Slashdot Mirror

Well, I'd agree that it's a valuable metric, but it's not the only one by any stretch.

If a solar panel installer falls off a roof, he falls off a roof and there aren't isn't any other significant fallout (puns intended).

If a nuclear reactor explodes and one person dies, that's often not everything. Dozens of additional workers may get ill, have their lives shortened in ways that are difficult to pin to the specific event, or pass on issues to their unborn offspring. Additionally, dangerous contaminants may get into the air and water, and into the general ecosystem, causing an ongoing ripple effect that is--again--difficult to pin directly on the event.

I think the reason people react so strongly to events at nuclear facilities is the uncanny nature of the effects from these things. It's not like a mine can't explode or an oil rig can't leak. However, for the most part, neither of those things are likely to give you thyroid cancer 15 years after exposure. I think most people look at a tragic accident where a dozen people die as a tragic accident that should be prevented in the future. However, an accident which causes no immediate deaths, but which at least appears to lead to a dozen deaths over the next decade causes a terror reaction. The extra time is not a blessing, but a time bomb.

I think one other element of the anti-nuclear set is the vehement, zealous and complete denial of safety risk by nuclear boosters. Going by deaths per KWH without considering other effects is one example where people feel that the truth is being manipulated. Hell, we've seen this before with cigarettes: everyone in the world has known for decades that cigarettes will kill you, but the tobacco folks fought against any such insinuation which carried legal weight for years.

The problem is that the most extreme people on both sides of the issue dig in hard enough that it's clear that neither are telling the whole story. I posted something like this a couple of years back, and someone here on /. linked me to an ad for a portable nuclear power station which was built in such a way that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the containment vessel to be breached. I don't think I even bothered responding (until now, I guess) because that sort of hubris is exactly what causes the most fearsome problems.

The reactor in question was, I think, this. The idea is that it arrives at the site fully loaded, is buried underground to generate power for a community, and the vendor comes around every few years to take the reactor back, swap out the spent fuel for new fuel, and rebury the thing. I'm sure it's got all sorts of safety mechanisms built in, but since it's (a) built by people and (b) built to be opened and refueled, "impossible" is a really, titanically huge word to describe the likelihood of problems. And here's the thing: if something like this is deployed in a small remote town, and it breaks down for some reason and there's a containment breach, it's possible there would be no deaths, but that there would be residual health issues facing that whole community for generations. Or it could make the region uninhabitable.

The TL;DR version of this post is: deaths per KWH is not the only metric to consider by any stretch of the imagination.

You have the pro-nuclear group that wants all existing plants kept running and new ones build.

No, the pro-nuclear group does not all want existing plants kept running.

Old designs should be replaced by latest-generation designs. Plants which were originally scheduled to be decommissioned by now should be decommissioned, and be replaced with newer designs - and shore-situated (or other wave or flood prone regions) installations should have proper failsafe designs to survive even total submersion - and for god's sake, if you store backup to the backup generators off-site make damn sure the voltage and phase match that of the backup generators, and make sure you keep adequate fuel for the cooling generators.

Even better, why not make reactors misfeasance and malfeasance-proof? Pebble bed reactors should be further developed and mini reactors further developed as well for safe operation by municipalities or even small towns (villages?) in rural areas (see http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/08/mini-nukes but it's absent of any technical details). With any of those reactor designs you can have a failure, and while the generator may be damaged, the reactor integrity itself will not even in the worst case. In theory anyhow. In tests even forced overstressing resulted in the fuel not being damaged. The mini- and micro-reactor designs are actually intended to be installed, buried, and forgotten about until they need refueling (or just replacement since mass production would make them cheap enough) 30-40 years later.

Mini- and micro-nuke articles:

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news5.28.08c.html

I could forsee small neighborhoods or even a single wealthy McMansion owner utilizing Hyperion's units in green home designs, if only people would get over the irrational "ZOMG NO NUCULEAR!" mantra.

It's the irrational fear which is keeping ancient, unsafe (well, less safe) reactor designs in operation because more safe reactors aren't allowed to be built, so the anti-nuke nuts are ironically defeating their own purpose by promoting an unsafe situation.

You have the pro-nuclear group that wants all existing plants kept running and new ones build.

No, the pro-nuclear group does not all want existing plants kept running.

Old designs should be replaced by latest-generation designs. Plants which were originally scheduled to be decommissioned by now should be decommissioned, and be replaced with newer designs - and shore-situated (or other wave or flood prone regions) installations should have proper failsafe designs to survive even total submersion - and for god's sake, if you store backup to the backup generators off-site make damn sure the voltage and phase match that of the backup generators, and make sure you keep adequate fuel for the cooling generators.

Even better, why not make reactors misfeasance and malfeasance-proof? Pebble bed reactors should be further developed and mini reactors further developed as well for safe operation by municipalities or even small towns (villages?) in rural areas (see http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/08/mini-nukes but it's absent of any technical details). With any of those reactor designs you can have a failure, and while the generator may be damaged, the reactor integrity itself will not even in the worst case. In theory anyhow. In tests even forced overstressing resulted in the fuel not being damaged. The mini- and micro-reactor designs are actually intended to be installed, buried, and forgotten about until they need refueling (or just replacement since mass production would make them cheap enough) 30-40 years later.

Mini- and micro-nuke articles:

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news5.28.08c.html

I could forsee small neighborhoods or even a single wealthy McMansion owner utilizing Hyperion's units in green home designs, if only people would get over the irrational "ZOMG NO NUCULEAR!" mantra.

It's the irrational fear which is keeping ancient, unsafe (well, less safe) reactor designs in operation because more safe reactors aren't allowed to be built, so the anti-nuke nuts are ironically defeating their own purpose by promoting an unsafe situation.

Ahh, I see the eco-nuts are in full force with this post... Putting on tin-foil hat...

Nuclear power - PLEASE put one of these in my back yard! http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

Mercury - Here are some mercury FACTS from the department of energy... http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview_mercurycontrols.html.

Drilling for oil - So while the rest of the world goes out and drills for oil, going so far as to cross drill under US soil, the United States should take a back seat and watch these resources be taken and used against us. Gee, I certainly hope the countries that are actually drilling for oil don't stop sending it to us. I'd hate to see what that would do to our economy.

You mean like this Toshiba unit? That's specced at 200 kW, way short of the power needs of a warship.
The USN has been looking into nuclear power recently (the past few years) as part of their program to design a replacement for the Nimitz-class carrier (and a new cruiser class as well, iirc). I don't know the outcome of that process, though.
this may be relevant

Ahh, peak oil: The other boogie man. You do know it's going to be quite a while before that stuff runs out, right? Not in our lifetime at least. Just when you thought you were all out of black gold, simple supply and demand creates a whole lot more of the stuff.

Ok, so not exactly hobbyist, but would be neat to have. A Toshibiba Micro Nuclear Reactor.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

FTA:
-20x6 feet in size
-200Kw
-Failsafe, totally automatic.
-lasts up to 40 years
-produces energy at 5 cents per KW/H

Have you seen this?

Nuclear plants however are only available in the huge, bulky variation.

Oh really?

I did...man..it's a treasure trove of "could be" technologies...all the techs there that are "the next thing to change the world" are demonstrated very poorly though...anyway, I suppose I could google "+Toshiba +nuclear" to verify if this exists, but I'm far too lazy...but that's not my point! Stop taking me off track for god's sake. My point is that the linked website is full of college student's home videos of revolutionary energy sources that no one else could have possibly thought about! Why didn't that monstrous two paragraph "article" link to any reputable source? All the videos are sketchy at best. Perpetual motion, free energy, look at all the wonders of the universe like 300mpg cars, all on one website! Go, go! Look for yourself!

Vaporware snakeoil fallacy free energy website

I want my 10 minutes back. Who do I see for a refund?

I agree, check out http://www.nextenergynews.com/freeenergy/freeenergy118.html