Slashdot Mirror
NRC Relicensing Old "Zombie" Nuclear Plants
mdsolar writes "In the Dec. 7 edition of The Nation, Christian Parenti details what he considers to be the real problem with nuclear power as a solution to carbon emissions in the US: Not the high cost of new nuclear power, but rather the irresponsible relicensing of existing nuclear power plants by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The claim is that the relicensed plants — amounting to more than half ot the 104 original 1970s-era nukes in the US — operate like zombies beyond their design lifetimes only because of lax regulation spurred by concern over carbon dioxide emissions. But these plants are actually failing, as demonstrated by a rash of accidents. And some of the ancient plants are now being allowed to operate at 120% of their designed capacity. There is a video interview with Parenti up at Democracy Now."
The Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in Pripyat happened because one of its reactors was running at a higher capacity than allowed and after its designed life cycle. It was in process of shut down, but it was too late already then. This caused the chain reaction in one of the cores to grow out of control (the same thing that happens when you initiate a nuclear weapon). This however doesn't initiate a nuclear blast like a nuclear weapon does, it just pours the radioactive all over the air (and it can travel thousands of kilometers).
This is why the nearest city Pripyat wasn't even evacuated first and Soviet Union didn't admit anything happening. They only did after the radioactive fallout reached northern Europe. The whole city is still just like it was left there, with peoples items and toys. It's just a ghost town. It will take 200 years before you can live anywhere near it again. And over half of that radioactive fallout landed over Belarus, but also over northern European countries.
Yeah, it's a great idea to run nuclear plants over their designed capacity.
http://www.coolforsale.com/ Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
free shipping
Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.
Didn't anyone learn anything from Chernobyl? It's been over 20 years and it's still too radioactive to go near Reactor 4. Do we really want another plant to blow up?
I'm a supporter of nuclear energy, but don't let anyone dumb too close a nuclear power plant.
Once again, the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we can't do rather than some suggestions. And their alternatives aren't viable for 10 years or more when they finally get all the kinks worked out, or electricity becomes so expensive they become economical.
.. mdsolar ... go back and stick your head in the sand until you have grow some more FUD.
We can't build new nuclear because of the NIMBY crowd. We can't build new coal fired because of the eco-nuts. We can't drill for more oil because of the morons in congress. We don't have to wait for Obama to ruin this country, these groups are doing it for us.
Hey
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Oh no, nuclear energy is being used, the world will end! Must stop this at all costs, or mother nature will be unhappy. Nuclear is evil because it has the word nuclear in it and somehow related to the military! Now that thats settled it's back to firing up some more coal power plants to meet the needs of society....
What do you mean the greens are the ones stopping the building of new nuclear power plants? The FUD power trip on nuclear is so much more important than letting people have clean power.
Greenes did huge damage to this country by instilling fear in nuclear power. While Greens mostly support good things to protect environment their opposition and fearmongering of nuclear plants caused us to build economy on oil.
Besides that we canceled all large-scale development of next generation reactors (breeders, lead-cooled, etc.) capable of burning 99% of fuel and leaving almost no waste.
On the bigger picture in the last twenty-thirty years people became more comfortable and lazy and unwilling to take any risks. This affected everything in the society - cancellation of Space Shuttle program, public safety even kids wearing helmets on the bicycles. If there is no risk there is no reward but it seems we kind of forgot about it.
One of the lessons learned was don't let communist bureaucracies call the shots for management of nuclear reactors.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Why not streamline the process to upgrade to newer reactor technology? The basics are there at these sites now (power lines, steam turbines, etc).
The real problem with nuclear power is and was (and will always be!), that there exists no solution for radioactive waste. Maybe we won't have a Chernoby like desaster again - however with every single hour we have nuclear power plants running, we are producing toxins that will be lethal for centuries. So come on, using nuclear power was a failure straight from the beginning!
1266953+17
Sorry to say that, but you are wrong. The Chernonbyl disaster happened when they were testing a new reactor. Reactor 4, where the disater happened was commissioned in 1983 and the disaster happened in 1986. The reactor has not passed it's design life time at the time of the disaster.
Summarizing, your post is just scaremongering.
The EPA won't let new nuclear plants to get built. If the plants get decommissioned it will literally cut our energy production by 1/2. It takes 10-15 years to build a new nuclear plant by EPA guidlines, and the population in that zone won't let it get built just as they refuse to let wind turbines to get built.
So our only short term solution is to let the NRC extend the lives of the plants. It is either that or force new nuclear plants to get built but it isn't cost efficient to do so.
there is a real energy crisis looming. Simply because people won't plan ahead, the oil will start to run out roughly when all the fission plants have to go offline do to safety reasons.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
The high cost of nuclear power is mainly due to the cost of meeting regulations. Note that a typical coal-fired plant would not meet nuclear regulations because they emit too much radiation. How stupid is that.
Admins, if this cockspasm insists on using the same href url for all his spam, how about writing a script to nuke anything referring to coolforsale.com?
It's still a long time to Christmas, and this jackass doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
According to him, if you're still running your car after the warantee expires, you've got a "zombie car"-- regardless of how much maintanance you put into it. He says a lot of scary things, but doesn't really have much real information.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Reprocessing fuel reduces the waste stream. And you can bury the waste (after you vitrify it) that you can't reprocess, say in Yucca Mountain.
Nuclear plants emits green radioactive smoke that mutates men into zombies! wait... since when has water vapour become green?
Industrial plants almost always run at rates greater than nameplate capacity Think of this: 5 plants running at 120% is like getting one plant free. Capital cost are huge for these project, and eking out every We out of plant so another plant does not need to be built is a always a goal.
Large plants are complicated and increasing rates are not as easy was moving a dial from 100% to 120%. An increase in rate takes time, for a 20% it would be several weeks of slowly ramping up, modifying protocols and even plant modification (if capital spending is allowed for the project). While to a lay person 120% sounds like the plant is 20% more likely to meltdown there are plenty of things that would go wrong first.
This will not end well
I am a nuclear engineering/physics graduate student. Whether that makes me uniquely qualified to comment or just another industry shill is, I suppose, a question of which color Kool-Aid you drank with your Post Toasties this morning. That disclaimer out of the way:
This article is garbage. Others have noted the inflammatory language ("Zombie nukes?" really?). The author is misleading his readers on the issue of radiation-induced embrittlement and stress-corrosion cracking -- whether through ignorance or deliberately deceptive language, it's hard to say. You'll note that of the "shocking" lapses in power plant operations, ZERO led to significant releases of radioactivity. ZERO led to any worker deaths or major injuries. The worst of the bunch, the "six inch deep hole" in the Davis-Besse pressure vessel head, wasn't caused by lax regulation -- it was caused by deliberate fraud. Inspection records were faked, and the people responsible are currently serving time in federal prison. That does point out a legitimate concern: if the operator is willing to lie to the NRC, then bad things can happen. NRC could probably use a shot in the arm, but to suggest it's merely a lapdog of the industry is highly inflammatory, and evidence suggests, not especially accurate.
These reactors were licensed to operate for forty years because that is the maximum time permitted by law. Why was forty years written into the law? Because there was significant uncertainty as to how reactors would hold up in the long haul. The law was written conservatively. Designers built large safety margins into their designs to ensure compliance. Forty years of operational experience has demonstrated to everyone but the most anti-nuke environmentalists that there is sufficient safety margin to operate safely for another twenty years.
As for the 120% operating capacity... sheesh. These plants have had steam generator upgrades. More efficient heat removal allows the turbines to produce more electricity. The nuclear side of the plant is essentially unchanged. They probably drive the primary coolant pumps a little harder, but still well within their designed capacity. So yes, we're getting 20% more energy out of the same number of fissions. No, we're not jamming 20% more fuel into the core. Again: deliberately misleading, or poorly informed? Hard to say.
This is about squeezing every last cent out of existing power plants. New plants are extremely expensive to build and license so it's seen as just cheaper and easier to keep the current reactors churning out power. We aren't talking about offsetting fossil fuels just maintaining the power nuclear is contributing now. Under a best case scenario it takes around 10 years to build and license a nuclear reactor. Most also go radically over budget. I was around the unfinished reactor in South Carolina. Most think it was anti nuke people that killed it. It actually was the fact that they were 200% over budget and they only had one reactor half finished and were still many years away from producing their first watt of electricity. We literally can't build and license plants fast enough to meet demand. I know people don't want to hear wind and solar even though they are the fastest and easiest to get on-line. What does that leave us with? Coal. Coal doesn't just release CO2 there's heavy metals like lead and mercury that are released. Also guess how a lot of it is mined? They cut off the top of a mountain then fill in a neighboring valley with the mine tailings. Not only does it destroy the landscape but the tailings pollute the water supply. There is no simple and painless solution but we have to get it out of our heads that nuclear power is some magic bullet that will let us all us as much power as we want cheaply. It's slow to roll out and is very expensive to build the plants. It would cost north of a 100 billion just to replace the existing plants and that won't reduce dependance on fossil fuels. We simply don't have the money to replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants. Do the math and you'll be in for a shock. To replace coal it would cost more than the Iraq war and that doesn't cover clean up and storage. As a nation we simply don't have the cash to spend on replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power. The catch-22 is we have to get off fossil fuels. We need to embrace cheaper clean options. The problem is the lobbyist are forcing us onto things like corn ethanol which is a joke and just lines corporation pockets. I always hear nuclear called "cheap". It's hard to call it cheap when we're talking around a billion dollars for one reactor. For the cost of one reactor we can put 30K in solar cells on 30,000+ roofs. Just using the cash needed to replace existing nuclear plants would put solar panels on 3 to 5 million roofs. The service life is similar to a reactor and they require little maintenance. Reactors still need fuel and constant care. We can't keep depending on 30 to 50 year old reactors that have already passed their life expectancy and we can't aford to replace coal with new nuclear plants. We need to consider other options. We need other options than solar but it makes more sense to put the cash into other high tech solutions instead of propping up the nuclear industry.
Actually there is a solution for nuclear waste.
It is called fuel reprocessing.
With proper reprocessing the waste is much easier to handle. We are not doing it right now because it is cheaper to just let it sit and or to bury it.
The problem is most people have been fed a line of manure from the anti nuclear folks. Do you have any idea how much money some of them are making off of book deals, speaking fees, and "donations" that people make to keep the world and the coal companies safe from the evils of nuclear power.
If you want a test to see if they are using fear and ignorance as a tool there is a simple one.
If they mention Chernobyl when speaking about the safety of western nuclear reactors they are using fear and ignorance.
Chernobyl has as many simulates with a western nuclear power plant as the Hindenburg has with a 777.
It is impossible for a western reactor to fail like Chernobyl because no Western country would ever allow a commercial graphite moderated reactor with out a containment building to be put into service!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I don't feel like nuclear power itself is dangerous. I'm worried about the people who own and operate the plants. Most companies in this world focus on one thing: increasing profits at the expense of everything else. Forget safety. Forget responsibility. Whatever the industry just cut things to the absolute razor's edge to line the pockets of the owners and executives.
The repercussions of this attitude in the nuclear power industry are far greater than other energy producers. Mistakes (or outright negligence) in the handling of materials related to nuclear power production become the legacy of generations, and as usual we will only find out about these problems when it's too late.
Nuclear power can be clean. It can also be relatively safe. It's the people in the equation that make me anti-nuke. I just don't trust the owners, operators or regulators.
By having zombies run the places you don't have to give the workers protection against radiation since they're already dead. I hear they work pretty cheaply too, just give them some cow brains and they don't know the difference.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
IS SNPP on the list?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Using terms such as 'zombie', "decrepit" and 'unprecidented' without a shred of evidence
Hoping to fool people who didn't read the article?
It presents copious evidence by citing numerous specific incidents at various facilities, and clearly detailing how these incidents are related to age and lax safety culture.
Hence "decrepit."
It also discusses specific regulators at NRC, their backgrounds, and their resumes (which involve jumping between the regulatory agency and cushy jobs at the companies they regulate). It cites a specific ethics violation.
"Zombie" is perfectly valid analogy considering that these plants are unquestionably operating beyond their original design "lifetime." Quite a bit less vivid than many other terms and analogies I've been subjected to by the news media lately: i.e. who "hates America," who'se part of a "Nazi regime," who'se "socialist," who "sides with terrorists," and so forth.
The events described in the article, both in terms of safety incidents and regulatory activity, are prima facie unprecedented.
You fail. Good day, sir.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Please note that all the time I'm talking specifically about the biosphere.
One that hath name thou can not otter
...the most salient criticism raised by the "Greenes" was that we were not, as a people, disposed to live up to the "zero tolerance" policy for failure that large scale industrial use of nuclear materials really demands. We always make mistakes eventually. Even if it takes 50 or 100 years, then it means we only have 50 or 100 years until a major nuclear disaster and i.e. epic human suffering, unprecedented economic calamity, the depopulation of a major urban area, the success of a fanatical act of terrorism, etc.
This article rather underscores the point. We have become complacent that we are smart enough and organized enough to use nuclear power safely. As we become complacent, this leads to a false sense of security, laziness and corruption on the part of operators and regulators, apathy on the part of the public, and the decline of safety culture. Now I am sure you will have no problem moving your family in down the street from one of these plants, right?
Right?
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
While the post says I wrote that, your edits are a big improvement.
Have none of these people played Sim City? Running your power plants over capacity never ends well!
No sig here...
The approval of license extensions for plants with substandard and inadequate containment like Oyster Creek is the point of the article. You are making the case for Parenti.
It's gratifying to read some comments by someone familiar with the issues.
I have a few questions:
I am inured to metaphors in the news. I'm afraid Fox News, etc. has these guys beat by about 100x, so "zombie" doesn't impress me particularly. But as a story about a decaying regulatory agency, and the complexities of determining a safety regime for a set of fiercely complex 40 year old machines (which incidentally could cause a spectacular incident that would very likely end your industry, and thus your civilian career, if allowed to fail), it comes across to the layman as entirely plausible - and I do not exactly see your counterarguments yet - assuming you actually disagree with the premise, which as far as I read, was only that we need more stringent oversight of the industry (and not even that the extensions and capacity upgrades should be stopped or rolled back).
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
The Martian rovers are operating years past their 90 day expected lifetime. Why no "zombie" smear against them?
'Do you have any idea how much money some of them are making off of book deals, speaking fees, and "donations" that people make to keep the world and the coal companies safe from the evils of nuclear power.'
FOLLOW THE MONEY is always a good rule. In the case of "green" or "anti-whatever" energy, the money trail invariably points at some special interest (including the aforementioned professional fearmongers) that can't make it in the open market, but stands to make a killing if the competition is made to look bad, or better yet is subjected to more than their fair share of restraints.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I think it is odd in this, our age of progress and technological prowess that we can no longer afford the infrastructure of the past.
New nuke plants are now somehow out of reach, as are new oil refining facilities, rail, bridges, sewers. Somehow in the last 30 years we lost the ability to undertake large infrastructure, which you would think given the wealth, technology, etc... that it would be easier.
I wonder if this is political or simply part of a new phase. It just seems to me that everything was constructed in the 60's and 70's and now everything is crumbling and falling apart around us, and we lack the ability or will replace it.
I happen to think the story is controversial as well, but because it attributes the irresponsible relicensing of nuclear plants to concern over carbon dioxide emissions when actually it appears that it has more to do with profits and a lack of concern for safety. The big issue with carbon dioxide emissions actually has to do with the opportunity cost related to new nuclear plants which, when subsidized with loan guarantees that will surely be exercised at taxpayer expense, lead to postponing the use of less costly low carbon energy generation and thus leads to an increase in accumulated emissions. We are due for another meltdown and that will reverse the relicensing that has been going on, existing natural gas generation capacity will fill in temporarily, but effort wasted on new nuclear power is a serious problem for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Nevertheless, the article is worth reading since it chronicle the ongoing and frequent safety violations at our aging nuclear plants. The Nation is the oldest weekly magazine in the country and has a long history of investigative journalism.
Without transparency and oversight of the Nuclear generation industry, we will only suffer as a captive population.
The first operating US nuclear energy plant, northwest of Los Angeles in the Chatsworth (Santa Susana Hills) Atomics International field laboratory began leaking radioactive gas on July 14, 1959. Some area residents blame the facility for their health issues and say the site remains contaminated.
In August 1959, about five weeks after the accident, the Atomic Energy Commission published a press release indicating that "a parted fuel element had been observed," a reference to damage. But it added that there was no evidence of radioactive releases or unsafe operating conditions.
Lab officials kept switching the reactor off and on until July 26, when it was shut down and dismantled. There was evidence of melting in a third of the reactor's fuel elements.
For about two weeks, the facility, which employed several thousand people, had been venting colorless and odorless radioactive gas into the environment.
Scientists at the site, originally operated by North American Rockwell, conducted nuclear research for the federal government for more than four decades before ceasing those operations in the late 1980s.
Radioactivity levels during the accident went off-scale. We thus do not know to this day how much radioactivity was released.
Details of the incident were not disclosed until 1979, when a group of UCLA students discovered documents and photographs that referred to a problem at the site involving a "melted blob."
Ever since, residents have worried about downstream health risks associated with soil contaminated by years of rocket and nuclear testing.
Radioactive emissions from the accident could have resulted in 260 to 1,800 cases of cancer within 62 miles of the site over a "period of many decades," according to a study released in 2006.
Boeing officials disputed the findings, saying the study was based on miscalculations and faulty information. They cited a Boeing-commissioned study released in 2005 that found overall cancer deaths among employees at the field lab and at Canoga Park facilities between 1949 and 1999 were lower than in the general population.
A Boeing official said the company was committed to a timely and thorough cleanup of the site in a way that protects public health.
Half a century after the accident, nuclear cleanup operations and chemical decontamination remain incomplete.
A cluster of leukemia and other cancers in neighbors and employees remains ignored 50 years later.
Using computer modeling, a CA state-funded study released in August 2009 estimated the meltdown released 300 times more radiation than the infamous accident at Three-Mile Island -- considered the worst in the nation's history -- and may have triggered at least 260 cancer cases.
Boeing Co., which now owns the lab, and the Department of Energy, which contracted for its work, dispute the study's key findings.
Yet the mystery around the accident remains, tangled by missing data and what some say has been bureaucratic foot-dragging and cover-ups. And the new studies have only reignited debate over what happened on the hill in July 1959.
The Santa Susana Field Laboratory, located on 2,900 acres in the hills between Chatsworth and Simi Valley was developed as a remote site to test rocket engines and conduct nuclear research.
The Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Energy Commission built the nation's first nuclear power plant to deliver energy to the commercial grid at the lab. Called the Sodium Reactor Experiment, the plant was featured on Edward R. Murrow's television documentary show ``See It Now'' as it delivered electricity to the then-tiny town of Moorpark.
But during a run from July 14 through July 26, 1959, workers experienced problems with the reactor overheating. On July 26, they shut it down and discovered that 13 of its 43 fuel rods had partially melted, releasing unknown levels of radiation into the reacto
I love the crux of their argument being that the plants are operating at 120% of their initial design... Unfortunately, the author has no clue as to why that output figure was increased. The actual generators (i.e. the turbines, wires, etc., that are turned by the steam which produce the electricity) have been updated using today's technology. Generator technology has increased dramatically over the last 40 years from when the original plants were produced. In fact, generators have been updated in the plants during most refueling cycles in their normal operation. As those generators increased in efficiency, so too has the output power gone up at the plants. That increased efficiency has allowed the same power from the nuclear reactor to create more output power.
Tritium laced water is bad in the water supply, I agree. But as the author said, these happened at one location which the original owner thought was going to be decommissioned. It should have been made know to the new purchasers that some maintenance was not done. I mean, really, would you put a new exhaust system on a 15 year old car which has over 250,000 miles on it? No, you would patch up the one you got and get ready to buy a new car, which is what the previous owner did. They did neglect to tell the new owner of the "car" about the issue and that there was only a temporary patch in place...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Too bad the RSS feed doesn't let you exclude his shite.
For Calvert Cliffs, Turkey Point, and the South Texas Project, there is a problem with sea level rise this century since these are in tidal areas. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen.html So, there are environmental concerns at these sites.
the very same scenario here, with specific laws voted to expand EOL'ed plants by more than 10 years without any improvements, etc.
But the most incredible part is, at the time of voting, the surrounding discussions only have addressed the financial part of the trick (giving more value to the private owner), not really the safety...
At present some 15 plants out of a total of some 80 are stopped for repair after (obviously minor) failures, an all-time record here, and the consequence is for the first time in my personal lifetime, predictions for this winter are we'll have to import energy from european neighbors -yet another all-times first...
H.
Herve S.
I work as a plant operator at a boiling water reactor. The re-licensing of plants for an extra 20 years is based on the life span of the pressure vessel. The author is correct about neutron embrittlement. It does cause materials to fail by causing interstitial point defects in the grain structure. However, the point defects reach an equilibrium over the life of the plant. As more defects are created by collisions with neutrons, others are filled again by a collision. This has been observed through mechanical testing of test materials that are placed in high neutron flux zones in the core. These are removed and mechanically tested every 2 years. Calling these old plants 'zombies' is indicative of a serious lack of knowledge about materials, engineering and nuclear power in general. As to the horrific sounding 120% power levels that plants are running, you can thank digital technology for this extra power generation. When the plants were designed in the 60s, analog controls required tremendous safety margins to ensure save operation. Coolant flows and many other variables had a large margin of uncertainty when being measured and computed to show reactor power. With modern computers, we can get extremely precise readings on coolant flows, neutron flux, etc, which allows us to increase the power of the reactor without reducing the margin of safety we operate under.
Existing proven nuclear power is fine by me; except for the BIG PROBLEM that it COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY. The reason people don't hear sanity that often anymore is because the media focuses on opposing nutcases and leaves out reasonable less entertaining voices.
I'm happy to see some sanity posts on /. on nuclear power; democracy now is the only place where I have heard sanity and the 2 mainstream sides.
Nuclear power is unproven as far as the super-duper next generation promises that have been made for over a decade (at least) without any proven results. Alternative power and grid storage technology is proven and CAN PAY OFF long term; sure it has high starting costs-- but they PAY OFF, nuclear NEVER HAS! (and never will-- you'll have to actually prove it before I believe it can.)
As far as scare tactics-- I bet the coal industry has been ironically helping greens to bash nuclear...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Once again, we see that the core of the environmental movement in reality cares nothing about the environment. Artificially created enviro-panics like the hole in the ozone layer (which hasn't shrunk after 15 years of CFC bans), and the comical global warming hoax (now revealed to be the result of research chicanery and fraud) are in reality all just excuses. They are ruses used in an attempt to panic and frighten the world into dismantling our technological infrastructure and returning to a hunter-gatherer civilization. All in a lunatic attempt to atone for the sin of being human to the demon-goddess gaia. When enviro-kooks develop a head of steam behind a good scare-story, the LAST thing they want is for the problem to be SOLVED through technology. The point is to make us all give up using earth-hostile amenities like cars and electricity, kill off 9/10ths of the human population through starvation and disease, and then go back to living in tee-pees and using our own dung as fertilizer for our maize. Then MAYBE gaia will forgive us for living on her surface and leave us alone. WAKE UP people! Environmentalism isn't science, it's a religion. One of the most barbaric and scary religions on the face of the earth. If they ever get control of public policy their death-toll will make the Taliban look like a kindergarten class.
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...just refurbished stuff. It works for IT why shouldn't it work for nuclear power plants ?
Both Chernobyl and Hindenburg were learning points.
Lesson learnt we became smarter.
Don't also forget that Chernobyl has happened when Russia was in a steep decline economically and morally.
Honestly, I really don't mind the inflammatory lead-ins, because I know that, in general, I'll get a good couple of laughs from the comments, and some star or a dozen will pop up and inform me, often with references, of what the situation really is. I don't understand why you fucking nazis have to throw hissy fits like you do all the time. If you don't like the article, don't read it, just ..... PISS off. Slashdot doesn't belong to you personally. I get so much more real info out of an inflammatory article than out if what you seem to so zealously cherish as The Truth(TM). Next you'll be whining that there's an "incorrect" population of soviet jokes, or beowulf jokes, or overlord jokes. Or maybe, just maybe, you're new here. This is NOT a news site, it is a DISCUSSION site. Now go smoke a fat greenie and chill out, numb-nut. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.
IIRC, there were direct subsidies to operators written into the 2005 energy bill for the first half dozen or so new nukes to go into operation (a couple of cents per KWH generated.) Certainly not eighteen billion dollars worth, though.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
What we learned from the Hindenburg was. "Don't makes mistakes in front of the press."
A lot more people had already dies in plane crashes before the Hindenburg and a lot more after. Not everybody died in the Hindenburg so as crashes go it wasn't that bad. It happened in front of cameras so it really killed the zeppelin.
That and planes where faster and cheaper.
There really where no lessons for western reactor designers to learn from Chernobyl. They had learned those lessons decades ago without creating such a huge disaster.
1. Don't build graphite moderated power reactors. Power reactors in the west are light water reactors. The difference is that when a light water reactor looses coolant it looses it's moderator so the reaction stops. If you loose the coolant in a graphite moderated reactor the reaction actually speeds up!
2. Don't build a reactor with out a containment building. In the US and as far as I know all other western nations reactors all have containment buildings.
The only lesson to be learned from Chernobyl is that you shouldn't ignore every safety regulation in the manual for a test.
But anybody that actually brings up Chernobyl in a discussion of nuclear power plants in the US is just using fear and ignorance as a tool to control people.
That is the big lesson we can learn from both Chernobyl and the Hindenburg. The press and others love to scare us but they don't really want to inform or educate us.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Waste, what do we do with the waste? The spent rods? Keep burying it in the ground, along with our heads? Nuclear power is extremely dangerous, and so are the by-products. That's why it needs so many safety precautions. Plus, it's just another finite resource that will eventually run out.
The reason we are in this mess is NOT because "Greens" stopped production on more Nuclear plants, it is because "Browns" topedoed production and research and funding on any kind of alternative.
Started with the ill-conceived Reagan "Revolution". We are in trouble in every area of our society because of conservatives deregulating everythign in site while dismantling any safety precautions that cost their corporate overlords even a small percentage of their profit margins. Careful going over that bridge now.