Pebble bed reactor falls short of US standards

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=594&art_id=vn20080904053952971C234253

New reactor falls short of US standards
Melanie Gosling
September 04 2008 at 10:52AM


Eskom's proposed R14,5-billion pebble bed nuclear reactor, touted as "meltdown proof", cannot get certification in the United States in its current form because it does not meet safety requirements there.

The PBMR demonstration reactor planned for Koeberg does not have a safety barrier - called a "secondary containment" - which is built into the design of all modern nuclear reactors to contain radiation in the event of an accident.

This raises questions regarding both public safety and the economic viability of the PBMR export project.

Eskom plans to build 24 to 30 pebble beds for export, but specialists say it is highly improbable that any country would buy nuclear technology which the US has not certified.

<snip>

The unstated fact seldom mentioned by anti-nukes who claim that only nuclear power must be perfect is that dangerous fossil fuel plants kill while operating normally while nuclear plants in the United States never kill.

In fact, in 50 years of nuclear operations, for the entire period of nuclear operations everywhere on earth, at all times, they have not killed even as much as one year of the dangerous fossil fuel operations - operations that the anti-nukes encourage by attempting to enforce the status quo.

http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/countryprofilesebd.xls

As the above link shows, more than 2.3 million people died in 2002 from the normal operations of biofuels burning and dangerous fossil fuel waste dumping in the atmosphere.

Zero pebble bed reactors have caused a death anywhere on this planet, although several have operated and been built. The Chinese HTGR-10 is planned to expand in particular to generate thermochemical hydrogen for chemical and fuel purposes using the HTGR concept.

Neither the South Africans, nor the Chinese, are not particularly interested in the paranoid considerations of yuppie fundie anti-nukes in North America with their solar McMansions - and god knows how many people are killed from the toxicology of those things. The South Africans are interested in producing energy at affordable rates without appeal to filthy fuels. Although it is true that they will make lots of money exporting coal to stupid German anti-nukes, it is better for everyone on this planet that their nuclear engineers sweep aside the stupidity of the Western world.

Except that we won't be wasting money on this dead end, overpriced, toxic technology.

isn't all technology toxic and dead-end?

Dead-end in that it promotes the continued use of non-renewable resources, and toxic either physically or spiritually (i.e. all technology is alienating to some degree)?

This is a perfect example of the sort of reaction I discussed in "Political Will, Political Won't". It's a succinct expression of the noetic perception fostered by our culture's guardian institutions, and illustrates the way those perceptions call on everyone to reflexively defend the paradigms at the heart of civilization.

in society which is just not there. Humans and their ancestors have survived for hundreds of thousands of years, primarily, by exploiting the genetic traits of selfishness and strength, and only on a secondary level intelligence and compassion.

The innovations of a few have made it possible for the selfish/strength contingent to multiply like rabbits. Will the dwindling intelligent population, aware of society's impending self-destruction, be able to convince humanity to act societally in time to do any good? Are humans as smart as bees?

Not likely. Liberalism, unfortunately, seems to be self-defeating.

btw interesting link :thumbsup:

I really think that, again to a first approximation, we're largely fucked. However, I've been told that people have a hard time accepting pessimistic conclusions that don't have a glimmer of pixie-dust hope in them. So this is the best I've been able to come up with:


If a compassionate culture emerges from the wreckage of this one it will owe more to chance than to preparation, but that's no reason not to prepare. Chance always favours the prepared mind.

Or am I missing something?

There's "economic depression" fucked, "global economic depression" fucked, "moderate human die-off" fucked, "major human die-off" fucked, "total human extinction" fucked, "major biosphere extinction event" fucked, "venus 2.0" fucked, etc.

I used to think we were totally toast, as in extinction-level screwed. If you have that frame of mind, then paralysis takes over for sure.

There are three things that say this is the wrong way to look at the world, though.

The first is that you can't predict the future in any great detail, so the idea that we're all done for is more of an emotional statement than a supportable prediction. That means you should work for the best possible outcome (however you define that) because you just don't know how things will turn out. Your efforts could make end up making a difference, whether it seems likely at the moment or not.

The second is that it's virtually guaranteed by the theories of complex systems that any disintegration will be non-uniform. That reinforces the usefulness of working for a good outcome, since it means there will be regions in which the probability of success will be higher. If you turn out to be in one of them, your efforts may make a lot of difference.

The third thing is that it's not in our nature to just lie down, roll over and die. We tend to fight to the bitter end against seemingly insurmountable odds.

So, a lot of what we choose to do, or advocate for or against, depends not just on how bad we think things are, but on how we each define a "good outcome". I may define it a bit differently than most, because I think that much of how we think about the world and much of what our civilization does as a result is counter-productive, unsustainable and morally bankrupt. So I advocate for changing our ways of thinking about the world to enhance the chances that we will choose actions that are productive, sustainable and ethically sound (both for ourselves and the rest of the web of life).

I hold out little hope that the business-as-usual ways of thought will change enough in the time we have before the storm surge of the ecological, energy and economic hurricane washes over us. However, I still intend to tell people the storm is coming, and urge them to accept that fact and board up their windows instead of driving to the Qwikee-Mart for another six-pack.

you wrote: "So, a lot of what we choose to do..." Yet, it seems that you advocate doing nothing because "doing something" that will have a large scale effect arguably involves technology of some kind.

There is continuous squabbling about which technology is superior, but in general, no-one wants to sit back without trying to invent a way out of any problem that comes along.

I think we are screwed if we look to politicians for guidance. Those that wish to rule rather than to serve are the scum of the earth. This could also apply to those that invent technology at the bidding of politicians if those politicians use it to rule rather than to serve. Of course, once technology exists it can be used to rule or to serve...

We put the changes in motion, but they are now out of our control.

Our physical situation will, in most cases, get much worse before it stabilizes. The same goes for our economic, social and political situations.

The effects will be far-reaching and deleterious for many.

Technology does not hold an overarching answer to the converging crisis. At best, some technologies may make some things better, in some places, for a while. Technology got us into this situation. More technology will not get us out. If you've dug a hole too deep to climb out of, switching to a more efficient shovel is unlikely to help.

Politicians cannot help us. Think of politics as social technology -- the above statement applies in much the same way.

I don't advocate doing nothing, I advocate doing different things: personal growth, community involvement, promoting localization at all levels, teaching others what the situation really is so they can make better decisions, promoting egalitarian, partnership values -- all the human factors stuff that makes life worth living no matter what happens.

NNadir,
It looks obvious to me that you are a fan of Nuclear power as am I, but there are two issues here. The first is "are these reactors safe?" and the second is "will anybody buy them?".

I don't know if they are safe but they quote a german scientist and Dana Power from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (scientist?, bureaucrat?, security guard?) as disagreeing. I've heard great things about these reactors so this is depressing.

Many countries will look toward the US in this regard and not buy them. This is probably especially true in countries that care about public opinion.

I wonder how much it would cost to build a dome? I seem to recall that the Soviet's thought they cost too much.

:rofl:

I frankly couldn't care less about the flakes in this place anymore and all I can say to them is:

Welcome to 400 ppm.

I'm sure that the deaths involved will generate lots more insipid giggling and insipid smileys.

You all must be very proud: http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/countryprofilesebd.xls

2.3 million dead...

http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/countryprofilesebd.xls

Oh I know: :bounce: :toast: :yourock: :woohoo: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What is the US standard for moral vacuity? Never mind. I already know. I've been looking at tripe of the 616 > 860 type for years.

Maybe you think I owe you something, because you're as vapid as a rabbit, not that I really mean to say bad things about rabbits.

Rabbits, I suspect, think at a more profound level.

Frankly, I wish there was something like myxamatosis that could deal with the vapid yuppie moron infestation on this continent of odious consumers in denial.

Now yuppie, I have work to do. I work.

I only don't have you on ignore because you're funny. Transparent, sad, but funny.

so while you are going to do your "work", I will thank the lucky stars that you scared me straight! LOL

Man, you never change your tune. Why don't you just become a lobbyist for the nuke industry instead of trying to be the know it all?

I guess being the know it all is easier because then you don't have to answer to reality.

What ever verbal sparing you wish to employ, it's lost on me, you are just a side show. Every movement has it's nuts. You just happen to have more than the normal share. :)

Have fun!