How much for a nuclear power plant?

[xxChrisxx]

It's not even as clever as tautology, it's simply directly repeating (three times if you include reading the posted article and OP).

 

[FlexGunship]

It's not even as clever as tautology, it's simply directly repeating (three times if you include reading the posted article and OP).

"Hey guys, listen up. The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club."

 

[xxChrisxx]

"Hey guys, listen up. The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club."

Are we allowed to talk about it?

 

[nismaratwork]

Are we allowed to talk about it?

Once you start, you can't stop.

 

[FlexGunship]

Once you start, you can't stop.

[PLAIN]http://blog.cleveland.com/andone/2009/03/new_logo_red_mr_Pringles.jpg

Seriously, though, are we all done with the anti-nuclear talk? Or was there still some lingering, open question?

 

[nismaratwork]

[PLAIN]http://blog.cleveland.com/andone/2009/03/new_logo_red_mr_Pringles.jpg

Seriously, though, are we all done with the anti-nuclear talk? Or was there still some lingering, open question?

If you take a fist-sized hunk of U-238, and smash a can of pringles with it, I hear you go some sub-critical to super-critical! True story that the voices in my head told me. So yeah, this thread should probably be locked now.

 

[FlexGunship]

If you take a fist-sized hunk of U-238, and smash a can of pringles with it, I hear you go some sub-critical to super-critical! True story that the voices in my head told me. So yeah, this thread should probably be locked now.

I hear that if I cram my face full of Pringles my cholesterol goes from sub-critical to super-critical.

EDIT: By the way, I hate the idea of thread-locking. It almost feels academically dishonest. "There could be more to say on the subject, but... we've decided otherwise."

 

[xxChrisxx]

I hear that if I cram my face full of Pringles my cholesterol goes from sub-critical to super-critical.

I am distinctly anti-Pringles for this reason. The minimum estimates from the 1994 Pringle disaster, are 500 billion lost and the death toll is 985,000 and still counting.

/thread.

 

[FlexGunship]

I am distinctly anti-Pringles for this reason. The minimum estimates from the 1994 Pringle disaster, are 500 billion lost and the death toll is 985,000 and still counting.

/thread

 

[Vanadium 50]

... like the difference between 56 (or 75) and 985,000. I have no idea where the larger number comes from

It looks to be approximately equal to the total number of deaths in all of Kiev Oblast since Chernobyl.

 

[Astronuc]

In the US, liability is capped at around $11 billion, even though the financial damage from a full-scale catastrophe could easily soar into the trillions. Minimum estimates from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which occurred in a remote, impoverished area, have exceeded $500 billion. By recent estimates the death toll is 985,000 and still counting.

It is disingenuous to compare an RBMK, Chernobyl, without proper containment with a US plant which uses a steel-reinforced concrete containment. It's a bit like crashing a car at 300 mph and claiming that result when the car can only travel 100 to 120 mph.

We also do not allow reactors to be operated the way Chernobyl 4 was operated which lead to the accident.

I should point out that unirradiated UO₂ or uranium-bearing fuel is quite safe. I've handled fuel pellets just like the image FlexGunship cited. Like the NRC inspector, I wore latex gloves so as not to carry fuel particles (contamination) from the area. I was then scanned upon leaving the area. Respirators were not required nor used. WG MOX can be handled similarly (although respirators may be required depending on the operation and fuel form), but recycle MOX is handle remotely because of the beta and gamma radiation.

I've been through most of fuel fabrication facilities in the US and Europe, and visited a number of operating power plants. The security is quite good.

 

[xxChrisxx]

It looks to be approximately equal to the total number of deaths in all of Kiev Oblast since Chernobyl.

I got that impression, surely there's no way that can be right though even in a biased article linked in the OP. I mean, that's not even stretching the truth, it's almost outright lying.

 

[Cyrus]

Harvey Wasserman, an early co-founder of the grassroots "No Nukes" movement, is senior adviser to Greenpeace USA, and author of 'Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth.'

[PLAIN]http://www.greatertalent.com/backend/speakers/288/Wasserman,%20Harvey.jpg

My Donkey alert just went off.

 

[JaredJames]

I had to do a presentation in my first year at university, the topic was energy production and my area was nuclear. (I'm by no means an expert, but it did dig up some interesting facts).

I can't remember the specifics, but it showed that by 2020 over 80% of the UK's nuclear reactors would be decommissioned leaving a rather sizeable energy gap. To put this into perspective I showed the number of wind turbines required to cover it, which came at roughly 300 per reactor (assuming they use the current 2MW turbines that around South Wales were I live). There are 18 reactors, if memory serves, being decommissioned which gives a requirement of over 5400 wind turbines, which is just not feasible due to land constraints and intermittent power generation issues.

I know I've taken this from memory, but the numbers are in the ball park of the actual figures I used.

I don't see why people are so anti-nuclear. Without building more coal, oil and gas plants, nuclear is the only reasonable solution to the energy problem.
I'd be interested in seeing a cost analysis for a nuclear plan vs various renewable sources, I'll try and dig up some figures for comparison.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I don't see why people are so anti-nuclear. Without building more coal, oil and gas plants, nuclear is the only reasonable solution to the energy problem.
I'd be interested in seeing a cost analysis for a nuclear plan vs various renewable sources, I'll try and dig up some figures for comparison.

The answer is although a person can be intelligent and rasonable, 'people' are unreasonable idiots.

It's a shame the way the world is run is so political, beucase the govenments will do (approximately) what the people say. It's a shame the average voter couldn't find their arse with both hands.

 

[JaredJames]

As much as I like the idea of everyone getting a say in the running of their country, I do find it incredible that the opinion of those 'without a clue' on a subject seems to be taken just as reliably as someone who has spent their lives in said field. This is more down to media than anything, always trying to hype things up.

Heathrow's third runway was a classic example, on the news reports some of the people there demonstrating were from hundreds of miles away. I mean seriously, how the hell does it affect them? (This was not about pollution, they simply didn't want the additional air traffic and wanted it built somewhere else).

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, without covering the countryside in wind farms and flooding various welsh and scottish valleys for hydro electric, plus installing various tidal generation systems, there just isn't a way to meet the energy demand without nuclear (or the 'evil three' ).

What gets me is that everyone complains they don't want wind turbines and the like cluttering the landscape and spoiling it, and yet they demand more renewable energy. The "not in my backyard" approach.

They were looking at installing offshore wind farms near where I live and the people opposed it very strongly, the argument "it would spoil the view and ruin the beauty of the coast". They installed a trial one out where the site would be and when questioned, the locals didn't even know they had done it, they couldn't even see it.

I agree, people are unreasonable idiots.

 

[FlexGunship]

They were looking at installing offshore wind farms near where I live and the people opposed it very strongly, the argument "it would spoil the view and ruin the beauty of the coast". They installed a trial one out where the site would be and when questioned, the locals didn't even know they had done it, they couldn't even see it.

I agree, people are unreasonable idiots.

I'm strongly pro-nuclear (if it wasn't obvious), but I'm also pro-wind. The idea that a wind turbine would ruin anything really gets me. Have you see offshore farms in pictures? I think they're beautiful. Another instance of man elegantly conquering his environment.

Besides, wind turbine location is an engineering concern, not an aesthetic one.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I got that impression, surely there's no way that can be right though even in a biased article linked in the OP. I mean, that's not even stretching the truth, it's almost outright lying.

No almost about it.

The total radiation release was 600,000 Sv. It takes about 6 Sv to kill a person. So if you gathered up all the radioactive material, and carefully packaged it in exactly the lethal doses, and the lined up people to administer these doses, you could only kill 100,000 people.


It's like claiming you've shot 10 people with only one bullet.

 

[FlexGunship]

No almost about it.

The total radiation release was 600,000 Sv. It takes about 6 Sv to kill a person. So if you gathered up all the radioactive material, and carefully packaged it in exactly the lethal doses, and the lined up people to administer these doses, you could only kill 100,000 people.


It's like claiming you've shot 10 people with only one bullet.

Two? It's a start!

 

[JaredJames]

I'm strongly pro-nuclear (if it wasn't obvious), but I'm also pro-wind. The idea that a wind turbine would ruin anything really gets me. Have you see offshore farms in pictures? I think they're beautiful. Another instance of man elegantly conquering his environment.

Besides, wind turbine location is an engineering concern, not an aesthetic one.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of renewable energy, and I don't mind wind turbines, I think they're quite pleasing to watch (calming). I was all for the offshore farms.

I also consider myself something of a realist. These renewable sources just can't match the output of a power plant facility on a realistic scale.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

...It's like claiming you've shot 10 people with only one bullet.

What if I used a M110 howitzer with a W33 shell I think one could safely clam that

Also I'd like to add that getting accurate information on nuclear power from Harvey Wasserman is like asking Dan Quayle to judge a spelling bee.

 

[nismaratwork]

What if I used a M110 howitzer with a W33 shell I think one could safely clam that

Also I'd like to add that getting accurate information on nuclear power from Harvey Wasserman is like asking Dan Quayle to judge a spelling bee.

Well now, that's a very exotic definition of "bullet"

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Well now, that's a very exotic definition of "bullet"

Well there is the school of thought called "Go big or go home."

 

[Office_Shredder]

Rule 37: There is no overkill. There is only "open fire" and "time to reload"

 

[nismaratwork]

To the last two comments: AMEN!

 

[JaredJames]

Americans and their guns!

 

[Cyrus]

Americans and their guns!

Brits and their opinions!

 

[mugaliens]

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of renewable energy, and I don't mind wind turbines, I think they're quite pleasing to watch (calming). I was all for the offshore farms.

I think at times they can be majestic. However, seeing entire hillsides which were clean and beautiful 20 years ago now dotted with white structures, I am not pleased to see them.

I also consider myself something of a realist. These renewable sources just can't match the output of a power plant facility on a realistic scale.

Good to hear it!

Americans and their guns!

Know of a better defense against criminals and their guns?

 

[JaredJames]

I think at times they can be majestic. However, seeing entire hillsides which were clean and beautiful 20 years ago now dotted with white structures, I am not pleased to see them.

Which is why i like the idea of offshore.

Know of a better defense against criminals and their guns?

Cant say i do, then again, I live in country where it was decided 'people + high speed projectile device = bad idea' and so defense against them isn't really an issue for me.

 

[russ_watters]

No almost about it.

The total radiation release was 600,000 Sv. It takes about 6 Sv to kill a person. So if you gathered up all the radioactive material, and carefully packaged it in exactly the lethal doses, and the lined up people to administer these doses, you could only kill 100,000 people.

It's like claiming you've shot 10 people with only one bullet.

[separate post] It looks to be approximately equal to the total number of deaths in all of Kiev Oblast since Chernobyl.

Several flaws in your logic; you need to learn to think like an anti-nuclear crackpot (silly scientist!). I can help:

1. You're not casting a wide enough net. Half the world's population was exposed to radiation due to the Chernobyl accident, which gives you a pool of about a billion deaths to work with. Was this level of exposure above the background noise...?
2. ...Anti-nuclear crackpots do not buy into the "minimum safe dosage" theory. They hypothesize that any dosage of radiation has a non-zero chance of causing cancer. The fact that the dosage received by people thousands of miles from the accident site can't be separated from the background radiation is unconcerning.
3. Signal to noise ratio? Never heard of it. If you have a big enough sample and detect *any* increase in any cancer rate, you can attribute it to Chernobyl, regardless of if it is statitically relevant or lacks any causal link.
4. Cancer care is completely stagnant. That means that an increase in reported cancers must be from Chernobyl, not due to the fact that medicine has advanced so that more cancers can be detected that previously went undetected. Ie, in Belarus, there has been a 40% increase in the incidences of all cancers. Nevermind that that increase has resulted in the incidences coming up to equal the incidences in western countries.

A google reveals that the number comes from a brand-new book by an author who is a Russian scientist and formerly primary author on a study for Greenpeace. The number has gone up since the Greenpeace study. It's easy to find the study and a synopsys of the book on Google, but I'm not giving either free advertising by linking them. That number, by the way, is actual deaths as of 2004, so it figures to keep climbing. The IAEA's 4,000 to 9,000 is predicted total deaths.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Know of a better defense against criminals and their guns?

When you come from a country where guns are by far the exeption rather than the rule, the argument becomes a non issue.

It's only very occasionally someone goes nuts with a gun over here, it does happen but it'd certainly happen more if guns were freely available. The current ratio of nutters without guns to nutters with guns is a ratio i'd like to keep.

I wouldn't trust the vast majority of this country with a tin of beans, let alone a lethal weapon.

 

[nismaratwork]

Several flaws in your logic; you need to learn to think like an anti-nuclear crackpot (silly scientist!). I can help:

1. You're not casting a wide enough net. Half the world's population was exposed to radiation due to the Chernobyl accident, which gives you a pool of about a billion deaths to work with. Was this level of exposure above the background noise...?
2. ...Anti-nuclear crackpots do not buy into the "minimum safe dosage" theory. They hypothesize that any dosage of radiation has a non-zero chance of causing cancer. The fact that the dosage received by people thousands of miles from the accident site can't be separated from the background radiation is unconcerning.
3. Signal to noise ratio? Never heard of it. If you have a big enough sample and detect *any* increase in any cancer rate, you can attribute it to Chernobyl, regardless of if it is statitically relevant or lacks any causal link.
4. Cancer care is completely stagnant. That means that an increase in reported cancers must be from Chernobyl, not due to the fact that medicine has advanced so that more cancers can be detected that previously went undetected. Ie, in Belarus, there has been a 40% increase in the incidences of all cancers. Nevermind that that increase has resulted in the incidences coming up to equal the incidences in western countries.

A google reveals that the number comes from a brand-new book by an author who is a Russian scientist and formerly primary author on a study for Greenpeace. The number has gone up since the Greenpeace study. It's easy to find the study and a synopsys of the book on Google, but I'm not giving either free advertising by linking them. That number, by the way, is actual deaths as of 2004, so it figures to keep climbing. The IAEA's 4,000 to 9,000 is predicted total deaths.

Wow, that made blood pour out of my nose, ears, and eyes! You definitely have a lock on kook "logic", but it's disturbing to see it all in one place, even if the source isn't trying to sell it. I just wonder how you can educate these people; their preconceptions protect them from anything even close to reality.

 

[nismaratwork]

When you come from a country where guns are by far the exeption rather than the rule, the argument becomes a non issue.

It's only very occasionally someone goes nuts with a gun over here, it does happen but it'd certainly happen more if guns were freely available. The current ratio of nutters without guns to nutters with guns is a ratio i'd like to keep.

I wouldn't trust the vast majority of this country with a tin of beans, let alone a lethal weapon.

Take a look at Indonesia and the Philippines, and the damage that can be done with a working knowledge of Kali/Escrima and a couple of sticks or a knife. Unarmed vs. knife or baton is an ugly match-up, and while guns make it EASIER to kill large numbers of people quickly, most people kill one other person; a knife is perfectly serviceable in that regard. Let's not even get into something like machete, or high-end slingshot.

 

[FlexGunship]

Know of a better defense against criminals and their guns?

He's just angry because if it weren't for "us Americans and our guns" we'd still be a British colony.

 

[nismaratwork]

He's just angry because if it weren't for "us Americans and our guns" we'd still be a British colony.

Wasn't our guns, it was our tactics and our allies. We both had guns, we just used them in a more effective fashion; oh, and the British thought a treeline of painted logs were cannons.