Good pro-nuclear arguements?

[K. A. Pital]

Both the crew and the reactor designers were at fault. If either one or the other didn't make a long string of errors (not one, but many), the accident would not have happened.

[Adrian Laguna]

In short, either you transit into the nuclear age (as Europe, Russia and Scandinavia would quite likely do in the next decades), or you're fucked.

The last option sounds very likely for countries which thrive on oil and ignore the power of the core.

Which is, incidentally, why when the Persians say that their nuclear program is civilian, I believe them. The Iranians aren't stupid, they can be dense at times but I don't think they're flat out stupid. You really don't need to be a genius to see that sooner or later you go nuclear, or you say goodbye to modern civilization.

Note that I don't believe Iran's claims that the nuclear program is civilian only. Obviously they are also pursuing the natural military applications.

[Il Saggiatore]

Can someone point me to a good source regarding nuclear power (yes, I've checked Wikipedia)?

Have a look at the Freedom For Fission website.

[chitoryu12]

Mike had a bit about nuclear power on the site.

[TithonusSyndrome]

A very good argument in favour of nuclear power is the fact that uranium is a longer-accessible resource than oil, thus it can meet the energy demands of the technological age and give us time to adapt to yet other sources of energy to keep our progress rolling.

I hear this quite often, and it's not that I doubt the energy potential of nuclear power, but doesn't it sound all too much like those turn of the century oil tycoons who said that oil was so abundant and energy-lucrative that the supply would be able to sustain our civilization indefinetly? Or more strikingly, John Cabot sailing off the coast of Newfoundland, returning to England and telling Henry VII that there was enough fish there to "feed his people until the end of time"? I doubt any modern Newfie fisherman feels the same way.

Point being, if you treat the supply as inexhaustible, then won't the standard of living simply swell until we're faced with Peak Uranium?

[Patrick Degan]

Point being, if you treat the supply as inexhaustible, then won't the standard of living simply swell until we're faced with Peak Uranium?

A problem to be dealt with in several hundred millenia. That's the difference.

[PeZook]

is a bit of a document called Chernobyl – A Canadian Perspective, which can be found
<snip>

Well, yeah, they did turn off or ignore some warnings. I guess that I was thinking "failsafe" when I should have been thinking "warnings, alarms and others".

Thanks for the excerpt, it was very interesting.

I'm just nitpicking really. You've summarised the accident well, but I think you are excusing the crew from a bit too much of the blame. The reactor was badly designed in such a way that it could become dangerous, but the crew still had to ignore a lot of procedure and warnings in order to get it to such a state.

I did mention the night shift at the plant was woefully inexperienced and their training apparently did not cover things like running an RMBK reactor at low power (they were notoriously unstable at this state, and the designers knew this - Anatoyli Dyatlov, who was running the show that night, claimed that this information was withheld from plant operators)

Add to this the fact hey were simulating a wartime incident (a bombing raid on the reactor) and what could you have expected? Really, fucking with the coolant system should only be conducted by experienced reactor crews.

BTW, does anybody else find it ironic that while the entire control room crew inhaled a shitload of dust loaded with hot radioactive particles, and were all dead within two to three weeks, the shift manager survived until 1995?

There was also a plant technician who was literally standing at the hole left after the steam explosion, watching the glowing reactor core for minutes, and he's still alive, despite taking in a masssive amount of radiation.

[Uraniun235]

Point being, if you treat the supply as inexhaustible, then won't the standard of living simply swell until we're faced with Peak Uranium?

Not quite. Even with relatively abundant electricity in the form of intensive development of nuclear power, human population growth should still be checked by other resource limitations, such as availability of fresh water or food, long before we start to outstrip available uranium reserves.

And hopefully, sometime in the next few hundred years, fusion actually manages to pan out.

[Darth Wong]

There could be a Three Mile Island accident once a year every year, and nuclear power would still produce insignificant environmental damage compared to coal power plants.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

United States coal-fired powerplants release more radioactive particles into the atmosphere each year than all nuclear tests in the whole world over the whole of human history from 1945 forward have.

If that isn't a good reason to replace coal-fired powerplants with nuclear...

Anyway, the facts of Chernobyl are clear enough that I'd live right next to a powerplant of identical design if I knew that the people running the plant would not be ordered to violate their own safety procedures!

[Darth Wong]

Anyway, the facts of Chernobyl are clear enough that I'd live right next to a powerplant of identical design if I knew that the people running the plant would not be ordered to violate their own safety procedures!

I wouldn't go that far. I consider the lack of a containment structure to be a totally unacceptable factor.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I wouldn't go that far. I consider the lack of a containment structure to be a totally unacceptable factor.

I was thinking more in terms of a 1950s-tech graphite moderated reactor in general, so that's a fair enough criticism, since they could have easily added one.

[momochan]

More...

For each kilowatt hour of electricty generated, a nuclear reactor produces a tiny fraction of the waste that a coal furnace produces.


Nuclear waste does not include any greenhouse gases, so there is no risk of it contributing to climate change.

I did hear that the mining of uranium ore releases some methane gas, so it isn't strictly accurate to say zero greenhouse gases. Of course, it must be a small fraction of coal burning emissions.

One factor that I would be interested to hear opinions about is the threat of terrorism. Not only is a nuclear power plant a big sitting target, but the transport of fissionable material, and any radioactive waste, becomes an opportunity for hijacking leading to dirty bombs, etc. With nuclear power plants as common as our modern economy would need them, it seems like logistical control would be a real problem.

[Sea Skimmer]

I was thinking more in terms of a 1950s-tech graphite moderated reactor in general, so that's a fair enough criticism, since they could have easily added one.

I wouldn't say easily. The shear size of the reactor, plus its vital requirement that it be capable of being refueled while operating (the whole reason for using the graphite pile to start with), made a proper containment structure very difficult to build. The diameter of the dome would have to be much wider then on typical western pressurized water designs. You could do it, but the dome would have to be absolutely enormous and enormously thick. The Soviets thought the cost was too high and didnt bother, when they built more compact reactors they did give them domes.

I did hear that the mining of uranium ore releases some methane gas, so it isn't strictly accurate to say zero greenhouse gases. Of course, it must be a small fraction of coal burning emissions.

The real pollution threat from uranium mining comes from the huge quantities of solid and liquid waste it produces, all mildly radioactive and loaded with heavy metals.

One factor that I would be interested to hear opinions about is the threat of terrorism. Not only is a nuclear power plant a big sitting target, but the transport of fissionable material, and any radioactive waste, becomes an opportunity for hijacking leading to dirty bombs, etc. With nuclear power plants as common as our modern economy would need them, it seems like logistical control would be a real problem.

Terrorist with enough organization and firepower to attack a nuclear power plant could already kill hundreds or thousands of people a billion other ways. Nuclear power plants are protected by a minimal of five layers of physical security, more then enough to buy time for local law enforcement to respond. The reactors would be shutdown as soon as any attack began, and the terrorists odds of causing a meltdown are almost nil. Even if a meltdown occurred, the containment dome would do its job.

Nuclear waste shipments are packaged inside massive steel casks that weigh anywhere from 40-150 tons. It would be utterly impossible for terrorists to steal one. The are 10in steel, plus radiation shielding, they also aren’t going to be broken open by anything. Even a large car bomb would not be enough to rupture one, and hollow charge anti tank weapons would make only tiny holes.

The reality is that thousands of nuclear waste shipments have already been made in the US, without a single leak or incident. Having more such shipments is not going to make a terrorist attack more likely.

[Zixinus]

Not only is a nuclear power plant a big sitting target, but the transport of fissionable material, and any radioactive waste, becomes an opportunity for hijacking leading to dirty bombs, etc. With nuclear power plants as common as our modern economy would need them, it seems like logistical control would be a real problem.

Dirty bombs are not really that good, and power plants can be defended and guarded well enough for that not to be an issue. Unless you assume highly-armed and trained terrorists.

That, and I don't think any of them would know how to get the radioactive materials out, and even if they did, it would be relatively easy to find them escaping. Just look for someone who has a glowing suitcase.

[kinnison]

Ah, the threat of terrorism in relation to nuclear power.

The residents of Northwest London found out, last year, what the potential danger from fossil fuels can be. We got lucky, again - when the Buncefield oil products depot went up, not only was it not even close to a maximum-energy event but it happened when nobody was working there and everyone in the area was in bed.

There is a depot on Canvey Island, right in the middle of the Thames and a mile or so away from the East End of London, that contains around a quarter of a million tonnes of LNG and about the same amount of gasoline and kerosene. If that goes up, say goodbye to most of London - the energy stored in that complex is around half a megaton if it goes up with the expected efficiency. If someone is trying deliberately it might be a couple of megatons.

I am quite sure there are similar examples in the USA.

[PeZook]

Dirty bombs are not really that good, and power plants can be defended and guarded well enough for that not to be an issue. Unless you assume highly-armed and trained terrorists.

Didn't Darth Wong onve give an overview of how nuke plant security worked? I recall it was completely absurd sometimes.

That, and I don't think any of them would know how to get the radioactive materials out, and even if they did, it would be relatively easy to find them escaping. Just look for someone who has a glowing suitcase.

Or, rather, look for a crisp-baked corpse somewhere in the reactor unit. Getting out the radioactive materials requires more than just shutting down the reactor, popping the lid open and pulling out the fuel rods. The unit has to cool down for a long time before the fuel can be safely retrieved. This time, even discounting physical security, would easily be enough to mobilize an overwhelming police or military response.

Getting spent nuclear fuel out of cooling ponds in the plant itself would also require specialized equipment and some heavy-duty transportation to actually move out of the premises. Sure, terrorists could try cutting it up into little pieces so that they can be carried by hand, but without a cask lined with radiation shielding, the most they would accomplish would be an irradiated room and pools of their own bloody vomit on the floor.

[Zixinus]

Didn't Darth Wong onve give an overview of how nuke plant security worked? I recall it was completely absurd sometimes.

He described how the CANDU's safety features work on the main site. I don't recall about anything about security.

Or, rather, look for a crisp-baked corpse somewhere in the reactor unit.

LOL.

[CaptJodan]

Kind of appropriate for the discussion, a snippet from one of today's headlines about the earthquake in Japan.

Flames and billows of black smoke poured from the Kashiwazaki nuclear plant - the world's largest in terms of power output capacity - which automatically shut down during the quake. The fire, at an electrical transformer, was put out shortly after noon and there was no release of radioactivity or damage to the reactors, said Motoyasu Tamaki, a Tokyo Electric Power Co. official.

Safety systems at work. Of course, this incident will get the anti-nuclear activitists riled up on what might have happened had the earthquake done more damage, but it seems to me the plant did exactly what it was supposed to do.

[Colonel Olrik]

Safety systems at work. Of course, this incident will get the anti-nuclear activitists riled up on what might have happened had the earthquake done more damage, but it seems to me the plant did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Unfortunately, there's an update to the story:

A strong earthquake in central Japan has damaged a large nuclear power plant causing a leak of radioactive material, officials at the plant have said.

A small amount of water containing radioactive substances leaked into the sea, officials said, and a fire broke out at the plant in Kashiwazaki.

Expect much whining.

[CaptJodan]

Yeah, I was just coming to comment on that. Yup, lots of people are going to say they are unsafe now.

[Darth Wong]

Didn't Darth Wong onve give an overview of how nuke plant security worked? I recall it was completely absurd sometimes.

He described how the CANDU's safety features work on the main site. I don't recall about anything about security.

Or, rather, look for a crisp-baked corpse somewhere in the reactor unit.

LOL.

I remember having to go through many checkpoints to get in, each one more stringent than the last. Entering the actual containment structure is quite an impressive event, since the walls and doors are so absurdly thick.

[Lord Revan]

Well when my brother was working in one of the nuclear plants her in Finland (doind security simulations), the chances for some of the stuff he had made simulations for was absurbly low (something like 0.00001% or similar).

so in general you could say most western nuclear plants are at least as safe as other powerplants if not safer.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Nuclear power plants are, as has been stated, very protected from terrorist attacks. Just look up the video of an F4 Phantom being crashed into a section of containment wall. The jet dies in a fiery explosion but the wall holds, apparently with little damage.


In addition to being a lot less polluting, nuclear plants produce an incredible amount of power for the area they take up. It'd take relatively few to power the entire country. Far fewer than we have in fossil fuel plants. Considering that coal and gas plants release a fair amount of carcinogens to begin with I'd imagine that a nuclear accident would be less harmful to the enviroment and the community near where it happened that a year's worth of fossil fuel plants. And considering accidents will be less than once a year barring negligence beyond Chernobyl.

Dutchess, I'm interested in a source for this claim: "United States coal-fired powerplants release more radioactive particles into the atmosphere each year than all nuclear tests in the whole world over the whole of human history from 1945 forward have."

Not calling you a liar, I just find that to be a big claim.

[Lord Revan]

her in Finland

edit:here in Finland.