THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 4 (merged) Archived

[crapattack]

gt1370

It has to be a fast crash, otherwise I see no reason why we couldn't shut down plants, let the fuel cool long enough to ship it "somewhere", and cut up the radioactive components for shipment to said dump. If the economy slowly declines at 3% per year then there's no reason to even discuss this... all the personnel, resources, time, etc. would be there to deal with the problem, prior to reverting to a primitive lifestyle. Am I missing something?

Yes. There are other people on this forum who are much better economists than I, but I reckon in a slow or fast crash the prices of fuel would increase due to PO demand shortages. All of the supporting industries become more and more expensive, cash leaves the housing sector as jobs are lost and commutes impossible. In a slow crash chances are you are still running your nukes and not decommissioning them as other energy becomes more expensive... eventually the crash worsens until you've hit the tipping point where there isn't enough cash in the economy to buy power, energy in the mining, fabrication and transportation sector, and fewer and fewer trained personnel showing up at work to keep the plants running. If it's a fast crash you just arrive at this problem sooner.

gt1370 wrote

I assumed that at some point along the decline of oil, there would be a sort of threshold reached which would trigger a monetary crisis and global economic collapse, which would challenge the ability of the nuclear operator to even exist as a company. (That is pretty much the problem, right?)

and...

gt1370 wrote

It's hard to make that case with a low probability event.

I don't know how you arrive at this conclusion, as quite the opposite is true. It is quite probable that the US is facing a monetary crisis and economic collapse which will be brought on by peak oil. I suggest you read the economic threads. My supposition was assuming this was the scenario, what is the pro-nuke response.

gt1370 wrote:

I would guess that society was still operable at some level, and maybe the government (whatever it consists of at that point) would nationalize the power companies and fuel manufacturers, etc. The navy would likely train operators and other personnel through their existing programs, modified for civilian needs.

You forget that we would be operating post-crash low energy. How are you going to mine the uranium and fabricate the rods to feed the reactors, and all the other tasks I mentioned, in a low energy scenerio? Your plan doesn't address the fundamental issue - regardless of whether there is a functional government or the navy or whatever, where are you getting the energy to run the machines do all this?

gt1370:

If instead society opted to shut down the plants, I think we would have to just bite the bullet, lower our standards.

This does not help your case. How about we keep our standards high, don't build the new nukes at all put all the cash we'll save into something that will keep functioning in the low energy future and doesn't need a toxic fuel that could toxify our potato patches.

gt1370 wrote:

It's hard to make that case with a low probability event. I mean, I would say there may be an equal probability that someone would build an electric car that works and we would need a shitload of new baseload power (nuclear) for that. So, while fun to talk about, it's hard to make a good case either way.

You are admitting that there is a low probability that someone will build an electric car? Then how exactly do you think nuke is going to solve all our problems? If you think that it is a low probablity that alternative "replacement" technologies will be invented that are run by nuke why do we need it? If nuke won't solve our transportation issues then why are the pro-nukes recommending all these hundreds of plants? Besides, we disagree that a crash is a low probability event and once again you reveal that you have absolutely no clue as to the long-term implications of what you are advocating. It's not hard to make a case either way, your inept argument is making mine for me. A crash due to peak oil is inevitable and you pro-nukes have no plan how to deal with it - instead you advocate building more and letting God sort it out. Great.

Ludi wrote:

As far as I can tell, it IS completely irresposnible and has no problem being completely irresponsible.

Ludi, it appears you are right here and what burns me is that these untenable positions are being bandied around this forum as if they were actually feasible. It would be funny if it didn't give people a sense that we can just 'plug and play'. But your next point is very chilling. I think you are right as well that they have "no problem being completely irresponsible" and are therefore completely untrustworthy. We've seen this time and again from the nuclear industry and is the reason that thinking people everywhere should take a very hard and skeptical view when considering what nuke advocates and employees like gt1370a say about the industry.

[Doly]

This confirms that the pro-nuke position is completely irresponsible. To advocate building hundreds of new plants on the gamble that all of the components of a replacement hydrogen technology will neatly fall into place in time is verging on lunacy.

Maybe. Then, how many people are completely prepared for a crash? Are you, crapattak? Last time I checked you weren't. Maybe humanity as a whole is going through a period of lunacy, but you're no exception.

[Ludi]

This confirms that the pro-nuke position is completely irresponsible.

As far as I can tell, it IS completely irresposnible and has no problem being completely irresponsible.

[sarcasm] Yeah, thats why we have had 25 nuke plants go up in smoke since Chernobyl in 1986! Totally irresponsible industry![/sarcasm]

And unwilling to take the issue of responsibility seriously (obviously, given the above response).

I'm not talking about the nuke INDUSTRY, I'm talking about people like YOU, Tanada, the nuke boosters. Nuke boosters clearly have no problem supporting a plan for the future which disregards the safety and wellbeing of our children, our children's children, and others on into the future.

[crapattack]

Doly wrote:

Crapattack wrote:

This confirms that the pro-nuke position is completely irresponsible. To advocate building hundreds of new plants on the gamble that all of the components of a replacement hydrogen technology will neatly fall into place in time is verging on lunacy.

Maybe. Then, how many people are completely prepared for a crash? Are you, crapattak? Last time I checked you weren't. Maybe humanity as a whole is going through a period of lunacy, but you're no exception.

Personally attacking me does nothing to further your argument, Doly, except make it apparent you aren't dealing with my point on it's merits. I don't see how my personal preparedness or the preparedness of any individual relates to the discussion as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I think that if you are advocating building hundreds of nuke plants and investing billions of dollars of public and private money you should have a plan for what to do with them if there is an economic crash (a very likely probability in the PO world). Not to have such a plan would be completely irresponsible to the public who would be the ones to experience the effects.

[SHiFTY]

Nuke boosters clearly have no problem supporting a plan for the future which disregards the safety and wellbeing of our children, our children's children, and others on into the future.

Won't somebody think of the children!

How about the fact that:

... the volume is modest - about 25-30 tonnes of spent fuel or three cubic metres per year of vitrified waste for a typical large nuclear reactor (1000 MWe, light water type). This can be effectively and economically isolated. Its level of radioactivity falls rapidly.

For instance, a newly-discharged light water reactor fuel assembly is so radioactive that it emits several hundred kilowatts of heat, but after a year this is down to 5kW and after five years, to one kilowatt. In 40 years the radioactivity in it drops to about one thousandth of the level at discharge.

So 99.9% of the radioactivity gone in 40 years. 3 cubic metres per year of spent fuel per plant. Compared to millions of tons of coal, thats pretty manageable. I don't see how this is endangering future generations. Compared to the well-known dangers of a subsistence existence (disease, infant mortality, starvation) thats totally reasonable, and manageable even when there is a liquid fuel shortage.

Source

[0mar]

In all honesty, if we want to keep the lights on, we need nuclear power.

Wind/Solar are garbage. Plain and simple. Intermittant, unreliable and expensive. They are good for backups or until we find the Holy Grail of Batteries..

Gas/Oil/Coal are all finite resources. Added to the fact is that they pollute like a motherfucker.

Let's put nuclear power in perspective. Coal power plants release far more toxins and hazardous chemicals than your nuclear power plant. The waste issue is so hyped up that it's asinine. There is no perfect generator. However, I'd much rather have a nuclear power plant next door than a coal. In some grades of coal, there is more radioactive material released than nuclear power plants. And these radioactive materials are spewed into the air and water, not contained in containers like in nuclear power plants.

Nuclear fuel, such as thorium, plutonium and uranium, are abundant in comparison to gas/coal/oil. It's more applicable to talk about these fuels as we talk about calcium. Calcium is a finite resource as well, however, there are so many calcium deposits in the world that it's almost retarded to talk about calcium running out. I'd place the nuclear fuels in the same category. Sure, they are finite, but the resource base is so large that sustained growth will provide centuries of power.

Yes, the wastes are bad. There is no denying that. Yes, nuclear power is relatively expensive in comparison to gas and coal. There is no denying these facts. Rather than engaging in civilized debate, opponents of nuclear power simply dismiss any and all forms of nuclear power. What they fail to recognize is that the only real alternative is coal. Anything else and you are reading science fiction. Coal is the only other fuel source that is abundant and able to provide power for the next century or more. So, whenever you decry a new nuclear power plant, remember that two or three coal power plants will be built instead.

The problems surrounding nuclear power are fully solvable. They don't require some sweet techno-miracle. Nor do they require massive inputs of capital (except maybe to build the plants themselves). What is needed is a committment to the course and sensible policy. Need I remind you the only other alternatives are blackouts or electricity via coal.

[Ludi]

Shifty, Shifty, Shifty. I get my info from the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and they say the waste will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

Or are you claiming the DOE is promoting false information?

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/about/wast ... ined.shtml

[Ludi]

Omar, my opinion on nuke plants will have absolutely NO effect on whether or not nuke plants get built. Nuke plants will get built because people want to invest in them. Very few people currently want to invest in nukes in the US. To my knowledge, no one wants to invest in nukes in Texas. In addition, there are to my knowledge no power plants of any kind in my region, the nearest power plants are coal plants and those will certainly not be shut down as long as they are profitable.

[Caoimhan]

Shifty, Shifty, Shifty. I get my info from the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and they say the waste will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

Or are you claiming the DOE is promoting false information?

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/about/wast ... ined.shtml

The DOE is telling the truth, so long as the U.S. policy against reprocessing of waste remains in effect. The problem of waste is a political one, not a technological one.

[Ludi]

Shifty, Shifty, Shifty. I get my info from the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and they say the waste will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

Or are you claiming the DOE is promoting false information?

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/about/wast ... ined.shtml

The DOE is telling the truth, so long as the U.S. policy against reprocessing of waste remains in effect. The problem of waste is a political one, not a technological one.

Yes, I keep agreeing with that. Yep, sure do, over and over and over. However, I keep pointing out, and will continue to do so, that nuke plants get built in a POLITICAL environment, and always will. Show me the political environment will change so that more responsible policies will be enacted and maybe I will be more positive about nukes.

[crapattack]

Shifty said:

So 99.9% of the radioactivity gone in 40 years. 3 cubic metres per year of spent fuel per plant. Compared to millions of tons of coal, thats pretty manageable. I don't see how this is endangering future generations. Compared to the well-known dangers of a subsistence existence (disease, infant mortality, starvation) thats totally reasonable, and manageable even when there is a liquid fuel shortage.

Shifty, do you have any idea about the amount of resources it takes to deal with waste? "Pretty Managable"? I guess we should just put you in charge then. I keep having to say this. The problem isn't in the physical size of the stuff. It's what we have to do to keep it isolated from the environment that makes it such a problem.

from the NRC

How hazardous is high-level waste?

Spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive and potentially very harmful. Standing near unshielded spent fuel could be fatal due to the high radiation levels. Ten years after removal of spent fuel from a reactor, the radiation dose 1 meter away from a typical spent fuel assembly exceeds 20,000 rems per hour. A dose of 5,000 rems would be expected to cause immediate incapacitation and death within one week.

Some of the radioactive elements in spent fuel have short half-lives (for example, iodine-131 has an 8-day half-life) and therefore their radioactivity decreases rapidly. However, many of the radioactive elements in spent fuel have long half-lives. For example, plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years, and plutonium-240 has a half-life of 6,800 years. Because it contains these long half-lived radioactive elements, spent fuel must be isolated and controlled for thousands of years.

A second hazard of spent fuel, in addition to high radiation levels, is the extremely remote possibility of an accidental “criticality,” or self-sustained fissioning and splitting of the atoms of uranium and plutonium.

NRC regulations therefore require stringent design, testing and monitoring in the handling and storage of spent fuel to ensure that the risk of this type of accident is extremely unlikely. For example, special control materials (usually boron) are placed in spent fuel containers to prevent a criticality from occurring. Nuclear engineers and physicists carefully analyze and monitor the conditions of handling and storage of spent fuel to guard further against an accident.

A barrier or radiation protection shield must always be placed between spent nuclear fuel and human beings.

Water, concrete, lead, steel, depleted uranium or other suitable materials calculated to be sufficiently protective by trained engineers and health physicists, and verified by radiation measurements, are typically used as radiation shielding for spent nuclear fuel.

from the NEA

HLW, whether spent nuclear fuel or vitrified reprocessing waste, generates such intense levels of both radioactivity and heat that heavy shielding and cooling is required during its handling and temporary storage. The wastes are therefore best stored in specially engineered cooling pools or vaults for several decades prior to disposal. While stored, both the temperature and radioactivity of the wastes gradually decrease, simplifying their handling and disposal considerably.

Storage cannot be relied upon in the long-term to provide the necessary permanent isolation of the wastes from man's environment, and future generations should not have to bear the burden of managing wastes produced today. Seen from this perspective, while disposal of HLWis not an urgent technical priority, it is nevertheless an urgent public policy issue. These political aspects have led to the need for the nuclear industry in recent years to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of HLW disposal and, in some countries, laws have been implemented that require operational HLW disposal capability in the next 15-50 years. In particular, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States plan to begin disposing of HLW in the early 2000s, France by about 2010, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Japan, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland by about 2020, and the United Kingdom somewhat later. All HLW produced so far is currently being stored; no permanent disposal has yet occurred.

[crapattack]

Omar:

There is no denying these facts. Rather than engaging in civilized debate, opponents of nuclear power simply dismiss any and all forms of nuclear power. What they fail to recognize is that the only real alternative is coal.

Wrong. I deny it, and I consider my debate quite civilized thank you so much. Or do you think I'm not civilized because I don't want any nuke? Now that's not a very civilized thing to say about me, after all you hardly know me

Coal is not the "only alternative" It dependings on what you want to run. I could power my entire house with solar and some microhyrdo. Since I work from home I can also run my business. On a macro scale wind farms and tower power are becoming economical quite quickly. If you accept that we need to powerdown, which I don't think you do, many of these renewable technologies can help mitigate the transition quite effectively, and with every year that passes they become more and more economically and technically viable. Plus they leave us with sustainable solutions that don't require extraordinary measures to control highly toxic wastes. Measures, I might add, that are unlikely to be possible in a low energy future. Europeans use 50% less energy than North Americans. Clearly there are alternatives to nuclear, it's your expectations that haven't changed to fit the new reality.

Omar:

The problems surrounding nuclear power are fully solvable. They don't require some sweet techno-miracle. Nor do they require massive inputs of capital (except maybe to build the plants themselves). What is needed is a committment to the course and sensible policy. Need I remind you the only other alternatives are blackouts or electricity via coal.

To build the hundreds of new nukes the proponents are suggesting in the timeframe to make a difference would require extraordinary amounts of capital and not only in the plants, but you forget, we'd need to build capacity in the grid as well.

But what about after the crash? How do you service and decommission them? Do you have a plan? Care to answer the question?

[SHiFTY]

do you have any idea about the amount of resources it takes to deal with waste? "Pretty Managable"? I guess we should just put you in charge then. I keep having to say this. The problem isn't in the physical size of the stuff. It's what we have to do to keep it isolated from the environment that makes it such a problem.

There are plenty of stable geological places where it can be kept. There are also plenty of proven methods which will ensure safe containment. The problem is political, due to fearmongering from misguided environmentalists. The amount involved is small in comparison with the millions of tons of toxic coal ash generated each day, which are just landfilled and dispersed in the air.

On a macro scale wind farms and tower power are becoming economical quite quickly.

The solar tower will never be built. It looks to me like a scam designed to relieve investors of their funds. Wind farms are no good for baseload, at best they only provide 25-30% duty cycle. What do you use when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing?

If you accept that we need to powerdown, which I don't think you do,

We don't. We need to transition away from liquid fuels where there will soon be a shortfall. We need to reduce CO2 emissions from coal and petroleum to avoid changing the climate. Society will have to be radically changed, but there is no reason to throw away technological society, with all its benefits, for some sort of subsistence lifestyle. Baby with the bathwater IMHO.

Look at the rural chinese, living in the utopia you promote, they are voting with their feet and moving to the cities in the tens of millions. Its pretty clear what existence they prefer.

many of these renewable technologies can help mitigate the transition quite effectively, and with every year that passes they become more and more economically and technically viable. Plus they leave us with sustainable solutions that don't require extraordinary measures to control highly toxic wastes.

Aside from all the buzzwords: How do you build and maintain and replace a high-tech windfarm or silicon fabrication plant when you are a susbsistence farmer? How is it remotely 'sustainable' or 'renewable' if everyone is living a miserable rural starvation existence? What about the toxic waste from a silicon fabrication plant? Does that not need to be controlled?

Just because you want it to be sustainable doesn't mean it is.

[Ludi]

Look at the rural chinese, living in the utopia you promote, they are voting with their feet and moving to the cities in the tens of millions. Its pretty clear what existence they prefer.

STRAWMAN

I haven't seen anyone promoting the rural Chinese way of life. I certainly don't. I don't think crapattack does.

[backstop]

Apparently an 8mm bolt got dropped somewhere it shouldn't have,

which seems like a classic description of the sheer brittleness of ultra-complex systems,

of which nuclear power stations are the exemplar par excellence.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200603150240.html


regards,

Backstop

[Clouseau2]

Is a steam turbine an "ultra complex" system? Sounds like a perfectly ordinary (although large and probably very expensive) piece of machinery got broken because of some carelessness.

[Caoimhan]

And this problem had nothing to do with the fact that it's a nuclear power plant. Could have just as easily been a natural gas fired plant. And since NG plants use "combined cycle" turbines, the complexity for them is quite high.

[backstop]

And it could just have easily been one of hundreds of 1.0MW town-scale wood-gas CCGT.

The point is that the more complex a system is, the more it is vulnerable to total disruption by minor equipment or operator failures,
and the larger it is the more the impact of that minor failure on millions of people, and the more consequent failures that will result.

Nuclear stations being exceptionally complex systems, due in part to the extreme outcomes of unmanaged failure and the multiple safety systems thus required, are a classic example of this brittleness.

What needs considering in the light of global impoverishment due to PO is the spaceshuttle syndrome, where parts are engineered with a one-in-a-million chance of failure, but there are more than a million parts . . .

Whizzzz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BANG !


regards,

Backstop

[crapattack]

SHIFTY:

There are plenty of stable geological places where it can be kept. There are also plenty of proven methods which will ensure safe containment.

Do you know anything about nuclear waste and waste management at all? You've demonstrated your clear lack of understanding about the toxicity of nuclear waste and now you attempt to divert the issue to storage. Can you name one other "safe" geological site in NA other than Yucca Mountain (and some would say that this site isn't even safe due to seismic). I suppose either you have done extensive research on this subject and should be informing the DOE of these alternate sites, or I suggest you inform yourself fully before you go off making wild assertions about something you obviously know little about.

SHIFTY:

The solar tower will never be built. It looks to me like a scam designed to relieve investors of their funds.

A scam? Another wild assertion and I notice you supply no sources to back up what your are claiming. France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Israel, Germany, Japan and Russia are also working on central receiver concepts. And despite your assertion it "will never be built", it is being being built - Solar Tres.

Due to the success of Solar Two, a commercial power plant, called Solar Tres, is being built using Solar One and Solar Two's technology. Solar Tres will be three times larger than Solar Two With 2493, 93m sq² heliostats. They will be made of a highly reflective glass with metal back to reduce costs by about 45%. A larger storage tank will be used giving the plant the ability to store 600MWh, allowing the plant to run continuously during the summer. By simplifying the pumping mechanism and improving the molten salt composition the plant will gain a 6% increase in efficiency over Solar Two Source

Also
Solar_Tower_Buronga, the world's first commercial opperating solar chimney power station is underway. Even if Tower Power proves not to be commercially viable as people hope, as part of the solar thermal picture, solar trough systems are built and in commercial use today with great success. >>find out more about commercial solar tough.

A good overview of thermal solar can be read >>>here.<<<

As for your question

What do you use when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing?

Storage. And it's getting better and better all the time. What's your point? I'm not saying renewables will replace fossil energy or run what we are running now.

SHIFTY:

Aside from all the buzzwords: How do you build and maintain and replace a high-tech windfarm or silicon fabrication plant when you are a susbsistence farmer?

This is a strawman as I never said this anything about farmers replacing high-tech windfarms or Chinese for that matter.

Small scale renewable solutions, like solar and microhydro, small wind, geothermal, all these could do a farmer very nicely while he transitions to a powerdown low energy paradigm. If he starts utililizing permaculture techniques like Ludi is suggesting and he has some spare panels and parts he can go quite a long time. Even folks in towns and cities can power their own houses and grow their own food given the right knowledge and willingness to work cooperatively. Renewables are about sustainable energy sources.

Now that we've gone down this merry path, do you care to answer the original question about servicing and decommissioning? Or do you want to engage in wild unsupported claims, diversion, and strawman some more? You're a newbie here and I suggest you read some other threads. Until you get some real understanding of the issues with nuclear - including waste and radiation - I'm inclined to think your a time waster.

[TheTurtle]

Is a steam turbine an "ultra complex" system?

Complexity is directly proportional to the number of potential failure points.