Slashdot Mirror
Another Crumbling Reactor Springs a Tritium Leak
mdsolar writes "The decrepit nuclear reactor Vermont Yankee has sprung a radioactive leak similar to those at other poorly run reactors in Illinois (Braidwood, Byron and Dresden), Arizona (Palo Verde), and New York (Indian Point). Greenpeace noted 3 years ago that radioactive tritium leaks even threaten Champagne from France. Tritium and its decay product helium 3 are incredibly valuable and there is currently a shortage of helium 3. What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?"
I blame (INSERT YOUR LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT) !
Since (INSERT YOUR LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT) has\had the power to fix this; since the President of course runs everything and it to blame for everything and is responsible to fix everything. During (INSERT LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT) term(s) he's did nothing to fix this!
IMPEACH (INSERT LEAST FAVORITE PRESIDENT)!!!
3 things kill a discussion quicker then:
A: Comparing anything to Nazis. They are over used and there were plenty of other groups in centuries past that made them look tame. More importantly, unlike some groups in history... they lost so comparing anything to them implies eventual failure so the argument falls apart all the quicker.
B: Blaming a President for problems that take decades to fester and manifest. Same for giving credit.
C: Blaming every other congressman\woman\it but your own.
Now that we have that out of the way....
We know that nuclear power has been suppressed for the last 30 years for better or worse. Does this really come as a surprise?
We know that funding towards the expansion of the nuclear energy program has been frozen, cut, and reduced at varying degrees for over 30 years. No new plants to handle existing demand means no ability to decommission older ones.
There is some irony at a group that hated nuclear energy complains after decades of condemning nuclear energy find time to complain that it isn't getting enough support and maintenance... I won't even get into the green debate that has driven Greenpeace into a morass of identity crisis.
Lastly the reality and fantasy of nuclear energy are so disparate that the media tends to run with fantasy and science tends to side on over confidence leaving the public conflicted. Nuclear isn't free energy. You still have to mine, enrich, store, process, protect, and manage the fuel. How much energy does it take measured at the end of a fuel's life-cycle from start to finish is the real efficiency. It's like those crappy CFLs. Same carbon footprint as a conventional bulb once you factor in shipping from overseas for most of them, the mining and processing for Mercury and the manufacturing of the ballasts, etc.
Special interest groups on both sides are so intent on propaganda that reason, compromise, and sanity are not allowed. Digital Mind Think in an Analog world...
We need to develop nuclear energy solutions that are safe. Beaming energy down from space is not an option as it is too vulnerable to attack and we already have so much shit up there it's nearing the point that would make the Rift's scenario likely (the orbit was intentionally filled with micro-debris to shred everything coming in and going out...)
We need a comprehensive solution that stitches ALL the sources together allowing basic economics to dictate the most cost effective solutions over time.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
In the oil and gas industry, which is just as regulated and nuclear energy, it doesn't matter what design you submit, government engineers still have to come out and personally inspect your oil rigs and refineries before you're allowed to operate. Submitting designs that didn't match the physical facilities would cause them to do an immediate about face, head home and shut you down, costing you millions of dollars.
It may have been different when these reactors were constructed, but I have a hard time imagining reactors getting away with stuff that the oil industry can't.
I had mod points and decided to check out what you had been submitting. I saw your submission and modded it up, to my surprise when I read /. at lunch, there it was.
The problem with this debate is it has become so polarised. Most of the Nuclear supporters here have a rabid fanboi attitude which puts the in the realm of Dogmatic Skeptics. To them no proof is possible no matter how fact checked, proof read and polite you are about the shortcomings of Nuclear Power. Once their belief systems are challenged they resort to ad-hominem attacks as I'm sure you have experienced.
Energetically the numbers do not add up for Nuclear power, maybe in 50 years time when we have materials technology to support engineering a burner reactor that has a conversion rate of uranium fuel to fissile ash greater than %1 of the fuel load. Unless we invest heavily in solar, wind and geothermal - and get them right - we risk leaving future generations a radioactive legacy much worse than the carbon legacy previous generations have left us.
I use the acronym Not In My Generation (NIMG) to characterise the mindset of people who want their power now to maintain their living standards whilst imposing the cost of disposal on a future generation. It's quite selfish really, but I don't really blame them, after all the Nuclear Industry has had plenty of time and money to construct a quite effective and convincing image thats easy to get sucked into.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.