Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg General Electric and Westinghouse have submitted plans (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/a-nuclear-renaissance-stumbles-forward/#more-22835)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Nuclear_Plant.jpgMatthew L. Wald - BLOGS (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com) - Sept 9, 2009

Is the hazards of nuclear overstated? --Ed.

General Electric (http://www.generalelectric.com/) on Wednesday claimed a significant step toward getting one of its advanced reactor designs, the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (http://gepower.com/prod_serv/products/nuclear_energy/en/new_reactors/esbwr.htm), approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — although the model has recently lost most of its customers.

Westinghouse (http://www.westinghouse.com/), in contrast, has customers lined up for its new reactor model (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/), the AP1000, but it was recently told by the N.R.C. that certification would be delayed because the company has been slow in answering the regulators’ questions..... http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/a-nuclear-renaissance-stumbles-forward/#more-22835

I'm not too concerned about the safety of the reactors themselves (at least in the most developed countries), but waste disposal is still a huge problem, and needs to be included when the cost/kWh is alleged to be so much lower than other sources.

I don't think shipping all of it to a fault-ridden mountain in Nevada is the solution, either. I do think reprocessing IS.

The only reason I have a concern at all about terrorist attack in this issue is that I don't know anything about the on-site security at the plants.

If I knew about that, I probably wouldn't have that concern and would have voted for Rogue states.

That scares the beejeebees out of me.

I voted rogue states.

My next greatest concern is disposal, but if it was not a problem when it was first in the ground, why can't it be safe reburied? This seems more of a NIMBY issue.

I've favored plants in the Southwest buried and away from populated areas to deal with concerns with terrorism and accidents.

I'm not a bit concerned about nuclear power.It produces very little CO2, and NUKES- all NUKES even the two bombs, have killed far fewer folks that mining and burning coal.Of course we have been using coal for 100's of years.

I'm not too worried about storing the waste.Some folks are concerned that as a culture we'll forget where we buried it, and primitive cave man types will dig it up 10,000 years from now.If we have devolved to that degree, them there really won't be that many people exposed. Besides, if they are heavily exposed, they'll be dead in days and our "cave men" will figure that one out and stay away!

We need nukes.
Do you want NUKES or CO2? Affluent greenies want to have no CO2 and no NUKES, but we can't afford both. Coal or NUKES+ wind etc is our choice.

Charlie

NUKES- all NUKES even the two bombs, have killed far fewer folks that mining and burning coal.

I'm sure that mining has probably killed thousands, and maybe 10's of thousands, but that's still a bit short of the bombs did. What numbers are you using to suggest deaths from burning coal? I'm not disagreeing, but I do have doubts that the difference is so clear cut.


----------------------

On a whole seperate issue, I can't believe that one of the permit applications was for a place called "Nine Mile Point".

Being so named so close to "ten mile island", I'd think the fear of the name could be far worse than any legit concerns over nuclear.

If this was a poll with the reach of CNN, I'd probably add the choice "the power plant might have a nuclear explosion" and someone would actually click it.

Don't think anyone here would think that.

Funny you mention that Chuck, as I heard the news reporting about how Barack was trying to brainwash our children I remember some indoctrination from my grade school days.

There was a weekly reader kind of newspaper that we got sometimes in 7th grade '74 and I remember an article that described a nuclear plant disaster as possibly a huge explosion that could kill millions of people. I also remember nuclear energy commercials back then talking about how much energy was in just one small pellet of this shiny metal.

I trusted industry over the scare tactics of the weekly reader back then, and to this day. We had the tiny Genoa nuclear plant just south of La Crosse , Wi and I was always fascinated and proud of it as a boy. Good spot to see Bald Eagles too.

Shiba,

I'm a bit lazy so I don't have any links for you.
I'm guessing that the bombs killed maybe 200,000 max,and nuclear power plant accidents have killed fewer than 1000-and they were all Cherynbl(sic).

Coal on the other hand has been mined heavily for 300+ years. It has killed miners two ways
1)Mining accidents-worldwide-.
Consider-there were more or less zero mining safety regs until about 100 years ago.
USA,Great Britain,China,USSR/Russia Japan (exploiting Korea and Manchuria), all had huge coal mining operations.
2)Black Lung-more or less like silicosis(sand blasters) but with coal.Just about EVERY minor got Black Lung until the regs in the last 40 years held down the dust. A very high percentage of coal minors died directly from black lung-emphysema/COPD- or from heart disease made worse by it-or from lung cancer,radon in the mines probably didn't help.

Coal also kills the rest of us. The famous London Pea Soup "fogs" weren't fog.They were smog caused by all the coal fires in London. One of their famous fogs killed 100's over just a few days.The nasty smog in Beijing-thank coal.

Still, I'm not giving you hard numbers-too lazy.Now, if it was a bet involving$$,I could be induced to find 200,000 deaths someone would attribute to coal mining and burning.
Burning the coal certainly killed more folks, since so many are exposed.

Charlie
PS I'm also cheating since in the developed world coal burning is much cleaner now.

My next greatest concern is disposal, but if it was not a problem when it was first in the ground, why can't it be safe reburied? This seems more of a NIMBY issue.1. Lots of controversy around this, but many claim the Yucca site has a lot of problems, and it seems to be located where it can generate the smallest amount of political opposition rather than where it would be safest. I think the selection of this site is more PIISEBY (put it in someone else's backyard) than its opposition is NIMBY.

2. Transportation. All this stuff has to be shipped across the country, which carries very significant hazards. Nevada is nowhere near most of the nuke plants in this country, making it a particularly stupid choice from a safety perspective IMO. If we have to choose a single site, I'd rather it be somewhere in the Central or Eastern timezones where the nuclear plants actually are, so that it doesn't have to be shipped as far.

Even better than one site would be three regional sites, to minimize the total amount of shipping distance for the waste. Of course the political opposition to putting the waste near more of the American population, even in places far more geologically stable than Nevada, would be deafening.

Better yet, by far, would be to store the stuff onsite and reprocess it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of expanding nuclear power if it's done right. I completely agree that coal has killed a lot more people, and let's not forget one other less-deadly but still awful effect: all the mercury that was released by decades of burning the stuff before we cleaned up our act. Heck, I live near a rail yard and some of my neighbors still have high levels of Hg in their soil dating back to the coal+steam days.

The London fog/smog of 1952 killed 1000's over just a few days-.We -the USA- had an episode like it, but not as bad.

The smog got trapped -inversion I guess- and the weather-the smog-made it colder and colder so the Brits put more coal on the fires.

Of course most of the coal deaths are from chronic exposure and the person probably dies from pneumonia.Frequently it would be folks with preexisting conditions-asthma/smokers with COPD-.

Imagine what must have happened in China with 1 billion people in much worse poverty than 1952 London??

Charlie

Clarification desired: so Westinghouse can't sell it to China until NRC approves?

DAS

as for "Disasters" TMI is an example of what can go RIGHT not what can go WRONG. Did it explode? was there 1000's killed?

As for safety - how many years (decades) have past since those designs were drawn up? we are a lot smarter now and the analysis tools are far more detailed to better predict performance and component stresses.

Terrorists will never stop trying. Period. All they need is an EMP weapon and we are all toast - so Coal / nuke - does not matter to a terrorist. Designs have to take into account a LEVEL of attack and plan for it. Recall the Towers were DESIGNED to survive an impact of a 707 jet (the largest at the time of construction).

Waste is the issue. No one wants to lauch this stuff into the SUN. but in reality that is the best place for it. it deals with Fusion all the time. : )

Steve

The only reason I have a concern at all about terrorist attack in this issue is that I don't know anything about the on-site security at the plants.

If I knew about that, I probably wouldn't have that concern and would have voted for Rogue states.

That scares the beejeebees out of me.

I live 5 miles from the "Susquehanna Steam Energy Station" run by PPL. Spend fuel storage is currently above ground, in concrete vaults that are 1 foot thick steel and then 12 foot thick concrete.

My father-in-law works there, and recently I was able to go inside the gates as part of a tour. It was the first time that non-personnel were allowed IN THE GATE since 9/11. There are a total of 7 electrified, razor-wired, pillbox-guarded fences before you even get to the roadway that leads up to the storage area.

We didn't get to go inside any building at all; just a tour bus around the perimeter. It was still the coolest thing.

Does that help any? :flag:

I
My next greatest concern is disposal, but if it was not a problem when it was first in the ground, why can't it be safe reburied? This seems more of a NIMBY issue.


It (uranium for fuel) is highly dispersed naturally in the ground and usually covered, while nuclear waste is highly concentrated and very radioactive. But uranium mining has caused many health problems (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/us/27navajo.html) as well as environmental destruction, and it does take lots of fossil fuel to mine, refine, and transport uranium fuel, and transport and store waste, so it is not correct to state that nuclear power is carbon-neutral.

I live 5 miles from the "Susquehanna Steam Energy Station" run by PPL. Spend fuel storage is currently above ground, in concrete vaults that are 1 foot thick steel and then 12 foot thick concrete.

My father-in-law works there, and recently I was able to go inside the gates as part of a tour. It was the first time that non-personnel were allowed IN THE GATE since 9/11. There are a total of 7 electrified, razor-wired, pillbox-guarded fences before you even get to the roadway that leads up to the storage area.

We didn't get to go inside any building at all; just a tour bus around the perimeter. It was still the coolest thing.

Does that help any? :flag:

It helps some...

I wouldn't really know how I feel about it until I could look at the classified security procedures. The real nuts and bolts here.
I work in an area with security that is probably very similar (and I am part of the security plan), so I know what areas would make me worry.

The cubes with white circles in the upper left are the spent fuel storage. This is from Bing Maps, Bird's Eye View.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3906567183_a1cb68c946.jpg

It (uranium for fuel) is highly dispersed naturally in the ground and usually covered, while nuclear waste is highly concentrated and very radioactive. But uranium mining has caused many health problems (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/us/27navajo.html) as well as environmental destruction, and it does take lots of fossil fuel to mine, refine, and transport uranium fuel, and transport and store waste, so it is not correct to state that nuclear power is carbon-neutral.I agree it has issues, but I prefer it over conventional coal-fired plants.

I think the energy produced from nuclear power far outweighs the carbon based fuels that get the ore from the ground, processed and then used for YEARS before disposal (which needs revamping somehow).

While everyone wants to do away with "fossil" fuels, the current alternatives are not plentiful enough or cost effective to take the place of the old fashioned stuff yet. Nuclear is a clear and present alternative, with a relatively proven track record (in lives) compared to coal, oil and natural gas.

Worse case for nuclear waste storage-not the recycled concentrated stuff(which we-USA-dont' do right)-just "used up" fuel rods etc.

So terrorists break in and -what do they do with it?? They sure as heck can't haul it away?
All they can do is ram an airplane into it, or the reactor, or set off a large bomb, and try to spread it as far as possible.

They just can't kill that many people doing that.They would be lucky to kill a couple 100 in the first day or so.The rest would be Chernobyl, but no where near as bad.I think Chernobyl is usually given credit for under 1000 deaths(and lots of them were because of unshielded workers sacrificing themselves). We wouldn't be doing suicide missions. I think a few 1000's cases of Thyroid cancer(easily treatable and usually cureble), and probably other thyroid problems have also been caused by Chernobyl.

So in a worse case we get 1000 deaths and several thousand cases of non fatal injuries.

Some public health reports claim that the 1952 London "fog/smog" was responsible for 30,000 deaths. Now the reports I've seen only showed a couple 1000 excess deaths over the 4-5 days of the smog.
Still, coal has killed-mining/burning-Huge numbers over the 200+ years we have used it in industrial quantities.
Granted, coal is much cleaner now.

So a worst case really isn't so bad in a country of 300,000,000.Besides a successful terrorist attack should be preventable!
The chances of a Chernobyl screwup should be very, very low, but even them just a few 1000 deaths max!

We have Waterford III 15 miles upriver.I don't lose any sleep over it.If it goes up,I'll stay inside, and get some iodide to protect my thyroid.Just wait it out. In most cases You actually have to come in direct contact, eat or inhale the fallout for it to hurt you. It is a particle that will fall to the ground and be cleaned up or washed down the storm drains-eventually.

Charlie
PS-We have lost 4x Chernobyl in the Iraq war where there was no WMD program, and just a handful of old chemical shells.We lose 5-X that in traffic accidents/yr.

For what its worth, the spent fuel is only one link in the waste chain. Plant decommissioning and mining and refining wastes provide challenges of similar magnitude. Nobody has much experience with plant decommissioning, but it seems likely that each refining and production site will require extensive clean up and be a no go zone for years after shut down. I suspect that current practices generally are better than those followed at Hanford, but I would be out of work if everybody always followed the rules when they handled hazardous materials.

My work experience indicates that it is safe to assume that most nuclear power plants have had releases over the years that will need to be addressed at the time of closure as well as equipment and storage facilities that will need to be decommissioned and decontaminated. They don't appear to be different from other industrial facilities in that way.

Last I checked, most operators didn't have sufficient funds allocated to cover likely closure costs. Most likely the worst plant operators will maintain plants in a state of shut down (as opposed to closure) for years until they reach a financial crisis where the taxpayer ends up inheriting responsibility for the decrepit storage facilities and inoperable reactor cores. Ultimate costs will likely be exorbitant, but impossible to predetermine in the absence of disclosure of all operator errors.

Hanford gives me the willies every time I think of it, let alone drive by it. I believe it's considered the most polluted site in North America.

Hundreds of underground tanks full of some of the most hazardous substances on earth, many with undocumented and unknown contents mixed together haphazardly, some occasionally "burping", some leaking a plume that is slowly making its way to the Columbia River. All this is 200 miles upriver (and in the winter, upwind) from me. Tens of billions invested in cleanup so far with no end in sight. An unbelievable mess.

To be fair, Hanford is not exactly a typical nuclear site and probably no other sites have had the level of mismanagement, sloppiness and corruption that happened there. But it does exist as a worst case scenario example. At least I hope it's the worst case.

A suggestion to reprocess nuclear fuel (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWZmOThlOWIxYjFkYjllY2Q1OTAzMjcwZjczODdiYzQ=)