Safety of Nuclear Power Plants

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

But it's not the same. Once you have a solar panel you don't need anyone selling you anything to keep it going. I understand the battery analogy but this is just not the same situation. If I make a nuclear plant, I still need people to supply me with base fuel. If I make a solar panel, then the rest of the world can literally go fuck itself and I'll still have my energy.

Don't expect solar panels to last forever. They are subject to ageing like every other product. Solar panels become less and less efficient when they age. The sun's rays are not simply converted into energy in them, there is also some form of micro level destruction in the photoactive region going on. A heavy hail storm can do damage to wafer-based silicon cells too. (some producers will give a guarantee that the max. power output of a module will not fall below 80% in 25 years time of operation - so thats basically what you can expect from a solar module).

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

The fuel is more efficient but it's still the same thing, a commodity fuel that can be sold en masse and by whose price you can grab a lot of countries by the balls. The ones in control of the natural fuel sources simply monopolize the access to the resources.

And that's notwithstanding the environmental hazards.

What's the status on fusion plants, by the way? What sort of fuel do they need?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Technically, a fusion power plant is a lot safer regarding operation and spent fuel.

Because the fuel is heavy water and cannot be contaminated much with nastier isotopes since this would stop the fusion reaction.

So, clean fuel is in the interest of the operator. Furthermore it requires a lot of energy to keep the fusion process going. However I'ld predict that there will be activated reactor components that have to be changed after a certain time of operation, those components surely need a much longer time to cool down (some estimates are 100 or 150 years).

If there was a power outage for the power plant it would shut down immediatly and the fuel would cool down in a matter of seconds at the reactor walls (and this would also micro damage the reactor walls and heavily pollute the reactor (such reactors must be extremely clean from disturbing isotopes) which makes such an incident extremely expensive at the moment). By conparison of mass, only a fraction of the amounts of fuel of a fission reactor is used in operation.
The Tokamak design still needs a lot of refinement (for example how to efficiently and reliably clean the fuel of disturbing isotopes from the reactor walls (how to catch them) when the reactor is in operation) before it can run for a longer period of time and in a scale that makes economically sense.

[WanderingKnight]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

We need cheap electricity RIGHT NOW as well. Or are you suggestion Japan doesn't need electricity for the next decade?

I know. I wasn't criticizing the Japanese or anyone for building nuclear reactors. I think you should read my other posts more carefully.

Cheap electricity isn't about making power companies wealthy

Cheap energy is cheap right now. In the future, it might not be so cheap anymore. It all depends on the demand.

[Tri-ring]

Japanese power strategy is not about cheapness if you look the at source, it is about diversity, not placing all the eggs in one basket. Let me give you an example, the rare earth fiasco where China suddenly stating they are going to limit supply to foreign countries after the Senkaku shoto incident. A similar incident happened in the 70's the famous oil shock, that is when Japan started to divide source and to process domestically and to develop as many alternative sources as much as possible.
Traditionally coal and hydro were the main source of supply of energy but both were facing environmental problems and stiff resistance by local residents. Turning to nuclear was the natural step in those time but Japan is now faced again with this problem.
Before someone say conservation, I would like to point out that Japan's energy conservation is at top level and if you compare production of an end product if Japan is one, it is said in the US it takes twice the amount and in PRC it takes four time the amount energy to produce the same product.
Some say that to further conserve energy in japan is like squeezing water out of a dry rag, but I believe Japan will come up with new and more innovative ways to conserve energy like the hybrid system.
At the end lets all pitch in to the 3R movement, Reduce, Reuse and, Recycle.

[Zetsubo]

I am amazed at how many people are amazed that "In this day and age" we still use steam to generate electricity. LOL

I am even more amazed at how people are still awestruck that nuclear reactors are fundamentally heat/steam generators.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

I am amazed at how many people are amazed that "In this day and age" we still use steam to generate electricity. LOL

I am even more amazed at how people are still awestruck that nuclear reactors are fundamentally heat/steam generators.

That's because too many people think fission powerplants are magical. As you said, in the end the fission is only a heat source. The rest of the building functions like a fossil fuel powerplant.

And there is general ignorance in the fact that steam turbines are the most efficient forms of heat energy conversion we have right now. It is precisely because we had them for so long, that we have become so good at designing them.

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

That's because too many people think fission powerplants are magical. As you said, in the end the fission is only a heat source. The rest of the building functions like a fossil fuel powerplant.

And there is general ignorance in the fact that steam turbines are the most efficient forms of heat energy conversion we have right now. It is precisely because we had them for so long, that we have become so good at designing them.

I am reading comments that indicate people feel its "old" to be using steam to turn turbines.

Apparently Steam conjures up images of an 1800's lifestyle.

What they fail to recognize however, just for giggles, is that the letters we use to type those statements online were invented in the 7th Century BC.

They QWERTY keyboard on most of our computers was developed in the late 1800's

I get the impression (i know i am exaggerating) that some people would like us to throw away old tried and true technologies.... like the wheel.

[Kuroi Hadou]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

I am reading comments that indicate people feel its "old" to be using steam to turn turbines.

Apparently Steam conjures up images of an 1800's lifestyle.

What they fail to recognize however, just for giggles, is that the letters we use to type those statements online were invented in the 7th Century BC.

They QWERTY keyboard on most of our computers was developed in the late 1800's

I get the impression (i know i am exaggerating) that some people would like us to throw away old tried and true technologies.... like the wheel.

Familiarity breeds contempt, unfortunately. The lay person is either unable or unwilling to recognize that modern engineering is based upon using what's tried and true; why reinvent the wheel?

[Tri-ring]

Another editorial peice on being caught of fear mongering by the press.(Nothing to do with Fukushima luckly)

EDITORIAL: U.S. NRC Confirms MSNBC.com Reporter Mislead, Sensationalized Nuclear Story

Nuclear fear-mongering for profit -- government provides our strongest evidence in stunning tale of misinformation
......
(You can read actual article through the link above.)

[Kuroi Hadou]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Another editorial peice on being caught of fear mongering by the press.(Nothing to do with Fukushima luckly)

EDITORIAL: U.S. NRC Confirms MSNBC.com Reporter Mislead, Sensationalized Nuclear Story

I am in despair; the press has left me in despair.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Kuroi Hadou

I am in despair; the press has left me in despair.

Always trying to sell more paper/ have more audience . It's making more money than doing real journalistic work.

[Asuras]

Okay this sudden idea has been eating away at me for hours now.

So -in all cases- let's assume every nuclear plant no matter the model or age is at a high risk for meltdown and/or combustion (like the hydrogen explosion in Fukushima). Now, it's known that there are several layers containing the radioactive fuel rods, and that with these layers intact, radiation has a very tough time escaping, if even possible.

Add in an explosion or a meltdown and this barrier is nullified. Now, what then? Well I've been thinking (correct me please if it's a dumb idea); if such an event were to occur, and the radiation escapes, why not build an even larger more remote barrier around the reactor area? Instead of relying merely on the first barrier to stop the radiation, why not construct a large ware-house like structure enveloping a large portion of the reactor area? It could encompass several reactors as well.
That way, if there is a meltdown or an explosion releasing deadly radiation from the fuel core, then there's an unaffected secondary barrier away from the reactor to prevent leaks into the community! An explosion in the reactor wouldn't harm the barrier and meltdown liquid wouldn't reach it.

Excuse the crude drawing.


Make it a few inches thick with lead and concrete and we've got a wall that radiation can't escape!

Problem solved?

[Kuroi Hadou]

Originally Posted by Asuras

Problem solved?

My only objection is that there will inevitably be gaps in the secondary shield to allow personnel and equipment to pass through, creating structural vulnerabilities. Unless of course you want to completely isolate the reactor(s) inside.

[Asuras]

Originally Posted by Kuroi Hadou

My only objection is that there will inevitably be gaps in the secondary shield to allow personnel and equipment to pass through, creating structural vulnerabilities. Unless of course you want to completely isolate the reactor(s) inside.

Bulkhead doors at the bottom?
Only a mall amount of radiation will be able to escape if there's periodic doors. Though small amounts would be able to escape through the opening and closing of the doors after a meltdown or explosion, it is a much smaller quantity than if there was no outside barrier at all.

[Kuroi Hadou]

Originally Posted by Asuras

Bulkhead doors at the bottom?
Only a mall amount of radiation will be able to escape if there's periodic doors. Though small amounts would be able to escape through the opening and closing of the doors after a meltdown or explosion, it is a much smaller quantity than if there was no outside barrier at all.

But if the barrier is there the radiation will simply build up inside it, and come rushing out the moment the bulkheads are opened.

But your right: It's better than nothing. Of course, you also have to consider other factors, like logistics and what your going to do with the reactor afterward (do you just leave it there inside a concrete barrier and completely forget about it?).

[Asuras]

Originally Posted by Kuroi Hadou

But if the barrier is there the radiation will simply build up inside it, and come rushing out the moment the bulkheads are opened.

But your right: It's better than nothing. Of course, you also have to consider other factors, like logistics and what your going to do with the reactor afterward (do you just leave it there inside a concrete barrier and completely forget about it?).

You could potentially leave it, considering the fact that the radiation buildup will be tremendous, but even that's better than subjecting the public to any at all. I presume technology will be developed later on to speed up or remove the radiation process, so such sites where the reactor is dead inside allow for a way to get rid of it all instead of mulling over miles of irradiated land.

[Lilithium]

How about switching to Thorium as a nuclear fuel in reactors? There are many benefits to it! Weapon grade fission material such as Uranium 233 is harder to retrieve safely and clandestinely from a thorium reactor. Thoriium produces 10 to 10,000 times less long-lived radioactive waste. Thorium comes out of the ground as a 100% pure, usable isotope, which does not require enrichment. Natural uranium only contains 0.7% fissionable Uranium 235.

Thorium cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction without priming, so fission stops by default. Thorium requires a start-up by neutrons from a uranium reacctor, but a second thorium reactor could activate a third thorium reactor. This could continue in a chain for a millennium if we so choose. Because of thorium's abundance on our planet, our supply would not exhaust for 1,000 years or so. There is enough thorium in the USA alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years. It would reduce coal as an energy source, would significantly reduce medical costs from breathing coal pollutants. We have about 2,230,000 tonnes of thorium throughout the world!

Either way, Thorium is awesome!

[Kuroi Hadou]

Originally Posted by Asuras

You could potentially leave it, considering the fact that the radiation buildup will be tremendous, but even that's better than subjecting the public to any at all. I presume technology will be developed later on to speed up or remove the radiation process, so such sites where the reactor is dead inside allow for a way to get rid of it all instead of mulling over miles of irradiated land.

That's true... but what happens when the radiation irradiates the ground underneath?

[Asuras]

Concrete underground?

I speculate the answer to all this is, "Lead, concrete, and more lead."

[Lilithium]

Fuck Uranium! Thorium is supreme and boss.

[Asuras]

Evidence?

I suspect you want a reaction, considering you just posted about Thorium a minute ago.

OH. *Looks up* THAT EVIDENCE.
Whoops.