They want a тАЬsolutionтАЭ, but have no understanding of what that means. I often wonder how many of them understand that the stuff they want to get rid of is essentially our entire economy and civilization. Which I understand and would like changed, but if the machine breaks down, we all break down. How many of them are ready for that? I propose the number is zero.
I have lived most of my 76 years in reasonable proximity to the largest naval base in the world. It has served as home port for multiple nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines for at least 50 of those years without incident. Those power plants are small modular reactors, which should form the backbone of our electricity future. Other than hydrocarbons, nuclear is the only other source that can provide base load power on a large scale. All the dams that have been built are only regional resources. Modern society cannot exist without base load power.
Nuclear is safe as long as rigorous safety protocols are followed. And who trusts government and/or private industry to do that indefinitely? The world averages around one major incident every 15-20 years (Windscale/Kyshtim in the 50s, Three Mile Island in the 70s, Chernobyl in the 80s, Fukushima most recently). If nuclear reactors proliferate you can expect there to be more serious incidents, with each one making a part of the earth unlivable for hundreds or thousands of years.
Yeah, we really need to find a way to foolproof Nuclear. Aviation industry is a gold standard for a regulated, inspected safe industry that has made flying around in metal tubes at 30,000 feet safer than driving a car on the ground. So I believe a safe system can be set up.
Not really. With regards to тАЬ1000тАЭ year effects. People really donтАЩt understand radiation etc. that uranium is everywhere, that radiation is everywhere, and that generally speaking it doesnтАЩt hurt you.
It is estimated that Chernobyl will be safe for humans in about 20,000 years. Fukushima is probably in the same ballpark. I'm not sure how the existence of background radiation has any relevance to these fact.
Well you also have to take into account that ALL of those reactors were built before 1970. They are built around ancient technology relatively speaking. The activist environmental movement has seen to it that no new tech in nuclear could be implemented and thus we havenтАЩt been able to implement the huge theoretical designs and ideas that physicists and engineers have come up with in the past 50 years! Nuclear was already safe then relatively speaking.
Yep, at least until we can suspend or transcend the laws of thermodynamics or invent the room temperature superconductor, we wonтАЩt be capable of storing the abundant energy of the sun. The environmentalists also tend to be entirely non-pragmatic while simultaneously rejecting any adaptations we might take in the mean time to mitigate climate change while we figure out a long term energy solution.
With a small number of facilities built and operated by an inordinately concentrated wealth of humanity's best engineers, we have still managed a pair of enormously devastating nuclear disasters. The area around Chernobyl will be uninhabitable for 20,000 years. 1.25 million tons of nuclear wastewater from Fukushima are scheduled for release into the Pacific. And that's not including 250,000 tons of highly radioactive waste already in the world.
These problems persist for spans greater than that of human history, so each disaster stacks with the last. Again, that's with the best and the brightest manning the facilities. To scale all human energy consumption to nuclear, you'll have to start giving out these construction jobs to the lowest bidder. And eventually many will be staffed by Homer Simpsons. On top of that, you'll drastically increase the number of tickets you're buying in this apocalyptic lottery.
We can barely manage to not make the Earth unlivable with fossil fuels. Maybe pump the brakes on meddling with atomics.
I'd swim in the ocean after the waste water is discharged to it. It is kinda like my basement: until I put in an active vent system to exhaust the radon gas below the slab, I did not hang there much. Now? Eat, sleep, watch TV and all the rest of life. It is about risk and risk management.
Though the waste water may be filtered and diluted, it still contains a significant concentration of tritium and small amount of radioactive waste that couldn't be filtered out. In theory it will dilute some time after being dumped in the ocean. You'd be a fool to go swimming there though.
Depends on exactly what it is and how dilute it is. The ocean has a lot of radioactive elements in it already. 280 million tons more or less of U-235, for instance. Obviously, only a few atoms in any sample of seawater.
Well, for example I read that in February of this year, 10 years after the accident occurred, a bunch of rockfish caught off the coast of Fukushima had to be discarded because testing showed levels of radioactive cesium 5x above what is considered acceptable. That's some dispersal, eh? Google tells me that catches off the coast are around 12% of their pre tsunami levels. I wouldn't eat any fish caught off the coast there no matter what the authorities say. Let RunningBurningMan have it all.
You make good points. We don't want to use the nuclear power plant technology from the 1970s. To all the people suggesting we use nuclear power technology from the 1970s, we OPPOSE you!
Chernobyl and Fukishima are small potatoes compared to the destruction of the entire planet.
Reactor coolant pumps had to run; dependent on electricity; earthquake knocked out primary source of power, secondary failsafe was diesel generators which were taken out by flooding from the tsunami. I think we could come up with a better failsafe than that, some designs do not need pumps to avoid meltdown at all.
It wasn't just the reactor, the spent fuel pools require water cooling too. Even if they had a better reactor the spent fuel pools would still be a problem.
Then we need to change licensing requirements here. In the U.S., utilities each present their own reactor designs. In France, only 1 design is used. Our approach adds years and $ hundreds of millions more than in Europe. So much for the free market.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The NRC has approved 6 reactor designs, 2 of which have expired. It's just false to say that every utility designs their own reactor from scratch.
Companies with expertise in reactor design such as GE and Hitachi (utilities most definitely aren't in the business of designing nuclear reactors reactors) submit their designs to the NRC for approval. When a utility wishes to build a nuclear reactor, they can choose from the available approved designs.
Our international competitors, are putting a lot of research into Molton Salt Reactors (MSR) based on Thorium. MSR have a built in failsafe against meltdown and the waste products frontiers Thorium reaction have a halflife measured in the hundred year rather than tens of thousands of years. From what I can tell, we are still throwing out money at solar and wind while simultaneously trying to destroy currently cheaper forms of energy by driving those prices up so that solar and wind appear more competitive economically
Even thorium powered reactors need massive concrete. Vice just did a story about organized crime stealing sand in Bangladesh. Thorium is still theoretical. The dictatorial regime of China is trying to start it. Please pull the sand out of your own asshole to make it sustainable.
If you truly want to save the planet, rebrand climate activism to "Nuclear Power, NOW!!!"
This assumes that the protesters (or at least all of them) actually want a solution to the problem they are protesting
They want a тАЬsolutionтАЭ, but have no understanding of what that means. I often wonder how many of them understand that the stuff they want to get rid of is essentially our entire economy and civilization. Which I understand and would like changed, but if the machine breaks down, we all break down. How many of them are ready for that? I propose the number is zero.
I have lived most of my 76 years in reasonable proximity to the largest naval base in the world. It has served as home port for multiple nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines for at least 50 of those years without incident. Those power plants are small modular reactors, which should form the backbone of our electricity future. Other than hydrocarbons, nuclear is the only other source that can provide base load power on a large scale. All the dams that have been built are only regional resources. Modern society cannot exist without base load power.
No one seems to ever talk about that.......
Nuclear is safe as long as rigorous safety protocols are followed. And who trusts government and/or private industry to do that indefinitely? The world averages around one major incident every 15-20 years (Windscale/Kyshtim in the 50s, Three Mile Island in the 70s, Chernobyl in the 80s, Fukushima most recently). If nuclear reactors proliferate you can expect there to be more serious incidents, with each one making a part of the earth unlivable for hundreds or thousands of years.
Yeah, we really need to find a way to foolproof Nuclear. Aviation industry is a gold standard for a regulated, inspected safe industry that has made flying around in metal tubes at 30,000 feet safer than driving a car on the ground. So I believe a safe system can be set up.
Molton Thorium Fluoride Reactors.
To be honest 5 major accidents across all reactors over 70 or so years isn't too bad. The problem is that accidents have thousand year= consequences.
Not really. With regards to тАЬ1000тАЭ year effects. People really donтАЩt understand radiation etc. that uranium is everywhere, that radiation is everywhere, and that generally speaking it doesnтАЩt hurt you.
It is estimated that Chernobyl will be safe for humans in about 20,000 years. Fukushima is probably in the same ballpark. I'm not sure how the existence of background radiation has any relevance to these fact.
Well you also have to take into account that ALL of those reactors were built before 1970. They are built around ancient technology relatively speaking. The activist environmental movement has seen to it that no new tech in nuclear could be implemented and thus we havenтАЩt been able to implement the huge theoretical designs and ideas that physicists and engineers have come up with in the past 50 years! Nuclear was already safe then relatively speaking.
Yep, at least until we can suspend or transcend the laws of thermodynamics or invent the room temperature superconductor, we wonтАЩt be capable of storing the abundant energy of the sun. The environmentalists also tend to be entirely non-pragmatic while simultaneously rejecting any adaptations we might take in the mean time to mitigate climate change while we figure out a long term energy solution.
With a small number of facilities built and operated by an inordinately concentrated wealth of humanity's best engineers, we have still managed a pair of enormously devastating nuclear disasters. The area around Chernobyl will be uninhabitable for 20,000 years. 1.25 million tons of nuclear wastewater from Fukushima are scheduled for release into the Pacific. And that's not including 250,000 tons of highly radioactive waste already in the world.
These problems persist for spans greater than that of human history, so each disaster stacks with the last. Again, that's with the best and the brightest manning the facilities. To scale all human energy consumption to nuclear, you'll have to start giving out these construction jobs to the lowest bidder. And eventually many will be staffed by Homer Simpsons. On top of that, you'll drastically increase the number of tickets you're buying in this apocalyptic lottery.
We can barely manage to not make the Earth unlivable with fossil fuels. Maybe pump the brakes on meddling with atomics.
"1.25 million tons of extremely dilute nuclear wastewater from Fukushima are scheduled for release into the Pacific. "
There, fixed it for you.
Would drink from one of those diluted tanks?
No, I donтАЩt drink seawater. ItтАЩll kill ya.
Many gallons will kill you, not one cup.
Okay. Would you swim in one of those tanks?
I'd swim in the ocean after the waste water is discharged to it. It is kinda like my basement: until I put in an active vent system to exhaust the radon gas below the slab, I did not hang there much. Now? Eat, sleep, watch TV and all the rest of life. It is about risk and risk management.
Though the waste water may be filtered and diluted, it still contains a significant concentration of tritium and small amount of radioactive waste that couldn't be filtered out. In theory it will dilute some time after being dumped in the ocean. You'd be a fool to go swimming there though.
Depends on exactly what it is and how dilute it is. The ocean has a lot of radioactive elements in it already. 280 million tons more or less of U-235, for instance. Obviously, only a few atoms in any sample of seawater.
Well, for example I read that in February of this year, 10 years after the accident occurred, a bunch of rockfish caught off the coast of Fukushima had to be discarded because testing showed levels of radioactive cesium 5x above what is considered acceptable. That's some dispersal, eh? Google tells me that catches off the coast are around 12% of their pre tsunami levels. I wouldn't eat any fish caught off the coast there no matter what the authorities say. Let RunningBurningMan have it all.
And then he can wash it down with a glass of glyphosphate which some experts also insist is perfectly safe.
You make good points. We don't want to use the nuclear power plant technology from the 1970s. To all the people suggesting we use nuclear power technology from the 1970s, we OPPOSE you!
Chernobyl and Fukishima are small potatoes compared to the destruction of the entire planet.
Nuclear Power, NOW!!!
What feature of the newer models would have prevented the Fukushima disaster? Which features guarantee there will be no future incidents?
Reactor coolant pumps had to run; dependent on electricity; earthquake knocked out primary source of power, secondary failsafe was diesel generators which were taken out by flooding from the tsunami. I think we could come up with a better failsafe than that, some designs do not need pumps to avoid meltdown at all.
It wasn't just the reactor, the spent fuel pools require water cooling too. Even if they had a better reactor the spent fuel pools would still be a problem.
We can agree it was a bad design.
Even better is to not build reactors in earthquake zones.
How about cities?
That rules out a lot of the world, at least around Pacific coasts.
Then we need to change licensing requirements here. In the U.S., utilities each present their own reactor designs. In France, only 1 design is used. Our approach adds years and $ hundreds of millions more than in Europe. So much for the free market.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The NRC has approved 6 reactor designs, 2 of which have expired. It's just false to say that every utility designs their own reactor from scratch.
Reference for those who are interested:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html
Companies with expertise in reactor design such as GE and Hitachi (utilities most definitely aren't in the business of designing nuclear reactors reactors) submit their designs to the NRC for approval. When a utility wishes to build a nuclear reactor, they can choose from the available approved designs.
Thank You!
Hey did you use to write on the PBS NewsHour Disqus comments?
Our international competitors, are putting a lot of research into Molton Salt Reactors (MSR) based on Thorium. MSR have a built in failsafe against meltdown and the waste products frontiers Thorium reaction have a halflife measured in the hundred year rather than tens of thousands of years. From what I can tell, we are still throwing out money at solar and wind while simultaneously trying to destroy currently cheaper forms of energy by driving those prices up so that solar and wind appear more competitive economically
Molten
Says Michael Shellenberger in his book "Apocalypse Never"
Exactly Under-Reported. I wonder why.
Even thorium powered reactors need massive concrete. Vice just did a story about organized crime stealing sand in Bangladesh. Thorium is still theoretical. The dictatorial regime of China is trying to start it. Please pull the sand out of your own asshole to make it sustainable.