|
| Thread: Nucelear Power Plants |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
posted March 28, 2011 08:51 PM |
|
|
Man, what if an entire kindergarden gang of kids are out on a picnic when suddenly one of those energy-windmill things breaks and one of the blades totally massacre all the kids?
I mean, it could happen. Murphy's law man.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 09:00 PM |
|
|
It does make yours INVALID. Because according to you both occurences were avoidable.
Fact, however is, that they came to pass.
So the logical conclusion is, that "avoidable" doesn't mean it WILL be avoided.
I'm tempted to say, on the contrary.
For the planet, who cares about that one? The planet will survive, one way or another, but humans are a bit more vulnerable here. Which is the problem.
For statistics, I only compared things with flying in a plane. Statistically the chances to crash and die and extremely low, and there is nothing wrong with doing it. The risk is a PERSONAL one. You can do it, or you can leave it, and flight corridors are picked with a view on minimizing the danger of a plane crashing onto something critical.
However, the decision is personal, and if a plane crashes only those are hit who decided to use the plane.
Not so in case of a nuclear power plant.
Sure, there are other hazards in modern society, but usually those are the result of ignorance: people did something - leading fuel, for example - not knowing it would have consequences.
This, however, is different as well with nuclear power - people knew the risks full well, when building them, and people had no clear idea about waste disposition, although the problem was clear all the time.
|
|
SkrentyzMienty
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 09:00 PM |
|
|
...and it has been noted on numerous incidents that bats that pass between the blades often die of heartattack shortly because of the pressure messing with their echolocation and also possibly making their heart malfunction. 
To summarise this whole topic, it is certain that nowadays (because it is NOT impossible totally I'm sure) it's impossible to cover the whole demand for electricity with environmentally-friendly sources, however, it's good that at least SOME of the energy can be renewable, and let's hope that it becomes more efficient in the future, gradually replacing the aforementioned nuclear power.
This planet is messed up altogether anyways, nuclear generators are surely not the worst thing to think about.
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 09:03 PM |
|
|
|
I beg to differ, but we have a great solution to storing nuclear waste. We build a deep, deep repository on an Indian reservation without their permission. Problem solved. Epic victory.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 09:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It does make yours INVALID. Because according to you both occurences were avoidable.
Fact, however is, that they came to pass.
So the logical conclusion is, that "avoidable" doesn't mean it WILL be avoided.
I'm tempted to say, on the contrary.
Are you claiming we can NEVER learn from the past?
Or what horsesnow are you pulling out this time?
Why did Chernobyl happen? Because SOMEONE decided to not take heed of security clerances, and someone decided that having a really old nuclear plant and using materials which allowed things to properly snow up if inserted in wrong order: They thought it was a good idea.
You are making a logical fallancy, and using a appell to emotion as a argument.
I find it rather silly.
Come back with some hard facts and real problems, and we will be listening.
Quote:
This, however, is different as well with nuclear power - people knew the risks full well, when building them, and people had no clear idea about waste disposition, although the problem was clear all the time.
Now your argument is "things will never change", because the "Problem" of waist is already solved with todays power plants.
You can not say that about sustainable energy sources yet.
____________
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 09:10 PM |
|
|
Can please someone with a bit of knowledge enlighten me on how that process of obtaining Uranium is being handled? I remember hearing something about it being really dirty and expensive.
(so that you guys don't only talk about the Plants and the waste...)
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 10:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Are you claiming we can NEVER learn from the past?
Of course we COULD learn from the past. But it's you who claims we do. I claim only that I don't see any evidence for it. On the contrary.
Quote:
Now your argument is "things will never change", because the "Problem" of waist is already solved with todays power plants.
You can not say that about sustainable energy sources yet.
That's simply not true. Nuclear waste starts with the mining of Uran and ends with the waste produced in power plants. There is no safe final deposit for nuclear waste at this time.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 11:33 PM |
|
|
I think you have a really odd definition of "safe" then.
Because we have a end station for it: The stuff decays, and we do no longer produce TONS upon TONS of waist anymore. We no longer produce the waist that will last a few houndred years.
We could even start researching how to recycle it. You know, just like Windmills or Solar power plants.
Hence: Argument flawed.
____________
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2011 01:13 AM |
|
|
Well I agree that Nuclear power can be done in some places. Not where I live though. My state just recently voted to shut down our Nuclear power because of a recent Tridium leak, though that was the feather that broke the camel's back (It's always been kind of a leaky plant). Nuclear power has it's place, but countries that tend to have minimal regulations like mine shouldn't take them on.
Besides Fissionable Uranium and Plutonium are finite resources. Nuclear power and oil are tempoary solutions to our energy problems.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted March 29, 2011 01:17 AM |
|
|
Well, it's pretty much unlimited power (Chaoshydra, no Willow-picture!). I am actually for it, as we seem to get more and more trouble having enough energy for everybody. The prices are almost too high to be real, at least here in Norway. And if you find the right places for it then nuclear reactors can be pretty safe.
____________
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2011 01:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, it's pretty much unlimited power (Chaoshydra, no Willow-picture!). I am actually for it, as we seem to get more and more trouble having enough energy for everybody. The prices are almost too high to be real, at least here in Norway. And if you find the right places for it then nuclear reactors can be pretty safe.
It's far from unlimited. Only a small precentage of Uranium fissionable and even with so called "breeder reactors" Nuclear power would be hard pressed to replace oil and last a century. I am glad Nuclear power is safe where you are. It's not as safe where I am.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted March 29, 2011 01:26 AM |
|
|
Much more unlimited than oil and the likes.
And there's not only Uranium. You also have for example Thorium and other stuff too that would work!
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2011 08:38 AM |
|
|
The breeder technology is currently deemed to unsafe to use it (the risk is much higher) - even though it would greatly lengthen the time span nuclear power can be used.
With enough Uranium there at the moment, and with lots of more in sight (Uranium is in the ocean and can be won from the ash of coal plants), there is no necessity right now to have more than a couple of small experimental breeder plants, trying to refine technology.
However, it seems that the waste problem isn't really dug here.
First there is the waste that comes from mining Uranium - this makes for 80% of the world's nuclear waste. Radioactivity in it is light, however, the stuff is usually deposited right werde it was dug out. Once it's dried, since what was before solidly within the ground is now rather powdry and quite mobile.
Second, there is the waste from medical sources, industry and so on. Weapons as well.
Third, there is the power plant waste. Currently this waste - and I'm talking about the so-called High-Level-Waste only, that is, the really dangerous high-radiation stuff that will be with us at least 10.000 years worldwide amounts to 12.000 tons.
Additionally, the OLD waste is to consider, that has been dumped rather unceremoniously in the past and will now have to be cleaned up (note, that this costs a hell of a lot of money, making the then oh so "cheap" electricityy a lot more expensive).
For the US, this here
http://www.em.doe.gov/PDFs/170016EM_FYP_Final_3-6-06.pdf
is a DOE report about sites with waste that are in the process of cleaning up - page 11 is a list, page 14 is a budget list. There ARE lots of contaminated sites from the past where highly dangerous materials are stored in a highly irresponsible fashion that have to be cleaned up, not to mention a plethora of accidents involving nuclear waste world-wide (here I would admit, though, that this is on par with the plethora of accidents involving chemical plants and THEIR waste).
Everyone who thinks that current nuclear plants are not producing any waste, have misundertood something. The stuff will be radioactive at least 10.000 years.
Now, the problem with disposing of waste with a longevity of AT LEAST 10.000 years (and for a sizable part 24.000 years) is, that there is no way to make sure that the containers as such will last that long (especially considering the fact that part of that waste is not only developing radioactivity but heat as well. (You can see the effect in Chernobyl, where a new concrete lid will have to be build soon since the old one is eroding fast.)
At the moment, after producing radioactive waste for over 60 years now, there is still no FINAL depository site in operation - worldwide.
Germany did try one out over what would be a short period considering the amount of time involved, the Pit Asse 2, a former salt mine, which had been operated as a final depository since end of the 60s.
The weak points were fairly early known, but denied. After experimenting a lot and trying - in vain - to solve the problems (water breaches producing radioactive brine) by fillin g the pit up, an expertise in 2007 made it clear that there was no hope of safe depositing. Consequently, the pit will have to be closed, the stored material, thankfully no High-Level stuff, will have to be relocated. Costs are estimated to nigh on 4 billion € for this action alone.
There are a couple of interesting ponts here.
In Asse only LLW and ILW was deposited (low and intermediate level waste). Over a 100.000 barrels LLW and 1.300 barrels with ILW. Interestingly enough, when they took stock, instead of 1.300 barrels of ILW there were 16.100; 14.800 were undeclared and no one knew where those came from...
Since cancer records are kept in the county where Asse is located, someone had the idea to check them for the years of 2000 to 2008 (when the contaminated brine had left the pit). The records started in 2002, and 2010 there was enough material to make a comparison. Strangely enough, in the area of Asse, there were significantly more cases of thyroid cancer and leukemia than in the neighboring areas. For example, instead of the expected 8.5 cases with leukemia there were 18 cases (with 11 dying instead of the expected 4.7) and 12 cases of thyroid cancer instead of the expected 3.9.
Note, that we are talking about an EXPERIMENTAL site under permanent and massive surveillance with NO HLW deposited.
What happens, when an NPP is going out of commission? Depends. In Germany it's dismantled. Dismantling costs about half a billion € and takes 5-10 years (the rods alone have to be stored for 1-5 years in a cooling basin). Roughly 1% of the reactor mass is radioactive waste, about 3.000 tons for a plant.
In Japan, there are 5 plants out of commission currently, Fukushima NOT counted.
1) Fugen; in dismantling since 2003;
Accidents:
14 - 16 April 1997 a tritium leakage was announced to the responsible authorities 30 hours after the event. During the following investigation it was shown that it already had 11 similar incidents. Five managers of the operator at that time (at the time: Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation) resigned.
8 April 2002 about 200 cubic meters of steam escaped from a defective pipe. The reactor was switched off.
Also with dismantling there were surprises: With controls it was stated that walls at 25 of 34 points did not have the necessary strength.
Incidentally, it got the Historical Landmark Award of the American Nuclear Society (which is interesting, considering the last point).
2 and 3) Hamaoka; 2 out of 5 plants out of commission since 2009.
Accidents:
Unit 1 HPCI Rupture; on November 7, 2001, a valve in the HPCI system of Unit 1 ruptured during a Periodical-manual-startup-test. Since this is considered a part of the ECCS, the implications reach further the event itself, and drew into question the reliability of the emergency safety system. Unit 2 was also shut down for the purpose of investigating similar structures.
Unit 5 Steam Turbine Problems; too recent to cover the entire relevant time frame in the data above, on June 15, 2006 Unit 5 was shut down due to excessive turbine vibrations. It was discovered that a number of turbine vanes had actually completely broken off. In the turbine that failed, nearly all vanes showed fractures or cracking while the majority of the vanes of the other two low pressure turbines also showed problems. Fault for the problems were placed on Hitachi, the NSSS supplier.
4) JPDR.
The first NPP in Asia, starting in 1963;out of commission since 1976. From 1986-1996 experimental object for testing safe dismantling.
5) Tokai
March 31, 1998: operations cease
March 2001: last of the nuclear fuel moved off-site
October 4, 2001: decommissioning plan announced
December 2001: decommissioning begins, spent fuel pool is cleaned
2003: turbine room and electric generator taken down
Late 2004: fuel moving crane dismantled
2011: the reactor itself is dismantled
The second Tokai Plant, has had problems as well, due to March 11:
Following the 2011 Tôhoku earthquake and tsunami the number 2 reactor was one of eleven nuclear reactors nation wide to be shut down automatically. It was reported on 14 March that a cooling system pump for the number 2 reactor had stopped working. Japan Atomic Power Company stated that there was a second operational pump and cooling was working, but that two of three diesel generators used to power the cooling system were out of order.
Lastly, Tokai 2 is, as well as Fukushima, a so-called BWR, a boiling water reactor. One of the main weaknesses of this type of plant is the fact, that it MUST be cooled, even after the plant shuts down (and cooled for a long time), and is therefore dependant on EXTERNAL electricity for cooling. In case of an EMERGENCY shutdown, cooling is needed as well - the trouble is, that depending on the kind of emergency, external electricity may become a problem, as has been demonstrated.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 29, 2011 09:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, it's pretty much unlimited power (Chaoshydra, no Willow-picture!). I am actually for it, as we seem to get more and more trouble having enough energy for everybody. The prices are almost too high to be real, at least here in Norway. And if you find the right places for it then nuclear reactors can be pretty safe.
*cough* The price skyrocketed 2-3 years ago when the goverment stopped enforcing a reasonable price on the electricity via regulation.
The fact that they have not banned "milking" of the great water reservoars: by tapping them roughly emthpy before winter, and then skyrocket the prices for the sheer lulz of it says volumes, and then import overpriced electricity from Sweden to cover up.....
It is despicable.
____________
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2011 12:20 PM |
|
|
|
However safe nuclear power is I think we can all agree that we are going to have to find alternatives at some point. Instead of making new plants it would be better to use what energy we are producing towards alternative energy research.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2011 12:54 PM |
|
|
In Germany another interesting and promising project has been started - a joint venture between energy provider Lichtblick and car manufacturer Volkswagen, which will solve a plethora of problems with renewable energies and the changing energy demand (which is a problem for big plants).
A gas driven VW engine is the heart of small-block generators (efficiency > 90%) is installed into buildings with a yearly heat demand of between 40.000 and 400.000 Kwh. These mini-plants are fairly small and will be LINKED (to build a giant gas plant, decentralized).
This is meant to be used IN ADDITION to wind and solar energy, to cover the gaps - electricity is only produced when it is needed, not in general to be stored!
In case you can read German
http://www.lichtblick.de/pdf/zhkw/info/zhkw_25_fragen.pdf
here you find some info about it.
The project has started, and the demand is high. Compared with nuclear and coal power, this hybrid of solar/wind and gas power is indeed very clean, with a very high efficiency.
EDIT: to forestall misunderstandings: the USER (that is, the people living or working in the houese), get GAS-HEATING. This system generates electricity when in use, that will be put into the net (the necessity to heat somewhat correlates will with solar energy not being effective). The user pays like for a gas-heating and 5.000 € up front for the installation and maintainance. Lichtblick pays the user a small rent for the space used and a small fee for each kw in case electricity is produced.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2011 02:05 PM |
|
|
on another forum, someone who seems to have a bit of knowledge about french NPPs, says that people who work there are often encouraged to not report anything when they see that something should be fixed, because repairs are too expensive.
it seems some people were laid off because they dared speaking about those problems.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2011 10:07 AM |
|
|
As was to be expected, the situation in Fukushima is getting worse by and by. Interesting consequences are that Japanese ships have already been sent back (from China), due to their high level of radiation (having passed the plant site). This will become an "interesting" problem, when said ships arrive in Europe and in the US...
Meanwhile there have been high radiation levels detected in some village 40 kms away from Fukushima - however, obthe government doesn't want to evacuate. Yet.
3 weeks after the desaster there's still absolutely no sign they can get this under control. Oh well.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 31, 2011 04:32 PM |
|
|
When was this out of control? That is all I wonder.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2011 04:35 PM |
|
|
pretty much all the time since radiation is leaking from the plant.
or maybe you consider that it is under control? 
|
| |
|
|
