Slashdot Mirror

There is very little point arguing about Nuclear power from an idealistic viewpoint. To idealize that nuclear power is perfect and requires no improvements means that the nuclear industry cannot evolve legal requirements for new processes. This, according to the official report into the Fukushima accident, is the main reason the disaster occurred.

Nuclear engineers want to build newer and safer designs. Nobody says nuclear doesn't need improvement. The problem is two fold: 1) newer designs need new regulations, 2) no politician wants to be on the hook for being the person to change nuclear regulations. Also, the standard for nuclear is perfection from the public's viewpoint. It shouldn't be, that's a dangerous and spurious standard as it will cause 10,000s of deaths (at least) making up for that power some other way that causes more harm (even if its workers falling from roofs or windmills).

This is some very welcome news in developments at Fukushima as the foundations of Unit 3 are damaged. Workers at Fukushima have already removed 1000 fuel rods IIRC from that reactor building due to concerns about what would happen if the building collapsed.

To get a better understanding of why its an urgent issue, a report called Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities explored vulnerabilities at nuclear power plants.

From that report the issue of spent fuel pool vulnerabilities warranted further study in the now declassified report Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage: Public Report by the Committee on the Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage within the National Research Council. It details variations of scenarios created from vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks, however the potential outcomes are similar if they are initiated by a natural disaster.

The most sobering scenarios came from analyzing what happens from loosing the cooling water from a spent fuel pool. Spent fuel rods are kept in a pool with a constant supply of water because the water not only cools them, it moderates the neutrons so that they don't become critical. One scenario examined from loosing the cooling water was a plutonium fire that creates plutonium oxide in the smoke with reactors that are MOX fueled, such as Unit 3 was. With several hundred tons of fuel it would be the largest plutonium fire we have ever faced, it would also be in open air.

You can find information about plutonium oxidization Evaluation of source-term data for plutonium aerosolization which starts at around 500 centigrade. I think that because of the proximity to the sea, plutonium chloride would also be created.

Actions to reduce the possibility of these kinds of scenarios are simple and cost effective. Mainly by dry cask storing fuel that has cooled for 5 years and separating and dispersing spent fuel recently removed from the reactor throughout the pools of reactors that are still operating. All very practical, affordable actions for reducing this risk of reactors that are still operating.

Information about the fuel removal process and the damage to the Unit 3 spent fuel pool in Tepco's Fukushima spent fuel removal plan.

There is very little point arguing about Nuclear power from an idealistic viewpoint. To idealize that nuclear power is perfect and requires no improvements means that the nuclear industry cannot evolve legal requirements for new processes. This, according to the official report into the Fukushima accident, is the main reason the disaster occurred.

So this is a great time to commend the workers and engineers at the Fukushima plant and express gratitude for their efforts to get this disaster under control. Thank you!!!!

The official report is true: https://www.nirs.org/wp-conten...

That's the official report from 2012. It's well worth reading, but will not tell you anything about the construction of the "Land-side Impermeable Wall" which was started in 2016.

The official report is true: https://www.nirs.org/wp-conten...

The claims that it is going well are just nuclear industry shilling. For example the "impressive" progress with robots amounts to managing to get one close enough to poke at one of the melted down reactors after 8 years.

The clean up has been failing quite badly. The government screwed up by starting before they had anywhere to put the contaminated material, and by not asking people what they actually wanted from the process. The actual cleaning isn't going well either, with some areas decontaminated half a dozen times or more and still not clear. Every time it rains more pools up and start setting off alarms.

It's been eight years since this disaster occurred.

The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission contains a wealth of information for anyone interested in the facts regarding this disaster.

The report is scathing and contains lines such as a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11 and describes the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster.

It is very difficult to believe that the company that got the world into this situation is the one that will get us out of it. Chernobyl's New Safe Confinement took the combined resources of the European Union to fund and was designed by the British.

A report called Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities explored vulnerabilities at nuclear power plants.

From that the issue of spent fuel pool vulnerabilities warranted further study in the now declassified report Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage: Public Report by the Committee on the Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage within the National Research Council which details variation of the above scenario from a terrorist attack, as opposed to a disaster.

You can find information about plutonium oxidization Evaluation of source-term data for plutonium aerosolization which starts at around 500 centigrade.

Actions to reduce the possibility of these kinds of scenarios are simple and cost effective. Mainly by dry cask storing fuel that has cooled for 5 years and separating and dispersing spent fuel recently removed from the reactor throughout the pool. All very practical, affordable actions for reducing this risk.

Information about the fuel removal process and the damage to the Unit 3 spent fuel pool in Tepco's Fukushima spent fuel removal plan.

There is very little point arguing with people who look at Nuclear power from an idealistic viewpoint. For them Nuclear power is perfect and requires no improvements. This, according to the official report into the Fukushima accident is how it occurred.

Again I would like to express my gratitude to the workers and engineers attempting to get the Fukushima disaster under control.

The entire Fukushima Disaster was more a disaster because it was entirely preventable. Whether is is malfeasance or nonfeasance it is plainly criminal because it is quite plainly negligence. For anyone with any doubts please refer to The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission.

This is an ongoing disaster, the destroyed reactors are still in an earthquake and flood prone area. TEPCO has proven itself completely corrupt, incompetent and incapable. It is in the interests of all Pacific nations to resolve and this issue demands an international response to control and contain it. It is clearly worse than Chernobyl.

I hope TEPCO's board rots in jail.

Fukushima plant as a whole was rated for 7 magnitude earthquake. It took 9, survived it, and got destroyed by tsunami, not earthquake.

Measurements for seismic tolerance of Nuclear Reactors is expressed in Ground Acceleration, or Gal. Since you are unable to even communicate on this subject using appropriate measures it is unlikely that you have based your opinion on fact.

This disinformation campaign against nuclear is getting tiring,

The only disinformation campaign occurring is Nuclear Ideology based on ignorance of the subject.

with same talking points that were literally debunked weeks after the tsunami still being repeated ad nauseam by religious zealots.

Funded by the Japanese Government, page 27 from the official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission refers to ground acceleration the facility experienced in Gal.

P.S. Reactors didn't explode. What did explode was upper floors of the already destroyed containement buildings, many days after tsunami,

So what you are saying is the reactor facility exploded. You are drawing a somewhat pedantic distinction between the reactor exploding and the reactor facility exploding, however I can agree it is a correct distinction to make.

because TEPCO was so incompetent, they didn't know how to address the initial damage correctly.

Since we are being pedantic what caused the reactor facility to explode according to the report was a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11 and serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and the government.

More importantly what the report highlights is the disaster was caused by the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster, the belief system that supported the errors in judgement that caused the facility to explode.

This is the mindset of Nuclear Ideologists.

Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radionuclides remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Primary source: http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/r...

Spent nuclear fuel commonly contains about 0.8% plutonium-239.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Fukushima wasn't a failure of nuclear power. It was a failure of backup (non)redundancy which had nuclear consequences. Basically, because of unwarranted paranoia about nuclear power, everyone concentrated on going over the nuclear parts of the plant with a fine-toothed comb to make sure it was safe. As a result, the non-nuclear backup systems didn't get enough scrutiny, and that's what failed.

If you read The Official Report you will find that it was a belief system that nuclear power was a safe high tech energy source that appropriate upgrades weren't performed to the installation due to collusion between the Operator (TEPCO) and the regulator (NISA and NSA).

This shows the dangers of dogmatic skepticism, social proof and imposing a idealistic belief system onto the nuclear industry.

The Fukushima accident shows that the nuclear industry learned nothing from the Chernobyl accident, which is also a conclusion made by the report.

The irony is that if there weren't all the anti nuclear environmental activists then that plant would have been upgraded a long time ago.

Read the official report you fucking idiot fuckwit fanboy, which tells us that fucking idiot fuckwit fanboys who believed like religion that nuclear power did not need improvement colluded with the regulator so that requirements for improvements would not be required by law.

In other words you fucking moron asshole: the official report tells us that fucking moron fanboys suchs as yourself were responsible for FUK U SHIMA, and will probably be responsible for the next nuclear disaster. Start blaming the nuclear industry's fucking incompetence and that it is sucking the dick of the coal and oil industry who holds it's leash you whiny fucking fanboy bitch. The way you fanboys twist the truth makes me wish I could grab just one of you idiots and punch you in the face.

Yes, anger trolling and flaming is the appropriate response to your nauseating ignorant fuckwit troll.

The irony is that if there weren't all the anti nuclear environmental activists then that plant would have been upgraded a long time ago.

Read the official report you fucking idiot fuckwit fanboy, which tells us that fucking idiot fuckwit fanboys who believed like religion that nuclear power did not need improvement colluded with the regulator so that requirements for improvements would not be required by law.

In other words you fucking moron asshole: the official report tells us that fucking moron fanboys suchs as yourself were responsible for FUK U SHIMA, and will probably be responsible for the next nuclear disaster. Start blaming the nuclear industry's fucking incompetence and that it is sucking the dick of the coal and oil industry who holds it's leash you whiny fucking fanboy bitch. The way you fanboys twist the truth makes me wish I could grab just one of you idiots and punch you in the face.

Yes, anger trolling and flaming is the appropriate response to your nauseating ignorant fuckwit troll.

I see what you're saying, combination of a bunch of crap. Gotcha.

Oh yeah. WIth big disasters, there are usually multiple failures. A lot of the fanatics think I am anti-nuc. Nothing of the sort. I just hate the damage the true believers do when refusing to acknowledge actual and real problems. Hell, the group doing the research agrees with me, with the possible exception of that the site should never have been in that location. The didn't address that, not too surprisingly.

https://www.nirs.org/wp-conten... Is the location of the NAIIC report

Every nuclear power accident happened at a power plant that was government inspected and licensed. Every oil spill was from a drill, ship, pipe, train, or refinery that was inspected and licensed by a government.

Regulation and operation is a co-operative process in the Nuclear Industry between the regulator and operator.

TEPCO quite likely fucked up major here but they did so under government supervision. The government allowed the reactor to operate as it did, where it did, because it met all safety requirements imposed upon it. If it hadn't then it would have been shutdown.

Correction: TEPCO fucked up. No weasel words thank you. Some board members have been charged with negligence, which in reality, should be criminal negligence. Government operated in collusion with TEPCO. You need to read the report from the Japanese government.

What is ironic is that it is quite likely because of the safety protocols imposed on it that the reactor melted down.

Hydrogen production was an expected outcome from exposing the *TWO* basis design issues of that reactor type. What happened to the reactors is exactly what the manufacturer said would happen if the reactors lost power and why operators are supposed to make sure this doesn't happen. That is why TEPCO are negligent. That they had well over a decade to perform the modifications is why it is criminal - that is the nature of corruption and why regulations exist. The regulations weren't made or enforced, and the reactor went boom.

Otherwise they'd still have a functioning nuclear reactor plant, it survived the quake but not the TEPCO board.

If the reactor had not been shutdown as required by law then perhaps none of this would have happened. I could argue that the government caused this, therefore they should have to pay for it.

I think you will find that it was shut down because there was an earthquake and since the operator decided not to comply with the regulation laid down to operate the reactor safely it is quite reasonable to ask the operator to pay for everything. It also means the regulator has to be given more impetus for performing its duties in preventing these accidents.

The regulation is made to institutionalize the knowledge to operate these things without killing the communities around them. If you undermine that process and refuse to stamp out the corruption then it is impossible to have a safe nuclear industry. TEPCO just reminded us why, so yeah, they should pay.

In particular, it's worth noting that there is a rupture disk here precisely to prevent the reactor pressure vessel from experiencing a catastrophic rupture and that the vessel was leaking enough that it might not have even reached a high enough pressure to break the rupture disk.

Interesting, perhaps you found the ASME report. As I said to you before that was the first design basis issue in implementations of that GE reactor, it started leaking at 70psi.

I know that if I were designing this thing, I'd have most plumbing passing through the shell of the PCV fail first (especially anything for venting the interior of the PCV).

If you were designing this, you would be sperm ;)

Or that one or more components were designed to fail first. Or that the part of the PCV which was overpressurized (the "dry well") eventually vented to the part that wasn't (the "wet well").

Or perhaps the gate pair seals for the spent fuel cooling pools in this reactor were situated in such a way that they leaked water over the top of the PCV. This was the second known design basis issue with this reactor type and that they would leak water when power was lost. It was also known that they would produce hydrogen in this state, and it did explode. The hydrogen density must have been high to puch holes in concrete like that.

However it is all irrelevant, the operators were criminally negligent because they did not take adequate steps to ensure power was maintained to this reactor installation so as to avoid exposing those issues. There is no mystery here. The collusion you yourself complained of, that was exposed in the official report into the accident, that led to the accident. Sea wall was not raised to account for new knowledge, additional generators could have been installed, they could have run those reactor at a lower output. So many opportunities to avoid this accident.

As for your unsubstantiated claims that the facility was to be decommissioned, evidence is emerging that Reactor 4 was actually being upgraded along with disturbing allegations of illegal fuel rod storage. That really undermines your argument that seawall upgrades wern't neccessary. On the good news front though I see that the amount of mox fuel rods in the No.4 reactors are down from 1300 to 400 and we are finally seeing the board of Tepco being brought to justice after avoiding charges of negligence for so long.

You are nothing like the airline industry who actually is a learning industry. You've learned how to PR spin and do the absolute minimum you have to do. You do the same arrogant dismissal of people's concerns and treat them like they are stupid. Fukushima proved the Nuclear Industry learned nothing from Chernobyl except how to better cover evidence and ensure the flow of information is stifled.

I used to support nuclear power, I thought it would save the world and the more I learned and asked questions the more I got labelled as "anti" unclear power.

Indeed it is this very conceit that you demonstrate that is cited in the Official report on the Fukushima accident as a key reason why Japan's unclear industry "managed to avoid absorbing the critical lessons learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl" and "how it became accepted practice to resist regulatory pressure and cover up small-scale accidents" like we see here.

The last thing it says about this conceited attitude is: "It was this mindset that led to the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant. "

The attitude you display, as a professional, is no different and is a clear demonstration that the only thing you've learned from Fukushima is to point fingers and say "Not our problem".

You are never going to see another Chernobyl, what they did was just crazy. Three mile island? we've learned from that, we have procedures in place, we have training in place, we believe what our instruments are telling us and we take action to deal with the anomaly. Fukushima? yeah we've learned about the vulnerabilities with that too and made improvements to deal with a total station blackout.

The vulnerabilities at the Fukushima reactors were well know for decades before and GE issued procedures for ensuring that those situations would not arise for that generation reactor. The operators did not take sufficient measures to protect the reactor or the community around it.

Everything that happened in that accident was predicted by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers from an un- fuelled pressure test of that generation reactor because it was those results that led GE to devise those condition to mitigate the basis design issues that they uncovered. Those factors were not taken seriously enough by TEPCO and that is what led to the accident.

When Nuclear power fails you people claim that no one dies whilst it obliterates communities. Fukushima province was destroyed by a Tsunami however the reason it's people can't return *home* and rebuild is because a nuclear reactor spewed radioactive isotopes all over the place where that community used to exist. The same thing happened at Chernobyl.

But you guys can never take responsibility for anything, minimize everything, attack anyone who has their own concerns no matter how valid and no one has any choice but to accept that unclear power is there.

It would be great if we could get new designs approved that are failsafe but since the climate in North America for nuclear is cold, we deal with the old designs. They really do work well.

They may work well. What we have learned is that human organizational systems are not mature enough to handle nuclear power safely. Commercial reactors that are operated by for profit operators have demonstrated an unwillingness to pay for safety to be maintained.

Nuclear plants periodically dump radioactive Tritium and other isotopes into the atmosphere and water supplies, another is the significant release radioactive isotopes each time the reactor is depressurized to refuel it. This has a known impact on health of the surrounding communities, even the NRC admits to this fact.

Nuclear reactors are toxic to surrounding areas, and Infant mortality rates drop around five US nuclear power reactors after reactors closed . Thus, it appears that the NRC significantly low-balled the numbers.

And this is just normal reactor operation, when(not if) a reactor melts down, ten's of million's residing downwind will have negative health consequences.

First of all, I'll reiterate bloodhawk's point above, that coal has worse long-term impact than nuclear disasters too.

Well DU is analogous to coal ash, so is it worse than this? Which was also inflicted on American soldiers.

This is what happens when you start spreading DU around regardless of the source (in this case as munitions). Warning: those pictures are disturbing and illustrates the consequence of internal radiation exposure from one type of radionuclide.

So coal bad, nuclear worse.

Second, the main long-term impact of Chernobyl and Fukushima (beyond the lifetimes of the humans involved)

Unfortunately it is a contrived position that has been constructed by the political agreements in place to deceive us into thinking that something positive came out of Chernobyl, I doubt Ukrainians would agree. I will provide you with some context.

According to the IAEA's founding papers "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world." I'll draw your attention to the interdiction clause (12.40) the IAEA has over the WHO drawn up on 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly:

"Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement"

In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA , widely known in the scientific community as the instrument that gags their work. Unless of course you beleive the IAEA has an interest in malaria or Aids research it has effectively gagged the WHO from reporting on health matters Nuclear.

Ask yourself how likely it is for us to get reliable health science if the world's peak health organisation has it's science related to Nuclear matter vetted by the orgainsation responsible for promoting nuclear power.

Look, Chernobyl and Fukushima sucked for their victims.

Indeed it did. As opposed to WHO reports, reports in the Slavic languages from Ukrainian scientists on the ground performing research into the after effects of Chernobyl estimate deaths as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident to be around 980,000.

Why is their science less valid?

It's an emotional, irrational overreaction that just doesn't make any damn (statistical) sense.

No, it's a logical one based on a dispassionate examination of the evidence. Current governance of Nuclear reactor technology (especially in Japan) needs a complete overhaul as so far, it has produced accidents and is in no way comparable to the airline industry who has an embedded safety culture. You need look no further than the Japanese governments own inquiry for that opinion:

The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nationâ(TM)s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly manmade.

So far, we have no evidence that there is any improvement in the regulatory structures of NIAC or TEPCO and thus how can we expect anything different a restart of their nuclear industry. Not the technology, per se, but the flawed humans running it.

[sic] When you don't have facts, clam conspiracy and cover up. 'only TEPCO knows' is utter bullshit.

You need look no further than the Japanese governments own inquiry for that opinion:

The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly “manmade.”

See it's not me saying the word "collusion", it's the *official* investigation.

If you read that report you'll find sentences like "were aware of the risk of core damage from tsunami" and "nor did TEPCO take any protective steps against such an occurrence. "

And here is another one "In order to get evidence of this collusion, the Commission was forced to exercise our legislative right to demand such information from NISA, after NISA failed to respond to several requests"

So before you go waving your fatty finger at me, I suggest you get a better understanding of the facts. We already have positive proof that TEPCO do not disclose information and official evidence that they engage in cover ups.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/...

Thanks for the link, I'll make a point of reading it so I can excoriate you with it later. More than likely you've done a 30 second google search, you haven't read it and, you just want to look like you are in some possesion of facts. So care to point me to where in that 1200 odd pages of a report, by an agency who promotes nuclear power, should look to find support of your claims? It should be easy, but I doubt you can.

Exposures are tightly monitored.

So is information and I will provide you with some context. According to the IAEA's founding papers "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world." Since you are so intent on claims of a cover up I'll draw your attention to the interdiction clause (12.40) the IAEA has over the WHO drawn up on 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly:

"Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement"

In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA , widely known in the scientific community as the instrument that gags their work. Unless of course you beleive the IAEA has an interest in malaria or Aids research it has effectively gagged the WHO from reporting on health matters Nuclear.

Consequently the facts reveal your ignorance with very little effort on my part. Since you have very little manners, it is a service that is my pleasure to provide.

From the article: "has built stronger, higher tsunami walls near the new plant" and "Regardless, the 31-year old reactor"

It's sad that 31 years old counts as 'new'.

Consider that if they had had some really new nuclear plants that Fukushima probably would have already been shut down.

Awesome, so basically if it hadn't been for anti-nuclear protestors, we likely have never had a Fukushima incident.

According to the official report if it hadn't been for collusion between the regulator and TEPCO, we likely have never had a Fukushima incident.

"Chernobyl: a crazy design with a strongly positive void coefficient. No one else has ever made such designs, even before Chernobyl because it was always known to be dangerous."

Hmm.. which unit? not widely known, two meltdowns occurred at Chernobyl. NPP, Unit 1, September 9, 1982 and then the Unit 4 explosion April 26, 1986, which was hidden from world until the fallout trigger a Swedish radiation monitor.

Eight days days later, (May 4, 1986), a pebble fuel pellet got stuck in the piping in a German 750MWth, AVR PBM reactor. Efforts to dislodge the pellet caused a release of both core and coolant into the atmosphere. Local plant management tried to blame on the Chernobyl disaster. But a professor at a local university in Frelburg, analyzed the fallout which contained radioactive Pa-233 and determined that a second nuclear incident had occurred nearby.

So their is a list of three(3) incidents, each time management/government tried to cover up and there is much more.

Don't fooled, TMI unit II was only 4 months old when a valve got stuck and melted down.. Fukushima is the worst yet, three(3) fully mature reactor cores have melted down and now reside somewhere below the reactors, releasing deadly fission by products into an underground river flowing underneath it.

Millions of humans have succumbed to early death, and Ten's of millions more are suffering the consequences, and that is just the tip of iceberg. Their is nothing clean about Nuclear Power plants, each refueling cycle discharges a large amount of radioactive gas into the environment, and the effect is detectable in the surrounding population.

How convenient it is to conflate the blame for mass suffering from the tsunami with the nuclear event.

The conflation is there because people can't return to the exclusion zone to rebuild their homes.

Many people have bought into the myth that the nuclear event at Fukushima was a human disaster of epic proportion, ignoring the real disaster which was the tsunami, and by doing so giving a big middle finder to those victims.

If you read the official report, funded by the Japanese government you will see that their findings were that this was, and I quote a "wholly man made disaster". So I think you should take that finger out of your nose before you start pointing it. Here is the link so you can educate yourself.

Many people along the coast of Japan, well outside the Fukushima zone, are still struggling and displaced. They've lost loved ones and their homes. Many will not be able to rebuild in the same place as their old home, but the anti-nuke agenda driven assholes of the world gladly ignore that suffering because they see an opportunity to spread fear.

So much for conflating issues, they are not allowed back inside the exclusion zone because of the radioactive fallout.

Meanwhile, not a single human has suffered any health impact due to radioactive releases from the accident, and the prognostications are that none will ever be detected. (if you feel tempted to post a link to the thyroid hoax study, do us a favor and first learn a little about the methods used before you spread ignorance)

What a despicable attempt to undermine the very little data being gathered about nuclear disasters. What thyroid studies have been done on Fukushima? People have died and are dying. You can start with the Mayor of Name. The evacuees who were tragically let down when their government forced them to evacuate through the cloud of fallout from the plant when predictive computer models told the government exactly where it was that show signs of radiation poisoning. So don't talk about spreading ignorance when that is exactly what you are doing.

Yes, the nuclear accident has complicated matters significantly, and should get due attention, but ask yourself, what do you care about more, an anti nuke agenda or the real human disaster that took place?

Or a pro-nuke agenda for that matter. The real human disaster is still unfolding and will continue to unfold for thousands of years as these toxic elements make their way through their decay products. If you had any compassion that existed outside of your agenda you would make an effort to understand what the actual issues were instead of being blinded by groupthink and social proof.

Do you trust those that are more driven by their agenda than human compassion? Try to find stories about those forgotten victims. It takes a little sifting and effort. Too much for some folks I guess

Quite an ugly troll you have produced there, an appeal to emotions based on others suffering so you can make a point at their expense, a new low for Nuclear fanbois everywhere.

Your point made at the expense of a man whose family had lived in the area for 900 years and could trace their origins back that far. Their house was 300 years old. He lost 4 generations of his family that day and cannot return with his one surviving daughter because it is in the exclusion zone.

Your point made at the expense man whose father was left to die alone in a pile of his own excrement in a empty hospital foyer because his son wasn't allowed back into the exclusion zone to get him.

Yeah, it is too much and your moderation simply proves that Nuclear mod trolls are alive and well. I've found many fanboi nuclear trolls are always fact-lite and big on rhetoric. It is unlikely you will have anything other than rhetoric and more trolling in further responses. Please feel free to delight me with your mental gymnastics and twisty turn Nuke fanbois moves though.

There are 81 BWR plants in operation around the world. Of a total of 434 plants. Of those 81 over half are Gen 3 or later designs which do not have the same failure method as the Gen 2 Fukushima design.

Fukashima was a Gen 1 derived from a GE design. Two reactors were GE, one Hitachi and another was Toshiba(iirc).

That does not however change the fact that the Tsunami and earth quake destroyed the emergency response capability.

But not of the USS Ronald Reagan, who was stationed to respond to and monitor the incident. The sailors of which are now suffering because of their exposure to the fallout. A frustratingly unnecessarily sacrifice considering the dogmatic pride of TEPCO and the Japanese government was what allowed this completely avoidable disaster to unfold.

Remove those issues and taking out the generator and outside power will not cause the plant to meltdown because the plant isn't operating inside a bubble.

You may not be aware that your statement contradicts the guidelines for operating the reactors under these conditions. Specifically 'S' and 'B' class facilities (Reactor core and primary cooling loop are 2 major S class facilities) have to be *constantly* powered because if they are not the reactor, especially one in a SCRAMed condition, will melt down due to the residual operating heat in the core of the reactor.

Don't forget these plants also have battery backup. This covers an extended period of time for a replacement generator to be brought to site.

I really think you should consider the infrastructure concerns related to what is needed to cool a 600Mw reactor core. That is why the USS Reagan was stationed where it was.

I think you should read the official report as some of the misconceptions you have about what was actually possible are answered there.

The fundamental flaw in your response is that the Fukushima units had no design features to deal with a tsunami from the start, so analysis was never part of the equation.

The report commissioned by the Diet specifically pointed to active resitance on the part of TEPCO to resist documentation efforts that would support an increase to the height of the sea wall because they relied on historical data instead of geological data and more modern techniques for assessing the risk.

If you postulate a tsunami that breaches the wall, then you must analyze the plant to ensure it can withstand, and this was never done.

Exactly. Like an aircraft crash, more than one thing has to go wrong to produce the failure. This is reactor failure caused by long term mis-management of the technology, not the actual technology. No enhancement to the sea wall or improving back-up power redundancy, operator training, more intensive drills and simulations - the list goes on. In the 60's Fukushima was state of the art and the sea wall was built according to what was reasonable at the time.

Over time a belief system, 'Nuclear is Safe', developed. That produced a dogmatic skepticism, re-inforced by social proof so no actual challenges to the beleif system, even those based in science, were accepted. No machine is immune to human foley. And this is a point made in the official report into the Fukushima disaster:

The Nuclear industry learned nothing from the lessons of Chernobyl.

In the case of Diablo, they designed the plant with the ability to withstand an earthquake from the start. They postulated the earthquake, performed the analysis, then obtained new earthquake information and validated that the existing analysis enveloped the new data.

Great. I haven't looked at Diablo Canyon. I was more concerned with San Onofre, Palo Verde, Davis Besse and, Indian Point but for different reasons. I'm glad SONGS is being decommissioned, it was on the other side of the Pacific in a fault zone with a greater density of fuel rods. It looks like the people who actually matter making the decisions about operating them in the US are smart enough to understand the dangers and not affected by social proof, but actual scientific proof.

None of this happened at Fukushima.

That's right - we all lost. The collusion between TEPCO and the regulator meant doing that work was actively resisted. It looks like there is a real movement in the NRC to grow some and challenge the operators of the reactors to shut them down if they can't be re-certified. This is a positive thing and the NRC should be commended for protecting the US from an accident caused by the same collusion that caused Fukushima to explode and melt down.

It looks like a really beautiful countryside from the pictures in the wiki too.

France has probably done worse than most countries. They suffered from central planning and so could not react quickly as the learning curve proved to be negative. http://www.nirs.org/neconomics...

They calculated that construction accounted for 12% of the 66 figure, so about 8 gCO2/kWh. They quote a 1GWe PWR as requiring "170,000 ton of concrete, 32,000 ton of steel, 1363 ton of copper, and a total of 205,464ton of other materials". So let's play around with that figure a bit. At a cap factor of 0.8 (fairly average for nuclear. I know they quoted 0.66, but that's comparing nuclear from 30 years ago to renewables today, which is dishonest), that's 800 MW 24x7 for the PWR. How many wind turbines would that need to provide? Well, even assuming a very neat cap factor of 0.35 for wind (almost unobtainable on land), we'll need 326 of these babies (I'm using a 7.5MW turbine instead of 1.5MW because that's what I have materials data on - this is, if anything, favorable for wind, as materials overhead per MW is smaller with larger turbines), which aggregated together, would mass almost 1.6 million tons of concrete, 105 thousand tons of steel and other metals for the machine housings and generators and ~110 thousand tons of GRP fiberglass epoxy resin for the blades (and guess where those plastics come from). This is multiple times more material than is needed for the nuclear plant and considering wind turbines are designed to last ~20 years not the 40-60 years as nuclear plants are, the impact would be much more dramatic, yet the paper lists onshore wind as 10 gCOe/kWh with a straight face. On construction alone an equivalent wind farm would probably exceed nuclear over all of its lifecycle, even using their own figures.

Maybe on a scale of "eternity", fire doesn't render places "permanently" uninhabitable.

But, then, neither does radiation.

The relatively short half life of Strontium 90 is 600 years, some radioisotopes are more than that some are less. To the perspective of anyone alive today, it's the same as eternity.

Most of the reactors that have had safety issues are reactors that were built decades ago, based on even older designs.

Many of the so called "improved" designs are only improved for economic reasons. Choices, such as less concrete for the containment, actually *reduce* the safety of the reactors because they are too expensive to build otherwise.

We have the knowledge, NOW, to build completely contained devices that safely generate power over the lifetime of the device.
We have the knowledge, NOW, to build reactors that quite simply are INCAPABLE of replicating the accidents that led to contamination at TMI and Chernobyl.

What we don't have is a properly prepared geological spent fuel containment facility. Accidents like Fukushima show how important this step is if you want to reduce the inherrant risk of the entire industry.

As for Fukushima. Fukushima is the story of a freak Tsunami that was mutated by the anti-nuke community into a "nuclear failure".

The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission reveals that this issue was "Wholey man made" and "avoidable". The installation could have survived had they not had a beleif system that Nuclear power was safe, therefore reducing effort to improve safety in basic ways, like raising the seawall or locating backup generators appropriately.

Basically, if you consider yourself environmentally conscious, you cannot be anti-nuke.

If you understood the actual environmental impact of Nuclear power you don't have to be "environmentally conscious" to have excellent motivation to oppose Nuiclear power.

Because the only other viable options for baseline power are natural gas, coal and oil.

I think you mean "Baseload" and Solar thermal does "Baseload". What you're missing though is that "Baseload" is a function of the grid, not just any single source.

And anyone telling you that we can rely, solely, on wind, wave, solar and geothermal is LYING TO YOU. The people telling you these lies? Shills for the NG, coal and oil industry!

I think we are going to need all of these sources in the coming years. Wind is a great replacement for nuclear because it scales much better. The era of coal is over and we cannot place a radioisotope legacy on future generations the way a carbon legacy was put on our generation.

Disclaimer: I have no connection with the coal or oil industry.

The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission reveals the collusion that took place with the regulator so improvements would not be put in place. This happened because the beleif system in the safety of Nuclear Power affected all of the safety proposals put forward within and by TEPCO. In other words a 'systemic' issue where the belief that a reactor is safe to be run to capacity, as opposed to a safety culture that certifies it to do so, is the main issue.

A good example of this safety culture is in the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's report. Their interactions with the US Nuclear Sub Fleet revealed that a sub has to consistantly re-certified to operate a certain depth. If it does not get recertified it may not operate at that depth.

As the issue at Fukushima was controlling the residual thermal energy in the reactor as it cooled, perhaps this is a safety culture that could be applied to individual Nuclear reactors at power plant installations where the operating procedures recognises the issues and only certified the reactor to a certain percentage of its production until the problems had been resolved.

Any recertification the following year with new lessons learned proscribes risk aversity proportional to the impact, the onus being on the owner to prove that the reactor is safe to operate to that capacity.

The goal is to prevent an accident because there is less thermal heat in the reactor to deal with and explosions, such as those seen at Chernobyl and Fukushima, don't happen. The best outcome being an operator may have been able to continue using a reactor because they chose to be risk averse appropriately to avoid any possibility of the type of thermal issues that lead to explosions.

I know that such a proposal would not be popular with the pro or anti nuclear people, however there are another group that recognises that these plants are getting old and simply can't be run forever so if you want the benefit of the power you have to figure how how to do that safely.

And if the earthquake didn't happen there wouldn't have been that acceleration or the inundation by tsunami to expose that TEPCO had not made seawall modifications or adequate protections for the backup generators protecting S class facilities so that design basis issues were not exposed.

iFTFY

I think one of the things I find most offensive about the Fukushima accident are all the armchair engineers who, although exercising no real experience, responsibilities, or perceivable judgment in engineering themselves, have no trouble equating hindsight with foresight.

I think one of the things I find most offensive about the Fukushima accident are all the fanbois who chose to vomit rhetoric based on their own internal belief systems whilst ignoring the fact and evidence that has been placed before them. The difference between our positions is that yours is based on your own internal assumptions and mine is based on observation, and understanding of the facts and exidence. You post no evidence to back-up your claims, just a 'cause khallow says so'.

It's easy to claim that there were "management failures".

Not as easy as claiming that the whole thing was some random act of Nature, that no further investigation is warranted and then spew forth that ignorance to whoever you can beat-up intellectually with your dogmatic skeptic fanboi-ism. The difference between your position and mine is yours is a beginning point that requires no-further mental expense and mine is an endpoint that requires asking questions an examining the available evidence to draw a conclusion.

The other difference in our positions is that yours are an oversimplification that deny opportunity to uncover which systems failed and if they can be corrected. Your fanboi-ism is clearly an obstacle in the path of evolving Nuclear systems because your belief system prevents improvements being made leading to accidents like this one, as found in the official report.

Fortunatley, oversimplifications, such as yours are not taken seriously as they have no credibility.

You just type it in. A work of a few seconds

hahahaha, you demonstrate supreme arrogance based on the confidence of your assumptions. It is so completely amusing and, as usual, wrong.

picking your nose...armchair engineers

As opposed to a featherweight aguments against the facts presented. It's one of the benefits you get from reading and comprehension as opposed to insults and ignorance.

From the beginning,...no trouble equating hindsight with foresight

Ok, well if we go back to the *actual* beggining what do I see you say:

"In other words, this is['nt] one of those dumb "human error" accidents that caused the other three meltdowns of civilian power plants, but a genuine natural disaster. And the reactors weathered it pretty well."

Fairly obvious you meant "isn't" or "is not" here however an examination of The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission" in the Chairmans message he says, and I quote "Although triggered by these cataclysmic events, the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented.""

So are you saying that the entire commission, with it's multi million dollar budget, the force of law, a panel of expert examiners, full access to TEPCO and the governmant records, expert witnesses and all the resources of the Japanses government are wrong to make that statement and that you are in fact right?

Nuclear power does generate carbon. Lots of it.

"Toxic waste" is generally used as a substitution for "nuclear waste" once GE gets wind of it. (See "Atomic Train" http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/atomictrainfacts.htm )

http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/chernob_report2011webippnw.pdf

http://wn.com/Victims_of_Chernobyl_disaster

you can find many other sources that paint a precise picture. you will also find many researches (mainly by anglo-american think thanks) downplaying, even nullifying chernobyl.

the truth can only be seen locally, if you have friends, neighbors in the areas affected.

http://www.google.com/search?q=youth+cancer+rate+around+black+sea+chernobyl&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Compared to the reactor pressure vessel, the spent fuel rods are a waste of effort. A plane could crash into the building and compromise the spent fuel rod pool, but even if cooling was compromised (unlikely), there'd be loads of time to deal with it. Fukushima was different because they lost external power, which wasn't "supposed" to happen (the grid, generators, and battery backups).

It's Quite a bit more complex than that. TL;DR - while the executive summary of the PDF I cite states that spent fuel storage accidents are 'unlikely', it freely admits that this is critically dependent on a number of assumptions that, as we've seen at Fukishima, can be shown to be very, very wrong. Further, the article doesn't seem to discuss the tendency to stack fuel in tighter concentrations that originally planned (as happened at Fukishima) but I didn't read the whole thing.

There is no such thing as nuclear waste, everything that comes out of a used fuel rod is extremely useful, rare and precious and very expensive.

If it is really so useful in practice, why is so much in "temporary" storage after years and years with the amounts stored growing ever larger? Why have the U.S., Japan and many other countries "re-racked" their fuel ponds to make room for more at spacing closer than what the original designs required for safety?

As of November 2010, Fukushima Daiichi had 1760 TONS of spent fuel in storage, using 84% of capacity. (That's taking re-racking into account)

The linked .pdf report gives some idea what a big deal it is to deal with the fuel stored in Japan.

http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/6-1_powerpoint.pdf

Yes, they're done some recycling too. It wasn't many years ago that they had a criticality accident at such a facility. Even after bone marrow transplantation and experiment stem cell therapy, they still had workers die. And a number of non-employees living nearby got above normal exposure.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accident

And when I said waste, I didn't just mean spent fuel. There are other contaminated materials to deal with. Flying insects that got into things left behind from the old Hanford Washington facility were so radioactive that 210 TONS of material later contaminated by the bugs at a regular landfill had to be hauled off as radioactive waste.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/10/22/tec_242588.shtml

Radiation is still turning up from things that happened 40 years ago. Beware if cooking rabbit stew....

http://www.king5.com/news/environment/Radioactive-rabbit-trapped-at-Hanford-106761238.html

If there's technology to make ALL of that waste safe and useful, I haven't heard about it. Breeder reactors do turn some into more fuel (or weapons). While that may be a significant source for fuel, I haven't seen any citations showing a percentage and/or tonnage of total radioactive waste that actually gets recycled in that way. Citations please.

http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/6-1_powerpoint.pdf

how many tons of spent fuel? http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/6-1_powerpoint.pdf

Wonder how many of the usual "Nuclear Energy is cheap, safe, clean and does the dishes AND the laundry" posts we get today.

Here's a car analogy for you.

You're judging the reliability and safety of today's cars by what was around in 1960s (when the Daichi Plant 1's GE reactor was designed). To recap: seat belts were a novelty and people generally shunned them, no air bags, no ABS, car bodies did a relatively poor job at protecting both car occupants and pedestrians.

Guess what: the affected hardware at Fukushima is Mark I GE boiling water reactors, installed in early 70s. Those are designs from the 60s, with well known deficiencies. In a modern reactor pretty much as long as containment hasn't been breached and external heat dump is available (cooling tower still standing), the turbines should be able to operate and cool it down. The GE Mark I is dependent on external electric power for operation of the pumps, it doesn't use its own steam power directly to power the coolant pumps. Thus you have a system where you can trip some breakers and overheat the reactor. We know better now. You should too. Is googling so hard?

... so there's no exposure to dangerous ionizing radiation (and before you say that this is a small amount of radiation, I'll point out that no amount of ionizing radiation is safe according to BEIR VII from the National Academies of Science).

I'm sorry, but your cited "summary" of the BEIR VII report is from an anti-nuke website and is severely slanted. I doubt you read the entire ~400 page report. I work as a Health Physicist, and I can only stomach about 85% of it as part of my job. I have a real problem with a website posing as a legitimate resource (Nuclear Information and Resource Center, NIRS,org) that only spits out FUD concerning nuclear power with no real science to back it up. The only way we will be able to come out of the current world energy deficit is to explore all options with open dialog, including nuclear fission. The NIABY crowd loves to make sure that ALL available power generation options are bad in some way, and that nuclear will always give you three eyes and a hump back.

This would still not make it any less objectionable from my perspective. As long as the distortion is occurring in software, it isn't acceptable. As long as the non-distorted data exists for even a microsecond on some hard drive somewhere, the data can be:

• stored for later examination without the distortion applied
• sent somewhere else for later examination without the distortion applied
• copied by someone who hacked into the computers

And that's assuming that they don't just tell us that they're applying this distortion while not really doing so. Given the number of lies the TSA has told about these things so far, I don't trust these people as far as I can throw them.

Only one thing will make these less objectionable: not using them. If you're going to blur the heck out of the image anyway, why not replace those $170,000 machines with $4,000 infrared-based thermal imaging cameras and be done with it? They're 1/42nd the cost, and they do the blurring in hardware due to the nature of the energy emissions being detected. They're also much faster than the TSA's expensive toys---you could walk through like you do a metal detector instead of having to wait for a scan---and they're passive, so there's no exposure to dangerous ionizing radiation (and before you say that this is a small amount of radiation, I'll point out that no amount of ionizing radiation is safe according to BEIR VII from the National Academies of Science).

No, these unholy abominations have to go. They're a fundamental invasion of our privacy, and a perfect example of wasteful government spending.

"We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power."

"We're getting a little tired hearing nuclear industry lobbyists and pro-nuclear politicians allege that environmentalists are now supporting nuclear power as a means of addressing the climate crisis. We know that's not true, and we're sure you do too. In fact, using nuclear power would be counterproductive at reducing carbon emissions. As Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute points out, "every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by buying less solution per dollar..."

http://www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php?r=sb

What are we going to do with the waste? Until I hear a good answer to that question, nuclear power just doesn't cut it from my standpoint. Obama's nuclear plan, just like the rest of his policy, and US government policy in general, is shortsighted and leaves the burden on our kids. If we put 8bln into real solutions, we'd be able to build one.

What's going to happen when the reality of America's dependence fossil fuels meets the reality of climate change?

We'll fully commit ourselves to nuclear and finally have the ammo we need to silence the anti-nuclear crowd?

"Climate Change Briefing 'Nuclear power is no solution to climate change: exposing the myths'".

Falcon

Wikipedia is lots of fun. Here's another article there that gives quite contradictory information about high level waste:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#High_level_radioactive_waste

And here's one from the US NRC:

http://www.nrc.gov/waste/high-level-waste.html

I think the last one is more accurate than your Wikipedia article, which talks about vitrification at Sellafield. That may be done to some waste in the UK, but most waste in other countries is still stored on-site.

And for a bit more fun, here's an article on an anti-nuclear site:

http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/hlwfcst.htm

and one on a pro-nuclear site:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/wast.htm

Both of them mention that spent fuel is stored for several years underwater for cooling, but only the anti-nuclear one mentions what would happen if the coolant was removed.

Reginald! I disagree - vroom: http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/cherfact.htm

current energy use in buildings represents 39 percent of all energy use in the U.S. -- more than industrial or even transportation usage. It concludes that by 2020 building energy use can be reduced by 14 percent and total national energy use could be cut by 5.6 percent through the implementation of short-term, realistic energy policies.http://www.nirs.org/alternatives/factoid11.htm

Providing insurance costs, for example and to begin with the insurer have to maintain an allocation (reserve). To think otherwise is to deny the vast amounts of money involved in the insurance biz.

> Every claim against the nuclear energy industry, ever, has been paid out of the funds that are paid into by the industry.

Claims are only part of the big picture, and there are numerous cases of spent taxpayer's money. Secrecy hides many tricks, but not all.

The trick is simple: underestimating costs, then letting taxpayer's money pay the difference and compensations to the industry. If a real cost appears the company involved is no more around to pay.

Here is an application: the only potential solution for nuclear waste is now the "Yucca Mountain Repository". It is studied since nearly 30 years, scheduled since 20 and can only "solve" the problem (there is no consensus about this), at the current rate of waste production up to 2014. Worse: after many postponings it will not open before 2017 and most people concerned simply don't want this to happen and even citizen not affected by the "Not In My Backyard" syndrom don't want anyone to coerce them.

The DOE has to cope with the waste by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which says "the DOE will cope with waste, thanks to money paid by the nuclear industry" (leading to the Yucca Mountain project).

We are talking about big bucks, there: a GAO report (established for the Congress), stated in 2001 (page 2) that "Estimates of the potential damages vary widely, from DOE's estimate of about $2 billion to the nuclear industry's estimate of $50 billion.". The footnote 11 (page 19) is also interesting: then (2001) "concluded that DOE's schedule for licensing, constructing, and opening the repository by 2010 was optimistic by about 2 years and that DOE's estimate of the total cost of the program over its 100-plus-year lifetime--$58 billion (2000 dollars)--was understated by about $3 billion.". Remember: the opening date is now 2017. This imply new costs/risks (project failure)/claims/temporary storage/... Don't worry: taxpayer's money will, as usual, pay!

And here is a case: during "Maine Yankee" nuclear power plant decommission, for example, there was a lawsuit: Maine Yankee owners tried to get the DOE (dept. of Energy) pay (isn't this a "claim"?) for part of fuel removing (by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act), and won (approx 75M bucks). Isn't DOE's money taxpayer money? Better: two companies exploiting the plant were also awarded, for a grand total of 152 million. Granted, those companies payed during years for temporary storage because DOE failed to tackle the task (which has an explanation: failure to receive approvals for Yucca, which postponed it and added to the costs), but AFAIK the balance between their temporary storage costs and those earnings is positive: Maine Yankee wins taxpayer's money because the DOE promised to take care of the waste, and failed. Here is the best part: the DOE will very probably, beyond the awards, be coerced into removing the fuel. Yep, the taxpayer (again) helps some easy accounting write-offs. Anything "costs less" when taxpayer money discreetly pays!

Moreover this decommissioning seems to be done by rubblization which "is in fact a serious abrogation of law and environmental policy as currently evidenced by Maine and Connecticut legislation mandating that there will be no "low-level" radioactive waste

Thats a blatent lie.
No successful Fast Breeder Reactor exists.

Assuming we switched the entire grid over to Light Water Reactors.
We'd only have 6 years worth of uranium supply.
Assuming no new reactors are built, we'd only have 50-65 years.
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications /briefings/energyfactsheet4_fullreport_2006.pdf

And then you get into the issue that the lifecycle carbon emmisions of 3/5ths the uranium releases more carbon than a natural gas firepower powerplant.
http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climatetalk _mary_un_050306.htm

And if we had enough Light Water Reactors for the entire world grid, we'd need a Yucca Mountain worth of waste disposal every 4 years.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nukesclimatefact606 .pdf

And each new plant would cost a 4 billion to 2 billion dollars to build.
Which is many times less than all US solar research funding for an entire year.

Nuclear looks rather foolish to me.
Especially when we could spend far less on renewables and achieve the same ends.
As is, energy effeciency costs 7 less than Nuclear.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 005/08/07/ING95E1VQ71.DTL

_

Besides which enriching uranium in the US is the biggest emmitter of CFCs in the nation.
CFCs are banned by the Montreal Protocol.
Only reason our existing enrichment locations exist is because they were grandfathered.

Fat chance of expanding enrichment without flaunting the Montreal protocol.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nukesclimatefact606 .pdf

Thats a blatent lie.
No successful Fast Breeder Reactor exists.

Assuming we switched the entire grid over to Light Water Reactors.
We'd only have 6 years worth of uranium supply.
Assuming no new reactors are built, we'd only have 50-65 years.
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications /briefings/energyfactsheet4_fullreport_2006.pdf

And then you get into the issue that the lifecycle carbon emmisions of 3/5ths the uranium releases more carbon than a natural gas firepower powerplant.
http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climatetalk _mary_un_050306.htm

And if we had enough Light Water Reactors for the entire world grid, we'd need a Yucca Mountain worth of waste disposal every 4 years.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nukesclimatefact606 .pdf

And each new plant would cost a 4 billion to 2 billion dollars to build.
Which is many times less than all US solar research funding for an entire year.

Nuclear looks rather foolish to me.
Especially when we could spend far less on renewables and achieve the same ends.
As is, energy effeciency costs 7 less than Nuclear.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 005/08/07/ING95E1VQ71.DTL

_

Besides which enriching uranium in the US is the biggest emmitter of CFCs in the nation.
CFCs are banned by the Montreal Protocol.
Only reason our existing enrichment locations exist is because they were grandfathered.

Fat chance of expanding enrichment without flaunting the Montreal protocol.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nukesclimatefact606 .pdf

Thats a blatent lie.
No successful Fast Breeder Reactor exists.

Assuming we switched the entire grid over to Light Water Reactors.
We'd only have 6 years worth of uranium supply.
Assuming no new reactors are built, we'd only have 50-65 years.
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications /briefings/energyfactsheet4_fullreport_2006.pdf

And then you get into the issue that the lifecycle carbon emmisions of 3/5ths the uranium releases more carbon than a natural gas firepower powerplant.
http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climatetalk _mary_un_050306.htm

And if we had enough Light Water Reactors for the entire world grid, we'd need a Yucca Mountain worth of waste disposal every 4 years.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nukesclimatefact606 .pdf

And each new plant would cost a 4 billion to 2 billion dollars to build.
Which is many times less than all US solar research funding for an entire year.

Nuclear looks rather foolish to me.
Especially when we could spend far less on renewables and achieve the same ends.
As is, energy effeciency costs 7 less than Nuclear.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 005/08/07/ING95E1VQ71.DTL

_

Besides which enriching uranium in the US is the biggest emmitter of CFCs in the nation.
CFCs are banned by the Montreal Protocol.
Only reason our existing enrichment locations exist is because they were grandfathered.

Fat chance of expanding enrichment without flaunting the Montreal protocol.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nukesclimatefact606 .pdf

Nuclear power plants keep their waste in shielded rooms deep inside the plant, which are then sealed up and stored so the waste doesn't get released.

No so fast there. That is not true.

From Here
Are there routine emissions from a nuclear power reactor such as Seabrook Station? Yes, the release of radioactivity into our air, water, and soil is not strictly limited to an accident at a nuclear power plant. All it takes is the plant's everyday routine operation, and federal regulations permit these radioactive releases as long as they contain "permissible" levels of contamination. Legally permissible does not mean safe. Radioactive releases from a nuclear power reactor's routine operation often are not fully detected or reported. Accidental releases may not be completely verified or documented.

Most nuclear plants DO vent gases and radioactive by-products from their processes -- not just clean steam. They do careful monitoring, but they are allowed to actually release a certain amount of radioactive water and gas into the environment. The monitoring is just "metering", if they exceed a certain amount of radioactive release, it becomes a big deal, but some in every day operations is A-OKAY!

Show your work:
Routine radioactive releases
Fission gas by-products released to atmosphere after 60 days

Its all PR stunts, that amount of freon is insignificant to the 1000 billion tonnes of coal being burned yearly by USA to make power, that itself spews PURE uranium atoms into the air that we all intake, that otherwise would not be there.

Uh, freon fucks with the ozone layer. CO2 and uranium contamination from coal-fired plants is a completely different problem. (And all atoms are PURE, it's not like a uranium atom could be contaminated with carbon or something...)

If the greenies and eco dudes had a clue they would promote safe pebble based nuke plants

I thought pebble-bed reactors were an interesting idea. Too bad they haven't actually proven to be safe.

Fission is a non-solution, inherently confounded by security, fuel availability, and pollution issues. Only fusion - including making good use of that big fusion reactor just 93,000,000 miles away - is a viable long-term solution.