Actually the cost to Canadian taxpayers is quite low. CANDU reactors are the responsibility of electric utilities and are not subsidised, in fact generate free cash. The R&D behind them, for AECL as a whole, is of the order of $250M/year. My slice has been around $3M. Each utility has its' own modest R&D budget, but generally they look to us. So 'at all cost' is quite a red herring. Contrast that cost to continually monitor and improve safety with the cost of your vaunted F-35 aircraft. Which is the better investment ?

Hate to interrupt our dance, cmf, but my g.f. is arriving in about 90 minutes, coming in on Santa's sleigh I plan on being busy for the next several days.  

[Edited 2012-12-24 15:10:34]

Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/2475995/

Topic: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: MadameConcorde
Posted 2012-12-12 07:29:59 and read 4960 times.

Fukushima reactor leak TEPCO unable to locate source

From the Asahi Shimbun
Huge Leak of Radioactive Water in Fukushima No 2. Containment Vessel Fractured

Asahi: Tepco can’t find where huge amount of highly radioactive water is leaking at Reactor No. 2 — ‘Fractures’ in containment vessel suspected
The operator of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is grappling to locate the source of a leak of highly radioactive water in the crippled No. 2 reactor [...]

read more:
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201212120033

This is dated December 11
Fukushima Worker: Concrete reinforcement of Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 is terribly deteriorating… now in a “dangerous state” — Cooling system stopped working, men helicoptered in

Source: Iwakami Yasumi, Japanese journalist
Translation: Fukushima Diary
On December 11, 2012, Japanese journalist Iwakami Yasumi received this email from Mitsuhei Murata, former Japanese ambassador to Switzerland
I received this message on 12/9/2012.
The pump of the SFP in reactor4 had been having the spotty trouble, but it went out of order on 12/8/2012 at the end.
Nuclear workers were collected for emergency to replace the pump but it takes more 2~3 days to fix they say. (Extra workers were brought by helicopter even at night.)
According to a nuclear worker collected for emergency, the concrete to reinforce the SFP is terribly deteriorating to be in the “dangerous state”.
read more...
http://enenews.com/fukushima-worker-...deteriorating-in-a-dangerous-state

Everything was already weakened. Last week's earthquake certainly didn't help. It would not take much to cause further leakage.

 Wow!  

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2012-12-12 08:14:01 and read 4933 times.

Nobody is surprised. This is TEPCO we're talking about here.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: MadameConcorde
Posted 2012-12-12 10:00:35 and read 4870 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1):
Nobody is surprised

this...




  

[Edited 2012-12-12 10:08:09]

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: Aesma
Posted 2012-12-12 10:07:57 and read 4863 times.

And only the other day we learned that the new generation reactor we're building will cost 2 billions euros more than last time they had to increase its cost, making the economic case for "safe" nuclear energy more difficult than it already was.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: PHX787
Posted 2012-12-12 10:57:31 and read 4834 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1):
Nobody is surprised. This is TEPCO we're talking about here.

Apparently the "leak" is quite small and isnt really supposed to impact much. But yeah, TEPCO indeed sucks.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-12 11:15:09 and read 4823 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 3):
And only the other day we learned that the new generation reactor we're building will cost 2 billions euros more than last time they had to increase its cost, making the economic case for "safe" nuclear energy more difficult than it already was.

Fusion is decades away, you're not going to be able to run a country solely on green sources like wind/solar/tidal, fossil fuels and hydro power have environmental consequences. Given all that, nuclear power isn't a horrible option.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: Aesma
Posted 2012-12-12 12:40:29 and read 4792 times.

Well, do you live near a nuclear reactor ? Would you support one being built in your town ?

A side effect of Fukushima in Japan was that overnight all the nuclear reactors of the country were shut down. If that would happen in France, we would be even more screwed than Japan is.

I have no problem with the ITER project, though, because even if we manage to live well with less energy in the near future, I still think having vast amounts of energy could be a great thing, to get cheap access to space for example.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-12-12 13:23:59 and read 4771 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):

I have no problem with the ITER project, though, because even if we manage to live well with less energy in the near future, I still think having vast amounts of energy could be a great thing, to get cheap access to space for example.

ITER is probably not going to make a huge difference in the economics of energy. A first-generation fusion plant is going to have large operating costs, even if the fuel costs are trivial. The main advantages of fusion will be that it is so clean. The only radioactive waste is in the form of discarded reactor parts and that only stays radioactive for a few decades, so it could be stored on-site until it is safe for discard. There is zero carbon release. There is zero risk for a runaway reaction or meltdown.

A commercial fusion plant would be very similar to a commercial fission plant in many ways. The vast majority of the energy released by the D-T reaction (which would be the first reaction used by any civilization developing fusion power) is in the form of energetic neutrons. 20% is charged particles (which might be useful for direct energy conversion once we figure out how to do that) and the remainder is heat. The heat will be the primary energy form used to actually generate electricity. It will heat a molten lithium blanket that will exchange that heat to water via a heat exchanger. The steam will then be used to drive turbines much as in a coal or nuclear plant today.

D-T fusion reactions have a neutron flux about two orders of magnitude higher than those of fission reactors. This makes materials selection very challenging since almost every atom in the tokamak will be struck and displaced 100 times by a neutron in its lifetime. This will cause all sorts of materials issues. Research is ongoing into the best materials to use, but a tokamak alone will be a very expensive piece of machinery that requires a lot of maintenance. Even though pure deuterium and pure tritium are far more expensive than diamonds by weight, the energy density is so high that the fuel costs will be trivial. It is the operational costs that will make it no more competitive than coal.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: TheSonntag
Posted 2012-12-12 14:05:36 and read 4744 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):

Fusion is decades away, you're not going to be able to run a country solely on green sources like wind/solar/tidal, fossil fuels and hydro power have environmental consequences

Well Germany already covers 20 % from those sources now. Granted, there are challenges ahead (power to gas plants, which produce hydrogen or methane from surplus wind energy, to be consumed in flexible gas power plants when the wind isnt blowing and the sun isnt shining).

This is a long way yet. But it is possible to run the entire country on renewable energy. I was a big supporter of nuclear energy in the old times. Not anymore.

There are alternatives available. If you continue to invest in the field, the costs of renewables will steadily decline and soon be cheaper than conventional power plants (which operation costs totally disregard climate change and damage to the environment so far).

Green energy makes sense, even from a strategic point of view: Independence from oil and coal imports.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-12 14:20:06 and read 4735 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
Fusion is decades away, you're not going to be able to run a country solely on green sources like wind/solar/tidal, fossil fuels and hydro power have environmental consequences. Given all that, nuclear power isn't a horrible option.

Everything has environmental impact. The question is if we can live with them. As long as everything works perfect nuclear is just that, perfect. But as we have seen it isn't perfect and we are not even looking at the problem of storing the wast for longer time than our historical knowledge.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Well, do you live near a nuclear reactor ? Would you support one being built in your town ?

I used to live close enough that I was in the evacuation area and our telephone system was the last to be upgraded to digital because they had problems running the alarm system on it. As it happened I got a job at a company that did a lot of work at that nuclear plant and several others. I was involved in designing security and fire systems and got to spend a lot of time at them.

As an engineer I find the technology amazing but despite my admiration for what we are able to do and total trust in the knowledge and intentions of the people involved in designing and running nuclear plants I am not able to see how we can run them without accidents. Sadly the accidents that we all know about and the many, many smaller accidents most people have forgotten about show how impossible it is to use nuclear without severe environmental impact.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2012-12-12 15:17:00 and read 4717 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
A side effect of Fukushima in Japan was that overnight all the nuclear reactors of the country were shut down. If that would happen in France, we would be even more screwed than Japan is.

Japanese citizens on the whole are able to come together and do whatever the authorities ask of them. The first summer all of the reactors were off-line in 2011, the government set a 15% energy reduction target in the Tokyo area. The actual energy consumption savings were 19% over the previous year.

Despite political opposition, some reactors are currently being put back online. Geologic studies were ordered on all areas with questionable seismic risk and several reactors around the country will never operate again as active fault lines not previously known have been found close to, if not underneath them.

In any case this is a short to midterm crisis for Japan rather than a long term one. This country's energy consumption needs are going down over the next 50 years as the population shrinks by as many as 20 million people.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-12 15:37:36 and read 4707 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Well, do you live near a nuclear reactor ?

Not incredibly close, but within 30 miles.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Would you support one being built in your town ?

That question is rather academic, since I live in the middle of NYC and there's no room to build one here. But in principle, yes.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 8):
Well Germany already covers 20 % from those sources now.

That still leaves quite a lot to go.

Quoting cmf (Reply 9):
Sadly the accidents that we all know about and the many, many smaller accidents most people have forgotten about show how impossible it is to use nuclear without severe environmental impact.

I don't see severe environmental impact going on in France. I don't see severe environmental impact going on in the US. I don't see severe environmental impact going on in the UK. I certainly don't see the same sort of environmental impact that fossil fuel plants put out as a matter of day-to-day operations. The overwhelming majority of nuclear incidents result in no radiation release whatsoever.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-12 16:22:54 and read 4684 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
I don't see severe environmental impact going on in France. I don't see severe environmental impact going on in the US. I don't see severe environmental impact going on in the UK. I certainly don't see the same sort of environmental impact that fossil fuel plants put out as a matter of day-to-day operations. The overwhelming majority of nuclear incidents result in no radiation release whatsoever.

Do you see it in Japan? Do you see it in Ukraine? Do you think it can't happen in UK, USA or France? Nuclear energy is not even 100 years old and we have had more accidents than "could statistically happen". Ad to that all different contamination sites around the world and it really is very expensive energy.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: L-188
Posted 2012-12-12 17:38:47 and read 4652 times.

Would I live near a reactor?

Sure.

The problem with the word nuclear is that a lot of people not rationalize the dangers because of events such as Fukishima, Chernobyl and TMI.

There was a proposed pilot project Toshiba was working on that proposed to run a village up here in Alaska with solid state nuclear power. Essentially it was the same solid state system NASA uses to power space probes, to include Voyager, Cassini and Mars Explorer. They wanted to build a system to power a small village of a few hundred people.

That in my mind is an example of an excellent nuclear project.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: Aesma
Posted 2012-12-12 19:16:18 and read 4621 times.

It's true that people are not rational about nuclear energy, but that goes both ways. The atom as we called it was seen as a thing to have to bolster our ego, with pretty pictures of engineers in white blouses and happy workers.

Well, things have changed, maintenance is outsourced (in Japan too), better safety features are needed and cost a fortune, reactors built to last 40 years are being pushed to 60 or more to avoid the expense of building new ones, and still electricity prices go up every year. This won't last long.

At least here it was a public enterprise and is still partly state owned, so that the fact that the state will foot the bill of an accident is somewhat justified.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-12 20:25:38 and read 4601 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
There was a proposed pilot project Toshiba was working on that proposed to run a village up here in Alaska with solid state nuclear power. Essentially it was the same solid state system NASA uses to power space probes, to include Voyager, Cassini and Mars Explorer. They wanted to build a system to power a small village of a few hundred people.

That in my mind is an example of an excellent nuclear project.

Like going back to the 1950's. There were a number of small reactors installed around the world including on Greenland and Antarctica, not to mention a few commercial ships. It very quickly turned out to be extremely inefficient and with the exemption of Russian icebreakers went nowhere, despite the 70's oil crisis.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-12-12 22:43:58 and read 4566 times.

Liquid fluoride thorium is pretty interesting. Would need a lot of laws changed to make it possible, though.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: speedygonzales
Posted 2012-12-13 00:04:50 and read 4554 times.

Nuclear power has in its 60 year history killed at most a few thousand people, probably something in the low hundreds, and remains, even including Chernobyl and Fukushima (the latter having exactly zero fatalities from radiation release), the world's safest energy source.. Meanwhile, air pollution from burning fossil fuels and biomass kill 3,3 million each year. There is not one nuclear reactor in existence that's as dangerous as the 'best' (i.e. least bad) fossil fuel plant. Due to their unreliability, wind and solar can never replace fossil fuels, unlike nuclear.

Also, citing enenews on nuclear is like citing the Koch brothers on climate change or Kent Hovind on evolution, i.e. completely useless.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2012-12-13 04:20:13 and read 4507 times.

^ fair points all.

Not to mention that inhaled air pollution is being attributed to all sorts of things the more its health effects are studied. Everything from the lower sperm count in men living in industrialized nations to DNA changes that promote birth defects to various forms of developmental disorders. Some of those causal or contributory relationships certainly require more data to be a sure thing, but it really makes you wonder. We're reaching the first adult generation of people now who have been born to parents that breathed the most soup.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-13 04:39:27 and read 4499 times.

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 17):
Nuclear power has in its 60 year history killed at most a few thousand people, probably something in the low hundreds,

That is a very difficult number. There are suggestions that Chernobyl will cause around 4k deaths among those directly exposed. One extreme report suggest that worldwide there has been about 1 million premature deaths due to radiation contamination from Chernobyl.

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 17):
Meanwhile, air pollution from burning fossil fuels and biomass kill 3,3 million each year.

There are plenty of problems with oil and bio. Not the least that many countries refuse to deal with them. However, these problems will not disappear by switching to nuclear, just change.

The solution isn't to leave ticking time bombs to future generations. The solution is to provide a workable environment. Even if that means we must stop living above or means.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: David L
Posted 2012-12-13 05:41:33 and read 4478 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
The overwhelming majority of nuclear incidents result in no radiation release whatsoever.

   ... even if they're often misrepresented, such as Three Mile Island.

The plant at Chernobyl used a design that had been rejected in the west. What set off the problem at Fukushima was the tsunami, which disabled coolant pumps (it seems to me that it was a known issue). Don't use bad designs, don't build where tsunamis are likely to hit and, if you have to build them in known earthquake zones, make sure they can handle it.

Using Chernobyl and Fukushima to paint nuclear power as "dangerous" is a bit like saying flying is unsafe because of the F-104 and TE901, or that bridges are unsafe because of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge disaster or the Tay Bridge disaster.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2012-12-13 05:57:45 and read 4475 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 19):
Even if that means we must stop living above our means.

Yeah, except that's a fantasy. Logic suggests this is what we must do, but human nature is inherently emotional and once people have a comfortable life, they are simply unwilling to give that up.

What we need are practical policies seeking realistic solutions that are effective over time - not pie in the sky stuff that will never happen. That's where Kyoto and other efforts have gone wrong.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: Aesma
Posted 2012-12-13 06:18:56 and read 4467 times.

Quoting David L (Reply 20):
Using Chernobyl and Fukushima to paint nuclear power as "dangerous" is a bit like saying flying is unsafe because of the F-104 and TE901, or that bridges are unsafe because of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge disaster or the Tay Bridge disaster.

Nuclear power is the only thing we do that can render a large patch of land inhabitable for centuries if something goes wrong. You can't compare it to anything else, even an atomic bomb going off releases far less radiation (Hiroshima isn't a dead city like Prypiat is).

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: David L
Posted 2012-12-13 06:33:44 and read 4462 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 22):
Nuclear power is the only thing we do that can render a large patch of land inhabitable for centuries if something goes wrong.

In that case...

Quoting David L (Reply 20):
Don't use bad designs, don't build where tsunamis are likely to hit and, if you have to build them in known earthquake zones, make sure they can handle it.

 

Chernobyl and Fukushima are not representative of nuclear power in general. They are examples of what can happen if you make obvious and easily avoidable mistakes.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: falstaff
Posted 2012-12-13 07:15:50 and read 4449 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Well, do you live near a nuclear reactor ?
Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
Not incredibly close, but within 30 miles.

I live about the same distance from one, which on the western shore of Lake Erie.

Would I want one built in my neighborhood? HELL YES!!!!! They they would buy my worthless property (along with everyone else in my neighborhood). I'll trade my house for paying off the mortgage (which is WAY more than its now worth) and a couple of cases of beer.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: northstardc4m
Posted 2012-12-13 08:00:07 and read 4492 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 22):
Nuclear power is the only thing we do that can render a large patch of land inhabitable for centuries if something goes wrong.

Sorry but that's not true either. Many chemical processing plants can make large areas uninhabitable for long periods... and kill or injure as many people as have been killed by all nuclear accidents combined (see Bhopal disaster...).
Fukushima was a case of a disaster which the reactors actually properly handled, being bungled later by the lack of back up power for the cooling systems and a response system that was badly mismanaged early on due to communications issues.
Chernobyl... well... A very VERY efficient reactor design with major safety flaws, a test that should never EVER of been attempted, poor oversight by people with the knowledge to handle the reactor... the list there is long. RBMK reactors are dangerous due to the fact they have a positive void co-efficient (aka they can create steam/gas bubbles rapidly which increase the reaction which creates more bubbles...) and use graphite moderation (which burns at high temperature). No western design would ever consider mixing those 2 design options.
Three Mile Island... well basically cost cutting catching up to the industry and teaching it a lesson it hasn't forgotten.

Modern designs, 3rd and 4th generation, can be cold shutdown within 5 minutes (something impossible for older BWRs like Fukushima), can operate without external power and even better some design's residual fuel is safe to air cool. Some reactor designs can literally use fuel sources that are less active than a hospital x-ray machine...
Post 4th generation designs can even use up all the waste fuel (and weapons) sitting around today... for CENTURIES of power.

Saying nuclear power needs to end is short sighted and economically impossible.

[Edited 2012-12-13 08:09:30]

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-13 11:06:32 and read 4453 times.

Quoting David L (Reply 20):
The plant at Chernobyl used a design that had been rejected in the west

Still happened. That it was by a design rejected in the west doesn't make it go away. Worse, it doesn't mean the western designs are without problems.

Quoting David L (Reply 20):
What set off the problem at Fukushima was the tsunami

And there will be tsunamis in the future. And there will be earthquakes in the future. And there will be many other disasters in the future. Some of them will be bigger than we design for. Several nuclear plants are not designed for as big earthquakes as we now know are likely to hit them. Only question is when.

Quoting David L (Reply 20):
Using Chernobyl and Fukushima to paint nuclear power as "dangerous" is a bit like saying flying is unsafe because of the F-104 and TE901

Flying is unsafe. We expect there to be a number of accidents each year.

Only thing is that we consider the risk of a severe accident to be so small that most people are prepared to take the risk and we consider the consequences of the accidents we know will happen to be small enough.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 21):
What we need are practical policies seeking realistic solutions that are effective over time

Absolutely. Making sure we live within our means does not necessarily mean stopping what we do. It can just as easily mean making sure we are able to supply what we need. Often it takes very small changes.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 24):
They they would buy my worthless property

Doubt it  
Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 25):
Modern designs, 3rd and 4th generation, can be cold shutdown within 5 minutes (something impossible for older BWRs like Fukushima), can operate without external power and even better some design's residual fuel is safe to air cool.

Sounds great. Do you think they can't have accidents?

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 25):
Some reactor designs can literally use fuel sources that are less active than a hospital x-ray machine...

For commercial applications applicable to what we are talking about with no other issues?

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 25):
Saying nuclear power needs to end is short sighted and economically impossible.

Really. You mean that there is no other way than using nuclear power.... How did the world survive so long... How is it that only about 15% of the worlds countries have nuclear power? Only 3 having more than 50% of electrical power coming from nuclear.

Sure it would create extreme problems to end it tomorrow. But ending it over a couple of decades is very doable.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: northstardc4m
Posted 2012-12-13 13:31:07 and read 4440 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 26):
Sounds great. Do you think they can't have accidents?

Anything can have accidents... name me one totally safe AND reliable method of large scale power generation?
Coal mining kills more people a year than Nuclear power has ever, not to mention the radiation released by coal power is much higher than that from nuclear power
Oil... oil spills, refinery/tank fires, etc etc
Gas pipe line explosions
Wind power... well when there's wind... and hope they don't have a run away.
Solar... when the sun shines...
Hydroelectric... well thats it, we will just build dams everywhere! Sorry about all the flooded land and all...

As for nuclear... a couple examples of current development designs that have much higher safety:
PBR-Pebble Bed Reactors... worst case scenario: local low level radiation release in the plant. Meltdown impossible. Does not need cooling or emergency moderator..Also nicely can run on alternate isotopes like Thorium, weapons waste, left over fuel from traditional reactors, etc...
MSR-Molten Salt Reactors... Shut down means shut down. Shut the circulation pumps off, the reaction stops, no meltdown, no separate moderators or control rods.

Quoting cmf (Reply 26):
Really. You mean that there is no other way than using nuclear power.... How did the world survive so long... How is it that only about 15% of the worlds countries have nuclear power? Only 3 having more than 50% of electrical power coming from nuclear.

Well lets look at this:
What percentage of the worlds countries do 90% of the worlds economy rely on? Oh, that 15%...

The other half... what do you replace it with? Cause there aren't enough base load sources available without burning fossil fuels instead.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: MD-90
Posted 2012-12-13 14:18:58 and read 4425 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Well, do you live near a nuclear reactor ?

Yes. It's called Browns Ferry and it's about 10 miles from my house. When it was built it was the most powerful nuclear plant in the world and the first to generate more than 1 gigawatt of power. Even though it's had a few safety issues over the years I've never given living near it a second thought.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 25):
Modern designs, 3rd and 4th generation, can be cold shutdown within 5 minutes (something impossible for older BWRs like Fukushima), can operate without external power and even better some design's residual fuel is safe to air cool.

This happened to us in April 2011 when the tornadoes that ravaged Mississippi and Alabama knocked out all of the power lines leading in and out of Browns Ferry. The reactors were put in emergency shutdown because they (being old) can't operate without outside power. Unfortunately it took a week to start generating power again because the startup sequence isn't something that happens overnight. Despite Wheeler and Wilson dams being nearby we didn't get our power turned on for the full week because TVA wouldn't allow the utilities to reconnect people until Browns Ferry was active again. Huntsville and Decatur were without power for a week, luckily Athens had some powered areas (sadly not my house).

Quoting cmf (Reply 26):
How is it that only about 15% of the worlds countries have nuclear power?

Because it's technically difficult and the plants cost more than coal, natural gas, or oil power plants.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-13 17:57:51 and read 4383 times.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 27):
Anything can have accidents... name me one totally safe AND reliable method of large scale power generation?

My point   We are not able to do anything totally safe. We must be able to handle accidents.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 27):
worst case scenario: local low level radiation release in the plant.

That isn't worst case scenario.

On top of that your suggestions are not even commercial applications and some of them were turned down as unpractical before.

Better spend the time and money on options with less problems and less long term uncertainty.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 27):
Well lets look at this:
What percentage of the worlds countries do 90% of the worlds economy rely on? Oh, that 15%...

The problem with made up data is that it very rarely reflect reality.

What you call 90% is in reality about 77.5%. Sounds pretty high but you only get this number if you count full GDP even when nuclear power is just a fraction of total electricity produced. In USA nuclear represents about 19.3% of produced electricity so it seems very inappropriate to count 100% of GDP. China is even worse with only 1.9% of electricity coming from nuclear.

While still over representing I took the percentage of nuclear electrical production per countries GDP and then you get that about 14.4% of the worlds economy is related to nuclear power. 90% vs 14.4%....

I used CIA's 2011 data for GDP and IAEA 2012 data for nuclear electrical share and countries with nuclear power.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 27):
The other half... what do you replace it with? Cause there aren't enough base load sources available without burning fossil fuels instead.

What other half?

It is not unrealistic we can save 15% just by being smarter. Then look at renewable energy. It already represent more than 15% in many countries and that is without hydro.

Instead of spending time and money on next generation nuclear with its uncertainty lets spend that time and money on developing ways to store energy and cleaning when using biomass.

Maybe there will be enough left to figure out how to counter the effects of Fukushima.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: MD-90
Posted 2012-12-13 19:15:39 and read 4377 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
China is even worse with only 1.9% of electricity coming from nuclear.

Given China's history of political graft and shoddy construction when it comes to assigning big contracts do you really want to encourage them to build more nuclear power plants?

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: stasisLAX
Posted 2012-12-13 19:43:00 and read 4369 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 10):
Geologic studies were ordered on all areas with questionable seismic risk and several reactors around the country will never operate again as active fault lines not previously known have been found close to, if not underneath them.

Here's one of the nuclear plants in Japan where it was determined that an earthquake fault line runs DIRECTLY UNDERNEATH the plant. Very scary to think that the Japanese Government would allow, in this case, Japan Atomic Power (not TEPCO), to build a plant over a fault line. Now, Japan Atomic Power may have to decommission the Tsuruga nuclear power plant "after seismologists concluded the plant is sitting over an active fault line".

Source: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201212110030

Of course, here in the United States, we have the San Onofre Nuclear Plant along the Pacific Ocean in north San Diego County that has been closed for a year for numerous safety issues, and which the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission called "outdated"..... although the plant is still loaded with tons of radioactive waste that needs to be disposed of somewhere.   

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-14 02:36:19 and read 4334 times.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 30):
Given China's history of political graft and shoddy construction when it comes to assigning big contracts do you really want to encourage them to build more nuclear power plants?

What gives you the idea I want that?

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2012-12-14 04:20:50 and read 4320 times.

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 31):
Very scary to think that the Japanese Government would allow, in this case, Japan Atomic Power (not TEPCO), to build a plant over a fault line.

The fault was undiscovered at the time the plant was built. Geophysics has advanced by leaps and bounds since the late 1960s when the plant was originally constructed.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: MD-90
Posted 2012-12-14 23:23:38 and read 4262 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
What gives you the idea I want that?

I'm just saying let's not encourage them.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: northstardc4m
Posted 2012-12-18 08:25:09 and read 4017 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
Instead of spending time and money on next generation nuclear with its uncertainty lets spend that time and money on developing ways to store energy and cleaning when using biomass.

Storing commercially viable power is an even bigger uncertainty than nuclear in 1945... to date the only method that works is pumped hydro, and it's only viable in limited areas.

Biomass... even IF they could get it up to 50% thermal efficiency AND make it carbon neutral (both no where near being met today), you would still be at best providing 13% of the worlds electrical needs, and that includes all biomass already on the grid now! Biomass isn't a fix to the electricity problem, its a fix to the "leftover usable fuel going to waste" problem, and yes it's useful and baseload power, but not much more.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
It is not unrealistic we can save 15% just by being smarter. Then look at renewable energy. It already represent more than 15% in many countries and that is without hydro.

Energy use in the past 20 years has increased 20% in developed countries, 15% gained in efficiency will be overshot by increased need, and that increased need it going to be accelerating not slowing down (electric cars, electric transit, more electronics, etc etc)

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 31):
Here's one of the nuclear plants in Japan where it was determined that an earthquake fault line runs DIRECTLY UNDERNEATH the plant. Very scary to think that the Japanese Government would allow, in this case, Japan Atomic Power (not TEPCO), to build a plant over a fault line. Now, Japan Atomic Power may have to decommission the Tsuruga nuclear power plant "after seismologists concluded the plant is sitting over an active fault line".

Japan is full of faults and they didn't know about this one until recently... not saying it's a good thing but the plant can be decommissioned and defueled and not be a threat to anyone. And every audit of the Japanese industry seems to be finding more and more lack of oversight and corner cutting, that lesson should of been learned already... Japan is hardly the example of responsible nuclear industry management.

Alright, I'm going to put this simply:

Nuclear power is not a big bad boogeyman, it can be used SAFELY.
Nuclear power is a better option than coal or oil; coal mining, cleaning and burning releases more radioactivity every 2 years than Fukushima has.

Tie nuclear in with green (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal) and semi-green (biomass, gas-recovery, low emission gas) and we can get rid of the polluting power in our lifetimes, nothing else provides this option.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-18 10:21:56 and read 3985 times.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 35):
Storing commercially viable power is an even bigger uncertainty than nuclear in 1945

A blanket statement with large historical holes. In 1945 no electricity had been generated by nuclear power. It wasn't until about a decade later anything reached the grid.

We already have decades of experience storing energy with the help of hydro and we have many proposals about how to go about doing it on a larger scale.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 35):
Biomass... even IF they could get it up to 50% thermal efficiency AND make it carbon neutral (both no where near being met today), you would still be at best providing 13% of the worlds electrical needs, and that includes all biomass already on the grid now!

How many nuclear plants are at 50% thermal efficiency? IIRC they are in the 30 - 35% range.

13% is pretty much what nuclear is providing today...

Love to see why you think biomass can't go above 13%.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 35):
Energy use in the past 20 years has increased 20% in developed countries, 15% gained in efficiency will be overshot by increased need, and that increased need it going to be accelerating not slowing down (electric cars, electric transit, more electronics, etc etc)

Again, the 15% was just to replace existing nuclear. Don't try to make it in to something else.

The underlying suggestion that we need nuclear power to sustain growth is far from true. Developed countries have built very few nuclear reactors in the last 20 years.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 35):
Japan is full of faults and they didn't know about this one until recently

Big part of the problem. There is a lot we don't know. No doubt we will continue learning more and more.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 35):
Nuclear power is not a big bad boogeyman, it can be used SAFELY.

Everything humans touch fails at some point of time. We really should understand that we are not able to run anything without things failing from time to time.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 35):
Nuclear power is a better option than coal or oil; coal mining, cleaning and burning releases more radioactivity every 2 years than Fukushima has.

Not in same concentration. Look how much mutations there has been because of the high concentration around Fukushima .

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: northstardc4m
Posted 2012-12-18 11:24:04 and read 3972 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
Not in same concentration. Look how much mutations there has been because of the high concentration around Fukushima .

I have looked, and it's not significant.

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
Love to see why you think biomass can't go above 13%.

Lack of fuel sources... unless you want to start making biofuel for the sake of making biofuel instead of edible food stock anyways.

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
A blanket statement with large historical holes. In 1945 no electricity had been generated by nuclear power. It wasn't until about a decade later anything reached the grid.

We already have decades of experience storing energy with the help of hydro and we have many proposals about how to go about doing it on a larger scale.

There is LIMITED experience with pumped hydro storage. Yes there are proposals, but even with them all built the total capacity available from them would be about 0.03% of the world demand.

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
Not in same concentration. Look how much mutations there has been because of the high concentration around Fukushima .

Checking Fukushima now for mutations and pointing the finger at nuclear power is pointless, the short lived high powered isotopes were still present during the lifecycles of the current generations. Also the tidal wave caused all kinds of nutritional contamination all over Japan leading to "mutations" in offspring. Radioactivity induced gene mutations take long term exposure, where as fetal damage can happen quickly (both radiation induced and chemically), it's too soon to know what type are being seen in the Fukushima insects and wildlife.

If we look at Chernobyl, there is a marked decrease is "mutations" since 1990. When the isotopes at Fukushima are down to the long lived ones like Caesium 131 and 137 it's worth worrying about mutation. On the flip side of your argument many areas that were showing elevated radioactivity within weeks of the accident have dropped to safe levels already. Radiation isn't as permanent as people would be led to believe, the radiactive isotopes that have long half-lives (Caesium, Americium, Thorium, Iodine) are not the high powered nasty ones that people scream about (Uranium, Plutonium) that are not present in the Fukushima incident and very VERY limited at Chernobyl.

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
Everything humans touch fails at some point of time. We really should understand that we are not able to run anything without things failing from time to time.
Right so lets all go live in caves! All this technology is too dangerous cause it might possibly maybe someday fail!

Seriously?
Failure can be mitigated, and as I have said, newer nuclear plants can avoid Fukushima disasters (actually if Fukushima had followed ITS OWN MANDATED DISASTER RECOVERY DESIGN it wouldn't of happened). Non-traditional designs CAN'T MELTDOWN, don't need waste fuel storage and shut off without long cool down periods, and don't leave nasty high powered fuel waste to deal with.

Coal mines collapse and explode and kill people OFTEN!
oil derricks, tankers, pipelines, refineries, etc catch fire and spill oil and kill people and wildlife OFTEN!
gas pipelines REALLY explode occasionally
wind turbines fail, kill birds and are really expensive to maintain
solar cells use really nasty compounds to produce them and are really REALLY REALLY expensive to maintain and build.
dams fail
... no such thing as perfect clean safe electricity.
And if you stop using nuclear power now you still leave a high pile of leftover radioactive waste for future generations... instead of finding ways to use the entire fuel cycle safely and leaving much safer and easier to contain waste for our children.

World electricity demand is expected to increase 45% by 2050. That leaves 30% even with a 15% efficiency increase. Take out the 54% of the current world production based on coal and heavy oil and you have a REALLY big shortfall... please show me how to fill 60% of the electrical load without nuclear?

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-19 04:10:56 and read 3910 times.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
I have looked, and it's not significant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19245818

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
Lack of fuel sources... unless you want to start making biofuel for the sake of making biofuel instead of edible food stock anyways.

If you wan't to use this argument first address the large amounts of unused farm land and land used for producing unwanted crop. Also address the high wastage of food crop and the conversion of farmland to low density housing.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
There is LIMITED experience with pumped hydro storage. Yes there are proposals, but even with them all built the total capacity available from them would be about 0.03% of the world demand.

Again, hydro storage is just one of many proposals but one that has been used for a long time. The key point is that the need to store electricity is relativity recent as wind and sun start to be significant sources. With this change of need it is realistic to expect fast development.

The nuclear solutions you are proposing on the other hand has been the next technology for 50 years or so already and is still only at experimental stage with most experiments having been scrapped. Even the most optimistic do not see it as commercial product until around 2030.

In my opinion the only reason to spend money on it is the promise that it would convert the several thousand year problem we have created for future generations to "just" a couple hundred year problem.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
Checking Fukushima now for mutations and pointing the finger at nuclear power is pointless, the short lived high powered isotopes were still present during the lifecycles of the current generations.

I don't know why you play down the consequences. A simple example; It is now more than 25 years since Chernobyl and there is still plenty of land in Western Europe from where the crop and animals are unfit for consumption.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
Right so lets all go live in caves! All this technology is too dangerous cause it might possibly maybe someday fail!

Scaremongering. Why do you even make such an argument. It isn't what opponents of nuclear power suggest so why do you go down this route? I can only see it as lack of supportive arguments for your position.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
Failure can be mitigated, and as I have said, newer nuclear plants can avoid Fukushima disasters (actually if Fukushima had followed ITS OWN MANDATED DISASTER RECOVERY DESIGN it wouldn't of happened).

Seriously, this is the problem. Over time there are always IFs coming to bite you. We have alternatives so lets remove that set of ifs.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
no such thing as perfect clean safe electricity.

Correct. But let's not pick the ones with highest long term danger just because it can be short term best.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
World electricity demand is expected to increase 45% by 2050.

So lets make sure to start creating electricity from renewable sources instead of pinning our hopes to technology that has been abandoned several times already.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: northstardc4m
Posted 2012-12-19 09:12:11 and read 3873 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 38):
I don't know why you play down the consequences. A simple example; It is now more than 25 years since Chernobyl and there is still plenty of land in Western Europe from where the crop and animals are unfit for consumption.

I don't play down the consequences anymore than you play then up...
Don't get me wrong, Chernobyl is a horrible disaster, but it was the fault of a system that wasn't doing it's job, not of all nuclear energy. There are THOUSANDS of nuclear reactors in the world, and exactly TWO major accidents, ONE of which was the fault of the reactor itself even in part.

Nuclear power has killed less people than 1 commercial airliner crash.

Quoting cmf (Reply 38):
Correct. But let's not pick the ones with highest long term danger just because it can be short term best.

Ok good bye fossil fuels... still have a problem...

Quoting cmf (Reply 38):
So lets make sure to start creating electricity from renewable sources instead of pinning our hopes to technology that has been abandoned several times already.

What renewable baseload do you have to replace nuclear and fossil in the world? This is precisely the reason countries like China, Canada and the United States are proceeding with new nuclear plants.

Quoting cmf (Reply 38):
The nuclear solutions you are proposing on the other hand has been the next technology for 50 years or so already and is still only at experimental stage with most experiments having been scrapped. Even the most optimistic do not see it as commercial product until around 2030.

In my opinion the only reason to spend money on it is the promise that it would convert the several thousand year problem we have created for future generations to "just" a couple hundred year problem.

This whole statement has me confused...

The nuclear solutions i am proposing are already being built or are in final design phases. China will have 80GW+ of new nuclear planned to be coming online by 2035, 26 new plants under construction or in final planning stages. And even then Nuclear will be only 6-7% of their total grid need! China is also pursuing total fuel cycle nuclear meaning there is no "several thousand year" problem. Would you rather saddle future generations with a blackened cinder of environmental damage from fossil fuel use?

Quoting cmf (Reply 38):
Seriously, this is the problem. Over time there are always IFs coming to bite you. We have alternatives so lets remove that set of ifs.

Those alternatives have IFs, and the biggest IF is they can't cover the base load on the grid. Wind and solar are great but they aren't always available, and there isn't enough hydro (pumped and flow) available to cover more than 25% of the existing demand, much less 70% of the demand in your scenario. Not to mention the IFs like:
Wind turbines are hugely unreliable and require more maintenance than any other form of power generation
Solar plants are massively inefficient and cost the most per MW by a factor over 200% higher (over wind and nuclear which cost about the same... Thermal Solar costs about $200/mwh, Photovoltaic solar about $240/mwh, Wind about $97/mwh (onshore), 3rd Generation nuclear about $89/mwh to 120/mwh, all assuming midwestern US location, cost will vary slightly region to region, larger nuclear costs less, smaller costs more, "cleaner" coal costs between $76/mwh and 90/mwh- not including carbon costs, natural gas depending on type between $60/mwh and $122/mwh- ditto on carbon costing).

To me the risks are outweighed by the benefits in the nuclear discussion. Like everything else in technology, learn from the mistakes and make it safer.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-20 08:48:53 and read 3802 times.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 25):
RBMK reactors are dangerous due to the fact they have a positive void co-efficient (aka they can create steam/gas bubbles rapidly which increase the reaction which creates more bubbles...)

CANDU also has a +ve void coefficient. One reasonfor two separate and independent shutdown systems.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 25):
Modern designs, 3rd and 4th generation, can be cold shutdown within 5 minutes (something impossible for older BWRs like Fukushima),

You still would have decay heat. In CANDU that's credited at 7% of the overall heat load.

Quoting cmf (Reply 26):
Some of them will be bigger than we design for. Several nuclear plants are not designed for as big earthquakes as we now know are likely to hit them.

Actually, Fukushima was designed for a 6.0, not a 9.0. Came through the event in good shape, did what t was supposed to do - shutdown. The reall issue was the too low seawall and poor placement of the backup power systems.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 27):
PBR-Pebble Bed Reactors... worst case scenario: local low level radiation release in the plant. Meltdown impossible. Does not need cooling or emergency moderator..Also nicely can run on alternate isotopes like Thorium, weapons waste, left over fuel from traditional reactors, etc...

Still lots of technical issues wit PBRs. Principal one to my knowledge is the carbide sheath around the fuel cracking.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 27):
MSR-Molten Salt Reactors... Shut down means shut down. Shut the circulation pumps off, the reaction stops, no meltdown, no separate moderators or control rods.

An old idea coming back.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 28):
Yes. It's called Browns Ferry and it's about 10 miles from my house. When it was built it was the most powerful nuclear plant in the world and the first to generate more than 1 gigawatt of power. Even though it's had a few safety issues over the years I've never given living near it a second thought.

I've lived within 20 km of reactors for 35+ years. I have no issues regarding safety.

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
How many nuclear plants are at 50% thermal efficiency? IIRC they are in the 30 - 35% range.

No reactor of which I'm aware is anywhere near 50%. CANDU is low 30s. Better fuel design could get them tohigh 30s.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: northstardc4m
Posted 2012-12-20 10:54:01 and read 3788 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 40):
CANDU also has a +ve void coefficient. One reasonfor two separate and independent shutdown systems.

CANDU was designed to cope with void formation as well, RBMK were not. Once an RBMK starts running away it was impossible to stop, and even now with faster control rods and non-graphite rods it's still very VERY dangerous if the water supply isn't maintained.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 40):
Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 27):
MSR-Molten Salt Reactors... Shut down means shut down. Shut the circulation pumps off, the reaction stops, no meltdown, no separate moderators or control rods.

An old idea coming back.

Yes, MSRE tested for 6 years without a problem too... only became problematic after being let it sit shutdown for 20 years in situ... E-FliBe-90, though never a power generator, provided proof that an MSR could be built, run, shutdown and safely decommissioned more easily than a normal PWR or BWR reactor. Regardless the lessons learned from the MSRE and E-FLiBe-90 are now being built on in the 4G-MSR designs.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 40):
Still lots of technical issues wit PBRs. Principal one to my knowledge is the carbide sheath around the fuel cracking.

New ones use Carbon fiber/graphite/carbide layering. Chinese are saying no cracking problems so far in the HTR-10 test reactor, the problems they are having is with the pebble exchange system.

I'm not saying there aren't challenges out there... but again... show me a real option other than nuclear?

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-20 13:06:01 and read 3771 times.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 41):
CANDU was designed to cope with void formation as well, RBMK were not.

Under normal operating conditions, the coolant at the fuel channel exit is around 3% void.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-20 19:10:52 and read 3743 times.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 39):
I don't play down the consequences anymore than you play then up...

You do. Sadly you also attribute a lot of other statements to me as well. Especially when suggesting I'm OK with the problems other sources create as used today.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 39):
Nuclear power has killed less people than 1 commercial airliner crash.

Only if you ignore how it kills.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 39):
but it was the fault of a system that wasn't doing it's job, not of all nuclear energy.

You can't make the system perfect.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 39):
Ok good bye fossil fuels... still have a problem...

Fossil fuel is not the problem in this sense. But we should say good bye to them. Not overnight though. For the same reason we can't say good bye to nuclear overnight either.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 39):
What renewable baseload do you have to replace nuclear and fossil in the world?

Biomass, stored energy, infrastructure.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 39):
The nuclear solutions i am proposing are already being built or are in final design phases.

The majority of what you described is gen 4. China is mostly installing gen 2+ with some gen 3+. Mostly these are more redundancy. But as they learned in Finland, having four cooling systems is of no use if single failures can take out all of them. Very basic engineering knowledge that somehow escaped when they built the latest "safe" system.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 39):
China is also pursuing total fuel cycle nuclear meaning there is no "several thousand year" problem.

Pursuing, it is all theory based on that processes envisioned to be available in 20 years time will work as hoped.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 39):
Would you rather saddle future generations with a blackened cinder of environmental damage from fossil fuel use?

Again, never suggested such. I've made clear I want renewable energy with the resources you want to be allocated to gen 4 nuclear instead are used to handle the renewable energy issues.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 39):
the biggest IF is they can't cover the base load on the grid.

Not today. They can tomorrow. If we provide the resources you want to allocate to nuclear. You already have close to 40% efficient photo voltaic cells in lab environment. There is no shortage of good theory solutions for storing energy. Add to that better infrastructure for long distance distribution that already is on planning stages and it as realistic in the same time frame as commercial gen 4 nuclear.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 39):
To me the risks are outweighed by the benefits in the nuclear discussion. Like everything else in technology, learn from the mistakes and make it safer.

First rule of safety: You can't make it idiot proof.

Gen 1 was sold as so safe there would never be a serious accident in our life time. I already gave you the gen 3 cooling system (basic engineering) error. Another is that gen 3 is supposed to withstand being hit by an airplane. So was World Trade center. Only the maximum airplane damaged expected turned out to be so shortsighted it wasn't even covering the planes in development at the design time. The tsunami is another.

Suggesting we can make it safe is ignorant of everything we have done so far, with nuclear and other.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: NorthStarDC4M
Posted 2012-12-21 10:08:53 and read 3689 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 42):
So was World Trade center.

That's an urban legend. There was one comment that the WTC towers could survive the impact equivalent to being hit by a 707 at approach speeds in the publicity for the WTC, it was never documented as a survival factor by the architects, and they showed such post 9/11 repeatedly.

Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
Suggesting we can make it safe is ignorant of everything we have done so far, with nuclear and other.

Ignorant of everything we have done so far???

Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
First rule of safety: You can't make it idiot proof.

Lets see, 2 major accidents in 60+ years. Number dead less than 100 including attributable cancer deaths. Even if you increase it by a factor of 20, 2000... compared to:
Coal miners killed worldwide since 1950: 21300
Oil workers killed worldwide since 1950: 10000+
Land area scrubbed bare by strip mining for coal: ~4000*Chernobyl exclusion zone
Land area contaminated by mining waste: unknown, but even bigger.


Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
Not today. They can tomorrow. If we provide the resources you want to allocate to nuclear. You already have close to 40% efficient photo voltaic cells in lab environment. There is no shortage of good theory solutions for storing energy. Add to that better infrastructure for long distance distribution that already is on planning stages and it as realistic in the same time frame as commercial gen 4 nuclear.

No, they can't, and that's the problem. We are at a crossroads today where 1 of 3 things has to happen going forward:

Increase baseload power generation by 50% worldwide by 2050 using available sources... viability of this is 0 without nuclear, especially if we need to wipe out dirty fossil power.
Increase baseload 20%, reduce consumption by 30% by 2050, viability of THIS option allows only the elimination of dirty fossil fuel OR nuclear, not both.
DECREASE baseload by 10% worldwide... current projections show this is NOT feasible unless we cripple the world economy. Even with improvements in conservation and building green energy like mad, the world energy growth means the net decrease needed to pull this off would be close to 40% by 2050. With booming economies in China, India, etc... cannot suddenly about face and stop growing.

40% efficient solar cells are great, problem is in the world the only place the will get ACTUAL 20% (since the sun only shines during the day...) efficiency is between the tropics where they can get direct sunlight. And even then they still take up massive amounts of real estate, are EXTREMELY expensive to build and maintain and the current ones have a life expectancy of about 20 years... and they don't like clouds, dust, smoke etc, drops their efficiency dramatically.

Wind cannot be used for baseload power.
Storage is a pipe dream, hydro storage is too geographically limited for worldwide use at the levels needed. Everything else is completely theoretical and so far no theories have gone beyond the small scale test phase in labs.
Geothermal is great but again too limited
Biomass is an option, but again not enough available to replace nuclear and fossil fuels.

I've looked this equation up down and sideways. The truth of the matter is this:
Fossil fuels are a bigger issue than nuclear safety
Nuclear energy is clean, 0 emission.
"green" energy sources CANNOT provide sufficient baseload to remove both fossil fuel and nuclear
The world energy demand is increasing faster than ever
AND
Nuclear energy has been given a bad rap by the public media. Media loves buzz words but in fact there has been VERY limited long term problems associated with Chernobyl, and those problems are completely overshadowed by the damage being done by fossil fuel power.

Where I live (Ontario) we have had great exposure to the green energy myth... and so far we STILL have nuclear power projects underway, still have the largest operational nuclear powerplant in the world and still are building natural gas plants to cover for the lack of baseload from all the wind power being put in with ridiculous government subsidy.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-21 16:24:57 and read 3669 times.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 42):
So was World Trade center.

That's an urban legend. There was one comment that the WTC towers could survive the impact equivalent to being hit by a 707 at approach speeds in the publicity for the WTC, it was never documented as a survival factor by the architects, and they showed such post 9/11 repeatedly.

Uh, please reread my Reply 42. It has nothing to do with the World Trade Center. It only speaks to the usual CANDU channel exit void fraction. I have no idea where the WTC reference comes from.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-21 17:02:50 and read 3668 times.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
Ignorant of everything we have done so far???

Since you object, what have humankind developed that is perfectly safe?

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
Number dead less than 100 including attributable cancer deaths.

tty alone with that number.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
compared to:
Coal miners killed worldwide since 1950: 21300
Oil workers killed worldwide since 1950: 10000+
Land area scrubbed bare by strip mining for coal: ~4000*Chernobyl exclusion zone
Land area contaminated by mining waste: unknown, but even bigger.

There you go again suggesting the poor ways of handling coal and oil is OK. We are not using them as we used to and the goal is to get rid of them.

We still have the problem with what is already installed and the time it takes to upgrade. Just as with have with nuclear. The gen 2 reactors China is building are expected to be around until the end of the century.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
No, they can't, and that's the problem.

Yes they can. It is as realistic as commercial gen 4 by 2030.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
Increase baseload power generation by 50% worldwide by 2050 using available sources

The problem with your numbers is that you assume there will be no progress with renewable energy, storage and infrastructure.

it is the same problem Edison had when he proposed using electricity. Every person in the know stated it wouldn't work, could never replace gas, etc.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
Storage is a pipe dream

Storage isn't a pipe dream. It is developing technology.

20 years ago people claimed 10's of Mbps internet downloads speeds to large number of homes was utopia.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
Nuclear energy is clean, 0 emission.

If you ignore the full process and the unplanned emissions, sure.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
Nuclear energy has been given a bad rap by the public media.

Nuclear has itself to blame. It has not delivered even close to as promised. There are far more accidents than stated was possible under worst case scenario. There are constant shortcoming. Cost reality is nothing like cost promise and the cost of "garbage" is consistently missing.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
those problems are completely overshadowed by the damage being done by fossil fuel power

Pest and cholera are not the only options.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
from all the wind power being put in with ridiculous government subsidy.

Funny how you complain about subsidies when there wouldn't be nuclear power without the incredible money spent by governments. With the nuclear lobby asking for much more.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: NorthStarDC4M
Posted 2012-12-21 20:21:48 and read 3654 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 45):
Uh, please reread my Reply 42. It has nothing to do with the World Trade Center. It only speaks to the usual CANDU channel exit void fraction. I have no idea where the WTC reference comes from.

Chalk that up to the forum... that was a quote of cmf in 43 not you in 42... *shrug*

Quoting cmf (Reply 46):

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
Ignorant of everything we have done so far???

Since you object, what have humankind developed that is perfectly safe?

I never made a claim of the kind. Nothing is perfectly safe...

Quoting cmf (Reply 46):

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
from all the wind power being put in with ridiculous government subsidy.

Funny how you complain about subsidies when there wouldn't be nuclear power without the incredible money spent by governments. With the nuclear lobby asking for much more.

In Ontario wind power farms are being subsidized at a power rate 18 TIMES higher than the market rate, which is what nuclear is being payed.

Quoting cmf (Reply 46):
Nuclear has itself to blame. It has not delivered even close to as promised. There are far more accidents than stated was possible under worst case scenario. There are constant shortcoming. Cost reality is nothing like cost promise and the cost of "garbage" is consistently missing.

Far more accidents that stated was possible by whom? And far more? There have been 2 major accidents involving nuclear power stations... maybe 10 serious incidents... Constant shortcomings, cost reality is nothing like cost promise? I can't make any sense out of those comments?
In the last decade several nuclear plants have come in under budget, on schedule, in places like Korea, China and others.
It has delivered DECADES of reliable energy, which is what it promised.

Quoting cmf (Reply 46):
Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 44):
Number dead less than 100 including attributable cancer deaths.

tty alone with that number.

That's the WHO published figure...

I guess I'll agree to disagree...

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-21 22:44:23 and read 3642 times.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 47):
Chalk that up to the forum... that was a quote of cmf in 43 not you in 42... *shrug*

If you want to cast doubt over what the WTC design covered or not fine but the problematic is certainly there for the nuclear plants that are now touted as capable of handling planes crashing in to them.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 47):
I never made a claim of the kind. Nothing is perfectly safe...

Glad you agree. Don't understand why you couldn't do so from the beginning then..

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 47):
In Ontario wind power farms are being subsidized at a power rate 18 TIMES higher than the market rate, which is what nuclear is being payed.

Nuclear wouldn't exist without government money. The nuclear industry is still asking for government money.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 47):
Far more accidents that stated was possible by whom?

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 47):
And far more? There have been 2 major accidents involving nuclear power stations

3

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 47):
It has delivered DECADES of reliable energy

Fossil fuel has better availability.

Again, spend money on better options.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-22 01:29:57 and read 3637 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 48):
If you want to cast doubt over what the WTC design covered or not fine but the problematic is certainly there for the nuclear plants that are now touted as capable of handling planes crashing in to them.

CANDU containment domes are rated for 707/757-sized aircraft. CNSC currently looking at tightening that regulation. Even if you lose the dome, not the end of the world as there is a biological containment structure inside. This allows workers to basically go up to the face of the reactor while it is operating.

Quoting cmf (Reply 48):
Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 47):
And far more? There have been 2 major accidents involving nuclear power stations

3

TMI was not a major accident. No fatalities, no injuries. Stress amongst the surrounding population, sure. But there''s stress in almost eveything we do. In 1999 a class action lawsuit brought against GPU was dismissed with prejudice as being "without merit" as the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that injury had occurred.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: NorthStarDC4M
Posted 2012-12-22 15:09:49 and read 3613 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 48):
Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 47):
In Ontario wind power farms are being subsidized at a power rate 18 TIMES higher than the market rate, which is what nuclear is being payed.

Nuclear wouldn't exist without government money. The nuclear industry is still asking for government money.

NO power infrastructure would exist without government money... Hydro plants, wind farms, coal plants... very few built without government money.
Government money is a 2 way street... the more you get the more you red tape you have to wrap around everything you do.

My point is why are we paying 18 TIMES the market rate to wind power providers? Can't survive at the same already compensated rate as hydro, gas, nuclear, biomass, etc?

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: NorthStarDC4M
Posted 2012-12-22 16:47:39 and read 3600 times.

And just to put to rest the number of accidents, list via IAEA of civilian nuclear power reports, INES level 4 or higher and directly attributed deaths:
key:
location-country-start date-INES level-deaths-notes

Chernobyl NPP, Reactor 4 - USSR/Ukraine - 26/APR/1986 - 7+ - 56 - Major criticality accident

Fukushima I NPP - Japan - 11/MAR/2011 - 7 - 4* - Umbrella rating for 3 level 5 and 1 level 3 individual reactor reports. *number of deaths includes victims of initial tsunami precipitating event at plant.

Three Mile Island NPP, Reactor 1 - USA - 28/MAR/1979 - 5 - 0 - partial core meltdown, no detected radiation release, reactor decommissioned

St Laurent NPP - France - ??/APR/1969 - 4 - 0 - local tritium release, fuel deformation (partial meltdown), reactor repaired

St Laurent NPP - France - 21/OCT/1980 - 4 - 0 - Graphite fire in reactor control system, no radiation release, reactor repaired

Bohunice NPP (KS 150), Reactor 2 - Czechoslovakia/Slovakia - 22/FEB/1977 - 4 - 0 - Contaminated heavy water leak into cooling system and external holding ponds following fuel exchange, plant decommissioned

That's all I could find for nuclear power related ACCIDENTS... there are also about 15 fatal incidents, most related to mechanical issues and not specifically nuclear industry related. No other deadly incidents involving reactor materials in civilian nuclear power.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-22 18:16:17 and read 3580 times.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 50):
My point is why are we paying 18 TIMES the market rate to wind power providers? Can't survive at the same already compensated rate as hydro, gas, nuclear, biomass, etc?

Fellow I know recently went off-grid using solar photovoltaic panels. Under Ontario government policy, he can feed power back to the grid and get paid for it. And handsomely, too: 55c/kWh. Not only that, his capital outlay of ~$50k is guaranteed to be paid off in 5 years, after which it is all gravy for him.

I can think of a lot of businesses that would kill for a situation like that.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: MD-90
Posted 2012-12-22 23:27:35 and read 3561 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 52):
I can think of a lot of businesses that would kill for a situation like that.

How nice to be supported by taxes paid by others.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 50):
Can't survive at the same already compensated rate as hydro, gas, nuclear, biomass, etc?

Obviously not.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-23 13:16:20 and read 3520 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 49):
TMI was not a major accident.

WNA consider it a major accident and they promote nuclear energy.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 50):
My point is why are we paying 18 TIMES the market rate to wind power providers? Can't survive at the same already compensated rate as hydro, gas, nuclear, biomass, etc?

I have no idea about the specifics for Ontario but it is perfectly normal to provide more support until it reaches critical mass.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 51):
And just to put to rest the number of accidents,

Glad you agree 2 isn't right.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 51):
deaths-notes

Those are only direct deaths. Even WHO, who you referred to earlier talk about much more once long term effects are considered.

And then there is all other impact. As stated before, areas in western Europe that 25 years later are still unusable for farming and animal feeding.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 53):
How nice to be supported by taxes paid by others.

Ask the defense industry and the many other companies who live on government contracts.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-23 18:12:33 and read 3499 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 54):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 49):
TMI was not a major accident.

WNA consider it a major accident and they promote nuclear energy.

No fatalities, no injuries. Economic consequences for GPU for sure, but that's not WNA's concern.

Look, IAEA and associated bureaucracies like WANO and WNA like to write reports that get approved and filed, and then gather dust. Don't forget that these are UN-sponsored entities or have an arm's length relationship. What better way to get more attention than to inflate the rating of the incident.

I worked on an IAEA sub-committee as Canadian delegate for 2 years (thermalhydraulics of small reactors) and I can tell you that absolutely the IAEA is an organisation intended to accomplish nothing. OTOH, visiting Vienna twice a year is alright and you get treated very well on a personal level.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-24 05:54:21 and read 3470 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 55):
No fatalities, no injuries.

Meltdown, radioactive venting and radioactive waste water released (fortunately low total radiation), one year old plant write off. You need to really want to suppress statistics for it not to be called a serious accident.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 55):
Don't forget that these are UN-sponsored entities or have an arm's length relationship

Really, now you try to use that they are connected to UN as reason that what happened shouldn't count?

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 55):
I worked on an IAEA sub-committee as Canadian delegate for 2 years (thermalhydraulics of small reactors) and I can tell you that absolutely the IAEA is an organisation intended to accomplish nothing.

If the organisations used to help prov nuclear is safe doesn't work then the more reason to end nuclear usage.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-24 06:59:35 and read 3462 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 56):
Meltdown, radioactive venting and radioactive waste water released

Partial meltdown, has happened several times over the past 60 or so years. Not necessarily a catastrophe.
In Canada, NRX, for example: http://media.cns-snc.ca/history/nrx.html

Minor historic footnote to NRX: among the 170 or so US military staff brought in was one USN LCdr James Earl Carter.

Regarding venting etc., a class action lawsuit was brought against GPU and pursued for several years, In 1999, a federal circuit court judge dismissed the lawsuit as being "without merit". No fatalities, no injuries. Any "illness" apparently caused by the incident was entirely in the minds of those living adjacent to TMI. End of story.


Quoting cmf (Reply 56):
Really, now you try to use that they are connected to UN as reason that what happened shouldn't count?

No, just pointing out that association to the world's most sclerotic (and possibly corrupt) organisation risks being infected by same.

Quoting cmf (Reply 56):
If the organisations used to help prov nuclear is safe doesn't work then the more reason to end nuclear usage.
www.iaea.org
"The IAEA is the world's central intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the nuclear field. Provides news and resources."

IAEA was created in 1957 as part of Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" initiative, to promote peaceful use of various nuclear technologies. The IAEA does not claim to "prove" anything. But they are gracious hosts.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-24 08:12:01 and read 3452 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 57):
Partial meltdown, has happened several times over the past 60 or so years. Not necessarily a catastrophe.

Serious accident each time. Even more so since there should be maximum 10 in 100,000 reactor years. We are around 15,000 hours now and have 4. (Do not count Chernobyl since it wasn't built to the same standard)

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 57):
Regarding venting

By reaching venting it is serious. It is great it wasn't much but it doesn't mean it wasn't serious.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 57):
No, just pointing out that association to the world's most sclerotic (and possibly corrupt) organisation risks being infected by same.

Yet the best resource we have for many tasks. But hey, much easier to complain that actually do something. At least you get trips to different places.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 57):
IAEA was created in 1957 as part of Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" initiative, to promote peaceful use of various nuclear technologies. The IAEA does not claim to "prove" anything. But they are gracious hosts.

They also call TMI a serious accident.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-24 10:13:44 and read 3442 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 58):
Serious accident each time. Even more so since there should be maximum 10 in 100,000 reactor years. We are around 15,000 hours now and have 4. (Do not count Chernobyl since it wasn't built to the same standard)

A question of consequences. Since those AECL staff who worked in NRX after the accident have a lower incidence of various carcinomas than the general population, I'd say the consequences were essentially nil. Ergo, not a major accident. It was just the first of its' kind.

Quoting cmf (Reply 58):
By reaching venting it is serious. It is great it wasn't much but it doesn't mean it wasn't serious.

Again, show me the consequences. Please. Or are you[/] just venting ?

Quoting cmf (Reply 58):
Yet the best resource we have for many tasks.

FAO, WHO, certainly. Most others a waste of time. BTW, WHO estimates of mortality arising from Chernobyl are [b]far
lower than those from nuclear naysayers. One of the things WHO tok into account was the pre-existing environmental situation in the Ukraine and adjacent SSRs.

Quoting cmf (Reply 58):
They also call TMI a serious accident.

See above comment. Having worked in the nuclear business for 37 years, and having been in charge of validating the most important safety software in use, we look for consequences arising from various types of scenarios. Primary concern is the health of the general population (nuclear workers deemed expendable). If there is no general dose above ICRP guidelines, not a serious issue. You're more at risk from a chest X-ray in almost all cases.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-24 10:21:17 and read 3442 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 59):
Again, show me the consequences.

Again, it passed far beyond what should have happened. That makes it serious.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 59):
See above comment. Having worked in the nuclear business for 37 years,

Obviously wanting it to remain at all cost.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: JBirdAV8r
Posted 2012-12-24 11:31:19 and read 3435 times.

It seems certain members are quite afraid of things they don't really understand.

I find that ironic, considering that's the argument the same people like to make about others...

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-24 13:56:25 and read 3426 times.

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 61):
It seems certain members are quite afraid of things they don't really understand.

It seems certain members ignore track record and think that until something goes horribly wrong it is perfect.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-24 15:08:47 and read 3419 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 62):
Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 61):
It seems certain members are quite afraid of things they don't really understand.

It seems certain members ignore track record and think that until something goes horribly wrong it is perfect.

I tend to agree with JBirdAV8r.

I have never said or implied that the nuclear power (or research) business is perfect. Far from it, in fact work we have performed has led to improvements in both practice and safety margins. There are many issues, but at the end of the day, at least in the CANDU business, if your fuel sheath temperature does not exceed 1250C, you're a happy camper. There could be other related issues, but below 1250C there's essentially no release inside the containment, let alone to the public, which, as I've indicated, is our principal concern. You could get a minor dose from weld fractures at the endplates in a given fuel bundle, but that would be it.

As far as IAEA, WANO, or WNA 'ratings' go, I couldn't give a toss. My main driver is and has been to demonstrate with a high degree of probability that for any given accident scenario (for CANDU) that the public is not at risk, i.e., FS temp below 1250C.

Quoting cmf (Reply 60):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 59):
See above comment. Having worked in the nuclear business for 37 years,

Obviously wanting it to remain at all cost.
Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: JBirdAV8r
Posted 2012-12-24 17:06:53 and read 3400 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 62):
It seems certain members ignore track record

Simply taking the "track record" for what it is, learning from it and improving the processes, doesn't mean they're "ignoring" it. That just means they're putting a rational weight on it...removing emotions.

I know that must be difficult for someone to appreciate who makes an argument primarily based on emotion.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-24 17:15:09 and read 3398 times.

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 64):
I know that must be difficult for someone to appreciate who makes an argument primarily based on emotion.

Your assumption is wrong. My argument is based on experience and study of history. Everything humans do fail as some point of time.

As mentioned above, some gen 3 designs are delayed by many years because despite including 4 cooling systems, for safety, they created single point of failure in controlling the systems. That is basic engineering failing in what is supposed to be the safest humans can design.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-25 21:23:01 and read 3359 times.

Jen let me check my e-mail ....

Don't know why my last post got flipped around...perhaps something in the HTML since the Preview looked fine.

Quoting cmf (Reply 65):
Your assumption is wrong. My argument is based on experience and study of history. Everything humans do fail as some point of time.

What experience ? What area of technology ? Since everything we do fails at some time, do we just stop doing everything ? Or do we design systems that mitigate consequences ?

Quoting cmf (Reply 65):
As mentioned above, some gen 3 designs are delayed by many years because despite including 4 cooling systems, for safety, they created single point of failure in controlling the systems. That is basic engineering failing in what is supposed to be the safest humans can design.

Give me a specific example or is this just hand waving ? No one in the nuclear business (realistic ones, that is) claims nuclear technology "to be the safest humans can design". We do assert that designs meet existing standards when they are licensed, for example in the US 10CFR50 or in Canada CSA286-99 (both of which are ISO compliant). We also commit to a program of process and system improvements to meet evolving standards.

By definition, you cannot either design or build something that is perfect, because no one actually knows what perfect is. Some people say passive systems are a better way to go. I agree with that and I will tell you right now that CANDU already has a fair bit of passive cooling in it, in fact always has. Called natural circulation (sometimes called density-driven cooling), so if you lose your main circulating pumps, you can still effectively cool the core. Can't speak to PWR/BWRs as an expert.

Jen beckons, gotta go ...

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-26 05:09:48 and read 3342 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 66):
What experience ? What area of technology ? Since everything we do fails at some time, do we just stop doing everything ? Or do we design systems that mitigate consequences ?

Pick any technology you want, doesn't matter.

Of course we try to design to keep problems under control. Depending on how well we can do that we may or may not do things. Sometimes we stop doing things because we have learned more.

The problem with nuclear is that we have no control of the full process as much happens generations in the future. Much of the waste is expected to be stored 1'000's of years. There is hope to bring it down to 100's of years.

We failed at predicting forces experienced over 50 years. How can we claim it is safe over 100's of years, much less over 1,000s of years.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 66):
By definition, you cannot either design or build something that is perfect

There is your problem.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: NorthStarDC4M
Posted 2012-12-26 06:26:27 and read 3326 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 67):
There is your problem.

Humans are fallible, that's how we learn.

cmf you are afraid of nuclear accidents, fine, but you also aren't really making any points?
The viewpoints we've offered don't seem to be working but you have run into the classic impasse:
Risk is human nature.
Nuclear energy came from Pandora's box, and it's already opened.
Even IF you get rid of nuclear power, nuclear reactors will still exist in the THOUSANDS, for military, medical and research reasons.

Chernobyl, TMI, Fukushima, and all the others in isolation look horrible, but look at the Bhopal chemical leak, the Halifax explosion, Norco Refinery explosion, Piper Alpha fire, Tenerife, Titanic, JAL123... the list is endless of non-nuclear severe and fatal accidents... Why worry about 1 small percentage of things that can kill us, when it can also be of enormous benefit to us?

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-26 07:45:49 and read 3313 times.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 68):
Why worry about 1 small percentage of things that can kill us, when it can also be of enormous benefit to us?

Because we have alternatives. Because they do not send the dangerous down multiple generations.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: NorthStarDC4M
Posted 2012-12-27 05:35:43 and read 3260 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
Because we have alternatives. Because they do not send the dangerous down multiple generations.

Point A I'm still waiting for you to explain because every other source does not provide for sufficient renewable energy by 2050 without nuclear, especially if fossil fuels are also chopped.

A couple examples:
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-...rgyPerspectives_2011DEC_052511.pdf
http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/H...nell%20Ithaca%20May%202%202012.pdf
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/WEAP2/WEAP2.html
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/07/26...-to-2050-based-on-data-since-1820/


Point B, that box is open already, and isn't only linked to nuclear, and even if you get rid of nuclear power, nuclear reactors will remain for other purposes. Chemical and heavy metal contamination is far more widespread than nuclear and just as long lasting, toxic and impossible to economically remove.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-27 06:52:57 and read 3255 times.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 70):
Point A I'm still waiting for you to explain because every other source does not provide for sufficient renewable energy by 2050 without nuclear, especially if fossil fuels are also chopped.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...s-out-2050-renewable-energy-vision

This version maintain some fossil, much better alternative.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 70):
Point B, that box is open already

Rule 1, if you have a problem don't make it worse. We have too much waste from nuclear reactors already. We should not make it worse.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: NorthStarDC4M
Posted 2012-12-27 07:21:05 and read 3254 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 71):
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...s-out-2050-renewable-energy-vision

This version maintain some fossil, much better alternative.

Talks about Australia, not the world... no nuclear in Australia, much lower population density and much more reliable solar options than most places.

Quoting cmf (Reply 71):
Rule 1, if you have a problem don't make it worse. We have too much waste from nuclear reactors already. We should not make it worse.

Not using the fuel IS the worst option. Reprocessing and reuse is much better for the future than letting it sit for millennia to come.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-27 08:02:12 and read 3248 times.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 72):
Talks about Australia, not the world... no nuclear in Australia, much lower population density and much more reliable solar options than most places.

You stated we must have nuclear. If they can do without so can we.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 72):
Not using the fuel IS the worst option. Reprocessing and reuse is much better for the future than letting it sit for millennia to come.

The fuel shouldn't be used because it is sitting there. Only reason to use it is because we can convert it to less dangerous forms. I think I stated above that it is the only reason to go ahead with some of this. What we shouldn't do is build an industry based around that we can leave large amounts of a few hundred year problem instead of a few thousand year problem.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: NorthStarDC4M
Posted 2012-12-27 08:43:13 and read 3243 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 73):
You stated we must have nuclear. If they can do without so can we.

THE WORLD is NOT Australia alone. Australia has a VERY low population density (3 residents/sq km), direct sunlight available much of the year and little manufacturing industry compared to other developed or developing nations. Comparing Australia to say Germany (229 residents/sq km) for example, or worse India (320/sq km). How can you say "If they can do without so can we" in light of that alone? Do I need to trot out the energy demands for each? Available direct sunlight stats, available reliable, semi reliable and poor wind stats? Industrial base load stats? Also overall energy CONSUMPTION per capita in Australia is relatively high and that article does NOT address what will happen if electric automobiles become the norm and that effect on the electricity demands.

You can't use Australia as an example for anywhere else, sorry. If it works there, great, the articles I already posted give the global issues to demonstrate why it won't work EVERYWHERE.


Lets put it that way cmf, can you provide a GLOBAL related article that shows that the world economy in 2050 CAN be supported WITHOUT nuclear, fossil fuels or more than a 15% decrease in per capita demand?

Quoting cmf (Reply 73):
The fuel shouldn't be used because it is sitting there. Only reason to use it is because we can convert it to less dangerous forms. I think I stated above that it is the only reason to go ahead with some of this. What we shouldn't do is build an industry based around that we can leave large amounts of a few hundred year problem instead of a few thousand year problem.

Full cycle nuclear options decrease nuclear waste by up to 80% with CURRENT technologies, and the residual radioactivity of the remainder can also be reduced substantially. Add in high grade sources like weapon reclamation and the rate goes up. Yet you want to just bury the problem for thousands of years...
We just don't do it because it's expensive, and it's expensive because no one does it (catch 22 that could be fixed).

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-27 09:59:47 and read 3231 times.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 74):
THE WORLD is NOT Australia alone.

Of course you adjust to each location. Read up on Germany's plans. They have the high density yo ask for, the high industry you ask for, the less than optimal sun conditions you asked for. Sadly the government site with their 2050 plan isn't responding right now.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 74):
Lets put it that way cmf, can you provide a GLOBAL related article that shows that the world economy in 2050 CAN be supported WITHOUT nuclear, fossil fuels or more than a 15% decrease in per capita demand?

There you go again. I have not stated without fossil in 2050. I have not stated without nuclear in this decade. I have stated without nuclear in a couple of decades.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 74):
Full cycle nuclear options decrease nuclear waste by up to 80% with CURRENT technologies, and the residual radioactivity of the remainder can also be reduced substantially. Add in high grade sources like weapon reclamation and the rate goes up. Yet you want to just bury the problem for thousands of years...
We just don't do it because it's expensive, and it's expensive because no one does it (catch 22 that could be fixed).

Yet again, I have not said just bury it. Why do you insist on changing what I state all the time?

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: NorthStarDC4M
Posted 2012-12-27 10:55:40 and read 3223 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 75):
Yet again, I have not said just bury it. Why do you insist on changing what I state all the time?

I'm not...

You stated not to use it.
Normal disposal today is to let to cool in cooling pools, then store it underground... that would seem to be what I said?

Quoting cmf (Reply 75):
There you go again. I have not stated without fossil in 2050. I have not stated without nuclear in this decade. I have stated without nuclear in a couple of decades.

You aren't, but the world is demanding a massive decrease in fossil fuel use.

Quoting cmf (Reply 75):
Of course you adjust to each location. Read up on Germany's plans. They have the high density yo ask for, the high industry you ask for, the less than optimal sun conditions you asked for. Sadly the government site with their 2050 plan isn't responding right now.

I have read up on Germany's plans. So far they haven't answered all the capacity questions, no by a long shot, just that they are investigating possible sites for renewable energy. It also depends on imported coal until at least 2040. Germany has already run into shortfalls on peak period usage, having to buy energy from France and Poland in summer 2010 and 2011...

So...

Let me restate my positions...

Nuclear Power is a better alternative than fossil fuel, renewables linked with nuclear can provide clean, reliable energy for the entire planet, but renewable energy on it's own CANNOT cover the world baseload NOW, much less in 2050 when demand is projected (conservatively) to increase by 50%.

MODERN Nuclear designs can be operated safely, efficiently and economically. Renewable sources like wind cannot make those claims.

FUTURE Nuclear designs can provide energy for centuries without mining one additional ounce of fuel, and do it without risk of meltdown or catastrophic failure.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-27 12:40:59 and read 3220 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 67):
Pick any technology you want, doesn't matter.

So, then, you are claiming to be able to speak with authority on any tech

Quoting cmf (Reply 67):
The problem with nuclear is that we have no control of the full process as much happens generations in the future. Much of the waste is expected to be stored 1'000's of years. There is hope to bring it down to 100's of years.

As a generalisation, spent fuel is back to background radiation levels within a thousand years or so. For CANDU it's about 650 years. That's well within the span of civilisations, in fact we have buildings that old. The fact that longer term storage involves stable geologic structures 9of the order of millions of years) kind of vitiates your point.

Quoting cmf (Reply 67):
We failed at predicting forces experienced over 50 years. How can we claim it is safe over 100's of years, much less over 1,000s of years.

See above.

Quoting cmf (Reply 67):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 66):
By definition, you cannot either design or build something that is perfect

There is your problem.

That would also apply then to Bhopal, for example, thousands of people killed by something less than perfect (but not nuclear).

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 68):
cmf you are afraid of nuclear accidents, fine, but you also aren't really making any points?

My thought as well. Easy to speak in generalisations.

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 68):
Why worry about 1 small percentage of things that can kill us, when it can also be of enormous benefit to us?

Because we have alternatives. Because they do not send the dangerous down multiple generations.

Here's a non-nuclear "down multiple generations" kind of thing: what about all the waste arsenic located at gold mines all over the world ? If the retention spots ever start to leak, we have huge groundwater contamination. The stuff that we drink, that is. I would think that's more of a clear and present danger than used nuclear fuel.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 72):
Quoting cmf (Reply 71):
Rule 1, if you have a problem don't make it worse. We have too much waste from nuclear reactors already. We should not make it worse.

Not using the fuel IS the worst option. Reprocessing and reuse is much better for the future than letting it sit for millennia to come.

Agreed. And I like the anti-nuke spin on used nuclear fuel being "waste". It is not. It is a future resource.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 74):
Full cycle nuclear options decrease nuclear waste by up to 80% with CURRENT technologies, and the residual radioactivity of the remainder can also be reduced substantially. Add in high grade sources like weapon reclamation and the rate goes up. Yet you want to just bury the problem for thousands of years...
We just don't do it because it's expensive, and it's expensive because no one does it (catch 22 that could be fixed).

Quite. Once a determined effort to reprocess gets going, everyone will be into it, and our need to extract more uranium or thorium will diminish tremendously, thus preserving resources for any future needs.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-27 14:31:29 and read 3211 times.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 76):
I'm not...

You are. You constantly attribute the far extreme to me. I wish there wasn't any fuel but I am for reducing it as much as possible. Why I have stated hundreds of years so many times.

But there is a big difference between processing what we have and making nuclear as the future solution.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 76):
You aren't, but the world is demanding a massive decrease in fossil fuel use.

And they will get reduction, just not to 0 by 2050. They will get cleaner. Just as it will take time to get rid of nuclear.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 76):
have read up on Germany's plans. So far they haven't answered all the capacity questions, no by a long shot, just that they are investigating possible sites for renewable energy. It also depends on imported coal until at least 2040. Germany has already run into shortfalls on peak period usage, having to buy energy from France and Poland in summer 2010 and 2011...

There is a lot of work remaining. Just as there is a lot of work remaining with gen 4.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 76):
Nuclear Power is a better alternative than fossil fuel, renewables linked with nuclear can provide clean, reliable energy for the entire planet, but renewable energy on it's own CANNOT cover the world baseload NOW, much less in 2050 when demand is projected (conservatively) to increase by 50%.

In your opinion nuclear is better than fossil. There are plenty who disagree. I am one of them. Doesn't mean I want to continue using fossil as we are today. There are plenty of ways to make it cleaner and they must be incorporated.

The problem with renewable isn't that it can't generate enough energy. The problem is that it may be at the wrong place. That is why we need to develop storage and improve the grid. With that there is enough energy.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 76):
UTURE Nuclear designs can provide energy for centuries without mining one additional ounce of fuel, and do it without risk of meltdown or catastrophic failure.

Without catastrophic failure... only a fool will make such a guarantee.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 77):
So, then, you are claiming to be able to speak with authority on any tech

Show me something that has never failed.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 77):
For CANDU it's about 650 years. That's well within the span of civilisations, in fact we have buildings that old.

It is not within what we can control. Pretty much everything older than a couple of generations has been broken in to damaged and raided multiple times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 77):
That would also apply then to Bhopal, for example, thousands of people killed by something less than perfect (but not nuclear).

Another example of how we are not able to make anything safe. A perfect example of how we failed to adhere to the safety procedures setup. And that was a few decades.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 77):
The stuff that we drink, that is. I would think that's more of a clear and present danger than used nuclear fuel.

So if we do one thing wrong we should make everything wrong instead of trying to fix them?

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 77):
Quite. Once a determined effort to reprocess gets going, everyone will be into it, and our need to extract more uranium or thorium will diminish tremendously, thus preserving resources for any future needs.

No reason to go down that road. We have better alternatives. Better unless you make your money in nuclear and don't want to learn something new.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-27 16:30:41 and read 3195 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 77):
That would also apply then to Bhopal, for example, thousands of people killed by something less than perfect (but not nuclear).

Another example of how we are not able to make anything safe. A perfect example of how we failed to adhere to the safety procedures setup. And that was a few decades.

Strikes me that the mindset behind what appears to be your position ("we can't make anything safe") is that we shouldn't actually try anything at all. Basically like Thomas Hobbes said, live in a state of nature. Where, he observed, life would be short and brutish.

With an ever increasing population and demand for energy (strongly correlated with the "standard of living") we must turn to more and more advanced tech to meet our requirements for energy, for food (hello GM), drinking water (desalinating sea water), and so forth. We can't retreat from this. There will no doubt be bumps along the road, but it is the road we have to travel.

But pulling the sheets over one's head isn't going to cut it.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-27 16:39:23 and read 3191 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 79):
Strikes me that the mindset behind what appears to be your position ("we can't make anything safe") is that we shouldn't actually try anything at all.

The complete opposite. We should expect things to go wrong and thus be ready for the consequences. If the consequences are too severe then we need to select options with lesser problems.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 79):
But pulling the sheets over one's head isn't going to cut it.

That is correct. Time to stop pulling the nuclear blanket over our heads.

Topic: RE: Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-27 20:27:36 and read 3171 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 80):
The complete opposite. We should expect things to go wrong and thus be ready for the consequences. If the consequences are too severe then we need to select options with lesser problems.

In the extreme case that things get out of hand at a North American nuclear plant, there are plans in place:
- distribution of potassium tablets, particularly for children, to mitigate thyroid problems;
- evacuation (and this would be no different than for a hydro dam breach)

Quoting cmf (Reply 80):
That is correct. Time to stop pulling the nuclear blanket over our heads.

Fossil fuel us will increase as a %age of the world energy mix for the forseeable future, thanks to our friends in China and India, thus keeping the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere and oceans increasing. This will in fact push 2050 and 2100 temperature predictions even further. It will accelerate Greenland and Antarctic ice melt, which not only will raise ocean levels (although probably not as much as many fear) but will change the salinity of the ocean. This has huge implications for ocean currents, particularly the Gulf Stream, which is essentially a density-driven (and therefore related to salinity) phenomenon. Which will majorly affect our weather. The socio-economic fallout from that is completely unknown. Bottom line is that it may already be too late and in a thousand years or so Earth might look like Venus.

Wind power ? LOL. Too little energy density, too unreliable, and oh, BTW, we'll need all of Kansas and Nebraska and maybe Oklahoma to depopulate so we can dedicate all that land to wind turbines. Solar ? Well, if we could afford it, if there were enough resources, and oh, BTW, several of the materials used in the panels or in the fabrication process are either carcinogenic or mutagenic. Not to mention the rare earths required for the switching devices in these beasties, rare earths now largely controlled by China.

Biomass ? Get people and animals to poop more, but then all the energy you need to collect the stuff for the bioreactor, unless you're recommending in-situ generation, the most inefficient way.

Geothermal has a future, since the heat is already there. Ironically, the heat is there due to radioactive decay.

But for us as a society, for the forseeable future, nuclear and hydro, where the geomorphology permits, and where the water resources exist. If we need to wheel power any distance, DC transmission lines. In Ontario there are plans for four more nuclear units to be in place early 20s, to be built in the burbs of Toronto (where there are already twelve units).

That's not pulling the blanket over anyone's head. That's a security blanket.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/