Can the nuclear industry be trusted?

[cobalt124]

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.

I thought it was somewhere inbetween - The Lake District.

 

[JaredJames]

I thought it was somewhere inbetween - The Lake District.

Just checked, it's mainly North Wales and above.

 

[nismaratwork]

Man, Wales really takes it in the trousers sometimes don't they? Hoof and Mouth, radiation, coal mining... a lack of respect for the ecstasy that is lava bread and cockles.

Then again there's the Welsh language, which I'm convinced is a prank. Wffyywyffyd my butt!

 

[JaredJames]

Man, Wales really takes it in the trousers sometimes don't they? Hoof and Mouth, radiation, coal mining... a lack of respect for the ecstasy that is lava bread and cockles.

Then again there's the Welsh language, which I'm convinced is a prank. Wffyywyffyd my butt!

But we had the worlds first million pound cheque (77 mil today)! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Exchange)

 

[nismaratwork]

But we had the worlds first million pound cheque (77 mil today)! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Exchange)

Well, that calls for a round of Fyydwid and Wyfyfyffyfyfyfy!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

I think this is a key point. Nuclear power is not an immediate solution. By the time it could be implemented, better options will be available.

As I understand things, it can take a decade to build a new plant; and perhaps another decade to get approval and funding. It will take decades for nuclear power to play a significant role beyond the one it has today. With the promise of biofuel options and the price of solar dropping like a rock, I think we are worried about saving the horse when Model-Ts are already on the market.

 

[JaredJames]

I think this is a key point. Nuclear power is not an immediate solution. By the time it could be implemented, better options will be available.

As I understand things, it can take a decade to build a new plant; and perhaps another decade to get approval and funding. It will take decades for nuclear power to play a significant role beyond the one it has today. With the promise of biofuel options and the price of solar dropping like a rock, I think we are worried about saving the horse when Model-Ts are already on the market.

Will be or may be? I don't see how anyone could make such a guarantee.

Do we take a chance these are ready and in useable states or do we just go with what we know can provide a solution?

At best I'd say we can certainly make a prediction, perhaps balance the costs and predicted time scales.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Will be or may be? I don't see how anyone could make such a guarantee.

Do we take a chance these are ready and in useable states or do we just go with what we know can provide a solution?

At best I'd say we can certainly make a prediction, perhaps balance the costs and predicted time scales.

We could be running on algae fuel today. It is only a matter of price. Even the small-timers are producing fuel at about $8 a gallon. And I can tell you that until recently, in spite of the fact that it has been around since the 70s, the effort to develop this technology was a joke. Why? Because we haven't gotten serious about alternatives. Many involved are way out of their league. Give Exxon another five years and it should be doable at a reasonable price. Even DARPA expects to grow algae in the battlefield and produce fuel for $3 a gallon.

What worries me is that without a clearly stated national agenda, Exxon has no incentive to rush the progress. They will play this by the numbers. As long as we ignore the real price oil, they have no incentive to hurry. This has been one of my greatest disappoinments with Obama: I had hoped for much more emphasis on alternative fuels.

The price of solar is dropping quickly NOW. Thin-film cells effectively produced by printers are in the works now.

If people would weren't constantly preaching the message of hopelessness and ignoring the REAL price of oil and other options like nuclear, we would be done by now.

For what it's worth, I put my money where my mouth is. I dedicated thirty months of my life to this in hopes of helping the cause. In the end, it was clear that this challenge is just too big for anyone but the Exxons and the DoD. The development costs are probably in the $billions range.

 

[russ_watters]

Operating something in quantities orders of magnitude smaller than what is required to provide a viable replacement for a current base load power source is not ready now. You must be aware that people have been making such 'almost ready, just needs a little more reseach' predictions for decades, right?

What your suggestion amounts to is a gamble that these technologies will become viable if we put a ton more money into researching and developing them. But instead of just researching, we could actually be building nuclear power plants.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think this is a key point. Nuclear power is not an immediate solution. By the time it could be implemented, better options will be available.

As I understand things, it can take a decade to build a new plant; and perhaps another decade to get approval and funding. It will take decades for nuclear power to play a significant role beyond the one it has today. With the promise of biofuel options and the price of solar dropping like a rock, I think we are worried about saving the horse when Model-Ts are already on the market.

Well, you know that I hope you're right, but JnJ makes a good case too: hope for the best (and fund it), but plan for the worst... we simply cannot keep up with coal the way we are, and carbon storage makes me break out in a cold sweat.

@russ_waters: Both approaches are gambles, so why not defund "clean coal" which is a load anyway, kill offshore drilling and divert funding to biofuels and reforming the nuclear industry. Go Gen IV, PBR's and centralized secure storage; make both a national security issue.

The biofuel is clearly a matter of national security, as it could mean freedom from fossile fuels as a major source of car-juice. The ability to export this would also be potentially a serious matter.

Nuclear is clearly a matter of national security for more reasons than can be listed, and too important to leave to whining NIMBY senators.

 

[russ_watters]

@russ_waters: Both approaches are gambles, so why not defund "clean coal" which is a load anyway, kill offshore drilling and divert funding to biofuels and reforming the nuclear industry. Go Gen IV, PBR's and centralized secure storage; make both a national security issue.

Well sure, everything is a bet. But if you bet that biofuel won't be viable and instead you fund nuclear power, get a clean, domestic, high capacity power source and a clear path toward phasing out coal whether you "win" or "lose".

 

[BobG]

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.

For the government, as long as the information is true, then any concerns about generating unnecessary fear should be pretty minor. Given accurate information in a timely fashion, then panic is rare. For example, informing people that a tsunami could be arriving, possibly within minutes, would be more likely to generate panic than informing people that a nuclear reactor is leaking and emitting radiation that will probably reach the city in some form, but the government still notifies the public of the anticipated tsunami.

For the company, there's secondary concerns. Releasing accurate and timely information could generate long term fear, not only of the company involved, but the industry as a whole. It's only the company responsible for the leak that feels a need not to overstate the gravity of the situation, and its primarily their own self interest that they're considering; not the public. It's that known conflict of interest that generates an overall distrust of nuclear power companies response to problems with their reactors.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well sure, everything is a bet. But if you bet that biofuel won't be viable and instead you fund nuclear power, get a clean, domestic, high capacity power source and a clear path toward phasing out coal whether you "win" or "lose".

By that logic it would be wise to fund both, and in fact a much wider array of technologies by orders of magnitude along with scaling up nuclear as a source of energy and a viable technological commodity. Think Roullette... you don't bet on one number, one color... it's a mix of bets according to a combination of luck, taste, and raw odds. In this case, coal is a clear failure, nuclear carries an extreme of tremendous risk (imagine a Chernobyl in which the molten core hits the water table, KABOOM) at the margins, and manageable risk in the center, and biofuel has VAST potential and low loooooow risk, but it's criminally underfunded.

This strikes me as a gamble taken by oil and coal lobbies to make as much money gibbing the planet, and THEN turning to 'alternatives'.

 

[JaredJames]

By that logic it would be wise to fund both, and in fact a much wider array of technologies by orders of magnitude along with scaling up nuclear as a source of energy and a viable technological commodity. Think Roullette... you don't bet on one number, one color... it's a mix of bets according to a combination of luck, taste, and raw odds. In this case, coal is a clear failure, nuclear carries an extreme of tremendous risk (imagine a Chernobyl in which the molten core hits the water table, KABOOM) at the margins, and manageable risk in the center, and biofuel has VAST potential and low loooooow risk, but it's criminally underfunded.

That is rather bias for my liking. Destroy two and praise the other.

The facts on the table are simple, coal is not sustainable (obviously). Nuclear can provide our requirements - and if done correctly it can be done in a safe manner (getting that safety is another issue, personally I think military run and protected for a start). Alternatives, great ideas and I think we should fund them, but they aren't a viable solution at the moment unless we do a lot of work and invest a heck of a lot.

So, my personal opinion on this is that we should be building nuclear reactors to handle our demands and replace coal/oil/gas, but also invest in alternatives so that we can get them to the point of being viable.

 

[nismaratwork]

That is rather bias for my liking. Destroy two and praise the other.

The facts on the table are simple, coal is not sustainable (obviously). Nuclear can provide our requirements - and if done correctly it can be done in a safe manner (getting that safety is another issue, personally I think military run and protected for a start). Alternatives, great ideas and I think we should fund them, but they aren't a viable solution at the moment unless we do a lot of work and invest a heck of a lot.

So, my personal opinion on this is that we should be building nuclear reactors to handle our demands and replace coal/oil/gas, but also invest in alternatives so that we can get them to the point of being viable.

Yep, it seems like the logical course of action... really the ONLY course of action if we expect to avoid catastrophe. I'd love to hear apeiron's thinking on this...

 

[Ken Natton]

For the government, as long as the information is true, then any concerns about generating unnecessary fear should be pretty minor. Given accurate information in a timely fashion, then panic is rare. For example, informing people that a tsunami could be arriving, possibly within minutes, would be more likely to generate panic than informing people that a nuclear reactor is leaking and emitting radiation that will probably reach the city in some form, but the government still notifies the public of the anticipated tsunami.

For the company, there's secondary concerns. Releasing accurate and timely information could generate long term fear, not only of the company involved, but the industry as a whole. It's only the company responsible for the leak that feels a need not to overstate the gravity of the situation, and its primarily their own self interest that they're considering; not the public. It's that known conflict of interest that generates an overall distrust of nuclear power companies response to problems with their reactors.

Bob, you put a very strong case and I don’t disagree with you per se. I’m not overestimating how bothered you are about what I think, but for reference I certainly do not accuse you of any failures of rationality or any failures of dispassion with these arguments.

I remain certain that not over stating the problem is a genuine and a right imperative for a government in this situation. It is not just a question of panic – I agree that panic is not generally the response. But there is a question of creating unnecessary levels of stress in people. Faced with a belief that the situation is very bad indeed, some people might take some very difficult decisions and act upon them. If it all then turns out that things weren’t really so bad the howls of indignation will be just as loud as they would have been if it had been found that there was a large scale attempt to disguise the truth.

I certainly accept that there is nothing irrational in the concern that commercial organisations might well attempt to manipulate the truth to their advantage. I know it is quite a different circumstance, but Enron has to be all the demonstration of that truth that anyone needs. But that is exactly why the nuclear power generation industry is entirely unsuitable for self-regulation. It has to be independent bodies that set the required safety standards, and independent bodies that monitor that those safety standards are being adhered to. And it is very clear that when a serious situation develops, be it an ‘act-of-God’ such as what has happened in Fukushima, or failures of human competence and failures of system such as Chernobyl, the monitoring of the situation as it develops and the task of informing the public of the situation must also bypass any commercial interests involved.

I cannot claim any certainty that such is how it actually is, either here in the UK or in the US. I do know from personal experience that the volumes of documentation and the degree of verification of adherence to standards of manufacture are unusually high when dealing with British Nuclear Fuels, the British organisation responsible for our nuclear power stations. The company I work for has sometimes made some fabrications for them and every weld, for example, is individually minutely inspected. And the fabrications we supply to them are not even directly involved in the critical part of the process. That is just how it is if you are dealing with BNFL.

 

[nismaratwork]

Bob, you put a very strong case and I don’t disagree with you per se. I’m not overestimating how bothered you are about what I think, but for reference I certainly do not accuse you of any failures of rationality or any failures of dispassion with these arguments.

I remain certain that not over stating the problem is a genuine and a right imperative for a government in this situation. It is not just a question of panic – I agree that panic is not generally the response. But there is a question of creating unnecessary levels of stress in people. Faced with a belief that the situation is very bad indeed, some people might take some very difficult decisions and act upon them. If it all then turns out that things weren’t really so bad the howls of indignation will be just as loud as they would have been if it had been found that there was a large scale attempt to disguise the truth.

Plutonium has been found in the soil in five different locations around Fukishima, and those are week old samples. TEPCO won't even say whether they may have come from the reactor, and the media is too stupid to realize what a spent fuel rod actually is. You have this also in the electrical corridors which are flooded with radiatioactive water (not the happy tritium laced aqua usual in a BWR), but again, no conclusions as to whether this is contributing to the environemntal exposure.

It would seem likely that a partial meltdown occurred in at least one reactor, for there to so much plutonium, and that raises questions about just what and how far melted down. None of this engenders trust, nothing that can be said will ease "stress", especially when the greatest source of stress is and was the tsunami damage. You treat people like mushrooms, and you save a little face in the short-term and pay LARGE on the backend.

I certainly accept that there is nothing irrational in the concern that commercial organisations might well attempt to manipulate the truth to their advantage. I know it is quite a different circumstance, but Enron has to be all the demonstration of that truth that anyone needs. But that is exactly why the nuclear power generation industry is entirely unsuitable for self-regulation. It has to be independent bodies that set the required safety standards, and independent bodies that monitor that those safety standards are being adhered to. And it is very clear that when a serious situation develops, be it an ‘act-of-God’ such as what has happened in Fukushima, or failures of human competence and failures of system such as Chernobyl, the monitoring of the situation as it develops and the task of informing the public of the situation must also bypass any commercial interests involved.

That is a good idea, and as we learned from the BP spill as well as this ongoing fun with TEPCO... that's never going to happen. Never. Ever. Never say never?... I'm saying never. So given that, what to do?

I cannot claim any certainty that such is how it actually is, either here in the UK or in the US. I do know from personal experience that the volumes of documentation and the degree of verification of adherence to standards of manufacture are unusually high when dealing with British Nuclear Fuels, the British organisation responsible for our nuclear power stations. The company I work for has sometimes made some fabrications for them and every weld, for example, is individually minutely inspected. And the fabrications we supply to them are not even directly involved in the critical part of the process. That is just how it is if you are dealing with BNFL.

You can fail to trust, and in fact fail to trust an untrustworthy organization that is NOT negligent. I don't trust many people or organizations, but I don't fail to trust them because I think everyone is constantly lying. Rather, I recognize much of what you've said to be accurate, but when the stakes are high, money is on the line either in terms of profits or sanctions... well... people lie, they massage the truth, they try to hide it for a while.

So, no industry can be trusted, no government, no person; it's just a question of when and how much to believe, coditionally.

"Trust is the color of death." (Robert Jordan)

 

[Birkeland]

The price of solar is dropping quickly NOW. Thin-film cells effectively produced by printers are in the works now.

If people would weren't constantly preaching the message of hopelessness and ignoring the REAL price of oil and other options like nuclear, we would be done by now.

While I certainly don't think that solar should be ignored and I think it has a role to play in helping offset peak use, I don't think it is "preaching a message of hopelessness" to point out that there is major issues with solar power being a major source of electrical power.

Even if solar power was 100% efficient we would have to cover Alaska with solar panels in order to provide all of the electrical energy just for the United States. At that assumes that there is energy storage during the night and cloudy weather, ect. Worldwide we would have to cover Russia, and that is based on consumption in 2008

Solar has its place, so does wind and geothermal, but while it will take some time to start production new nuclear plants, that's why it is important to start now.

 

[nismaratwork]

While I certainly don't think that solar should be ignored and I think it has a role to play in helping offset peak use, I don't think it is "preaching a message of hopelessness" to point out that there is major issues with solar power being a major source of electrical power.

Even if solar power was 100% efficient we would have to cover Alaska with solar panels in order to provide all of the electrical energy just for the United States. At that assumes that there is energy storage during the night and cloudy weather, ect. Worldwide we would have to cover Russia, and that is based on consumption in 2008

Solar has its place, so does wind and geothermal, but while it will take some time to start production new nuclear plants, that's why it is important to start now.

I could be wrong, but I believe he was referring to algael and bacterial biofuels as well.

 

[Birkeland]

I could be wrong, but I believe he was referring to algael and bacterial biofuels as well.

Yeah, I know I just focused on the comment about solar simply because I don't know enough about biofuels to have a view. I certainly think that biofuels and alage based fuels should be explored.

However, as far as energy production is concerned, my understanding is that electrical energy created from biofuels would basically be oil fired plants that use bio based oil vs fossil oil. In that case, aren't biofuels going to have just as many health issues as current power plants?

ignoring the REAL price of oil and other options like nuclear

I took that quote to also refer to health effects, which would indicate a preference for wind and solar in terms of electrical production, but I might have read too much into it.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah, I know I just focused on the comment about solar simply because I don't know enough about biofuels to have a view. I certainly think that biofuels and alage based fuels should be explored.

However, as far as energy production is concerned, my understanding is that electrical energy created from biofuels would basically be oil fired plants that use bio based oil vs fossil oil. In that case, aren't biofuels going to have just as many health issues as current power plants?

I'm no expert here either, far far FAAAR from it, but unlike fossile fuels you're recycling free carbon and other elements, not introducing them from where they've been sequestered for eons. In addition, you get something that is basically vegetable oil, so the waste products are FAR more benign than refining and burning oil. You don't have the whole galaxy of petrochemical compounds in biofuels that you do in raw oil, or have to separate through refinement.

So, no to the health issue, it's not a source of greenhouse gasses that are not already present, but beyond that... I don't know.

I took that quote to also refer to health effects, which would indicate a preference for wind and solar in terms of electrical production, but I might have read too much into it.

Ahhhh, that's not an unreasonable assumption, but I can't speak so deeply for another. Certainly oil and coal are orders of magnitude more adverse to human, animal, and plant health than algael products, solar, or wind. By the same token, so is nuclear, but in extrema, nuclear is catastropic... there is no algael/solar/wind catastrophe.

This may help explain why I support nuclear as a means to phase out coal, with increased support for bio/solar... and maybe wind.

 

[BobG]

So, no industry can be trusted, no government, no person; it's just a question of when and how much to believe, coditionally.

"Trust is the color of death." (Robert Jordan)

This is why engineering courses include ethics courses and why even private companies have regular ethics training.

The root cause can be summed up as:

"Perfection - a beautiful fantasy that leaves you hating yourself"

People (and companies and government administrations) feel intense pressure to be perceived as outstanding at what they do. When they do screw up (which they will eventually), the first reaction is to fix the screw up before anyone else knows - and the ability to fix your screw ups before anyone knows is seen as a good quality by peers, in the movies, on TV shows, etc.

That attitude is also a recipe for digging yourself a really deep hole.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is why engineering courses include ethics courses and why even private companies have regular ethics training.

The root cause can be summed up as:

"Perfection - a beautiful fantasy that leaves you hating yourself"

People (and companies and government administrations) feel intense pressure to be perceived as outstanding at what they do. When they do screw up (which they will eventually), the first reaction is to fix the screw up before anyone else knows - and the ability to fix your screw ups before anyone knows is seen as a good quality by peers, in the movies, on TV shows, etc.

That attitude is also a recipe for digging yourself a really deep hole.

I can accept both premise and conclusion.

I answer with advice given to Nixon:

"Any fact that needs to be disclosed should be put out now or as quickly as possible, because otherwise the bleeding will not end." (Henry Kissinger)

 

[Al68]

By that logic it would be wise to fund both...

Why would we need to fund either? If a private company wants to build a power plant for profit, they can get private investors to fund it. That's the beauty of capitalism.

 

[Ken Natton]

You can fail to trust, and in fact fail to trust an untrustworthy organization that is NOT negligent. I don't trust many people or organizations, but I don't fail to trust them because I think everyone is constantly lying. Rather, I recognize much of what you've said to be accurate, but when the stakes are high, money is on the line either in terms of profits or sanctions... well... people lie, they massage the truth, they try to hide it for a while.

So, no industry can be trusted, no government, no person; it's just a question of when and how much to believe, coditionally.

"Trust is the color of death." (Robert Jordan)

Well Nismar, I do accept the possibility that your view is that of a hard-nosed realist, and mine is that of a hopeless idealist. But it is my sense that plenty of politicians are motivated by some genuine sense of public service and that plenty of high level business people have a genuine belief in the importance of operating responsibly, not just in making as much money as possible. Undoubtedly there have been many cases when motivations that had started honourably enough became corrupted by developing circumstances, and it is thus necessary to have systems and structures that are designed to prevent that, or at least to expose it when it happens.

But it is also my sense that the problem with your view is that it is essentially negative, and would tend to stand in the way of achieving very much. And it is my sense that we would not have arrived at where we are, were it not for the fact that most commercial organisations do tend to act responsibly. As I say, perhaps that is hopelessly naïve.

 

[Al68]

And it is my sense that we would not have arrived at where we are, were it not for the fact that most commercial organisations do tend to act responsibly.

As much as some people like to bash private companies, I'd like to see them try to come up with an example of one with as much corruption as the government that they think should regulate them.

 

[SixNein]

As much as some people like to bash private companies, I'd like to see them try to come up with an example of one with as much corruption as the government that they think should regulate them.

Who is funding the government's corruption?

 

[Al68]

Who is funding the government's corruption?

Taxpayers. Involuntarily.

 

[russ_watters]

Why would we need to fund either? If a private company wants to build a power plant for profit, they can get private investors to fund it. That's the beauty of capitalism.

While that sounds nice in theory, the reality is that the government has a heavy-hand in all things energy and the driver isn't energy/economic needs but politics. So they hold energy projects back with one hand and push them forward with the other. If the government got out of the energy business to the greatest extent possible, limiting itself only to necessary and reasonable oversight, I think energy would get cheaper and nuclear and other clean energy forms would expand without the need for a push-pull, help/hurt relationship with the government. Caveat: research funding can remain, but research is not deployment/implementation.

Nuclear in particular has one of the bigger help/hurt relationships with government, but one of the keys to making nuclear cheaper is exactly the same for nuclear and other forms of energy: site selection and permitting. We don't even have to talk about nuclear power to realize how big of a problem this is:

Cape Wind (all of this from the wiki) first applied for a permit in 2001, which means they had already done a bunch of the engineering, site selection/environmental study, economic feasibility study, etc for the project by that time. The government did some of its own study, releasing studies in 2008 and 2009. They received their permits in January of this year.

On the state level, they received permits in 2005 and had to fight for them until 2010.

Ten years of fighting to receive a permit for the otherwise most economically viable of the alternate energy sources. Ridiculous! And it's worse for nuclear power. How can you possibly expect to get funding to even develop a project if you have to tell your investors they have to wait more than 10 years before they even find out if the project will go, much less construct it, much less even begin to recoup the initial investment? The risk here is tying our own hands so we can't move forward with anything.

Now just streamlining regulation won't be enough for nuclear power because they have another problem: insurance. My understanding is that insurance companies won't insure them because of the small risk of an enormous failure (or probably more properly, the inability to calculate that risk due to lack of data). So the government insures them. This is something only the government can do and since the government is going to do it one way or another (any company would go bankrupt over a Chernobyl scale disaster, so they can't possibly pay), so just drop the idea that they need to deal with it. Or to avoid completely absolving them, cap their liability to the value of the company.

Some things I think need to happen:
1. Empower the DOE to actually make binding decisions, with potential legal challenges pre-addressed. That way, when the DOE decides a project should go, people can't sue to put it in limbo.
2. Related to #1, objections to a project should have a statute of limitations (say, 6 months) and the DOE rules on those objections.
3. Require the DOE to make a decision on applications in one year.
4. Give the DOE "trump card" status over local code officials.
5. Fund the DOE so it can actually do its job.
6. The federal government needs to stop breaking the law and finish the Yucca respostory. Breaking the "we'll deal with your waste" promise has big negative implications for nuclear power.
7. Drop the requirement that Nuclear plants be insured against widespread damage due to a catastrophic failure (or cap the damages).

[edit] RE: Insurance. I should have looked it up, but the current legislation appears to me to be pretty well crafted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price–Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act