20
So there's this: "Japan's unfolding nuclear-power crisis deepened Monday, with a new explosion and accelerated overheating at one reactor in Fukushima and the start of cooling troubles at another." But how does a nuclear power plant actually work and stuff? Here's an easy-to-follow explanation.
It probably reflects poorly on nuclear energy that as a layman I have a fairly good understanding of how nuclear meltdowns operate off the top of my head.
"and like that – 6 billion dollars is gone."
Not to belabor this, but conservatives still labor under the 50's science fiction myth that nuclear power "will be so cheap, meters will run backwards."
Not sure of the source, but an interesting read:
http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/
Yeah, I read that post over the weekend, and a few things struck me about it. First and foremost, the author's smugness and certainty that I didn't know these things was a little off-putting. I read on and found very little that I hadn't already seen elsewhere.
His certainty that, despite the fact that every safety measure thus far has successively failed (and he doesn't seem to know quite why), the containment vessel won't fail struck me as unjustifiably optimistic.
But finally, what prompted me to click close tab was his saying that once whatever was in the containment vessel had settled down, the vessel would just be cleaned and the waste placed in "terminal storage." See, the problem as I understand it is that there really isn't any viable terminal storage for nuclear waste yet. As far as I can tell, everyone's just paying England to dump it in the Irish Sea. So even if everything works the way it should, we'll end up with an increasingly irradiated Knifecrime Island, and that can't be good for anyone.
Yeah, I agree it's a pretty big over-simplification. "Oh, the core will just melt down and collect like oatmeal in the bottom of the containment vessel, and we'll scoop it out with spoons or something."
Also, not being Chernobyl isn't exactly the highest praise.
I remember being really blown away the first time I learned that all the fancy scary high-tech nuclear fissioning in a reactor was really just a means to the seemingly very simple end of boiling water. I mean, come on, boiling water! I can do that in my kitchen!
The scariest thing about all this is the when "The China Syndrome" was released in Japan it was titled "The New Jersey Syndrome".
About a year ago, I was standing around with a friend, waiting for some event to wrap up. My friend showed me a news article about how there had been some problem with an oil rig in the Gulf, but the article said that, based on initial reports, it it appeared to be just a small spill that wouldn't cause much damage. So, as we've learned, experts are usually right when they reassure us that things are going to be mostly okay.
I'm a staunch pro-nuclear dude, so I get bummed when I read about this being talked about as though the fact that it is radiation instead of fire makes it worse. If this was a coal plant, and a wall of burning coal ash were flooding the plains, nobody would talk about it as though it were a referendum on nuclear power. In fact nobody would talk a bout it at all.
I bet the local newspaper would probably pick it up. I am also pro nuclear, It's when you hear about post-invasion Iraq and institutions/people in which you hoping have some clue as to what they are doing turn out to be almost incomprehensibly short-sighted/hubristic/incompetent/rapacious/corrupt, etc.
Look, I'm not prone to nuclear hysteria myself, but seriously… what? A meltdown that breaches containment would seriously, seriously contaminate a large area for decades. And sure, that scenario isn't very likely, but "a wall of burning coal ash" as a result of an earthquake… how would that even be possible? They don't burn THAT much coal at a time. And it would be at least somewhat feasible to clean up.
I agree that nuclear power is going to have to be part of the mix if we're ever going to end our dependence on fossil fuels, so in that sense I'm pro-nuclear power too. But let's not pretend that concern about are based on nothing but hysteria. To my knowledge, we've never had to evacuate tons of people because of problems at a coal fired plant, but in nuclear plants we've had a couple of these incidents and they keep happening. The dangers involved are real, and much worse than potential problems at operating coal-fired plants – that's why nuclear accidents get a lot of coverage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania
@SeanP: We have literally had a couple – two. One of them was a genuine disaster and killed thousands of people, but was also run by the Soviets and not exactly the most safety conscious. The other one killed zero people. I'm having trouble digging up whether anyone was evacuated after this, but at the very least it's definitely disaster-level.
And on top of that, what it really comes down to is that the burden of coal and oil power falls onto the poor people who have to mine/process/etc. it. As in, every coal mine disaster and every single event in the Niger Delta. But, much like car accidents, these aren't interesting enough – so the power source that has killed fewer people and provided more power more cheaply gets all the media attention.
And finally – it took fourteen years to clean up Three Mile Island. And the clean-up was at the plant, not the surrounding area.
Well, three anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire
But isn't saying that nuclear power is no more dangerous than fossil fuels to sort of miss the point? Isn't the idea to find something clearly better than fossil fuel?
@morgannels: Well, a) my point was that discussion of the dangers of nuclear power underplays the danger of fossil fuels. From a pure cost-to-power and pollution-per-megawatt standpoint, nuclear is the clear winner. So overall: Still pro-nuclear!
From a pure cost-to-power and pollution-per-megawatt standpoint, nuclear is the clear winner.
Can you show your work on that one? Specifically, what factor are you using for the cost of indefinite storage of the waste produced–a problem that to the best of my knowledge (as illustrated by the ongoing sagas of Sellafield, Hanford, and Yucca Mountain) hasn't been satisfactorily solved–in your calculation of cost-per-megawatt? And how are you then factoring that same issue into your calculation of pollution-per-megawatt?
And as if on cue: http://www.propublica.org/article/status-of-spent-nuclear-fuel-in-question-at-crippled-japanese-power-plant/
Coal ash would be classified as high-level radioactive waste if it came from a nuclear power plant. But because it doesn't (and because of Sen. Byrd), it is effectively unregulated they can dump it in the river or vent it into the air. How are you factoring THAT into your calculation of pollution-per-megawatt?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Excellent point. One other fact… I understated the number of nuclear incidents by a factor of eleven. There have been thirty-three: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFc0cVRMVDR5c1ZmeC1lR2hac0xjMXc&hl=en