I'm ashamed to say this, but until yesterday I didn't know that much about nuclear power plants. With the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl yesterday I was curious about what it was all about (I'm ashamed because I was alive when it happened as well as the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, I guess I just didn't pay that much attention). So, I did some research about nuclear energy. It turns out I was better off not knowing much about it. Now, it's just one more thing to be afraid of in the world. Does anyone else feel this way toward nuclear energy? Sure, "they" say it can't happen in the U.S. like it did in Chernobyl, but I think anything is possible anymore.
Anyone else afraid of nuclear energy?
- Thread starter tolivac
- Start date
Help Support :
I think more nuclear plants should be built but a little more stringently than past practices. I remember back in the 70's when the bruce nuclear plant was being built up the lake from us in Ontario my then brother in law was on the construction crew as a pipe insulator. Now that's enough to scare anyone away from nuclear, him and the crew were all a bunch of drunks and couldn't have given 2 craps about doing a good job.
Now just last night on AC360 I heard about the latest kerfuffle with George Bush trying to fast track more nuclear power sales to India and changing the rules regarding congressional approval. What they didn't mention and I was very very surprised they didn't was that back in the 70's Canada sold our CANDU nuclear technology to India for domestic power plants and India used it to build their first nuclear bomb, which was forbidden in the contracts. Now they want more and GWB is all set to sell it to them. I thought you were supposed to learn from history.
Now just last night on AC360 I heard about the latest kerfuffle with George Bush trying to fast track more nuclear power sales to India and changing the rules regarding congressional approval. What they didn't mention and I was very very surprised they didn't was that back in the 70's Canada sold our CANDU nuclear technology to India for domestic power plants and India used it to build their first nuclear bomb, which was forbidden in the contracts. Now they want more and GWB is all set to sell it to them. I thought you were supposed to learn from history.
Here's a link to what I was talking about above
There's a nuclear power plant within ~60 miles of here. Doesn't bother me in the least. My brother-in-law has worked there for years. He doesn't glow, and my nephew has the correct number of appendages and digits, LOL.
It doesn't bother me either about them building them here,in the US, or other stable western countries, it's the unstable ones.
Well,
They are unwilling to consider wind farms, some environmentalists are dead set against hydro, so the cheap (?), easy (!) solution is nuclear.
There are several nuclear power stations here in NE Ohio, and one of them has a truly horrible record (Davis-Besse).
Plus, the fact that we still don't have anything approaching a clear, clearly stated energy policy here in the States is a crime. We should have had that from '73 on!
It makes my blood boil that Detroit got the CAFE standards watered down over the years, too.
Enough rant.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
They are unwilling to consider wind farms, some environmentalists are dead set against hydro, so the cheap (?), easy (!) solution is nuclear.
There are several nuclear power stations here in NE Ohio, and one of them has a truly horrible record (Davis-Besse).
Plus, the fact that we still don't have anything approaching a clear, clearly stated energy policy here in the States is a crime. We should have had that from '73 on!
It makes my blood boil that Detroit got the CAFE standards watered down over the years, too.
Enough rant.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
My hometown here is supplied with power from two nuclear power plants. Likewise, they are responsible for giving us the cheap electricity we have here. They are pretty good neighbors here too...no discharges, no poullution, except for a little heat....it allows water sports to continue well into the fall on Lake Anna, which was specifically built as a "heat sink" for the plant.
I believe with the most modern computer and control technology, and the lessons we have learned about T.M.I, and Chenobyl, nuclear energy is even safer today than it has been in years past. Both of these accidents were HUMAN errors, not mechanical or design errors. While yes, Chenobyl was not the most perfect design, it would not have malfunctioned the way it did without the users doing what they did! Unfortunatley, no nuclear power plants have been built since the T.M.I. incident, and many possess technology that has been updated very little since then. I guess if it works, then keep using it, but there's probably some even better stuff out there. A big problem however is that the United states has very little nuclear engineers and scientists than it did 30, or even 50 years ago, so the result is that we may not have enough brains to run the power plants like we used to if we built all these new plants.
As far as being afraid of them? Not really. Nuclear power needs to be respected just like any other source of energy if it gets out of control. You can start a fire with a 9-volt battery!
I believe with the most modern computer and control technology, and the lessons we have learned about T.M.I, and Chenobyl, nuclear energy is even safer today than it has been in years past. Both of these accidents were HUMAN errors, not mechanical or design errors. While yes, Chenobyl was not the most perfect design, it would not have malfunctioned the way it did without the users doing what they did! Unfortunatley, no nuclear power plants have been built since the T.M.I. incident, and many possess technology that has been updated very little since then. I guess if it works, then keep using it, but there's probably some even better stuff out there. A big problem however is that the United states has very little nuclear engineers and scientists than it did 30, or even 50 years ago, so the result is that we may not have enough brains to run the power plants like we used to if we built all these new plants.
As far as being afraid of them? Not really. Nuclear power needs to be respected just like any other source of energy if it gets out of control. You can start a fire with a 9-volt battery!
nurdlinger
Well-known member
There's an old book around
...titled (IIRC) "We Almost Lost Detroit". It talks about reactor accidents in the forties-fifties-sixties climaxing with the partial meltdown of the Enrico Fermi I fast breeder reactor outside of Monroe MI. This happened while I was in high school in Detroit. Just a few weeks earlier, a bunch of folks from my school got a tour of some of the outlying buildings at that plant. (not the reactor or power generating stuff, though) I remember the zealous enthusiasm of the plant personnel. They kept saying "When we get our new core, we will REALLY be able to do something!" That never happened. Detroit Edison, the plant's principal owner, had relentlessly promoted atomic power. They had a traveling exhibit touting the benefits. "Power too cheap to meter!" There was a simulated piece of uranium about the size of a thimble, and a simulated lump of coal about the size of a telephone booth. These were supposed to be capable of generating the same amount of energy. This won over folks like my dad, who believed in PROGRESS and was not too concerned with details like reactor safety and disposal of hard radioactive waste. I was all for it then, now I worry about those issues. However my pessimistic expectation is that more plants will be built as the least bad choice out of a bunch of terrible choices for ways out of the "energy crisis".
...titled (IIRC) "We Almost Lost Detroit". It talks about reactor accidents in the forties-fifties-sixties climaxing with the partial meltdown of the Enrico Fermi I fast breeder reactor outside of Monroe MI. This happened while I was in high school in Detroit. Just a few weeks earlier, a bunch of folks from my school got a tour of some of the outlying buildings at that plant. (not the reactor or power generating stuff, though) I remember the zealous enthusiasm of the plant personnel. They kept saying "When we get our new core, we will REALLY be able to do something!" That never happened. Detroit Edison, the plant's principal owner, had relentlessly promoted atomic power. They had a traveling exhibit touting the benefits. "Power too cheap to meter!" There was a simulated piece of uranium about the size of a thimble, and a simulated lump of coal about the size of a telephone booth. These were supposed to be capable of generating the same amount of energy. This won over folks like my dad, who believed in PROGRESS and was not too concerned with details like reactor safety and disposal of hard radioactive waste. I was all for it then, now I worry about those issues. However my pessimistic expectation is that more plants will be built as the least bad choice out of a bunch of terrible choices for ways out of the "energy crisis".
Actually, Chernobyl very nearly happened here. At Three Mile Island, the core experienced a partial meltdown. It was very close to being a complete meltdown and runaway nuclear disaster.
en.wikipedia.org
Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia
Nuclear power doesn't leave me afraid-I am even MORE afraid if we don't revitalize it.Some existing power plants are getting to be 50 plus years old.They will need to be replaced.I don't see the negative bruhaha about breeders-again we need 'em.If we build more fission "nuke" plants the breeder reactor can help RECYCLE the nuclear fuel.And they will generate power in the process.Remember you entail risk with any power conversion sources-after all thats what these plants really do-convert heat energy from controlled fission of nuclear fuel to electricity.If we can recycle the fuel-"recharge" it-no need for the large nuclear waste repositories.If only we can prevent humans from making errors in the systems-they will be fine.I think the record of nuclear power is excellent despite TMI and Chernobyl.Chernobyl was especial;ly bad because the operators on duty were trying to do unathorized "experiments" with the reactor.Remember power reactors ARE NOT research units-they have to be operated carefully because of their very high power output.And on Chernobyl-the Russian reactors don't have containment buildings like US models require.I don't know if a containment building would have "contained" the radiation from the fault they had-but may have helpted.Research reactors are those that have 1 megwatt or lower heat output.They are used primarily for training purposes and research on the effects of radioactive materials in a controlled manner.And remember no matter what our ignorant media says-nuclear power reactor fuel cannot be converted into "weapons grade" fuels unless much reprocessing is done.Reactors cannot explode like a nuclear weapon because the fuels aren't pure and conentrated enough.The explosions are from steam and hydrogen-Hydrogen is generated whenever water is heated in ANY boiler.The higher the temp-higher the pressure- more hydrogen.The water is broken down into oxygen and hydrogen from the intense heat and pressure.Yes you can even get hydrogen gas from your water heater-if it has been running for awhile and the water is not drawn from it.
I'm not too sure it's my FAVO(u)RITE thing in the world, in that I'd rather go renewable-
Wind.
Hydroelectric .
Solar, [photovoltiac and/or heat collection].
I myself would love to burn waste-oil of all kinds rather than use good stuff out of the ground.
But if we absolutely MUST use nuclear, I kinda lke France's system where ONE design/manufacturer is used for EVERY plant. ANY nuke engineer from any other plant can walk in and find the same valve in the same place in all of them. I'd think it is much harder to foul-up and have a major accident in this way.
As the cost of energy increases, perhaps we will FINALLY and permanenetly use energy wisely. My all-time favorite is to be on a train or in a store where the heating and the cooling are on sumultaneously. It's enough to make me go postal! (Well not really).
(Americanism for: Go off shooting the innocent randomly for some real or imagined slight).
Wind.
Hydroelectric .
Solar, [photovoltiac and/or heat collection].
I myself would love to burn waste-oil of all kinds rather than use good stuff out of the ground.
But if we absolutely MUST use nuclear, I kinda lke France's system where ONE design/manufacturer is used for EVERY plant. ANY nuke engineer from any other plant can walk in and find the same valve in the same place in all of them. I'd think it is much harder to foul-up and have a major accident in this way.
As the cost of energy increases, perhaps we will FINALLY and permanenetly use energy wisely. My all-time favorite is to be on a train or in a store where the heating and the cooling are on sumultaneously. It's enough to make me go postal! (Well not really).
(Americanism for: Go off shooting the innocent randomly for some real or imagined slight).
Of the three renewables-I am for Hydroelectric.But remember dams can be dangerous--that water behind the dam has tremendous stored energy.Solar is great for smaller applications-if we had solar battery chargers-sure would help-less to plug into the commercial supplies-Ie solar battery charger for your cell phone.Wind is good too-but the windmills have to be placed in areas subject to the most jetstreams-winds.Many folks don't like them from appearence and fear they are harmful to birds-I don't beleive the bird deal.Think they make enough noise and turbulence so birds could avoid the windmill propellors.also for France-heard they were using Breeders-and those breeders came from---General Electric.This would have been early 70's don't know if they are still using the breeders or if it was a rumor.And at where I work the boilers and chillers are on together-a stupid "Reheat" design-I didn't impliment it.We do turn the boilers off during the summer anyway.They are down for maintenance.
Reheating systems were designed to give humidity control without over-cooling, but it is expensive and wasteful. Many of the systems depended on the reheating to control the temperature and those that did can produce some frigid conditions if the boilers are shut down.
As far as the explosions being only steam and hydrogen, isn't there a possibility that those can be radioactive or "contaminated" and spread radiation? And, it's not the heat and pressure that cause the buildup of hydroben in a water heater. It has more to do with the electrolytic action between dissimilar metals like with the sacrificial anode. Hydrogen would be much cheaper to produce if it occured from just heating water, but temperature and pressure produce only physical changes. To produce the chemical change something has to affect the bonds between the atoms in the molecule. You need dc electric curent to split up a water molecule.
As far as the explosions being only steam and hydrogen, isn't there a possibility that those can be radioactive or "contaminated" and spread radiation? And, it's not the heat and pressure that cause the buildup of hydroben in a water heater. It has more to do with the electrolytic action between dissimilar metals like with the sacrificial anode. Hydrogen would be much cheaper to produce if it occured from just heating water, but temperature and pressure produce only physical changes. To produce the chemical change something has to affect the bonds between the atoms in the molecule. You need dc electric curent to split up a water molecule.
We don't have nuclear power in Australia and I sure hope it stays that way. Our federal government is starting to talk about reconsidering nuclear but we don't need it.
Most of our power come from coal, and particularly dirty coal at that. Enough sun falls in ONE DAY on Australia's uninhabited deserts to power the entire nation for ONE YEAR. Just a pity we don't have enough solar panels out there yet.
Nuclear power is actually one of the most expensive sources of power on the planet. The costs to build the plants, safety compliance and checking, decommissioning when the plant has reached its use-by date, and disposal of the waste, all add up to make it the most expensive. Unfortunately governments all round the world subsidise the industry from start to finish, so the industry continues.
Chris.
Most of our power come from coal, and particularly dirty coal at that. Enough sun falls in ONE DAY on Australia's uninhabited deserts to power the entire nation for ONE YEAR. Just a pity we don't have enough solar panels out there yet.
Nuclear power is actually one of the most expensive sources of power on the planet. The costs to build the plants, safety compliance and checking, decommissioning when the plant has reached its use-by date, and disposal of the waste, all add up to make it the most expensive. Unfortunately governments all round the world subsidise the industry from start to finish, so the industry continues.
Chris.
Enough sun falls in ONE DAY on Australia's (and probably America's) uninhabited deserts to power the entire nation for ONE YEAR. Just a pity we don't have enough solar panels out there yet.
AMEN!!!!!!
AMEN!!!!!!
Personally, I'd rather have much more wind-generated energy, especially out here on the great prairie. There are a several dozen 'windmills' in my corner of the state and I'm glad to see them! You can't get much safer/cleaner energy than that.
Conserve First
True, nearly every form of power generation has its negatives.
Windmills kill birds.
Dams not only present a catastrophic flood hazard, but they can also upset fish populations. They flood valleys and remove them from the land based ecosystem.
I can't think of any real negatives about solar, except perhaps that the panels are too expensive, not efficient enough yet, and probably the manufacture of them causes some sort of pollution...
I agree that the French have had a very good record and success with their approach to nuclear power. But they had little choice. With no oil reserves, and limited coal, hydro, and other forms of energy, they really had to go nuclear.
I'm of two minds about the whole thing. On the one hand, nuclear accidents are far more serious and long lasting than the gradual pollution from burning fossile fuels. On the other hand, nuclear plants don't emit CO2 and hence are neutral as far as the greenhouse effect and global warming goes. I also don't think we have much choice but to pursue a safer nuclear emergy generation capability.
However, I also think that before we start spending billions on more elecricity generation, we need to spend some millions on conserving energy at home, in the office, on the farm, in the factory, and on the road. It is a given in the solar photovoltaic power industry that the first thing anyone should do who is considering generating their own electricity from the sun, is to CONSERVE energy first. My own experience is that I was able to cut my electricity consumption in half by spending a few thousand on more efficient appliances, lighting, etc, and also by disconnecting electric/electronic devices with phantom power loads when they are not needed. The resulting drop in energy consumption means that if I were to ante up for solar electric panels on the roof, then the system would need only be half the size, and roughly half the cost had I not implemented any conservation measures.
True, nearly every form of power generation has its negatives.
Windmills kill birds.
Dams not only present a catastrophic flood hazard, but they can also upset fish populations. They flood valleys and remove them from the land based ecosystem.
I can't think of any real negatives about solar, except perhaps that the panels are too expensive, not efficient enough yet, and probably the manufacture of them causes some sort of pollution...
I agree that the French have had a very good record and success with their approach to nuclear power. But they had little choice. With no oil reserves, and limited coal, hydro, and other forms of energy, they really had to go nuclear.
I'm of two minds about the whole thing. On the one hand, nuclear accidents are far more serious and long lasting than the gradual pollution from burning fossile fuels. On the other hand, nuclear plants don't emit CO2 and hence are neutral as far as the greenhouse effect and global warming goes. I also don't think we have much choice but to pursue a safer nuclear emergy generation capability.
However, I also think that before we start spending billions on more elecricity generation, we need to spend some millions on conserving energy at home, in the office, on the farm, in the factory, and on the road. It is a given in the solar photovoltaic power industry that the first thing anyone should do who is considering generating their own electricity from the sun, is to CONSERVE energy first. My own experience is that I was able to cut my electricity consumption in half by spending a few thousand on more efficient appliances, lighting, etc, and also by disconnecting electric/electronic devices with phantom power loads when they are not needed. The resulting drop in energy consumption means that if I were to ante up for solar electric panels on the roof, then the system would need only be half the size, and roughly half the cost had I not implemented any conservation measures.
conserve first
sudsmaster you are so right about the need to simply use less power.
I have been "into" solar since the 1980's and at the time solar panels were so expensive that a solar powered house would have lights, radio and perhaps a small b&w tv powered by the sun. Everything else would be gas, wood or run from a generator, maybe run the genny once a week to vacuum, wash clothes, iron clothes and give the batteries a top up.
Solar power has become heaps cheaper since then, panels a little more efficient, some subsidies available, people wealthier, power use technology more efficient, so that solar system designers today spend much less time cutting consumption and just install much larger systems. It is a bee in my bonnet. My partner and I live comfortably, we have 51cm colour tv (CRT but the next one will be LCD), video, dvd, satellite and digital tv boxes, laptop computer, printer, scanner, FL washing machine, two vacs (upright and barrel),toaster, microwave oven, water pump, cordless phone, fax machine, clothes iron, fans for gas and wood heaters , cfl lights in all rooms, all run from electricity generated from the sun, with a small 500 watt battery charging generator for backup which in winter we run for about 1/2 hour per day, in autumn and spring for about 1/2 hour every second or third day, and in summer doesn't get used at all. Our total power consumtion is less than 1 kwh most days. We don't suffer to get such low power use, but we are careful. Most of our appliances were chosen for low power consumption. Everything is turned off at night except for the cordless phone and AA cell recharger which both run directly off the battery system and use negligible power. The inverter goes into standby mode when there is no load on it, a small neon light in the lounge power outlet flashes when the inverter is in standby so before I go to bed I check and if the neon is on constantly, I check round the house till I find what has been left on, when the neon is flashing there is nothing using power, so I can go to bed.
Chris.
sudsmaster you are so right about the need to simply use less power.
I have been "into" solar since the 1980's and at the time solar panels were so expensive that a solar powered house would have lights, radio and perhaps a small b&w tv powered by the sun. Everything else would be gas, wood or run from a generator, maybe run the genny once a week to vacuum, wash clothes, iron clothes and give the batteries a top up.
Solar power has become heaps cheaper since then, panels a little more efficient, some subsidies available, people wealthier, power use technology more efficient, so that solar system designers today spend much less time cutting consumption and just install much larger systems. It is a bee in my bonnet. My partner and I live comfortably, we have 51cm colour tv (CRT but the next one will be LCD), video, dvd, satellite and digital tv boxes, laptop computer, printer, scanner, FL washing machine, two vacs (upright and barrel),toaster, microwave oven, water pump, cordless phone, fax machine, clothes iron, fans for gas and wood heaters , cfl lights in all rooms, all run from electricity generated from the sun, with a small 500 watt battery charging generator for backup which in winter we run for about 1/2 hour per day, in autumn and spring for about 1/2 hour every second or third day, and in summer doesn't get used at all. Our total power consumtion is less than 1 kwh most days. We don't suffer to get such low power use, but we are careful. Most of our appliances were chosen for low power consumption. Everything is turned off at night except for the cordless phone and AA cell recharger which both run directly off the battery system and use negligible power. The inverter goes into standby mode when there is no load on it, a small neon light in the lounge power outlet flashes when the inverter is in standby so before I go to bed I check and if the neon is on constantly, I check round the house till I find what has been left on, when the neon is flashing there is nothing using power, so I can go to bed.
Chris.
