Can the nuclear industry be trusted?

In summary, the conversation discusses the issue of nuclear power and the public's perception of it. The speaker expresses their doubts and mistrust towards the nuclear industry, citing past failures and the current disaster as evidence. They also argue that cost should not compromise public safety and that the need to save money was a factor in the current disaster. The conversation becomes heated as both sides defend their opinions, with the speaker accusing the other of being ignorant and desperate. The conversation ends with a disagreement on whether the current nuclear disaster is a success story or a failure.
  • #71


russ_watters said:
While discussion of global warming itself is not permitted here...
Really? I thought we were allowed to discuss religions as long as we didn't denigrate them.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72


Al68 said:
Really? I thought we were allowed to discuss religions as long as we didn't denigrate them.

:smile:
 
  • #73


nismaratwork said:
re: bolding mine: This above all confuses me... that on one hand you want to save the environment from anthrogenic global warming, acid rain, etc... yet by default there is support for coal!

I sooooo don't understand that position, not even a little. Is radiation so much more frightening than lung cancer, asthmatic asphyiation, or other "fun" effects of coal? Hell, even mining Uranium can have the benefit of releiving Radon seams...

...I don't understand the anti-nuclear-by-default-pro-coal stance. There's no element of it that I understand, and I never have. Green energy is not happening right now, and it's not just for lack of funding; Pickens proved that.

I just... do not get it.

edit: clarification, not YOU russ, just "you" the general "they"

*I'm sure your sarcasm tag was on nismaratwork, however I'm still going to respond to this.

The reason for if you are anti nuclear then you support coal is because those two power sources are the only choice for cheep base load power in the USA and arguably in the rest of the world.

Even the worlds largest wind and solar projects come no where close to replacing any of the top http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/plantsbycapacity.htm" in the USA.

So notes can be compared, here is a list of the largest power complexes by fuel type in the world.

Roscoe Wind Farm (on shore wind) in Texas, USA provides 781.5 MW nameplate capacity
Thanet Wind Farm (off shore wind) in the UK provides 300 MW nameplate capacity
Sarnia Photovoltaic Power Plant (solar PV) in Ontario, Canada provides 97 MW nameplate capacity
Three Gorges Dam (hydroelectric) in PRC provides 18300 MW (current)/22500 MW (completion) nameplate capacity
Taichung Power Plant (coal) in Taiwan provides 5780 MW nameplate capacity
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant (nuclear) in Japan provides 8212 MW nameplate capacity
Kawagoe Power Station (natural gas) in Japan provides 4802 MW nameplate capacity
Surgut-2 Power Station (fuel oil) in Russia provides 4800 MW (current)/5600 MW (after upgrade) nameplate capacity
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74


Argentum Vulpes said:
Roscoe Wind Farm (on shore wind) in Texas, USA provides 781.5 MW nameplate capacity
Thanet Wind Farm (off shore wind) in the UK provides 300 MW nameplate capacity
Sarnia Photovoltaic Power Plant (solar PV) in Ontario, Canada provides 97 MW nameplate capacity
Three Gorges Dam (hydroelectric) in PRC provides 18300 MW (current)/22500 MW (completion) nameplate capacity
Taichung Power Plant (coal) in Taiwan provides 5780 MW nameplate capacity
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant (nuclear) in Japan provides 8212 MW nameplate capacity
Kawagoe Power Station (natural gas) in Japan provides 4802 MW nameplate capacity
Surgut-2 Power Station (fuel oil) in Russia provides 4800 MW (current)/5600 MW (after upgrade) nameplate capacity

Wow, I didn't realize nuclear / coal / oil / gas plants produced so much. I thought they were only in the 1 to 2 gigawatt range.

RE Bolded: That is incredible. I can only imagine the water capacity they need for that. Now there's a dam you don't want to burst.
 
  • #75
jarednjames said:
Perhaps this should have its own thread.

Your wish is granted.

I can change the subject or do some additional editing if necessary.
 
  • #76


Argentum Vulpes said:
*I'm sure your sarcasm tag was on nismaratwork, however I'm still going to respond to this.

The reason for if you are anti nuclear then you support coal is because those two power sources are the only choice for cheep base load power in the USA and arguably in the rest of the world.

Even the worlds largest wind and solar projects come no where close to replacing any of the top http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/plantsbycapacity.htm" in the USA.

So notes can be compared, here is a list of the largest power complexes by fuel type in the world.

Roscoe Wind Farm (on shore wind) in Texas, USA provides 781.5 MW nameplate capacity
Thanet Wind Farm (off shore wind) in the UK provides 300 MW nameplate capacity
Sarnia Photovoltaic Power Plant (solar PV) in Ontario, Canada provides 97 MW nameplate capacity
Three Gorges Dam (hydroelectric) in PRC provides 18300 MW (current)/22500 MW (completion) nameplate capacity
Taichung Power Plant (coal) in Taiwan provides 5780 MW nameplate capacity
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant (nuclear) in Japan provides 8212 MW nameplate capacity
Kawagoe Power Station (natural gas) in Japan provides 4802 MW nameplate capacity
Surgut-2 Power Station (fuel oil) in Russia provides 4800 MW (current)/5600 MW (after upgrade) nameplate capacity

I'm sorry, but I wasn't being sarcastic; mainly because:

1.) Hydroelectric is a bloody environmental catastrophe
2.) Lack of storage and more efficient/cheap transmission = Wind/Solar not being a viable replacement for Coal or Nuclear.
3.) Newer designs that are literally generations beyond what we have (thanks Greenpeace, I used to like you) are more efficient and capable of greater generation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77


jarednjames said:
Wow, I didn't realize nuclear / coal / oil / gas plants produced so much. I thought they were only in the 1 to 2 gigawatt range.
Many modern nuclear plants produce between 0.9 and 1.2 GWe. A twin unit state would produce 1.8-2.4 GWe.

Some large PWR units produce 1.3-1.45 GWe, and the Gen III+ units are up to ~1.6 GWe.
 
  • #78


Astronuc said:
Many modern nuclear plants produce between 0.9 and 1.2 GWe. A twin unit state would produce 1.8-2.4 GWe.

Some large PWR units produce 1.3-1.45 GWe, and the Gen III+ units are up to ~1.6 GWe.

Yes, those are the numbers I'm thinking of.

According to the above though, you have a nuclear plant producing 8.2:
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant (nuclear) in Japan provides 8212 MW nameplate capacity

Or have I read that number wrong?
 
  • #79
That may mean it has 8 reactors...

Regardless of people's concerns about hydro, there is a more important problem with it: it's essentially fully utilized already, so there isn't much potential for expansion.
 
  • #80
What about the issue of biologically dervied fuels, from algae and bacteria? That certainly has enormous potential, and unlike coal or nuclear it's portable, exportable, and safe.
 
  • #82
Topher925 said:
How aware are people of this?: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752944,00.html

Personally, I trust the nuclear industry more than I trust the government but that's really not saying much.

Politicians: "People who shake your hand before an election, and your confidence after." (Ernie Kovacs)

I'm feeling rather shaken by all of this. My "love" of nuclear is really more of a loathing of coal, but this is deeply disheartening. We can't expect to scale up nuclear if that means equal scaling of contamination...

I'm disturbed, and uncertain.
 
  • #83
nismaratwork said:
What about the issue of biologically dervied fuels, from algae and bacteria? That certainly has enormous potential, and unlike coal or nuclear it's portable, exportable, and safe.

Sounds kind of wacky to me.
 
  • #84
Ivan Seeking said:
Sounds kind of wacky to me.

:smile:

Now class, that is what is called in academic circles, "busting balls".
 
  • #90
Treading warily, am I read into this Nisamratwork, that you have had a road to Damascus style change of heart to the view not only that nuclear power generation is not safe, but that the nuclear power generation industry is inherently dishonest in its dealings with the public? From the links you have provided, I am failing to find the basis for that.
 
  • #91
Ken Natton said:
Treading warily, am I read into this Nisamratwork, that you have had a road to Damascus style change of heart to the view not only that nuclear power generation is not safe, but that the nuclear power generation industry is inherently dishonest in its dealings with the public? From the links you have provided, I am failing to find the basis for that.

No, I can't claim such a conversion, and I can only speak to TEPCO's safety record, which from what I have seen is uniquely abysmal and criminal. The video doctoring incident, and their many other spills, leaks, and other "whoopsies" over the last decade+ is pretty disheartening.

As a whole, I wouldn't trust an industry that considers this some kind of norm, or doesn't react violently (metaphorically) to that level of deceptive practice.

Beyond that, I have never seen nuclear power as safe, I see it as safer than COAL/LNG. I would say that's still absolutely true, but I'm no longer convinced the dichotomy is so simple or...well... dichotomous. In that, I've had my RtD moment, yes, but not quite so grand as to deserve the appellation even in jest. I'd also say that my belief in nuclear is founded on a fundamental lack of hope in other options; I'm convinced that they exist, but not that we'll implement them.

So... self-defeating there, but I guess you could say I've converted from monotheism to monolatrism.
 
  • #92
I don’t entirely share your view nismar, but I do respect it and accept that you probably have as much valid basis for your view as I do for mine. I would have to say, and I do not direct this at you particularly nismar, that I find no evidence whatever that you or I or any of the Japanese people local to the disaster have been in any way misled about what is happening. My conspiracy theory sensors are twitching.
 
  • #93
Ken Natton said:
I don’t entirely share your view nismar, but I do respect it and accept that you probably have as much valid basis for your view as I do for mine. I would have to say, and I do not direct this at you particularly nismar, that I find no evidence whatever that you or I or any of the Japanese people local to the disaster have been in any way misled about what is happening. My conspiracy theory sensors are twitching.

Oh, I can't see that they've been misled either, but judging by TEPCO's recent history in the area, I'd be more surprised that not to see that they haven't been. Still, I think we all know those answers come AFTER they deal with Fukishimi-Daichi, not during.

The altered video is not conspiratorial (it's also not around this incident), except insofar as it's a very minor and failed conspiracy itself.

I realize that this is a HARD-Left source, but it's not agenda-based, just a good summation of TEPCO:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/rachel-maddow-japan-nuclear-2

http://www.asiantribune.com/toshibas-malfeasance-tepco

http://www.japansubculture.com/2011/03/tepco-executives-quietly-under-investigation-for-charges-of-professional-negligence-resulting-in-death-or-injury-%EF%BC%88%E6%A5%AD%E5%8B%99%E4%B8%8A%E9%81%8E%E5%A4%B1%E8%87%B4%E6%AD%BB%E5%82%B7/

I suspect that Astronuc could point me to a better publication than the results of a google search, but the history here is not exactly a secret.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/27/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html?iref=NS1

CNN said:
Tokyo (CNN) -- Radiation levels in pooled water tested in the No. 2 nuclear reactor's turbine building at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant are 10 million times above normal, utility company and government officials said Sunday.

Hidehiko Nishiyama, an official with Japan's nuclear and industrial safety agency, said the surface water showed 1,000 millisieverts of radiation. By comparison, an individual in a developed country is naturally exposed to 3 millisieverts per year, though Japan's health ministry has set a 250 millisievert per year cumulative limit before workers must leave the plant.

The 10-million-times normal reading applies to radioactive iodine-134 found in the No. 2 building's pooled water, according to the nuclear safety agency. This isotope loses half its radioactive atoms every 53 minutes, compared to a half-life of every eight days for radioactive iodine-131 that has also been detected in recent days.

This exponentially dwindling amount of radiation means, according to Nishiyama, that it's unlikely that sealife -- and, several steps down the line, humans who might eat once contaminated seafood -- will suffer greatly from the iodine-134 exposure.

"Certainly, we have to be concerned about the fact that the level of radiation is increasing," said Nishiyama. "But at this point, we do not ... envisage negative health impacts."

There was no indication either of harm done to the two people working in and around the No. 2 reactor when the test result became known. Those two subsequently left, and work in the turbine building has stopped until the government signs off on the power company's plan to address the issue, according to an official with the Tokyo Electric Power Company, which runs the plant.

That said, a Tokyo Electric official noted Sunday that people continued to work in other buildings -- including a control room, which got power and light for the first time in weeks the previous afternoon -- in the No. 2 reactor's complex.

Bolding mine, in case people skim and think it's 10M X outside of the reactor pool.
 
  • #95
Read more carefully, and you'll see that it is one short-lived isotope whose concentration is "10 million x normal". "Normal" is close to zero, which is why we have it locked up.

I see that CNN is comparing mSv and mSv/year as if they were the same unit.
 
  • #96
nismaratwork said:
I realize that this is a HARD-Left source, but it's not agenda-based, just a good summation of TEPCO:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/rachel-maddow-japan-nuclear-2
You think so:

"The carcinogenic isotopes that are released at Fukushima are already floating to Seattle with effects we simply cannot measure."

It's an anti-nuke propaganda piece, not a "good summation of TEPCO". TEPCO might be horrible, but the fact that wacko lefties hate them goes in their plus column.
 
  • #97
Vanadium 50 said:
Read more carefully, and you'll see that it is one short-lived isotope whose concentration is "10 million x normal". "Normal" is close to zero, which is why we have it locked up.

I see that CNN is comparing mSv and mSv/year as if they were the same unit.
That's only the tip of the iceberg for the nonsensical information being reported. "The surface water showed 1,000 millisieverts of radiation" is gibberish. It would be nice to see a report written by someone who has a clue what they're talking about.
 
  • #98
Al68 said:
"The carcinogenic isotopes that are released at Fukushima are already floating to Seattle with effects we simply cannot measure."

I would say that statement is accurate. They cannot measure the effects because there are no effects.
 
  • #99
Wow... at what point did a statement about radiation confined to a reactor vessel have ANY implications for Seattle?

Are you telling me that people in freaking Washington are worried? :smile:
 
  • #100
Vanadium 50 said:
Read more carefully, and you'll see that it is one short-lived isotope whose concentration is "10 million x normal". "Normal" is close to zero, which is why we have it locked up.

I see that CNN is comparing mSv and mSv/year as if they were the same unit.

Well it's not locked up at all of course, that's the point, but the point is also that due to the short half life and relatively benign 'daughters' these isotopes don't pose a risk to sea-life and the food chain.
 
  • #101
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/27/japan.nuclear.status/index.html?hpt=T2

...And now the retraction. Note, it's not CNN doing this, it's TEPCO officials... and frankly there need be no deception to render such poor information sharing. So no, they can't be trusted, but not necessarily becaue they lie or cheat, although TEPCO certainly has done that in the past.

It seems to me that this is a case of not having a really good idea of just what the hell is going on, and before they can catch up, the situation has changed.
 
  • #102
I don’t know here, I’m concerned that this becomes too much of an ego issue. There are legitimate concerns about what is happening in Fukushima, of course there are. I do recall seeing a TV program in the UK that was actually about something totally unrelated, but they took a core sample from the bottom of Lake Windemere, which is one of the UK’s premier beauty spots. An expert was discussing the core sample and with a totally throw away line pointed to a particular mark in the soil which he positively identified as 1985. The program presenter was naturally fairly sceptical about how the expert could be so positive. The expert replied with one word. Chernobyl. More obviously, I do remember that there were sheep framers in Wales who had to slaughter whole flocks because the radiation levels in the sheep were detected as too high. The sheep had been contaminated simply from eating the grass. I don’t know exactly how far Wales is from Chernobyl but it is certainly more than a thousand miles.

But it is also a truth that another legacy of Chernobyl has been a questioning of the whole conventional wisdom about the effects of radiation contamination. No people now live in the environs of Chernobyl, but it has been pointed out that wildlife does and with no obvious ill effects. Again, I am not downplaying the tragedy of the childhood thyroid cancers in Ukraine and Belarus that are fairly undeniably consequences of Chernobyl. And doubtless, if I was a resident of Tokyo I would probably be packing my children on the train south as well.

But government agencies have a duty to act carefully in these situations. I think there was a time in the past when, primarily from a very patronising motivation to protect the public from the worst, governments might have been prepared to disguise some part of the truth. But they soon learned the lesson that such a course only served to feed conspiracy theories. These days, I believe that there is broad acceptance of the need to put the truth out there, however awful it may be. But there is also a legitimate concern not to generate unnecessary fear. There is an equal need not to overstate the gravity of the situation, and it is a difficult line to walk.

If what is happening in Fukushima is causing your brow to furrow then it should. But it is not helpful to anyone to respond with melodrama. Nor yet are we anywhere near the point of doubting the whole rational behind nuclear power generation. Not rationally anyway.
 
  • #103
Ken Natton said:
More obviously, I do remember that there were sheep framers in Wales who had to slaughter whole flocks because the radiation levels in the sheep were detected as too high. The sheep had been contaminated simply from eating the grass. I don’t know exactly how far Wales is from Chernobyl but it is certainly more than a thousand miles.

A touch off topic, but are you sure it was Wales? I was under the impression Scotland took the brunt of it and had the problems.
 
  • #104
jarednjames said:
A touch off topic, but are you sure it was Wales? I was under the impression Scotland took the brunt of it and had the problems.

My memory is Wales, but I'm not sure it is important to the point.
 
  • #105
Ken Natton said:
I don’t know here, I’m concerned that this becomes too much of an ego issue. There are legitimate concerns about what is happening in Fukushima, of course there are. I do recall seeing a TV program in the UK that was actually about something totally unrelated, but they took a core sample from the bottom of Lake Windemere, which is one of the UK’s premier beauty spots. An expert was discussing the core sample and with a totally throw away line pointed to a particular mark in the soil which he positively identified as 1985. The program presenter was naturally fairly sceptical about how the expert could be so positive. The expert replied with one word. Chernobyl. More obviously, I do remember that there were sheep framers in Wales who had to slaughter whole flocks because the radiation levels in the sheep were detected as too high. The sheep had been contaminated simply from eating the grass. I don’t know exactly how far Wales is from Chernobyl but it is certainly more than a thousand miles.

But it is also a truth that another legacy of Chernobyl has been a questioning of the whole conventional wisdom about the effects of radiation contamination. No people now live in the environs of Chernobyl, but it has been pointed out that wildlife does and with no obvious ill effects. Again, I am not downplaying the tragedy of the childhood thyroid cancers in Ukraine and Belarus that are fairly undeniably consequences of Chernobyl. And doubtless, if I was a resident of Tokyo I would probably be packing my children on the train south as well.

But government agencies have a duty to act carefully in these situations. I think there was a time in the past when, primarily from a very patronising motivation to protect the public from the worst, governments might have been prepared to disguise some part of the truth. But they soon learned the lesson that such a course only served to feed conspiracy theories. These days, I believe that there is broad acceptance of the need to put the truth out there, however awful it may be. But there is also a legitimate concern not to generate unnecessary fear. There is an equal need not to overstate the gravity of the situation, and it is a difficult line to walk.

If what is happening in Fukushima is causing your brow to furrow then it should. But it is not helpful to anyone to respond with melodrama. Nor yet are we anywhere near the point of doubting the whole rational behind nuclear power generation. Not rationally anyway.

The best rational for nuclear power without the ideal of conquering NIMBYism, and a lack of secure central waste storage is that even with the far-flung effects of something like Chernobyl, the total death and injury related to Chernobyl in total is less than those from coal in a YEAR.

That said, if there are better alternatives to both that are simply underfunded due to greed and oil/coal interests, then it changes the risk-reward scenario. I don't agree with Ivan that it means Nuke has no place, but given the time frame involved in building new reactors and getting senators to agree is probably longer than the time involved in implementing algael/bacterial fuel, more solar, wind, and capacity to store in the grid.

Is it a reason to wet one's self? No.
 

Similar threads

Nuclear Power Gets a Big Boost in the US
Replies
5
Views
695
Computation for nuclear reactor systems
Replies
1
Views
1K
How long will the petroleum industry be profitable?
Replies
34
Views
3K
Nuclear thread par excellence
Replies
0
Views
1K
News Is Obama's Endorsement of Nuclear Power a Liberal Shift?
4
Replies
115
Views
13K
Nuclear Chain Reaction Conditions
Replies
6
Views
2K
News Green light for UK nuclear programme
Replies
1
Views
2K
Physicists in Industry - Action Needed
Replies
7
Views
2K
Is Temporary Storage of Nuclear Waste on Decommissioned Sites a Viable Solution?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Questions about the state of nuclear power in the U.S.
Replies
11
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top