Would You Live Next Door to a Nuclear Power Plant?

Why not? Property prices will be cheap, they're usually located next to rivers so you can get some nice scenery, and best of all, chances are there'll be very few obnoxious rich neighbors around.

I would rather live next to this than downwind of one of those monster coal fired plants.

But I would probably take an iodine supplement.

Interesting that they don't mention the number of deaths in mining the coal world wide. While we have relatively good safety record NOW A DAYS for coal mining, A lot of people are dying in coal mining accidents overseas:

http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2997.html

I guess I'd buy my lot upwind, just to hedge my bets.

milo

Interesting it seems that only Milo actually looked at the link...

This was as concise, clear and well thought out technological case as I have seen.

Much engineering to be done, but the economic and CO2 discussions do a great job of reaching across the aisle to both sides.

I will be following this.

Where are the men of courage?

milo

Why not?

Greens are always protesting against the further development of Hungary's main nuclear power plant (Paks, 1800 MW) but they does not protest against the two small power plant (some hundred kW) in the heart of Budapest city. These are for educational purposes and almost nobody knows about them, though you can take guided tours to them.

Educational nuclear power plant of Budapest Institute of technology:

To live next to a nuclear power plant is a good thing. Some years ago I was "radiation controller" in a nuclear power plant near Antwerp. My task included (daily) inspection of radiation levels in and outside of the buildings. I can tell you that IN the plant, the radiation was BELOW the normal (natural) radiation outside because of the super strict safety rules. In the surroundings of the building there was no more radiation than anywhere else. The safety rules and systems in a nuclear plant are (at least here in Europe) immensely strict. So, on normal operation, there is NO RISK at all. If all systems work normally, and all safety systems do what they are supposed to do, there is no safer place on earth regarded radiation inside the plant. But I hear you say : "What if something happens ?". Yes indeed, safety systems CAN fail, even safety system on safety system on safety systems ... So if a serioius accident happens, I think that the closer you are, the better you are. Being in the close neighborhood of the accident will asure you of a fast and painless dead. When you are a little further away from it, you'll have a big chance to "survive". Yes probably you are not gonna die immediatly, but only after several years of pain and suffering...

Now please. Don't think that I am in favor of Nuclear power. Indeed, it is the cleanest (non "alternative") way of producing energy. No stinking and harmfull fumes, dust etc. next to a nuclear plant. But the problem is that when something "serious" happens on such a plant, the wide surroundings of the site will be DEADLY zone for hundreds, even thousands of years. If something "serious" happens in a standard fuel, coal, etc plant, there will be a big explosion, a huge fire all windows in the neighborhood will be broken, and people living in/next to this plant PROBABLY won't survive. But shortly after cleaning the debris of the explosion life can continue it's normal way.

So if I can only choose to live next to a nuclear or a coal plant : I'll definatly choose for the nuclear site!!!

"What if something happens ?"

Living next to a nuclear power plant should be safe, as long as it's not in Japan.

Many people do...

And we must consider not all of them are stupids...

Of course I prefer when looking through my home windows some trees, birds, rabbits... than the containment building of a NPP (I have seen too much in my job), but if I had to choose I'll prefer be near a NPP than near an open place in which Guns & Roses, Kiss, or any similar band were playing. (Yes, I know it's only rock'n'roll and I like it, but to much anything use to be bad to your health)

Kind regards

Next door being a relative term i suggest we all are living next door to a large nuclear reactor which thankfully is still in a contained state thanks to gravity..The sun.....Smaller versions of this natural system of reactivity,nuclear power plant,make sense for many neighbourhoods ..Regards..Marty Wolf

I live in a "radiation cloud" path right now and I'm not going anywhere. I helped build them in the past so why would I fear them.

Imagine the flower garden you could have.

I do live next door to a NPP, They are good neighbors. I would much rather be here than next door to a politician or a bunch of wild eyed "environmentalist" marching about with signs chanting slogans etc.

Dear All,

I do not have enough information from the above link, this is more an advertisement and not a technical information.

Missing is:

details of the "chemical separator", "uranium separator", "waste separator",

any information on the data of thorium-fluoride(s), production of fluorine by radioactive energy, amount of transuranium produced,

not one word on the intended fully automatic control, nor any information on the criticality of this type of reactor and its control of criticality,

And one old but still not true argument against uranium reactors is perpetuated but this is not enhancing validity: uranium will not be short in supply for some 1000 years as uranium is unique in geological distribution and in allowable price per Kg.

If the price is rising by a factor of 10 the amount of uranium available is rising by a factor of 300!!! (Not my estimate but to be found in the archive of SciAm.)

And as the price of uranium is not really a considerable share of the price of energy there may be a very high price until any limit will be seen. Enrichment cost is much higher than natural uranium cost.

Why was the development of the thorium fluoride-reactor stopped after the shutting down of the development of the "nuclear powered airplane".

So if ever this liquid thorium-fluoride reactor will be a reality this will take a long time.?

The Canadian ACR 1000 is similar in very good fuel use, proven inherent safety and many more beneficial characteristics. Everybody who is interested shall have a look!:

http://www.aecl.ca/Assets/Publications/ACR1000-Tech-Summary.pdf

(I am not involved in any nuclear commercial activity!, this is pure scientific and technical interest.)

RHABE

Hi Garthh,

"Looks like the latest incarnation of traditional design"

Yes and no, they use a very clever combination of heavy water for moderating neutrons and light water for cooling.

This results in inherent safety as if something goes wrong the heavy water tubes will fail (either by too much heating from inside or lack of cooling at outside or overpressure), after failing of heavy water tubes the heavy water will be very much diluted by light water and thus the chain reaction stopped: self triggered shutdown!

"Doesn't it use the same fuel, just slightly less refined?"

Yes, but with less enriched uranium so price is much down.

And, more important: using heavy water as moderator creates much more reactivity in the reactor so the fuel can be used much longer, using more uranium and using more of the (from U238) converted plutonium and the transuranic elements too are partially used up. So the total energy per element is much higher. Experts quarrel about what may be achievable: between a factor of 2 to 3 seems realistic.

So the problem with the radioactive waste is relieved by this factor but still existing.

This can be overcome by switching to thorium fuel elements.(If the statement in the thorium reactor advertisement is ok that a thorium reactor is producing only minor amounts of radioactive waste).

I have to ask an expert if the thorium is really not generating much waste.

I assume that this may be true as the high amount of uranium 238 that generates (by neutron capture) the transurans is not existing in the pure thorium elements.

But if so then any thorium reactor has this benefit.

The most convincing argument pro uranium fuel (may be the only one) is to reprocess the fuel-rods after only 1 to 3 months of use, this will yield weapons grade plutonium.

RHABE

I am living in a country which doesn't have the ability to bulid NPP.

Does the law allow people to leave next to the NPP?

Is nuclear energy the cleanest energy? How about the byproduct?

After reading all the comments, if I get the chance, i think i will choose to live near NPP.