MSNBC: Nuclear leak hid from public

Potentially deadly nuclear leak hid from public
Tenn. plant’s violations kept secret in the name of national security

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - A three-year veil of secrecy in the name of national security was used to keep the public in the dark about the handling of highly enriched uranium at a nuclear fuel processing plant — including a leak that could have caused a deadly, uncontrolled nuclear reaction.

The leak turned out to be one of nine violations or test failures since 2005 at privately owned Nuclear Fuel Services Inc., a longtime supplier of fuel to the U.S. Navy’s nuclear fleet.

The public was never told about the problems when they happened. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission revealed them for the first time last month when it released an order demanding improvements at the company, but no fine.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20363098/

(just another example why nuclear power is bad).

why not do this instead:

Fucking criminals.

of this administration. Deception and concealment are the modus operandi of the Republican party- and it wouldn't matter what sort of poison was released or what safety rules were violated.

The problem is NOT with nuclear power, but with the people who're in power.

> The problem is NOT with nuclear power, but with the people who're in power.

That's why I am less enthusiastic than I should be when I read about companies
like BP and GE taking "large steps" in the renewables arena.

Funny how the blind anti-nuclear sheeple on here can't see that - that the abuse came from the Bush admin "Natiional Security" fetish.

Unlike people who draw a picture of some dashed lines in Nevada, and make expansive claims about how much energy we could get by paving the dashed lines over with PV.

Without mentioning one word about how much grid storage would be required.

Without mentioning the environmental impact of manufacturing all those PV panels,

Or the impact of replacing them every 25 years.

Or the impact of manufacturing (and them maintaining) all that grid storage.

Or how much all this would cost to deploy, compared to an equivalent amount of nuclear reactors.

In fact, when people like me ask these inconvenient questions, we get told to "get real." Because things like environmental impact and economic cost, etc, are only "real" when they are applied to nuclear power, I guess. The laws of physics, chemistry and economics don't apply to the renewable industry.

But we're the ones with the homework problem.
:eyes:

Just because all the answers to your questions are not in the image you refer to, doesn't mean the answers don't exist. If you have a question, it is more polite to ask, rather than criticize someone for not reading your mind and answering them.

Storage - yes energy storage is part of any renewable energy plan. In the case of large scale utililty and for the long term perspective, hydrogen makes the most sense for storage and transportation of the energy.

Replacing them every 25 years - that is untrue, false, incorrect. I don't know where you do your "homework" but you should try reading some books that are based on fact. Solar panels do not need to be replaced every 25 years. the very first panels that were produced over 50 years ago are still putting out power today. The first utility scale PV plant in the USA, Rancho Seco, was constructed in 1984, 27 years ago, and the panels are still producing just fine.

Cost - if we were to seriously "go solar" (and wind) as a nation the cost would be minimal. The number of jobs created and tax revenue generated would largely cover the initial cost. This is well documented. (see http://apolloalliance.org)

Lastly, I take issue with your comment, that I made "expansive claims" about how much solar it would take to power our nation. That is to say, you are accusing me of exaggerating, or even lying. That is a false accusation and you should take it back. The numbers are not expansive. They are correct. I can show you the math. In fact the Department of Energy has the same figures right on their website.

So, if you are going to criticize for hollow reasons based on false accusations and untruth, do it somewhere else where people will "blindly" follow you, rather than here, where people do actually do their homework.

It looked like this:



Then it looked like this:



But you still see those old panels, taken down and scattered, working at a derated capacity. Some of 'em look sort of brown, especially those that were used in the nine-mirror concentrating collectors.

The reason my home isn't solar is that it doesn't seem worth it. Once you are in full conservation mode, electricity is cheap.

I'm ready to take it to the next step and get rid of our conventional refrigerator, dishwasher, and clothes dryer, but my wife's not buying it...

And the thing that irritates me most is that no matter how much solar I installed, some jackass is going to use the electric capacity I free up to cool his 5,000 sq. ft. McMansion to 68^oF while nobody is home.

To make any environmental advance we've got to have a mandatory phase out of fossil fuel power plants, starting with the dirtiest most dangerous coal plants, and working our way up to the cleanest most efficient natural gas fired plants. Otherwise, whatever "alternative energy" we produce will simply go into feeding the wasteful consumer economy that's destroying the earth.

I know what I'm talking about because I SOLD THOUSANDS OF THOSE PANELS after they were removed from that site. They were removed because mirrors were put on them which is not advised for PV panels. The mirrors DID NOT DAMAGE THE CELLS. The mirrors turned the encapsulate glue that is between the cells and the glass to a light brown color that prevented some of the sunlight from reaching the cells. this brought down the efficiency but it did not damage the cells.

The panels were taken down not because the panels stopped working, but because the company wanted to cash out and realized they could make more money by selling them off than producing the power.

did they decrease their power because of the mirrors? Yes. Are you supposed to put mirrors on PV panels? NO.

Thousands of the panels were sold to consumers in groups of 3 and 4 to charge 12 volt systems for residential use. I know the panels are still producing because I personally sold them to hundreds if not thousands of customers who are still using them today. They sold VERY fast and people were happy with them and they still are today. Just recently I talked with a customer who is still using them.

whoever said solar panels need to be replaced every 25 years is simply wrong.

Messy business, all around. So there you go.

I was working at Real Goods all through the 90's. We must have sold a gajillion of those panels. I'll never forget though, when we had to start selling them as quadlams instead of trilams because the operating voltage was not high enough, particularly in high temperature applications. We also sent a 4th panel for free to every customer who had purchased a tri-lam package. ah, the good old days.

How often you replace them depends on what kind of performance you are willing to live with.

Amorphous PV panels do degrade over time, but crystalline panels do not. There is an initial "burn in" phase where they may lose a very small amount of power. After that there is virtually no degredation. It is extremely misleading and incorrect to say that they have to be replaced every 25 years.

The manufacturers publish them. I'm very skeptical of your claim.

But I believe the curve you're talking about is different. The Curves that the manufacturers publish on their panels are not about time and output. They show the output which varies under different voltages and temperatures. Here is an example:



these graphs are not about degradation. So show me what you're talking about. I have never seen such.

The problem is there is very little data on long term PV because the technology has only been around for 50 years or so.

The fact that the manufacturers are willing to guarantee output for 25 years says something in itself.

Your original assertion that the panels have to be replaced every 25 years is the question at hand. It is an incorrect claim.

I suppose it's possible that I was really thinking of amp/voltage curves, or temperature curves. Curves aside, Evergreen used to warranty their stuff for "90% power at 20 years" or some such. However, their new data sheets only say "power warranty for 25 years."

I don't know what to make of that.

are valid. I wonder though, do you believe the claim that area in Nevada is enough for our power needs, if paved in current technology PV's? I'm asking you out of respect of your opinion as I've noticed you are one of the best pro nuke posters in this forum.

Myth 1: Solar electricity cannot serve any significant fraction of U.S. or world electricity needs.
PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html#1


I also did the math myself which you can see here:
http://www.solarbus.org/newsletters/nl1.html
(see item #3)

I don't see why you "respect" this person so much when they have provided several misleading and false figures. Check the facts yourself and you'll find that this person is not exactly using them.

That's not a downside? There's a very delicate, diverse ecosystem in that 100 sq miles of desert, you know. It's not just empty desert. The shade from those solar panels would virtually destroy it.

but it doesn't stop me from wiping it everyday after I visit the toilet. Millions of bacteria die so I can have a clean bottom, but that's a necessary evil.

By that I mean this: there's always going to be a downside of any energy system we use but yet unless humans get wiped out we are always going to use energy. We stole fire from the gods, we aren't giving it back. Prepare for more energy consumption for many, many decades...not less.

I just want us to work toward the "least bad" solutions, if you will.

let me tell you something. solar is much less bad than nuclear. those who want you to think otherwise are giving you misinformation.

No one is proposing to cover that exact area with solar panels. the math cacluation is done to give you a frame of reference only.

if we were truly going to go about the task of "going solar" as a nation, it would be comprised of several smaller solar plants, wind farms, etc. there is an impact with anything you do. I believe if you look at life cycle impact, renewables by far are the best choice

My beef is, that the story only starts there, and if you really try to play it out, there are lots of major impacts, difficulties, expenses, etc.

I haven't run the numbers on an "all-PV" scenario in a long time. I should try checking their math, but not today.

A broad base of information allows the evaluation of a situation with far less emotion.

I am one of those who does not fear nuclear energy for generating electricity, but I will not support it until reasonable, long-term storage of the waste has been resolved.

In debating this issue with some of those who are totally pro-nuke on this board, I find it easy to disagree with their conclusions, but I would never accuse them of being uninformed or blindly biased. We simply disagree.

Not very classy.

In fact we can read the article which says there was a leak and safety violations. you can try to blame it on Bush, but your argument is ludicrous. it's the technology. It's dirty and it's dangerous. it's so obvious you're trying to hide behind people's hatred of Bush, when the real issue is nuclear power. we don't need nuclear power. it's dirty and it's dangrous, no matter WHO is president.

the first problem is that there was a leak. duh?

solar panels and wind generatros don't leak radiation into the atmosphere.

Making them? Not so clean.

when you consider the process of uranium mining along with the dangers of transporting and storing the nuclear waste, it goes far beyond the unit cost. how many kilowatt hours is worth a human life?

Millions of birds would disagree that they are clean.

"Some 35 liters, or just over 9 gallons, of highly enriched uranium solution leaked from a transfer line into a protected glovebox and spilled onto the floor. The leak was discovered when a supervisor saw a yellow liquid “running into a hallway” from under a door, according to one document."

The potential accident was of the sort that happened in Japan in 1999, except it wasn't because the liquid didn't form a large enough pool. One hopes that the system was arranged in such a fashion that accidental leaks couldn't collect in a large pool, and if nobody thought of that before, they are fixing it now.

Description of the Japanese accident, which killed two people:

http://www.wise-uranium.org/eftokc.html

So, which dead is worse? Drowning, suffocating or being crushed in a coal mine? Getting irradiated in a fuel processing accident? Falling off of a roof while working on solar panels? Getting smacked by a chunk of ice thrown off of a wind turbine...?

Or it could be part of the blade itself...

Same old, same old.

That's what killed civilian nuclear power in the U.S. -- the habitual veil of secrecy surrounding it.

And these days it's a pretty good first guess that any hush-hush top secret military project is a totally fucked up money-pit.

I know we got the folks here who will shit all over a thread on anything that isn't nuclear. I pretty much quite posting anything in the energy forum because of them. I get tired of being called stupid, idiot etc, Oh, they know who they are too.

Its kinda like one can't post anything about wanting impeachment because the we don't have the fucking votes people will be all over you if you do, rather than have meaningful dialoge it alyway turns into a flame way. it suck, again they know who they are too. anyways just saying

and don't even post in a thread about the illegals, it'll be the same thing. Oh and don't mention that we need to put our heads together on what to do about the press not keeping Americans informed, you'll just get burned yet again there too.

edited to clarify