Nuclear Power: Do you support it?

[wayneL]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

The Chernobyl Biker Chic Site:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-revisited/

Radiation will stay in the Chernobyl area for the next 48.000 years, but humans may begin repopulating the area in about 600 years - give or take three centuries. The experts predict that, by then, the most dangerous elements will have disappeared - or been sufficiently diluted into the rest of the world's air, soil and water. If our government can somehow find the money and political will power to finance the necessary scientific research, perhaps a way will be discovered to neutralize or clean up the contamination sooner. Otherwise, our distant ancestors will have to wait untill the radiation diminishes to a tolerable level. If we use the lowest scientific estimate, that will be 300 years from now......some scientists say it may be as long as 900 years.

 

[BraceFace]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

2 Comments.
1. Re: Chernobyl - Certainly a tragedy but really now just a historical reminder of how the Soviet communist dogma was a complete failure. Do you really think that Nuclear Power Plants in a developed country circa 2006 and onwards would bare even a passing resemblence to the Chernobyl reactor and its management protocols? This argument is a furphy which the anti-nuke lobby wheel out over and over and over. France and other EU countries have shown for decades how safe a properly managed nuclear power program can be.

2. Re: Nuclear Waste - Agreed, this stuff takes millions of years to decay. But you know what, none of us will be around to give a rats if the current rate of fossil fuel use and associated CO2 emmisions into the biosphere continues. Global warming/Greenhouse effect, call it what you like is happening NOW (if you believe the scientists). Unless cheap,clean and sutainable energy sources are utilized very soon on a global scale, forget about your holidays to the south pacific people, those islands won't be there anymore. Figure out the economic cost of that sort of global population displacement.
Nuclear energy seems like the logical choice NOW seeing as the technology is already available to utilize this energy source to meet current demands.Other options have potential (see Smurfs comments) but still need a lot of R&D.
Technology is also available to make nuclear waste "safe" - developed right here in Australia. Do a google search on Synroc and have a read.

Also I object to the use of the emotive term "backyard" in this waste disposal issue. I would not consider the geologically and politically stable remote central areas of Australia my "backyard" any more than Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Australian Antarctic Territory and other parts of our sovereign nation that are also thousands of kms from 99% of the Australian population. No, I would not want spent nuclear fuel in my 1/4 acre backyard, but I have no problem whatsoever with it being disposed of sensibly and safely underground (from where it originally came from) somewhere out of harms way.

 

[noirua]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Australia selling uranium does not appear to be a problem. Will the ships delivering the new uranium also bring back the waste, and to be stored where??

 

[wayneL]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

I'm not vehemently against nuke power (only slightly against), I mean I made a s4!tload on FXR ferchrissake, but playing the devils advocate here. Lets not lull ourselves into an attitude of complacency.

Earthquake Would Cause Power Excursion on Nuclear Reactors

Japan is well-known as a country belonging to the unstable Pan-Pacific Earthquake Belt. Dangerous areas are specified and intensively monitored as the special zones, in which the big earthquakes did occur repeatedly in some historical span. Japan has 52 reactors in operation at present and most of these are located in or close to these dangerous zones. It is unbelievable that such dangerous zones were selected as the nuclear sites. Among them Hamaoka nuclear power station is most vulnerable, for it has been constructed at the center of the seismic source area of the anticipated Tokai Earthquake. There have been found many active faults on seabed, which are regarded as the source of earthquakes. Big earthquakes of magnitude 8 class in Richter Scale have been repeated every 120 years in this district and 140 years have passed since the last earthquake in 1854.

Pro-nuclear people are claiming that nuclear facilities are designed so as to even stand the biggest earthquake - not supposed to occur. The acceleration applied to important reactor components are determined for each facility and the largest value is 600 gals (a measuring standard for forces) for Hamaoka. But on Hanshin Earthquake some 800 or 900 gals of accelerations were actually observed. Immediately after Hanshin Earthquake, some of utilities announced their nuclear facilities could stand for such an earthquake and acceleration up to 1000 gals. But they did not give any evidence or data supporting their argument.

It is easy to suppose an earthquake causes damage on important reactor components or pipes, or reactor building walls. However, another possibility was recognized recently in Japan: Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), one of the typical light water reactor in Japan might suffer big damage from a power excursion - abrupt increase of output. This is an severe accident which might lead to a nuclear explosion or a steam explosion in the reactor. In 1993 an earthquake (M 5.9) happened in the northern part of Japan. Than Onagawa No. 1 reactor was being operated at the rated power level. It was automatically stopped (scrammed) by an earthquake. At that time actual rising of neutron flux was caused inside the reactor. In BWR's light water is used as the moderator, lowering the neutron velocity so that uranium can readily capture the neutron for a chain reaction. Usually, BWR is filled with an enormous amount of voids, that is to say, bubbles, and these bubbles do not act as moderator as liquid water does and the nuclear reaction is automatically suppressed by generation of bubbles. Quakes are likely to remove such bubbles stuck to fuel rods and push them up outside the reactor core. Then the nuclear reaction was increased and neutron flux level rose above 118 percent of rated value, at which the system is designed so as to generate the scram signal to avoid the serious condition.

This means the reactor almost went on power excursion. The scram signal was sent at 118% but this does not mean the actual value of neutron flux was restricted at that level. It only means the signal was generated. The actual neutron level can reach 400 % or even 1000 %. Fortunately, in every case the scram was successfully fulfilled so far. But this cannot be expected to be repeated all the time. Scram failures did occur in other situations and will continue to occur from now on.

Recently, cracks have been found on the core-shroud of many BWR's in United States, Japan and some European countries. The core-shroud is a huge cylinder surrounding a reactor core and regulating water flow in it. Those cracks, fairly long and deep, go along the circumferential direction and are located on the various parts of the shroud. National Regulatory Commission in the US and General Electric are very upset when cracks were found on the welded parts of the shrouds.

Most serious situation on this issue is that if the shroud would fall down to the bottom of a pressure vessel, lateral water flow will be generated and this flow disturbs the insertion of control rods at emergency situation. With the vibrating control rods and fuel rod assemblies, control rods would be blocked not to be inserted into the space gap among the fuel rods. In that case, we cannot expect the automatic shutdown - the last possibility of preventing a reactor from power excursion. And it should be noted that the falldown of a shroud is anticipated to be caused by the vibration of an earthquake. Utilities have a plan for repairing cracks on a shroud or replacing a shroud itself by new one within 5 years, but who knows when a huge earthquake will occur. From the technical point of view, nuclear reactors, especially BWR's, are extremely weak for earthquakes.

Power excursion mentioned above is likely to be caused even by a relatively small earthquake. A huge earthquake can destroy many components and pipes simultaneously. Coolant will flow out of a reactor, while water storage tanks (suppression pool etc.) attached to the reactor will be crashed. No water available for preventing loss of coolant accident. We cannot suppose what will actually happen when a nuclear reactor is exposed to a big earthquake.

Sources: AMPO magazine, Vol.26 No.3, 1995 and an article written by Hiroo KOMURA, Department of Engineering, Shizuoka University, 3-5-1 Johoku, Hamamatsu, Japan

Contact: Hiroo KOMURA, Department of Engineering, Shizuoka University, 3-5-1 Johoku, Hamamatsu, Japan
Tel & Fax : +81-53-478-1096

 

[emma]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

An interesting discussion on Radio National last night on this subject featured a number of options including reducing comsumption (what a novel idea!) and in the foreseeable future every building having photo-voltaic cells and thus being able to reduce demand on the national grids.

 

[mit]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

I voted for more information. We are getting mixed messages at the moment about the total costs of this option. I agree that it should be a commercial decision but this decision should include adequate safeguards and the cost of disposal. I have also read elsewhere that if nuclear power is increased substantially that we will run out of uranium in a matter of decades.

Don't fast breeder reactors create their own fuel? I know that they also can create weapons grade material as well unfortunately.

I'm just worried that this will be another one of Johnnie's debates where the government just does what it wants to do anyway no matter anybody elses arguments.

I think that the big solution to a lot of this is to lower consumption. Before all of the electricity industry was made competitive most states had a strong program on demand management. No state utility wanted to build power stations and additional powerlines etc. This is not true in a competitive industry where your profits are linked to how much energy you can sell.

MIT

 

[Rafa]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

thanks for you articulate and educated response Smurf...
much food for thought there....

 

[Happy]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Any fuel (coal, petrol, liquid hydrogen, gas) can be and is dangerous in certain circumstances and fear can be fuelled by opponents who actually might have stake in alternative fuel, suppose can be compared to de-ramping.

How many of you use car or gas stove and don’t consider it to be excessively dangerous?
Somebody with time and access to archives could dig up some negative and alarming comments on petrol and gas circulated in late 19th and early 20th century.
We seem to be well over the hype and get on with our lives despite some people are burned to death every year in kerosene, gas or petrol fires.

25,000 people die on USA roads every year, about 1,000,000 dies or are severely disabled on the World roads every year and nobody tears up the bitumen to prevent carnage.

 

[Sean K]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Happy, your argument doesn't wash.

Doing anything in life is a calculated risk: Like getting out of bed. It just so happens that getting out of bed enables us to do other things. Like wash.

At the moment driving on the road is a calculated risk. It is necessary to live our lives.

The argument for nuclear energy could be framed this way as well.

Economic cost, global warming, accidents, other sources of fuel are all part of that risk analysis.

Anyway, I say atm, the risk of not developing nuclear energy is too high for the survival of the species in the short to medium term.

 

[Happy]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Quote -
‘the risk of not developing nuclear energy is too high for the survival of the species in the short to medium term.’


I am confused now, but no argument from me.

 

[The Mint Man]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Just like to say a big thanks to Smurf for his great replys, very informative indeed.

 

[Smurf1976]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

I voted for more information. We are getting mixed messages at the moment about the total costs of this option. I agree that it should be a commercial decision but this decision should include adequate safeguards and the cost of disposal. I have also read elsewhere that if nuclear power is increased substantially that we will run out of uranium in a matter of decades.

Don't fast breeder reactors create their own fuel? I know that they also can create weapons grade material as well unfortunately.

I'm just worried that this will be another one of Johnnie's debates where the government just does what it wants to do anyway no matter anybody elses arguments.

I think that the big solution to a lot of this is to lower consumption. Before all of the electricity industry was made competitive most states had a strong program on demand management. No state utility wanted to build power stations and additional powerlines etc. This is not true in a competitive industry where your profits are linked to how much energy you can sell.

MIT

Uranium reserves - yes they're fairly limited. Certainly not enough for conventional nuclear power to be a replacement for all present fossil fuel electricity for long enough to warrant building that many nuclear plants.

However, there hasn't really been that much exploration worldwide for high grade uranium. That's in start contrast to oil where national and private oil companies have collectively explored most of the likely oil-bearing areas with steadily diminishing returns over the past 4 decades (gas is going the same way but with a 30 year or so time lag). So whilst present reserves aren't adequate for the long term widespread use of conventional nuclear energy it is quite likely that significant new reserves await discovery.

Fast breeder reactors certainly do produce nuclear fuel as a by-product. Problem is the large amounts of plutonium (literally bomb material) that would need to be dealt with. Quite technically viable but the problem is terrorists etc since in a world powered in this way it would become easier to count the countries that DON'T have access to plutonium than those that do.

As for demand management, absolutely agreed that it should be a primary focus but unfortunatley I think there's more chance of me dancing naked at lunch time in Cat & Fiddle (city centre shops in Hobart) than demand reduction actually happening on a sufficient scale for that in itself to be a solution.

The problem isn't technology but rather attitude. Just walk around any Australian city suburb looking at the roofs on houses and contemplate that solar water heaters are one of the cheapest options for saving fossil fuels.

People spend and extra $1500 for minor features on a car almost without thinking. Someone who smokes 10 a day spends a similar amount on cigarettes every year. But trying to convince them to pay that $1500 just once to go solar instead of gas/electric (and get the money back in savings) meets with either a blank stare or "it's more profitable to invest in...". But the extra money spent on a car isn't similarly met with "it's not profitable..." and nor is money spent on smoking, gambling or whatever. The environment is clearly a LONG way down the list of priorities for ordinary Australians when they actually need to pay to do something positive.

Or for something less physical, just walk around practically any office at lunch time and switch off all the computer monitors that were left on, each wasting about 130 watts of power. Then prepare for a verbal bashing from your colleagues when they return. No doubt many of those people oppose nuclear power, want greenhouse emissions cut, were glad the Franklin wasn't dammed and don't like wind farms because they are "unsightly". A fine example of saying one thing whilst doing another.

Or you could just sit beside any urban road and wonder just where that city street that's so bad as to need a fuel-guzzling 4WD actually is.

Actions speak louder than words IMO. The actions of ordiary Australians are quite clearly saying that they aren't really that concerned about the impact of energy use. Sad but it means that effective demand reduction just isn't likely to happen in practice. And yet there's so much fuss about water use when, apart from lack of infrastructure, it isn't actually a scarce resource in much of Australia (though in some parts it is scarce) and it's 100% renewable.

I know that sounds a bit harsh towards the ordinary person. But IMO actions do speak the truth far more than words and not many are willing to open the wallet, or even go to minor inconvenience (just how hard is turning a monitor off?), to reduce energy use and the associated impacts. Short of massive energy taxes (which would hit the poor especially hard and also encourages production shifting offshore etc) I just can't see it changing.

 

[emma]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Smurf - A concentrated public education/information policy on how to consume less energy would be a start. My 17 year old grandson wandered in the other day in his shirt sleeves and put the air conditioning on to warm up? Hadn't occured to him to put some warmer clothes on!

I've had solar hot water for 34 years and green electricity since it was available. Interestingly that first solar heater cost $1200 - so the price in relation to average wage has come down over the years.

 

[The Mint Man]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

cant Agree more emma,
People do need to be more educated, probably even myself. We just have to be willing to learn and be able to take constructive criticism, such as smurf's.
My dad worked for rheem for about 30 years (give or take a few) and has had a solar water heater on his roof for well over 20 years (since the house was built). Sure it can run out of hot water at times (but im sure technology has fixed this problem to an extent by now) but we always had a switch on the wall that could turn it on manualy, incase it was cold.

 

[Happy]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

And lets not forget that half time clock is ticking regardless if it is used in reactor or not, so if we don’t look for Nuclear Energy to harness it could be looked as wasted energy.

As I said clock is ticking regardless!

 

[Rafa]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

great comments all, especially on the demand reduction being the best way to save...

just got a quote for a solar pool heater... $3300 bucks, lifespan of close to 20 years... ok, it only heats the pool from sept to april, but thats fine by me... the alternative is an electric or gas pool heater... i can only imagine the power required to heat 50000L of water... and the pool is hardly used every day of winter...

people attitudes are the key, and the best way to change that is to hit where it hurst, the wallet! The best way to drive down demand, is price... but whose going to raise the price of energy???

 

[twojacks28]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

Rafa I have a solar heating system in our pool and it works great. It heats the pool in just hours and is quite cheap in the long term. all you have to pay for is the electricity when its on! I think it is better then the gas heater as it is cheaper and doesnt take as long to heat the pool. however we do havegas for the spa but rarely use it.

 

[Rafa]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

can understand gas for the spa... you want that steaming...

Cool, that great to hear the solar works well for the pool, will definitely go for it then...

 

[twojacks28]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

but I guess it is what brand and what type of solar power you get installed.
I have one with lots of little black pipes on the roof which the water runs through. not sure what brand ours is but it is very good.

 

[Rafa]

Re: Nuclear Power, Do you support it?

yeah, its similar, i think its WaterCo / Zane brand name...
comes with a 15yr warranty too...