A real energy future....

[Zachstar]

Undersea, trying to convince the nation that we need more Fission plants is an act of futility for many reasons besides the supposed radiation threat to the bunnies.

The best we can hope for is that the current plants continue to be run near 100 percent for the next few decades so they do not get replaced by nasty coal plants.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

A real energy future - an honest political future? Energy, environment and politics are linked together and can't be seen as separate entities.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/op...gewanted=print

Skybird there are still a small minority that believes GW is an Al Gore conspiricy. Which is strange because even their dear president and presidential candidate mostly supports the theory now.

So with that in mind and a Congress that will have a mad republican minority next year we have to almost accept that things like "cap and trade" which BTW has been a failure of epic proportions. And other measures to "Force" the economy to reduce emissions is almost without a chance.

So in my view the only way to get past this situation with the climate is to go right through it. Lets continue to see the polar regions melt, Droughts destroy food, etc... Then hopefully by the time congress will give a damn.. We will have the technology to do something about it.

If anyone, Here seriously thinks the world can come together in 100 months (The timeline I have heard recently that supposedly is in the range of "passive" environmental restoration) Well sorry but no... Aint gonna happen...

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

What in the world is an accu?

Aint that one of them big birds in Australia?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Undersea, trying to convince the nation that we need more Fission plants is an act of futility for many reasons besides the supposed radiation threat to the bunnies.

The best we can hope for is that the current plants continue to be run near 100 percent for the next few decades so they do not get replaced by nasty coal plants.

:rotfl:


Please expound on that though. I 'm not sure why it is so futile. I mean, all I would have to do is get people to read a little about how nukes operate.....oh, maybe it is futile.

[Skybird]

Lance,

I see the primary argument agains nukes is expense. So be it.

Nuclear reactors are actually quite cost-effective to build, even under most extremely cautious and sometimes silly Federal regs. The main cost of building and operating the plants comes from insurance costs. These insurance costs are based on irrational fear of nuclear catastrophes. How many dissenters have ever been inside a nuclear plant? The thing practically runs itself.

Irrational? You are making irresponsible claims here.

You would have to be deliberately trying to cause a radiation leak to actually make one. Only a very unlikely series of unfortunate circumstances could cause one.

Just last month the French have had two or three such “unlikely leaks”. It is no rare event that radiation leaks show up during accidents in nuclear powerplants. They< have had four accidents in one of theirs in recent weeks. That the company tries to play it down and hide information about it, should not surprise anybody. The Swedes last year did the same, and regarding one of their plants they run in Germany via RWE company, they even actively hindred analysis by officials for long, and delayed action as long as possible. And this although one of the three accidents they had in Sweden last year today is considered to have been a extremely serious event during which they had not really 100% control but – luck. During many nuclear accidents radiation has been set free, or nuclear material has been released. It is by far jno0 exception from the rule.

Nuclear disasters are also over-rated. Many people cite Three-mile island without actually knowing anything about it. Some think it was close to a "meltdown" without knowing what that term means. Others think the reactor leaked "dangerous radiation"

Considering your explanations following, I wonder if YOU know it. This is not about China-Syndrome-movie-hysteria. This is about something like Chernobyl.

Firstly, a meltdown is nigh-impossible. I have said it before, and I will continue to say it until I stop hearing that stupid term; there is no meltdown. That term comes from that retarded movie "The China Syndrome" wherein a nuclear reactor "goes critical" (has an uncontrollable reaction) that causes the reaction mass to become so hot it melts the containment unit and threatens to melt through the Earth's surface until it reaches the water supply. The nature of the term is engendered by the ludicrous belief that such a reaction could melt a hole to all the way to China.

You simply are wrong informed. A meltdown can happen, and has happened in Chernobyl. It means not that the mass burns through all the globe, through the core, then climbs against gravity on the other side and pops up in china (this is the image behind the term “China-Syndrome”, and yes, that cannot happen indeed and is an image only). “Meltdown” (Kernschmelze) means that the temperature of the core due to lacking cooling becomes so hot that it indeed could melt/burn the shielding, walls, and isolation that seal the core chamber, and the building itself. THIS was one of the major problem the Russians had to fight with so hard: the immense temperatures inside the reactor building that now is sealed. But the seals are not solid anymore, but – using this word in lack of any better – “corrode” due to the radiation, and temperature from within.

Until today, you can measure significantly raised radiation levels in France, Germany, Britain, that are caused by the freed nuclear material from the Chernobyl disaster that escaped into the atmosphere.

The very nature of this argument should discourage any belief in it but amazingly it does not.

You are in need to re-adjust your position.

Secondly, no American has ever had their cause of death established as "exposure to Nuclear power plant radiation". You are much more likely to die from cancer caused by natural radiation than that produced (assuming it was somehow released" from nuclear power plants.

1 there is a world beyond America, believe it or not. 2. Americans make up for only 5% of the global population, the remaining 95% of people on this globe are not American. This becomes important regarding needed numbers of powerplants if they should have a solid effect on worldclimate, because most of the 1500 addito9nally needed (!) powerplants then would have to be built not only in the western world, but the second and third world including all those labelled rogue states as well – Iran, anyone? North Korea? 3. You may want to research the case of Karen Silkwood, there is also a movie about it, but the story is not fictional but real for sure. She worked in a plutonium factory by energy corporation Kerr McGee and became aware of mounting numbers of accidents during which employees got poisoned while the company – like so often in nuclear business – talked it down and tried to hide it. She later got killed under mysterious circumstances. I know that I have heared and read about more things like this, including staff from powerplants, but I do not remember the details and names out of the blue and don’T want to research it all now. – You point a 100% idealistic, hyper-optimistic picture here. Don’t be so naïve. There is no fail-safe technology, and there is no material or technology that does not suffer from wear and tear, and accidents. You can reduce the risk, but neither can you bring it to nill, nor can you reduce it so far as you seem to think.

Producing an "uncontrolled" reaction in a nuclear plant would have to be deliberate. Even the Russians haven't managed it and we know all about their history with nukes. Before anyone says something about it "The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer cases among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed and 5,000 among the 6 million living nearby.[4] Although the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and certain limited areas will remain off limits, the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity"

The IAEA has a bias, first said, and is under immense political influence. Second, I do not see listed those workers who in small groups but an endless stream got shuttled to the roof via helicopters and worked for 30 seconds only, then were brought back, heavily poisoned by the intense radiation on the open roof that they had to seal in this suffering and slow manner, and physically broken from the radiation after just 30 seconds. And that have been more than just half a hundred or so. Many of them died in the months and up to two years after their 30 second walk (and not because they were old).

The General consensus is that the "explosion was caused by atmospheric overpressure which was in turn caused by a fire that had nothing to do with the fissionable materials contained therin.

again, that is a statement by an organisation that has a policy to let use of nuclear energy appear as acceptable in principle and play down risks. It is not important why the core was exposed and burned up – that this was the consequence in which previous events resulted: this is the important thing. Technology can fail. And regarding nuclear technology one needs to be aware of what that could mean in consequences. Consider Chernobyl having happened at a Location near Frankfurt. It would have changed Europe’s face, it would not have wiped out Germany, but would have substantially prevented it to be what it is today in the present. The effects on economy, business and finances would have had truly global dimensions.

If the explosion was nuclear in origin, all the better. What a ptitiful amount of damage for something people fear so much.
Blame it on my being American, but I also consider the fact that the Soviet Union ran the damn thing to be a major factor. That's almost as bad as referring to an episode of "Captain Planet" for one's arguments.

That thing was old and badly maintained, yes. However be aware that there are accidents taking place in Sweden, Germany, Britain, France, America as well. I am not sure if I ever have heard of accidents in Japan. They surely build theirs to be rating high on the security scale, due to the risks of earthquakes. A very high problem see in control of these facilities not being objective and not influenced by lobbying. Energy producers have too much influence on how to handle inspection, how to handle accidents, and information policy. This should all be handled by an independent organisation that cannot be made subject to attempts of influencing it. But no western national nuclear control office qualifies for that, including german and american ones. It all looks nice on papers, but realities are something different.

The death toll from this one, isolated incident, in the hands of an irresponsible, and I must say, socialist government, caused fewer deaths than coal-mining accidents throughout America's history as a nation.

Handling by capitalist societies leaving information policies to private economical lobbies having interest in not being objective has been proven to be not trustworthy as well, we just learned it this and last year again, and many times before as well. Where bureaucracy meets oligarchies and lobbies, trust better comes to an end. And that constellation is fulfilled both in western nations today, as in the former USSR alike. In fact I think the more years go by, the more similar to the USSR structures the western nations start to look – but that is another discussion for another thread.

The failure of the nuclear industry to establish itself, until recently, as a primary power source in the U.S. is due to nothing more than irrational fear and the costs associated with it.

The costs are immense financially, and in germany: politically as well. The follow-up costs in the long run are even higher. Normally, costs for taking care of nuclear waste, are totally excluded from the company’s calculation on profits, these costs get externalized, means: they are being put onto the shoulders of the tax payer. We take about costs that in full depth cannot be calculated and will be existent for many generations to come. And I do not even refer to accidents in storage sites, disasters and contaminations. Plutonium has a half-life of 24.000 years. I am aware not all nuclear waste is plutonium, but we talk about isolating materials over time ranges of several ten thousand years until they have reduced their radioactivity to relatively harmless levels. We do not even have barrels that would hold that long, and we do not have writings and inks that would last for so long to warn man in 10.000 years of the nuclear garbage! don’t laugh, such considerations are a serious problem. And I do not even mention things like unability to project changing ground water levels, influence of climate change and tectonic activity. If somebody thinks we know all about these factors, he better thinks twice.

Skybird also posits that France and Sweden have had recent nuclear accidents. Maybe they did, but the lack of international outrage and the fact that U.S. media has somehow not covered these failures extensively leads me to believe that they were minor and probably killed no-one.

They were covered, but I did not see American media report about them as much as british and german ones. Focusses differ here and there. The Swedish incident last year (or was it already two years), one of them, today is seen as a major accident, and triggered serious alarm at the IAEA. A lot of cover up has set in after that assessement first got reported.

Without doing any research whatsoever I can confidently say that news concerning gas prices somehow eclipsed these incidents and that is most likely because they are trivial and if they did kill some people it was not because of exposure to radiation, they pose no threat to the public of the aforementioned nations and, well what more is there to say?

All what you ignore, for example.

Tricastin, for example, the French site that had several problems in a row recently. Since years, the facilty is regularly checked for extraordinary high radiation emission levels that by far exceed legal thresholds, but get ignored both by the company and the state. The last such warning came just days before the first of their four problem events. Just six years ago it became known that close to 800 tons of nuclear waste from France’s military is stored there since the 70s – laid out and covered with a thin level of sand and earth, that is all. During the accidents, the company hesitaded for hours after radioactive material – exceeding the critical allowed limits by a factor of 6000 – was released and the population got warned. And even then they did hide initially that radioactivity had been released and later put the info up in a way that only knowing minds were able to calculate that the info given translated into 360 kg of degraded uran that escaped. While even critics agreed that that amount probably posed a smaller problem only, it nevertheless illustrates the system of how to handle information policies – and these are criminal, to say the least. It has not been different with the Swedish problems, and the problems with a Swedish-run reactor in Germany – here they even delayed vital information not over hours, but days, and intentionally hid them from state officials investigating as well.

You cannot trust such structures.

You ignore several economic factors. The globe’s greatest resources of uran you find in Australia and Canada, they make up for roughly one third of all global, known ressource fields of Uran. BUT: all Uran mine of major importance have already peaked, and ha ve seen the best times of their exploitation (?). Experts usually agree that all known Uran resources today will last for only 60 more years, calculated on current energy demands of the world. That the energy demand in fact is rising fast, will cut these sixty years accordingly. In other words: Uran is becoming a rare resource, and we have already seen the times of “peak uran”. In other words: it can at best be a temporary provisional solution only, and no long-termed investment into an energy-safe future. Calculate against this the immense financial investments into building a nuclear powerplant, the long building time, the distortions in social and political conflicts about them, the immense costs for long time storage of nuclear waste, the security risk, the risks coming from the more nuclear technology is spreading in the world, the higher the chance becomes that nuclear material ends up in hands you do not wish to see it in, military concerns.

Processing Uran so that the ore can be used for any purpose, is energy intensive, the more intensive the less the quality grade is. It worstens the CO2 bilance.

You did not touch this issue, but in German discussion it plays a huge role, as in international policies and debates as well: the influence of nuclear energy on 1. energy, and 2. energy costs.

Starting with costs, in germany, for example, the price for energy consists of these three factors: 40% taxes, 30% grid costs (for trafficking energy via the powerline grid), and 30% production costs for creating the actual electricity. We run currently 17 powerplants, and official policy still is to fade them out in the near future, and not to build new ones (the so-called German “Atom-Ausstieg”).While it is true that nuclear energy is cheaper than that from coal and gas, the debate is about eventually allow longer running times for the existing reactors. This could, so they assume, reduce electricity costs by 1-2 cents per 1 kWH (current price is around 20,5-22,0 cents) . However, the calculation is wrong, since it is based on the total price, they did not link it to the fact that the needed calculation needs to exclude taxes and gridcosts, the calculated saving of money does not affect the 40% tax share of the total price, and not the 30% gridline costs. You could roughly substract two-thirds from those 1-2 cents, and then have a more realistic range of possible savings from the final total price for the consumer – what leaves you with a saving of 0.3-0.6 cents. That is not much. I would say it also gets swallowed up already today by the small fluctuations of prices on the (heavily monopolised) german energy market. And wether or not the four german energy producers would give these savings to their customer, must be strongly doubted anyway, referring to past experiences. It has a system since years if not decades that all rises at international energy stock markets and oil stockmarkets get delivered to the consumer immediately, and often at exaggerated quantities, but prices falling never lead to costs for consumer falling accordingly. We also see prices being raised referring to the international situation even if international oil prices had not changed at all, or even were falling. We see monopoles being used for maximum exploitation, the market does not regulate it but proves to completely fail in controlling such excesses. After all, capitalism is not about lowering prices by raising competition, but trying to establish monopoles so that one can dictate prices due to lacking alternatives for the consumer. The exclusion of competition is what the global monopoly is about. The market functions only as long as companies are hindered to grow beyond a certain critical size that would give them the ability to start influencing the political level that in fact should make sure there is a healthy homeostasis between private and communal interests (that is the “social” in the European concept of “social market economy”. For a reminder: “social” and “socialistic” are two different things, the first is a quality, the latter an ideology. Nothing wrong with being social, but with socialism I have my problems. Seeing what is happening in Europe, I would even say that in parts both are even mutually exclusive, maybe).

In Germany we expect to see an energy gap rising in the next 10-15 years, where demand is greater in germany then supply by german-produced electricity. This is the one of the two real interests of the energy companies: not to lower prices or save the climate, but to prevent that energy gap without needing to shrink their profits by following a policy that tries to save energy instead of carrying on to heedlessly waste it. Their second interest is even more obviously linked to allowing longer running times for existing reactors. Because reactors are not running on red but black umbers, I mean their construction costs already has earned again for the plants have started since long to produce real profits, instead of backward financing the costs for their construction. Money earned from producing with them now are real net profits – and we talk about billions per year. For the energy companies, this is a source of pure, black, massive income. Again, love for climate or saving the consumer from high costs have nothing to do with their intentions.

New investments into nuclear energy also would LOWER the pressure in the industry to develop new, renewable energy technology. It seems man only learns when pressure and pain become too great, else he prefers to party on blindly, and not caring about who cleans the kitchen.. We should not take that pressure away by playing the alleged “easy card”. In the long run, we would delay technological improvement and prevent us from increasing our number of option of how to adapt to the many unforeseeable implications of global climate change, and changes in availability of resources. And that is “unwise”, to put it very mildly.

t.b.c.

[Skybird]

Next climate savings.

Nuclear energy is emission free, and produces no CO2. BUT – the share of nuclear power in global power production is such that you would need ADDITONAL 1500 nuclear powerplants replacing an appropriate number of coal and gas powerplants of equal energy production to reduce global emission levels by a maximum of 12%.

1500!

Now consider the long building times, and the time for the political battles! Consider what I said above the limited availability of uran being enough for 60 years for the current level level of nuclear energy production! 1500 more powerplants…?

Even, more, nuclear powerplants do not produce heat energy that could be used for heating houses, they produce electricity. You still would need coal and gas bruning powerplants to produce warmth to heat houses, or you would need to raise electrically produced heating, which is one of the most uneconomical there is, letting demand for electricity explode even more, globally.

1500 new powerplants, and the according traffic of nuclear material. Secured and unsecured storage sites for thousands and thousands of tons of nuclear waste (in murmansk it is said nuke material from submarine reactors have been stolen). Rogue states. Pollution (Sellafield, anyone?). Wars with a chance to get nuclear facilities targeted. Terrorism, smugglers, robbery. Dwarfs states becoming nuclear powers – ypu cannot separate in principal the civilian use of nuke tech from the military use of it. These are risks that you do not need to put into financial numbers, they explain themselves.

The energy needed to build a nuclear reactor: it is immense if transforming all these steps and materials and efforts into energy calculation. A powerplant of modern security standards and technology levels would need to operate for 10-12 years before it has created the energy that was before put into building it. Then it must run for even more years before the financial investments have payed off – and then, after 20-25 years or so, you start talking about black number profits. And before, you have to add the years it took to actually construct the powerplant. Wowh!

Usually, all these things are not mentioned when media report about what somebody said in nuclear energy, and it does not seem to play a role in the currently growing demand for building more nuke plants. But these factors are solid realities, and it is stupid to ignore and to hide them, and shows an irresponsible lack of competence and long vision.

I am not hysterically afraid of the physical risks from nuclear power, but I am aware of the risks involved, and that certain problems remain unsolved. I am aware that we are running into a gap between energy demand and energy production, but while it is tempting to see nuclear tech as an answer, I limit this answer to let existing ones running longer indeed. Even in Germany, currently no energy company demands to build new reactors – economically, this is a no-brainer today, and practically cannot be compensated for. What they lobby for instead is exporting powerplants to foreign country that the want to talk into long credit deals and by that, lasting dependence, and they lobby for letting German powerplants run for longer than politically planned. NO energy company currently is enthusiastic about building new nuclear plants in germany – it simply does not pay off, economically.

[Platapus]

A lot has been written here on the risks of nuclear power plants. Let's not forget that other traditional sources of electric power generation are also very risky.

For example Hydroelectric power generation.

In the 20th century we have experienced 43 incidents where a hydroelectric dam has failed (dam broke). Killing thousands of people. Causing many billions of dollars in damage. Causing massive damage to the environment. And this is not not including the damage and risk of just building and operating a hydroelectric dam which is massive in itself.

Look at civilian nuclear power. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has a rating scale they call the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) which is used to rate nuclear accidents. It is a scale of 0 (safe) to 7 (major accident or event)

Let's examine events that rate a 5 (accident with off-site risk) to 7

From 1958 to 2008 we have had eight incidents of a civilian reactor accidents of a level 5 through 7. Some of those here horrible like Chernobyl.

But then the Teton dam failure was not all that great also.

Every power source has its risks. The question is how easy can these risks be mitigated. One of the reasons I am in favour of Nuclear Power is that the risks are understood and can be mitigated. Most of the risks are internal and can be controlled as opposed to a hydroelectric dam which is under the influences of nature.

Using the technology of the 21st century as well as the horrible lessons learned in the 20th century, I believe it is possible to build safer nuclear reactors. I think the solution is to build more smaller reactors vice few huge ones.

Placement of these smaller reactors will improve safety. Go underground!

In 1969, there was an explosion at the nuclear reactor at needed - Lucen, Switzerland . Complete destruction of the containment vessel. Fortunately this experimental reactor was located underground and the earth acted like a secondary containment vessel. No radioactive leaks detected and few people are even aware of this incident.

As long as the right under ground location was selected (isolated from natural water sources and such), an underground reactor would be safer and more easily secured. By underground I am not talking about 10 feet, I am talking about 10,000 feet if necessary! It will be expensive but safer and more secure.

Nuclear power is the near future solution to our electric power needs. It works. It can be made safer. If an unreasonable standard of 100% safety is levied on nuclear power than the same standard needs to be placed on all other power systems to be fair. Nothing is 100% safe. The risks of nuclear reactors is understood and are capable of being mitigated. Nuclear waste is small and there are ways of safely disposing of it. I am in favour of the theory of deep sea crevice disposal. A most interesting idea I hope more investigation is made in this area.

I believe the problem is the fear of nuclear energy. It can be scary. We see movies of Giant Ants and other mutations. You can't see radiation. You might be being hit with radiation right now! In fact you are.

Like airline crashes, nuclear accidents are usually big and scary. Like Airline accidents nuclear accidents are rare considering all the hours that nuclear reactors are operating. If you still fly based on the logic that the odds are so overwhelming in your favour of safe flights why would you be concerned with nuclear accidents?

Your chances of being involved in an Airline crash, no matter how small, are still vastly higher than you being involved in a nuclear reactor accident.

One valid argument is that a large nuclear accident may cause more widespread damage than an Airline accident. This is true. A nuclear reactor does have the potential of causing more widespread damage to people and the environment. But that potential rarely occurs. With the exception of Chernobyl (which was a combination of crappy design, crappy construction, crappy procedures, crappy personnel) the damage caused by INES level 5-7 has not been that much.

And with proper design, proper construction, proper procedures, proper personnel, future accidents (and there will be accidents) can be controlled and contained.

Do I think that Fission nuclear reactors are the ultimate solution. Not at all. But today, with today's technology, I think it is folly to ignore the benefits of safe controlled nuclear power generation in our current situation.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Even, more, nuclear powerplants do not produce heat energy that could be used for heating houses, they produce electricity.

Small nit to pick.

Nuclear reactors do not produce electricity. Nuclear reactors produce heat.

That heat could be used to generate steam. That steam could be used to drive an electricity generator. It could also be used to heat pretty much anything you care to if you want to move the heat to the location (not always feasible.)

Moving the heat is the problem, but that is not a nuclear problem, that is a thermal problem.

There is no way a fission nuclear reactor can directly produce electricity.

It is just a fancy way to boil water.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Small nit to pick.

Nuclear reactors do not produce electricity. Nuclear reactors produce heat.

That heat could be used to generate steam. That steam could be used to drive an electricity generator. It could also be used to heat pretty much anything you care to if you want to move the heat to the location (not always feasible.)

Moving the heat is the problem, but that is not a nuclear problem, that is a thermal problem.

There is no way a fission nuclear reactor can directly produce electricity.

It is just a fancy way to boil water.

Well, yes, but you got my idea. show me a nuclear powerplant with what in German is called Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung.

and in your posting before you said you believe "with proper design, proper construction, proper procedures, proper personnel, future accidents (and there will be accidents) can be controlled and contained.

Do I think that Fission nuclear reactors are the ultimate solution. Not at all. But today, with today's technology, I think it is folly to ignore the benefits of safe controlled nuclear power generation in our current situation."

However, I have pointed at numerous counterpoints, that are not just my imagination but are realities for sure, and you are in need to prove them wrong if you want to stick to what you said above. You need to prove black on white that the economic calculation about the longterm costs - that I am just reporting and have not opened up myself! - is wrong. But you have not, instead made a link nobody here has brought up before: the fear for horrific mutations from movies forming the impression of how dangerous nuclear stuff is (I call it the formicula-syndrome). But I cannot remember when the last time was that a reasonable, knowledge-basing critic used 5 m long ants to raise anti-emotions and make a point on why to reject nuke tech.

Are you making this link to horror movies to ridicule critical thinking about nuclear technoloy all together, then...? Better give me a comment on low-running uran-ressources, 20-25 years before a nuclear popwerpülant starts to pay off, and how to deal security concerns when 1500 plants were erected in an attempt to reduce pollution levels of CO2 by just 12% - when so very much more reduction would be needed. Let'S talk about why you still think it is worth it, and why the many points I touched upon do not interest you a bit, despite them being physical and economic realities you cannot escape.

[Platapus]

There are many viable reasons not to like nuclear power reactors. However fear of another chernobyl like accident should not be one of them.

The nuclear accident at Chernobyl was a terrible accident. However, the chances of a similar "Chernobyl like" accident occurring is practically nil for the following reasons:

1. The reactors at Chernobyl were light water cooled, graphic moderated, enriched Uranium reactors. The Russian term for this is RBMK reactor. This is an obsolete design. The inherent instability of this design is well known and no one is going to build any more RBMK reactors. Better and more importantly cheaper reactors are available.

2. Currently there are 11 operating RMBK reactors in Russia. There are no other RMBK reactors operating on other countries. All 11 of these RMBK reactors are scheduled for shutdown, but since they are still operating, their risks must be considered.

After the Chernobyl accident, modifications of the existing RMBK reactors were made. These modifications corrected the design deficiencies of the original RMBK design.

These modifications included correcting a critical (no pun intended) design flaw with the control rod construction and their operations.

Changing the Enrichment of the Uranium to a safer level

Increasing the number of control rods

Instituting a SCRAM system

Powering the control rods (the rods at Chernobyl were manually operated)

and others modifications that will prevent.

The most important modification to the existing RMBK reactors was the changing of void coefficient of the reactor.

To keep this simple. A reactor that has either a coolant or moderator with a high positive reaction coefficient enables fusion at higher temps. This is hazardous. If there is a failure with the coolant system as the temps rise more fusion will take place. A bad situation as the emergency is self perpetuating. A better system are those with negative reaction coefficients where the higher temps mean a reduction of the reaction. Modern reactors strive for either negative reaction coefficients or very low positive ones. All the existing RMBK reactors were modified to bring their positive reaction coefficient to +0.7b which refers to the Neutron cross section (pretty complicated stuff).

So there are many valid reasons for not being a fan of nuclear power reactors. Fearing another Chernobyl accident should not be one of them.

No one is going to build another RMBKl reactor type
All existing RMBK reactors are slated for shutdown
All existing RMBK reactors have been modified to prevent a Chernobyl type accident.

It is also important to note that the majority of the problems that led up to the Chernobyl accident were things outside of the reaction itself. Problems with the power supply, poor instructions, untrained crew, falsified safety testing and many other logistical and managerial problems. If the Russians had their heads out of their butts, the Chernobyl accident would not have happened despite the RMBK being a poor design.

Chernobyl was a terrible accident that should not have occurred in the first place. However, man learns from his mistakes and fixes them. Chernobyl was a horrible but fortunately unique accident.

[UnderseaLcpl]

[quote=Skybird]Lance,

I see the primary argument agains nukes is expense. So be it.

Nuclear reactors are actually quite cost-effective to build, even under most extremely cautious and sometimes silly Federal regs. The main cost of building and operating the plants comes from insurance costs. These insurance costs are based on irrational fear of nuclear catastrophes. How many dissenters have ever been inside a nuclear plant? The thing practically runs itself.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Irrational? You are making irresponsible claims here.

Hardly. The amount of actual damage inflicted by nukes versus the amount of public fear and loathing says otherwise.
Chemical plants, dams and fossil fuel extraction have killed many more than nuclear power plants ever have, even if you only take into account deaths caused since the advent of nuclear power. In the U.S. (I can't speak for other countries) many people think that nukes can explode like an atomic bomb. Some even think that they "vent" radiation in normal operations. I suspect many people's fears are based on media sensationalism, and in the worst cases; "The Simpsons".

You would have to be deliberately trying to cause a radiation leak to actually make one. Only a very unlikely series of unfortunate circumstances could cause one.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Just last month the French have had two or three such “unlikely leaks”. It is no rare event that radiation leaks show up during accidents in nuclear powerplants. They< have had four accidents in one of theirs in recent weeks. That the company tries to play it down and hide information about it, should not surprise anybody. The Swedes last year did the same, and regarding one of their plants they run in Germany via RWE company, they even actively hindred analysis by officials for long, and delayed action as long as possible. And this although one of the three accidents they had in Sweden last year today is considered to have been a extremely serious event during which they had not really 100% control but – luck. During many nuclear accidents radiation has been set free, or nuclear material has been released. It is by far jno0 exception from the rule.

Ok, where are the consequences of these leaks? Are here any hard data on whom was affected and how seriously?
I would also like to know what happened in this incident in Sweden? What is 100% control? Does that mean they couldn't shut the reactor down?

Nuclear disasters are also over-rated. Many people cite Three-mile island without actually knowing anything about it. Some think it was close to a "meltdown" without knowing what that term means. Others think the reactor leaked "dangerous radiation"

Originally Posted by Skybird

Considering your explanations following, I wonder if YOU know it. This is not about China-Syndrome-movie-hysteria. This is about something like Chernobyl.

And I tried to explain, at great length, how Chernobyl was not the disaster it is often believed to be. Then you said my source was lying. Forunately, I have more source, which I will post in response below.

Firstly, a meltdown is nigh-impossible. I have said it before, and I will continue to say it until I stop hearing that stupid term; there is no meltdown. That term comes from that retarded movie "The China Syndrome" wherein a nuclear reactor "goes critical" (has an uncontrollable reaction) that causes the reaction mass to become so hot it melts the containment unit and threatens to melt through the Earth's surface until it reaches the water supply. The nature of the term is engendered by the ludicrous belief that such a reaction could melt a hole to all the way to China.

Originally Posted by Skybird

You simply are wrong informed. A meltdown can happen, and has happened in Chernobyl. It means not that the mass burns through all the globe, through the core, then climbs against gravity on the other side and pops up in china (this is the image behind the term “China-Syndrome”, and yes, that cannot happen indeed and is an image only). “Meltdown” (Kernschmelze) means that the temperature of the core due to lacking cooling becomes so hot that it indeed could melt/burn the shielding, walls, and isolation that seal the core chamber, and the building itself. THIS was one of the major problem the Russians had to fight with so hard: the immense temperatures inside the reactor building that now is sealed. But the seals are not solid anymore, but – using this word in lack of any better – “corrode” due to the radiation, and temperature from within.

You are correct in your definition of "meltdown" but this leaves unanswered the fact that most of the populace does not understand what it means. Also, there has never been a meltdown in any nuclear plant in the entire world, ever. Like I said, it is theoretically possible, but you would almost have to TRY to make one happen. All it takes to stop an uncontrolled reaction, and therefore a meltdown, is to drop the control rods into the reactor core.
I have no doubt the Russians battled high temperatures in the Chernobyl incident. But not "meltdown" temperatures, which would likely have vaporized them, and which were probably not helped by the fact that there was a normal, run-of-mill fire in there. Above, you doubt my references cited by the IAEA. To indulge you, here's one from the U.N.; "The UN report 'CHERNOBYL : THE TRUE SCALE OF THE ACCIDENT' published 2005 concluded that the death toll includes the 50 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome, nine children who died fromthyroid cancer, and an estimated 4000 excess cancer deaths in the future"- from a TIME magazine report on the U.N.'s report on Chernobyl.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Until today, you can measure significantly raised radiation levels in France, Germany, Britain, that are caused by the freed nuclear material from the Chernobyl disaster that escaped into the atmosphere.

Well, I posted the U.N. report and the IEAE report. They didn't say anything about health risks in those countries, although the reports themselves did cite concern over the possibility, but nothing has been proven.

Secondly, no American has ever had their cause of death established as "exposure to Nuclear power plant radiation". You are much more likely to die from cancer caused by natural radiation than that produced (assuming it was somehow released" from nuclear power plants.

Originally Posted by Skybird

1 there is a world beyond America, believe it or not. 2. Americans make up for only 5% of the global population, the remaining 95% of people on this globe are not American. This becomes important regarding needed numbers of powerplants if they should have a solid effect on worldclimate, because most of the 1500 addito9nally needed (!) powerplants then would have to be built not only in the western world, but the second and third world including all those labelled rogue states as well – Iran, anyone? North Korea? 3. You may want to research the case of Karen Silkwood, there is also a movie about it, but the story is not fictional but real for sure. She worked in a plutonium factory by energy corporation Kerr McGee and became aware of mounting numbers of accidents during which employees got poisoned while the company – like so often in nuclear business – talked it down and tried to hide it. She later got killed under mysterious circumstances. I know that I have heared and read about more things like this, including staff from powerplants, but I do not remember the details and names out of the blue and don’T want to research it all now. – You point a 100% idealistic, hyper-optimistic picture here. Don’t be so naïve. There is no fail-safe technology, and there is no material or technology that does not suffer from wear and tear, and accidents. You can reduce the risk, but neither can you bring it to nill, nor can you reduce it so far as you seem to think.

As far as America is concerned in this, I should probably have pointed out that I can only argue for America. I don't know enough about other nations and do not have the proper perspective on their people to offer them a solution. But America is a big part of the world's energy consumption, so I still think it is important.

As far as my %100 idealistic solution is concerned, I know we may have nuclear accidents. I just don't think they would be frequent or serious enough to turn away from nukes.

Producing an "uncontrolled" reaction in a nuclear plant would have to be deliberate. Even the Russians haven't managed it and we know all about their history with nukes. Before anyone says something about it "The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer cases among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed and 5,000 among the 6 million living nearby.[4] Although the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and certain limited areas will remain off limits, the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity"

Originally Posted by Skybird

The IAEA has a bias, first said, and is under immense political influence. Second, I do not see listed those workers who in small groups but an endless stream got shuttled to the roof via helicopters and worked for 30 seconds only, then were brought back, heavily poisoned by the intense radiation on the open roof that they had to seal in this suffering and slow manner, and physically broken from the radiation after just 30 seconds. And that have been more than just half a hundred or so. Many of them died in the months and up to two years after their 30 second walk (and not because they were old).

Since I pointed out the U.N. and do not know at the time of this writing whether you would trust them or not all I can say is; Who would you like to see a study from?
Secondly, their are alternatives to using people to repair nuclear reactors. THe science of robotics has come a long ways. I also doubt the Soviets bothered to protect their workers effectively. The main issue here is how much harm neighbouring communities and countries felt.

Thirdly, people live in the "contaminated zone". Plants grow, animals live there. If that's not proof that Chernobyl is not a radioactive wasteland I don't know what is.

The General consensus is that the "explosion was caused by atmospheric overpressure which was in turn caused by a fire that had nothing to do with the fissionable materials contained therin.

Originally Posted by Skybird

again, that is a statement by an organisation that has a policy to let use of nuclear energy appear as acceptable in principle and play down risks. It is not important why the core was exposed and burned up – that this was the consequence in which previous events resulted: this is the important thing. Technology can fail. And regarding nuclear technology one needs to be aware of what that could mean in consequences. Consider Chernobyl having happened at a Location near Frankfurt. It would have changed Europe’s face, it would not have wiped out Germany, but would have substantially prevented it to be what it is today in the present. The effects on economy, business and finances would have had truly global dimensions.

I can't argue that it didn't have a meltdown that was covered up or misrepresented in some conspiracy. I can't prove aliens aren't real or that JFK wasn't assasinated by the CIA either. All I can do is present the existing evidence as above.

If the explosion was nuclear in origin, all the better. What a ptitiful amount of damage for something people fear so much.
Blame it on my being American, but I also consider the fact that the Soviet Union ran the damn thing to be a major factor. That's almost as bad as referring to an episode of "Captain Planet" for one's arguments.

The death toll from this one, isolated incident, in the hands of an irresponsible, and I must say, socialist government, caused fewer deaths than coal-mining accidents throughout America's history as a nation.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Handling by capitalist societies leaving information policies to private economical lobbies .........
In fact I think the more years go by, the more similar to the USSR structures the western nations start to look – but that is another discussion for another thread.

1) Hence my ongoing support of more restricted government, which I must admit, would likely have to be adopted to make nuclear policies work. If there is no one to lobby but the consumers, only prices, effectiveness and safety matter.
2) You're right, another time for that perhaps. I would like to discuss that with you.
Surprise preview: I think western nations resembling the U.S.S.R. in any way is a bad thing.

The failure of the nuclear industry to establish itself, until recently, as a primary power source in the U.S. is due to nothing more than irrational fear and the costs associated with it.

Originally Posted by Skybird

The costs are immense financially, and in germany: politically as well. The follow-up costs in the long run are even higher. Normally, costs for taking care of nuclear waste, are totally excluded from the company’s calculation on profits, these costs get externalized, means: they are being put onto the shoulders of the tax payer. We take about costs that in full depth cannot be calculated and will be existent for many generations to come. And I do not even refer to accidents in storage sites, disasters and contaminations. Plutonium has a half-life of 24.000 years. I am aware not all nuclear waste is plutonium, but we talk about isolating materials over time ranges of several ten thousand years until they have reduced their radioactivity to relatively harmless levels. We do not even have barrels that would hold that long, and we do not have writings and inks that would last for so long to warn man in 10.000 years of the nuclear garbage! don’t laugh, such considerations are a serious problem. And I do not even mention things like unability to project changing ground water levels, influence of climate change and tectonic activity. If somebody thinks we know all about these factors, he better thinks twice.

To this, I can only provide an answer all too typical and Americanesque of me;
Combine privatization with not caring about the other side of the world. The result is private nuclear plants paying fees to dump their waste at a facility in Antartica. It could be publicly or privately run. But if it were privately run it would be best to encourage several other facilities of this type to establish themselves so competition and public opinion can provide some decent regulation. One of the few examples where I think the government might do a better job than the private sector.
Equally attractive are the recent advances made in space travel here by letting private industry in on the game. I will not repeat my extensive discourse on the virtues of privatized space travel here in the interest of preserving the sanity of readers, but basically Virgin Galactic gets you to space much more cheaply than NASA. If private industry can do so well in the initial pahses of space travel they could perhaps produce a cheap method of shooting nuclear waste into the Sun, Jupiter, or some other place that is already radioactive and inhospitable.
Hmmm.... somehow that seems to sound less like a serious suggestion than I inntended it to be. But it is serious.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Tricastin, for example, the French site that had several problems in a row recently. Since years, the facilty is regularly checked for extraordinary high radiation emission levels that by far exceed legal thresholds, but get ignored both by the company and the state. The last such warning came just days before the first of their four problem events. Just six years ago it became known that close to 800 tons of nuclear waste from France’s military is stored there since the 70s – laid out and covered with a thin level of sand and earth, that is all. During the accidents, the company hesitaded for hours after radioactive material – exceeding the critical allowed limits by a factor of 6000 – was released and the population got warned. And even then they did hide initially that radioactivity had been released and later put the info up in a way that only knowing minds were able to calculate that the info given translated into 360 kg of degraded uran that escaped. While even critics agreed that that amount probably posed a smaller problem only, it nevertheless illustrates the system of how to handle information policies – and these are criminal, to say the least. It has not been different with the Swedish problems, and the problems with a Swedish-run reactor in Germany – here they even delayed vital information not over hours, but days, and intentionally hid them from state officials investigating as well.

You cannot trust such structures.

You ignore several economic factors. The globe’s greatest resources of uran you find in Australia and Canada, they make up for roughly one third of all global, known ressource fields of Uran. BUT: all Uran mine of major importance have already peaked, and ha ve seen the best times of their exploitation (?). Experts usually agree that all known Uran resources today will last for only 60 more years, calculated on current energy demands of the world. That the energy demand in fact is rising fast, will cut these sixty years accordingly. In other words: Uran is becoming a rare resource, and we have already seen the times of “peak uran”. In other words: it can at best be a temporary provisional solution only, and no long-termed investment into an energy-safe future. Calculate against this the immense financial investments into building a nuclear powerplant, the long building time, the distortions in social and political conflicts about them, the immense costs for long time storage of nuclear waste, the security risk, the risks coming from the more nuclear technology is spreading in the world, the higher the chance becomes that nuclear material ends up in hands you do not wish to see it in, military concerns.

Processing Uran so that the ore can be used for any purpose, is energy intensive, the more intensive the less the quality grade is. It worstens the CO2 bilance.

You did not touch this issue, but in German discussion it plays a huge role, as in international policies and debates as well: the influence of nuclear energy on 1. energy, and 2. energy costs.

Starting with costs, in germany, for example, the price for energy consists of these three factors: 40% taxes, 30% grid costs (for trafficking energy via the powerline grid), and 30% production costs for creating the actual electricity. We run currently 17 powerplants, and official policy still is to fade them out in the near future, and not to build new ones (the so-called German “Atom-Ausstieg”).While it is true that nuclear energy is cheaper than that from coal and gas, the debate is about eventually allow longer running times for the existing reactors. This could, so they assume, reduce electricity costs by 1-2 cents per 1 kWH (current price is around 20,5-22,0 cents) . However, the calculation is wrong, since it is based on the total price, they did not link it to the fact that the needed calculation needs to exclude taxes and gridcosts, the calculated saving of money does not affect the 40% tax share of the total price, and not the 30% gridline costs. You could roughly substract two-thirds from those 1-2 cents, and then have a more realistic range of possible savings from the final total price for the consumer – what leaves you with a saving of 0.3-0.6 cents. That is not much. I would say it also gets swallowed up already today by the small fluctuations of prices on the (heavily monopolised) german energy market. And wether or not the four german energy producers would give these savings to their customer, must be strongly doubted anyway, referring to past experiences. It has a system since years if not decades that all rises at international energy stock markets and oil stockmarkets get delivered to the consumer immediately, and often at exaggerated quantities, but prices falling never lead to costs for consumer falling accordingly. We also see prices being raised referring to the international situation even if international oil prices had not changed at all, or even were falling. We see monopoles being used for maximum exploitation, the market does not regulate it but proves to completely fail in controlling such excesses. After all, capitalism is not about lowering prices by raising competition, but trying to establish monopoles so that one can dictate prices due to lacking alternatives for the consumer. The exclusion of competition is what the global monopoly is about. The market functions only as long as companies are hindered to grow beyond a certain critical size that would give them the ability to start influencing the political level that in fact should make sure there is a healthy homeostasis between private and communal interests (that is the “social” in the European concept of “social market economy”. For a reminder: “social” and “socialistic” are two different things, the first is a quality, the latter an ideology. Nothing wrong with being social, but with socialism I have my problems. Seeing what is happening in Europe, I would even say that in parts both are even mutually exclusive, maybe).

In Germany we expect to see an energy gap rising in the next 10-15 years, where demand is greater in germany then supply by german-produced electricity. This is the one of the two real interests of the energy companies: not to lower prices or save the climate, but to prevent that energy gap without needing to shrink their profits by following a policy that tries to save energy instead of carrying on to heedlessly waste it. Their second interest is even more obviously linked to allowing longer running times for existing reactors. Because reactors are not running on red but black umbers, I mean their construction costs already has earned again for the plants have started since long to produce real profits, instead of backward financing the costs for their construction. Money earned from producing with them now are real net profits – and we talk about billions per year. For the energy companies, this is a source of pure, black, massive income. Again, love for climate or saving the consumer from high costs have nothing to do with their intentions.

New investments into nuclear energy also would LOWER the pressure in the industry to develop new, renewable energy technology. It seems man only learns when pressure and pain become too great, else he prefers to party on blindly, and not caring about who cleans the kitchen.. We should not take that pressure away by playing the alleged “easy card”. In the long run, we would delay technological improvement and prevent us from increasing our number of option of how to adapt to the many unforeseeable implications of global climate change, and changes in availability of resources. And that is “unwise”, to put it very mildly.

t.b.c.

Holy crap.
First, I would like to say that is one of the finest arguments I have had the priveledge of seeing you produce, Sky. Bravo!

I almost need another post to address this, but I will try to bring up a few points of contention here. I'm sorry I do not have the time right now to break the whole thing up and multi-quote.

First paragraph. I doubt the nuclear waste material was only covered in a thin layer of dirt. If it was, France needs to re-think their nuclear policy or not use nukes. Surely, the spent rods must have been contained in concrete vessels?

Second paragraph. Uranium is not scarce and I don't care where it comes from as long as we have the money to buy it (in my dream world where America adopts more fiscally conservative and socially liberal policies shortly after it collapses under the current system)
Uranium is 3 times as common as silver and we get a lot more use out of it.
It has been said by U.S. government research comittees(sp? why can't I remember how to spell this?) , the IAEA, private researchers, and the World Nuclear Association that fast-breeder reactors have enough fuel in the form of U-238 to last our current society 5 billion years. Even if they are wildly exaggerating there is enough U-238 to last us well into the future of energy development.

The two little paragrpahs and the third one; This is an answer unfitting of your post but I'm really running short on time now and I think I have carpal tunnel syndrome. Please excuse any brusqueness as it is simply a side-effect of trying to compress my argument into such a small fascimile of itself.

1) 40% taxes is a big part of your costs. I know you mentioned the effects of taxes on prices but 40%? That's outrageous.

2) If your industry is monopolized something is wrong. I agree capitalism does tend towards monopoly, but monopoly can be a good thing if it is better than all services proffered before and all new ones. In my ideal society, which all my arguments are a part of, the educated populace in conjunction with the lack of any government protection of said agency can simply choose to boycott said entity or democratically force a vote to break it up and/or destroy it. A tad idealistic, yes?
In any case I'm sure lack of competition inflates your energy costs.

3) So what if nukes take a long time to build? Burn coal until they're ready. Better yet, let the market take control. Companies will build cheap, simple plants to fill the demand until the nukes are ready. Then the nukes will drive those plants out with cheaper (no matter by what margin) electricity. The best thing to do in any case is to not let the government handle it as they have been proven in nearly every incidence to be unable to reconcile supply with demand.

4) Yes nukes have a limited service life. Generally it has nothing to do with their actual service life here in the U.S.
The Feds strictly regulate the service life of a reactor regardless of its' condition or whether or not it can be refurbished. This policy is a knee-jerk reaction to the "irrational fear" i mentioned seemingly ages ago.

5) Another big part of costs is insurance. These costs are driven to insane heights by "irrational fear" and government-mandated liability thresholds.

6) And my favourite . Yes, nukes will lower the pressure to develop other renewable energy sources. Thank God!
My state (Texas) recently approved a 4.6 billion dollar package to create power lines and infrastructure for a new wind farm in the western part of the state. 4.6 billion dollars of taxpayer money. Utterly wasted on a project that will never recoup its' investment costs in its' operational lifespan. Given he need for wind turbines to be serviced very frequently because of their exposure to the environment and things like bugs getting splattered on the prop blades, the operational costs are going to be ridiculous! And as I said, they expect taxpayers to bear the burden!
Even more incredulous is that voters are championing this venture as a "major step forward" that will "boost Texas to a leading position in wind-power generation".
All politics, combined with stupidity. Mark my words, this project will be an irredeemable failure within two decades.
The pressure exerted by environmental advocates and politicians does nothing but distort and ruin the efficiency of the marketplace. I'm sure we can both agree that while market economics are not perfect unless perfect fairness and transperancy are maintained, it's still a damn sight better than messes like this.


Good discussion, but I wonder if we will ever find a happy medium:hmm:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Oh.......
After all the thought I put into my last post Platapus outdoes me .

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

You are correct in your definition of "meltdown" but this leaves unanswered the fact that most of the populace does not understand what it means. Also, there has never been a meltdown in any nuclear plant in the entire world, ever.

Here is another nit I will pick until it bleeds and scabs over.

You are correct in that the definition of "meltdown" needs to be understood. The term meltdown has different meanings to nuclear engineers and the National Inquirer to give two extreme examples.

A meltdown occurs when there is a break in the containment vessel where the primary cause is high temps where the bottom (usually) of the containment vessel cracks, spalds, decays, melts or otherwise busts due to heat. Containment vessels can break due to other factors but they are not commonly referred to as meltdowns.

As much as I agree with your arguments, academic fairness requires me to to point out that your comment that there has never been a meltdown in the history of nuclear reactors is inaccurate.

Both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are considered meltdown incidents. At Chernobyl the meltdown was one of the minor concerns of the overall accident. The Three Mile Island incident was a meltdown but it was controlled. If you have to have a nuclear accident you want a TMI.

Wikipedia has a list of other meltdown accidents (copied below)
NRX, Ontario, Canada, in 1952
EBR-I, Idaho, USA, in 1955
Windscale, Sellafield, England, in 1957 (see Windscale fire)
Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Hills, California, in 1959
SL-1, Idaho, USA in 1961. (US military)
Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station, Michigan, USA, in 1966
Chapelcross, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, in 1967
A1 plant at Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia in 1977.

However just because a nuclear reactor has a meltdown does not necessarily mean it will be a class 5 or higher event. Most of these meltdowns did not even rate a 4 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).

The reason: Smart nuclear engineers design reactors to have secondary containment and dispersion capability. This is why in my previous argument I stress that risks can be mitigated by proper design, construction, and operations.

[Skybird]

swedish critical incident:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...430458,00.html

And I tried to explain, at great length, how Chernobyl was not the disaster it is often believed to be. Then you said my source was lying. Forunately, I have more source, which I will post in response below.

Dont put things in my mouth. I did not accuse you of lying. I said that a prominent number of workers that got sacrificed in the attempts to seal the roof are not mentioned in your numbers, they got heavily radiated (?), around two dozens died within days, while several hundreds got heavily toxicated, suffering for the rest of their lifes from radiation burns and nuclear intoxication.

Later I pointed out that organisations with a bias or an interest hardly should be seen as the ultimate authority regarding the issue at hand.

Regarding Chernobyl, the core produced so much heat when it got not cooled anymore, that the inner seals disappared and since the rood already was gone the nuclear material form the core was released into the atmosphere unhinderd, spreading over all europe. we could split hairs until christmas wether or not this qualifies as a meltdown or not. But maybe we can agree that it can't get much worse than this: heat melting the inner core seals and expose the nuclear material to the environment uncooled, which really is the worst case. Wether or not that was caused from problem in the core itself, or by failure of supporting subsystems like cooling, is of theoretical value only. the core cracked open, so to speak - that is the thing to focus on, not how to label it. the radiation is so heavy that the concrete seals they erected around the block, corrode and get weak again.

On Uranium, Australia and Canada hold one third of the global known reserves, around 1 million tons of Uranium in these countries would result - doing the maths - in around 3 million tons of known reserves. We speak of uranium of quality grade that can be of any use for further processing, but the best uranium is that from Canda and australia, the other ores are less pure and need more processing. However the total numbers are, it is calculated that what remains of these in usable industrial uranium translates into supplies for 60 years at current consumation level.

40% taxes is not unrealistic. Just look at gas prices: taxes also make up for very huge shares in them.

that I question your wisdom on letting market take care of powerplant construction and nevertheless rise nuclear energy instead of focussing on energy preservation and new energy technology, goes unsaid. I am also jot willing to leave control of storgae sites to market mechanism as well, since reducing costs and by that beat the rivals is one of the most dangeorus and destructive market mechanisms in security-sensitive fields.

Before I invest another 20-30 years before to-be-build nuclear powerplants with all the risks mentioned, from terror, over technology to politics, start to pay off, and before I waste hundreds of billions on that effort if going for those 1500 powerplants you would need to help climate, i prefer to let the existing ones run longer and focus on energy saving to buy us more time, and use that on energy revolution (new technologies). i have given many reasons why nuclear powerplants are not economic.

I must not point out that we could not be any more apart on the need of investing into new energy technology. However, I am in favour of the future option here, while you are defending to stick with the dinosaurs of the past, like Zachstar told subman as well who use to defend sticking with oil. that will be bad for the Us, and good for europe, because we will become dominant on the market for these new technologies of the future, while you are putting your money on dead bet, and loose attractiveness on global market for your energy solutions from the
18th (oil) and 20th (nuke) century. but the future is none of both. and it must be like that, becausue both lead us into even more dangerous sack-ends than we already managed to trap ourselves in.

In the end we cannot afford to carry on in the old ways that have directly lead us into the crisis we face, and the uncertain future changes. unfortunately, an attitude of thinking one can win the future by not adapting to the changes taking place and adressing appearing needs that to ignore could destroy us, make everybody with such attiotudes - persons and nations alike - a threat to survival and thus a problem for all other people on the globe. During an international climate conference some months ago the american delegation received so general and intense hostility by almost all other delegations and even was yelled down by other delegations in such a crude manner, that they sat silent and with stoned faces and in the end needed to make at leats minimal lip-confession after having been told bluntly - quoting one delegate - to "start acting responsibly or to step the hell out of the way." For diplomatic standards, the level of aggressiveness and yelling at the americans in public was outstanding. and unfortunately one has to say that due to the global blockading initiated by the US, often meaning to give India and China alibis to blockade themselves, honestly deserves that international hostility. If the EU's intentions for solutions are all that realistic and clever, can be argued abiut, and I have criticised the Eu over these in the past as well. but at least there is acceptance and understanding THAT we are undergoing massive changes that mean a critical risk for us, and THAT we miust adapt in difefrent ways than those of the past. Official national policy of the Us can't even recognise this and argues to freeze time itself. and that although some federal states and many citizens already have started to change and adapt, and are years and miles ahead of Washington'S mental attitude. That way, Washington gives americans a worse reputation on the international stage than many Americans by their own provate example-setting deserves. If I were american, I would take it personally if the govenrment gives an impression to the world of me being an idiot.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Here is another nit I will pick until it bleeds and scabs over.

You are correct in that the definition of "meltdown" needs to be understood. The term meltdown has different meanings to nuclear engineers and the National Inquirer to give two extreme examples.

A meltdown occurs when there is a break in the containment vessel where the primary cause is high temps where the bottom (usually) of the containment vessel cracks, spalds, decays, melts or otherwise busts due to heat. Containment vessels can break due to other factors but they are not commonly referred to as meltdowns.

A nuclear explosion does not result from a nuclear meltdown because, by design, the geometry and composition of the reactor core do not permit the special conditions necessary for a nuclear explosion. However, the conditions that cause a meltdown may cause a non-nuclear explosion. For example, several power excursion accidents have caused coolant to rapidly overpressurize, resulting in a steam explosion.


You raise an interesting point. After some consideration, I have decided that I will agree with you on this one.

Originally, I was going to split hairs over the definition by positing things like the above quote. However, I see how I am being misleading by not classifying these incidents as meltdowns. Such is the danger of believing what what wants to believe, and why I appreciate good arguments like this.

So, thank you.