The EU countries don't want to reveal security arrangements for nuclear industry sites to each other so they won't test their systems for terrorist atttacks. Yet, terrorist attack may be one of the greatest threats related to nuclear power.
The Fukushima meltdown showed how some nuclear plants are vulnerable to cooling-system failures. That might be of interest to Al Qaeda, which considered attacking US nuclear facilities after 9/11, a new study says.
Do we need a single security provider for anti-terrorist protection the way we protect the oil supply chain? If the EU can't work together, perhaps they should cede sovereignty on this in the same manner that Pakistani nuclear weapons are 'secured.'
You compare with Chernobyl in either an ignorant or dishonest manner. I pick the one of the two that is not dishonorable and send you off to learn something.
Clearly you don't understand the reason for the exclusion zone at Chernobyl: fission products. As I say, learn some physics and you will understand better.
As I have said many times, there are lots of problems with coal, but uranium is not one of them. Obviously the exclusion zones around Chernobyl and in Fukushima show that there are serious radioactivity problems with nuclear power. There are not with coal. Learn some physics and you will understand better.
You want to look further up thread to catch the gist of the discussion. Other industries a red herring. Nuclear engineers cut corners as pointed out by the IAEA and now there is a very poisonous mess.
We are talking about the responsibility of the workers for the carnage. Nurses and policemen are cleaning up a mess that they did not cause. Nuclear workers are cleaning up a mess that would not be there if they're work had not brought it about in the first place.
Yes, it is what was in the soil of the forest that became coal diluted by the carbon and hydrogen in the coal. When coal is burned, you get the same radio elements in low carbon soil appearing in the ash since that is what the ash is, the former soil. Coal ash is dangerous in other ways owing to its chemical activation leading to mobility of heavy metals etc..., but it is no more dangerous than dirt when it comes to radioactivity. However, cook up some of that uranium in a reactor and the fission products are highly dangerous.
Well, its in the contract. It should be the same for anyone getting a degree in nuclear engineering. They promise to respond to accidents and clean them up completely after they retire as a condition of getting a degree. That might make them a little more careful in their regular work too which is something we clearly need.
I've noticed that nuclear engineers have been pretty good at keeping the major accident rate steady at about one every 20 years. Safe? No. Clean? No. Close to doing something different? No.
Not really. Soldiers go to a fight often not of their own making. Nuclear engineers, most of them, have been supporting a deadly industry which will inevitable harm people. It is good that some are willing to step up and take responsibility, but it is much more like cleaning up a mess they have contributed to than the heroism of soldiers. This kind of story http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/03/18/1356216/Heroism-Is-Part-of-a-Nuclear-Workers-Job is all gush.
Since nuclear accidents are inevitable, it would be good to get a hotshot team of retired engineers prepared for any emergency at any reactor. This should be a professional requirement in the field.
The way one of them views this is: "Our generation which has, consciously or unconsciously, approved the construction of the Fukushima nuclear power plants and enjoyed the benefits of the vast supply of electricity... should be the first to join the Skilled Veteran Corps," said Yasuteru Yamada, the 72-year-old retired engineer who created the group. http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/japanese-senior-citizens-volunteer-to-work-in-fukushima-plant-ncxdc-052511
You might call him a nuclear zealot, but it is true that the younger people won't get any benefit from the Fukushima plant, only poison and sickness and perhaps death.
Back in the day, President Carter was part of a clean up crew for a nuclear accident. At that time it was because he had the security clearance needed because he was in the Navy, in addition to knowing about reactors.
The point that these retired worker make about lower cancer risk is a good one. If there are Japanese speaking retired nuclear workers around the world, getting them to step in would make a lot of sense. There may even be room for non-Japanese speakers as a part of a crew with a translator.
A Federal Environment Agency (UBA) report revealed that a rapid phase-out of nuclear energy would have only a modest impact on Germany’s economy.
Daily Frankfurter Rundschau reported on Friday that an assessment by the agency found that if all nuclear power plants were shut down by 2017, electricity prices would increase by just 0.6 to 0.8 cents per kilowatt hour and there would be “no significant loss” in economic growth.
A shut-down would “have substantial benefits and outweigh the modest increases in electricity prices,” the report said.
The report also said the withdrawal could be achieved without the risk of electricity blackouts because “sufficient surplus reserve capacity” exists.
It added that new power plants would need to be built to support the withdrawal but that Germany could rely on the rapid development of renewable energy sources as well as ultra-efficient natural gas-fired power plants.
In some reporting, there is a claim that Germany is first to do this. But Italy, a founding G6 member, ended nuclear power in 1990 and Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, New Zealand, and Norway never made the mistake in the first place.
Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert said the plan would uphold four priorities: Germany's standing as a top global economy, an affordable and sufficient energy supply, climate protection and independence from energy imports.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0607/Fukushima-meltdown-could-be-template-for-nuclear-terrorism-study-says
Do we need a single security provider for anti-terrorist protection the way we protect the oil supply chain? If the EU can't work together, perhaps they should cede sovereignty on this in the same manner that Pakistani nuclear weapons are 'secured.'
You compare with Chernobyl in either an ignorant or dishonest manner. I pick the one of the two that is not dishonorable and send you off to learn something.
Clearly you don't understand the reason for the exclusion zone at Chernobyl: fission products. As I say, learn some physics and you will understand better.
I suggested it because you mentioned depleted uranium coming from a coal plant. Unlikely.
As I have said many times, there are lots of problems with coal, but uranium is not one of them. Obviously the exclusion zones around Chernobyl and in Fukushima show that there are serious radioactivity problems with nuclear power. There are not with coal. Learn some physics and you will understand better.
You want to look further up thread to catch the gist of the discussion. Other industries a red herring. Nuclear engineers cut corners as pointed out by the IAEA and now there is a very poisonous mess.
We are talking about the responsibility of the workers for the carnage. Nurses and policemen are cleaning up a mess that they did not cause. Nuclear workers are cleaning up a mess that would not be there if they're work had not brought it about in the first place.
And this is relevant in what way? Do you think it is the uranium in coal ash that is killing them? Really?
That article is completely bogus.
Yes, it is what was in the soil of the forest that became coal diluted by the carbon and hydrogen in the coal. When coal is burned, you get the same radio elements in low carbon soil appearing in the ash since that is what the ash is, the former soil. Coal ash is dangerous in other ways owing to its chemical activation leading to mobility of heavy metals etc..., but it is no more dangerous than dirt when it comes to radioactivity. However, cook up some of that uranium in a reactor and the fission products are highly dangerous.
Well, its in the contract. It should be the same for anyone getting a degree in nuclear engineering. They promise to respond to accidents and clean them up completely after they retire as a condition of getting a degree. That might make them a little more careful in their regular work too which is something we clearly need.
Coal plant's release radiation? Into what? Coal ash. What a crazy thing to say. Don't you understand fission at all?
I've noticed that nuclear engineers have been pretty good at keeping the major accident rate steady at about one every 20 years. Safe? No. Clean? No. Close to doing something different? No.
With an estimated cleanup cost of $250 billion http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nuclear-crisis-could-cost-japan-29-trillion-yen-2011-05-31 and a 35 year 4 GW run that come to a vast supply of minimum $0.20/kWh electricity. Not a pretty price. What benefit do you see in that?
Calculating the cleanup cost as $250 billion and a 35 year run at 4 GW that comes to $0.21/kWh for cleanup alone. Not much benefit there I think.
We sometimes require retired military officers to return to service. Doubt that destroys the integrity of the armed services.
Not really. Soldiers go to a fight often not of their own making. Nuclear engineers, most of them, have been supporting a deadly industry which will inevitable harm people. It is good that some are willing to step up and take responsibility, but it is much more like cleaning up a mess they have contributed to than the heroism of soldiers. This kind of story http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/03/18/1356216/Heroism-Is-Part-of-a-Nuclear-Workers-Job is all gush.
Since nuclear accidents are inevitable, it would be good to get a hotshot team of retired engineers prepared for any emergency at any reactor. This should be a professional requirement in the field.
The way one of them views this is: "Our generation which has, consciously or unconsciously, approved the construction of the Fukushima nuclear power plants and enjoyed the benefits of the vast supply of electricity ... should be the first to join the Skilled Veteran Corps," said Yasuteru Yamada, the 72-year-old retired engineer who created the group. http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/japanese-senior-citizens-volunteer-to-work-in-fukushima-plant-ncxdc-052511
You might call him a nuclear zealot, but it is true that the younger people won't get any benefit from the Fukushima plant, only poison and sickness and perhaps death.
Back in the day, President Carter was part of a clean up crew for a nuclear accident. At that time it was because he had the security clearance needed because he was in the Navy, in addition to knowing about reactors.
The point that these retired worker make about lower cancer risk is a good one. If there are Japanese speaking retired nuclear workers around the world, getting them to step in would make a lot of sense. There may even be room for non-Japanese speakers as a part of a crew with a translator.
The excess cancer deaths from Chernobyl alone are expected to be between 30,000 and 60,000 http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary
Looks like nuclear power is doing its durndest to catch up with coal, which has been around longer and so has quite a head start.
Germany apparently has gas but it is not clear it will drill for it: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/04/13/Public-slows-Exxons-German-shale-gas-bid/UPI-70281302709161/
A Federal Environment Agency (UBA) report revealed that a rapid phase-out of nuclear energy would have only a modest impact on Germany’s economy.
Daily Frankfurter Rundschau reported on Friday that an assessment by the agency found that if all nuclear power plants were shut down by 2017, electricity prices would increase by just 0.6 to 0.8 cents per kilowatt hour and there would be “no significant loss” in economic growth.
A shut-down would “have substantial benefits and outweigh the modest increases in electricity prices,” the report said.
The report also said the withdrawal could be achieved without the risk of electricity blackouts because “sufficient surplus reserve capacity” exists.
It added that new power plants would need to be built to support the withdrawal but that Germany could rely on the rapid development of renewable energy sources as well as ultra-efficient natural gas-fired power plants.
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110527-35293.html
In some reporting, there is a claim that Germany is first to do this. But Italy, a founding G6 member, ended nuclear power in 1990 and Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, New Zealand, and Norway never made the mistake in the first place.
Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert said the plan would uphold four priorities: Germany's standing as a top global economy, an affordable and sufficient energy supply, climate protection and independence from energy imports.