Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Chu pushes for nuclear power, carbon caps

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 12:47 AM
Original message
Chu pushes for nuclear power, carbon caps
http://pacbiztimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1459&Itemid=1

Chu pushes for nuclear power, carbon caps

Written by Stephen Nellis
Friday, 05 March 2010

Speaking in Goleta, U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu on March 5 defended the Obama administration’s decision to oppose a long-term nuclear waste storage site in Nevada and urged lawmakers to avoid protectionism in funding renewable energy.

A day after the Obama administration roiled the nuclear power industry by seeking to terminate a plan to bury U.S. nuclear waste under Yucca Mountain in Nevada, Chu, who had once supported the idea, said there are now “better options” for storing the radioactive material.

Chu said the federal government should cut the time it takes to approve new nuclear power plants to help reduce the carbon footprint of U.S. energy. His bullish stance on nuclear power comes as Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is seeking federal approval to keep its Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo running until 2045.

“Nuclear is clean base-load power,” Chu said at the Bacara Resort & Spa, speaking at the Wall Street Journal’s ECO:nomics conference. “The designs are becoming more economical.”

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. How can anyone with a functioning brain say nuclear energy is clean?
It's filthy dirty and produces poison we don't know how to control.

Stupid stupid stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Bullshit. We know perfectly well how to control used nuclear fuel, which is why it has killed zero
Edited on Sat Mar-06-10 12:59 AM by NNadir
people in the 50 year operating history of commercial nuclear power in this country.

The critics of nuclear energy are precisely the people who know the least about it, something which your post obviates.

Let me know, by the way, when you have a way of controlling particulate poisons from dangerous fossil fuels which do in fact, kill people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Would you say that your hands are "clean?"
Are they clean enough to perform surgery?
How about your floor? Would you eat off of it?

Relative to coal, nuclear power is "clean."

(Chu is not stupid.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travis_0004 Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Also, we will never be 100% renewable energy
One solar and wind is more expensive, but also it is not 100% reliable. If in the middle of summer, we get a few cloudy days, and we are using 100% renewable energy, we can't just not have electricity. Maybe one day renewable energy will provide most of our energy, but there is still going to be a plant idling somewhere waiting for the demand that renewable can not provide, and I would rather see that be nuclear than coal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Our power some day may be 100% renewable
there are multiple technologies that can be used to give you the "reliability" you're looking for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Wind is cheaper than nuclear
and the way solar prices are dropping, solar will be cheaper than nuclear by the time any new reactors come online.
Nuclear isn't 100% reliable either, it requires "a plant idling somewhere", and it doesn't provide demand-load energy so it can't be used as "a plant idling somewhere". The fastest and most cost effective way to reduce CO2 is efficiency and renewables, nuclear wastes time and money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Time to build nuclear plants
If (as suggested by Chu in the OP) the approval process was "streamlined" the time it takes to build a new nuclear plant could be reduced significantly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Not only has the approval process been streamlined it was streamlined years ago.
Edited on Sat Mar-06-10 12:15 PM by Statistical
Most reactors began approval process in 2008.

Of the 28 proposed reactors:
7 have a tentative approval date in 2011
10 have a tentative approval date in 2012

Which means by 2017 from just 17 reactors we could add 165 billion kWh of emission free annual generation to the grid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. None of which makes me more comfortable
The approval process is one of the most important parts of regulation (in my opinion.)

We've recently had a financial meltdown due partly to decreased regulation...


In my opinion, if our country decides we need to build more nuclear (fission) plants, then the DoE should build them, not multiple (profit driven) corporations loosely overseen by the NRC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. If you understand the regulatory changes they make sense.
Edited on Sat Mar-06-10 12:41 PM by Statistical
In 1960s the average time for regulatory approval was 7 months. Today it is 4 years. The COL (Combined Operating License) is a massive process. The problem in the 1980s wasn't lax regulation or too much regulation it was stupid regulation.

For example instead of a single license there were dozens. Many had to be obtained during and after construction. Which means utility had no guarantee the multi-billion project would be approved until AFTER they spent the money. Also instead of a single regulatory body some regulations were by NRC, some by EPA, some by DOE, and some by local legislatures. Often times the regulations were contradictory and there was no way to comply with all of them at same time.


The most glaring example of this stupidity is Shoreham:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Despite meeting regulatory approval Construction was halted numerous times to allow for lawsuits, legislature inquiries. It took 11 years to build the reactor resulting in massive explosion in interest cost.

The gov refused to certify evacuation route so while the utility had a license to build the reactor they didn't have a license to operate it.

A compromise was reached and the reactor was studied for 4 MORE YEARS until 1989 when the gov still refused to certify an evacuation route (which NRC regulations require for an operating license).

The utility sued the state and the state bought the reactor which it then spent nearly a billion dollars decommissioning it. To pay for this $6B project which despite working perfectly never generated 1 kWh or retail power residents of NY had a 3% surcharge added to their electric bills which will last until 2019.


This is the complete and utter regulatory disaster the combined operating license is designed prevent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I understand
However, I still don't want civilian corporations building and running nuclear plants.

Fans of nuclear power love to cite the French. However, the key to France's success (in my opinion) is that rather than having a bunch of corporations building a myriad of different plants, their fleet is almost uniform, since they were built and operated by a single semi-governmental monopoly.

That way of "doing business" seems anathema to US nuclear fans, who believe we must let the free market rule, with minimal interference by "government bureaucrats."

If nuclear power is as important as its boosters believe, then let's get serious about it, and take it out of the hand of the people who are just interested in it because of potential profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I agree the French model is superior however . . .
I doubt the majority of Americans will support "ebil socialism" in the energy industry.

I would support DOE constructing and running nuclear reactors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. That would increase my comfort level somewhat...
However, the bureaucratic system has its own failings that make this approach only marginally preferable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Sure, bureaucratic systems are made up of people
Therefore, there are failings, due to "human nature."

However, eliminating the profit motive, and increasing uniformity of plant design, construction and staffing would go a long way toward making nuclear power safer (in my opinion.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. I agree BUT...
It really comes down to the fact that the risk is still high and the reward is still low since there are cheaper, faster and safer alternatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. And what are the consequences to safety of such reduced oversight?
Today's safety record is a DIRECT result of an oversight process that has largely been dismantled. Giving the NRC total control of the nuclear industry is exactly analogous to giving the Fed total control of the banking industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
36. You are being 100% dishonest, there is no reduced oversight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. "Regulatory streamlining" ALWAYS EQUALS "reduced oversight".


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. Nope. Nothing gets built unless it meets very high standards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Reduced regulatory oversight is a fact. It is fundamental to the cost saving process
that you point to every chance you get.

I'm glad you've finally made obvious the reason you began posting here. You used to claim it was climate change, but since the only things you jumped on were things that reflected poorly on nukes, that was a patently obvious attempt to greenwash your real motives.

Isn't it a lot less stressful to be honest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. You're being dishonest again.
I started posting here for environmental reasons. AGW is a very real problem. You have dumbed down the effects of new transmission lines, the necessary construction level of wind farms (to get us off of fossil fuels before tipping points) and indeed, even attempted to dumb down the effects of CO2. Don't make stuff up about people you don't know.

And try not to mislead people with denier-esque disinformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Since renewables are FASTER, CHEAPER & MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY BENIGN
when it comes to meeting our climate change, energy security and air pollution mortality concerns; and since you reject renewables in favor of nuclear power, your claims that you are motivated totally by climate change are obviously false.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 05:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Do you consider this "clean"?

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health


Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: +7-495-952-80-19; fax: +7-495-952-80-19. Yablokov@ecopolicy.ru
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.


While the specific failure that was Chernobyl isn't subject to being repeated, the idea that we can escape disasters of similar scale if we expand nuclear power to meet global climate change needs is the height of hubris.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I'm no fan of nuclear fission. I believe I've made that quite clear.
However, I believe some of the "anti-nuke" arguments go beyond rational. The one which gets to me the most is the argument that nuclear (fission) is not "clean" because fossil fuels are used to mine/process uranium, or to build the plants.

Following the same reasoning, wind is not "clean," solar is not "clean," etc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. The wastes from nuclear are not able to be dealt with.
Edited on Sat Mar-06-10 01:50 PM by kristopher
Add to that the enhanced probabilities of a nuclear exchange due to increased proliferation and the increased probability of a Chernobyl scale failure and the reasoning ability of anyone calling nuclear power "clean" becomes extremely suspect. You can only arrive at the conclusion that nuclear is "clean" by ignoring the obvious and comparing it to the worst case instead of the better alternatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
33. Nuclear wastes are one of my major objections to nuclear power
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island at root are both the results of human error. Chernobyl was worse, due to a more dangerous design, however what is a dangerous design other than another form of human error.

This is one of the reasons why I would prefer to see a close-to-uniform design in nuclear plants. In theory, the design and construction should be safer, and, when a fault is found at one facility, it should also be easier to address at others.

If the plants are all run by the same group, hopefully there would be better communication between the plants.

Three Mile Island Trivia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Investigations
...

The Kemeny Commission noted that Babcock and Wilcox's PORV valve had previously failed on 11 occasions, 9 of them in the open position, allowing coolant to escape. More disturbing, however, was the fact that virtually the entire sequence of events at TMI had been duplicated 18 months earlier at another Babcock and Wilcox reactor, owned by Davis-Besse. The only difference was that the operators at Davis-Besse identified the valve failure after 20 minutes, where at TMI it took 2 hours and 20 minutes; and the Davis-Besse facility was operating at 9% power, against TMI's 97%. Although Babcock engineers recognised the problem, the company failed to clearly notify its customers of the valve issue.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Actually the Nobel Laureate Physicist Hans Bethe debunked the ridiculous
notion that Chernobyl was anything but an outlier.

Bethe, a famous Democrat who worked with nuclear energy his whole adult life and died at 99 years of age - he lived slightly longer than the Nobel Laureate Glenn Seaborg who discovered more than than 10 radioactive elements - actually understood nuclear technology because he helped invent it.

Zero nuclear critics understand nuclear science, epidemiological science or any science.

Picking a paper that is an outlier - the literature on Chernobyl is extremely broad - and repeating it as fact - does nothing more than prove ignorance of how the literature works.

Even if the paper were true - and it's garbage - the number of deaths would not even approximate two months of dangeorus fossil fuel waste deaths that occur continuously in normal dangerous fossil fuel operations or the number of deaths that occurred in the renewable energy disaster at Banqiao or for that matter, the coal pollution deaths in the Ukraine.

In fact, Chernobyl is the only commercial nuclear disaster that has killed anyone in the 60 year history of nuclear energy.

Compared to the stuff anti-nukes don't care about, it's trivial.

Have a nice dangerous fossil fuel owned car CULTure day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. And Chernobyl was graphite moderated with no containment.
Two things that have never existed in the United States or any Western reactor.

Linking Chernobyl to US nuclear energy is like saying we should make hydrogen fuel cells illegal because the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. hydrogen fuel cells/Space Shuttle Challenger
And yet, that linkage has been made multiple times on this board. (i.e. mention "hydrogen" and photos of the Challenger and/or the Hindenburg will be posted in response.)

I think a rational response to the Challenger "accident" might be to make "solid rocket boosters" illegal for "manned" space flight, but that's clearly off-topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. I was very clear and you are making a straw man...
I wrote, "
While the specific failure that was Chernobyl isn't subject to being repeated, the idea that we can escape disasters of similar scale if we expand nuclear power to meet global climate change needs is the height of hubris.".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Says someone who lacks even the most basic understanding of nuclear physics or safety.
Edited on Sat Mar-06-10 02:06 PM by Statistical
Try reading about negative void coefficient.

US reactors have a combined operating time of over 50 million hours.

It isn't luck of chance that not a single US reactor has ever breached containment. i mean 50 million hours? Pretty soon you are running up against law of large numbers.

Three Mile Island was the most serious accident and the emergency systems worked exactly as expected. The fuel assemblies overheated and melted. That triggered a reactor trip, control rods stopped fission, and cooling systems brought core temperature down so reactor vessel remained intact.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. And precisely how do you know that?
It isn't being a conspiracy buff to recognize that the public information regarding the safety record of nuclear power is substantially skewed by an incestuous relationship between regulators and the global nuclear industry. Look at how long it has taken to amass the evidence of the actual effects of Chernobyl; and even now the industry pretends the epidemiological studies contradicting their historic claims don't exist. The lack of transparency is not a small consideration.

Examples:
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/575/5448.html

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19870320&id=82wvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pNsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3385,10829180

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Probe+ordered+into+Kaiga+radiation+leak&artid=MGsO5YXooj0=


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. You just love the Chernobyl canard don't you?
Chernobyl this, Chernobyl that, risks of Chernobyl, Chernobyl scale disaster, hiding Chernobyl.

Dude. We don't live in the Soviet Union.
We don't have graphite moderated reactors.
We don't build reactors without containment structure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. "Dude" that is a straw man.
Edited on Sat Mar-06-10 03:28 PM by kristopher
Chernobyl represents more than the failure of one single technology. It demonstrates the scale and consequences of failures in this industry. I used to work in command and control in the USAF and we recognized that the more complex the system, the more probably the failure. You cannot engineer human failures out of such systems.



http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/575/5448.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. That is why the system doesn't require human success (or lack of human failure).
Passive safety.

System is designed to trip, stop fission, and cool itself even if there is human alive in 1000 miles.
Passive safety works on laws of nature that are understood like gravity, pressure, convection, cooling from phase change, etc.

Nuclear engineers have know for decades that humans are the weak link and design the system so that while a human CAN stop a reactor they don't NEED to. Nor can they prevent a trip from happening (like they did in Russia).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. You can't design out human failure from a system made by humans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. 50 million hours and counting says your wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. And every human designed system ever created says I'm right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. That is stupid.
Nobody says reactors won't fail. They have and they do.

Nuclear power can fail AND NOT BE CATASTROPHE like Chernobyl was if any one of the multitude of redundant systems prevent containment breach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Nuclear power can also fail and BE catestrophic,
To deny that is the height of hubris.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. The liklihood of Gen III+ reactors is as likely as all wind turbines around the world blowing up.
That's how ridiculous your scaremongering is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Wow, I just did the risk calculation. Gen III+ failure is as likely as ALL wind blowing up EVERY DAY
...for 300 days. That is, it is as likely as me looking at you, and with a straight face, saying "kristopher, what would happen if all wind turbines in the entire world blew up today?"

What a patently dishonest line of reasoning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. YOU "did a calculation"?
Now that's funny. We've seen your "calculations" before...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Feel free to do your own calculation.
300 million reactor years for one Gen III+ failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. And that number is from what source?
Answer: The nuclear industry and its wholey owned subsidiary, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. No, that number is from scientists.
You know, the guys who actually know what gravity is, and convection, and who designed these things to be safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC