a 3rd explosion. spent fuel rods exposed. evacuation zone extended.

but i seriously wonder if anyone with a pro-nuclear-power stance here is even the least bit shaken. is an event such as this causing anyone to question their stance?

 

It's not a matter of being pro-nuclear. It's a matter of choosing from what's available. Large scale GigaWatt power is not so easy to create aside from nuclear, fossil or hydro electric. Not every city is build near a natural waterfall and reliance on fossil has simply got to end. That leaves nuclear as pretty much the best alternative available today.
Problem is nuclear power was very new tech when those plants were designed, better / safer & more powerful designs exist now but it aint cheap to upgrade a 30+ yr old plant.
Wind and solar are also excellent but very costly on a city scale.
The right answer is Fusion (zero radioactive waste, fusion consumes it all), but we still may be decades away from that tech.

 

Three Mile Island - http://www.ratical.com/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO14.html (for skeptics, it does have references). So yes, people died, and radiation is neither safe nor good. Sadly we are dependent on energy, I still think solar is the best because anything as complex as fusion is bound to have unforseen side-effects...

 

I still think solar is the best because anything as complex as fusion is bound to have unforseen side-effects...

Solar is fusion. Among solar's well known adverse side effects is that it causes cancer, can cause blindness, causes deterioration of wood, plastics, rubber, vinyl and painted surfaces -- in fact anything exposed to its destructive UV rays, and causes over heating and melting of the ice caps.

John

 

Problem with solar is their efficiency, high cost, need sunny days, need to be aimed at the sun & latitude. Not a replacement for nuclear by any stretch. They are good as supplemental sources
example: homeowners. But they too require maintenance and most if not all lose efficiency over time.

 

Another large problem with solar is that it's cirrently highly inefficient. IIRC, solar panels only convert 20ish % of the energy into electrical energy. That, coupled with the cost of making them in a large enough quantity to power a city in anywhere where its not 100% sunny, makes them "not worth it". If they could be made substantially more efficient, then it might be a different story. I remember seeing something that said that in order to power the country it would require a solar array the size of 1/4 of Nevada or something, but I don't remember for sure.

 

I remember seeing something that said that in order to power the country it would require a solar array the size of 1/4 of Nevada ...

And would anyone notice if this was done? There is not a heck of a lot of habitable land in Nevada. Not for anything. You might want to add a little, mabey up to 1/3 the area, to allow for the expansion of Las Vegas.

 

I was wondering if the CANDU would face a similar meltdown problem. They use natural uranium so the level of activity should be low without heavy water acting as moderator. I have always been skeptical of BWRs and a little about PWRs. If I am not missing anything (which I probably am, and usually do) Should we not have emphasized on CANDU and those should be the only reactors in production?

Also, Apart from not building on fault lines or disaster prone areas, would it not be more "containable" to have the reactors build in smaller sizes? Ofcourse I know about the economy of scales, but there's also that decentralized generation advantage.

 

A much more efficient way of using solar is using a big field of mirrors, all targeted at a tower. I'm sure 1/4 of Nevada is empty anyway so why not?

 

Also known as solar thermal. They are also cheaper in tariff. There are other methods to achieve the same.

BTW I'd really like to know if my notion of CANDU being safer is correct.

 

BTW I'd really like to know if my notion of CANDU being safer is correct.

Yes, orders of magnitude safer. They cannot melt-down without trying real hard. It would need to be a deliberate effort and would not work if the moderator suddenly drained. Candu reactors would have avoided what happened in 3MI, Chernobyl and Japan. They are in use in India too, so rest assured...

 

Yes, but only a few. There is that deal with AREVA and that's not going to be CANDU. With India aiming for 20 GW nuclear cap I need to worry. Can't leave it up to the government

 

Yikes! I hope your'e not a terrorist!

 

@recca02.

I see you are not too far from Achanakmar. Have you ever seen the tigers there?

 

I think the biggest fear people have over nuclear power is that they can't "see" if it's dangerous or not. Mass produce radiometers and people would be more comfortable, and start complaining, especially near coal plant ash piles, or while riding in an airplane (the upper atmosphere radiation level would make most people think they should be dead within hours, when told).

Standard/Background radiation is 20uS/h or thereabouts. That's from the combination of the sun, rocks, dirt, and other natural radiation.

The entire earth is a nuclear reactor, if it wasn't we wouldn't have volcanoes as serious as some have been. Radiation is a good portion of what keeps the molten core of the earth hot. That has been the case since way before we knew what nuclear power was, the same goes for background radiation.

It's safe. The issues at the Japan plant are nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl was, and that is after a 9.0 earthquake (which by itself, the reactors would have survived, even though they were designed for something around an 8.0-8.3 quake). The Tsunami ripped out all backup power and flooded their secondary an tertiary cooling systems. Either the quake or Tsunami is a once in a century event, both at the same time is a bit more rare.

In the US and Europe, there are MANY areas with cooling water, extremely stable bedrock (no major quakes), and zero chance of Tsunami. Possibly a hurricane or two, but that's nothing compared to a 30 foot wall of water after being shook up and down and side to side a foot or two several times a second.

On top of all of those points, Nuclear power has killed fewer people than any other form of power, outside hydroelectric. Even hyrdo has a high casualty rate in construction phases and accidents.

Nuclear power is the only way to get the power everybody needs to stay in the modern world. If coal plants are shutdown due to "global warming", and well built/modern nuke plants are shut down due to ignorance, we will be living in the 1800s again. A lot of our technology is pretty useless without power. No "alternative energy" project has proved close to viable for the Gigawatts of power generation from coal they intend to replace.

 

It's a relief to read something reasonable, as compared to those who are rushing to the store to buy KI pills. Most of the people buying the pills can't even spell thyroid. I am sure Goldman Sachs will make a huge profit on this hysteria.

John

 

And would anyone notice if this was done? There is not a heck of a lot of habitable land in Nevada. Not for anything. You might want to add a little, mabey up to 1/3 the area, to allow for the expansion of Las Vegas.

I'm not saying we shouldn't. I have nothing against a solar array visible from space. It's just not feasible.
If were going to do that, why not just section off a quarter of the state and build some reactors? If one melts down, it wouldn't be close enough to anything to do anything.
Just bury the waste in a mountain somewhere, problem solved.

@jpanhalt, I agree

@thatoneguy, I agree, but when the entire nation is an island, earthquakes and tsunamis go hand in hand.

Its a good thing this didn't happen near the Maldives, the entire country would be gone with its average elevation of about one meter or so... I'm sure R!f@@ knows what it is.

 

CANDU isn't the only safe reactor. Pebble bed Reactors simply can not melt down, there is no coolent involved. The only critical thing about them is due the graphite and heat there can be no oxygen in the reactor. Nitrogen or any other noble gas is good, helium is suggested because if there is a leak it is lighter than air, so the radioactivity goes straight up, not sideways.

 

 

Yep. Clear as mud.