Slashdot Mirror

This hardware is ancient, hardwired, and low tech. Suppliers are most likely limited to GE, Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering.

The side benefit is that the engineers would have to get out of their chairs and go walk their systems down. If they didn't get lost...those plants are huge.

If we were to build a new plant you can rest assured that it would inherently be more secure, but when these plants were being designed over 30 years ago terrorist attacks and airplane crashes were not in the design criteria. New plant designs, notably from Areva, are being built to withstand a direct strike from a fully loaded 747. The current voluntary recommendations deal with computer security, not with physical security.

You ask why so long after 9/11. The Design Basis Threat (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr /part073/part073-0001.html) for US plants was modified in November of 2001 (in response to 9/11). The details of the modification have not been made public for obvious reasons.

If you want to worry about a facility easy to compromise look at chemical plants. They have the possibility of causing a larger accident, while the security levels are in no way comparable.

You mean like the dioxins produced by biomass burning? One of the so-called green renewables? Please give me a break.

I didn't say there was zero emission of radioactivity. Just that it is negligible compared to what exists in nature, during normal operations.

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.

I quote from this NRC page:

The NRC requires licensees to report plant discharges and results of environmental monitoring around their plants to ensure that potential impacts are detected and reviewed. Licensees must also participate in an interlaboratory comparison program which provides an independent check of the accuracy and precision of environmental measurements. In annual reports, licensees identify the amount of liquid and airborne radioactive effluents discharged from plants and the associated doses. Licensees also must report environmental radioactivity levels around their plants annually. These reports, available to the public, cover sampling from TLDs (thermoluminescent dosimeters); airborne radioiodine and particulate samplers; samples of surface, groundwater, and drinking water and downstream shoreline sediment from existing or potential recreational facilities; and samples of ingestion sources such as milk, fish, invertebrates, and broad leaf vegetation.
The NRC conducts periodic onsite inspections of each licensee's effluent and environmental monitoring programs to ensure compliance with NRC requirements. The NRC documents licensee effluent releases and the results of their environmental monitoring and assessment effort in inspection reports that are available to the public.

Regarding U-238 tailings, the U-238 would still exist at the mine even if it wasn't mined from it in the first place.

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.

Don't use chemical separation processes (gaseous diffusion) then. Mechanical processes (centrifuges) work just fine for producing fuel. Guess what: Piketon is going to use centrifuges in the future.

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.

And in the meantime, I guess we are supposed to freeze in the cold?

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.

Not really. Not to mention nuclear power generators are even less mass produced and yet they manage to be less expensive. Mass production can produce major cost reductions, but not infinite cost reductions. Sometimes a substantive change in the technological base, or just plain dismissal of what will not work properly is required. Solar cells for one have had massive investments since the 1970s and they still do not achieve net positive energy. Nuclear fusion power has had massive investments since the 1950s and it still has not achieved net positive energy either. Quick technological development will not happen just because you throw money at it, despite it being helpful most of the time. Read The Mythical Man-Month for more details.

The nuclear industry has been given its chance and it has failed miserably.

Cheap

Based on the Atomic Energy Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issues licenses for commercial power reactors to operate for up to 40 years and allows these licenses to be renewed for another 20 years. A 40-year license term was selected on the basis of economic and antitrust considerations--not technical limitations. The first 40-year operating licenses will expire for three plants in the year 2009. Of the 100 remaining operating plants, 23 will have their licenses expire by the year 2015. The decision whether to seek license renewal rests entirely with nuclear power plant owners, and typically is based on the plant's economic situation and whether it can meet NRC requirements. The NRC has established a license renewal process that can be completed in a reasonable period of time with clear requirements to assure safe plant operation for up to an additional 20 years of plant life.

I would not expect all of them to renew their licenses. Also no new nukes are expected to be built in the US.

An image of chicken little crying about how the sky is fallilng to get eyes on their osdn ads.
Seriously, articles about how there might be an astroid with our number or that a piece of the Canary Islands might fall into the ocean creating a tsunami mere days after the disaster in southeast Asia is not journalism. Since I'm not new here, I know that Slashdot is about journalism.
It's about end-of-the-world histrionics with the much-abused torino scale, how Microsoft will 0wn us all without the savior of teh Lunix, articles which are really product placement and sometimes a rare submission which really is "stuff that matters".
Next on Slashdot: Roland Piquepaille reports a company is selling blueprints to build a dirty bomb! Cheap!

An image of chicken little crying about how the sky is fallilng to get eyes on their osdn ads.
Seriously, articles about how there might be an astroid with our number or that a piece of the Canary Islands might fall into the ocean creating a tsunami mere days after the disaster in southeast Asia is not journalism. Since I'm not new here, I know that Slashdot is about journalism.
It's about end-of-the-world histrionics with the much-abused torino scale, how Microsoft will 0wn us all without the savior of teh Lunix, articles which are really product placement and sometimes a rare submission which really is "stuff that matters".
Next on Slashdot: reports a company is selling blueprints to build a dirty bomb! Cheap!

Three mile Island accident: March 28, 1979
led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community

Chernobyl: April 25-26, 1986
Thirty-one people died in the Chernobyl accident and its immediate aftermath, most in fighting the fires that ensued. There have been news reports of additional deaths subsequent to the 31, but details are not available. Delayed health effects could be extensive, but estimates vary.

We learned our lesson after TMI, and Chernobyl happened seven years afterwards. Mostly due to bad reactor design and stupidity.

This is like making statements about car safety and fuel efficiency for today based on a '57 chevy.

Three mile Island accident: March 28, 1979
led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community

Chernobyl: April 25-26, 1986
Thirty-one people died in the Chernobyl accident and its immediate aftermath, most in fighting the fires that ensued. There have been news reports of additional deaths subsequent to the 31, but details are not available. Delayed health effects could be extensive, but estimates vary.

We learned our lesson after TMI, and Chernobyl happened seven years afterwards. Mostly due to bad reactor design and stupidity.

This is like making statements about car safety and fuel efficiency for today based on a '57 chevy.

The nuclear plants in the US carry insurance provided by the US through a pooling system. No insurance company is involved.

nrc.gov

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).

However, if you think allowing more mercury in the water and more particulates in the air is a good thing, then you're welcome to your opinion, but you're just reinforcing the opinion of many here that Bush supporters have their own reality.

Ahh yes the you must be a Bush supporter/Republican dodge. FYI, I'm not a Bush supporter. I also note you take the standard smear attempt by creative addition to what I said thus proving my point. Do you not understand the concept of diminishing returns?

Personally, I think that both sides have selective perception, but no matter how hard I try to be selective in favor of Bush, I cannot imagine how he is doing anything but harming the environment.

Secondly, I was not claiming that you did support increased mercury and particulates, merely that if you did, you were welcome to your opinion. However, I can see how this could be misconstrued. My point by making this "creative addition" was to illustrate where I have problems with Bush.

Additionally, I've tried finding the exact text of section 20.105(a) of 10 CFR Part 20, but since it was written more than 20 years ago (I'm not even sure when it was written, but I've found a reference to it in a 1981 paper), I'm finding it difficult. I have noticed the ALARA standard, although admittedly "reasonably achievable" is somewhat arbitrary. Despite the fact that you probably consider me to be a liberal tree-hugging environmental wacko (to quote Rush Limbaugh ;) ), I am a proponent of nuclear power as one of our best sources of power currently available (although like almost everyone, I'd prefer fusion to fission once that becomes doable). I am also aware that burning coal actually releases more radioactive wastes into the environment than any nuclear power plant in the US ever has (including 3-mile island!).

Btw, from reading the NRC's FAQ #11, I'm not sure if that 100mr/year quote is accurate. However, it is clear that this FAQ was written by someone who was never forced to take a course in writing technical papers, so I'm not exactly sure if that is what it says or not.

Who is going to guarantee the continuing good design of nuclear reactors in the U.S.? The Republican Party? The nuclear industry? The U.S. military? Some secret committee of PhDs? Please. This is precisely the sort of thing that can change at any time for economic or political reasons, especially when the public are not permitted to form opinions on the subject.

Maybe the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?

Nor is it necessary (obviously) to post a body count to justify my contention that nuclear power is something to fear. The fact that other forms of power also contain a fear factor is beside the point.

This statement is so illogical it makes my brain hurt.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact -sheets/funds.html

"TMI is dramatically overblown. The plant contained the radiation. There was a small and intentional release of contaminated water afterward during the cleanup."

It wasn't overblown. They just got lucky and stopped the meltdown before they had a reactor breach. If they hadn't there would have been a massive radiation release. Just because the consequences were mild doesn't change the fact that it could have easily been a major disaster. Three Mile Island completely shook confidence in the safety of nuclear reactors long before Chernobyl showed the worst case scenario.

From the NRC report:

"Because adequate cooling was not available, the nuclear fuel overheated to the point at which the zirconium cladding (the long metal tubes which hold the nuclear fuel pellets) ruptured and the fuel pellets began to melt. It was later found that about one-half of the core melted during the early stages of the accident. Although the TMI-2 plant suffered a severe core meltdown, the most dangerous kind of nuclear power accident, it did not produce the worst-case consequences that reactor experts had long feared. In a worst-case accident, the melting of nuclear fuel would lead to a breach of the walls of the containment building and release massive quantities of radiation to the environment. But this did not occur as a result of the Three Mile Island accident."

I currently work at the Pickering CANDU station east of Toronto, but not in a design/analysis role. My previous experience is with analysis and operation of Boiling Water Reactors. I'm very interested in the Advanced CANDU (ACR-700), though. It's a sweet design.

There are several evolutionary changes in the ACR-700, relative to the previous generation CANDU-6. First, it uses fuel enriched up to 2% U-235 as opposed to natural U. Second, it retains heavy water as a moderator/reflector in the calandria, but uses light water as coolant in the primary heat transport system. Third, the fuel bundle design's been optimized to include two different pin diamaters, and the center pins are actually poisoned with dysprosium.

The end result of all those changes is that the lattice spacing of the pressure tubes, running through the calandria, has been decreased. The pitch was apparently tuned to achieve a slight, negative void coefficient.

The canonical site for ACR-700 information is http://www.aecl.ca/

You can find a lot of other info at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/license- reviews/design-cert/acr-700.html

Scroll down to the bottom, and you'll see a link for other Pre-application documents. That's where you want to go for more technical info.

I'm sorry if I've come across as dogged. However, after much study, I've come to the conclusion that despite much better designs, there are none that are "perfect" nor are there any organizations that I currently trust enough to oversee the operation of a less than perfectly safe nuclear powerplant. Given what I perceived as a fundamental misrepresentation concerning the nature of hydrogen as an alternate energy "source", I simply felt that reflected poorly on your support for the nuclear industry on the whole.

Yes, I agree, nuclear powerplant design has improved dramatically. But as a MMI designer of SCADA software, I can assure you that there is no such thing as an error free control room.

Therefore, I believe your endorsement of the potential for nuclear energy should be reconsidered.

See:

Consideration of human factors and the quantification of the reliability of human performance arise frequently in the safety analysis of nuclear power plants especially in this era in which risk quantification plays an important role in the regulatory process. It is likely that human factor and human reliability analysis will remain important issues even for advanced reactors that emphasize passively safe designs.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs /letters/2002/4952008.html

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."

1. pacemaker recall.
2. F-15 Radar. Google for B. Nordall's port in Aviation Week and Space Technology
3. Patriot Missile II (Anoplate, Suspected tin whisker related problems, Fall 2000)
4. Nuclear Utilities Tin plated contact support arms on relays grew tin whiskers causing a resistive shunt path.
5. Rocket motor starting

Car accidents are a different subject.

Do you fly? Do you consider flying to be safe? Nothing is ever completely safe. However, you can look at the odds and history, and say 'for distances over 800 miles, flying is safer than driving'. What are the alternatives to nuclear?

Coal and uranium are both used for production of electrical power. Therefore you can compare them. You can do research that gives you a 'deaths per Gigawatt-hour'. You can total up pollution. They already do it for costs. Lower is better, right?

I live in North Dakota. They're going on about how the state is trying to get more coal plants built. People are complaining. I've heard on the radio that 40,000 deaths a year are attributable to just the pollution from coal plants. How living close to a coal plant gives you the same chances for cancers and diseases as a former smoker.

I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant and the miniscule risk of being exposed to some radiation than live next to a coal plant and the surety of being exposed. Trivia point: Coal plants release more radioactive material into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant produces. After all, there are radioactive particles in coal.

As for the radiation: Define 'Huge'. How much radioactivity was required before meat from the deer was considered unsafe? As I've already stated, people are naturally exposed to radiation every day.

Everything that I've read that uses math to define problems in a scientific way says that nuclear power is safer than coal. Therefore, I support nuclear over coal.

Note:
Three Mile Island happened in 1979.
Chernobyl happened in 1983

Car accidents are a different subject.

Do you fly? Do you consider flying to be safe? Nothing is ever completely safe. However, you can look at the odds and history, and say 'for distances over 800 miles, flying is safer than driving'. What are the alternatives to nuclear?

Coal and uranium are both used for production of electrical power. Therefore you can compare them. You can do research that gives you a 'deaths per Gigawatt-hour'. You can total up pollution. They already do it for costs. Lower is better, right?

I live in North Dakota. They're going on about how the state is trying to get more coal plants built. People are complaining. I've heard on the radio that 40,000 deaths a year are attributable to just the pollution from coal plants. How living close to a coal plant gives you the same chances for cancers and diseases as a former smoker.

I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant and the miniscule risk of being exposed to some radiation than live next to a coal plant and the surety of being exposed. Trivia point: Coal plants release more radioactive material into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant produces. After all, there are radioactive particles in coal.

As for the radiation: Define 'Huge'. How much radioactivity was required before meat from the deer was considered unsafe? As I've already stated, people are naturally exposed to radiation every day.

Everything that I've read that uses math to define problems in a scientific way says that nuclear power is safer than coal. Therefore, I support nuclear over coal.

Note:
Three Mile Island happened in 1979.
Chernobyl happened in 1983

Umm, you are thinking of the Jane Fonda movie The China Syndrome. And no, that wasn't a fictionalised account of the Three Mile Island incident, if that's what you are thinking - the film was released days before the accident. See here.

We had a tendency to grandiose engineering in the 70s, and we paid for that. There are much cleaner and simpler designs now.

. Exactly...The new GE ESBWR ( link )is said to be able to passivly remove heat for 72 hours after a loss of coolant accident, preventing an immediate meltdown. Also, the MPBR is also said to be passivly safe, though there is not as much documentation available on it as PWRs and BWRs

Within a short time, the presence of a large hydrogen bubble in the dome of the pressure vessel, the container that holds the reactor core, stirred new worries. The concern was that the hydrogen bubble might burn or even explode and rupture the pressure vessel. In that event, the core would fall into the containment building and perhaps cause a breach of containment. The hydrogen bubble was a source of intense scrutiny and great anxiety, both among government authorities and the population, throughout the day on Saturday, March 31. The crisis ended when experts determined on Sunday, April 1, that the bubble could not burn or explode because of the absence of oxygen in the pressure vessel. Further, by that time, the utility had succeeded in greatly reducing the size of the bubble.

Very interesting. So interesting that I sought out this fact sheet

You said: "The point I was making is that it is people rather than technologies that are unsafe. Your inane repetition of 'decay heat', an irrelevant snippet of data that you appear to have read in a magazine article would seem to reinforce my point."

Decay heat is not an irrelavant snippet. Decay heat is a key concept in reactor safeguards. I know you probably won't trust my words for it (and there's nothing wrong with that), so I'll give a reference. If you want to see more, go to the NRC's reading room, or google for "decay heat and reactor safeguards". It was only decay heat that physically caused the TMI-2 nuclear accident. Everything else just contributed to not being able to remove it.

Ok, let me now address your point. People are safe if well trained. It is possible to construct a nuclear plant in a way that no people operate it. The reason that most future designs have operators is that people, if well trained, are flexible enough to handle unforseen events. While many people feel that the nuclear industry is the same as it was 25 years ago, that is completely wrong. The NRC used to be a good 'ol boys organization. It covered up the Brown's Ferry nuclear accident in 1975 for example. Much like the rest of the US changed after 9/11, the nuclear industry drastically changed after March 28, 1979. How can I prove this in words? I can't. You have to go talk to the regulators and the operators to understand. We haven't abandoned the airline industry even though some incredibly horrific accidents have occured over the past couple of years. I say we shouldn't abandon the nuclear industry because there is not another industry in the world that cares more about safety.

Am I an apologist? Hardly. I've just always wondered from a young age on how the US could abandon such an amazing technology for others that are so inferior. How could we abandon a technology that could dramatically increase the quality of life of the entire world? How could we chose technologies that cause global warming and spread vast amounts of pollution rather than nuclear power? To me its as silly as saying that we want to abandon the microprocessor! There are pros and cons with every technology. If the pros outweigh the cons, then the technology is worthwhile, and I think the pros do by a dramatic margin (even though the cons are significant).

By the way, many of your comments are aimed at attacking my credibility (like saying that I read about decay heat in a magazine). I have intentionally withheld credentials because it only confuses the issues (i.e. persons are more likely to agree with an authority figure or a person with significant credentials than someone who doesn't) and doesn't strengthen the facts. The facts are all that matter. But since this argument is over I will tell you that I am a reactor operator, have operated multiple nuclear reactors shutdown and critical, and my prime job is to ensure reactor safeguards. Reactor safeguards are 90% of my job. When it comes to reactor safety, I know what I am talking about (and I train others on it).

I am a little skeptical of your estimate of the generating capacity. Peak power demand for a modest city is about 2 kW per person, so a power plant would have to generate 500 megawatts to supply a city of 250,000. Each unit at Three Mile Island had a capacity of about 800 megawatts. Are you saying that each power plant on the Enterprise is more than half the size of Three Mile Island?

Also, with all your confidence in Navy machinists' mates, I wonder how all those well-trained ex-Navy personnel allowed so much corrosion to attack the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse plant. According to the NRC, it was because they were not adequately trained, supervised, or audited.

In the 80s my dad told me that the reactors' containment mechanisms were designed to withstand an airplane impact and I thought, "man, are they paranoid." Now I think, "I wonder if they could really take it."

In December, 2002, the Electric Power Research Institute released an analysis entitled Aircraft Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant's Structural Strength in which they ran computer models of a Boeing 767-400 crashing into a nuclear plant containment building, spent fuel pool, dry spent fuel storage container, and spent fuel transportation container. In all cases, there was no release of radionuclides to the environment.

Although it is an advocacy group, the Nuclear Energy Institute is a good source of technical information about nuclear power. It can be found at www.nei.org.

I work at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona. It is a Combustion Engineering "System 80" plant. The "System 80 Plus" design is one of three that has been certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a standardized design. This will save a ton of money and time if any company ever gets up the courage to build another nuclear power plant. Right now everyone is crazy about throwing together natural gas fired power plants, regardless of the fact that all the natural gas will be gone in a few years (I've heard that there's only 30 years of natural gas left in the world).

The reason we don't dry our clothing outside in Arizona is because the sunshine would fade the colors too much.

You said: "I'm curious -- why?
Laws the prevent public disclosure always bother me, so I'd like to know."

In the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Title 1 Chapter 12 (warning--big pdf) Control of Information, certain data such reactor designs, nuclear weapons designs, etc. are designated as Restricted Data. While you might think much of this wouldn't apply to a nuclear reactor you have to remember that civil nuclear reactors produce a small amount of plutonium and therefore also fall under any of the weapons restrictions in that chapter. Certain exemptions exist as listed in section 144 but they are difficult to get (requires Presidential approval). This basically makes everything about the technology of a nuclear power plant classified--hence radiation levels will also fall under this guidance. The NRC issues accident reports that declassify much data in the case of accidents or incidents because they feel it is good for public review. Of course they have section 144 approval to do so.

there have been some very near misses in the West as well. The classic one was 25 years ago at Thee Mile Island near Middletown, Pennsylvania. Interesting government style paper, but no sex appeal. Sorry.

You said: " Wait a second! she is showing readings of less than 1 mR/hour. Power plant workers can work in 1 mR/hour for the entire year and not exceed NRC's strict 2 R/year limit. In otherwords, this is nothing. Parent poster doesn't know what he is talking about."

The NRC limit (see 10 C.F.R.) is 3 rem per quarter, and 5 rem per year. A rem is a weighted roetgen (R). The weighting factors are used because while a roetgen measures the energy deposited, a rem measures the physical damage (exposure versus dose). An example of a weighting factor is a gamma will have a factor of 1, while a fast neutron may have a factor of 20. So a 1 mR/hr exposure rate will give you 1 mrem/hr for gammas, and 20 mrem/hr for fast neutrons.

In the past I believed that public resistance to power reactors was founded in ignorance, and therefore without merit. It is, but some knee-jerk reactions are healthy.

Last Friday the Tennessee reactor called WATTS BAR was SCRAM-ed. A SCRAM is an emergency procedure where the core's control rods are rapidly inserted to halt the reaction. SCRAMs are routine. Reactors SCRAM themselves and are manually SCRAM-ed under a large number of conditions.

Here is a quote from the WATTS BAR report to the NRC on this "event"; "The licensee also reported that all control rods inserted on the reactor trip, no primary or secondary system relief valves operated, and that reactor temperature is being maintained using steam dump to the condenser. Steam generator water levels are being maintained using auxiliary feedwater. The station electrical system is available and in a normal configuration. All ECCS equipment is available. The reactor is currently stable at 2230 psig, 559 degrees Fahrenheit."

Something about having to report the condition of control rods and water levels directly to the Federal Government makes me doubt exactly how safe this stuff actually is. That paragraph follows a template that varies based primarily on which parts of the back-up systems fail post SCRAM, and this is an unusual report in that none did.

Machine's break, people mess up, things get neglected, overlooked and forgotten. The consequences at a coal or gas power generating facility are localized deaths and equipment damage. The consequences at a fission reactor range from trivial to catastrophic, in a biblical sense. We have never suffered the worst case. Chernobyl did not even begin to approach it.

Also, last Friday, the DAVIS BESSE facility in Ohio reported that, according to their simulations, a steam line break could potentially compromise all low-voltage systems and battery backups available at the reactor by overpressuring some doors. That's a useful discovery. Too bad it took 27 years to notice. It probably isn't coincidental that this particlar facility is being scrutinized with a microscope and thus rendering interesting new discoveries like this. Two years ago refueling workers discovered that boric acid had eaten through the steam generator casing down to the stainless steel inner lining. 8" of low alloy steel gone and all of the pressure generated by the nuclear reaction retained by a 3/8" layer of stainless steel.

I have no animus towards the power companies. I am not an activist exaggerating to support an agenda. Paranoia about nuclear waste is nothing more than trumped up NIMBY. "Deregulation" isn't causing a degradation of safety. It's just the nature of any large industrial system; everything breaks eventually. Hell, everything is already broken and we have simply failed to notice, yet.

I now believe that fission reactors are inherently dangerous, including recent improved designs. It is the nature of a fission reactor to melt down unless prevented from doing so. We are very good at preventing this. We are not, however, perfect. We are people operating machines.

In contrast, fusion appears much safer. The challenge of fusion is getting more power out of the reaction than you put in. By definition the reaction will stop if the input fails. It is the nature of a fusion reactor to stop unless prevented from doing so. Unless some foul-up closes the loop it can't spiral out-of-control.

What the protesters didn't tell you--probably because they couldn't be bothered enough to research they'd know this-- is that (1) we'd been putting up reactors on spacecrafts for years and years and (2) the reactor was one of the most mind-bogglingly safe imaginable, if the entire reactor was blown up or disentigrated in the atmosphere the radioactive material would still be able to hold together well enough that at worst it would split together into a couple of chunks so solid you could pick them up and hold them...

My preference is to argue from the standpoint that these activities are worth the risk. Attempting to convince people that serious consequences are impossible is a fools errand. Making them realize what cowardly little twits they are seems like it ought to be far more productive. That craft did not represent enough danger, in my opinion, to outweigh the value of the mission. I would still say that after looking at pictures of children with cancerous thyroids after the ship self-immolated to dust over a Florida suburb. Risk is necessary.

My suspicion is that Nuclear technology will get nowhere in the United States until people stop calling it that, due to the huge political movement to make sure no one uses anything with "nuclear" in the name, regardless of the safety, degree of research, or degree of oversight. I'd propose scientists start using some other word, like "happytronic", but this would probably be seen through as "hollow PR from the nuclear industry". (That's another thing. People promoting nuclear energy are often derided as "Nuclear Industry Shills", but people attacking it are never successfully labelled as "Coal Industry Shills", despite the fact that's who they're primarily helping. How is this?)

Nuclear power is more expensive (in the US) than existing alternatives; coal and more recently, natural gas. That's a fact borne out over half a century of operating plants of all types. I think this is the real explanation for the stall in nuclear power generation in the US.

There is a term in the nuclear power industry; SCRAM. Supposedly it means "Safety Control Rod Axe Man," and is the designation for the guy who is supposed to cut the rope that drops the control rod(s) into the core to halt the reaction. Modern reactor cores involve no rope or axes, yet the term lives on because the basic physics are no different. The reality of operating a modern reactor is that SCRAMs are common; for all sorts of reasons operators find themselves in situations where it's imperative that the reactor stop RIGHT NOW. They smack the proverbial Big Red Button, if it doesn't smack itself automatically, and control rods rapidly descend into the core and stop the reaction. Nuclear "events", such as SCRAMs, are recorded by the NRC. The most recent reported SCRAM was Monday, at 12:30 ET, about 27 hours ago...

Speaking for myself, that's just too much drama. Fission cores in nuclear reactors are no joke. They are large piles and they do represent a large potential calamity. We've never, ever witnessed that potential. Chernobyl, much less Three Mile Island, did not approach the worst case. I don't have enough faith in humans and machines, operating over many decades amidst political and technological change to really believe in my heart of hearts, that existing power reactors are safe. I cannot tell you how much it pains me to admit that.

This is the primary promise Fusion offers IMHO-- because oh, it isn't nuclear, it's "Fusion", right? Which means people will actually use it.

The physics of sustaining a Fusion reaction might provide for inherent safety; without a huge amount of input power the reaction cannot be sustained. Fission cores can melt down due to residual heat even after you stop the reaction (this is essentially what happened to Reactor 2 at Three Mile Island, for example.) Fusion is a whole different kettle of fish.

I don't mean alpha particles. I mean neutrons. One source of the neutrons is generated from cosmic ray interaction with our atmosphere.

I do know the industry uses Neutron Flux as a unit of measurement:

A measure of the intensity of neutron radiation in neutrons/cm2-sec. It is the number of neutrons passing through 1 square centimeter of a given target in 1 second. Expressed as nv, where n = the number of neutrons per cubic centimeter and v = their velocity in centimeters per second.

The level of measurable Neutron Flux fluctuates with changes in altitude and latitude. Also solar flares can cause a 10 fold increase in measureable flux levels.

For soft error rates, the neutron particles are the most important.

I don't have a doctorate on this subject and cannot claim to be an expert in heavy ions. I would not be able to comment about half life and decay. A nice article by Dr. Eugene Normand is my source.

Here is a link to information about spent fuel storage in the US.

I checked my facts at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If that's what you call a "Linux Priest", well, then you have made your point: every Linux user is a "priest" or a "zealot".
distorting the argument in ways that confirm your preconceived notions

There's an asymmetry between Linux and Windows users: almost every Linux user is familiar with Windows and has a rather extensive experience with it. OTOH, very few Windows users have any experience at all with Linux. So, the typical Linux user has switched to Linux from Windows because he doesn't like Windows, based on his personal experience. The typical Windows user has never had any experience with Linux. He may have tried Linux for a short while and given up, but it's an extremely rare person who has used Linux at depth and then chosen Windows. Therefore, I don't think my notions are "preconceived" at all. They are "postconceived", they come from an in-depth experience with both systems. I once thought like you, I defended Windows and saw no reason to use Linux, but once I started to learn more about Linux I gradually changed my opinions.

Today I defend Linux strongly, but I always do it on a fact-by-fact basis, never dropping my logical arguments to call someone a zealot or whatever.

So you are denying the claims laid in this article and this notice from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission?

Even the NRC admits that a contractor established an unprotected computer connection to its corporate network, through which the worm reached the plant network.

Seems like the philosophy got kicked out the door for some reason.

I can see the NRC headquarters building from my apartment window (near the White Flint Metro in Rockville, MD), so if you want me to give them any odd glares or scournful looks for you, let me know!

The problem is that we are slowly upgrading these systems built on 1950's and 60's technology into 'todays' technology. A lot of the issues present in todays technology weren't known when the regulation was written. Look at what is being used to evaluate software as 'safe'

link

The bottom of page 17 (Adobe Acrobat count), section B.1. I find particularly interesting. The current method of review for these safety critical systems is to make sure all the documentation checks out, and if the vendor followed a good design practice, then the conclusion is that the product is safe. BS!

The document also states that software can't be modelled in a lab like, say a pipe or a concrete wall. That is showing the documents age. Maybe 6 yrs ago it wasn't feasible, but with the 2-3 GHz processors currently available, as well as the development of simulation tools that allow modelling of hardware and software together I believe it to be feasible to actually test these systems using fault injection techniques.

Thanks for the backup on this one.

While I don't necessarily agree that regulation is the answer, it's a simple matter of ethics.

De-regulation wasn't really de-regulation. It was RE-regulation. The rules simply changed, and there became many more of them, one of which was that no new generating plants could be built. Why the hell they decided this was beyond me. Most of these generators were built "way back when" before the age of computers and ubiquitous use of air conditioning. PECO Energy became the most expensive electricity in the nation after PA "de-regulated" the electricity industry. I pay almost $0.16 per kWh, which is ridiculous by any standard. That money is used to pay for electricity that is practically given away to neighboring producers like PP&L and ConEd.

Anyway...

You'd be AMAZED at what percentage of all generated power is dissipated in either a computer or an air conditioner/chiller/etc. 100 million computers at 200 watts each is 20 BILLION watts. 20 GIGAwatts. That's the capacity of more than 20 average-sized nuclear reactors. Limerick here in PA has two reactors each capable of about 1.134 (I was really hoping it was 1.21, really I was!) gigawatts.

Here's a Link to a list of all U.S. Nuclear facilities and their statistics and capacities.

And here is a link to a list of all the reactor statuses showing they're loaded to the teeth - almost all of them at 100%.

The U.S. Department of Energy maintains lots of useful information about the power grids in the United States and how they are running. There are also publicly available status reports on each generation facility.

One graph on the DoE site showed that generation capacity hasn't increased at all since about 1992 (when Clinton took office, what a surprise... bastard killed the military AND our power infrastructure... but that's another thread)...

It's not surprising that this happened since we've been increasing generation rapidly due to the deployment of computers and other tech gadgets, but not increasing capacity to make up for it. It also doesn't help that there's no incentive other than cost for people to use Alternative Energy like solar or wind. Well, that's not totally true, there are actually Lots and Lots of Incentives in some states for end-user renewable energy, but it's still really expensive.

With the introduction of the TABLET PC, I wonder how fast can those computers really distribute a supercoolant solution.

Hey, do you predict a BEAR market ahead!

Design bases means that information which identifies the specific functions to be performed by a structure, system, or component of a facility, and the specific values or ranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for design. These values may be (1) restraints derived from generally accepted "state of the art" practices for achieving functional goals, or (2) requirements derived from analysis (based on calculation and/or experiments) of the effects of a postulated accident for which a structure, system, or component must meet its functional goals.

The same logic underlies all design. At some point you have to have engineers you trust and they should be versed in the "state of the art" and all applicable studies.

In the nuclear industry we can and do rely on vendor studies. Who else but GE is going to know the maximum power levels that are safe with their reactors? They built a full scale model and proved it.

In the software industry, as you have noticed, things are a little less clear. First, Microsoft is an unethical company. (gotta go before finishing!) You and me both know that Windows is an unstable system. It changes all the time and those changes break programs. Some would even say that Windows is unstable without any changes, and indeed sites that use it typically see 30 day uptimes and no better. Anyone who would relly on such a thing for something that in is in any way needed to protect the public safety is incompetent. How that might be worked into a ship is a matter of judgement. I would not use it except as a game platform in the rec room or to look after some system that is superfuous.

What is often conveniently ignored about TMI is that the containment system by and large worked. The radiation the public was exposed to was on average 1/6 that from a chest X-ray. Nobody got cancer from it. See the official report if you don't believe me.

This was included in a list of some MS hazardous materials systems which I had in an earlier post:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/SECYS/2000-0163s cy.html#ATTACHMENT 4.

This comment has been submitted already, 276663 hours , 36 minutes ago. No need to try again.

"We're inviting artists, architects, and general visionaries to submit their artistic work for what we're calling the "Plutonium Memorial," a facility that would house the world's unwanted weapon plutonium. ..."

Well, let's see. Weapons-grade plutonium contains a high concentration (90% or more) of plutonium-239. Pu-239 has a half-life of around 24000 years. Plutonium is nasty stuff - even its least radioactive isotope, Pu-242, causes tumours, mainly due to plutonium's long-lived, alpha-emitting characteristics.

The best memorial for this stuff would be a large, impregnable safe so that its contents could not fall into the "wrong hands". On the safe would be a large display indicating in how many years it would be safe to open it, allowing for the natural decay of the plutonium contents. A cat and vial of poison are optional...

A factsheet on plutonium

unless a goverment enforced this, it would be entirely voluntary. Who would volunteer for fines, based on someone elses view on the stability of your software. I mean we wouldnt need anything like the nrc.The only sane way to promote stableness is by compeating on the "feature" of stableness. Free software rule is "competition by cooperation" it only makes sence eventualy open software will be the most stable platform. Thats why many open sourced programs are stable.