30 years after Chernobyl, new shelter marks start of 100+ years cleanup

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Coal directly kills many thousands each year through mining accidents and pollution. Nobody really knows for sure what it’s full impact on climate change will be.
NP is a far more emotive topic, but deaths from it are very few in comparison. Remember that Chernobyl was 1950s technology, built and operated in a country that didn’t really care about the lives of their residents.
Today you aren’t allowed to build a reactor unless it has a 1 in 10 million year failure rate. Whilst this sounds an unprovable figure, there hasn’t been a human error/design faultmeltdown in decades.

The alternatives:
Oil: As bad as coal. Possibly worse if you add the political dimension to it.
Wind: The worst source from a supply point of view. Unreliable, can’t be put in ideal locations unless you want vast transmission lines, can’t be stored.
Hydro: Best for energy supply, but destroys large forest areas and rivers.
Solar: Good for energy supply, but can’t do base load.
Geothermal: Good, but tends to be in remote locations.

If I had to lay money on it, I would say that someday, someone will work out how to reliably pump water into the mantle, and effectively harness the steam. Rough methods of this exist today, but if mastered, the potential for clean energy is enormous.

[Kunama]

Hi Gary, would it bother you much if I called by and fitted a GPS ankle monitor to you, just to keep track of your travels so I can head somewhere else?

Back to the topic, 18 years after the explosion at Chernobyl I visited Finland where I had grown up to find that many of the friends I had left behind in 1969 had died of various cancers. We had lived in a an area of Finland very heavily contaminated by Chernobyl. There are still restrictions on fishing in some local lakes...

[75BC (Brendon)]

I’ve seen a few docos on Chernobyl and it unfortunately sounded like it was an accident waiting to happen.

I may be a little naïve and uneducated but I‘ve always thought that nuclear power, in a well governed country, to be a very viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Someone here may know more about this than me but Perth has had a Wave Energy Project running for a bit over 12 months now. When I first heard about this I thought it sounded like a great way to produce reliable power.

http://arena.gov.au/project/perth-wave-energy-project/

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by 75BC

I’ve seen a few docos on Chernobyl and it unfortunately sounded like it was an accident waiting to happen.

I may be a little naïve and uneducated but I‘ve always thought that nuclear power, in a well governed country, to be a very viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Someone here may know more about this than me but Perth has had a Wave Energy Project running for a bit over 12 months now. When I first heard about this I thought it sounded like a great way to produce reliable power.

http://arena.gov.au/project/perth-wave-energy-project/

It all depends on what you call a good governed country
Do the USA (Three mile Island) and Japan( Fukushima) qualify for your good governed country.
One could also bring the UK and Belgium into the fold all have had nuclear
accidents,or are pretty close to having one ,re Belgium.
Cheers

[75BC (Brendon)]

I definitely see your point there Ron. NEARLY having a nuclear accident is about as bad as HAVING an accident if it's where you live. And these days what country IS well governed?

This is where my knowledge fails me. Am I right in saying that there are different types of nuclear reactors and that some are safer than others?

But then you will always have the issue of waste with nuclear. That is why I find some of the new energy production ideas, such as wave / tidal so exciting. The ocean has a massive amount of energy waiting to be tapped into. I’m not a Greenie, but I do like to try to be environmentally friendly.

[Atmos (Colin)]

One of the biggest problems with tapping into some of these very green resources such as ocean currents/wave or pumping water towards the mantle and using the steam to power a turbine... We do not know what the long term effects of these are.

There are some geothermal power generation techniques that I am against, others I am all for. I believe that if the heat (energy) is coming up of its own accord, go for it! Just don't be digging or pumping anything down there! The moment you start playing around with geothermal pockets and pumping extra water down there, stealing away that heat causes Earth quakes in the surrounding regions. At this stage it is usually nothing more than tremors but I personally think of them as being a precursor to what is to come.

The same goes for ocean power, we're taking momentum from one area and expecting that there will not be any consequences. The law of unintended consequences reigns King over all.
Did you know that there is a hydro in China (worlds largest I believe) that has to date, slowed the Earths rotation a of a fraction of a second. As we use the Earths gravitational energy to produce power it saps it out of its rotational momentum. No such thing as free energy

[xelasnave]

Colin I sence your view is notwithstanding the massive problems NP has delivered in the past that for the future it will be accident free, safer than any alternative, cleaner than any alternative and the production of equipment associated with NP will have less carbon footprint than solar panels.

Storage of waste will not be dangerous nor will it be an economic and political nightmare.
I doubt storage will be easy.

You sound like the gun lobby in the usa defending the gun laws, their side is beyond right and any one stating the obvious that there is a gun problem are left wing traitors.

Come on man are you serious NP beats hydro because it will cause the world to stop... I know you did not say that but if not what is your point.. I know NP is the one and only energy option thats all we hear.. Funny about that...


Why is it that no alternatives are valid.

Accidents happen, see the OP, check what happened in Japan, etc. And accidents will always happen... Thats why they call them accidents.. Thing beyond our control or unexpected.

How can you suggest that every alternative wont work etc leaving only NP.

Everything but NP has problems but NP is better than perfect is that what we must believe. I dont believe the never ending NP propaganda but I notice it is there.

Ask around people dont like it, they dont want it even if scientists keep telling us it is best for us the people dont want it.

Ask around in Japan or Europe.

You cant ignore the negatives, see OP, and Japan... Neither of these problems have been fixed and the damage continues and that is not going to change soon.

Thermal is used in Greenland I think.
And surely if we can manage NP we could manage the engineering involved in thermal.

No options other than NP... I do not believe that is a reasonable position.

Alex

[xelasnave]

OK I acknowledge my post is the attack of the straw men but I hope someone can understand why this "we must accept NP" thing ticks me off.

[Atmos (Colin)]

I understand where you are coming from Alex, I am by no means saying that NP is not without its flaws. If built and run properly, without politics getting involved or any organisation rushing nuclear plants to get built faster (a perfect world), it is almost as safe as solar.

I personally believe that Cold Fusion is the way of the future, we just haven't cracked that particular egg yet. Solar power is the next best energy source although it does depend upon location. Some countries get months of darkness at a time :/ We have come a long way from the 5% effiency of solar panels, realistically we just need to find a way to move away from silicon based solar cells. It is the same kind of arguement for pure electric cars, they are what's coming BUT we just need battery technology to catchup.

I definitely don't believe that we're going to stop the Earth with hydro dams It is me trying to point out that we have no idea what the long term effects on humanity are going to be with These kinds of renewable energies. The Earth is slowing down anyway as the moon slowly drifts from us, what difference is it going to make if we speed it up a little over the next few thousand years? Probably nothing. My point is, we don't know

I actually really like the idea of putting large arrays of solar panels in space and then literally beaming it down to Earth! Yes there is energy loss when transforming energy but it is also more efficient in space

[xelasnave]

Thank you Colin for such a well considered reply.

I can identify my concern.

Human involvement.
Not all humans are competent, honest, reliable, diligent, sober and responsible.
It only takes one bad one to stuff things up and I venture to suggest we will see many future stuff ups or accidents that should never have happened but somehow they happen.

One could argue the benefits the safty etc etc but the human element opens the door to problems from incompetency to corruption.

Just how much damage has the NP disasters left us with?
And these disasters just keep on giving.

Look at Japan and the land they have lost and how can we quantify the damage to the life in the oceans and how that will affect humans at the top of the foodchain.

There are alternatives notwithstanding the NP lobby keeps telling us otherwise.
They have something to sell and any alternative energy is their competitor and they sideline it..

Alex

[bojan]

The is also coal lobby... and green lobby....

The common denominator is Human lobby. Let's get rid of humans.. so life can can carry on safely and undisturbed.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by bojan

The is also coal lobby... and green lobby....

The common denominator is Human lobby. Let's get rid of humans.. so life can can carry on safely and undisturbed.

Yes indeed everyone has an axe to grind.

Strangely greenies annoy me as well.
In fact at my age one finds little that is not annoying.

I recognise that fact.

I blame myself as I have sat back leaving it to others to solve the world energy problems when no doubt if I just devoted a weekend of thinking I would have provided the solution some time ago.

Getting rid of humans would seem like a great idea if you were not human.. . So lets abandon all research on AI before machines are able to rationalise they would be better off without us.

Alex

[bojan]

[Peter.M]

Thorium power, if I had my way it is something we would be looking at developing here. Less waste, more fuel, the isotope is 100% abundant, rather than needing to refine the trace isotopes into fuel. The reactors are safer, and it is unable to be weaponized. It is in my opinion the holy grail, the kicker here would be with a working reactor we would be able to sell plans to other nations as none have been developed yet.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Peter.M

Thorium power, if I had my way it is something we would be looking at developing here. Less waste, more fuel, the isotope is 100% abundant, rather than needing to refine the trace isotopes into fuel. The reactors are safer, and it is unable to be weaponized. It is in my opinion the holy grail, the kicker here would be with a working reactor we would be able to sell plans to other nations as none have been developed yet.

It seems to offer a solution but if you can't get material for weapon use why bother.

I think we face a problem of stock control. If you own oil coal or U you need to sell all of it before you move on...much like getting rid of last years cars before the new model arrives.

Does anyone know why thorium seems to be being overlooked.

Alex

[gary]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

The main issue for NP for me is the cost... Is it really cheap in practice.

Hi Alex,

In the latest news, according to the former chairman of the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that apparently is no longer true.

I was reading an article today in the April 2016 edition of the Institute
of Electrical & Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Spectrum Magazine
and having remembered your sentence, it caught my eye and I
immediately thought it might be of interest to you.

It the print edition of the magazine the article appeared under the heading
"U.S. Fission Fizzles" and in the online edition, the same article, by
Peter Fairley, appears under the heading "Has U.S. Nuclear Power's
Death Spiral Begun?"

Originally Posted by Peter Fairley, IEEE Spectrum Magazine

U.S. nuclear power plant operators are fighting a war on two fronts: Crashing prices for natural gas and accelerating market penetration of renewable energy have both contributed to dramatic drops in wholesale power price levels—in some states, they’ve fallen by more than two-thirds over the past decade. This has left nuclear power, whose operating costs are pretty much fixed, with few options other than surrender.

That marks quite a reversal, says Gregory Jaczko, former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “It’s been a widely held belief that nuclear is incredibly cheap to operate. That was the case 10 years ago, when nuclear plants were cash cows. That’s not the case today, especially as the plants age,” he says.

Fission is already giving ground. Two plants, in Wisconsin and Vermont, shut down in 2013 and 2014, respectively. More shutdowns are anticipated in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, and at least half a dozen more plants are teetering on the brink of insolvency.

Nuclear operators had been expecting President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which would have established national carbon regulations and increased the cost of fossil-fuel-generated electricity, to offer them a reprieve. But their hope was short-lived: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in February to stay implementation of the plan.

Originally Posted by Peter Fairley, IEEE Spectrum Magazine

By June, state regulators plan to detail special payments for New York’s nuclear plants. For companies that open their books and show that their plants are losing money, New York is vowing to make them whole.

“It’s probably the stickiest energy policy question there is in the electric sector,” says Julien Dumoulin-Smith, a senior power markets analyst with New York City–based UBS Investment Research.

New York is not alone. Several states, including Illinois and Ohio, are seeking to give nuclear power plants an extra boost. Exelon lists the dual-*reactor Quad Cities site in Illinois among its uncompetitive plants. Dumoulin-Smith says local power prices are being “pummeled” by wind power, noting that Quad Cities sits just across the border from Iowa, which leads the United States in wind power penetration.

Originally Posted by Peter Fairley, IEEE Spectrum Magazine

But experts say that tougher times could lie ahead, as the extension of tax breaks for wind and solar power voted through the U.S. Congress in December fuels further growth in renewable generation. New York’s program appears to anticipate this, positing that assistance to nuclear reactors is more of a temporary lifeline than a long-term guarantee. State aid is, according to a white paper from the N.Y. Public Service Commission, a means of supporting “a smooth emission-free transition from nuclear to nonnuclear resources” in the event that energy prices “are not able to support the continued financial viability of the [fission] plants.”

I was in West Texas this time last year and driving up through there I
was staggered by the huge number of wind turbines. Speaking to the
locals, it was a no brainer for the farmers. Those little oil derricks you
see throughout that part of the world had largely dried up and they
told me they could lease part of their land and make far greater returns
on a royalty from the wind turbines.

Likewise, flying both east-west and north-south over the United States,
I witnessed first-hand many vast areas of wind electric power generation.
Mind-bogglingly vast.

So in some ways it does no surprise me that power prices were being
pummelled by wind.

Article here -
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nucl...h-spiral-begun

[AndrewJ]

Gday Gary

One thing i never see in any of these NP discussions is where the money to decomission the units will come from, and where is it being held????
ie are these operators "required" to have a guaranteed cash reserve somewhere to cover these future costs, or are they selling electricity at a low price now and ignoring the future costs ( which are far lower for other types of generation ).

Andrew

[xelasnave]

Thanks Garry for thinking about my concern and making your most informative post.
Now we will witness safety taking a back seat as it is forced to do when the cash gets tight...in my view.

It always amused me the way NP would try to show coal as being such a terrible option.
They wanted a greater market share than 10% and of course coal and oil had to be their prime target.
I once believed that GW was invented by the NP lobby given that nearly overnight greenish were indoctrination to believe NP was nice and clean and was the only way to save the planet.
I recall so many movies showing the growth of energy thru history and how coal and oil caused greenhouse and the prospect of destroying the planet.
The movie would subtley show how NP would save us.
GW may be real but I say the NP lobby used it to make their produce more acceptable.
And so the "ban the bomb" mob turned their anger on coal which I believe was what NP had set out to do.
However the scare enabled solar wind and other options seem worthwhile...so it is to most ironic that wind and solar got a leg up most likely from propaganda put out by NP.

[xelasnave]

tto continue..
And who put out that solar had a terrible carbon foot print...this is a common claim and people sprout it as truth without personal review of where the sums came from.
And NP is now safe..I don't know as so many reactors are getting old and if money starts to dry up can anyone not doubt safety and maintenance will go downhill.

The real problem is storage of energy.
Batteries are ok but it is difficult to see them solving the problem.
In my view water storage is the answer even if that means we have to change rivers and make dams where none would be better.
Everything is a trade off but I could handle more Snowy Mountain systems.
It was not electricity that killed the Dowry River it was the add on irrigation system.
If all spare energy topped up water storage it would take away entirely the problem of no sun no wind and stopping and starting pile gas or coal system.

And place NP stations under the lakes minimizing failures of water pumps as gravity feed coolant will almost always work.

One cost NP minimise is the rent to house waste.I bet this aspect is played down but tent is expensive...well being the potential landlords we should make it known we won't store crap for free.

Alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Gday Gary

One thing i never see in any of these NP discussions is where the money to decomission the units will come from, and where is it being held????
ie are these operators "required" to have a guaranteed cash reserve somewhere to cover these future costs, or are they selling electricity at a low price now and ignoring the future costs ( which are far lower for other types of generation ).

Andrew

I bet there is no provision so companies will go bankrupt and guess who picks up the tab...
Please someone tell me I am wrong that such a thing can't happen under the market economy....er also that it can't happen in any communist system.

I really don't want to see NP abandoned but I am sick of it being presented as our only option.
I am already convinced some humans will evolve to glow in the dark so humanity will muddle thru.
Alex