Anybody still think nuclear is a good idea?

[Braggi]

What about the spent fuel rods?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...ent-fuel-rods/

Talk about a target for terrorism! Ouch!

-Jeff

["Mad" Miles]

What'sa matta you! You don't want an all powerful Police State to protect us from the bad guys gettin ahold of this stuff? What are ya? Some kind of Terrorist Symp? Unpatriotic? Get WITH THE PROGRAM!!! I we don't have the power somebody else will. Give in, give up, or else!!!

[2Bwacco]

Well, let's see...on the whole i think it must be said, yes, nuclear power works.

We humans as we live and learn, generally figure out a way to do things BETTER.

i.e. compare the first horseless carriages to today's cars. The first airplanes to today's STEALTH bomber.

i envision -- rather quickly in the scheme of things -- solar power panels are on their way out -- the BLOOM power cube is almost ready for home usage. Large units are being used in Silicon valley at Google's offices.

Many years ago i saw an article in Wired Magazine about free standing, automated, nuclear power units -- they could be placed in your back yard. Each had a way to deal with the spent nuclear fuel, fully self-contained.

Our nuclear engineers will learn from these mistakes. They have to.

["Mad" Miles]

Well, let's see...on the whole i think it must be said, yes, nuclear power works.

...
Many years ago i saw an article in Wired Magazine about free standing, automated, nuclear power units -- they could be placed in your back yard. Each had a way to deal with the spent nuclear fuel, fully self-contained.

Our nuclear engineers will learn from these mistakes. They have to.

Wow. That was quicker than I even expected...

In the end the debate about whether or not new nuclear power plants, big or backyard, will be built, along with what to do with the existing ones, will be settled by the exercise of political power and economic clout.

The advantage back in the day was with the industry and there's been a concerted push for renewed investment, with $36 billion in federal funds now authorized, recent events may rebalance that "force differential".

I've been relying on hope that the costs, if honestly accounted, will make them unfeasible. That's why the insurance debate, private or public?, is a key factor. So far for thirty years, it's been the deciding factor, in that no new plants have been built in that time.

We're going to Mars, right? Cold fusion is being hidden from us by the oil companies. Cars could run on water if only Exxon would release the technology. Tele-transportation is just around the corner. The world of Star Trek is only a generation away. I'm a Cowboy!!

[podfish]

Well, let's see...on the whole i think it must be said, yes, nuclear power works.

We humans as we live and learn, generally figure out a way to do things BETTER.

i.e. compare the first horseless carriages to today's cars. The first airplanes to today's STEALTH bomber.

i envision -- rather quickly in the scheme of things -- solar power panels are on their way out -- the BLOOM power cube is almost ready for home usage. Large units are being used in Silicon valley at Google's offices.

Many years ago i saw an article in Wired Magazine about free standing, automated, nuclear power units -- they could be placed in your back yard. Each had a way to deal with the spent nuclear fuel, fully self-contained.

Our nuclear engineers will learn from these mistakes. They have to.

I think they're coming too - but it's because there won't be good alternatives short of conservation, and we all know how appealing that is to the common man and the corporate world, whichever one gets to set our future. But as has been said about fusion energy: it's only about ten years away and that's been true for decades now... Most of the cool energy tech that shows up in the popular engineering/science press has failed to progress to commercial success. Just like flying cars and jetpacks, there's always one more problem to solve before they work safely and economically.
Just as people lived with periodic bouts of the black death, I suspect we'll learn to live with occasional bursts of radiation poisoning. In the last few decades, there have been high standards for product safety, but I don't believe it's an inexorable curve. The pendulum will swing back (especially if the political attacks on regulatory agencies work) and pretty-reliable backyard nukes that only rarely fail will indeed show up.

[handy]

The chart in this article may help put things in perspective:

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-kno...dy-guide/8124/

Read and scroll down to Radiation Dose Chart.

How much radiation is too much? A handy guide

By Brianna Lee
March 22, 2011
Japan’s nuclear crisis has understandably induced a panic over leaking radiation and the potential danger it poses to human health. The Japanese government has interrupted food shipments of tainted milk and spinach, and radiation has been found in the seawater near the Fukushima plant. Although health authorities have stressed that much of this radiation poses minimal danger to human health, the idea of any radiation emanating from a nuclear accident is worrying. Some Americans have been requesting potassium iodide pills, and Geiger counters have sold out in Paris.
People safely absorb small levels of radiation every day. Plants, rocks and even human bodies give off radiation. But how much radiation is normal? Randall Munroe, the mind behind the brilliantly nerdy stick figures in the web comic XKCD, has tried to answer that question. He recently drew an extremely helpful graphic comparing the radiation levels of common activities like getting a medical scan or taking a transcontinental flight with large-scale nuclear accidents like those at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Although Munroe, a former NASA roboticist, takes care to mention that he is no radiation expert, he provides an open list of his sources, which includes the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and MIT’s Nuclear Science and Engineering department.

One sievert, the unit measurement for a dose of radiation, will cause illness if absorbed all at once, and 8 sieverts will result in death, even with treatment. According to the chart, the average person safely absorbs about 3.65 millisieverts (or 0.00365 sieverts) of radiation annually, through simple activities like living in a brick or concrete building (70 microsieverts a year) or sleeping next to another person (0.05 microsieverts). A person living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant absorbs 0.09 microsieverts of radiation per year, which is less than the amount absorbed by eating a banana.
Although the chart does not contain extensive information about the radiation leaking from the Fukushima power plant, it does note that spending a day in a town near the Fukushima plant will expose a person to an extra 3.5 microsieverts of radiation – slightly less than that of a dental X-ray. To make a few more comparisons, a mammogram will give off about 3 millisieverts (0.003 sieverts) – three times more than the maximum dose of radiation absorbed from Three Mile Island’s 1979 nuclear accident.
While some of these revelations are reassuring, the chart also shows that when things get bad, they get very bad. Spending just 10 minutes next to the post-meltdown nuclear reactor core of the Chernobyl power plant – the site of the worst nuclear catastrophe in history – a person would have taken in 50 sieverts of radiation, nearly seven times more than a fatal dose.
Of course, although a person can absorb many nonlethal doses of radiation without a noticeable effect, overall long-term absorption definitely contributes to the risk of cancer. For that reason, many of the health concerns for those living near the site of nuclear accidents are entirely valid. But a quick reality check on the safe levels of radiation we absorb every day might at least help some people save a few dollars on a Geiger counter.

Well, let's see...on the whole i think it must be said, yes, nuclear power works.

We humans as we live and learn, generally figure out a way to do things BETTER.

i.e. compare the first horseless carriages to today's cars. The first airplanes to today's STEALTH bomber.

i envision -- rather quickly in the scheme of things -- solar power panels are on their way out -- the BLOOM power cube is almost ready for home usage. Large units are being used in Silicon valley at Google's offices.

Many years ago i saw an article in Wired Magazine about free standing, automated, nuclear power units -- they could be placed in your back yard. Each had a way to deal with the spent nuclear fuel, fully self-contained.

Our nuclear engineers will learn from these mistakes. They have to.

["Mad" Miles]

Copy of an email I just received from Emily Rusch, CALPIRG State Director ([email protected]


Since I wrote to you last week about the crisis in Japan, I’ve gotten a lot of questions about nuclear power.

People across the country are clearly grappling with this contentious issue, so I wanted to provide answers to some of the most common questions that have crossed my inbox.

Q: Just how risky is nuclear power?

A: Very. Every operating nuclear power plant in the United States has a pool of spent fuel on site, and the possibility of a Fukushima-like loss of coolant—and ensuing release of radiation—is quite real. A worst-case accident involving one of these pools could make more than 2,700 miles of land unfit for human habitation, lead to as many as 143,000 cancer fatalities within 500 miles of the accident site, and cause more than $700 billion in property damage.[i]

Even minor exposures to radiation released during a nuclear accident can cause health problems, including cancer later in life.[ii] Radioactive materials stay dangerous for thousands of years.

Q: Wasn’t the disaster in Japan caused by a combination of events—the earthquake, tsunami, and subsequent power outage—that couldn't happen here?

A: Between hurricanes, tornadoes, human error, the potential for terrorist attack, mechanical failure, the age of our nuclear reactors and yes—earthquakes and tsunamis—it’s not outrageous to think that a major incident could happen at any one of the 104 nuclear reactors operating at the United States. Each of America's nuclear power stations share the same vulnerabilities as the nuclear reactors in Japan.[iii]

Q: Don’t we need nuclear power to keep the lights on?

A: Not necessarily. Nuclear power currently generates about 20 percent of the U.S. electricity supply, and it would be difficult to immediately shut existing reactors down. But we don’t need to continue to allow nuclear reactors to operate beyond the 40 years they were originally designed for, and we don’t need to build new reactors.

We have vast safe energy resources that can do a better job of keeping the lights on. And they don’t explode, spill, or contaminate food supplies with radiation. For example, if we improved efficiency, in the next 20 years we could free up as much electricity as 100 new nuclear reactors could generate.[iv]

And America’s entire electricity needs could be met by the sunlight falling on a 100-mile-square patch of Nevada desert, or by the wind blowing across North Dakota.[v]

Q: But isn’t nuclear power cheap?

A: No, it’s expensive and a bad investment. Nuclear power is among the most costly approaches to solving America’s energy problems. You just have to look at the history of nuclear power to understand. Of 75 nuclear reactors completed between 1966 and 1986, the average cost was more than triple the original construction budget.[vi] In 1985, Forbes magazine wrote that “the failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.”[vii]

The industry instead turned to taxpayer support. Over the last fifty years, American taxpayers have subsidized nuclear power to the tune of $145 billion.[viii] That’s more than the entire value of the electricity produced.[ix]

Wall Street investors still won’t touch nukes because the technology is too risky and too expensive. In contrast, investors are lining up to support newer renewable technologies, because they are more cost effective. Per dollar of investment, safe energy solutions—such as energy efficiency and wind power—deliver far more electricity than nuclear reactors.[x]

Q: Isn’t nuclear power better for the environment?

No. Energy efficiency is better. So are wind and solar power. These energy sources are better at preventing the kind of pollution that comes from fossil fuel plants than nuclear reactors because they are cheaper. They also don’t pose any risk of contaminating land, water or food with radioactive pollution.

For more information, and to get regular updates, visit our blog.

Sincerely,
Emily Rusch
CALPIRG State Director
P.S. Please feel free to share this message with your friends and family.

[i] (In 2011 dollars.) A Safety And Regulatory Assessment of Generic BWR and PWR Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants, Brookhaven National Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 1997.
[ii] According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, a single dose of 0.1 Sieverts would result in approximately 1 person in 100 developing cancer over their lifetime. Lower doses produce proportionally smaller risks. For example, a single exposure of 0.01 Sieverts would cause 1 person in 1,000 to develop cancer during their lifetime. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Academy of Sciences, 2006.
[iii] U.S. Nuclear Plants Have Same Risks, and Backups, as Japan Counterparts, New York Times, March 13, 2011.
[iv] The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why America Should Choose a Clean Energy Future Over New Nuclear Reactors, U.S. PIRG, March 31, 2009.
[v] Wind: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply[pdf], DOE/GO-102008-2567, July 2008.
Sun: Bernadette del Chiaro, Tony Dutzik and Sarah Payne, Environment America Research & Policy Center, On the Rise: Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming, Spring 2008.
[vi] This figure actually underestimates the degree to which nuclear projects exceeded budget targets. It excludes escalation and finance costs incurred by construction delays, and does not include data from some of the most over-budget reactors. See Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office, Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity[pdf], May 2008, based on data from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, An Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Construction Costs, Technical Report DOE/EIA-0485, 1 January 1986.
[vii] J. Cook, “Nuclear Follies,” Forbes, February 1985.
[viii] Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies[pdf], Union of Concerned Scientists, February 2011.
[ix] Federal energy subsidies: Not all technologies are created equal [pdf], Renewable Energy Policy Project, July 2000.
[x] The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why America Should Choose a Clean Energy Future Over New Nuclear Reactors, U.S. PIRG, March 31, 2009.

---

Support CALPIRG. Contributions by people just like you make our advocacy possible. Your contribution supports a staff of organizers, attorneys, scientists and other professionals who monitor government and corporate decisions and advocate on the public’s behalf.

[Marty M]

Form the New York Times comments section:

"On March 14th we had the reassurances from experts that the passage of each hour reduces the risk of a meltdown that could cause a serious radiation release. The longer it goes on, the better the situation, Robert Grimes, director Center For Nuclear Engineering, Imperial College, London"

Thank you Mad Miles for the excellent information listed below.
Marty

Copy of an email I just received from Emily Rusch, CALPIRG State Director...Since I wrote to you last week about the crisis in Japan, I’ve gotten a lot of questions about nuclear power.

People across the country are clearly grappling with this contentious issue, so I wanted to provide answers to some of the most common questions that have crossed my inbox.

Q: Just how risky is nuclear power? ...

[Marty M]

I posted the previous quote right after I had read that three workers had stepped in the radioactive water, two of them received radiation burns on their feet and the Tepco people in charge said that they didn't know how the radioactive water had gotten onto the floor. Yesterday was day number 14 of this nuclear crisis and it seemed they were not making progress in resolving it.

When I re-read the post it appeared to need some context.
Marty

Form the New York Times comments section:

"On March 14th we had the reassurances from experts that the passage of each hour reduces the risk of a meltdown that could cause a serious radiation release. The longer it goes on, the better the situation, Robert Grimes, director Center For Nuclear Engineering, Imperial College, London"

Thank you Mad Miles for the excellent information listed below.
Marty

[phloem]

Well, let's see...on the whole i think it must be said, yes, nuclear power works.

We humans as we live and learn, generally figure out a way to do things BETTER.

i.e. compare the first horseless carriages to today's cars. The first airplanes to today's STEALTH bomber.

i envision -- rather quickly in the scheme of things -- solar power panels are on their way out -- the BLOOM power cube is almost ready for home usage. Large units are being used in Silicon valley at Google's offices.

Many years ago i saw an article in Wired Magazine about free standing, automated, nuclear power units -- they could be placed in your back yard. Each had a way to deal with the spent nuclear fuel, fully self-contained.

Our nuclear engineers will learn from these mistakes. They have to.

With nothing more than a passing look at your premises, I say your reasoning not only falls apart, but suggests a lack of any lucidity whatsoever.

For whom does nuclear power "work?" For the corporate executives and major shareholders in those corporations, and for no one else. Nuclear power is, perhaps, the most extreme version of ecological unsustainability known to humans, putting to pale such malignancies as coal-mining, flooding productive land and killing rivers with dams, clearing land of forests for inefficient and wasteful livestock farming, and growing grapes at the expense of functional watersheds and ecosystems, to name a few other human psychotic breaks from reality. Tell me, what part of half-lives of radioactive isotopes, particle physics, and their impacts on biological organisms do you not understand? How does anyone rationalize removing radioactive elements from the earth, exposing humans and our vital survival means (water, land, air) to their ionizing radiation, then leaving the spoils vulnerable to all other human-oriented and environmental circumstances for thousands of years? Even within the fault-ridden tectonic tenets of capitalism, how does anyone justify spending so much money for such little return, other than those completely committed to mass suicide?

What could you possibly mean by "BETTER?" Who says what is better? The same corporations and their ad-men and ad-women who say so? The deluded masses who can't see beyond their TV screens filled with worthless schlock or their mindless twitters and vacuous text-messages? A substantial proportion of the human population -- let alone the rest of the living planet that doesn't speak the language of human folly -- does not share your narrow opinion that inventions such as cars and stealth bombers have made human lives BETTER. But then, the BETTER "civilization" has killed and will continue to kill those who have a different perspective, because our perspective is "BETTER."

Our nuclear engineers? Well, for a start, I don't have any! For those who do have a few lying around (Homer Simpson?), nuclear engineers are human - as prone to mistakes as is your shallow, ill-conceived, and baseless argument. Humans may as well be defined by the mistakes we make as by our capacity to learn from them; we have a lot of improvement to make on the latter -- that little problem with our cerebral cortex getting carried away by the belligerence and hubris of its evil alter: ego. I'm glad to learn that some hack writer for Wired has our problems for energy production worked out, in our own backyards even - can the plant double as a barbecue grill? How about domestic weapons production?

Nuclear power generation is simply incompatible with life, regardless of the sociopathic justifications made on its behalf by the plethora of humans deluded into thinking that the capitalistic, resource-depleting paradigm for human life on this planet is the only choice available. As a living animal with some vestiges of instinct left intact, I will fight to my death to keep the toxins of human irrationality away from my home on this planet.

[Sara S]

https://www.greenpeace.org/internati...n/publications... /

Fukushima – INES scale rating

Publication - March 25, 2011
A new analysis prepared for Greenpeace Germany by nuclear safety expert Dr Helmut Hirsch shows that by March 23 2011, Japan’s nuclear crisis has already released enough radioactivity to be ranked at Level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). This is the scale’s highest level, and equal to the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

Hirsch’s assessment, based on data published by the French government's radiation protection agency (IRSN) and the Austrian governments Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (ZAMG) found that the total amount of radionuclides iodine-131 and caesium-137 released between March 11 and March 23 have been so high that the Fukushima crisis already equates to three INES 7 incidents.

With nothing more than a passing look at your premises, I say your reasoning not only falls apart,...

[phloem]

The latest in a series of informative articles about radiation on Counterpunch:
https://www.counterpunch.org/busby03282011.html

[Braggi]

Read and scroll down to Radiation Dose Chart.

Handy, that radiation argument is completely bogus and you should be smart enough to know that. We're talking about plutonium. Show me a chart that displays how many plutonium particles are safe to inhale. Those "cooling ponds" are full of plutonium. That's what's even more dangerous than the reactors themselves. When they melt down, as they are doing now, they will spray plutonium into the environment, as they are now doing. That's not safe and it can't be measured in multiples of chest X-rays. There is no comparison to that poison which will remain dangerous longer into the future than the universe has existed.

Riddle me this: when all those rich people benefitting from the cash flow of nuclear plants are dead and gone and their corporations have gone bankrupt, who will pay to keep those "cooling ponds" cool? What energy source will be employed to pump the massive amounts of FRESH water needed to keep them cool? Who will be chosen to die of thirst so the cooling ponds can be maintained? Do you know that "spent" MOX fuel rods must be kept cool for thousands of years before they can be sent away for "permanent" storage? Is that calculated into the cost?

-Jeff

Edit: I just read the industry believes the MOX fuel rods will ONLY have to stay in the cooling ponds for 150 years. I feel much better.

[Braggi]

[QUOTE=Braggi;131849]
Riddle me this: when all those rich people benefitting from the cash flow of nuclear plants are dead and gone and their corporations have gone bankrupt, who will pay to keep those "cooling ponds" cool?
[QUOTE]

Here I am quoting myself, and I have to say, that didn't take long. The Japanese "government" is planning to "nationalize" the power company that used to run those failed nuke plants now in meltdown. Looks like a job for "We the People" of Japan. The billionaires have taken their ill gotten gains and fled the country, no doubt. Energy so cheap they won't need to meter it! That was the promise of nuclear energy. Now we know the criminals who shoved nuclear down our collective throats have no intention of cleaning up their messes. They never did have any intention. They lied all along. They knew this is how it would end. I predicted it 36 years ago when I was at San Onofre protesting the start up of the reactor they installed backwards (requiring all the piping and electrical connections to be reengineered and installed backwards at a cost of billions of $$ the ratepayers had to pay for). The public will always have to pay for the mistakes of the nuclear industry while the "owners" will always have a guaranteed profit. It's a lose, lose, lose for the public. We have to give up otherwise healthy, prime land with healthy prime water sources; we have to pay premium prices for the energy along with all the subsidies we've paid all along; and we wind up with polluted land and water and the mess that will never be cleaned up in 100 lifetimes.

Anyone who supports nuclear at this point is either horribly misinformed or a liar.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

I'm glad to learn that some hack writer for Wired has our problems for energy production worked out, in our own backyards even - can the plant double as a barbecue grill?

I understand the backyard nuke plants are adequate to heat a hot tub quite easily.

-Jeff

[theindependenteye]

>>>I understand the backyard nuke plants are adequate to heat a hot tub quite easily.

And they do a great job on gophers. Just stay up-wind.

-Conrad

[Braggi]

Here's more on the worst thing to ever happen: MOX fuel.

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclea...onium-mox-fuel

Will our children and grandchildren be happier because we make this stuff?

... or will they be really, really pissed?

-Jeff

PS. The nuke industry talking this poison up: https://alfin2300.blogspot.com/2011/...-recycled.html