How to make Nuclear Power safer

[xelasnave]

A side issue ..how to regulate energy gluttons
A ski resort in Dubai may be a money maker but can that type of energy use ..I see such as somewhat wastful..be accepted

[clive milne]

Alex, I am not an advocate of the nuclear industry by any stretch of the Imagination. However, I would suggest that it has been unfairly demonised. Consider for example, the quantity of radioactive material released in to the environment prior to the atmospheric weapons test ban. The US and soviets were setting them off like bored school kids with a stash of last year's fire crackers. Something like 1 per week.

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

At the risk of bleating are not those disasters something worthy of consideration.. even without data one can guess that the damage suffering and cost to be not
Insignificant
To dismiss concerns of the uneducated will not put their minds at ease.
Whatever power station you opt for no one wants it in their back yard...maybe hydro if there are fish in the supply dam.

Fukushima I don't consider a nuclear accident. At least not int he same vein as Chernobyl. Fukushima was the result of a Tsunami of unforseen magnitude. Chernobyl was ignorant human behavior.

Even taking into account all accidents Nuclear on average still kills far less than all other forms of power generation at .04 people per terrawatt hour of electricity. Fossil fueled is at the extreme with renewables somewhere in between.
We are exposed to more radiation in our daily lives than we'd otherwise be exposed to if we lived next door to a reactor.
Next gen reactors will have passive systems that exclude the possibility of chernobyl or Fukushima type accidents. Man made or otherwise.

If people really wanted the world to go green power then today Nuclear is the only currently viable option.
I'd much rather a plant here and there then our country side smeared in wind farms or solar stations.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Peter

Fukushima I don't consider a nuclear accident.

True. It was just the result of a failed commercial gamble.

At least not int he same vein as Chernobyl.

Sorry, but if what is reported is true, the designers didnt allow for a possible tsunami, that was forecast "but with a low probability". It was a cost/benefit gamble that didnt pay off this time. As per normal, nothing is a problem till it is one. With Nuclear, low probability problems need to be taken into account much more than with other power sources, but thats not "economically viable".

Even taking into account all accidents Nuclear on average still kills far less than all other forms of power generation

But what happens if everyone goes nuclear and take shortcuts for "commercial reasons". Currently, nuclear is still a small proportion of generation, so by the law of averages has a smaller chance of problems.
What will happen if reactors are built "en masse" everywhere????
I dont know the answer, but based on how the current "economy" works, i would be starting to get worried at a faster rate.

Andrew

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Alex, I am not an advocate of the nuclear industry by any stretch of the Imagination. However, I would suggest that it has been unfairly demonised. Consider for example, the quantity of radioactive material released in to the environment prior to the atmospheric weapons test ban. The US and soviets were setting them off like bored school kids with a stash of last year's fire crackers. Something like 1 per week.

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Gday Peter

True. It was just the result of a failed commercial gamble.

Sorry, but if what is reported is true, the designers didnt allow for a possible tsunami, that was forecast "but with a low probability". It was a cost/benefit gamble that didnt pay off this time. As per normal, nothing is a problem till it is one. With Nuclear, low probability problems need to be taken into account much more than with other power sources, but thats not "economically viable".

But what happens if everyone goes nuclear and take shortcuts for "commercial reasons". Currently, nuclear is still a small proportion of generation, so by the law of averages has a smaller chance of problems.
What will happen if reactors are built "en masse" everywhere????
I dont know the answer, but based on how the current "economy" works, i would be starting to get worried at a faster rate.

Andrew

With all the accidents, man made or acts of "God" nuclear still on average kills less people than every other form of power generation.
Coal fired stations spew out radioactive waste every day and no one says boo.
I'd rather live next to a plant than have a deadzone of a hundred square miles of solar power station or 200 square miles plus of wind turbines to produce the equivalent amount of power.
in 60 years of nuclear power we've had 3 "accident" only one of which killed anyone.

[AndrewJ]

With all the accidents, man made or acts of "God"

Sorry, you implied Fukishima wasnt an "accident" and i beg to differ.
Also "act of god" is a weak excuse for "**** happens, get over it"
as long as i make a profit, who cares????

nuclear still on average kills less people than every other form of power generation

I reckon hydro or wind power kills less people ?????

Anything made by "man" and run for profit
is going to be subject to problems
and profit will always usurp the problems
for the benefit of the investors, not the users.

Andrew

[PeterEde (Peter)]

you'd reckon wrong
http://emanuelemilitello.files.wordp...-terrawatt.gif

Fukushima would not have happened without the tsunami. It was a record breaking unforseen natural event that triggered a nuclear accident

[xelasnave]

Well whatever the cause both disasters have left many acres of land useless
No other energy supply breakdown produces such wasteland.
Even a dam bust although catastrophic leaves the land such that it can be recovered.
I accept NP may have a safer future but even the low number of accidents seem unacceptable and to treat them as statistically justifiable seems to wash over what happened in each of those cases.
Accidents are called such because they are unforeseeable but an accident has it's leftovers.
In the case of NP it results in a lot of useless land of a substantial nature can the future NP guarantee accidents won't happen or if they do vast tracts of land are not rendered usless.
When I asked how to make NP safer it was to seek an insite to a future where the little disasters to date are accepted as real and not merely a statistic which somehow makes it acceptable.
For Australia land coverage by wind turbines or solar panels seems a minor issue and it does not matter who will tolerate living where..it is about if we have new NP will it be safe..no acts of God etc no excuses that this or that was a one off but what will be different..
Anyways cost of NP sidelines it.
Coal and NP both boil water to run a turbine at the moment coal is the cheaper option so no doubt it will prevail and it's problems seen less because it is finally only the bottom line that counts in our current market driven economy.

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Have you seen the area required for an equivalent solar plant. I'd consider that waste land. Not like you can live there. same for wind turbine. Cant live under them.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by PeterEde

Fukushima I don't consider a nuclear accident. At least not int he same vein as Chernobyl. Fukushima was the result of a Tsunami of unforseen magnitude. Chernobyl was ignorant human behavior.

Fukushima was a massive disaster and like all man made systems, its subject to design flaws and the proverbial "act of god" or, in other words "a design flaw" Based on the fact that these accidentts happen on a monotonously frequent basis and knowing how much effort is put into NOT maintaining these plants, you cannot blame the average blog from being nevous. The history and the press are both bad.

Originally Posted by PeterEde

Any real Greenie has to consider nuclear the only current real alternative. That's not to say though by the time if we ever do decide to build that some alternative energy wont be more viable. But on a terawatt per acre ratio, I'd much rather see a single nuclear plant than a thousand wind turbines dotted across my country side.

It irritates me no end that people refer to "Greenies" as if they were something despicable. If you accept the basic premise of a "Greenie" being one who gives a XXXX about protecting the environment we all rely on to survive, then they should be thought of in a slightly different way. Admittedly, Green politics are often tied to other less savory causes which I wont name here for fear of being attacked, but the majority of "Greenies" I know are clear thinking, rational people who are often far more qualified to comment on topics than those that make the decisions that inflict so much damage on our planet. The twit pit is dominated by corrupt, self indulgent parasites and they dont like it when "Greenies" get in there and name it up. Hense, the pervasive anti-green rhetoric that comes from said members of the twit pit.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by PeterEde

Have you seen the area required for an equivalent solar plant. I'd consider that waste land. Not like you can live there. same for wind turbine. Cant live under them.

One can't change smothers beliefs with logic but I will leave you an observation.
After 50 years the solar and wind farm land could be uses for something else if new energies are employed. Our two disaster areas don't offer such an option for a long time after that

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Alex, I am not an advocate of the nuclear industry by any stretch of the Imagination. However, I would suggest that it has been unfairly demonised. Consider for example, the quantity of radioactive material released in to the environment prior to the atmospheric weapons test ban. The US and soviets were setting them off like bored school kids with a stash of last year's fire crackers. Something like 1 per week.

Yes Clive I lived thru that time.
I see irony here when one asks the question... where did they get the plutonium

[xelasnave]

Anyways I look to the future and the belief we improve and learn from mistakes
The energy waste is my concern.
There are folk trying to stop the boat sinking while gluttons drill holes in it...Sky Dubai just got to me.

[AndrewJ]

Fukushima would not have happened without the tsunami. It was a record breaking unforseen natural event that triggered a nuclear accident

Again I disagree. There are lots of papers around re the followup
eg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-s-report.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/wo..._r=1&ref=world
Earthquakes and Tsunamis arent "unforseen" in that location,
just what is the expected magnitude.
The design flaws were also known about, and sure, some were defined/refined after the reactors were built, but part of engineering responsibility is to review and update/upgrade things as required.
The problem is it is a cost benefit equation, and in this case, someone decided the risk wasnt worth the cost.

Andrew

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

No other energy supply breakdown produces such wasteland.

I can name two that are guaranteed to leave our planet in a considerably worse state.
Tar sand extraction in Canada is an immediately obvious example and of course coal in the long term.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by clive milne

I can name two that are guaranteed to leave our planet in a considerably worse state.
Tar sand extraction in Canada is an immediately obvious example and of course coal in the long term.

Yes Clive that sand mining has to be up there..
Neverthess time is the issue.
What will 100 years show..even the sand thing in Canada can jump back and be habitable
Not sure how long to re inhabit our two disaster areas
I am only trying to be realistic and not argue against NP.
In any event there are many practices destroying the place so why should we worry about a higher level seemingly presented by NP.
To pin point my dislike of nuclear power advocacy is the dismissive attitude to those who point to disasters and the air of infallibility presented.The refusal to accept responsibility is infantile...and does harm to getting public support

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Fukushima was a massive disaster and like all man made systems, its subject to design flaws and the proverbial "act of god" or, in other words "a design flaw" Based on the fact that these accidentts happen on a monotonously frequent basis and knowing how much effort is put into NOT maintaining these plants, you cannot blame the average blog from being nevous. The history and the press are both bad.



It irritates me no end that people refer to "Greenies" as if they were something despicable. If you accept the basic premise of a "Greenie" being one who gives a XXXX about protecting the environment we all rely on to survive, then they should be thought of in a slightly different way. Admittedly, Green politics are often tied to other less savory causes which I wont name here for fear of being attacked, but the majority of "Greenies" I know are clear thinking, rational people who are often far more qualified to comment on topics than those that make the decisions that inflict so much damage on our planet. The twit pit is dominated by corrupt, self indulgent parasites and they dont like it when "Greenies" get in there and name it up. Hense, the pervasive anti-green rhetoric that comes from said members of the twit pit.

Was it not the Green movement that stopped the Gordon/Franklin dam. Which would have produced more hydro power than Tassie required. but instead paved the way for coal power to expand?

Nice to maintain our pristine country. All for it. But where one state falls into economic ruin another thrives.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by PeterEde

Was it not the Green movement that stopped the Gordon/Franklin dam. Which would have produced more hydro power than Tassie required. but instead paved the way for coal power to expand?

Nice to maintain our pristine country. All for it. But where one state falls into economic ruin another thrives.

Actually, Tasmania does still produce more power than it needs and, of that power, 65% is used by just a few industries, Zinc works, Alcoa etc. We don't use coal powered generation at all. Further, the current residents of the local twit pen want to add a second cable to the mainland to send "Green" power over there.

Tasmania is lead by incompetent, short sighted morons. They said that towns like Stahan would die if the Gordon below Franklin wasn't built and, instead, it is now a premier internationally recognised tourism town, with the benefit of wilderness that is unique in the world. Contrast that with Queenstown, just a few km's up the road and you have an environment that looks like its been nuked, denuded by pollution and rampant "development"; the only major employer in town, MT Lyell mine, now closed and local rivers that support nothing but toxic algae.

The Grodon Below Franklin was stopped by the Hawk Labour govt after international protest against the *******ry of the then liberal govt in Tassie which, at the time, was ramming a road through pristine, now World Heritage listed, wilderness. The previous Faiser Liberal govt refused to intervene despite all the protests nationally and internationally and was subsequently thrown out of power by mainlanders I might add.

Contrasting Strahan and Queenstown approaches to environmental protection is pretty simple. Being environmentally aware does not mean economic ruin.

It is also ludicrous to blame Tasmania's economic woes on the actions of "Greenies". We are supposed to be a single nation and yet federal govt after federal govt refuses to acknowledge the ditch as a national highway and, as a consequence, transport costs are ridiculously high. There are probably a dozen other examples I could name up but a lot of other issues here are related to political incompetence and dogma that continuously
seeks to play one part of the population against another.

The point I was also trying to make was that protecting the environment should be a fundamental concern of everyone, not just "Greenies". Economy stability is important but growth at all costs, including devastation of the environment, is intellectually stupid.

I might also raise the issue that the twits in the W.A. twit pit who enjoy bagging Tassie out forget that they have been in receipt of huge support in the past, and that even we Tasmanian's helped bale out Queensland because the twits up there couldn't be bothered insuring themselves against flood damage. Each state has its issues and chucking mud is not a good look. The corruption being exposed in all political parties in all states and at all levels should make us all rethink what the motivations are for criticism of "Greenies" and the "develop at all cost" cult in this country..

The answer for Tassie is "differentiate" and get smart. We do both brilliantly when we get it right, but the pollies screw up any attempts to stop the dogma wars, (The recent forestry peace deal is a prime example and you can add the stupidity of Abbotts pathetic attempts to reverse the listing of addition areas earlier in the year).

For me, I'll do what I can to protect the environment and hope that one day we actually have a political system worth my participation.

[sn1987a (Barry)]

Well we've got some clever people in the world and if they were redeployed from trying to make slicker mobile phones, smarter bombs and focused their attention onto power generation issues who knows what might happen. As for nuclear no matter how much lipstick you put on it it's still a dirty, nasty thing subject to the number one fundamental law of the universe, Murphys law.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by sn1987a

As for fossil fuel, no matter how much lipstick you put on it it's still a dirty, nasty thing subject to the number one fundamental law of the universe; thermodynamics

fixed