Slashdot Mirror

Or how about putting nuclear power plants on the surface of the earth

How about solving problems of radioactive waste disposal, and the security issues of fission technology and fissionable materials? And safety issues with reactor technology itself? The pebble bed idea is a small step forward, but there are still many issues.

Fission is a bad solution, and we should devote our ressources to increased efficiency, renewables (incuding orbital solar), and fusion research instead of digging ourselves deeper into the fission pit.

"Research into breeder technology was cancelled after 1986 mainly because of the chernobyl incident"

Thanks for your post, it was interesting to read.
pebble bed

From the linked site:
5. & 6. There was a pebble bed reactor accident at Hamm-Uentrop West Germany nine days after the Chernobyl accident. On May 4 1986, a pebble became lodged in a feeder tube. Operators subsequently caused damage to the fuel during attempts to free the pebble. Radiation was released to the environs. The West German government closed down the research program because they found the reactor design unsafe.

The accident at Chernobyl probably had a BIG impact on the desicion for closing down, but the main reason was the design had flaws. The German program would still be going if it hadn't of had this accident. (And the reactor would still be operating). I think it was intelligent of the German Government to do what they did for two reasons.
1. They learned from Chernobyl. (Something a lot of the humans in the world don't do. An accident occurs, and they think it won't happen to them, so they continue.)
2. They realised if they continued with the design they had, and more accidents occurred (which was most likely), the bad PR would sink them.

Like most of us I think in the future a design might come into being which is meltdown proof. I'm still waiting for it. Another link on the Pebble Bed reactor - this one showing that they chose to close it down in 1988. Two years after Chernobyl:
Factsheet
Just my two cents. Cheers.

[...] a very poorly designed reactor, a shutdown of the insufficient safety systems, and a government that didn't care about its people. None of those conditions exists in US nuclear power plants.

It's unreasonable to say that nuclear is safest, when obviously it is not even safe period. In fact, I'd argue it is the most dangerous to our national security and public health. Anything that involves a proven carcinogen isn't safe. (Note: I said that your idea is unreasonable and not that you are unreasonable. Please attack ideas, not people. We're all nerds here -- there is no reason to resort to name calling. :)

I'm not going to argue with you whether coal or nuclear is more dangerous. It's arbitrary, because they both are dirty and they both are a threat to public health.

It is completely false to say that there are not radioactive emissions from nuclear plants during operation. It doesn't take an accident -- nuclear reactors routinely emit radioisotopes to the atmosphere and they are permitted to do so by law. The nuclear industry files their own paperwork on how much radiation they are emitting to the atmosphere and to the water effluent -- the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't monitor it. Just because you can't see, smell or detect it with any human senses, the pollution from nuclear power plants is still there.

The nuclear industry is also responsible for the pollution from the uranium fuel cycle. Before fuel rods are loaded into a nuclear reactor they have to be mined, milled, enriched, pelleted, and loaded into zirconium fuel rods. There are huge piles of unprotected U-238 just sitting out on the ground venting radon gas to the atmosphere. In 2002, the Paducah uranium enrichment plant in Kentucky and the Piketon uranium enrichment plant in Ohio emitted 91% of the nation's reported CFC-114 emissions, a potent greenhouse gas and an ozone depleter. As a greenhouse gas, CFC-114 is 9,800 times more potent than C02.

"Sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact remains there is no 100% safe way of generating power." Please don't be so cynical -- there are safe and clean ways to manage our energy policy. Our only options available to us aren't natural gas, coal, oil, garbage incineration and nuclear power. Half of our federal budget is spent on the military (~$935 billion/year). If half of that were spent on clean energy research tremendous technological breakthroughs would be made. A large part of the problem with solar and wind is that it isn't being mass produced. Mass production would significantly bring the costs down.

The nuclear industry has been given its chance and it has failed miserably. They promised energy that would be safe, clean, and too cheap to meter. It is perfectly logical to say that nuclear power is not safe or clean, and it happens to be one of the most expensive methods of electrical generation available. The federal subsidies should be cut from the nuclear power industry and they should be reinvested in clean energy initiatives. We're not in the cold war anymore.

"Many studies show that particulate emission from burning carbon containing fuels is a major risk for developing vascular health problems, just as much as smoking is. Vascular diseases are the leading cause of death in the Western world today." I don't doubt it and I'm certainly not arguing that coal is clean. (That would be like saying that nuclear is clean.) I'm a runner and I get sick from running where I live, because the air quality is so bad. Nuclear won't solve the problem though -- it'll give me cancer just the same as coal.

Yes, it is speculative to say that hundreds of thousands died from cancer caused by Chernobyl. I can't prove it, but you can't prove it wrong either. It would be just as speculative to say that those cancer deaths were caused by coal. We don't have the technology to track pollutants from the source to their victim. I wish we could, because then we could hold the corporate polluters responsible

Just one class 9 meltdown .

Each plant operator is only required to carry $300 Million of private liability insurance per plant. In total the nuclear industry carries only 8.5 Billion dollars of insurance, enforced by a form a government socialism. (Post accident levy).

For an estimate of REAL damages [nirs.org].. take a look a Chernobyl catastrophe

"If accident damages exceed that amount, taxpayers will be asked to make up the difference. Compare that to the 1982 Sandia National Laboratories study (CRAC-2 [ccnr.org]), which projected economic damages of up to $300 Billion (in 1982 dollars) resulting from an accident at the Indian Point, NY reactor site. The 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe already has cost Russia, Ukraine and Belarus some $300 Billion, and the costs-from interdicted land, from radioactive waste disposal, from ongoing health effects-mount daily.";

Folks, that's $300 Billion in 1982 dollars!! Care to guess what that number is today?
I'll bet that it's in the Trillion dollar range.

"Moreover, no other hazardous industry has such a subsidized insurance scheme. "

For the time being, I suggest keeping our Nuclear power source a nice safe distance away, one AU is a good number, and embark on a distributed program to harness the energy it bestows to us all (wind, solar).

I beg to differ. Having lived within a ten mile radius of Three Mile Island all my life, I've become good at cutting through the BS most energy companies spit out. Take a look at these two sites and tell me if you still feel they are safe: http://www.tmia.com/pebbles.html http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/PBMRFactSheet.htm

It would be nice it you got your facts straight... Most of your statements are outright lies !!

"The Price-Andersen Act simply allows the government to act as an insurance broker for nuclear power plants. The plants PAY for the insurance, and it only covers small accidents-- maximum liability for the government is something like $10 million. Furthermore, the act allows for private companies to step in to take over the insurance after a period of some years-- something that private companies have indeed done. (The PA Act has actually made taxpayers money, as plants have paid out more than they have received, just like any successful insurance company. So it doesn't count as subsidy at all.)"

Wow.. talk about deception.... Time for a dose of the truth and here.

"NRC's procedures for ensuring that licensees comply with Price-Anderson Act liability insurance provisions include requirements that licensees provide proof of primary and secondary insurance coverage. NRC requires each licensee to show proof that it has liability insurance that includes the $300 million of primary insurance coverage per site required by the Price Anderson Act. NRC and the licensee also sign an indemnity agreement that requires the licensee to maintain an insurance policy in this amount. This agreement is in effect as long as the owner is licensed to operate the plant."

Note: This is a per plant policy.

"in the event of a nuclear incident causing damages exceeding $300 million, would be collected from each nuclear power plant licensee at a rate of up to $10 million per year and up to a maximum of $95.8 million per incident for each nuclear power plant."

Or roughly 8.5 Billion dollars in total, enforced by a form a government socialism. (Post accident levy).

As for maximum liability.. it goes into the Tragedy of the commons category..
"The key to the tragedy of the commons is when individuals use a public good, they do not bear the entire cost of their several actions."

As for estimate of REAL damages.. take a look a Chernobyl catastrophe

"If accident damages exceed that amount, taxpayers will be asked to make up the difference. Compare that to the 1982 Sandia National Laboratories study (CRAC-2), which projected economic damages of up to $300 Billion (in 1982 dollars) resulting from an accident at the Indian Point, NY reactor site. The 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe already has cost Russia, Ukraine and Belarus some $300 Billion, and the costs-from interdicted land, from radioactive waste disposal, from ongoing health effects-mount daily."

"Moreover, no other hazardous industry has such a subsidized insurance scheme. "

Yes, the Feds and ultimately the Taxpayers are on the hook for unlimited liability, since no company has that type of resources to pay the real cost of a catastrophe, and someone will have to pay for the damages.

Furthermore.. "The Price Anderson Act directs DOE to fully indemnify its contractors for any and all public liability in connection with nuclear activities - even with accidents resulting from a contractor's bad faith, reckless behavior, gross negligence, or willful misconduct."

2) I never used the label "pro nuke" with all that implies..., and I certainly never said that people who dismissed claims of nuclear power not being safe were "exclusively" nuclear professionals. I did write that the ones I have met ( as in met in real life ) over the last 20 years have almost always been nuclear professionals. That is not the same as "exclusive".

Pardon me for drawing that conclusion from what you said:

The only people I have met in the last 20 years who have been very enthusiastic about nuclear power are people who have studied nuclear engineering and who have had their career opportunities curtailed by the anti-nuke movement.

And I further note that you restricted your use of "enthusiast" to those same professionals. You can't accuse me of taking you other than at face value.

Who made what claims about which situations? You haven't given me enough information to look up even one situation so I can't give you an opinion about your grievances.

Which situation: The transport of spent nuclear fuel to a central storage repository. This was characterized as a "Mobile Chernobyl" by a broad cross-section of the anti-nuclear lobby.

Who made the claim: A broad cross-section of the anti-nuclear lobby, at least two groups of which are on the first page of Google results for the search phrase "mobile chernobyl".

What claim was made: that there was significant danger of any radioactive release, let alone a catastrophic one. I quote the NIRS:

Some people say that it is not accurate to use the name Chernobyl since the waste in the container is not the same as an actively fissioning (splitting atoms) reactor. In fact, much care has to be taken to prevent nuclear waste from "going critical" and resuming the nuclear fission reaction. While it is possible to do this, the task is monumental. This is because each and every fuel rod is different. A reactor core is like an oven of sorts - more fission in the middle, less around the edges. Thus, each rod has a unique profile because of its position while it was in the reactor core. This results in variation in how much uranium and plutonium is present that could "go critical."

Therefore the problem of preventing criticality in a nuclear shipping cask, or a repository cask, for that matter, is one of bookkeeping. Each has to be 100% within the margin to prevent critical mass. As everyone knows, bookkeeping is subject to human error. What will be the margin of error on loading more than 10,000 containers of this deadly waste?

These are carefully crafted, expert-sounding lies. It's so wrong it's hard to figure out where to begin:

• In the reactor, the chain reaction can be stopped by the insertion of a few neutron-absorbing control rods which take up a small amount of the cross-section... and that is when it is bathed in a moderator which promotes the reaction. The only care that has to be taken to prevent a chain reaction within the shipping cask is to ship it in volumes much smaller than a full core-load and away from any moderator. Guess what, this is how it's packaged. If the cask should fall into water and spring a leak, the amount of fuel would still be sub-critical.
• The task is not monumental, it's trivial.
• It's impossible to be outside the margin of error when your packaging only allows you to get to some small fraction of a critical mass and the fuel cannot go critical without a moderator anyway.
• Addition of "poisons" such as cadmium or boron would prevent any reaction from starting even if the shipment casks

2) I never used the label "pro nuke" with all that implies..., and I certainly never said that people who dismissed claims of nuclear power not being safe were "exclusively" nuclear professionals. I did write that the ones I have met ( as in met in real life ) over the last 20 years have almost always been nuclear professionals. That is not the same as "exclusive".

Pardon me for drawing that conclusion from what you said:

The only people I have met in the last 20 years who have been very enthusiastic about nuclear power are people who have studied nuclear engineering and who have had their career opportunities curtailed by the anti-nuke movement.

And I further note that you restricted your use of "enthusiast" to those same professionals. You can't accuse me of taking you other than at face value.

Who made what claims about which situations? You haven't given me enough information to look up even one situation so I can't give you an opinion about your grievances.

Which situation: The transport of spent nuclear fuel to a central storage repository. This was characterized as a "Mobile Chernobyl" by a broad cross-section of the anti-nuclear lobby.

Who made the claim: A broad cross-section of the anti-nuclear lobby, at least two groups of which are on the first page of Google results for the search phrase "mobile chernobyl".

What claim was made: that there was significant danger of any radioactive release, let alone a catastrophic one. I quote the NIRS:

Some people say that it is not accurate to use the name Chernobyl since the waste in the container is not the same as an actively fissioning (splitting atoms) reactor. In fact, much care has to be taken to prevent nuclear waste from "going critical" and resuming the nuclear fission reaction. While it is possible to do this, the task is monumental. This is because each and every fuel rod is different. A reactor core is like an oven of sorts - more fission in the middle, less around the edges. Thus, each rod has a unique profile because of its position while it was in the reactor core. This results in variation in how much uranium and plutonium is present that could "go critical."

Therefore the problem of preventing criticality in a nuclear shipping cask, or a repository cask, for that matter, is one of bookkeeping. Each has to be 100% within the margin to prevent critical mass. As everyone knows, bookkeeping is subject to human error. What will be the margin of error on loading more than 10,000 containers of this deadly waste?

These are carefully crafted, expert-sounding lies. It's so wrong it's hard to figure out where to begin:

• In the reactor, the chain reaction can be stopped by the insertion of a few neutron-absorbing control rods which take up a small amount of the cross-section... and that is when it is bathed in a moderator which promotes the reaction. The only care that has to be taken to prevent a chain reaction within the shipping cask is to ship it in volumes much smaller than a full core-load and away from any moderator. Guess what, this is how it's packaged. If the cask should fall into water and spring a leak, the amount of fuel would still be sub-critical.
• The task is not monumental, it's trivial.
• It's impossible to be outside the margin of error when your packaging only allows you to get to some small fraction of a critical mass and the fuel cannot go critical without a moderator anyway.
• Addition of "poisons" such as cadmium or boron would prevent any reaction from starting even if the shipment casks

It has nothing to do with the tonnes of nuclear waste produced for which the only solution seems to be "put it down a large hole, that'll do" then?

Or perhaps my irrationality extends to thinking that when the pigeons around the UK's nuclear waste processing plants are so radioactive they would be classed as nuclear waste themselves if they were inert. Internal contamination of the pigeons was found to be beyond safety levels set by the EC in the aftermath of nuclear accidents.

The problem with nuclear power is that it is made by humans and they have a habit of fucking up on a grand scale.

In theory it's all safe and dandy.

In theory, theory and practice are the same.

You should read some of the US Nuclear Inspectorate documents.

Our own inspectorate says that "British Energy's downsizing has seriously compromised nuclear safety."

I could go on and on and on. But you know that already.

<paranoid rant>

You see, GE could give a shit about wind power. All you have to do is follow the money. First of all check out the Energy Policy Act of 2003, as Senator Domenici (NM) promises it will fix a whole laundry list of problems with our energy supply (real and percieved). Do` we really need a new Under Secretary position for energy and science as well as two new Assistant Secretary positions: one for science and one for nuclear energy, I digress.

Anways Being from New Mexico, the home of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories Don't be so shocked when Domenici's bill is pro nuclear.

Well, John Rice President and CEO GE Power Systems, recently (May 8) sez he's cautiously optimistic that there will be a new nuclear facility in the United States and has spoken with half-dozen major nuclear utilities about building a new reactor .

And I suppose since GE is a member of United States Energy Association and gave about $9 Million in campaign contributions (since 1990), It probably has some say into Domenici's Energy Bill which provisions for up to 8-10 new 1100MW nuclear reactors that The taxpayers (read you and I) would pay, through loans, 50% of the costs to build these. And according to the Congressional Budget Office the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high - well above 50 percent(p.11). The CBO also figures that each of these will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3Billion.

< /paranoid rant >

So why the hell would GE develop it's patents on Wind Turbines when the Good Ol US of A is gonna spend $52.6Billion over the next 10 years (p.1) on the Energy Policy Act of 2003.

Just follow the money....

Is it just me, or is this a monumentally stupid idea?

Nuclear power is NOT clean, safe, or cheap. These illusions are carefully crafted and maintained by the nuclear power industry and the Department of Energy.

Nuclear power plants seem clean because there aren't any smokestacks billowing pollution into the air, but the polution they produce is invisible to the human eye. Why do you think nuclear power plants can't be built near populated areas? Additionally, the process of mining the fuel is exremely poluting, and there is no way to dispose of the spent fuel rods, which are still extremely radioactive. Currently they are generally stored in on-site storage tanks awaiting the day that the government sets up a central storage area and takes over the responsibility. This brings us to safety.

Nuclear power plants could be safe if they were properly maintained, but of course they aren't. Why? Because maintainance costs money, and power generation costs money. The corporations that own these power plants would rather buy DOE officials than properly maintain the deisel generators which provide backup power for the cooling system. In fact, the lack of mainainance at nuclear power plants was one of the few valid y2k fears. Nuclear power plants are required to power their cooling systems (which are the only thing preventing meltdown) from the grid. In the event of grid failure there are the afor mentioned backup generators. Unfortunately there is sufficient evidence for concern that even the redundant backup systems would fail. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island provide very convincing examples of what happens when systems fail at a nuclear power plant. So much for safety, what about how cheap it is?

Guess what? It isn't! Nuclear power plants are subsidized by the Departments of Energy and Defence. Since this cost is hidden from the consumer, nuclear power appears cheap. Our tax dollars at work!

Of course, I don't expect you to take my word for it. Feel free to verify anything I've said hear. This link should get you started.

I don't want it to seem like I have something against nuclear scientists, I know a few and they are very smart people. I would feel a lot more comfortable with nuclear power if the engineers and physicists were actually in control of it. As it is, politicians lie for a living and any confidence I may have had in business folks was squelched in my days as a math tutor. I've seen the kind of people that major in business, and I wouldn't trust most of them to run my coffee machine.

It would be awfully inflamatory of me to shoot down your solution without presenting one of my own, so here you go. I won't argue that deregulation has caused a lot of problems, but it also encompasses the solution. Thanks to deregulation anyone can produce power and feed it back into the grid. For a few thousand dollars you can buy a few solar panels and a phase matching inverter. Wind generators and micro-hydroelectric generators can also be had fairly cheap. Last time I went to San Jose I saw lots of sun and wind not being used. If all these companies that are suffering under the yolk of rolling blackouts put up roughly one of thier CEOs weekly salaries for equipment and installation, the problem would be solved. If Reagan hadn't done away with the tax credits for doing so, they probably would.

Again, I encourage you to check it out for yourself. Try this link for starters.

Or bury it in a mountain, all 5KG per plant per year, no problem.

Whats Yucca going to cost? 54 billion (!) dollar? See: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/radwastegermany.htm l

Have you seen pictures, of, for example Gorleben (sorry, I didn't find some on the web). The salt dome is huge.
Also, the 5 kg for 21 plants in Germany is the reason to buy 4653t capacity from COGEMA and 887t from BNFL? See: http://hs.riverdale.k12.or.us/~matiash/paises.htm .

Both governments and many companies have looked for a solution to this problem for at least 20 years now and you think there is a trivial solution?
I have an idea: Go to the American government, take the waste, chuck the few kgs into an old mine shaft, take 25 billion $ for it, and the government (or whoever is paying) has saved over 25 billion $.

Second, the infrastructure for rail is fairly expensive also. That's why it costs about the same to go somewhere by air as it does to go by rail. Most towns don't have rail stations, so how would those large items be transported to, say, the town i live in (only 30 miles from the nearest rail line)? That's why most hauling is done by truck.

Third, a lot of people don't live in major metropolitan areas, and thus don't have access to viable mass transit. (People unfortunate enough to live in LA have the worst of both worlds.) I would be happy to use public transportation, but there may as well not be any where I live. The 5 minute drive to work takes about an hour on the bus, and costs about double what it costs me for the gas. If I miss the bus, no problem... it'll come back around in an hour and a half or so, which is not acceptable on the three nights a week that i have to rush home and take care of my daughter when my wife goes to work. Never mind the half mile walk between my place of employment and the nearest bus stop. I don't mind the walk, I just don't have time for it. I live to far away to walk to work, and a bike (if I had one) would really only be an option about 4 months out of the year.

Now that I think about it, there's kind a a vicious cycle going on here: The public transportation in my town is useless, so nobody uses it, so it never get's improved because nobody uses it. Hmmm...

Anyway, my last point is that the conditions are so different now than they were 200 years ago that there really isn't any analogy. Basically, there isn't enough space on this planet for us to go back to that lifestyle. Besides, it was a hard life and most people didn't really survive very well, or for very long. There are a lot of very good reasons why 98% of the US population chooses not to live that life.

I'm all for a cleaner, better way of getting to the places I need to be, but it has to work. It has to be cheap, easy, fast, and convenient. Frankly, alternative fuel vehicles are as close as most of us will be able to get for a long time. If I could afford it I'd go get one tomorrow.