thread so Rolex and other people from Japan would get a breather from off topic arguments. Even if I am pro nuclear right now, what I personally am convinced of isn't that nuclear fission (btw another example of public paranoia WRT anything nuclear? Fusion is nuclear. But it couldn't possibly be called nuclear cause too many people would go "blue screen of death") is "safe" but that it's a better alternative to coal.
Another minor but significant issue for me is the ridiculous amount of public paranoia. Just because coal seems more harmless ("just cinder flakes") and nuclear radiation is some kind of "unreal" magic thing that people don't know anything about and don't understand and can't even see or smell or taste >> fear. Another win for the luddites.
What I personally put in first place right now for replacing coal, and possibly wind and solar (IMO wind is way too weak, solar might take too long to become efficient and non polluting enough), is thorium fission.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics...
Manipulating Public Health Research: The Nuclear and Radiation Health Establishments, RUDI H. NUSSBAUM, Professor Emeritus of Physics and Environmental
Sciences, Portland State University, Portland, OR
http://web.me.com/rdupuy/APLP/Dossier_Nucl%C3%A9aire/Entr%C3%A9es/2007/10/2_Nuclear_Radiation_Health_Manipulated_files/IJOEH_1303_Nussbaum.pdf (http://web.me.com/rdupuy/APLP/Dossier_Nucl%C3%A9aire/Entr%C3%A9es/2007/10/2_Nuclear_Radiation_Health_Manipulated_files/IJOEH_1303_Nussbaum.pdf)
Nuclear Power and Public Health, Richard W. Clapp, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/113-11/editorial.html (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/113-11/editorial.html)
That's just incredible, but I'll read it.
-
How can anyone bring up Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as examples of why nuclear power is not a good idea? Archaic designs. Chernobyl was just a terrible design with a horribly unsatisfactory level of reliability to begin with. TMI was probably a combination of that and employees that were not properly trained. So much has changed in design, understanding, training, that it would take a 500-year type event like a 8.9 magnitude earthquake to force the plant into 3rd or 4th level safety systems to control the reaction.
TBH, I think the main reason people are anti Nuclear is because of the connotation with the word "Nuclear". If you called them High Temperature Steam Generators it would be a different story.
-
thats exsactly what i was talking with moot,
its just not secure. In germany 126,000 barrels of radioactive waste, some of which are leaking where found at
the Asse II waste storage facility. Now ask the people what live around/near Asse.
Securely store hot radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years, sure! lol
Barrels??? That would be medical waste more than likely.
-
I actually started this thread so Rolex and other people from Japan would get a breather from off topic arguments. Even if I am pro nuclear right now, what I personally am convinced of isn't that nuclear fission (btw another example of public paranoia WRT anything nuclear? Fusion is nuclear. But it couldn't possibly be called nuclear cause too many people would go "blue screen of death") is "safe" but that it's a better alternative to coal.
Another minor but significant issue for me is the ridiculous amount of public paranoia. Just because coal seems more harmless ("just cinder flakes") and nuclear radiation is some kind of "unreal" magic thing that people don't know anything about and don't understand and can't even see or smell or taste >> fear. Another win for the luddites.
What I personally put in first place right now for replacing coal, and possibly wind and solar (IMO wind is way too weak, solar might take too long to become efficient and non polluting enough), is thorium fission.
That's just incredible, but I'll read it.
That was so well said. But like your thorium fission, I'd still prefer Fusion of deuterium/tritium:
http://www.iter.org/mach (http://www.iter.org/mach)
(http://www.iter.org/img/sq-640-85/www/edit/Lists/WebsiteText/Attachments/47/iter_machine_technical.jpg)
-
TBH, I think the main reason people are anti Nuclear is because of the connotation with the word "Nuclear". If you called them High Temperature Steam Generators it would be a different story.
absolutely not true, its the opposite today most of the anti-nuclear people i know, know much more about the whole technique & the danger.
How can you compare it to a high temp steam generator??? absolutely wrong, just stop the fire, open all valves and your ok...
This just dont work with a real Nuclear Plant, does it??
-
ITER is a science project. Not that fusion won't happen, but commercially feasible fusion's not going to come as a tokamak formula like ITER.
In the mean time you have fission solutions like Thorium with no risk of meltdown, less waste, less proliferation risks, less capital cost, less fuel consumption and in fact enough fuel to last us a thousand years or more.. I vaguely remember tens of thousands of years as the order of magnitude.
-
absolutely not true, its the opposite today most of the anti-nuclear people i know, know much more about the whole technique & the danger.
How can you compare it to a high temp steam generator??? absolutely wrong, just stop the fire, open all valves and your ok...
This just dont work with a real Nuclear Plant, does it??
Maybe they know... but you sure don't seem to.
Super heated steam is a different animal than just steam. Not to mention the explosion from expanding gases. The same reason when we pressure test anything we do it with water..... not air.
If your worried about safety just use running water and wear a life vest. :D
-
absolutely not true, its the opposite today most of the anti-nuclear people i know, know much more about the whole technique & the danger.
How can you compare it to a high temp steam generator??? absolutely wrong, just stop the fire, open all valves and your ok...
This just dont work with a real Nuclear Plant, does it??
I never compared it to anything, all I said was that the name "Nuclear" is the main source of paranoia of people that are scared of it. When you hear nuclear you picture bombs going off, buildings be destroyed, evil commies, cold war, so of course it's a knee jerk reaction thing.
This latest disaster I'm sure will provide for more reliable systems in future designs or secondary systems that will be able to cool the plant if the power grid goes down.
-
That was so well said. But like your thorium fission, I'd still prefer Fusion of deuterium/tritium:
http://www.iter.org/mach (http://www.iter.org/mach)
(http://www.iter.org/img/sq-640-85/www/edit/Lists/WebsiteText/Attachments/47/iter_machine_technical.jpg)
I saw that very thing on a wall inside one of the pyramids. The only difference is it had some being sitting in it. :D
-
The Fukushima plant is over 40 years old. There are much better designs now. The Chinese have developed a "pebble bed" reactor that will not melt down if the water is drained out of it.
-
When you hear nuclear you picture bombs going off, buildings be destroyed, ...
grizzz441 i know what you mean but to be honest, what happened today? on tv you see explosion at a nuclear plant, buildings destroyed,
20km Evacuation zone, 300 000 been evacuated from homes ... - what do you expect from people who dont know
much about it? do you really think it will change there view to "oh, but it looks safe".
-
Wow, I'm not going to be able to respond to some of this, nor do I think it would matter.
I've seen the recurring theme of shutting a reactor down, and how you can't do it.
The last refueling outage I was in, we shut down our reactor in less than 12 hours. And that was not a scram.
We are not running out of fuel for nuclear plants, I saw a figure that we only had 50 years left. A lot of nuclear power plants in the U.S. are burning old Soviet nuclear weapons. A section of fuel in a common 30-40 year old reactor lasts for 6 years. The newer design for plants would see refueling happening even less frequent. We're not going to be in danger of running out of fuel anytime soon, plants will be undergoing decommission long before there's a fuel shortage.
About two years ago I was able to look at some designs for a new Japanese reactor. They used a lake on top of a mountain for emergency cooling water. Had that design been used, in the current disaster, the reactor would of been much less of a threat of melting down. All the more evidence our aging nuclear plants (100 civilian in the USA) will not last forever, and we need a viable replacement soon.
Nuclear power plants produce very very little nuclear waste in the form of spent fuel. Every plant in the U.S. contains every ounce of nuclear fuel they have ever burned. I am only aware of a few plants who had to build new spent fuel pools to store excess. While we still don't have a single location to store all of our spent fuel, we haven't run out of room on plant properties yet. Although, I'd feel much better if all our of nuclear waste was in a central location, secured, and monitored, rather than located at 100 separate locations in this country alone. Spent fuel does not last forever, it only takes a few hundred years to reach the same radioactive level of soil. Non-spent fuel nuclear waste generally will reach background levels in a fraction of that time. Someone mentioned the Romans or something having not left us with a nuclear waste burden, even if they had, it would not be an issue anymore, no excess radiation would be emitted from their waste.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics...
Manipulating Public Health Research: The Nuclear and Radiation Health Establishments, RUDI H. NUSSBAUM, Professor Emeritus of Physics and Environmental
Sciences, Portland State University, Portland, OR
http://web.me.com/rdupuy/APLP/Dossier_Nucl%C3%A9aire/Entr%C3%A9es/2007/10/2_Nuclear_Radiation_Health_Manipulated_files/IJOEH_1303_Nussbaum.pdf (http://web.me.com/rdupuy/APLP/Dossier_Nucl%C3%A9aire/Entr%C3%A9es/2007/10/2_Nuclear_Radiation_Health_Manipulated_files/IJOEH_1303_Nussbaum.pdf)
Nuclear Power and Public Health, Richard W. Clapp, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/113-11/editorial.html (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/113-11/editorial.html)
What health effects? No one in the U.S. has died from radiation exposure at a plant. Not workers, not people living close to a nuke, no one. Where are all these horrible health effects? My own step father has been in reactors for close to 40 years. When he started, they barely monitored the radiation they took in, and literally walked around naked when working close to the reactor. I've been through 4 refueling outages now, the biggest doses you will receive during operation. I have yet to even come close to the limit the government gives me, and only once needed an extension for the limit the industry gives me. (5 Rem and 2 Rem a year respectively).
Also in the last article you linked, it mentions we need to build renewable resource power plants, there hasn't yet been a renewable resource that can come close to what nuclear power can output. It would take an area the size of Kentucky filled with wind farms to equal one or two nuclear plants. Not only that, our grid would not be capable of supporting that kind of infrastructure.
I am 100% solar, wind, and water, but they are not a viable replacement for nuclear or coal. So we are left with this, Coal plants pollute, Coal mines destroy water system, mountains, etc. They also need to be refueled constantly, they refuel as they burn fuel. A nuclear plant takes one truckload of fuel, and that lasts for 6 years.
The burning of nuclear fuel releases nothing but hot water into the environment. We don't leak radiation, we don't dump chemicals out to sea. The only reason most nuclear plants have cooling towers at all, is we were worried of the effect of dumping clean hot water into rivers and lakes. The best fishing in all of Lake Erie is a mile or so out in the lake, where we dump a large amount of hot water. Although, after 9\11 that area is now off limits :frown:
Agree or disagree, I can't change your minds, but nuclear plants are clean, safely run, and have a low impact to the environment. My proof? Compare our industry to any other power generation industry on Earth.
-
grizzz441 i know what you mean but to be honest, what happened today? on tv you see explosion at a nuclear plant, buildings destroyed,
20km Evacuation zone, 300 000 been evacuated from homes ... - what do you expect from people who dont know
much about it? do you really think it will change there view to "oh, but it looks safe".
No, I think it is impossible to change the view of those that are not educated about it.
-
Also I only remembered this now - can't nuclear waste be burnt by the latest generation of reactors?
-
I keep coming back to these statistics;
The US Navy has operated nuclear powered ships since the 50's.
The US Navy is currently operating over 80 nuclear ships.
All without a single fatal reactor accident.
France gets over 70% of it's electricity from nuclear, with something like 50 plants.
Japan gets about 40% of its electricity from nuclear, and operates 53 nuclear plants.
All without a fatal accident.
There has to my knowledge never been an accident or significant radiation leak from the casks storing spent fuel rods either.
Meanwhile how many coal miners or oil rig workers have died in the last 50 years from accidents or black lung? Also how many acres of environment have been forever altered by hydroelectric dams? (just look at what the Chinese are doing to the Yangtze river now, displacing millions of citizens, and flooding millions of acres of amazing scenery/ecosystem)
Personally I'd much rather like my survival odds working at a nuclear plant, then in a coal mine or oil platform.
Just because some irresponsible Soviets mismanaged a poor design back in the 80's, does not mean that kind of accidents is the norm or just "waiting to happen". It is in fact the exception to the rule.
-
Also I only remembered this now - can't nuclear waste be burnt by the latest generation of reactors?
There are multiple way of dealing with it. I'm not educated on any of those types of reactors though. I do know they were testing a bacteria that ate through spent fuel, and pooped out super concentrated waste, thus even further minimizing the amount we have. The reason Yucca mountain isn't an even bigger issue at this time, is the fact we just don't produce that much spent fuel.
-
warhed quick question, some nuclear physicist just mentioned on TV a meltdown in Fukushima would be 3 times as hard as chernobyl
because of 2 main points.
1st. in Chernobyl there was a fire and big explosion, the radiation particles went up to 15km in the air spread around
whole europe. A meltdown without an explosion in Fukushima would be more intense, you would need an evacuation zone of min. 100km.
and 2nd, the Fuel rods at Fukushima are much older then Chernobyl = much much more radiation.
What do you think about this statements?
-
warhed quick question, some nuclear physicist just mentioned on TV a meltdown in Fukushima would be 3 times as hard as chernobyl
because of 2 main points.
1st. in Chernobyl there was a fire and big explosion, the radiation particles went up to 15km in the air spread around
whole europe. A meltdown without an explosion in Fukushima would be more intense, you would need an evacuation zone of min. 100km.
and 2nd, the Fuel rods at Fukushima are much older then Chernobyl = much much more radiation.
What do you think about this statements?
I don't even know where to begin. In Chernobyl, graphite was exposed to air after the operators kept surging power, once the graphite met air, it exploded. Nuclear fuel was carried in that explosion. There was no containment building.
In the Japanese plant, there is a very large secure structure around the reactor vessel. Even in the case of a meltdown or explosion (Containment buildings are designed to take the impact of a 747), radiation and contamination will not be released through an event. A meltdown in no way causes an explosion. It is just that, the fuel becomes so hot due to lack of coolant, it melts, essentially turning into lava. The reactor vessel would not be able to contain it, and it would flow down towards the earth. It would still have to pass through the containment building, and the foundation that rests on as well. The worst case scenario in that example would be the melted nuclear fuel coming into contact with ground water, contaminating it.
There was no chance of a nuclear explosion at Chernobyl, and no chance of one in Japan. A nuclear weapon is around 98% refined fuel, a nuclear power plant is around 0.02% refined. Nuclear fuel is not concentrated enough to explode.
People are evacuated in any natural or unnatural disaster, whether it be a tsunami, earthquake, nuclear power plant event, gas line explosion, train derailment, asteroid impact, etc.
I'm not sure where this physicist you mentioned gets the idea of there being an explosion because of the meltdown.
-
For a little context of what goes wrong when Coal goes wrong, follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill)
Now add on the poisons Coal power produces and emits to the environment.
-
[quote
What I personally put in first place right now for replacing coal, and possibly wind and solar (IMO wind is way too weak, solar might take too long to become efficient and non polluting enough), is thorium fission.
That's just incredible, but I'll read it.
[/quote]
Isn't solar power nuclear power, if we stand in the sun without taking precautions we will die of radiation poisoning.
I would argue that it is safer because of the precautions we take with it. It took some catastrophes so we can learn how to make it safer. Millions die from sun radiation and we don't cry foul on the sun, we learn to take better precautions. I think there are more reasons than the deaths attributed to nuclear that make it a better way to go than fossil fuel. I also believe that we should take reasonable precautions with fossil fuels and burn them as necessary.
Energy production and the control thereof will be the next great war.
-
How can anyone bring up Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as examples of why nuclear power is not a good idea? Archaic designs. Chernobyl was just a terrible design with a horribly unsatisfactory level of reliability to begin with. TMI was probably a combination of that and employees that were not properly trained. So much has changed in design, understanding, training, that it would take a 500-year type event like a 8.9 magnitude earthquake to force the plant into 3rd or 4th level safety systems to control the reaction.
TBH, I think the main reason people are anti Nuclear is because of the connotation with the word "Nuclear". If you called them High Temperature Steam Generators it would be a different story.
I agree that there is a lot of junk science in the world around carbon emissions. But, I have been seeing similar studies to this one for the past 20 years -- well before the whole global warming hysteria. You'll note that this study doesn't include any affects of global warming, by the way. This sticks to the nasty pollutants that nobody disagrees are toxic.
I used to live in Morro Bay. There was an old PGE coal fire plant there. It wasn't publicized, but if you could prove you leaved a certain distance from the plant, they would pay for you car to be repainted on a regular basis. Hard to argue that the kind of crap that ruins your cars paint job is safe to breathe on a regular basis. Were there protests about that? Nah. The Abalone Alliance was too busy killing the nuclear industry -- thereby assuring fossil fuel's dominance for another generation.
Is this study precisely accurate? Who knows -- I have seen some who argue it low balls the deaths. But it is clear that fossil fuel deaths are MUCH higher than deaths from Nuclear power, which is my point. Hysteria about nuclear stands a good chance of scuttling the one true hope we have in the short run for cleaner power.
-
What health effects? No one in the U.S. has died from radiation exposure at a plant. Not workers, not people living close to a nuke, no one. Where are all these horrible health effects?
Really. Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of 'plant,' doesn't it?
Brain tumor risk among United States nuclear workers.
Alexander V.
Enviro-Medicine Associates, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112.
This review of ten carefully conducted cohort mortality studies of U.S. workers in the nuclear industry published during the past decade finds a significantly increased brain cancer risk. There is a high degree of consistency between these studies, as eight out of ten cohorts, individually, show comparable increased risks. A sensitivity analysis that selects the studies of highest quality yields similar increased risk estimates from brain cancer, no matter how the studies are grouped. Those index studies that provide radiation dose exposure information show stable excess brain cancer risks of 15% at cumulative doses of less than 5 rem. There are no obvious environmental or geographical confounders likely to explain this consistently observed excess brain cancer risk. Occupational chemical exposures may contribute to this excess brain cancer risk among nuclear workers, but the only apparent common factor in ten cohorts with quite diverse work environments is the potential for exposure to ionizing radiation. Overall, these index studies of more than 78,000 workers followed for an average of 21 years, with more than 1.6 million person years of observation, establish that there is a statistically significant 15% excess risk of brain cancer for workers in the U.S. nuclear industry who have low-dose average cumulative radiation exposures.
You want more, or would you rather keep your head in the sand?
-
Really. Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of 'plant,' doesn't it?
How would you define it?
-
Really. Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of 'plant,' doesn't it?
You want more, or would you rather keep your head in the sand?
How come there aren't tens of thousands of Navy submariners, and carrier personnel with brain cancer then? I mean they not only work in close proximity to a reactor, they also eat, sleep and relax around one. In fact they can't get away from it for 6 months at a time.
If there are such nasty health threats from nuclear reactors you'd think it would have surfaced by now given the Navy has been operating them for 60 years.
Meanwhile the health threats from coal mining, and coal and gas fired generators are real.
The title of this thread is
Relative dangers of nuclear power
Now I'll admit that it has it's dangers, and we must be very careful and cautious with it. Nothing is perfectly safe after all. But from a "relative" standpoint (relative to other means of electricity production) nuclear seems to be relatively safe.
-
Really. Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of 'plant,' doesn't it?
You want more, or would you rather keep your head in the sand?
I am aware of that study, I am also aware of studies showing the exact opposite.
I am also personally aware of the dose I receive at the plant. I am however, not aware of the radiation dose I receive outside the plant. Natually occuring radiation such as bananas, granite, TVs, cell phone signals, microwaves, the sun, flights on airlines. A businessman who flies 5 times a year will receive more radiation than I will one year at a plant.
There have been no studies definitively link any elevated cancer risks soley to being a nuclear worker. All the studies showing otherwise have not been able to show an increase over populations not working in a plant.
One chest Xray at the hospital will give you a larger dose than the average worker receives at a plant in one year.
-
By the way, the study you linked itself admits, "...Occupational chemical exposures may contribute to this excess brain cancer risk among nuclear workers..."
The only thing that series of studies concludes, is there is an increase in brain cancers among nuclear workers. It absolutely never once implies that any of that is due to excess radiation doses received at the plant. And if it did, I would love to find how they linked regular doses we receive to brain cancer. Perhaps you could find that link for me?
The fact of the matter is, nuclear workers, at least in the U.S. do not receive very much more radiation than any other person. It is closely monitored by a variety of methods. Every year I get a report of my personal dose from the previous year.
I have family in California, a round trip flight exposes me to more radiation I receive at the plant in one year.
-
In Taiwan (in the early 1980s), 180 apartment buildings were built with recycled steel that was accidentally contaminated with Colbalt-60. The buildings' occupants, 4,000 people, lived in them for more than 10 years before their radioactive state was discovered. The amount of radiation they received ranged up to more than 1,500 mrem per year. (Colbalt-60 has a half-life of 5.3 years.) The cancer mortality, over a 20-year period, in the radiated occupants was 97 percent less (3.5 deaths per 100,000 person years) than that of the general population of Taiwan (116 deaths per 100,000 person years). Even the incidence of congenital heart malformations in the children they bore was reduced. This carefully done study shows, as its authors put it, that "chronic radiation [far above EPA limits] is an effective prophylaxis against cancer."
I have seen hundreds of studies stating I am at lower risk to cancer BECAUSE of my work at a nuclear power plant. 1,500 mrem a year for me would be about double what I would expect during a refueling outage. While the plant is running (I don't work at running plants, I only work refuel outages), I would receive a fraction of that.
The story is also comforting as I once had a speck of Cobalt-60 embedded in my skin on the last day of a refueling outage. It stayed with me for around two weeks before my body rejected it.
-
Read up on Radiation hormesis for a little more insight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis)
-
By the way, the study you linked itself admits, "...Occupational chemical exposures may contribute to this excess brain cancer risk among nuclear workers..."
...but the only apparent common factor in ten cohorts with quite diverse work environments is the potential for exposure to ionizing radiation.
The only thing that series of studies concludes, is there is an increase in brain cancers among nuclear workers. It absolutely never once implies that any of that is due to excess radiation doses received at the plant. And if it did, I would love to find how they linked regular doses we receive to brain cancer. Perhaps you could find that link for me?
Reappraisal of brain tumor risk among U.S. nuclear workers: a 10-year review.
Alexander V, DiMarco JH.
Enviro Medicine Associates, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808, USA.
Abstract
A review of cohort mortality studies among workers exposed to ionizing radiation in U.S. nuclear programs was published in this journal 10 years ago. The present review extends that investigation to include four new groups of workers at Fernald (Ohio), Rocketdyne/Atomics International (California), Mallinckrodt Chemical (Missouri), and Los Alamos National Laboratory (New Mexico). The total number of brain tumors has doubled to nearly 300, with 3.8 million person-years of observation among 140,000 U.S. white male workers. This increased risk of brain tumor is highly consistent, persistent, and stable. The sum total of these studies dwarfs the reported experience of any other comparison group. The observed increased brain tumor risk is statistically significant and has changed little since 1991 when it was estimated at 15%. Study results from 1999 and 2000 may suggest a modest growing risk of 25-30%.
Must be just a statistical anomaly, eh?
I have family in California, a round trip flight exposes me to more radiation I receive at the plant in one year.
How are you getting there, via the ISS?
-
AKH,
I'm still curious what your answer to this is..
How come there aren't tens of thousands of Navy submariners, and carrier personnel with brain cancer then? I mean they not only work in close proximity to a reactor, they also eat, sleep and relax around one. In fact they can't get away from it for 6 months at a time.
If there are such nasty health threats from nuclear reactors you'd think it would have surfaced by now given the Navy has been operating them for 60 years.
As for the cited study, I've seen conflicting studies on so many topics it's crazy.
-
Tens of thousands? How many have served on such ships? Bear in mind the fact that there were 300 cases of brain tumours from a population of 140,000 in the civilian studies.
The usual military/government reticence to admit responsibility and liability - Agent Orange, mesothelioma and lung cancer in navy vets, Gulf War Syndrome, ...
Academic studies are thin on the ground for this group (most probably due to funding). One study of all cancers in submariners yielded corrected standard mortality rates of 2.11 for SSBNs and 1.49 for SSNs. There was also a study of civilian shipyard workers that showed a marked increase in cancers within the nuclear workers when compared to the non-nuclear workers.
-
Amen moot, I have seen the effects of a coal or gas plant on the surrounding population. Even if
you include Chernobyl I would imagine nuclear is magnitudes less harmful to the environment. If you
don't included it there isn't even a conversation about it.
Strip
The difference is the length of the contamination. In that regard coal cannot compare.
NO NUKES..
-
I don't know about you guy's but this hole thing has me freaked out ..does not look good .
-
Studies show that people who work under high voltage power lines are in high risk for brain tumors. It's the occupational disease of electric train operators.
Nuclear powerplant contains awfully lot high voltage lines crossing the area.. just saying. ;)
-
NO NUKES..
A good slogan is an accurate slogan. In this case..
It is being demonized
Obscurantism is a stupid strategy by principle
because we cant deal with the waste safely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html
which could work as stopgap or at least transition to thorium fission
and we cant deal with catastrophic events like this one.
This one's not done so let's not draw any conclusions yet. What's true whatever happens is that catastrophic events are catastrophic. The plant is on the shoreline. It apparently weathered the quake just fine. IOW if it hadn't been on the shore it probably would've stayed below that critical limit where everything you get a chain reaction of failures.
There are always gonna be spills (no pun), whether acute like hot nuclear leaks or insidiously slow like fossil fuel pollution. If the world lived by greenies' standards we'd never have had early industrial revolution's appallingly toxic first gen tech, and today the third world couldn't benefit from all lessons learned from it. So far the death and intoxication toll is still way worse with fossil fuels and I haven't done even napkin math but I don't see anyone showing how pervasive modern design uranium fission would be as bad for human and ecological health. The TWh lethality rates I posted above say as much. Just replying it's all government conspiracy is kooky
-
I don't know about you guy's but this hole thing has me freaked out ..does not look good .
no panic, nuclear power is safe! thats what the pro-nuc saying ;)
they are relative safe, yes, but dont mix earthquake + nuc-plant = fukushima
and they still talking and comparing how safe it is, its beyound me.
-
no panic, nuclear power is safe! thats what the pro-nuc saying ;)
Safer
they are relative safe, yes, but dont mix earthquake + nuc-plant = fukushima
and they still talking and comparing how safe it is, its beyound me.
Beyond you that it wasn't the quake but the flooding?
And again the lack of distinction between all things "nuclear" is just the kind of FUD the world doesn't need. EG what the world's economy would look like if its reliance on fossil fuel was more mitigated with uranium if not thorium fission.
I read AKH's nuclear power studies/editorials. I wouldn't bet that a majority of the "anti-nuke" posters here clicked on the thorium redux video. Why? Because they don't want to know and don't care about anything more that's "nuclear". Why? Because of uncomprehensive slogans like NO NUKES..
-
new groups of workers at Fernald (Ohio), Rocketdyne/Atomics International (California), Mallinckrodt Chemical (Missouri), and Los Alamos National Laboratory (New Mexico).
Ok...let's see:
Rocketdyne/Atomics international: I don't see anything about civil nuclear power in here (http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/environment/santa_susana/factsheets/radiation_workers2006.pdf)
Mallinckrodt Chemical - helps process uranium (http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/complex/mallinckrodt-chemical-inc-facility.html)
Los Alamos National Lab - last time I went to their museum, they were doing stuff like preserving and checking America's nuclear arsenal without actually setting off any nukes.
None of these seem particularly relevant to civil nuclear power, which is what is being discussed here.
The difference is the length of the contamination. In that regard coal cannot compare.
NO NUKES..
Yeah, it can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoil_tip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoil_tip)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal)
All those by-products aren't just going to vanish...
they are relative safe, yes, but dont mix earthquake + nuc-plant = fukushima
and they still talking and comparing how safe it is, its beyound me.
Actually I'm quite impressed with the Japanese nuclear reactor. It's been earthquaked, tsunami'd, had an explosion go off on top of the containment chamber...and it's still in one piece! And this is a 40-year old design which was going to be retired in the very near future anyway.
Have you considered what would happen if a tsunami hit a coal power plant instead? It wouldn't surprise me if the water magically found its way to some toxic pile of ashes, and then spread the stuff all around the surrounding countryside. Ah, yes - coal power is so nice, and safe, and clean!
edit: maybe I'll be shown to be wrong on this last bit. If so, I'll eat my proverbial hat. But even if there are significant consequences, I'd like to point out that earthquakes of 9.0 on the richter scale and tsunamis are not exactly everyday occurrences - I'd consider them to be rather exceptional.
-
Either way you look at it between, the world playing with Nuclear stuff or dealing with toxic ash from power plants is like standing on the traffic line of a freeway, eventually there will be a shift in traffic or a lane change and you will get hit by a Bus or a Semi traveling at 80mph, results will be the same by either one. ;)
Either way, we are doing nothing about the long term and only thinking about the short term. The HAZWASTE generated by either of these is what will kill us if nothing else in the long run.
-
Ok...let's see:
Rocketdyne/Atomics international: I don't see anything about civil nuclear power in here (http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/environment/santa_susana/factsheets/radiation_workers2006.pdf)
Mallinckrodt Chemical - helps process uranium (http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/complex/mallinckrodt-chemical-inc-facility.html)
Los Alamos National Lab - last time I went to their museum, they were doing stuff like preserving and checking America's nuclear arsenal without actually setting off any nukes.
None of these seem particularly relevant to civil nuclear power, which is what is being discussed here.
Nuclear power is what is being discussed here: "Relative dangers of nuclear power". I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to move the goalposts after we've started.
Atomics International undertook the development of nuclear reactors soon after being established: a series of commercial nuclear power reactors beginning with the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) and a range of compact nuclear reactors culminating with the Systems for Auxiliary Nuclear Power SNAP-10A system. Both efforts were successful, despite nuclear accidents at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, but overall interest in nuclear power steadily declined. The division transitioned to non-nuclear energy-related projects such as coal gasification and gradually ceased designing and testing nuclear reactors. Atomics International was eventually merged with another division of the same parent company. As of 2010, All of the Atomics International facilities, except for the few remaining facilities located in the Area IV test area at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), have been demolished, cleaned and reused, or awaiting final cleanup.
Uranium processing is not part of the uranium cycle? Does this mean we should also disregard all the health effects from fuel extraction and processing of other forms of power generation?
Are you saying there have never been any nuclear reactors or fuel and waste processing facilities on the Los Alamos site?
-
We need to ban Xrays, bananas, sun exposure, airlines, granite, computers, TVs, microwaves, cell phones, cars, coal plants, and millions of other radioactive items, because radiation is evil. I mean, radiation, it just sounds evil.
By the way Lew, not only do I, but the majority of the people I worked with live smack dab near our nuclear power plant.
How many people in the Tenesee fly ash spill who's homes and lives were ruined were workers at the coal plant?
Radiation from nuclear power does not kill or harm its workers, or citizens in proximity. And we will either build new nukes to keep up with demand, or coal plants that pollute, devastate, and kill in their operation.
-
It's kind of funny seeing all of this paranoia about nuclear power when you see the steam pillars from the cooling towers of Three Mile Island on a daily basis and you feel completely safe.
-
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5554664958_fdde193290_o.jpg)
http://www.ieahydro.org/reports/ST3-020613b.pdf
-
The leftist propaganda against nuclear power has brain washed so many. Nuclear power is a very viable option that is getting a bad wrap just like hydrogen got a bad rap after the Hindenburg.
-
We can't go full nuclear yet as the world's supply of nuclear fuel would only last just under 50 years fueling those plants.
A nuke fuel rod contains 99% of -238 isotope and 1% 239 isotope... the current reactors only use the -239 portion to generate power, leaving behind the -238 as waste. Scientists are trying to design a reactor that will use the -238 waste fuel rods as fuel... if they can pull this off then the world's supply of power could be satisfied by these new, safer reactors.
our fuel is enriched to ~4%-6% u235 the rest u238.. over core life the reactor engineers will setup a rod pattern and take advantage of what is called spectral hardening and produce p239 in the upper portions of the core for the end of core life when most of the u235 has been depleted..
-
absolutely not true, its the opposite today most of the anti-nuclear people i know, know much more about the whole technique & the danger.
How can you compare it to a high temp steam generator??? absolutely wrong, just stop the fire, open all valves and your ok...
This just dont work with a real Nuclear Plant, does it??
b/c it is a high temp steam generator.. lol
and yes.. it pretty much is just like that.. open a valve, put out the fire... ok ok.. maybe a couple valves have to be closed also.. :D
-
And that was not a scram.
oh i bet they did scram.. hehe :D
-
warhed quick question, some nuclear physicist just mentioned on TV a meltdown in Fukushima would be 3 times as hard as chernobyl
because of 2 main points.
1st. in Chernobyl there was a fire and big explosion, the radiation particles went up to 15km in the air spread around
whole europe. A meltdown without an explosion in Fukushima would be more intense, you would need an evacuation zone of min. 100km.
and 2nd, the Fuel rods at Fukushima are much older then Chernobyl = much much more radiation.
What do you think about this statements?
no Mk1 containment has ever been breached.. if badstuff can't get to the people places, how could it be worse?
-
Our plant set records in our refuel outages in 2005 and 2007 for shortest cold shutdowns. We went from 100% power down to 0% in the matter of an hour. That used to take days to do.
It really is as simple as boiling water, some plants use steam to turn the turbine, other use pressure, BWR and PWR respectively.
We are in no shortage of fuel, I've never heard anyone ever talk about running out. My plant, and most others in the U.S. are burning old soviet weapons, not because we're running out of the fresh stuff, it's just cheaper. That is the beauty of a nuclear power plant, a few trucks worth of fuel lasts in the reactor for 6 years. They divide the fuel into 3 sections, the inner sections burn out first, then after 2 years you take the inner our, and move the middle section in, and the outer section to the middle, and put in new fuel on the outside. It doesn't take much work to keep running, for the guys who man the plant during it's running, it really is a cake job. Guys like me (outage support) have all the hard work :D
-
Our plant set records in our refuel outages in 2005 and 2007 for shortest cold shutdowns. We went from 100% power down to 0% in the matter of an hour. That used to take days to do.
i work at a bwr.. if we cooled down that quickly the reactor vessel would be DOA... from an operating pressure of ~1035psi to atmo press is called an emergency depressurization and is generally frowned upon. lol (a vessel's life will only consist of one of these) we have a defined cool down rate that must be adhered to. the vessel is a large chunk of metal. if it cools too rapidly it becomes brittle therefor not operational.
-
What station are you at?
-
Browns Ferry.. my plant is kinda famous too but for the wrong reasons.. haha
You're at Cook or Palisades?
-
or for some of the right reasons too.. haha I think we still have the most MW generated under one roof in the world.. <G>
-
Browns Ferry.. my plant is kinda famous too but for the wrong reasons.. haha
You're at Cook or Palisades?
Used to work at First Energy, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, now with a new company called New Green, once we get contracts, we'll be doing repair and decon. When I get hired I'll be running a outage maint. team.
First Energy if you remember from 6 or 7 years ago, had the fiasco with the reactor vessel at Davis Besse. That one almost bankrupted First Energy :D
-
Our one reactor put out over 1300 :)
Our other reactor put out nothing, we're one of those half plants haha.
The incomplete reactor provided a strange haunted dark outage support facility.
-
First Energy if you remember from 6 or 7 years ago, had the fiasco with the reactor vessel at Davis Besse. That one almost bankrupted First Energy :D
yea.. that was boron on the carbon steel steam dome? pretty sure folks went to jail for that one..
-
yea.. that was boron on the carbon steel steam dome? pretty sure folks went to jail for that one..
That's the one. Those guys were on outage schedules after it came out for almost 2 full years. Mixed with our plant having our outage go about 4 months over schedule, FE was close to selling the reactors, we had 2/4 reactors running for 6 months, then 3/4 for almost 2 years, plus Beaver Vallery's scheduled outages. Was the main reason I never got on full time at Perry, even after going through the nuclear engineering program.
-
That's the one. Those guys were on outage schedules after it came out for almost 2 full years.
good money there i bet..
iirc it was a 3/8 piece of stainless steel liner inside the vessel was the only thing maintaining the pressure boundary.. just another testament to how well american/GE plants are designed..
Japan's plants seemed to frighten the world but i see it as success. They withstood a mag9 earthquake and the following tsunami and to top it all off were without offsite power for 7days.. the last i read the suffered minor fuel damage.. probably less than 5%.. but bottom line is their primary containments held.
-
good money there i bet..
iirc it was a 3/8 piece of stainless steel liner inside the vessel was the only thing maintaining the pressure boundary.. just another testament to how well american/GE plants are designed..
Japan's plants seemed to frighten the world but i see it as success. They withstood a mag9 earthquake and the following tsunami and to top it all off were without offsite power for 7days.. the last i read the suffered minor fuel damage.. probably less than 5%.. but bottom line is their primary containments held.
The American media shows this as "the danger of nuclear power realised." I see it as a testament to how safe these reactors are, even though they weren't designed to handle these sorts of disasters.
The new designs the Japanese had for future reactors would of weathered these events much better. One had emergency cooling water held in a lake on a mountain above the plant, able to use gravity in the event of failure.
-
Ran across these words from the days of my youth.
I leave it to each individual to interpret it's inflection regarding the current events of the day. :salute
Godzilla strikes me as symbol of the nuclear genie that cant be put back in the bottle.
http://static.infowars.com/2011/03/i/general/demon.jpg
Regards,
Sun
History shows again and again
How nature points up(OUT) the folly of men
Godzilla!
Rinji news o moshiagemasu!
Rinji news o moshiagemasu!
Godzilla ga Ginza hoomen e mukatte imasu!
Daishkyu hinan toejame kudasai!
Daishkyu hinan toejame kudasai!
(Attention, emergency news!
Attention, emergency news!
Godzilla is going toward the Ginza area!
Immediately escape, catch up, find shelter please!
Immediately escape, catch up, find shelter please!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6rDWqjnW7w&feature=related
-
You're right, let's abandon nuclear power before we create a real Godzilla. This is what humanity really needs, before it's too late
-
haha i like the Godzilla analogy...
Warhed, what kinda work? Are they going to bring up U2 at Perry? If so that will be hugh! We recently brought back one of our units a few years back.. Was a really big deal at the time.. The Potus even came! ha
-
Our Unit 2 was around 75%-80% completed, including the cooling tower. I don't think it will ever be completed. Bottom 2 levels have been flooded since before I was there, I believe they finally remedied that permanently however. It's just too far gone to complete.
I loved walking through it however, was a mirror image of Unit 1. It was like a before and after you could walk through. Once saw something the size of a small bear scurry around a corner and dive into the water near Unit 2's drywell, I swear!! :noid
-
Once saw something the size of a small bear scurry around a corner and dive into the water near Unit 2's drywell, I swear!! :noid
lol! :D
-
As far as work, I've done everything there is to do in an outage short of moving fuel. I got out in 2010, due to other better prospects. An old boss started up the new repair/decon company, and wants me to help form up an outage support crew. I used to show up 2-3 months before, set everything up, work in Maintenance, be a tool of Radiation Protection (Health Physics), assist fire teams, sacrifical dose lamb, etc. Then I'd be on for a few more months closing everything up.
I never said no and always volunteered first. My stepdad was pretty high up in Engineering so I got used for anything he needed. In 07 they gave me my own small crew and stuck me with Operations.
Helped save a lot of money not using contractors, and we were much more trained, and it was our home plant. So we'll work on specializing an outage crew to the same standards, and pimp them out.
I love outages :banana:
-
lol! :D
The guy with me said, "Don't tell anyone, no one's going to believe you anyway."
-
I love outages
lol i hear you.. always loved the money for sure! not everyday you get to see a main generator rotor removed and lowered ~60ft below.. haha
i worked as an auo in operations for several years and am now in a license program.. air conditioning is appealing.. lol hope to pass my nrc exam in august.
-
lol i hear you.. always loved the money for sure! not everyday you get to see a main generator rotor removed and lowered ~60ft below.. haha
i worked as an auo in operations for several years and am now in a license program.. air conditioning is appealing.. lol hope to pass my nrc exam in august.
Good luck man, if the woman I worked with could do it, I'm convinced anyone can.
I loved being as close to the reactor as possible, I assisted in some heavy work under the vessel, love it down there, I was the only one in the plant qual'd to run the blackbox for control rod maintenance work, spent 6-8 hours a night for a week down there, they were burning out contractor's limits doing the work, a few hours were dosing them out. After about 30 workers they started using guys who had no clue down there. Radiation Protection mixed me up with one of their guys, so I was the only "tech" on duty. Which would of been fine had one of the contractors not passed out under vessel. Had to cut an airline after making a 50/50 choice of which one. Ah, good times lol
That radiation sure is addicting.
Outages certainly provide some "holy crap" moments for sure.
-
The biggest problem with nuclear power is the potential for a radiation leak. Other than that it's safe.
-
The biggest problem with nuclear power is the potential for a radiation leak. Other than that it's safe.
Coal leaks pollutants 24/7.
Minus the 28 who died at Chernobyl, nuclear hasn't killed anyone yet. Add up the deaths associated to coal, nuclear is safer. Even hydro power with massive dams is more dangerous.