Debunking Nuclear Power Myths

Excellent article. I hope many people take a few minutes to read it.

I did!

Agreed!

"why the big hubbub over Yucca mountain"?

ignorance and irrational hysteria

Actually, nuke designs ARE standardized. For a given type (brand) of reactor (at least in the West), a given design is made, run through regulatory approvals, and used over and over again.

I don't know if that means that nukes of a given type/brand are all carbon copies of each other in the sense that all pipes are laid out exactly the same way (I think they are .. my bro'-in-law (who works at a nuke-plant designer/builder) told me of a design flaw that would prevent control-room operators from evacuating if a particular steam line were to break), but the valves, instruments, systems, etc., are all placed in very similar ways.

The above applies to the 'nuclear side'. The 'balance of plant' (where stuff that's not exposed to radiation is located) might vary, though.

Cheers! DZ

Apologists for extractive energy sources tout "clean" and relatively safe production, while the extractive procesess themselves are the disaster. Of course, these processes typically take place in relatively remote areas that no one will see on the way to the mall. And the impacts happen to people who aren't considered to be important - except as units of consumption. Health care is a growth industry.

www.wise-uranium.org › Mining & Milling › Impacts

www.sric.org/uranium

Avatar notwithstanding, if people really wanted to protect wild places, the wasteful ways and "stuff" that would have to be foregone would raise cries of righteous indignation from all sides. Besides wildness should have well maintained access and concessions - right?

Wildness is, for the most part, a fantasy movie. But water isn't. When we've depleted and polluted all our aquifers, what will we do - extract more minerals and manufacture more water collectors and purifiers. It's another growth industry - go for it.

Yes, I'm using electricity. Mea Culpa.

What a superb article, one that should be used to inform the general public.

The following statements caught My eye as I read and say it all.

But safety is not an independent variable. Safety is created by the interaction among a variety of factors such as materials, design, selection and training of personnel, attitude of management, safety culture, and regulators.

SO TRUE!

The nuclear community has been reluctant to discuss that question. Its members have been told that discussing potential casualties just scares people.

A problem I tried to meet head on many years ago while working for Westinghouse because it seemed that NO query was ever answered or answered in a way the public could understand. So, this contributed to the myths and conspiracy theories. I believe that the general public, presented with answers in layman terms would have been more receptive.

So much more, each and every paragraph brought out so much truth.

there has been a long discussion on yahoos alternate power group about nukes.

Only one person stood fast and thought they were good.

They arent.

Build it and they will glow. By the time you expend all the energy, manpower,schooling,money,studies, materials, vehicles, fuel etc to build a nuke plant, staff it, run it and put up power lines and poles(and cut down trees) to transmit to the grid, and the continual line clearing/tree trimming to keep the wires clear,then include the money and carbon footprint to keep up with spent fuel rods,etc, you come out WAY AHEAD building and putting up solar panel sets in individual locations to decrease the required grid load, Instead of putting up new large wires to supply a nuke plants output.

How much money is being spent right now, monitoring and securing and moving all the nuke plants and materials throughout the world that exist now?

That money is pure waste.

If we abandoned all this nuke crap, and spent the money, dollar for dollar on solar, our electric problems would go away.

How much money is being spent right now to secure solar panels and decomissioned solar panels throughout the world? Get the point?

Nuke is only good for the industry and taxation money and control over power it creates forever.

Not to mention the taxes all that nuke activity generates. Just the money spent designing and building those crashproof/ containers nuke material is rail shipped in around the country would probably put up enough solar panels to power at least one state.

All the money spent on 3mile islands cleanup,studys, medical exams,etc, would have put a panel or 2 on every rooftop in america. Just the paperwork it generated probably required several thousand trees to be processed into paper. Not to get into cherynobles costs, and what that money could have done for the planet.

Independant solar eliminates everyone from the cash stream between you and the sun. Your rates to collect solar power will never increase.

Do you want to grow old and die knowing you helped guarantee your childrens future would include feeding their hard earned cash to ever hungrier corporate fat cats, warmongers,power company exec's and more government control and taxes?.

Or would you like to pass away knowing you put solar panels on your kids houses, and they would never have to even think of paying a power bill?

Not to mention, this next generation will probably have an electric car in every garage. Do you want your kids and grandkids to continue to pay corperate fat cats,warmongers and harem humpers(NOT RACIAL,no harem, no oil, i didnt mean you!) every time they go out for a drive, like our generation has? Or to plug into a free home solar power outlet?

The way the economy is going free power for their homes and cars will be a godsend.

Dont you wish it were that way now?

Nuke plants contribute to global warming, anyway. Ever feel the water running out of a cooling tower back into the river?. Pumping billions of btu's of wasted heat into the environment sure cant cause global cooling.

"God gave us fuel, greed gives us gas", and nuke power"

obammas only interest in nuke power is how much cash changes hands how many times (taxed every step) to produce the first killawatt of power.

Solar power panels have now hit the $1.00 per watt price.(dont argue, yes, you can buy solar panels for $1.00 a watt now, spend your time looking and you will find them on the net from reputable mfgs.)

For $10,000 i can have 10 kilowatts of power in a few days. How much power could you get from a nuke plant a few days from breaking ground?

Any power from any new approved nuke plant is 8-10 years from hitting the grid. How much solar power could be created with the nuke plant money, just in the 10 years we are waiting for the nuke plant to go on line. !0 years worth of dumping cash and pollution into a project before any power comes out just doesnt hold up to a good math student.

And, please, do not get into the fact that the sun doesnt always shine, or i will go into a long discussion of biomass waste gassification and decomposition methane sequestering,coupled with teg, thermoelectric power generators running 24/7 maintenance free for 40 yrs . tegs are down to $10 a watt, now, btw.

Heck, the russians had the best nuke power for a while with their little lead lined generator boxes containing a chunk of "hot" radioactive material covered with teg cells for remote power. Portable, safe, continuous power. Of course, they are being rounded up now, because of the "dirty bombs" that can be made from them.

$10/watt for TEG--are you kidding, or are you stinking kidding? Jeez, I hope I'm not the only person left on the planet who actually runs a few numbers on stuff like this. Even diesel gensets are only around $0.75/watt, last time I looked.

It amazes me to no end how much emotional rhetoric gets thrown about by those who are against nuclear power. How about leaving that out and keeping to facts (not "truths")?

I do agree that solar energy should be a large component of any sane national power policy, but:

You conveniently leave out some of the downsides of solar.

One - maintenance costs are high, particularly cleaning, and damage due to inclement weather.

Two - current direct electric generating solar technology is a case of severely diminishing returns. The power generating capability is constantly degrading, to the point of near zero capacity in 5 years. This requires a full re-installation to return to capacity. ROI is not near breakeven.

What we really need is a comprehensive national plan to include ALL means of power generation, and a LOT less emotional rhetoric!

Hooker

Aside from the 'safety' or even the ridiculous added costs for illogical environmental concerns, many appear to also believe that all nuclear power plants produce bomb-making enriched materials as a natural by-product.

As I understand some comments posted elsewhere, a plant or "program" must be specifically designed for parallel processing of materials in a way that allows further enrichment of materials for that purpose.

And yes, I realize that this would put the lie to the concept that nations like Iran can have a "peaceful electricity only" program and still produce enriched materials from it...unless, of course, the plant is of a design that specifically is meant to do so, or the plant requires fuel of an enrichment level that can be extended to weapons grade.

Does anyone here have the knowledge of how one could tell from casual observation if a nuclear program is meant to produce the kinds of materials required for a bomb, and which nuclear power plant designs are incapable of that activity?

For instance, without a gas-graphite reactor core design, can they even get to plutonium? Do the same systems needed for a light-water reactor or thorium reactor also allow processing and enrichment to 100% U or bomb-capable purity? Or did I miss something key about the process that would allow this capability to be hidden within the plant layout or processing of the fuel where this could be disguised?

We know that Brazil's military regime secretly exported eight tons of uranium to Iraq in 1981, that Saddam attempted to buy yellow-cake from Nigeria, and that the US military discovered literally "Tons" of uranium after the recent overthrow of that regime. (yes, I know the media repeat the mantra of "no WMD's were found" but what can we expect in the absence of a large missile with 'target=NYC' from those idealogues).
What are the chances that Iran had not managed at least the same success, and is that even relevant to electrical plant designs, or is it purely a processing and enrichment issue?

What I mean to ask is, can at least the "atomic warhead" objection be laid to rest on the political side by simply restricting the production of the fuel rods to nations with existing weapons programs?

Would this then allow the engineers to complete designs and eventual construction of nuclear plants world-wide, so long as they are of a non-weapons-producing design or with fuel obtained in a standardized format produced by a member of the existing nuclear community?

I must be blind...the reports I read indicated that no stock's of wepons grade unrainum or non-weapons grade stock were uncovered, am I reading the wrong report?

That was the reports the Main Stream Media (MSM) made to the uneducated public in order to totally vilify President Bush and the entire war effort. The real facts are that we found a multitude of things that were not reported by the MSM. We also know for a fact that several large truck convoys left Iraq and went both north and direct to Syria. We also know for a fact that we found an entire squadron of new Russian Migs with French avionics buried in the Iraq desert. We have found tons of artillery shells that have had nerve agents loaded and removed from them. These are just some examples of what was not reported to the general public by the MSM.

I have no problems with the safety of properly managed and operated modern reactors. But there's a problem .. bottom line mentality. The quest for profits and returns to stock holders will pressure the operators to make dangerous 'value judgments' that ultimately sacrifice safety. Say what you want. It's not technology but it's greed that's wrong with nuclear power.

--- CHAS

I worked in nuclear power for 11 years. Accidents like Chernobyl and TMI were caused by operator mistakes. In both cases, the operators had to work very hard to cause the damage that occurred.

As for TMI, if the operators would have stepped away from the controls and let the automatic systems shut the plant down, it would be running today. TMI was a result of misunderstandings and not having provisions in place to address unusual events. I heard once that there was over 150 people in the TMI control room during the accident. One of the guys I used to work with said he was in that control room and can not believe you can fit over 50 people in there. Today there is a separate emergency response facility to house the crazyness and the control room might have only a dozen people in it during a TMI type accident. Could you image being at TMI, I can't. Even with the accident, there was no significant release of radiation.

Chernobyl is a unique type of reactor which can be safely run but then again people circumvented many of the safety systems to perform a test which had very little value. This was an example of inadequate review of the test program.

Man has learned from the mistakes, Even with these accidents, nuclear has proven to be safe and reliable. I am all for it, keep the generators rolling.