Why I advocate for Nuclear Power

[Harry Bosch]

View attachment 20795

The boss is actually correct here. There's no way that can be anything like zero risk. If you can power a small city from that thing the energy density must be phenomenal. Even if somehow we have 100% conversion efficiency (and we must or it promptly overheats) it must be using superconductors. If they quench, kaboom.

High energy density is by itself a risk. Nuke plants should be out in the boonies--but so should fossil fuel plants. Wind and photovoltaic are low enough density that I wouldn't mind having one nearby.

I'm 100% against wind turbines after learning from Trump that the turbines cause cancer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Potential energy in the form of uranium or the like isn't a big issue for the very reason you say. I'm talking about the energy that actually is flowing through his device, though--an accident certainly can liberate that.

His device is fictional, and has whatever properties the author devides it has.

It's still got enough energy density that if it were to suffer major damage (say, the building it's in collapses in an earthquake) the energy in it will be liberated. That's enough to power a small city--it's going to be very energetic.

(And you're wrong about Chernobyl. The reactor went prompt critical and exploded. That wasn't merely a meltdown.)

There was no nuclear explosion. The only explosions at Chernobyl were a steam explosion, and a possible simultaneous hydrogen explosion, and they occurred some time after the power excursion due to the reactor suddenly going critical, partly due to positive void co-efficient, and mostly due to the complete withdrawal of the control rods, followed by a cack-handed attempt to reinsert them, which created further coolant voids and actually increased the reaction rate.

The total explosive power was approximately equivalent to one tonne of TNT - far less than the minimum you would get from a nuclear explosion. The reaction got hot very fast (doubling in milliseconds by the time the core ceased to exist as a unit, not the microseconds you would find in a fission bomb), but it wasn't a detonation - that came (seconds) later from the steam.

Chernobyl was a horrible design, and even so required some mind-bogglingly stupid actions by the unqualified persons who were operating it in order to fail catastrophically. But it didn't explode like an atomic bomb. It exploded just like a conventional industrial plant or boiler will explode if abused.

No. Chernobyl was a prompt critical accident. In other words a very low grade nuclear explosion.

 

[bilby]

It's still got enough energy density that if it were to suffer major damage (say, the building it's in collapses in an earthquake) the energy in it will be liberated. That's enough to power a small city--it's going to be very energetic.

(And you're wrong about Chernobyl. The reactor went prompt critical and exploded. That wasn't merely a meltdown.)

There was no nuclear explosion. The only explosions at Chernobyl were a steam explosion, and a possible simultaneous hydrogen explosion, and they occurred some time after the power excursion due to the reactor suddenly going critical, partly due to positive void co-efficient, and mostly due to the complete withdrawal of the control rods, followed by a cack-handed attempt to reinsert them, which created further coolant voids and actually increased the reaction rate.

The total explosive power was approximately equivalent to one tonne of TNT - far less than the minimum you would get from a nuclear explosion. The reaction got hot very fast (doubling in milliseconds by the time the core ceased to exist as a unit, not the microseconds you would find in a fission bomb), but it wasn't a detonation - that came (seconds) later from the steam.

Chernobyl was a horrible design, and even so required some mind-bogglingly stupid actions by the unqualified persons who were operating it in order to fail catastrophically. But it didn't explode like an atomic bomb. It exploded just like a conventional industrial plant or boiler will explode if abused.

No. Chernobyl was a prompt critical accident. In other words a very low grade nuclear explosion.

In other words, not like an atomic bomb.

 

[bilby]

There's a common misapprehension that storage is required by nuclear power generation systems when used in real world grids. This isn't actually true - many nuclear plant designs can 'load follow' - but it is true that the most economical way to run nuclear plants is flat out, due to the higher proportion of their costs that are fixed costs (such as construction) vs variable costs (such as fuel).

Some renewable energy advocates will counter the argument that the storage required by wind and/or solar renders them impractical, by suggesting that the same applies to nuclear - 'both need storage such as pumped hydro' I hear people say. True enough, for a given value of 'need'; But the scale is not even remotely comparable.

Intermittent renewables require not only VASTLY more storage than nuclear, for a given demand profile; They also need VASTLY more generating capacity, due to the fact that they only run at full power 10-25% of the time, compared to ~90% for nuclear plants - which can also plan their downtime to avoid downtime at other plants (or even other reactors at the same plant), and to avoid seasonal demand peaks.

This article from the Alberta Nuclear Nucleus puts some numbers on this - and shows just how huge the extra storage and generating capacities need to be for a grid powered by intermittent sources.

Nuclear power may be more expensive than wind or solar per nameplate GW; But it's FAR cheaper per GW delivered, even before adding in the HUGE cost of storage required by intermittent renewables, vs the tiny amount "needed" to maximise efficency in a nuclear powered grid.

 

[Shake]

While I'm a big proponent of increasing our share of renewable energy sources, I also favor at worst maintaining, and at best expanding of, our nuclear resources. I think a mixed solution is the best way forward as no one technology, at this time anyway, is going to be a cure-all. It always aggravates me to hear people discounting <insert renewable energy source of your choice here> saying, "We'll never have enough to replace what we get from fossil fuels!" From one source? No, you're right, and I agree. A multi-pronged solution is the best way forward. I live less than a 2-hour drive from Niagara Falls, a huge source of hydro electric power, and less than 10 minutes away from a nuclear power plant. My town was the first in NY state* to get all of its power (for the town offices) from solar power, and more solar panels are going up all around. A plant not far down the main highway has 2 large windmills, plus a new solar array. It's encouraging to see these things going on. It's sad that much of the public would resist nuclear just because they don't understand it and fear the worst-case scenarios.

*a small upstate town outside of Rochester whose average yearly amount of sun is roughly comparable to that of Seattle (i.e. not much)

 

[bilby]

We Don't Need Solar and Wind to Save the Climate - And It's a Good Thing Too.

Consider these headlines from The New York Times and other major newspapers:

1891: “Solar Energy: What the Sun’s Rays Can Do and May Yet Be Able to Do“ — The author notes that while solar energy was not yet economical “…the day is not unlikely to arrive before long…”
1923: “World Awaits Big Invention to Meet Needs of Masses “…solar energy may be developed… or tidal energy… or solar energy through the production of fuel.”
1931: “Use of Solar Energy Near a Solution.” “Improved Device Held to Rival Hydroelectric Production”
1934: “After Coal, The Sun” “…surfaces of copper oxide already available”
1935: “New Solar Engine Gives Cheap Power”
1939. “M.I.T. Will ‘Store’ Heat of the Sun”
1948: “Changing Solar Energy into Fuel “Blocked Out” in GM Laboratory” “…the most difficult part of the problem is over…”
1949: “U.S. Seeks to Harness Sun, May Ask Big Fund, Krug Says”
Reporters were as enthusiastic about renewables in 1930s as they are today.

“It is just possible the world is standing at a turning point,” a New York Times reporter gushed in 1931, “in the evolution of civilization similar to that which followed the invention by James Watt of the steam engine.”


...


“Serious problems will, of course, be raised by the fact that sun-power will not be continuous,” wrote a New York Times reporter in 1931. “Whether these will be solved by some sort of storage arrangement or by the operating of photogenerators in conjuction with some other generator cannot be said at present.”

Like fusion power, reliable and continuous wind and solar power are just a few decades away. And they always will be.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Like fusion power, reliable and continuous wind and solar power are just a few decades away. And they always will be.

You're right about most things in this thread, but that does not seem probable. Fusion power is an open question, but given good transmission of electricity, or space-based solar, etc., reliable and continuous solar power is doable with much less than, say, a Dyson Sphere. It will take some time, but probably that will happen, even if solar is for the most part not a practical means of addressing the problems we face today.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's still got enough energy density that if it were to suffer major damage (say, the building it's in collapses in an earthquake) the energy in it will be liberated. That's enough to power a small city--it's going to be very energetic.



No. Chernobyl was a prompt critical accident. In other words a very low grade nuclear explosion.

In other words, not like an atomic bomb.

An atomic bomb that really fizzles. It's not a steam explosion, what's going boom is the fissile material itself undergoing an uncontrolled chain reaction that only terminates when the mass has blown itself apart so it is no longer critical. In an atomic bomb the engineers go to great lengths to very quickly go from a subcritical configuration to one with a multiplication factor of 2+. In a prompt critical accident the change is gradual, it runs away the instant the multiplication factor goes over 1 and so only a tiny portion of the energy is liberated before the mass disassembles itself.

 

[bilby]

It's still got enough energy density that if it were to suffer major damage (say, the building it's in collapses in an earthquake) the energy in it will be liberated. That's enough to power a small city--it's going to be very energetic.



No. Chernobyl was a prompt critical accident. In other words a very low grade nuclear explosion.

In other words, not like an atomic bomb.

An atomic bomb that really fizzles. It's not a steam explosion, what's going boom is the fissile material itself undergoing an uncontrolled chain reaction that only terminates when the mass has blown itself apart so it is no longer critical. In an atomic bomb the engineers go to great lengths to very quickly go from a subcritical configuration to one with a multiplication factor of 2+. In a prompt critical accident the change is gradual, it runs away the instant the multiplication factor goes over 1 and so only a tiny portion of the energy is liberated before the mass disassembles itself.

So it explodes like a bomb that doesn't work.

The explosion that breached the Chernobyl #4 reactor and exposed it to the air was a steam explosion. The reactor had already disintegrated by the time that that happened - there was zero damage outside the reactor core due to a fission chain reaction.

Congratulations on your commitment to nitpicking, by the way; But could you please fuck off now?

 

[Peez]

bump

 

[Tharmas]

Here's an interesting article from the New Yorker about renewed interest in nuclear power.

It is quite long and concentrates on Japan's post Fukushima experience, but comes to the conclusion that nukes are the only real way to offset climate change.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here's an interesting article from the New Yorker about renewed interest in nuclear power.

It is quite long and concentrates on Japan's post Fukushima experience, but comes to the conclusion that nukes are the only real way to offset climate change.

Fukushima is getting a lot of press these days because of the massive amounts of radioactive waste that has to be contained and disposed of. They are running out of room to store the radioactive water, even after processing and need permission to slowly release it into the sea along with the tritium. The solid waste such as rods and eventually melted cores are going to be dry-casked but need a permanent storage location. That phase is decades away, however.

 

[bilby]

Here's an interesting article from the New Yorker about renewed interest in nuclear power.

It is quite long and concentrates on Japan's post Fukushima experience, but comes to the conclusion that nukes are the only real way to offset climate change.

Fukushima is getting a lot of press these days because of the massive amounts of radioactive waste that has to be contained and disposed of. They are running out of room to store the radioactive water, even after processing and need permission to slowly release it into the sea along with the tritium. The solid waste such as rods and eventually melted cores are going to be dry-casked but need a permanent storage location. That phase is decades away, however.

It doesn't have to be contained. Dumping it into the ocean would cause exactly zero harm to anyone or anything.

But it is required to be contained because the regulations are based on fear, not fact.

And a dry cask is a permanent storage solution. You just need to transfer the material to a new one every few centuries, which is easy to do.

The claim that nuclear waste has no permanent solution is bunk - nuclear waste is the only industrial waste for which a permanent solution exists, and one of very few for which even a short term solution is attempted. Most toxic wastes (such as those produced in the manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels) are just dumped into the environment; and unlike nuclear waste, which decays over time, these chemical toxins remain hazardous forever.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here's an interesting article from the New Yorker about renewed interest in nuclear power.

It is quite long and concentrates on Japan's post Fukushima experience, but comes to the conclusion that nukes are the only real way to offset climate change.

Fukushima is getting a lot of press these days because of the massive amounts of radioactive waste that has to be contained and disposed of. They are running out of room to store the radioactive water, even after processing and need permission to slowly release it into the sea along with the tritium. The solid waste such as rods and eventually melted cores are going to be dry-casked but need a permanent storage location. That phase is decades away, however.

It doesn't have to be contained. Dumping it into the ocean would cause exactly zero harm to anyone or anything.

But it is required to be contained because the regulations are based on fear, not fact.

And a dry cask is a permanent storage solution. You just need to transfer the material to a new one every few centuries, which is easy to do.

The claim that nuclear waste has no permanent solution is bunk - nuclear waste is the only industrial waste for which a permanent solution exists, and one of very few for which even a short term solution is attempted. Most toxic wastes (such as those produced in the manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels) are just dumped into the environment; and unlike nuclear waste, which decays over time, these chemical toxins remain hazardous forever.

It's a good article that goes through exactly what has occurred and continues to occur relative to decontamination. It mentions safe levels of radiation in sieverts, areas that are safe areas that are still unsafe, soil having to be removed, food supplies, etc. It's a thorough article and worth the read.

It also mentions how at Chernobyl and also Fukishima how people were not informed properly of the danger. In Chernobyl they were expressly lied to. In Fukushima the people seem to be so afraid of radiation that they keep themselves misinformed and absolutely do not trust what the government tells them. They even obtain their own test equipment.

They've had to remove and continue to remove tons of topsoil to the depth of about a meter to get the radiation to a safe level. In all it is quite a disaster. The contaminated water seems like the smallest problem they have but the radiation certainly has to be contained and dealt with safely. It did happen and all the effort and expense isn't attributable to fear but genuine danger from radiation imho.

 

[bilby]

It doesn't have to be contained. Dumping it into the ocean would cause exactly zero harm to anyone or anything.

But it is required to be contained because the regulations are based on fear, not fact.

And a dry cask is a permanent storage solution. You just need to transfer the material to a new one every few centuries, which is easy to do.

The claim that nuclear waste has no permanent solution is bunk - nuclear waste is the only industrial waste for which a permanent solution exists, and one of very few for which even a short term solution is attempted. Most toxic wastes (such as those produced in the manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels) are just dumped into the environment; and unlike nuclear waste, which decays over time, these chemical toxins remain hazardous forever.

It's a good article that goes through exactly what has occurred and continues to occur relative to decontamination. It mentions safe levels of radiation in sieverts, areas that are safe areas that are still unsafe, soil having to be removed, food supplies, etc. It's a thorough article and worth the read.

It also mentions how at Chernobyl and also Fukishima how people were not informed properly of the danger. In Chernobyl they were expressly lied to. In Fukushima the people seem to be so afraid of radiation that they keep themselves misinformed and absolutely do not trust what the government tells them. They even obtain their own test equipment.

They've had to remove and continue to remove tons of topsoil to the depth of about a meter to get the radiation to a safe level. In all it is quite a disaster. The contaminated water seems like the smallest problem they have but the radiation certainly has to be contained and dealt with safely. It did happen and all the effort and expense isn't attributable to fear but genuine danger from radiation imho.

Again, they didn't have to do any of these things. The Japanese have set their official 'safe level' based on the pre-existing background radiation levels - and Japan has some of the world's lowest background radiation levels. The 'safe level', that has "required" the expensive and disruptive removal of topsoil, and the declaration of some areas as "dangerous", are less than the natural background radiation levels in many parts of the world where people have lived for centuries without any detectable harm befalling them.

The Japanese "safe" levels are even more insanely low than those used elsewhere in the world, which are still based on the discredited and frankly insane LNT hypothesis. No other industry is constrained to keep contamination below one percent of the amount that causes measurable consequences. If you exposed a million people to ninety times the "safe" level of radiation as defined by the Japanese, for their entire lives, you wouldn't find a higher incidence of illnesses in any of them. Indeed, this has been done - Ramsar, a town on the Iranian Caspian Sea coast, naturally has radiation levels that high - and residents have lower levels of most cancers than the global average.

The risk to human life and health from these measures is demonstrably greater than the risk of doing nothing.

This is the most frustrating tactic of the anti-nuclear lobby - they invent a problem that doesn't exist, and than bang on about how it hasn't been solved, or that it's costing a fortune to solve it.

The correct and safe response to slightly elevated radiation levels in a place that started with very low levels is to ignore them. But if you pull a random very low number out of your arse, declare it to be the "safe level", and then insist that people move heaven and earth to decontaminate everything down to that level, you can very effectively cripple an industry.

There's nowhere outside the power plant perimeter fence at Fukushima Daiichi that ever needed to be evacuated or decontaminated for the protection of human life or health - indeed, the evacuations caused a number of fatalities that could easily have been avoided by not evacuating anyone.

There was never any environmental or public health need to store the tritiated water that's currently on site.

The death toll from radiation at Fukushima Daiichi is, and will remain, nil. Regardless of any efforts to reduce that number.

The Japanese people are right not to trust their government and officials - those people are fearmongers who are making things worse by panicking over nonexistent threats. If people want a real hazard to worry about, they should be looking at dioxin contamination post the Tōhoku Earthquake and Tsunami - that's a far more significant threat, and nobody seems to give two shits about it. Because it doesn't make for sufficiently scary headlines.

 

[Elixir]

Here's a great interactive map of global BG radiation levels.

Zoom in and out - toggle basic view, gradients, heatmap or clusters - very illustrative of Bilby's point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a good article that goes through exactly what has occurred and continues to occur relative to decontamination. It mentions safe levels of radiation in sieverts, areas that are safe areas that are still unsafe, soil having to be removed, food supplies, etc. It's a thorough article and worth the read.

It also mentions how at Chernobyl and also Fukishima how people were not informed properly of the danger. In Chernobyl they were expressly lied to. In Fukushima the people seem to be so afraid of radiation that they keep themselves misinformed and absolutely do not trust what the government tells them. They even obtain their own test equipment.

They've had to remove and continue to remove tons of topsoil to the depth of about a meter to get the radiation to a safe level. In all it is quite a disaster. The contaminated water seems like the smallest problem they have but the radiation certainly has to be contained and dealt with safely. It did happen and all the effort and expense isn't attributable to fear but genuine danger from radiation imho.

Because they're going to insane levels to placate the population.

Look at Fukushima--the evacuation killed a lot of people. (Disrupting the living situation of the very elderly is not good. There were a lot of extra deaths in the evacuated population.) Staying put had an expected death toll of zero. (Even if LNT is correct you need 10,000 rems of exposure to get one death.)