• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Modern nuke plants

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Plants today are much more advance and safer than Fukushima. Fukushima was a early Gen 2 plan, and the new Gen 3+ plants have put into place numerous safety features that makes things like Fukushima virtually impossible. It would be wise to replace these older Gen 2 and Gen 1 plants with new Gen 3+ plants.
I bet they are 100% safe, because we all know the nuke industry has had even a clue as what to do when one goes bad.

Nuke power is a corporate subsidy, the newer plants are even more expensive to run with the safety engineering, and a lot more complicated. (we have quite a few engineers here so they understand this dilemma well)

Do the math and follow the money, these plants were never profitable and have left messes that will last for thousands of years for not even profitable energy (if you factor construction and the cleanup for decades after) just to be online for a few decades.

It's a zero sum game for all but the ones trying to get public funding while poisoning our future.
 
Last edited:

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
NIMBY syndrome.
The NIMBY myth about renewable infrastructure is more BS isolated examples nuke industry PR uses to manipulate public opinion.

It's another "war on christmas" manufactured debate.

You see solar panels all over cities now, no complaints.

If anything people like to talk about how cool it is that it is happening.

I swear, if TeeVee told people to just drop dead a huge amount of morons in this country would roll over Jim Jones style. It's pathetic. Critical thinking skillset fail.
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
We really have to scrape the bottom of the ole liberal barrel to find any opposition to nuclear power even here in these forums and that one is woefully uninformed.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
and that one is woefully uninformed.
Feel free to counter. I have an hour to post up links from TEPCO and the Japan govt/IAEA/NRC and explain some of the finer points of the physics and the flaws of modern reactors.

Not that you care for any of that fact stuff of course. But others may be interested. (its always been a fascinating technology and subject to me regardless of the downright foolishness of the industry in the hands of corrupt corporate and govt lackeys)
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
First find one private company or corporation that is willing to underwrite a new nuclear power generation plant....
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
More like I like having a backyard. Or at least you can grow non geneticlly damaged vegetables and humans on in the next few thousand years.

;)

Good thing you put up the smiley. I thought you were serious. :)


Some slides of mutated insects from around some of these old nuke plants in the USA.

http://www.wissenskunst.ch/en/usa.htm
That is a good parody site. It pretends to be serious, but it actually making fun of people who believe insects do not regularly mutate all by themselves.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Fukushima is a second Chernobyl, exclusion zone and all. Doesn't belong in the same category as Three Mile Island.

Disasters rightfully scare people when they contaminate square miles of habitable land.
I agree that the impact was different, but Fukushima and Three Mile Island DO belong in the same category because both are used as reasons to reject all nuclear power. In fact, the difference sort of makes my point, since both resulted in extremely anti-nuclear attitudes despite the fact that one (Three Mile Island) had minimal impact and the other had quite a negative impact. The IDEA of a problem seems more important to people than the actual problem, IMO.

But even just looking at Fukushima, it still doesn't make sense to reject all nuclear power. It's a learning experience, nothing in the Fukushima disaster suggests it was unavoidable, and it's arguable that modern plant designs would avoid the issues entirely. Not only that, but only focusing on nuclear power problems would seem to require pretending that other alternatives have no issues whatsoever. Sure, a coal power plant won't melt down...it'll just poison everyone over a long period of time with pollution.

I'm not saying nuclear power doesn't have safety concerns or that we shouldn't be careful with it. But all power generation approaches have issues, and nuclear power is maturing as a technology to the point where I think it can be argued that its upsides outweigh the downsides.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
We really have to scrape the bottom of the ole liberal barrel to find any opposition to nuclear power even here in these forums and that one is woefully uninformed.
You're not doing the debate any favors by ranting about liberals. For once, I don't think it's a left vs right issue, as shocking as that may be. And trying to make it a left/right argument alienates a lot of people who support the idea of nuclear power. Not everything needs to be us vs them political...
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The nuke industry knew the GE Mark 1 reactors would not survive a breach.
We agree, they should not have run the plant past its useful life. It should have been retired due to its age.


But hey, nuke power is safe. So they tell you. Unless your family is like...in a plume.
It can be safe, if we decide to make them that way.
 

chris9641

Member
Dec 8, 2006
156
0
0
I think articles like this , undermine the position of nuclear energy, as those in opposition are going to ask why the US isn't striving as hard as Germany to make solar more viable.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Sadly. IMHO, for the entire world, nuclear reactors are the only rational options for the entire world as world electrical demands increase exponentially.

Sure we can talk about green green technologies like hydro electrical power, wind, solar, and similar, nothing wrong with those technologies, but to pretend those technologist are anything more than a drop in the bucket is supreme denial of reality.

Because at the end of the day, unless practical hydrogen fusion technology becomes possible, the world can only supply the bulk of future electrical demands with one of two main technologies.

And only two current options exist.

(a) Continue to burn fossil fuels, be it coal, natural gas, or oil. Even if we ignore those effect on global warming, us humans are still stuck with finding, in 200 years or so if not sooner, the human race will run through our supply of fossil fuels. And then what?

(b) Or we will be left with making nuclear fission power safe and practical. As I note our biggest safety issues with nuclear power has been in trusting private industry for profit to deliver safety. And if we trust private for profit industry we are doomed before we start as the profit motive will always trump safety.

We humans have learned a lot in that mistake, but now that newer nuclear reactor designs offer far more reactor safety, we still rely on private industry snake oil salesmen
to tout safety issues?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,233
472
126
More like I like having a backyard. Or at least you can grow non geneticlly damaged vegetables and humans on in the next few thousand years.

;)

Some slides of mutated insects from around some of these old nuke plants in the USA.

http://www.wissenskunst.ch/en/usa.htm

You mean like Nagasaki and Hiroshima, full of damaged vegetables and humans for the next thousand years.

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

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





Its truly amazing how some of the same people who bash the religion of conservatives as illogical, irrational and fearful are the same when it comes to nuclear energy not realizing that you are nothing but useful idiots for the true opponents which is the fossil fuel industry,

who think nothing of taking away, destroying, threatening, etc. the backyard of those in the middle east so nuclear fearful apathetic Americans can enjoy their cheap energy.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Oh yeah, how about THESE damaged vegetables!



Oh wait, that was done by Japanese Beetles, not nuclear bombs. My bad. Carry on.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Sadly. IMHO, for the entire world, nuclear reactors are the only rational options for the entire world as world electrical demands increase exponentially.

Sure we can talk about green green technologies like hydro electrical power, wind, solar, and similar, nothing wrong with those technologies, but to pretend those technologist are anything more than a drop in the bucket is supreme denial of reality.

Because at the end of the day, unless practical hydrogen fusion technology becomes possible, the world can only supply the bulk of future electrical demands with one of two main technologies.

And only two current options exist.

(a) Continue to burn fossil fuels, be it coal, natural gas, or oil. Even if we ignore those effect on global warming, us humans are still stuck with finding, in 200 years or so if not sooner, the human race will run through our supply of fossil fuels. And then what?

(b) Or we will be left with making nuclear fission power safe and practical. As I note our biggest safety issues with nuclear power has been in trusting private industry for profit to deliver safety. And if we trust private for profit industry we are doomed before we start as the profit motive will always trump safety.

We humans have learned a lot in that mistake, but now that newer nuclear reactor designs offer far more reactor safety, we still rely on private industry snake oil salesmen
to tout safety issues?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
No, the biggest disasters were:

Chernobyl - Which correct me if I am wrong happened in the USSR a communist country

Fukushima - Which was caused by an Earthquake 10x greater than the plant was designed to survive.

How did the free market fail exactly?
 

chris9641

Member
Dec 8, 2006
156
0
0
You mean like Nagasaki and Hiroshima, full of damaged vegetables and humans for the next thousand years.

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

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





Its truly amazing how some of the same people who bash the religion of conservatives as illogical, irrational and fearful are the same when it comes to nuclear energy not realizing that you are nothing but useful idiots for the true opponents which is the fossil fuel industry,

who think nothing of taking away, destroying, threatening, etc. the backyard of those in the middle east so nuclear fearful apathetic Americans can enjoy their cheap energy.
Just some reference, apparently the nuclear radiation from the explosions in Japan did not result in local radiation fall out because much of it was dissipated into the earth's stratosphere (the mushroom cloud is really tall and the bomb exploded 2000 ft. above ground), and have substantially less contained radiation(the bombs) then from power plant leaks. Also the radioactive isotopes are contained in the dust(get airborne but settle), which I believe once cleaned and disposed, leaves close to no radiation in the area, in opposition to power plants where the isotopes are freely airborne(don't settle).
 
Last edited:

Franz316

Senior member
Sep 12, 2000
876
215
116
Did the industry solve the elephant in the room being nuclear waste? Until that problem is solved, how is responsible to develop these power plants? You are making a commitment for 10,000+ years which is pretty ridiculous considering humanity has been an extremely volatile, short lived species. The time scale in play here is beyond anything we have dealt with before. What happens if the economy collapses or some other event that causes society to change or breakdown? What would then happen to the waste sitting in those pools when there is no one there to watch it?

I just think that it is irresponsible to build power plants that create radioactive waste for which we have no answer for. There is also the extensive planning and building times for the plants themselves. It takes a very long time to deploy nuclear power as opposed to other sources like natural gas, wind or solar which can be distributed extremely quickly. If there is a safe way to somehow use the waste rods as fuel then I would support that(I know France does to some degree but it would need to used much more widely).

There a very interesting documentary on the gravity of the decision to deal with waste for a site in Finland called "Into Eternity" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoyKe-HxmFk
 
Last edited:

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Did the industry solve the elephant in the room being nuclear waste? Until that problem is solved, how is responsible to develop these power plants? You are making a commitment for 10,000+ years which is pretty ridiculous considering humanity has been an extremely volatile, short lived species. The time scale in play here is beyond anything we have dealt with before. What happens if the economy collapses or some other event that causes society to change or breakdown? What would then happen to the waste sitting in those pools when there is no one there to watch it?

I just think that it is irresponsible to build power plants that create radioactive waste for which we have no answer for. There is also the extensive planning and building times for the plants themselves. It takes a very long time to deploy nuclear power as opposed to other sources like natural gas, wind or solar which can be distributed extremely quickly. If there is a safe way to somehow use the waste rods as fuel then I would support that(I know France does to some degree but it would need to used much more widely).

There a very interesting documentary on the gravity of the decision to deal with waste for a site in Finland called "Into Eternity" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LicOO8i1N3s
Those are all things that need to be carefully considered when talking about nuclear power. The problem is that they are always brought up as reasons to not use nuclear power as if the alternatives have no downsides at all (coal, natural gas, oil) or technical limitations preventing them from serving as complete alternatives quite yet (solar, wind).

To me at least, the arguments against nuclear power sound like rejecting it because it's not a perfect solution...as if some other perfect solution DOES exist.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
No, the biggest disasters were:

Chernobyl - Which correct me if I am wrong happened in the USSR a communist country

Kagoshima - Which was caused by an Earthquake 10x greater than the plant was designed to survive.

How did the free market fail exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As nehalem256 asks the piss poor planning question and somehow confuses it with the private market and unbridled over optimism and no caution.


In terms of Cherobyl, a graphite reactor is now understood to be a accident waiting to happen, human lesson learned, a mistake unlikely to happen again. In the case of Fagoshima, its more a case of selling false safety by the nuclear industry. As they relied on just a 50 year type event where a Tsunami would not overwhelm the back up electrical supply needed to keep the reactor core from over heating in an antique reactor design that was known obsolete and unsafe when built. As anyone should have realized at the time, it was an accident waiting to happen.
 
Last edited:

chris9641

Member
Dec 8, 2006
156
0
0
Did the industry solve the elephant in the room being nuclear waste? Until that problem is solved, how is responsible to develop these power plants? You are making a commitment for 10,000+ years which is pretty ridiculous considering humanity has been an extremely volatile, short lived species. The time scale in play here is beyond anything we have dealt with before. What happens if the economy collapses or some other event that causes society to change or breakdown? What would then happen to the waste sitting in those pools when there is no one there to watch it?

I just think that it is irresponsible to build power plants that create radioactive waste for which we have no answer for. There is also the extensive planning and building times for the plants themselves. It takes a very long time to deploy nuclear power as opposed to other sources like natural gas, wind or solar which can be distributed extremely quickly. If there is a safe way to somehow use the waste rods as fuel then I would support that(I know France does to some degree but it would need to used much more widely).

There a very interesting documentary on the gravity of the decision to deal with waste for a site in Finland called "Into Eternity" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LicOO8i1N3s
Wow I never even considered that, great point man.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Well there's nothing like rational discussion and there's not much of that here.

Maybe the scientists and researchers and people who have original ideas backed by scientific principles should be figuring these things out for implementation.

Na, lets just argue based on political concerns because that's what we do best. Science and reasoned application thereof? Not so good there.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Did the industry solve the elephant in the room being nuclear waste? Until that problem is solved, how is responsible to develop these power plants? You are making a commitment for 10,000+ years which is pretty ridiculous considering humanity has been an extremely volatile, short lived species. The time scale in play here is beyond anything we have dealt with before. What happens if the economy collapses or some other event that causes society to change or breakdown? What would then happen to the waste sitting in those pools when there is no one there to watch it?

I just think that it is irresponsible to build power plants that create radioactive waste for which we have no answer for. There is also the extensive planning and building times for the plants themselves. It takes a very long time to deploy nuclear power as opposed to other sources like natural gas, wind or solar which can be distributed extremely quickly. If there is a safe way to somehow use the waste rods as fuel then I would support that(I know France does to some degree but it would need to used much more widely).

There a very interesting documentary on the gravity of the decision to deal with waste for a site in Finland called "Into Eternity" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoyKe-HxmFk
The waste issue is political, not technical in nature. Using breeder reactors and/or storing the waste in a central location like Yucca Mountain are both reasonable solutions to the problem which are far superior to storing waste onsite at the plants like we do today.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Did the industry solve the elephant in the room being nuclear waste?
They tried to, but liberal activists would not allow the burial of radioactive waste at Yucatan Mountain - which is where we tested nuclear bombs so the area is already contaminated and usuable by mankind.

The requirement was to prove beyond doubt that the site would be safe for 12,000 years, which is roughly twice the length of recorded human history. It is simply impossible to prove this - which is why it was to be built where no one can live anyway.

So the only solution the liberal activists will allow is storing the waste at the reactor - which is usually inside or very close to population centers.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY