why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?

[GonzoGamer]

I'm constantly amazed that so many people really believe everything big industries tells them. These must be the same people who are really popular at the new car lots.

They're certainly the same people who ate up an article by a fake nuclear safety expert who turns out to have been in economics research at MIT [http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/15/josef_oehmen_nuclear_not_worried_viral]. His central claim, that there was no way there would be any radiation leak at Fukushima, has already been debunked by reality.

I have a book on my coffee table at home called The Experts Speak, featuring the 100% wrong things putative "experts" in various fields had to say before and after and during major events in world history. Watching some of the pro-nuclear partisans as they circle their wagons -- combined with various official pronouncements and spin-doctoring by the nuclear industry -- has been like watching a whole chapter of that book being written in real time.

I'll have to check that book out.
It's really not surprising at all when you consider that most 'experts' that do these 'studies' are often on the payroll of a corporation within the industry.
For a long time the only 'studies' done on cell phone radiation were done by the phone companies and of course all of them came back saying that there was no danger. The first independent study of course had different findings.
We see something similar going on in Japan where the local energy concern is telling people one thing and government agencies (from other governments) are saying something quite different.

 

[wetfart]

.. I personally think its stupid to protest against them because stuff like this only happens in extreme situations ...
discuss

Well, beacuse a nuclear power plant exploding is a more extreme situation than an earhtquake.

when a reactor goes into a meltdown it doesn't explode

If enough heat and pressure is generated it CAN explode.

A meltdown means that the temperature causes the fuel rods to melt.

Secondly, the configuration of a nuclear core and the enrichment means that you cannot have a nuclear detonation like a weapon. The risk of explosion comes from the build up of hydrogen gas.

Third, you get more radiation exposure flying from NY to California than you do from living next door to a nuclear power plant.

Sources: Has a masters degree in Nuclear Engineering
Worked in the nuclear industry
Introduction to Nuclear Engineering 3rd Edition by Lamarsh

 

[keinechance]

.. I personally think its stupid to protest against them because stuff like this only happens in extreme situations ...
discuss

Well, beacuse a nuclear power plant exploding is a more extreme situation than an earhtquake.

when a reactor goes into a meltdown it doesn't explode

If enough heat and pressure is generated it CAN explode.

A meltdown means that the temperature causes the fuel rods to melt.

Secondly, the configuration of a nuclear core and the enrichment means that you cannot have a nuclear detonation like a weapon. The risk of explosion comes from the build up of hydrogen gas.

Third, you get more radiation exposure flying from NY to California than you do from living next door to a nuclear power plant.

Sources: Has a masters degree in Nuclear Engineering
Worked in the nuclear industry
Introduction to Nuclear Engineering 3rd Edition by Lamarsh

Yes, correct, an explosion would result from the build up of pressure from the gases that the meltdown generates, and not directly from a nuclear detonation.

But the reactor could still burst/explode from this build up of pressure, which is why the have been venting the radioactive gases, to reduce that pressure, and to reduce the risk of that happening.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I know it's an extreme circumstance but if Japan was powered by the sun

...Then there would have been a series of colossal explosions and massive toxic fires from the giant banks of batteries used to store power for use at night.

And for the other option, tidal, how many people do you think an offshore tidal battery would kill when a tsunami threw it inland?

Yea and if they had wind turbines, they may have fallen over and crushed the rubble even more.
Actually the cell structures are a lot more stable now. Even using storage built 10 years ago, it would've been a lot easier to contain than a massive radioactive cloud that could drift anywhere.
Same thing with the tidal battery. Yes, if it got washed up it would've caused destruction, but not as much (the wave itself would do as much damage with or without it) and not as long lasting as a radioactive cloud which seems like the best case scenario right now: a radioactive cloud and no wind.

The fact of the matter is that there are energy sources that do not have long term catastrophic effects when damaged and in the past year we've seen two disasters caused by sources of energy that do.
I think it's time that they re-evaluate and considering how fast energy technology moves now, they should re-evaluate every year. Who knows, maybe with more development, nuclear power really could be clean and safe.

 

[keinechance]

What's funnier is that the Japanese plants were designed to be able to tolerate earthquakes up to 7.5 on the Richter scale. This one was 9.0, and even if they build plants that can withstand that, there might be an earthquake at 10 or 11.

You do know that an earthquake with magnitude 10.0 would release energy equivalent to a 15.2 teraton load of TNT, or more energy release than a Shoemaker-Levy collision on the surface of the Earth [http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/], and that an earthquake with magnitude 11.0 would be equivalent to a 488 teraton load of TNT, or three times the energy of the Chicxulub collision which contributed to the end of the Cretaceous age? If we had an earthquake like that, we'd have problems far beyond containing a nuclear reactor.

I did not know that. I knew that the increase of the richter scale is geometric, so the increase from 3-4 is less than from 6-7, but exactly what that equals I had no idea. Guess your right, if that ever happens we will have bigger problems:s

The scale is logarithmic. 4 is 10x more powerful then 3, 5 is 10x more powerful then 4, etc.

 

[Awexsome]

Last I checked while still nervous and not optimal, nobody in Japan was melting from radiation.

If the biggest natural disaster ever to hit Japan still isn't enough for a nuke plant to cause widespread ruin then I don't know why people are so worried.

It's kinda the same thing with the airplane. A lot of people are still terrified of the things because when they crash, they can crash badly. But they crash hundreds of times less often than cars.

 

[keinechance]

What's funnier is that the Japanese plants were designed to be able to tolerate earthquakes up to 7.5 on the Richter scale. This one was 9.0, and even if they build plants that can withstand that, there might be an earthquake at 10 or 11.

You do know that an earthquake with magnitude 10.0 would release energy equivalent to a 15.2 teraton load of TNT, or more energy release than a Shoemaker-Levy collision on the surface of the Earth [http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/], and that an earthquake with magnitude 11.0 would be equivalent to a 488 teraton load of TNT, or three times the energy of the Chicxulub collision which contributed to the end of the Cretaceous age? If we had an earthquake like that, we'd have problems far beyond containing a nuclear reactor.

I did not know that. I knew that the increase of the richter scale is geometric, so the increase from 3-4 is less than from 6-7, but exactly what that equals I had no idea. Guess your right, if that ever happens we will have bigger problems:s

The scale is logarithmic. 4 is 10x more powerful then 3, 5 is 10x more powerful then 4, etc.

Actually, for both the Richter and moment magnitude scales, an increase of 1.0 in magnitude is equivalent to an energy release of about 32 times that of the lower number.

Huh...did I read the wrong scale?

 

[Rex Fallout]

I recently saw in the news that people in Russia demonstrated against nuclear power plants after they heard that three Japanese power plants where going critical. I personally think its stupid to protest against them because stuff like this only happens in extreme situations (a earthquake like this doesn't happen often and buildings are designed to resist quakes)
discuss

Personally I've never been a big fan of Nuclear energy, not because of supposed risks, but I cant really say why... maybe because I just dislike the use of anything 'Nuclear' period? Anyways, I think that we should focus on bettering solar technology, that stuff would be way more effecient if we could just figure out how to use in a more effecient way.

 

[Rex Fallout]

Last I checked while still nervous and not optimal, nobody in Japan was melting from radiation.

If the biggest natural disaster ever to hit Japan still isn't enough for a nuke plant to cause widespread ruin then I don't know why people are so worried.

It's kinda the same thing with the airplane. A lot of people are still terrified of the things because when they crash, they can crash badly. But they crash hundreds of times less often than cars.

Yeah but if you think about it, technically there are hundreds upon hundreds of more cars then there are planes being used, (probably closer to the millions) So technically if we were to look at percentage of crashes to number of planes maybe planes are technically more dangerous?

 

[Atmos Duality]

I think it's time that they re-evaluate and considering how fast energy technology moves now, they should re-evaluate every year. Who knows, maybe with more development, nuclear power really could be clean and safe.

Want to hear something funny? Current generation reactors are ALREADY VERY CLEAN AND SAFE.

The current Generation 3 reactors being developed in France vastly outpace anything employed in the United States (and most of what Japan uses) in terms of environmental tech and efficiency. Why doesn't the United States have these plants? Well....
1)A fear-mongering media catering to a paranoid and uninformed public (who wouldn't trust anything you said anyway due to cynical antagonism),
2)A plundered economy (nuke plants are insanely expensive to build in the USA).
3)Politics. You have no idea the nightmare of politics and red tape that awaits anyone in the Nuclear Industry in the United States.

The Department of Energy does not permit the construction of Breeder Reactors (fuel reconstitution, sort of like nuclear recycling) in the United States. Most Generation 3 reactors incorporate a Breeder Response into their development and on-site storage systems. Generation 2 Reactors produce more waste that requires more burial/storage.

Generation 2 and Generation 3 reactors, (by their physical construction) *CANNOT, BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, CANNOT* explode like Chernobyl. Why? 1) Better design and construction, 2) Staffed by actual trained nuclear personnel rather than Coal Miners, 3) We use Water rather than Graphite as a moderator. Graphite burns. Water doesn't (not distilled water anyway).

The associated Turbines and steam systems can explode (torque buildup, overload, etc), but not the reactor itself. The reactor will go to a "dead state" if an incident occurs (via a variety of safety features, including a "drop field" in case of collapse) to isolate the nuclear material. In short, Generation 2 reactors and onward are built like giant concrete tombs.

Newer plants are scientifically designed and proven to be much safer, but only the most wealthy of nations can afford to construct them now, ironically, because of fear-mongering and politics (China is slated to build such a state-of-the-art Nuclear plant in 2013).
Exelon Corporation was slated to build one in the United States (Texas, specifically) starting this year, but backed out of the project when the economy broke.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

It's kinda the same thing with the airplane. A lot of people are still terrified of the things because when they crash, they can crash badly. But they crash hundreds of times less often than cars.

Yeah but if you think about it, technically there are hundreds upon hundreds of more cars then there are planes being used, (probably closer to the millions) So technically if we were to look at percentage of crashes to number of planes maybe planes are technically more dangerous?

That's already accounted for in airlines; the measure they use is "per passenger-mile", which means they multiply together each mode of transport's number of people carried with the distance traveled.

Fatalities and injuries per passenger-mile are vastly higher for cars than airlines. The accidents per passenger-mile are even more horrifically not in favour of cars because of all the single-occupant driving that goes on... so that measure isn't used too often.

If you use a similar unit for power generation, fatalities per Terawatt-hour [http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/2e5d4dcc4fb511e0ae0c000255111976/comments/2e70ae944fb511e0ae0c000255111976], nuclear power ends up being safer than biofuel. (I'm not certain that's the best measure, though, but it does highlight how dangerous other power generation methods are and how well they've been able to keep their accidents out of public awareness. And yes, I blame the press for that.)

-- Steve

 

[Evil Tim]

Even using storage built 10 years ago, it would've been a lot easier to contain than a massive radioactive cloud that could drift anywhere.

But you wouldn't, you'd have to be using storage built 40 years ago to make a fair comparison. Storage which, for that matter, was due to be taken out of service and dismantled a fortnight later.

It would have been highly Not Fun for anyone who lived near such a thing if it were to catch fire.

As for the tidal battery, you're saying that a wave hurling a huge solid object inland isn't significantly worse than a wave not hurling a huge solid object inland? Traditionally tsunami-proof buildings can't stand being hit by large objects, that's why the reactors lost their backup generators; they were ready for a wave, not a wave hurling an apartment block.

 

[keinechance]

Even using storage built 10 years ago, it would've been a lot easier to contain than a massive radioactive cloud that could drift anywhere.

But you wouldn't, you'd have to be using storage built 40 years ago to make a fair comparison. Storage which, for that matter, was due to be taken out of service and dismantled a fortnight later.

It would have been highly Not Fun for anyone who lived near such a thing if it were to catch fire.

As for the tidal battery, you're saying that a wave hurling a huge solid object inland isn't significantly worse than a wave not hurling a huge solid object inland? Traditionally tsunami-proof buildings can't stand being hit by large objects, that's why the reactors lost their backup generators; they were ready for a wave, not a wave hurling an apartment block.

Then it wouldn't have made much of a difference right? A building hurled inland or a battery hurled inland, the result would have been the same?

 

[iHaile]

Media hears an expert saying something sciency. Media publishes scare-mongering article exaggerating everything expert has said. Public see article. Public set up protests and blurt out their moronic views on news shows and radio even though they understand little about the topic. Expert turns to alcohol.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Even using storage built 10 years ago, it would've been a lot easier to contain than a massive radioactive cloud that could drift anywhere.

But you wouldn't, you'd have to be using storage built 40 years ago to make a fair comparison. Storage which, for that matter, was due to be taken out of service and dismantled a fortnight later.

It would have been highly Not Fun for anyone who lived near such a thing if it were to catch fire.

As for the tidal battery, you're saying that a wave hurling a huge solid object inland isn't significantly worse than a wave not hurling a huge solid object inland? Traditionally tsunami-proof buildings can't stand being hit by large objects, that's why the reactors lost their backup generators; they were ready for a wave, not a wave hurling an apartment block.

And that's way nobody used it 40 years ago. My point is that (now that they are efficient) we should be using energy sources that do not have the potential for large scale catastrophic incidents like this.

That seems like an oversight of "tsunami-proof" building. With a tsunami, all sorts of giant objects are going to be hurled inland, reactors (which wouldn't wash away if they're properly anchored), ships, and yes even apartment blocks.

 

[Karma168]

The fact of the matter is that there are energy sources that do not have long term catastrophic effects when damaged and in the past year we've seen two disasters caused by sources of energy that do.
I think it's time that they re-evaluate and considering how fast energy technology moves now, they should re-evaluate every year. Who knows, maybe with more development, nuclear power really could be clean and safe.

Ideally we wouldn't use anything that is harmful to the environment but if 100% of energy came from wind/solar/tidal then we would constantly be having brownouts or even complete blackouts. renewable just isn't powerful enough to support the huge demand that the world has for electricity. Really we will have to wait until they can crack fusion power before we can get 100% clean energy; of course then we have a mini sun sitting somewhere which could be quite dangerous.

It's the same reason we still use petrol in cars; sure there are cleaner alternatives but they're just not good enough to make it worthwhile.


Sticking with the car analogy if you think about what changes every few years you'd be forgiven for not noticing; the changes are so small that you don't realise they've happened. It's the same in the nuclear industry; little refinements are constantly being made in the design of the fuel rods, the control and coolant systems, etc. that improve the efficiency and safeness of the plant. Just because they don't tear the place down and start again every few years doesn't mean it's old and dangerous.

 

[MrJKapowey]

I only fear ones with these letter combinations: Chernobyl

Spoiler: Guess...

Charlie, Hotel, Echo, Romeo, November, Oscar, Bravo, Yankee, Lima

Spoiler: ...or...

Tango, Hotel, Romeo, Echo, Echo, ... Mike, India, Lima, Echo, ...
India, Sierra, Lima, Alpha, November, Delta.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Because media blows shit way out of proportion. Every method of getting energy has its risks. Coal has the problem with miners. Natural gas explodes if it's not carefully handled as, apparently do windmills if the wind blows too hard ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty-vH42H_7k ). Dams create flood hazards. An earthquake at any one of these kinds of power stations (except the windmills, but those don't gather enough energy to be feasible as a sole power source) can cause additional dangers, no different from a nuclear reactor.

 

[GonzoGamer]

The fact of the matter is that there are energy sources that do not have long term catastrophic effects when damaged and in the past year we've seen two disasters caused by sources of energy that do.
I think it's time that they re-evaluate and considering how fast energy technology moves now, they should re-evaluate every year. Who knows, maybe with more development, nuclear power really could be clean and safe.

Ideally we wouldn't use anything that is harmful to the environment but if 100% of energy came from wind/solar/tidal then we would constantly be having brownouts or even complete blackouts. renewable just isn't powerful enough to support the huge demand that the world has for electricity. Really we will have to wait until they can crack fusion power before we can get 100% clean energy; of course then we have a mini sun sitting somewhere which could be quite dangerous.

It's the same reason we still use petrol in cars; sure there are cleaner alternatives but they're just not good enough to make it worthwhile.


Sticking with the car analogy if you think about what changes every few years you'd be forgiven for not noticing; the changes are so small that you don't realise they've happened. It's the same in the nuclear industry; little refinements are constantly being made in the design of the fuel rods, the control and coolant systems, etc. that improve the efficiency and safeness of the plant. Just because they don't tear the place down and start again every few years doesn't mean it's old and dangerous.

It's not the 80s anymore. Clean energy actually works now, it's efficient, and most importantly it doesn't have the potential for long term catastrophic damage.
I know several people who have solar power for their houses: not a farm, just panels on the roof. Not only do they not suffer from brownouts but they get a check from their local power company instead of a bill because they always have a surplus.
The real reason we still use 'petrol' in our cars is because the oil companies are rich enough to own politicians.