The Other Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

May 25th, 2011
submit to reddit Share

Since the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the world’s attention has been fixed upon the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. The six reactor plant suffered major damage that disabled the primary cooling systems on units one, two, three and four.

Yet there is another Fukushima nuclear plant, which was struck by exactly the same forces but has gone largely unnoticed, primarily because there have been so few problems. Fukushima Daiichi translates directly as “Fukushima Number 1,” and was built starting in 1967. In 1976 it was decided to construct a second nuclear power plant, Fukushima Daini, directly translated as “Fukushima Number 2.” The first units came online at Fukushima Daini in 1982, with a total of four reactors being built, the last coming online in 1986.

Both nuclear plants are located directly on the coast. Fukushima Daini is about seven miles south of Fukushima Daiichi. Both plants also have very similar breakwater designs.

Fukushima Daini is also where a worker took these amazing pictures of the tsunami surge flooding the area around the reactor containment buildings. The water actually came in even higher than these pictures show, but the worker didn’t stick around to take any more photos.

Fukushima Daini is also where the first death at a nuclear plant as a result of the tsunami was reported. A worker was trapped in the control booth of a crane at the plant’s exhaust stack by the inundation of water. Rescuers reached the worker several minutes later but found he was already dead.

The quake also triggered a shutdown of all four of the reactors at Fukushima Daini, which had been operating at full power at the time. Significant damage was sustained to numerous plant systems, both nuclear and non-nuclear. The fourteen meter high tsunami that struck the plant was more than twice the height the plant was designed to survive. Fires were reported in at least one turbine room. At least some of the on sight backup power systems were also destroyed.

Three of the four reactors at Fukushima Daini sustained significant damage to their primary cooling systems. Flooding of pump rooms rendered the essential service water systems inoperative for units one, two and four. Backup cooling systems continued to function. Even without the ability to dissipate heat into the environment, the internal cooling mechanism of the reactors assured that enough heat was dissipated into the wetwell of the reactor, providing more than a day of decay heat dissipation.

On March 12, officials began preparations for releasing pressure from the reactors at Fukushima Daini, but this was determined to be unnecessary before any pressure was released. Emergency cooling systems continued to function properly and within two days of the tsunami, the primary cooling systems of all reactors were once again functional. On March 30, secondary systems were once again required when a fault occurred in equipment that supplies power to pumps at one of the reactors. Full functionality was quickly restored.

Since then, Fukushima Daini has remained in a state of cold shutdown. As time as passed, the cooling of the cores has become less critical, and all cooling capacity has remained functional. There were no explosions or other major accidents. There have been no releases of pressure or radioactive material from the plant and spent fuel storage remains stable. At this time the plant is considered safe and secure.

Why Daini survived the quake and tsunami so much better than Daiichi:

There’s really only one glaring difference between Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini: the vintage of the nuclear technology of the plants. While Fukushima Daiichi was built with reactor designs from the late 1960′s and early 1970′s, Fukushima Daini was built with technology of the early to mid 1980′s.

A comparison of the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi and Daini:

Both plants use boiling water reactor designs developed by General Electric, although in the case of Fukushima Daini, the vendors were Hitachi and Toshiba, who had licensed the designs of General electric. These are similar to reactors operated in the United States and elsewhere.

The BWR-3 and BWR-4 reactors are very similar in design. The primary difference is that the BWR-4 is larger. Otherwise, most of the basic systems and design features are the same. They use a similar containment structure and general layout to the BWR-1 and BWR-2. The containment system is the Mark 1 containment design, first used at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in 1969 for a GE BWR-2 reactor. These reactors would be considered early Generation II nuclear power reactors.

The BWR-5 represents a considerably greater change in design and technology from the BWR-4 than the BWR-4 did from the BWR-3 or than the BWR-3 did from the BWR-2. The BWR-5 introduced newly designed core spray and auxiliary cooling systems. The BWR-5 also introduced the Mark-2 containment design, a complete redesign of the reactor structure. The Mark-2 design integrates more of the cooling and support equipment into the central containment area of the reactor building. It also includes a number of new safety systems. The explosions that occurred at Fukushima Daiichi were the result of hydrogen buildup from a reaction between the zirconium alloy fuel cladding and the water in the reactor vessels. The Mark-2 containment system includes a system that can purge the reactor coolant with nitrogen gas to avoid such dangers. Further refinements were made to the Mark-2 Advanced containment design.

The BWR-5 represents what would technically be considered a late Generation-II nuclear reactor, although many of the design features continued to be used in the BWR-6 and later the ABWR and ESBWR, which GE Continues to market, members of the Generation_III and Generation-III+ reactor classes.

The conclusion that one can draw from the events at the two Fukushima plants is relatively straight forward: While the older BWR-3 and BWR-4 designs are sufficiently safe in most situations, their designs are nowhere near as robust and reliable as newer reactor designs. Of course, despite holding up so well against forces far beyond what designers had planned, the BWR-5 is, by today’s standards, old technology. Newer reactors are much safer still and have even more reliable passive-based safety features.

This is all the more reason why we should be building more nuclear plants. As newer reactors are built we will be able to eventually shut down the older reactors, thus improving economics and safety even further. The events in Japan do not diminish the picture of safety we have when it comes to new reactors. Rather than assuming that reactors will fail in the manner that they did at Fukushima Daiichi, we should consider how well they held up at Fukushima Daini. This is far more representative of new reactor designs, although those are even safer and more reliable still.


This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 25th, 2011 at 5:43 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Good Science, Nuclear, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



234 Responses to “The Other Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant”

  1. 1
    Steve Says:

    I would guess that even if this was the only nuclear power plant affected, the media would have been just as rabid, maybe even more so, as the operators would be accused of hiding the “actual” release of radiation.


    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    Anon Says:

    Of course we shouldn’t be closing any nuclear power plants (which can continue to be used) until fossil fuels have been taken care of.

    Even the old BWR Mark I containment is safer than any fossil fuel burner (probably applies to the RBMK design as well (and almost certainly every VVER)).


    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    DV82XL Says:

    Just another indication of how biased the media is against nuclear energy. It is very hard to believe this bias is accidental, or a consequence of ignorance.


    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    Q Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Just another indication of how biased the media is against nuclear energy. It is very hard to believe this bias is accidental, or a consequence of ignorance.

    Not to play devil’s advocate here, but couldn’t you simply chalk that up to a plant not failing being non-newsworthy? Just like the thousands of planes that land safely every day and are never made a news story.


    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    DV82XL Says:

            Q said:

    Not to play devil’s advocate here, but couldn’t you simply chalk that up to a plant not failing being non-newsworthy?

    Just like the thousands of planes that land safely every day and are never made a news story.

    I suppose. I am just ticked off at the way the media handled this story from the get go. While some sensationalizing is expected these days, the fact that there was more coverage of the reactors than the rest of Japan, much of which was reeling under the blows from the earthquake and tsunami. I can’t help but wonder if something else was at play here.


    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    Jason Says:

    The point of the safer designs is well taken, however Fukushima Diani suffered significantly less flooding damage than Daiichi. Diani was able to secure power offsite after the tsunami and Daiichi 5 & 6 had diesel generation power. So I’d like to know if the differences in design contributed to the different outcome, or did some of the reactors just got some better luck than the others?

    So putting that thought aside for now, I’ve been wondering if part of this whole scenario unfolded because of bad crisis management. If reactors 1-3 (4 being offline) all had power supply issues, could one of those reactors (the best condition of the 3) have been started backup (before the backup failed) with at least enough power to keep the other 2 plus some auxiliary systems going to keep the coolant flowing? So in other words, might have it been better to run a potentially damaged reactor rather than waiting for the backup power to fail? I don’t know enough about the plant condition at the time to know if that would have been a viable alternative.

    If so, could this have been avoided? Could following safety procedures be partially to blame for what happened? I’m not saying the safety procedures should be ignored but there are always going to be times where some quick thinking and good judgement should take precedence over procedure.


    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    Anon Says:

    My understanding (based on what others have said to similar questions) is that there is a minimum amount of power those reactors can generate and that with the grid connection gone no where to go for any excess power generated and no way to use enough power at the site.


    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    Kit P Says:

    At least one design of new reactors is designed to stay on line with a loss of off site power. It may be a FERC requirement. The main turbine/generator would keep supplying in plant loads and extra steam is dumped to the main condenser. If you flood out the basement of the turbine, that ability is lost.


    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Jason said:

    So putting that thought aside for now, I’ve been wondering if part of this whole scenario unfolded because of bad crisis management. If reactors 1-3 (4 being offline) all had power supply issues, could one of those reactors (the best condition of the 3) have been started backup (before the backup failed) with at least enough power to keep the other 2 plus some auxiliary systems going to keep the coolant flowing? So in other words, might have it been better to run a potentially damaged reactor rather than waiting for the backup power to fail?

    If you mean could the reactor have been run to provide electricity to power the other reactors the answer is no.

    The quake and tsunami caused very very severe damage. There were fires in the transformer areas. The turbines were damaged. The pipes that carry steam to the turbines were broken. The basements of the turbine rooms were flooded.

    Also, even if they had electricity, some of the electrical switching and equipment that feeds the power to the reactor systems was destroyed.

    Also, the reactors all SCRAM’ed when the quake hit. You can’t just restart a standard lightwater reactor right away after a scram. There are issues with xenon poisoning and uniform reactivity in the core. The safety procedures for restarting them take some time.

    On top of that you can’t really run these reactors at low power. There is a range of power output they can produce, but if it’s a 700 megawatt reactor, you could maybe run it at 600 megawatts or maybe even 500, but not 200. It’s an issue of xenon poisoning, neutron flux stability and that kind of thing.

    There are some reactors designed with a lot of extra room for changes in power and for rapid restarts. The reactors on nuclear submarines are like that. If you have to scram the reactor, you can’t wait around for days to restart it when you’re underwater. However, power plant reactors are not intended for this kind of operation.


    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    leodp Says:

    >> Newer reactors are much safer still and have even more reliable passive-based safety features.

    Sure.
    But I guess that when the plants of the years ’70 in Daiichi were built they were also considered top gear, extremely safe, able to resist anything imaginable.
    The point is that we cannot allow any single accident like Chernobyl or Fukushima to occurr if we do not want to avoid closing down a part of our planet for a time significative compared to the duration of any known civilization existed up to now.
    So how can you be 100% sure that today’s designs are ok in this respect, when we the same nuclear industry claims that they severely underestimated the probability that something like an earthquake+tsunami happening?

    Please remember also that the earthquake magnitude when it reached Fukushima was Richter 6.0, something not so unusual for Japan.
    And there are also many records in the past for >100feet/30m tsunamis.
    Please remember too that most of Japan nuclear power plants lie on sea level. If there’s an earthquake close to the plant there is also a tsunami, most of the times. Or am I missing something?

    Also, after what we have seen and what we are still seeing, can we believe in the nuclear industry? It’s like any other industry: first goal is profit. Safety comes in second place.
    We cannot afford this game when dealing with radioactive materials. Radioactivity may affect the whole world, for a too long time, it even changes our own essence: our DNA.

    Lastly, where can we place all the depleted uranium (and Plutonium, and Technetium,and and and) apart from bullets? Apparently 90% of all the spent fuel worldwide is still stored beside working reactors (Spent fuel pools in Fukushima). This is by far the biggest problem we will be faced in the upcoming years. And centuries. And millennia. How much is the cost (and risk) for disposing of them? Is there anybody that can calculate how much its impact is on the not_yet_paid cost per kWh?


    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    Chris Brown Says:

    It seems to be the right solution to use for loss of off site power is somthing like the Hyperian Nuclear battery – aka a sealed underground failsafe reactor.

    http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

    Even if you loose hardware above ground you still have power being generated onsite which can be tapped into without running wires for miles.


    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    drbuzz0 Says:

            leodp said:

    Sure.
    But I guess that when the plants of the years ’70 in Daiichi were built they were also considered top gear, extremely safe, able to resist anything imaginable.
    The point is that we cannot allow any single accident like Chernobyl or Fukushima to occurr if we do not want to avoid closing down a part of our planet for a time significative compared to the duration of any known civilization existed up to now.

    Unnecessary. If you had all the systems fail, all containment open up completely and 100% of the contents of the core get spewed all over the place what you would have is, at worst, a localized problem that is less than the consequences we have seen from a single major dam failure.

            leodp said:

    So how can you be 100% sure that today’s designs are ok in this respect, when we the same nuclear industry claims that they severely underestimated the probability that something like an earthquake+tsunami happening?

    We can’t ever be 100% sure of anything. All we can say is that it’s highly unlikely, but build enough plants and once in a blue moon one of them will fail catastrophically.

    It’s like anything else. Once in a blue moon, a plane crashes, despite air travel being ultra-safe. It’s better on balance to have something that rarely fails and almost never kills anyone when it replaces something that kills tens or hundreds of thousands per year (such as fossil fuel)

            leodp said:

    Lastly, where can we place all the depleted uranium (and Plutonium, and Technetium,and and and) apart from bullets? Apparently 90% of all the spent fuel worldwide is still stored beside working reactors (Spent fuel pools in Fukushima). This is by far the biggest problem we will be faced in the upcoming years. And centuries. And millennia. How much is the cost (and risk) for disposing of them? Is there anybody that can calculate how much its impact is on the not_yet_paid cost per kWh?

    Plutonium is very useful for fuel.
    Technetium is useful in medicine, as an environmental tracer and as a catalyst. It has very low radio toxicity anyway – significantly lower than many naturally occurring isotopes. You can warehouse the stuff pretty much indefinitely if no other use is found. It’s chemically and physically stable and does not take up much space. Or there’s the deep geological repository.

    As for depleted uranium, which is lower in radioactivity than the natural uranium you can pick up off the ground in numerous places, it has any number of uses. It can be used in a fast reactor to breed more fuel. It also could be used for radiation shielding, aircraft counterweights, switching diodes, weights for elevators, forklifts and cranes, for pottery glaze, special optics and in certain chemical compounds that are useful for chemical refinement, batteries etc.

    If you need a place to store it, you can keep it at my place. (well.. some of it, I don’t have all that much room) I already have a small amount of it.


    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    Matte Says:

    Dr. Buzzo,
    ummm, actually all Gen II and later are capable of running in “house turbine” operation, meaning the can suply themselves with power to run their systems in hot standby mode, in theory. BWR’s are the easiest as they can controll reactivity in the core with both control rods and circulation pumps (moderator temperature control).
    In practice however things may be different, I have been working in plants that managed to crash down from 100% and run on house turbine mode for about a day and half, the sister station managed about 4 seconds (same event)… Best way is to start up the plant from hot zero power and run it on house turbine (if you can do that without challaging the steam generators with contaminants).

    Xenon poisoning does not become an issue until about 6-8 hours and after ~20 (~3 half lives of I-135) it such a serious problem that you have to wait for the Xe-135 to decay off before the core is stable enough to be restarted safely.


    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    Matte Says:

            leodp said:

    >> Newer reactors are much safer still and have even more reliable passive-based safety features.

    Please remember also that the earthquake magnitude when it reached Fukushima was Richter 6.0, something not so unusual for Japan.
    And there are also many records in the past for >100feet/30m tsunamis.
    Please remember too that most of Japan nuclear power plants lie on sea level. If there’s an earthquake close to the plant there is also a tsunami, most of the times. Or am I missing something?

    Actually, the ground acceleration at the plant was ~125% above the design level (design is eq. to Richter 7.2), sorry can’t give you a source other than it is reliable. The numbers I have are in acceleration numbers that I do not understand the unit for, but I can tally the totals…(I am a chemist not a geophysicist).

            leodp said:

    Also, after what we have seen and what we are still seeing, can we believe in the nuclear industry? It’s like any other industry: first goal is profit. Safety comes in second place.
    We cannot afford this game when dealing with radioactive materials. Radioactivity may affect the whole world, for a too long time, it even changes our own essence: our DNA.

    This is a common missconception, in some places perhaps it may be true but I doubt it. I have never met an operating organisation that does not have operational safety as a number one priority. Reason being, the regulator does actually evaluate the safety culture of the operating company. If it is not up to the standards expected the plant gets shut down. A shut down plant cost money, so nobody want that. I have experience of working in the UK, US and Scandinavia…

            leodp said:

    Lastly, where can we place all the depleted uranium (and Plutonium, and Technetium,and and and) apart from bullets? Apparently 90% of all the spent fuel worldwide is still stored beside working reactors (Spent fuel pools in Fukushima). This is by far the biggest problem we will be faced in the upcoming years. And centuries. And millennia. How much is the cost (and risk) for disposing of them? Is there anybody that can calculate how much its impact is on the not_yet_paid cost per kWh?

    True about fuel pools being an issue, this is well known in the industry. The tsunami incident in Japan did cause a total whipe out of the on site as well as the off site infrastructure. Normally you have about 4-10 hours to restore cooling to a fuel pool before it starts to boil, if you have your infrastructure in place doing something to restore the coolability is easy, if everything is whiped clean you are in trouble.

    As to costs, you actually can calculate the cost per kWh. The KBS-3 method will cost in the region of 11 billion US dollars to dispose of 12 reactors life time of spent fuel, that would be in the region of 1/7th cent/kWh, that includes the cost of 500 million dollars to develop the program. Slightly more than building 2 new AP1000′s, I believe.

    I do not know the reasons why Yukata repository was scrapped, was there any sound technical reasons or was it just a lot of political bull?


    Quote Comment
  15. 15
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Matte said:

    Dr. Buzzo,
    ummm, actually all Gen II and later are capable of running in “house turbine” operation, meaning the can suply themselves with power to run their systems in hot standby mode, in theory. BWR’s are the easiest as they can controll reactivity in the core with both control rods and circulation pumps (moderator temperature control).
    In practice however things may be different, I have been working in plants that managed to crash down from 100% and run on house turbine mode for about a day and half, the sister station managed about 4 seconds (same event)… Best way is to start up the plant from hot zero power and run it on house turbine (if you can do that without challaging the steam generators with contaminants).

    Xenon poisoning does not become an issue until about 6-8 hours and after ~20 (~3 half lives of I-135) it such a serious problem that you have to wait for the Xe-135 to decay off before the core is stable enough to be restarted safely.

    Okay, well I don’t know the specifics of what equipment had been damaged to what extent, but bear in mind everything that was not inside the containment structure was effectively wiped out.

    And regarding xe poisoning: The situation I had in my mind was that the reactor might be seen as a power source some time later, at least hours. It seems to me like a very bad idea to immediately try to restart a reactor right after being hit by a magnitude 9 earthquake when you have no idea to what extent the steam plumbing and valves have been damaged.

    I would myself want to spend at least a few hours doing a basic inspection of all the steam systems, valves, pumps and cooling equipment before putting the whole thing back at pressure and running it.


    Quote Comment
  16. 16
    DV82XL Says:

    Bluntly the problems at Fukushima Daiichi stem from the breathtakingly shortsighted failure to provide backup power from a fail-safe source. The performance of the reactor really shouldn’t be in question as it wasn’t designed or built to tolerate running without electricity. This sounds tautological, but when the accident analysis is done it is the lack of a suitably reliable backup that will be found to be the failure point, not containment, or design.

    It seems to me that commonsense and Good Practice standards should have dictated a hardened, watertight installation for the diesel generator and its fuel supply, AND a mobile secondary unit stationed some distance inland. Had these been in place, this event would not have become the drama that it did.

    In other words, culpability lies with the lack of foresight, not with the failed unit’s design, or nuclear energy in general


    Quote Comment
  17. 17
    drbuzz0 Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Bluntly the problems at Fukushima Daiichi stem from the breathtakingly shortsighted failure to provide backup power from a fail-safe source. The performance of the reactor really shouldn’t be in question as it wasn’t designed or built to tolerate running without electricity. This sounds tautological, but when the accident analysis is done it is the lack of a suitably reliable backup that will be found to be the failure point, not containment, or design.

    It seems to me that commonsense and Good Practice standards should have dictated a hardened, watertight installation for the diesel generator and its fuel supply, AND a mobile secondary unit stationed some distance inland. Had these been in place, this event would not have become the drama that it did.

    In other words, culpability lies with the lack of foresight, not with the failed unit’s design, or nuclear energy in general

    I’ve already read some of the analysis of that. It seems that in addition to the whole issue of on-site power being knocked out, hooking up a mobile generator from a secondary location was complicated by the fact that such a contingency plan had never before been considered and thus the engineers had no working plans for how and where to hook it up. Also, the design of the power systems didn’t make it easy to do so. They eventually had to improvise a method for feeding electricity into the system through a jury-rig.


    Quote Comment
  18. 18
    Anon Says:

            leodp said:

    Sure.
    But I guess that when the plants of the years ’70 in Daiichi were built they were also considered top gear, extremely safe, able to resist anything imaginable.

    So? They could resist anything that they were designed to resist.

            leodp said:

    The point is that we cannot allow any single accident like Chernobyl or Fukushima to occurr if we do not want to avoid closing down a part of our planet for a time significative compared to the duration of any known civilization existed up to now.

    Most of the Chernobyl exclusion zone is perfectly safe to live in and very little contamination was actually released around Fukushima (most of it went into the ocean where it gets diluted).

    Much of the area around Chernobyl will probably be reopening within the next few decades.

            leodp said:

    So how can you be 100% sure that today’s designs are ok in this respect, when we the same nuclear industry claims that they severely underestimated the probability that something like an earthquake+tsunami happening?

    Nuclear doesn’t have to be perfect, all it has to be is better than everything else, which it is.

            leodp said:

    Please remember also that the earthquake magnitude when it reached Fukushima was Richter 6.0, something not so unusual for Japan.

    The Earthquake was not 6.0 on the Richter scale (some of the aftershocks may have been).

    Maybe you don’t realise what the Richter scale actually is.

            leodp said:

    And there are also many records in the past for >100feet/30m tsunamis.

    Which for that site were only found out about a couple of years ago.

            leodp said:

    Also, after what we have seen and what we are still seeing, can we believe in the nuclear industry? It’s like any other industry: first goal is profit. Safety comes in second place.

    Do you have any idea how much writing off a nuclear reactor costs?

    Nuclear reactors can produce very cheap electricity when they are running but they cost a lot of money to build, that gives anyone owning one an incentive to make sure it can continue to operate (which is a pretty strong incentive not to let an accident happen).

            leodp said:

    We cannot afford this game when dealing with radioactive materials. Radioactivity may affect the whole world, for a too long time, it even changes our own essence: our DNA.

    Radioactivity is also natural and something we have evolved to live with.

    Besides, how else are we meant to get carbon neutral electricity? Solar and wind just aren’t up to it and we don’t have enough hydro sites available?

            leodp said:

    Lastly, where can we place all the depleted uranium

    Fuel for fast breeder reactors. It also isn’t that radioactive.

            leodp said:

    (and Plutonium,

    Makes a decent reactor fuel.

            leodp said:

    and Technetium,

    Currently the workhorse of nuclear medicine.

            leodp said:

    and and and) apart from bullets?

    So you’re one of those people?

            leodp said:

    Apparently 90% of all the spent fuel worldwide is still stored beside working reactors (Spent fuel pools in Fukushima). This is by far the biggest problem we will be faced in the upcoming years. And centuries. And millennia. How much is the cost (and risk) for disposing of them? Is there anybody that can calculate how much its impact is on the not_yet_paid cost per kWh?

    The cost for eventual has already been include in the price of electricity from nuclear power, not something you can say about the waste products from solar.


    Quote Comment
  19. 19
    Russ Says:

            leodp said:

    Also, after what we have seen and what we are still seeing, can we believe in the nuclear industry? It’s like any other industry: first goal is profit. Safety comes in second place.
    We cannot afford this game when dealing with radioactive materials. Radioactivity may affect the whole world, for a too long time, it even changes our own essence: our DNA.

    Yes, ionizing radiation can change our DNA. However, radioactivity and ionizing radiation are inescapable. Most you are exposed to (which you are every day) comes from natural sources. Some is cosmic and other comes from thorium, uranium, radon, carbon-14 and a host of other radioactive sources in the world. You are always dealing with radioactive materials. It can’t be avoided. Nuclear energy contributes a drop into a big ocean of radioactivity.

    Lets talk more about DNA damage. Not only is natural ionizing radiation a factor, but it is not the only thing that alters DNA. Many chemicals do and so do free-radicals and the process of DNA replication sometimes alters the DNA.

    There is more to it than that, though. All organisms have mechanisms for repairing DNA. Actually DNA is itself a kind of error-resistant code. Sometimes it does mutate anyway. What of that? Mutations are often harmful or are unnoticeable. They are sometimes beneficial. Mutations are actually the one thing responsible for the diversity of life on earth. The fact that we are all so different, that you and I are different from, lets say, coral or cucumbers is because of mutations. It’s also how humans ended up with different color eyes and hair and different faces etc.


    Quote Comment
  20. 20
    Jason Ribeiro Says:

            leodp said:

    Also, after what we have seen and what we are still seeing, can we believe in the nuclear industry? It’s like any other industry: first goal is profit. Safety comes in second place.

    Others have commented on this but I’d like to add this is completely false. To put it another way, unsafe operations = cost liability, not profit, therefore safety adds to the bottom line, it doesn’t subtract from it. No company wants to lose their investment because of negligence nor do they want to suffer stiff fines from the NRC for small infractions.

    On the positive side, Fukushima will bring us even safer plants. The redundancy/variation principle could have worked better in this situation as pointed out by DV82XL and Buzz0 that might have cost a few million to implement but would have saved billions. Mother nature overwhelmed imagination in this case, whereas it can be argued that Chernobyl should have been avoided entirely because of a poor safety culture. TMI might have been avoided too with better management.


    Quote Comment
  21. 21
    Anon Says:

            Jason Ribeiro said:

    Others have commented on this but I’d like to add this is completely false. To put it another way, unsafe operations = cost liability, not profit, therefore safety adds to the bottom line, it doesn’t subtract from it.

    Though there are still a few idiots in management who don’t seem to get that, usually in industries other than nuclear.

    Also in the developing world it’s very common for a company not to bother with paying any liability.

            Jason Ribeiro said:

    On the positive side, Fukushima will bring us even safer plants. The redundancy/variation principle could have worked better in this situation as pointed out by DV82XL and Buzz0 that might have cost a few million to implement but would have saved billions. Mother nature overwhelmed imagination in this case, whereas it can be argued that Chernobyl should have been avoided entirely because of a poor safety culture. TMI might have been avoided too with better management.

    TMI could have been avoided by just copying the first unit (which didn’t have the design flaws that caused the problem with unit 2) for the second one.

    Of course there are a lot more different things that should have been done with regard to Chernobyl (like not building RBMKs, actually building what the designers designed and not overriding the safety mechanisms to run a poorly thought out experiment while the reactor was operating in an unstable state).


    Quote Comment
  22. 22
    Matte Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Okay, well I don’t know the specifics of what equipment had been damaged to what extent, but bear in mind everything that was not inside the containment structure was effectively wiped out.

    And regarding xe poisoning: The situation I had in my mind was that the reactor might be seen as a power source some time later, at least hours. It seems to me like a very bad idea to immediately try to restart a reactor right after being hit by a magnitude 9 earthquake when you have no idea to what extent the steam plumbing and valves have been damaged.

    I would myself want to spend at least a few hours doing a basic inspection of all the steam systems, valves, pumps and cooling equipment before putting the whole thing back at pressure and running it.

    True enough, I was saying in general. I would not want to start up a reactor, after an external event like an earthquake without making sure all the equipment is in working order, either. LOOP events, however, don’t have to be caused by earthquakes though, more likely initiators are grid oscilations or switch yard failures.


    Quote Comment
  23. 23
    Blubba Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Just another indication of how biased the media is against nuclear energy. It is very hard to believe this bias is accidental, or a consequence of ignorance.

    TEPCO did this largely to itself with its inept dealings with the press, as did the owners of Three Mile Island. Piss off the media by providing conflicting, patronizing, evasive or no information and it will start tasting blood. Of course the fact that most reporters probably couldn’t tell you the difference between a neutron and a neutrino and the fact that expert fear mongers know how to be quotable while also knowing that they are less likely to be fact checked doesn’t help.


    Quote Comment
  24. 24
    Matte Says:

            Blubba said:

    TEPCO did this largely to itself with its inept dealings with the press, as did the owners of Three Mile Island. Piss off the media by providing conflicting, patronizing, evasive or no information and it will start tasting blood. Of course the fact that most reporters probably couldn’t tell you the difference between a neutron and a neutrino and the fact that expert fear mongers know how to be quotable while also knowing that they are less likely to be fact checked doesn’t help.

    Too true on so many levels. The media is not the friend of nuclear proponents, as a reasonable debate will not whip up a frenzy of gory headlines which will sell news papers or attract viewers. This is something that the ludites are capitalizing on. Soundbites that claim mass death and destruction of life as we know it will always reach the front page.

    It’s an uphill struggle.


    Quote Comment
  25. 25
    R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. Says:

    I have engineered a score of US nukes, including Mark I, Mark II, and developed the prototype Mark III. I disagree with this article. ( I am ignorant of Japanese practice.)

    Concurrent with the development of the containment (the fission product barrier, Mark n+1), there was a parallel development of reactors (BWR n+1s). Since the inception of their nuclear program GE opted for boiling water in the reactor, and a cold water heat sink, within the “can”, the steam suppression pool, to capture the accident energies, both thermodynamic and isotopic. GE also opted for a bottom control rod assembly, a forest of long vertical pipes beneath the reactor, and recirculation loops, huge pumps and piping, which provides fine tuning of power ranges. The Mark I, commonly called the light bulb above the doughnut, housed these systems, and as a result, has very complex geometric shapes. It was difficult to construct. Subsequent designs simplified the geometries. (I omit significant improvements, here, for brevity. Some of the excellent comments above, contribute in this regard.)

    The main difference between Fukushima Daiichi and Daini was luck, unrelated to the containment designs.

    All nukes must have emergency core cooling systems. These huge cooling systems must operate in the hours following any disaster, or as we have seen, the nukes will destroy themselves. The power, normally is electrical, but steam driven, last chance systems, also exist. Batteries exist to power instruments loops, computers, and control, but are insufficient to run big cooling pumps for days. The difference between disaster and safe shut down is that these systems survived the quake and flood in one plant, but not in the other.

    I can not conceive why emergency electrical gear was placed so low in an area known for devastating tsunamis. This caused the disaster. I can not conceive why vital plant conditions today are so unknown. There are instrument loops in US plants that would answer the massive gaps in basic information, e.g. where are millions of gallons of water, and what are the isotopes floating in them? It is important to know whether your core has melted, one should not be forced to guess. And the gross hydrogen system failures… it is inexplicable to me.

    There is a current trend to reestimulate this moribund industry by Madison Avenue techniques: new and improved, whiter than white, lemon scented nuclear reactors. I know that some “advanced” design concepts, today, were rejected two generations ago. Thus I conclude that key NRC decision makers retired, and younger ones simply chanced their minds. This is unconvincing to a terrified public who wonders what is safe, and who knows what they are talking about?

    It is vital that brutal honesty be extant in this profession. Stay focused on the basics.


    Quote Comment
  26. 26
    drbuzz0 Says:

            R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. said:

    The difference between disaster and safe shut down is that these systems survived the quake and flood in one plant, but not in the other.

    Okay, but since both plants were subject to approximately the same tsunami and quake, and in the case of Daini it was more than twice the design height, isn’t the very fact that they survived really attributable to how the equipment was arranged and constructed?

    The fact that the critical equipment at Daini survived and continued to function properly tells me that these systems were better protected or located.

    I admit I’m not an expert on this but I have always been a little uncomfortable with critical safety systems that are needed to avoid catastrophic failure requiring active sources of power such as standby generators. Gravity, convection etc will always work. Generators won’t always work. From what I understand of the steam driven systems, they need to have some power (provided by batteries) to function properly because electrical power is needed to provide the control systems. Without those, the valves close and the system stops functioning. Why they can’t put a small generator on there I don’t know.


    Quote Comment
  27. 27
    David Walters Says:

    It is hard to imagine that that the different designs were irrelevant to the survival of the plants. But clearly the MAIN issue was the surival of the either or both the intake circulating water pumps and diesel fuel systems.

    The fact is that if the fuel tanks built by TEPCO were placed *behind* the reactor buildings (and thus up a hill) they would of survived and all we would be talking about would be the post-SCRAM/post-repair-of-BOP equipment.

    Mr. Halis asked why these fuel tanks were place where they were. Simple: it makes sense if you don’t care or under estimate a potential tsunami breaching your break-water/sea walls. TEPCO wanted to *save money* and was profit driven. Fuel for these tanks is unloaded by barge, thus the sea-side location. It would of costs ‘that much more’ to run a pipeline up the hill behind the reactors to tanks located there but they were not. So this is what happened. It is *exactly* bad planning.

    For someone like Mr. Halis, and all of us, it’s up to us to figure out how to prevent this again. If you are not interested in this, and only want to ‘shut them down now’ then you are part of the problem.

    Mr. Halis’ point about new reactors being a “Madison Ave” shows only an ignorant, not educated, understanding of the new Gen III reactors currently being built in France, Finland, China and Korea. This is highly unfortunate as I know of no designs used now that are being ‘recycled after being rejected’ except for the ABWR from GE even this is not Mr. Holis’ generation reject as it’s projected now.


    Quote Comment
  28. 28
    DV82XL Says:

    The issue of media bias has to be seen in context. The whole country was impacted by the geophysical events, there were plenty of stories to tell, yet a disproportional amount of coverage was given to the nuclear power station’s troubles. This continued long after it was clear that the event was under control.


    Quote Comment
  29. 29
    David Walters Says:

    One more point. Raised fuel tanks have other advantages as well: gravity fed fuel to the aux. back up diesels. Thus if battery operated electric fuel pumps don’t work (DC Back Up) the gravity would be all one needs. Of course the fuel lines would have to be quake-proofed, but so what?

    If you look at where Diablo Caynon NPP placed their emergency diesel fuel tanks, you’ll see what I’m talking about.


    Quote Comment
  30. 30
    George Carty Says:

    The point about TEPCO cutting corners to save money is an important one. We must remember that when Fukushima Daiichi was built, it was competing with oil costing less than $10 a barrel. We can afford to spend more money on safety now, as the price of non-nuclear energy is so much higher.


    Quote Comment
  31. 31
    R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. Says:

    The responses to my thoughts are more important than the article. Again, I am ignorant of Fukushima.

    It appears that the newer designs were,”up the hill”, and thus fared better in the flood. The containment type(s) was probably immaterial. Tsunamis are not uniform in height, or inland travel; there may be dynamic wave attenuation designs which acted. The development of nuclear power paralleled the nascent science of earth quake study (tsunamis, plate tectonics subduction, and complex computer dynamic modeling). When you have a number of volatile technologies interrelating, over decades, you learn that some prior assessments were flawed. In recent years, TEPCO learned from tsunami scientists that their design basis may not have been safe (a possible, now actual, much higher tsunami wave). There is enormous uncertainty about flood level, but the plant elevation is certain and unchangeable. An unmentioned catastrophic concern is floatation; will the buildings, and tanks, float? It has happened. Fukushima apparently did not.

    Confused reports state that one DG simply ran dry; no one filled the tank. Were water tight doors installed and closed? Water proof electrical gear installed as a back fit? We know, their road systems were shattered. We know, from photographs, that the bay was devoid of ships the day after. It should have been filled with ships; it is a short sailing distance from one of the largest, technically advanced ports on earth, Tokyo. The plant needed DGs, power feeds, switch yards, fuel tanks, water tankers, repair shops, supply ships, worker housing, decon facilities, all preplanned, pre staged, pre rehearsed, and available, within hours. I understand they had no plans. It took two weeks to string a power line some 1/2 mile to the strickened plant.

    I repeat. If your basic design requires continuous post tsunami electricity, you must provide back up emergency systems that works, with any containment type. TEPCO’s top management failed. The government regulators failed. The Japanese emergency response planning, and current reassessment of safety risks were grossly inadequate. In a few years, we will know this in detail. We know that the company has lost 80% of its value since March 10, and severe regional danger exists in the metastable plant condition. Fukushima is vulnerable to after shocks and typhoons. My guess is that their top management are financial and political types. I do not know. A tip off is that their robots come from New England, not Japan. Another tip off: their workers are putting in 100 hour weeks, in cruel, dangerous work environments, yet have no showers, no flush toilets, eat dry food, and sleep in chairs. A few worked in calf deep radioactive water without boots. Japan has lousy bosses. So did the earlier disasters.

    A core melt down is supposed to be a one in ten thousand year event, causing biblical devastation. Yet in sixty years, US designs, light water reactors, have suffered four melt downs, without one acute death from radiation. The long term radiation death estimates range from none, by pro nuke types to millions from anti nuke types.

    I Know, due to the long nuclear hiatus, no new plants, that any new US designs will be managed, regulated, engineered, fabricated, and built by people who have never done this before, from A to Z. If Michael Jordan had not touched a ball in forty years, would his game be his best? I know, that by 1991, that 69 US engineering colleges had dropped course work, vital to power plant engineering, because their graduates could not find employment. We lack a generation of experienced engineers. The US now relies on foreign nations to supply our advanced degreed engineers (45% at the MS level, 75% at the PhD level.) Nuclear power is an advanced technology, struggling in a technically ignorant democracy.

    Voters fear it, and vested interests (media and political types) exploit these fears. The result is enormous overruns, and schedule delays. ( A new Texas BWR was recently canceled due to skyrocketing costs in the paper stage. Finland’s new nuke is three years behind schedule, and 50% over budget.) IMHO, these, not Gen N+1 safety advances, are the barriers to societal acceptance of nukes. Larding on more cost, delay, and regulatory complexity is not safety; it is useless waste. Putting some back up DGs (one of the most reliable machines ever invented), some mobile homes, and a canteen, on a few barges, and paying for practice drills, is safety. Funding robot R&D, at Universities, to enter hi-rad areas, is safety. Forcing academic paper pushing regulators to work on a real job site improves safety. Paying talented people is safety.

    Fukushima must force clear thinking about this complex technology. Its problem was not an old containment design.

    Without nukes, the US can not survive.


    Quote Comment
  32. 32
    drbuzz0 Says:

            David Walters said:

    The fact is that if the fuel tanks built by TEPCO were placed *behind* the reactor buildings (and thus up a hill) they would of survived and all we would be talking about would be the post-SCRAM/post-repair-of-BOP equipment.

    I don’t know that we can go that far – to say that had the tanks survived everything would have functioned. The tanks are only one part of the equation. You can have diesel and if the generators are not functional, that does you no good. If you have diesel and generators but the switching equipment or the electrical connection to the equipment is damaged, still no good.

    I know that there were large diesel storage tanks located near the shore at the plant. I don’t know that this was the only diesel on site. From what I have read it seems like there were diesel tanks at the location of each of the generators and then the centralized storage tank as an additional reserve. Had the generators survived the only issue would have been procuring more diesel fuel to the site before the tanks on the generators ran out – clearly it was worse than this.

    If you look at these two photos, it appears that the exhaust for the backup generators can be seen. It looks to me like the generators were located in small structures in front of the turbine halls, roughly at ground level:

    http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp2/pict55.jpg
    http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp2/pict53.jpg

            David Walters said:

    Mr. Halis asked why these fuel tanks were place where they were. Simple: it makes sense if you don’t care or under estimate a potential tsunami breaching your break-water/sea walls. TEPCO wanted to *save money* and was profit driven. Fuel for these tanks is unloaded by barge, thus the sea-side location. It would of costs ‘that much more’ to run a pipeline up the hill behind the reactors to tanks located there but they were not. So this is what happened. It is *exactly* bad planning.

    well I’m not sure you can say it’s as simple as profit. Obviously they lost a lot of money because of this decision. It comes down to risk versus cost. They decided that the risk of losing a lot of money because of a tsunami was very low – so low it was a risk worth taking to save some money. Unfortunately, every once in a while the improbable happens. The odds were on their side but they lost anyway.


    Quote Comment
  33. 33
    David Walters Says:

    Dr…I’m not sure that is exhaust or steam from the building the exhaust is coming out of. It’s hard to tell.

    Yes, it could be profit or not, but it could be, right? The main thing is that even with knowledge of 3 times a century OVER 14m tsunamis, they decided on a smaller, @14m breakwater. This was an error/oversight/incompetent decision on TEPCO’s part.

    Secondly, yes, for example, the bus work for the CWPs and the other salt-water pumps. According the maps I’ve seen from TEPCO the top of the CWPs where the motors are located were above ground water but below the tsunami level. Thus they *automatically* short out. Breaker boxes for same? I don’t know where they are located but probably ground level. Diesel pumps…ground level but facing the ocean.

    Let’s say this was at best, dumb, at worst, dumber. So…the task now is for current sea-side plants to audit these problem and come up with fixes that included raising the CWP motor by extending the shafts and placing the motors on towers and/or in extra-reinforced housings with tsunami-proof busses and switching gear (from my own power plant experience even passive salt-water corrosion is always a problem.

    Water/tsunami proofing diesel generators and fuel tanks, pumps and bus work/switch gear including relocation of same. Perhaps raising them on tsunami-proof blocks at about 10 meters up *behind* all reactor containment buildings will do the trick.

    Breakwaters/seawalls do not have to be the same site as the tsuanmi to stop them. You have to ‘break them’. A series of 10 meter (from high tide mark) breakwaters, about 4 of them would broken the forward velocity and volume of the tsunami (it’s never the actual height that is the problem if you remember from Thailand, but the force behind it and volume that goes with it). Or, build up close in seawall protection at the plant itself. There are numerous plans in the works now.

    New plants now have to take all these precautions everywhere in the world they are building seaside reactors. Drawing on the lessons from Fujushima will help prevent core-cooling issues in the future.

    David


    Quote Comment
  34. 34
    drbuzz0 Says:

            David Walters said:

    Dr…I’m not sure that is exhaust or steam from the building the exhaust is coming out of. It’s hard to tell.

    Yeah I don’t know for sure, but I believe those are the generators and/or deisel pumps for a number of reasons. One is that in all the photos I’ve seen I have not seen any other area that appears to have generator-like equipment. Also, in the stories I’ve read about the placement, they were described as being “not far from the ocean” and “at ground level” – vague, I know, but it seems consistent with the descriptions.

    So anyway, they are somewhere in the general vicinity that is at ground level.

    And regardless, this is a dumb place to put them.


    Quote Comment
  35. 35
    Steve Darden Says:

    I just corrected my post referencing your excellent post. After reviewing the 87-slide TEPCO presentation [PDF] I think the main conclusion of this post is incorrect. The tsunami impact on the two sites was different. Ignoring any issues of design errors, my take away is this:

    1. I don’t think the updated Daini BWR designs were decisive in the relative outcomes of the two NPP. It isn’t clear to me how the newer designs handled the seismic accelerations — perhaps Daiichi suffered greater damage in critical components.

    2. It is clear that the tsunami impact was significantly different. I don’t understand exactly why, but Daini experienced 14M only on the south side of unit 1 but overall the site was subjected to a 7M inundation. Secondly the flooding depths were less at Daini being sited 13 meters above sea level (O.P.) vs Daiichi 10 meters above sea level (O.P.)

    3. The bottom line of course is that Daini retained enough electrical power to operate reactor cooling: one (of four) off-site power lines survived, and 3 of 12 backup diesel generators. We don’t know how Daiichi would have fared if the same level of power supply had survived there.


    Quote Comment
  36. 36
    Anon Says:

            George Carty said:

    The point about TEPCO cutting corners to save money is an important one. We must remember that when Fukushima Daiichi was built, it was competing with oil costing less than $10 a barrel. We can afford to spend more money on safety now, as the price of non-nuclear energy is so much higher.

    In many places coal is still cheap.


    Quote Comment
  37. 37
    Tom Keen Says:

    Great article. First time I’ve read anything along these lines (i.e. a comparison of post-tsunami events at Fukushima 1 and Fukushima 2).

    Cheers.


    Quote Comment
  38. 38
    AleD Says:

    It would be useful to compare with Onogawa NPP.
    There is information to describe the impact of the earthquake and tsunami for this site?


    Quote Comment
  39. 39
    Matte Says:

            David Walters said:

    Yes, it could be profit or not, but it could be, right? The main thing is that even with knowledge of 3 times a century OVER 14m tsunamis, they decided on a smaller, @14m breakwater. This was an error/oversight/incompetent decision on TEPCO’s part.

    David

    I don’t agree with that, the industry regulator made a blunder as well. TEPCO just built it as they needed to. The limits are set by the regulator for the site.


    Quote Comment
  40. 40
    leodp Says:

    The Earthquake was not 6.0 on the Richter scale (some of the aftershocks may have been).

    Maybe you don’t realise what the Richter scale actually is.

    Nuclear reactors can produce very cheap electricity when they are running but they cost a lot of money to build, that gives anyone owning one an incentive to make sure it can continue to operate (which is a pretty strong incentive not to let an accident happen).

            Matte said:

    I don’t agree with that, the industry regulator made a blunder as well. TEPCO just built it as they needed to. The limits are set by the regulator for the site.
    Tepcp built it as they needed to…

            George Carty said:

    The point about TEPCO cutting corners to save money is an important one. We must remember that when Fukushima Daiichi was built, it was competing with oil costing less than $10 a barrel. We can afford to spend more money on safety now, as the price of non-nuclear energy is so much higher.

            Anon said:

    In many places coal is still cheap.

    You’re all so right, except, in my view, for one point.
    Building a powerplant costs money, a lot of. And maybe even more decommissioning a plant.
    But also safety has a cost.
    Any company, to survive, has to make more money that it spends.
    So the optimum working point cannot be “maximum safety (maximum construction+operating costs)” and cannot be either “Minimum construction+operating costs (Minimum safety)”.
    It’s clearly in-between.
    With the cost of competing energy sources (oil) changing a factor of 5 to 10, it’s natural to see a spread in the level of safety of any plant.

    A nuclear plant can afford to have some small-scale accident, even if it involves radiation escaping. This does not mean that the plant has to be scrapped. Sometines pipes break, contaminated water is poured into rivers or into the sea and then the pipe is repaired. Most of the leaks can be absorbed by the environment without noticeable change in the background radiation. Maybe the plant has been operating for a few years with a supposedly weak pipe, instead of shutting down to check if the pipe really is weak. When an accident happens, or when for any other reason it’s “shoutdown time”, then the whole reactor can be cchecked and many weak point can be fixed. This is only an example of how it may be feasible to swap costs with safety.

    I do not want to say that oil is more safe. Air pollution and tankers accidents (to name a few) have quite some health and environment costs.
    Solar and hydropower also has costs, it’s not 100% green and clean, I agree.
    I’m just not so sure that the extent of the damages caused by a nuclear accident as the one still happening now in Fukushima is really clear.

    And it is of no help to say that the earthquake+tsunami shocks were much higher than those which were supposed to happen when the plant was planned. This attitude brings one to consider if we actually planned realistically all other plants in the worls, given that such a catastrophic event really did happen.

            Anon said:

    Radioactivity is also natural and something we have evolved to live with.

            Russ said:

    Yes, ionizing radiation can change our DNA.
    However, radioactivity and ionizing radiation are inescapable. Most you are exposed to (which you are every day) comes from natural sources. Some is cosmic and other comes from thorium, uranium, radon, carbon-14 and a host of other radioactive sources in the world.
    You are always dealing with radioactive materials. It can’t be avoided. Nuclear energy contributes a drop into a big ocean of radioactivity.
    Lets talk more about DNA damage.
    Not only is natural ionizing radiation a factor, but it is not the only thing that alters DNA. Many chemicals do and so do free-radicals and the process of DNA replication sometimes alters the DNA.
    There is more to it than that, though. All organisms have mechanisms for repairing DNA. Actually DNA is itself a kind of error-resistant code.
    Sometimes it does mutate anyway. What of that? Mutations are often harmful or are unnoticeable. They are sometimes beneficial. Mutations are actually the one thing responsible for the diversity of life on earth.
    The fact that we are all so different, that you and I are different from, lets say, coral or cucumbers is because of mutations. It’s also how humans ended up with different color eyes and hair and different faces etc.

    Radioactivity is natural, DNA damage can (most of the times) be repaired.
    But not always.
    Otherwise there would be no problem exposing people to radioactivity and doctors operating on X-ray machines would wear no protectionn or hide behind screens and spaceships would need no costly shields at all (http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/1262).
    A few of the damages cannot be repaired, some of them give rise to cancers.
    Only a very few of them introduce positive mutations.
    A very complex system as a human being or any other living thing may be “crippled” more easily than “improved”.
    DNA is the plan for building our body and for maintaining it. Change any “value” that’s encoded and with almost certainty you get into problems.
    Try to change the routing of a single transistor in a modern computer. Will it be better? An evolved version?
    Complexity may arise out of chaos, but it takes a lot of sacrifices to have access to something new and profitable.
    Life can exist and evolve because the mutation are slow enough allow for enough newborns to replace individuals with negative mutations.
    Mutations are like the salt of life evolution.


    Quote Comment
  41. 41
    Anon Says:

    Could you please not screw up the quoting function so massively.

            leodp said:

    You’re all so right, except, in my view, for one point.
    Building a powerplant costs money, a lot of. And maybe even more decommissioning a plant.
    But also safety has a cost.
    Any company, to survive, has to make more money that it spends.

    Nuclear power plants which are operating can afford to spend a lot of money on safety and still make a nice profit.

            leodp said:

    So the optimum working point cannot be “maximum safety (maximum construction+operating costs)” and cannot be either “Minimum construction+operating costs (Minimum safety)”.
    It’s clearly in-between.

    Maximum construction costs is what you get when a nuclear regulator gets captured by the fossil fuel industry and it doesn’t do a thing to improve safety.

            leodp said:

    With the cost of competing energy sources (oil) changing a factor of 5 to 10, it’s natural to see a spread in the level of safety of any plant.

    Oil isn’t really a competitor to nuclear (nuclear basically pushed it out of the electricity generating market). Coal and natural gas are the competitors of nuclear and coal tends to have rather stable pricing.

            leodp said:

    A nuclear plant can afford to have some small-scale accident, even if it involves radiation escaping.

    So can pretty much anything.

            leodp said:

    This does not mean that the plant has to be scrapped. Sometines pipes break, contaminated water is poured into rivers or into the sea and then the pipe is repaired. Most of the leaks can be absorbed by the environment without noticeable change in the background radiation. Maybe the plant has been operating for a few years with a supposedly weak pipe, instead of shutting down to check if the pipe really is weak. When an accident happens, or when for any other reason it’s “shoutdown time”, then the whole reactor can be cchecked and many weak point can be fixed. This is only an example of how it may be feasible to swap costs with safety.

    Of course they’d do a full analysis and discussion with the regulator if they think part of the plant isn’t working properly as to whether the risk justifies an immediate shutdown or whether to do it at the next refuelling outage but I’d be surprised if a nuclear power plant operated for years with a known bad component very often.

            leodp said:

    I do not want to say that oil is more safe. Air pollution and tankers accidents (to name a few) have quite some health and environment costs.

    Fossil fuels are the most dangerous way to generate power (with coal as the worst possible).

            leodp said:

    Solar and hydropower also has costs, it’s not 100% green and clean, I agree.

    Solar and hydro destroy a large amount of land and when hydro dams burst they can kill a lot of people (rare but it does happen). Solar panels also require semiconductors which aren’t exactly very eco-friendly to manufacture.

    Statistically the renewables are in between nuclear and fossil fuels (i.e. not as dangerous as coal, oil and natural gas but more dangerous than nuclear). Of course the fact that only hydro and geothermal are actually useful means that in terms of fatalities per useful unit of energy generated wind and solar may very well come out worse.

            leodp said:

    I’m just not so sure that the extent of the damages caused by a nuclear accident as the one still happening now in Fukushima is really clear.

    The worst nuclear accident possible was Chernobyl and the highest fatality estimates which don’t blatantly contradict reality (there’s a lot of uncertainty and it could be far less than that) are about what a coal power plant would have produced from air pollution.

    Given that and the fact that no reactor currently operating is anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl (the remaining Chernobyl type reactors still operating in Russia have had significant safety upgrades) it is quite reasonable to say that nuclear will never do worse than coal (which is often what you get when you oppose nuclear, just look at Germany for proof of that).

            leodp said:

    And it is of no help to say that the earthquake+tsunami shocks were much higher than those which were supposed to happen when the plant was planned. This attitude brings one to consider if we actually planned realistically all other plants in the worls, given that such a catastrophic event really did happen.

    Which is exactly what will happen. People at other nuclear power plants will reconsider whether the ground shaking their plant was designed to handle really is the maximum and if not will make the necessary upgrades.

    You can also expect there to be a review as to emergency generator siting.

            leodp said:

    Radioactivity is natural, DNA damage can (most of the times) be repaired.
    But not always.
    Otherwise there would be no problem exposing people to radioactivity and doctors operating on X-ray machines would wear no protectionn or hide behind screens and spaceships would need no costly shields at all (http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/1262).

    The dose makes the poison. Low doses are basically harmless, high doses can very well kill you (and radiation protection probably does tend towards paranoia).

            leodp said:

    A few of the damages cannot be repaired, some of them give rise to cancers.
    Only a very few of them introduce positive mutations.
    A very complex system as a human being or any other living thing may be “crippled” more easily than “improved”.

    But people who live in areas of higher background radiation don’t tend to show any ill effects from it (for an extreme example look up Ramsar in Iran).

            leodp said:

    DNA is the plan for building our body and for maintaining it. Change any “value” that’s encoded and with almost certainty you get into problems.
    Try to change the routing of a single transistor in a modern computer. Will it be better? An evolved version?

    DNA is an error correcting code.


    Quote Comment
  42. 42
    geo Says:

    I would guess that even if this was the only nuclear power plant affected, the media would have been just as rabid, maybe even more so, as the operators would be accused of hiding the “actual” release of radiation.[/quote

    of course we now know it WAS hidden.

    Another conspiracy PROVED “CNN Host: No one ever suspected (except reddit conspiracy) that we had three simultaneous core meltdowns, … The media if anything, we now realize downplayed the real impact of the accident.”

    http://enenews.com/it-was-even-worse-than-the-worst-imagination-of-the-media-radiation-now-leaking-through-cracks-in-the-containment-and-melted-holes-cnn-video


    Quote Comment
  43. 43
    Anon Says:

    No, I’m afraid the media did exaggerate the impact.

    That there were likely three partial core meltdowns was suspected for a long time and publicly stated (assuming you were actually watching, instead of out there waving anti-nuclear protest signs).

    Oh and looking around that site you linked to it is clear that the don’t know what the are talking about (quoting Chris Busby approving for example), don’t for one second think it is somehow a “fair and balanced” news source.


    Quote Comment
  44. 44
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Anon said:

    That there were likely three partial core meltdowns was suspected for a long time and publicly stated (assuming you were actually watching, instead of out there waving anti-nuclear protest signs).

    I don’t think that’s news to anyone. As soon as the reports started coming out of zirconium-hydrogen reactions and that the water level in the primary vessels was lower than the fuel rods it was pretty clear what was happening.


    Quote Comment
  45. 45
    Carl Lumma Says:

    Just writing to thank everyone here for their insightful comments, especially R. L. Hails.


    Quote Comment
  46. 46
    Ray1952 Says:

    Actually, something major about Fukushima Daiichi was missed here.

    What happened at Fukushima Daiichi didn’t have to happen. It was not doomed to happen even after the quake and tsunami.

    They never lost all ability to cool the reactor cores. They still had the ability to use injection pumping to cool the cores by simply pumping in water and then letting it boil off or recirculating it as needed for more injection of additional cool fluid.

    The problem was they didn’t have ample fresh water to do this. This technique requires a lot of water. Had the local water supply been working, it might have been much different.

    They did have plenty of water though. The problem is it was sea water. If they pumped that in it would be writing off the reactor because its corrosive and would foul all the plumbing of the reactor systems.

    TEPCO, of course, didn’t want to do this and avoided it until it was too late. Of course, they did eventually order sea water injection but by the time they did it was too late and the reactor had overheated. This caused the cladding failure, the hydrogen reaction, the explosion and so on.

    Had they injected sea water as soon as it was apparent that the reactor was not being cooled sufficiently there would never have been any of these problems and none of the radioactive byproducts would have been released.


    Quote Comment
  47. 47
    Matte Says:

    @Ray1952
    How would you suggest you accomplish that when you have a total station blackout scenario?
    The injection pumps require electricity.

    I will be honest and say I don’t know what facilities are available for using external diesel pumps in Japanese power stations.


    Quote Comment
  48. 48
    Anon Says:

            Ray1952 said:

    Had they injected sea water as soon as it was apparent that the reactor was not being cooled sufficiently there would never have been any of these problems and none of the radioactive byproducts would have been released.

    We can say pretty much anything with hindsight (though Matte does point out that they might not have been able to do it earlier).

    Determining whether to use such drastic measures is always a hard call though (and had they done it earlier they may well have wished they’d waited instead of writing off the reactors).


    Quote Comment
  49. 49
    Ray1952 Says:

            Matte said:

    @Ray1952
    How would you suggest you accomplish that when you have a total station blackout scenario?
    The injection pumps require electricity.

    I will be honest and say I don’t know what facilities are available for using external diesel pumps in Japanese power stations.

    They started the injection about a day after the failure. For the first few days before they had the pumping systems working at all they used external pumping. Actually what they used were fire trucks from the plant’s fire department. the fire pump truck was connected into the reactor water system and pumped water directly from the ocean.


    Quote Comment
  50. 50
    SciTchr Says:

    Thanks to all of you for your insight and back-and-forth discussions. I’ve learned a lot and will be sharing this link with my colleagues. Wish I had known about this site as it was all happening.


    Quote Comment
  51. 51
    MD Says:

    Again, thanks to everyone for the discussion.

    To the individuals who use their brain (e.g. buzz0, Anon, Matte, Hails, etc.): I happen to be a college student interning (temporary work) at a nuclear plant in the US. And to settle the issue about core cooling, and pumping in sea water, look up RCIC (Reactor Core Isolation Cooling) and HPCI (High Pressure Coolant Injection). Both RCIC and HPCI are emergency systems, both work off of station batteries, and I believe that in some plants and designs these pumps are powered by a small turbine (which is fed from pressure from the reactor). In any case, RCIC and HPCI are designed specifically for the situation where all else fails. As to whether they could be modified to route seawater into the reactor, that I do not know.

    At leodp: One of your main concerns is radiation. Bet that you didnt know that on a yearly basis, a coal plant produces over 100 times the radiation a nuclear plant produces (including spent fuel). And there are a LOT more coal plants then Nuclear (US Nuclear is sitting at 117 I believe, including decommissioned). Dont believe me? See below:
    http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~aubrecht/coalvsnucMarcon.pdf#page=8
    http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/manradwa.html#note_b
    Both articles are very informative, and driven by facts. If you are SO VERY WORRIED about radiation, and our DNA, then you need to lobby against coal plants, and lobby for nuclear power. If you are against nuclear, you are arguing for coal, that is the bottom line. And if you are for coal, then you are promoting something that releases radioactive material into the surrounding area, and into the world. Oh, and one other thing: Nuclear fuel and all radioactive material is LOCALIZED, SHIELDED, and KNOWN TO BE RADIOACTIVE; the shielding and storage is thereby reducing radiation to almost negligible amounts. Once a permanent site is found (or once politicians remove their heads from their arses) then radiation from nuclear plants will be near zero, unless you work there. And if I can make one request of you: tell your friends that coal plants produce 100 times more radioactive material than nuclear, AND coal plants release it willy nilly to the world.

    -MD out


    Quote Comment
  52. 52
    Carl Lumma Says:

    Hi MD,

    Coal doesn’t produce more radioactivity than nuclear. It *releases* more radioactivity to the environment, and produces more waste by volume. But that waste, even in aggregate, has far less radioactivity than spent fuel. 36 hours after shutdown, spent fuel has about 1.8 TBq/g of activity. That’s about 5 x 10^19 Bq per GWyr. Scientific American reported this incorrectly a few years ago, and despite publishing a correction the error was widely disseminated.

    -Carl


    Quote Comment
  53. 53
    Matte Says:

    @Carl
    I thought it was the releases to the environment we where concerned about, no?
    At least the spent nuclear fuel will decay away, currently a bit slowly but at least it will be gone within a definite time frame. Whereas the ~15 kg of hazardous waste every 1st world inhabitant produces every year will be hazardous for ever, with out the ability to be recycled or reused…

    Ah, there is a viable solution to the “spent fuel problem”, there are no solutions for the other hazardous waste we produce.

    Which is the biggest and real problem?


    Quote Comment
  54. 54
    Carl Lumma Says:

    Hi Matte,

    The only thing I’m concerned about is accurate statements about nuclear power. MD said “produces”. That’s not correct.

    It’s also not correct that chemical wastes stay toxic forever. Chemicals compounds admit to various reactions under the influence of heat, sunlight, bacteria, and plain old time.

    Too, many components of spent fuel are chemically toxic even after they’ve become radiostable.

    Finally, it isn’t true that chemically hazardous wastes can’t be safely buried. Any liquid or solid waste, radioactive or otherwise, can be safely and indefinitely buried. If 15kg is all I’m producing per year, I can easily afford to safely dispose of my share.

    -Carl


    Quote Comment
  55. 55
    Matte Says:

    I was not talking about chemical toxins, I was infering heavy metals (Pb, Hg, As, Cd, Ni, Cr etc…)

    Chemical toxins are easy to deal with, I agree.

    It is interesting that you claim chemical toxins can be safely burried. So spent nuclear fuel is not a problem to burry then?

    If all your lifetimes electricity was produced from nuclear, the fuel waste would fit in you palm. Would you be happy with disposing of this in the same way?


    Quote Comment
  56. 56
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Carl Lumma said:

    Hi Matte,

    The only thing I’m concerned about is accurate statements about nuclear power. MD said “produces”. That’s not correct.

    It’s also not correct that chemical wastes stay toxic forever. Chemicals compounds admit to various reactions under the influence of heat, sunlight, bacteria, and plain old time.

    Too, many components of spent fuel are chemically toxic even after they’ve become radiostable.

    Finally, it isn’t true that chemically hazardous wastes can’t be safely buried. Any liquid or solid waste, radioactive or otherwise, can be safely and indefinitely buried. If 15kg is all I’m producing per year, I can easily afford to safely dispose of my share.

    Um… I assume you mean the toxic heavy metals in spent fuel- that even after decay there is still barium, lead etc.

    This is just silly. There are tons and tons of toxic heavy metals on earth. There always have been. There always will be. Lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium etc – these exist in the earth’s crust and always have. They can sometimes be a bit hazardous when concentrate by artificial or natural forces. No, it does not need to be human intervention. There are places where there are preexisting dangeous levels of these elements in the water table as is.

    Uranium is toxic (although only mildly so). It’s toxic whether you take it out of the ground or not. If you put it back in the ground, it’s still toxic. If you leave it as ore or process it to fuel, it’s toxic either way.

    It’s ridiculous to fear these elements. We’ve always lived with them and in most circumstances, they’re not a problem – at least not unless you eat them in large quantities. It depends on how they are distributed and what chemical form they are in, of course, but regardless, they can be managed.

    Are you suggesting that every place on earth where there are naturally occurring deposits of lead ore we should evacuate the local population and declare the area to be unfit for human occupation for all eternity?


    Quote Comment
  57. 57
    Carl Lumma Says:

    @Matte

    Obviously, industrial processes do not produce heavy metals. They may change their chemical forms, e.g. mercury methylation.

    > It is interesting that you claim chemical toxins can be safely burried. So spent nuclear fuel is not a problem to bury then?

    Correct, as I already wrote.

    -Carl


    Quote Comment
  58. 58
    Carl Lumma Says:

    @dr

    > This is just silly.

    I was responding to the implied claim that nuclear fuel is not chemically toxic (read above).

    > Are you suggesting that every place on earth where there are naturally occurring deposits of lead ore we should evacuate the local population and declare the area to be unfit for human occupation for all eternity?

    I see I triggered your anti-anti mode somehow. I hope you get better soon.

    -Carl


    Quote Comment
  59. 59
    Richard Perry Says:

    This sounds great but where are the costs of Chernobyl workers been taken care of by their government maybe 50,000 men plus medical expenses, Also the children that have grown up with ridicules metical problems. How about the cost of land, businesses and buildings in the no zone that is lost. The Russian government are forcing people to live in high radiation areas to see how it effects them. How about the ongoing cost to mix radiated food products with good food to dilute the amount of radiation eaten at one meal. How about the cost of lost food products. Now Japan, how much for the same as above plus food loss from the oceans. How much does it cost for loss of trade as shipments are being turned back by countries not excepting radiated products, even cars. China is looking for compensation for losses they are having from radiation. How about the Wars that may come out of this or at least cold war. Now how can you say that this is acceptable to continue. I for see a terrorist attack in the near future close to where you live that causes a meltdown and permanent evacuation of a large city.


    Quote Comment
  60. 60
    DV82XL Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    The Russian government are forcing people to live in high radiation areas to see how it effects them. How about the ongoing cost to mix radiated food products with good food to dilute the amount of radiation eaten at one meal.

    To start off with Chernobyl is in the Ukraine, currently an independent nation, thus the Government of Russia’s wirt no longer runs there. Second, you have not provided any proof or reference for any of your contentions, making them valueless in this forum.

    Get your facts straght, and find some way of backing them up or no one will take you seriously here.


    Quote Comment
  61. 61
    Matte Says:

    @Perry

    China is looking for compensation you say, compensation for what? What losses?

    The fishing industry may suffer abit outside the notheastern coast of Japan, but the Pacific is a big ocean so the environment will recover a lot quicker than most people realise. Problem is, due to the TSUNAMI, the Japanese fishing fleets may take longer to recover than that.

    Food that is deemed to be too contaminated to be suitable for human consumption does not enter the consumer market, any other food does not need to be “diluted” for any reason what so ever. Have you any idea how conservative the LNT really is?

    There are places in the world where people live with a radiation background that are an order of magnitude higher than what would be normal for most north America (I am excluding certain places in Nevada), and the people who lives in these areas don’t suffer for it, explain that one if radiation is the killer of everything on earth!?

    I would like to see the terrorist who manage to knock down a powerplant, the amount of explosives needed would require at least a handful of trucks to transport. Not just something you can do with out being noticed…

    As DV82XL said, back up your statements, the fact that you don’t know the difference between Russia and the Ukraine makes me wonder where you have been since 1989.

    People like you who scare people about an industry branch that is one of the cleanest sources of energy on the planet, inspite of all the accidents and missmanaged waste issues, is more dangerous than any percieved risks from the industry itself. Being sceptical is all well and good, but scaring poeple for no other reason than flaunting your own ignorance is just stupid, dangerous and above all immoral.


    Quote Comment
  62. 62
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    This sounds great but where are the costs of Chernobyl workers been taken care of by their government maybe 50,000 men plus medical expenses, Also the children that have grown up with ridicules metical problems.

    A few thousand cases of thyroid cancer which has a very high treatment rate is all that Chernobyl caused.

    On the other hand the anti-nuclear movement has caused a high rate of fetal alcohol syndrome by making people think their lives are worthless (when they’d live just as long as they would had Chernobyl unit 4 not have blown up).

            Richard Perry said:

    How about the cost of land, businesses and buildings in the no zone that is lost.

    The zone around fukushima is perfectly safe so if people aren’t allowed in there it is a failure of government. Some of the area around Chernobyl has high enough radiation levels that you wouldn’t want to live there but others are perfectly safe.

            Richard Perry said:

    The Russian government are forcing people to live in high radiation areas to see how it effects them.

    I have yet to see any evidence of that (some adults who want to are allowed to live in the Chernobyl exclusion zone but no one is forced to, of course it just so happens that those people still living there have better health outcomes than the people evacuated).

    It would also be a good idea if you learnt a bit of basic geography.

            Richard Perry said:

    How about the Wars that may come out of this or at least cold war.

    How about the wars that may come about because of global warming which would’ve been solved if it were for people like you.

            Richard Perry said:

    Now how can you say that this is acceptable to continue.

    Because nuclear is still the safest form of power generation.

            Richard Perry said:

    I for see a terrorist attack in the near future close to where you live that causes a meltdown and permanent evacuation of a large city.

    Then you foresee that which will not happen.


    Quote Comment
  63. 63
    Richard Perry Says:

    Why coal what about the true green solar, wind, etc. has very little waste and does not effect the invirment much.


    Quote Comment
  64. 64
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matte said:

    @Perry

    China is looking for compensation you say, compensation for what? What losses?

    The fishing industry may suffer abit outside the notheastern coast of Japan, but the Pacific is a big ocean so the environment will recover a lot quicker than most people realise. Problem is, due to the TSUNAMI, the Japanese fishing fleets may take longer to recover than that.

    Food that is deemed to be too contaminated to be suitable for human consumption does not enter the consumer market, any other food does not need to be “diluted” for any reason what so ever. Have you any idea how conservative the LNT really is?

    There are places in the world where people live with a radiation background that are an order of magnitude higher than what would be normal for most north America (I am excluding certain places in Nevada), and the people who lives in these areas don’t suffer for it, explain that one if radiation is the killer of everything on earth!?

    I would like to see the terrorist who manage to knock down a powerplant, the amount of explosives needed would require at least a handful of trucks to transport. Not just something you can do with out being noticed…

    As DV82XL said, back up your statements, the fact that you don’t know the difference between Russia and the Ukraine makes me wonder where you have been since 1989.

    People like you who scare people about an industry branch that is one of the cleanest sources of energy on the planet, inspite of all the accidents and missmanaged waste issues, is more dangerous than any percieved risks from the industry itself. Being sceptical is all well and good, but scaring poeple for no other reason than flaunting your own ignorance is just stupid, dangerous and above all immoral.


    Quote Comment
  65. 65
    Richard Perry Says:

    http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/103906
    See bove site and read it all this is thier view who are living it, the government abanded them with no resorses so had to stay in these areas with a meager exestance, may not happen in North America but what about southern USA, they left them swinging in the wind. Has the ameriican government helped, tell me how much they have done being such a rich nation and all. You see they say they mixed good and bad food.


    Quote Comment
  66. 66
    Richard Perry Says:

    Global warming, explain to me how my direction to go with solar, wind, etc will effect global warming, how would it effect people’s health. Yes nuclear industry is now destroying large areas of land where it is mind because the percent of uranium in the ore is one hundreth of what it was when they first mined it. In northern Saskatchewan they have huge craters worse than the coal mines in southern Saskatchewan that runs the provinces power grid to mine the uranium. They have small shallow lakes that are manmade to put the tailings into that have to be maintained for ever. These lakes have burst into the lakes beside them several time and will need maintained for ever. The good news as each time it happens the main lake gets more uranium and someday will be as bad as the storage ponds so they will decide hell just let it flow. But the trouble with that is that it will dry up and the winds will blow it all over north America, so if you live in north America maybe you will tell your children “do not eat the snow” someday ever day.


    Quote Comment
  67. 67
    Matte Says:

    @Perry

    I am sorry, a news source who references Greenpeace is not reliable…and the Morning Star, how many of my brain cells are you responsible for killing by making me read that crap?!

    But to the point:
    Don’t even get me started on solar PV, clean energy it is not! It takes more energy to create a PV solar panel than it will generate in 10-15 years (depending on where it is used), the processing gases used for thin film manufacturing includes gases that will make CO2 seem to have no global warming effect what so ever. Solar energy comes at a cost of around 85 US cents/kWh, without back up power.

    Wind power will produce 30 g CO2/kWh produced and nuclear produces around 15 g/kWh [Royal academy of science, 2010, "Energy resources in a 40 year perspective"]. A big utility in northern Europe quotes 3 g/kWh for nuclear and 10 g/kWh for wind power. And if that was not enough, read this (as we are touting tabloid references): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

    Renewable energy is not emission free! Oh and windpower just got ~10-15% more expensive due to price hikes on certain metals…

    As to mining tailings, I have studied the area around Saskatchewan, couple of ponds next to an airfield in the middle of nowhere? Have you ever seen a coal mine? Here are some pictures of a small one: http://detlaphiltdic.blogspot.com/2010/07/coal-companies-sue-epa-over-mine-permit.html

    Tell you what, if you want us to quit the mining industry altogether you will not get any wind power either and we will have to live in caves with an average life expectancy of about 20-30, would you want that?
    One of the biggest suppliers of uranium ore is a copper mine! The uranium just happens to be a by-product of what they are really after, go figure. The tailings are easy to store in the old mining tunnels so I don’t see the problem there, they do not need to be maintained for ever. The ponds are used to extract and enrich the ores not to store the tailings, get your facts straight!

    You should know that every year about 32,000 tons of uranium is washed into the sea by all the rivers in the world, naturally! A significant portion of this ends up in the great lakes, what the worlds mining industries spill every year pales in comparison to this. What are we going to do about that? Punnish nature for polluting her self?

    The nuclear industry can afford to extract uranium from seawater today! It is not done due to conventional sources of uranium is a lot cheaper this is also one of the reasons why reprocessing is not done. With reprocessing it is possible to extend the utilisation of the fuel by about a factor of 10 without having to mine for more of the stuff (if mining was your concern, which it shouldn’t be).

    I am not saying nuclear will solve everything, but it will help. To stop polluting the planet we need cheap energy and lots of it, nuclear can supply a large part of it but not all of it.

    Perry, please get your facts straight and use a word processor to check spelling and grammar in your posts so we can understand what you are trying to type.


    Quote Comment
  68. 68
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    Why coal what about the true green solar, wind, etc. has very little waste and does not effect the invirment much.

    Solar and wind have higher environmental impact because they require more raw materials (and PV manufacture isn’t all that eco-friendly either).

    Not to mention the need to back them up on a still night which usually means burning methane (energy storage at the scales we’d need isn’t a solved problem).

            Richard Perry said:

    http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/103906
    See bove site and read it all this is thier view who are living it, the government abanded them with no resorses so had to stay in these areas with a meager exestance, may not happen in North America but what about southern USA, they left them swinging in the wind. Has the ameriican government helped, tell me how much they have done being such a rich nation and all. You see they say they mixed good and bad food.

    They go on about birth defects caused by the anti-nuclear movement convincing people they have nothing to live for and may as well just drink lots of alcohol during pregnancy as though it was the very small amount of radiation which caused it.

    Now how about I provide a web site with real information:
    http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

            Richard Perry said:

    Global warming, explain to me how my direction to go with solar, wind, etc will effect global warming, how would it effect people’s health.

    If you try to solve global warming with wind and solar you will fail and end up getting the health problems global warming will cause along with the health problems air pollution from fossil fuel burning causes.

            Richard Perry said:

    Yes nuclear industry is now destroying large areas of land where it is mind because the percent of uranium in the ore is one hundreth of what it was when they first mined it.

    Uranium mines are relatively small compared to pretty much all other mines simply because of the immense energy density of Uranium compared to fossil fuels (i.e. what you use when you are anti-nuclear).

    Besides, we get get a two order of magnitude improvement in resource usage just by switching to breeder reactors (can wind or solar get a 100 times improvement considering we’re pushing the technologies about as far as they can go already?).


    Quote Comment
  69. 69
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    Solar and wind have higher environmental impact because they require more raw materials (and PV manufacture isn’t all that eco-friendly either).

    Not to mention the need to back them up on a still night which usually means burning methane (energy storage at the scales we’d need isn’t a solved problem).

    They go on about birth defects caused by the anti-nuclear movement convincing people they have nothing to live for and may as well just drink lots of alcohol during pregnancy as though it was the very small amount of radiation which caused it.
    [10]You say anti-nuclear movement causes birth defects????? I think you wrote wrong info, please clearify. I will believe independent over those that profit from the industry any day.
    Now how about I provide a web site with real information:
    http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
    [10] And you believe unscear who have a dollar interest and job security.
    If you try to solve global warming with wind and solar you will fail and end up getting the health problems global warming will cause along with the health problems air pollution from fossil fuel burning causes.

    Uranium mines are relatively small compared to pretty much all other mines simply because of the immense energy density of Uranium compared to fossil fuels (i.e. what you use when you are anti-nuclear).
    [10] But how much does it cost to process the ore and store the waste.
    Besides, we get get a two order of magnitude improvement in resource usage just by switching to breeder reactors (can wind or solar get a 100 times improvement considering we’re pushing the technologies about as far as they can go already?).
    [10]But wind cost $0.00 dollars and no waste to get rid of.

            Anon said:

    Solar and wind have higher environmental impact because they require more raw materials (and PV manufacture isn’t all that eco-friendly either).
    [10]Yes PVC is a bad product but if we did not use it, would we have any trees.

    Not to mention the need to back them up on a still night which usually means burning methane (energy storage at the scales we’d need isn’t a solved problem).
    [10] but it reduces the amount of coal and oil.
    They go on about birth defects caused by the anti-nuclear movement convincing people they have nothing to live for and may as well just drink lots of alcohol during pregnancy as though it was the very small amount of radiation which caused it.
    [10]Do you realy believe preganet women drank alcohol, where have you seen this info.

    Now how about I provide a web site with real information:
    http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

    If you try to solve global warming with wind and solar you will fail and end up getting the health problems global warming will cause along with the health problems air pollution from fossil fuel burning causes.
    [10]I have never seen a problem with global warming, look in the bible records countries around Egypy would go to them for food in drought years time after time, it is a cycle that happens. I have lived for 64 years and the weather is the same, 3 weeks of hot in August and 3 weeks cold in Feb.

    Uranium mines are relatively small compared to pretty much all other mines simply because of the immense energy density of Uranium compared to fossil fuels (i.e. what you use when you are anti-nuclear).
    [10] But how much does it cost to process the ore and store the waste.

    Besides, we get get a two order of magnitude improvement in resource usage just by switching to breeder reactors (can wind or solar get a 100 times improvement considering we’re pushing the technologies about as far as they can go already?).

    [10]But wind cost $0.00 dollars and no waste to get rid of.

    [10]there seems to something wrong on this site.Maybe because I used * before


    Quote Comment
  70. 70
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    I will believe independent over those that profit from the industry any day.

    Well I for one prefer to believe those who are right, regardless of whether they profit from the nuclear industry or whether they profit from the fossil fuel industry.

    Reality doesn’t really care who pays a researcher.

            Richard Perry said:

    [10] And you believe unscear who have a dollar interest and job security.

    While you believe Greenpeace, who also have a dollar interest and job security.

    Have you considered reading about the history of the UNSCEAR and how they were actually created largely to oppose nuclear weapons?

            Richard Perry said:

    [10]But wind cost $0.00 dollars and no waste to get rid of.

    The wind itself may cost nothing but the wind turbine for collecting it certainly isn’t free either to build or maintain and there is still quite a bit of waste to get rid of during construction.

    Not to mention that even if wind turbines were free they’d still be useless without energy storage or fossil fuel backup.

            Richard Perry said:

    [10]Yes PVC is a bad product but if we did not use it, would we have any trees.

    Do you even understand the basic jargon used in energy discussions?

    PV when talking about energy means Photovoltaic which is the technical term for solar panels and as far as I know do not contain any Polyvinyl-chloride.

            Richard Perry said:

    [10] but it reduces the amount of coal and oil.

    Replacing them with methane isn’t really all that much of an improvement (especially when you consider that burning methane may be worse than coal from a global warming point of view). Besides, oil doesn’t get used to produce much electricity anyway.

            Richard Perry said:

    [10]Do you realy believe preganet women drank alcohol, where have you seen this info.

    If Pregnant women never drank alcohol there wouldn’t be any such thing as fetal alcohol syndrome.

            Richard Perry said:

    [10]I have never seen a problem with global warming,

    That isn’t stopping it from happening, nor is it going to stop us from suffering negative effects from it.

            Richard Perry said:

    look in the bible records countries around Egypy would go to them for food in drought years time after time, it is a cycle that happens.

    I don’t really care about such ancient fiction.

            Richard Perry said:

    I have lived for 64 years and the weather is the same, 3 weeks of hot in August and 3 weeks cold in Feb.

    Weather and climate aren’t the same thing.


    Quote Comment
  71. 71
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matte said:

    @Perry

    I am sorry, a news source who references Greenpeace is not reliable…and the Morning Star, how many of my brain cells are you responsible for killing by making me read that crap?!

    But to the point:
    Don’t even get me started on solar PV, clean energy it is not! It takes more energy to create a PV solar panel than it will generate in 10-15 years (depending on where it is used), the processing gases used for thin film manufacturing includes gases that will make CO2 seem to have no global warming effect what so ever. Solar energy comes at a cost of around 85 US cents/kWh, without back up power.

    Wind power will produce 30 g CO2/kWh produced and nuclear produces around 15 g/kWh [Royal academy of science, 2010, "Energy resources in a 40 year perspective"]. A big utility in northern Europe quotes 3 g/kWh for nuclear and 10 g/kWh for wind power. And if that was not enough, read this (as we are touting tabloid references): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

    Renewable energy is not emission free! Oh and windpower just got ~10-15% more expensive due to price hikes on certain metals…

    As to mining tailings, I have studied the area around Saskatchewan, couple of ponds next to an airfield in the middle of nowhere? Have you ever seen a coal mine? Here are some pictures of a small one: http://detlaphiltdic.blogspot.com/2010/07/coal-companies-sue-epa-over-mine-permit.html

    Tell you what, if you want us to quit the mining industry altogether you will not get any wind power either and we will have to live in caves with an average life expectancy of about 20-30, would you want that?
    One of the biggest suppliers of uranium ore is a copper mine! The uranium just happens to be a by-product of what they are really after, go figure. The tailings are easy to store in the old mining tunnels so I don’t see the problem there, they do not need to be maintained for ever. The ponds are used to extract and enrich the ores not to store the tailings, get your facts straight!

    You should know that every year about 32,000 tons of uranium is washed into the sea by all the rivers in the world, naturally! A significant portion of this ends up in the great lakes, what the worlds mining industries spill every year pales in comparison to this. What are we going to do about that? Punnish nature for polluting her self?

    The nuclear industry can afford to extract uranium from seawater today! It is not done due to conventional sources of uranium is a lot cheaper this is also one of the reasons why reprocessing is not done. With reprocessing it is possible to extend the utilisation of the fuel by about a factor of 10 without having to mine for more of the stuff (if mining was your concern, which it shouldn’t be).

    I am not saying nuclear will solve everything, but it will help. To stop polluting the planet we need cheap energy and lots of it, nuclear can supply a large part of it but not all of it.

    Perry, please get your facts straight and use a word processor to check spelling and grammar in your posts so we can understand what you are trying to type.

    [11]The manufacturing of magnets is bad but most of it stays there and does not bother me. Nuclear cannot be contained when there is an accident, it goes everywhere in different concentrations. I cannot avoid this no matter where I go. About magnets what type of magnets do they use in the turbine generator. Those magnets create invierment problems also and are huge compared to a wind tower. Will you list the types of poison products used and created in the process of making and using nuclear fuel, some like plutonium that is one of the most deadly products in the world and is lose in Japan right now(Total of about ten). A big problem for the industry is still to come, the decommissioning cost. The estimated cost 50 years ago was U$25,000,000.00 a plant. Looking at inflation and their record of under estimating will be U$2,000,000,000.00 about 10% of a plant cost. You may think this high but a few years ago in my city a brewery shut down and it was not very large and it cost U$1,000,000.00 and a average house today costs U$400,000.00. This will show the true cost of nuclear power. Also add cost of stabilizing a plant after a accident. When customers start seeing these costs they will take a better look at nuclear power. As before CO2 problems to me is a farce promoted by the nuclear industry.

    And you believe in those that make a living if the industries is still around. Like the new Japan report that a whistle blower says he was paided big money to shut him up, how many more are feeling bad about what what they did and are coming forth because of guilt.
    They will ship the tailings to another location you say, did they promise that. You are making up stories now.


    Quote Comment
  72. 72
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [11]The manufacturing of magnets is bad but most of it stays there and does not bother me.

    Never mind all the chemicals used and what happens when they get out.

            Richard Perry said:

    Nuclear cannot be contained when there is an accident, it goes everywhere in different concentrations.

    Both Three Mile Island and Fukushima Daiichi resulted in small releases of no off-site consequences (only psychosomatic illness which the anti-nuclear movement is to be blame for).

            Richard Perry said:

    I cannot avoid this no matter where I go.

    We I can’t get away from the COâ‚‚ the coal power plants that people like you prevented from shutting release either.

            Richard Perry said:

    About magnets what type of magnets do they use in the turbine generator. Those magnets create invierment problems also and are huge compared to a wind tower.

    A single turbine for a power plant running a 90% capacity factor (common for nuclear) is going to need less material in magnets for the generator than the equivalent power generation from a bunch of 30% capacity factor (considered pretty good for wind, many countries average only 20%) wind turbines.

            Richard Perry said:

    Will you list the types of poison products used and created in the process of making and using nuclear fuel, some like plutonium that is one of the most deadly products in the world and is lose in Japan right now(Total of about ten).

    The plutonium found in Japan is most likely from nuclear weapons testing (and plutonium isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as you think it is either).

            Richard Perry said:

    A big problem for the industry is still to come, the decommissioning cost.

    I don’t see the problem of just running a nuclear power plant another 20 years if it can survive that long (and the decommissioning cost is already paid for with the power plants old enough that you’d actually talk about it seriously).

            Richard Perry said:

    The estimated cost 50 years ago was U$25,000,000.00 a plant. Looking at inflation and their record of under estimating will be U$2,000,000,000.00 about 10% of a plant cost.

    Estimated cost 50 years ago (when there were only a small handful of nuclear power plants) is irrelevant when you consider that nuclear power plants have already been decommissioned.

            Richard Perry said:

    Also add cost of stabilizing a plant after a accident.

    Much less than the cost of what happens when a large dam bursts and floods over a hundred thousand people.

            Richard Perry said:

    When customers start seeing these costs they will take a better look at nuclear power.

    There have only ever been a handful of nuclear accidents ever and they haven’t been especially bad by the standards of industrial accidents (Bhopal likely killed more than the nuclear industry ever has, yet we don’t see people calling for a ban on methyl-isocyanate).

            Richard Perry said:

    As before CO2 problems to me is a farce promoted by the nuclear industry.

    Then it is obvious that you are arguing from an ignorance of basic physics.

            Richard Perry said:

    And you believe in those that make a living if the industries is still around. Like the new Japan report that a whistle blower says he was paided big money to shut him up, how many more are feeling bad about what what they did and are coming forth because of guilt.

    More likely he though he could get more money as a paid speaker of anti-nuclear groups than what he was making working for the nuclear industry (he might not even have ever worked in the nuclear industry at all).


    Quote Comment
  73. 73
    Matte Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [11]The manufacturing of magnets is bad but most of it stays there and does not bother me. Nuclear cannot be contained when there is an accident, it goes everywhere in different concentrations. I cannot avoid this no matter where I go. About magnets what type of magnets do they use in the turbine generator. Those magnets create invierment problems also and are huge compared to a wind tower. Will you list the types of poison products used and created in the process of making and using nuclear fuel, some like plutonium that is one of the most deadly products in the world and is lose in Japan right now(Total of about ten). A big problem for the industry is still to come, the decommissioning cost. The estimated cost 50 years ago was U$25,000,000.00 a plant. Looking at inflation and their record of under estimating will be U$2,000,000,000.00 about 10% of a plant cost. You may think this high but a few years ago in my city a brewery shut down and it was not very large and it cost U$1,000,000.00 and a average house today costs U$400,000.00. This will show the true cost of nuclear power. Also add cost of stabilizing a plant after a accident. When customers start seeing these costs they will take a better look at nuclear power. As before CO2 problems to me is a farce promoted by the nuclear industry.

    And you believe in those that make a living if the industries is still around. Like the new Japan report that a whistle blower says he was paided big money to shut him up, how many more are feeling bad about what what they did and are coming forth because of guilt.
    They will ship the tailings to another location you say, did they promise that. You are making up stories now.

    It takes about 4-5 thousand windturbines (the large +80 meter type) to replace one nuclear reactor. Do the maths, this would require about 5 times the amount of concrete, steel and fiberglass/carbonfibre. And about 6-7.5 thousand tons of Nd magnets. Last I checked a generator in a nuclear plant uses electromagnets and does not use Nd magnets (there may be a bit in the exciter but I will let a generator expert wade in there).

    I am glad you don’t mind having farmers in China poisoned in order to ease your own conscious and energy from an inefficient source. Thanks for clearing that up! So remind me why you are worried about uranium mining then, it doesn’t affect you what so ever as it is done far away from you?!

    I said nothing about shipping tailings anywhere.

    Sorry Perry you can’t quote fiction (bible) on this blogg, we only accept scientific arguments.

    Your money arguments don’t mean anything to me. The plants I am concerned about have set aside a decommissioning fund which costs less than 1/5 US cent/kWh produced, including safe disposal of fuel we are talking about 2/5 US cents/kWh, now I don’t know but that is pretty insignificant considering the cost of nuclear generation is in the region of 4-5 US cents/kWh (sorry, don’t know if this is true for US plants but should not be far off).

    Perry, use a spell check and stop arguing your case. You have no idea what you are talking about, which is clearly evident from reading your posts here. If you want to get educated I suggest you post your questions here or on “Nuclear power yes please” (I will not link here with respect to the good Dr. but the webpage can easily be found using google) where they have a forum where people can learn about energy generation and nuclear energy in particular.


    Quote Comment
  74. 74
    DV82XL Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    As before CO2 problems to me is a farce promoted by the nuclear industry.

    A statement like this shows the depth of this moron’s ignorance. Even the deepest of Deep Greens have never made this type of accusation.


    Quote Comment
  75. 75
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    When customers start seeing these costs they will take a better look at nuclear power. As before CO2 problems to me is a farce promoted by the nuclear industry.

    Are you kidding me? not only is it supported by the vast majority of scientists, but the nuclear industry has not nearly benefited to the degree that the “renewable” industry has, despite the fact that they don’t actually have a viable solution. Many of the most vocal proponents of greenhouse gas reduction are decidedly anti-nuclear

            Richard Perry said:

    A big problem for the industry is still to come, the decommissioning cost

    Nuclear power plants are the ONLY ones who are actually expected to set aside money and produce a plan for decommissioning. No other industry has these stringent requirements. How will they decommission coal or gas plants? Nobody cares and no funds are pre-allocated to it.

    I am, however, highly critical of decommissioning plans for nuclear plants. The standard now in existence basically turns the site into a greenfield. That’s ridiculous. It costs a huge amount to go in and jackhammer all the foundations down to nothing.

    It’s stupid because these sites are already pre-surveyed for power generation and have the necessary transmission infrastructure in place. If the plant reaches the end of its useful life it should be replaced with a new nuclear plant, not a greenfield.

            Richard Perry said:

    [10]But wind cost $0.00 dollars and no waste to get rid of.

    The “fuel” is free, but not the equipment, the real estate, the maintenance or for that matter, the enormous costs of buffering and backing it up – usually done by gas and at a surprisingly small reduction in consumption versus a standard combined cycle plant running at constant load.

    When you get down to it, the energy is there, but it’s too diffuse to be economical or practical to get it. The problem is inherent to the medium: Air does not weigh very much and it does not move very fast. That’s it. That’s the problem.

    Let me draw a parallel situation:

    There is gold that is free for the taking. You can have it. It’s free. You could go get several million dollars worth of gold. It’s easy to get to too.

    There is only one catch: The millions of dollars of gold is dissolved in about a cubic kilometer of seawater.


    Quote Comment
  76. 76
    David Walters Says:

    It would take about 400 3.5MW turbines *at name place capacity* to replace 1 GW nuclear plant. At capacity *factor* this would be closer 1600 23.5MW wind turbines. The DofE (the only study i’ve seen) shows that all land based wind turbines use 8x the amount of copper, concrete, rare earths, steel, plastic and aluminum for every unit of energy produced by nuclear. So…that’s a bad thing for wind.

    On decommissioning: returning to greenfield status is reactionary and anti-energy. In fact, I’m for a law that states in effect that for any nuclear plant that is decommissioned, it’s brownfield status be maintained and a nuclear power plant of equal or larger size permits allowed, has to be built in it’s place and all viable balance of plant equipment should be integrated into the newer, safer structure.

    But that would make nuclear even cheaper, and we wouldn’t want that, would we?


    Quote Comment
  77. 77
    David Walters Says:

    sorry…ha thould be 3.5MW wind turbines, not 23.5 MW ones. Duh.


    Quote Comment
  78. 78
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    Never mind all the chemicals used and what happens when they get out.

    Both Three Mile Island and Fukushima Daiichi resulted in small releases of no off-site consequences (only psychosomatic illness which the anti-nuclear movement is to be blame for).
    [15] Kan said yesterday many will not ever go home.

    We I can’t get away from the COâ‚‚ the coal power plants that people like you prevented from shutting release either.

    A single turbine for a power plant running a 90% capacity factor (common for nuclear) is going to need less material in magnets for the generator than the equivalent power generation from a bunch of 30% capacity factor (considered pretty good for wind, many countries average only 20%) wind turbines.

    The plutonium found in Japan is most likely from nuclear weapons testing (and plutonium isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as you think it is either).
    [15] You say plutonium from bomb test, that amount is diluted in the background radiation and would not show up in this amounts in a smaller area. This is another joke.

    I don’t see the problem of just running a nuclear power plant another 20 years if it can survive that long (and the decommissioning cost is already paid for with the power plants old enough that you’d actually talk about it seriously).
    [15] This is pushing the engineered parameters by 50% and stress test will not show all flaws, so here we go again money verses safety. Shut it down.

    Estimated cost 50 years ago (when there were only a small handful of nuclear power plants) is irrelevant when you consider that nuclear power plants have already been decommissioned.

    Much less than the cost of what happens when a large dam bursts and floods over a hundred thousand people.
    [15] Chernobyl 100 of thousands.

    There have only ever been a handful of nuclear accidents ever and they haven’t been especially bad by the standards of industrial accidents (Bhopal likely killed more than the nuclear industry ever has, yet we don’t see people calling for a ban on methyl-isocyanate).
    [15] Japan count is to come.

    Then it is obvious that you are arguing from an ignorance of basic physics.

    More likely he though he could get more money as a paid speaker of anti-nuclear groups than what he was making working for the nuclear industry (he might not even have ever worked in the nuclear industry at all).

    [15] How easy is it for a small group to take over a power plant, shooting everyone on site. Is there any armed resistance to hold them back and prevent them from bombing their way in. In the states they have radical groups that would love to.
    [15] You had said that background radiation is higher than none safe stated amounts, this maybe but there is a difference, the background over years is very mixed and there are very little clumps. The explosion has sent large very high radioactive particles all over the place and a person can intake these by air or food. It takes a very small amount of plutonium to kill or damage health.


    Quote Comment
  79. 79
    Anon Says:

            DV82XL said:

    A statement like this shows the depth of this moron’s ignorance. Even the deepest of Deep Greens have never made this type of accusation.

    Eventually I suspect some of them may.

            David Walters said:

    On decommissioning: returning to greenfield status is reactionary and anti-energy. In fact, I’m for a law that states in effect that for any nuclear plant that is decommissioned, it’s brownfield status be maintained and a nuclear power plant of equal or larger size permits allowed, has to be built in it’s place and all viable balance of plant equipment should be integrated into the newer, safer structure.

    But that would make nuclear even cheaper, and we wouldn’t want that, would we?

    I understand that EdF are planning on replacing their old gas cooled reactors with new reactors once they’ve finished decommissioning them.

            Richard Perry said:

    [15] How easy is it for a small group to take over a power plant, shooting everyone on site. Is there any armed resistance to hold them back and prevent them from bombing their way in. In the states they have radical groups that would love to.

    Given that most nuclear power plants have armed guards on site (usually ex-military and armed with MP5s) I’d say rather hard to do.

            Richard Perry said:

    [15] You had said that background radiation is higher than none safe stated amounts, this maybe but there is a difference, the background over years is very mixed and there are very little clumps. The explosion has sent large very high radioactive particles all over the place and a person can intake these by air or food. It takes a very small amount of plutonium to kill or damage health.

    Plutonium simply isn’t that dangerous though (not to mention that the evidence of harm from low doses of radiation is rather lacking).


    Quote Comment
  80. 80
    Richard Pery Says:

            Anon said:

    Eventually I suspect some of them may.

    I understand that EdF are planning on replacing their old gas cooled reactors with new reactors once they’ve finished decommissioning them.

    Given that most nuclear power plants have armed guards on site (usually ex-military and armed with MP5s) I’d say rather hard to do.
    [15] And if they run a 747 fully fueled into it first before they get there.
    Plutonium simply isn’t that dangerous though (not to mention that the evidence of harm from low doses of radiation is rather lacking).

    [16] If radiation is so safe go to Japan with your friends and buy a dozen mantions for a buck and live like a king and eat the free food that they will reject. Man will you ever have a great life.


    Quote Comment
  81. 81
    Matthew Says:

            Richard Pery said:

    [16] If radiation is so safe go to Japan with your friends and buy a dozen mantions for a buck and live like a king and eat the free food that they will reject. Man will you ever have a great life.

    I guess you didn’t notice this: http://depletedcranium.com/forget-the-old-people-ill-clean-up-fukushima/


    Quote Comment
  82. 82
    Anon Says:

            Richard Pery said:

    [15] And if they run a 747 fully fueled into it first before they get there.

    What if they fly a fully fuelled 747 into a chemical plant or an oil refinery?

    Nuclear power plants just aren’t any worse when it comes to risk then those are, yet we don’t see all that many people demanding we ban chemical plants.


    Quote Comment
  83. 83
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    Never mind all the chemicals used and what happens when they get out.

    Both Three Mile Island and Fukushima Daiichi resulted in small releases of no off-site consequences (only psychosomatic illness which the anti-nuclear movement is to be blame for).

    We I can’t get away from the COâ‚‚ the coal power plants that people like you prevented from shutting release either.

    A single turbine for a power plant running a 90% capacity factor (common for nuclear) is going to need less material in magnets for the generator than the equivalent power generation from a bunch of 30% capacity factor (considered pretty good for wind, many countries average only 20%) wind turbines.

    The plutonium found in Japan is most likely from nuclear weapons testing (and plutonium isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as you think it is either).

    I don’t see the problem of just running a nuclear power plant another 20 years if it can survive that long (and the decommissioning cost is already paid for with the power plants old enough that you’d actually talk about it seriously).

    Estimated cost 50 years ago (when there were only a small handful of nuclear power plants) is irrelevant when you consider that nuclear power plants have already been decommissioned.

    Much less than the cost of what happens when a large dam bursts and floods over a hundred thousand people.

    There have only ever been a handful of nuclear accidents ever and they haven’t been especially bad by the standards of industrial accidents (Bhopal likely killed more than the nuclear industry ever has, yet we don’t see people calling for a ban on methyl-isocyanate).

    Then it is obvious that you are arguing from an ignorance of basic physics.

    [17]More likely he though he could get more money as a paid speaker of anti-nuclear groups than what he was making working for the nuclear industry (he might not even have ever worked in the nuclear industry at all).

    You are an idiot if you think very few where harmed. The evidence is over whelming and the only people that deny it are pro-nuclear. We always find out there statements are wrong and they lie and lie. Their studies are a joke the way they throw out evidence that they do not like. They have no study showing pre Chernobyl heath info compared to post Chernobyl. In studies they make claims that the countries involved do not have a national record. What a piece of crap, they can go to any doctor and see his files. If a doctor does not have a accurate file on their patients they will be disbarred. This kind of bull goes on and on in their so called studies and they come up with this bull that we are getting hear. You wonder why we do not trust the nuclear industry, it is because of attitude you show and you think you are a hero for this industry, while the industry would like you to stop representing them. This site is a joke.


    Quote Comment
  84. 84
    Matthew Says:

            Anon said:

    What if they fly a fully fuelled 747 into a chemical plant or an oil refinery?

    Nuclear power plants just aren’t any worse when it comes to risk then those are, yet we don’t see all that many people demanding we ban chemical plants.

    Besides, a fuelled 747 slamming into a nuclear plant (ie. a heavily reinforced concrete structure) basically becomes an aluminum pancake spurting burning kerosene. Nasty, but not particularly dangerous to anyone not standing right there.

    And I’m going to go out on a limb and say Richie isn’t very conversant with conditions in Soviet Ukraine.


    Quote Comment
  85. 85
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matthew said:

    Besides, a fuelled 747 slamming into a nuclear plant (ie. a heavily reinforced concrete structure) basically becomes an aluminum pancake spurting burning kerosene. Nasty, but not particularly dangerous to anyone not standing right there.

    And I’m going to go out on a limb and say Richie isn’t very conversant with conditions in Soviet Ukraine.

    18] Japan’s sites had a lot of metal roofing, a lot of computer, control and switches not working. The power grid will go off line and cut by invaders, will back up work with shorted and or severed wiring. Japan site could not handle a earthquake as TEPCO now claims meltdown before waves hit Japan. Other reports say some plants in USA are not safe from terrorist


    Quote Comment
  86. 86
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    What if they fly a fully fuelled 747 into a chemical plant or an oil refinery?

    Nuclear power plants just aren’t any worse when it comes to risk then those are, yet we don’t see all that many people demanding we ban chemical plants.

    [19] But does not move to other countries and in concentrated form does not harm anyone.


    Quote Comment
  87. 87
    Jason Ribeiro Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    You are an idiot if you think very few where harmed. The evidence is over whelming and the only people that deny it are pro-nuclear. We always find out there statements are wrong and they lie and lie.

    If you believe that anyone was killed by radiation from Fukushima, then please refer everyone here to a credible source of information that documents a radiological death from that accident. I expect you won’t have a credible reply.


    Quote Comment
  88. 88
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    You are an idiot if you think very few where harmed.

    Compared to Bhopal, yes very few were harmed.

            Richard Perry said:

    The evidence is over whelming and the only people that deny it are pro-nuclear. We always find out there statements are wrong and they lie and lie.

    You’ve yet to show that.

            Richard Perry said:

    Their studies are a joke the way they throw out evidence that they do not like.

    That’s the anti-nuclear movement you’re talking about, who just can’t seem to admit that the people of Ramsar are just as healthy as people of similar socio-economic status in lower radiation areas.

            Richard Perry said:

    They have no study showing pre Chernobyl heath info compared to post Chernobyl.

    The cancer rates have been compared between before and after and there has been no detectable increase in non-thyroid cancer cases among the general population.

            Richard Perry said:

    You wonder why we do not trust the nuclear industry, it is because of attitude you show and you think you are a hero for this industry, while the industry would like you to stop representing them. This site is a joke.

    Why should anyone trust any industry more than any other?

    Though the scientific community (overwhelmingly pro-nuclear) tends to be trusted by most people (at least when the scientists don’t contradict one of their precious beliefs).

            Richard Perry said:

    [19] But does not move to other countries and in concentrated form does not harm anyone.

    Dangerous chemicals released from a burning chemical plant very well can go to other countries and very well can harm people (especially when in concentrated form).

            Jason Ribeiro said:

    If you believe that anyone was killed by radiation from Fukushima, then please refer everyone here to a credible source of information that documents a radiological death from that accident. I expect you won’t have a credible reply.

    Considering that no one even got acute radiation sickness there I’m going to have to agree (even most of the Chernobyl first responders who got acute radiation sickness survived).


    Quote Comment
  89. 89
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matte said:

    @Perry

    China is looking for compensation you say, compensation for what? What losses?

    The fishing industry may suffer abit outside the notheastern coast of Japan, but the Pacific is a big ocean so the environment will recover a lot quicker than most people realise. Problem is, due to the TSUNAMI, the Japanese fishing fleets may take longer to recover than that.

    Food that is deemed to be too contaminated to be suitable for human consumption does not enter the consumer market, any other food does not need to be “diluted” for any reason what so ever. Have you any idea how conservative the LNT really is?

    There are places in the world where people live with a radiation background that are an order of magnitude higher than what would be normal for most north America (I am excluding certain places in Nevada), and the people who lives in these areas don’t suffer for it, explain that one if radiation is the killer of everything on earth!?

    I would like to see the terrorist who manage to knock down a powerplant, the amount of explosives needed would require at least a handful of trucks to transport. Not just something you can do with out being noticed…

    As DV82XL said, back up your statements, the fact that you don’t know the difference between Russia and the Ukraine makes me wonder where you have been since 1989.

    People like you who scare people about an industry branch that is one of the cleanest sources of energy on the planet, inspite of all the accidents and missmanaged waste issues, is more dangerous than any percieved risks from the industry itself. Being sceptical is all well and good, but scaring poeple for no other reason than flaunting your own ignorance is just stupid, dangerous and above all immoral.

    [25] This is a statement that did not post before or went to wrong area.
    The biggest problem is the nuclear industries honesty, years ago Russia did a study on Chernobyl and claimed about 80,000 would die over time and the nuclear industry says 4000 injuries. Why would Russia say that, this did not benefit them in any way, in fact it would cost them big money. Explain this.
    Gorbachev agreed with it and coming from a great leader I believe it to, with all the other studies it confirms it.


    Quote Comment
  90. 90
    drbuzz0 Says:

    NOTE TO RICHARD PERRY:

    STOP E-MAILING ME. THE FEATURE ON THIS SITE FOR BEING SENT EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS OF COMMENTS IS ONLY FOR NOTIFICATION! REPLYING TO THE EMAIL DOES NOT REPLY TO THE COMMENT. DON’T FORWARD THEM TO ME EITHER! I KNOW WHEN COMMENTS ARE MADE!

    I’m just telling you – keep bombing me with emails and I’ll start flagging them as spam which will likely get your email address on some spam lists.

    So stop it!


    Quote Comment
  91. 91
    Matte Says:

    [25] This is a statement that did not post before or went to wrong area.
    The biggest problem is the nuclear industries honesty, years ago Russia did a study on Chernobyl and claimed about 80,000 would die over time *Snipp!* Yadda-yadda-yadda…

    Sorry Perry, I can’t respond to any of your comments as you do not back them up with references or scientific arguments.

    I can tell you this though, more people will die due to pollution if we turn our backs on nuclear power. Germany is a prime example of this as they have/will replace the nuclear power with coal power. Coal, which on average kills 4 orders of magnitude more people per TWh than nuclear, I should add.

    Do you know how many people die per TWh of electricity produced and the comparison between different forms of energy? Even if we would believe Dr. Sherman and assume 1 million dead from Tjernobyl, nuclear would still be responsible for the same amount of fatalities as the other renewable energy forms. [WHO, Externe]

    I also find it amusing that you use machine-gunning-argumentation techniques, you should perhaps know that it doesn’t work on this site. There are many reading this blog and who follows this thread. You are severely out of your depths and you are only one person.

    Pick an argument, stick with it, supply us with the facts (referenced or scientifically argued) and at least I may actually listen to you (can’t speak for anybody else). What you are doing now will only get you labled as an ignoramus and a troll.

    One last time:
    BACK UP YOUR STATEMENTS!


    Quote Comment
  92. 92
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [25] This is a statement that did not post before or went to wrong area.
    The biggest problem is the nuclear industries honesty,

    Oh come on now, I haven’t seen any reason to believe the nuclear industry to be any worse in that regard than any other industry out there.

            Richard Perry said:

    years ago Russia did a study on Chernobyl and claimed about 80,000 would die over time and the nuclear industry says 4000 injuries. Why would Russia say that, this did not benefit them in any way, in fact it would cost them big money. Explain this.

    Could it be that they didn’t really know and just guessed?

    Actually the Soviet Union had good reason to exaggerate how much damage Chernobyl did since they were dependant on selling fossil fuels to western Europe.

            Richard Perry said:

    Gorbachev agreed with it and coming from a great leader I believe it to, with all the other studies it confirms it.

    It was under his administration that Chernobyl happened.


    Quote Comment
  93. 93
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    Oh come on now, I haven’t seen any reason to believe the nuclear industry to be any worse in that regard than any other industry out there.
    [40] Yes all industry does.
    Could it be that they didn’t really know and just guessed?

    Actually the Soviet Union had good reason to exaggerate how much damage Chernobyl did since they were dependant on selling fossil fuels to western Europe.

    It was under his administration that Chernobyl happened.

    [40] You think taking a risk of crashing his government and admitting they have caused so much damage to so many people and had to appoalagise for the incurred losses that the people blame them for is offset by maybe selling more oil that they are gradually running out of. You really believe that. If that is believable than why in the world would we in trust anyone with safety of plants of any kind or weaponry , as anyone seems to be susceptible to extreme greed.


    Quote Comment
  94. 94
    Richard Perry Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    NOTE TO RICHARD PERRY:

    STOP E-MAILING ME.

    THE FEATURE ON THIS SITE FOR BEING SENT EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS OF COMMENTS IS ONLY FOR NOTIFICATION!

    REPLYING TO THE EMAIL DOES NOT REPLY TO THE COMMENT. DON’T FORWARD THEM TO ME EITHER!

    I KNOW WHEN COMMENTS ARE MADE!

    I’m just telling you – keep bombing me with emails and I’ll start flagging them as spam which will likely get your email address on some spam lists.
    [40] PPPPProblem, I have received a note from 3 viewers that they are receiving direct emails, I do not know why, I’m surprised. Maybe someone knows, I looked at Microsoft’s help and have found out that this new mail sometimes creates a second same name group account on its own. It does not explain what problems occur but from my end some of my postings or incoming mail do not post and end up in random files like Draft or my own created files (Also on screen editing is doing strange things jumping sentences around). I now have deleted this group account as of Aug. 26, 2011, 10:14 AM Saskatchewan time zone(Yes some software actually has a Saskatchewan time zone) and I hope this clears it up. Again I am Sorry about this and if anyone still gets direct mail please email me. This new version of mail came with my new computer last week. Again please let me know if you have any knowledge on this and if it error’s again I will reinstall Windows Live Mail, Shaw cable set it up remotely and they require this email operating system and they do not recommended any other. Thanks to those who emailed me.
    So stop it!


    Quote Comment
  95. 95
    Richard Perry Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [25] This is a statement that did not post before or went to wrong area.
    The biggest problem is the nuclear industries honesty, years ago Russia did a study on Chernobyl and claimed about 80,000 would die over time *Snipp!* Yadda-yadda-yadda…

    Sorry Perry, I can’t respond to any of your comments as you do not back them up with references or scientific arguments.

    I can tell you this though, more people will die due to pollution if we turn our backs on nuclear power. Germany is a prime example of this as they have/will replace the nuclear power with coal power. Coal, which on average kills 4 orders of magnitude more people per TWh than nuclear, I should add.

    Do you know how many people die per TWh of electricity produced and the comparison between different forms of energy? Even if we would believe Dr. Sherman and assume 1 million dead from Tjernobyl, nuclear would still be responsible for the same amount of fatalities as the other renewable energy forms. [WHO, Externe]

    I also find it amusing that you use machine-gunning-argumentation techniques, you should perhaps know that it doesn’t work on this site. There are many reading this blog and who follows this thread. You are severely out of your depths and you are only one person.

    Pick an argument, stick with it, supply us with the facts (referenced or scientifically argued) and at least I may actually listen to you (can’t speak for anybody else). What you are doing now will only get you labled as an ignoramus and a troll.

    One last time:
    BACK UP YOUR STATEMENTS!

    [40] Sorry, I thought you viewed the first site I sent you it has a live interview with Gorbe . It looks like you do not even view sites suggested or you would have viewed this , you just dismiss it out of hand and bark on.
    Below is a second copy.
    http://disq.us/244luh

    I am just throwing views out there that I have heard and want Pro and Anti nuclear to comment on as I need reasons why we are going in the direction we are and thanks for your views, I have learned a lot and have new views now and I agree with many of your statements. Do not think that I believe in all the statements I have said, I am looking for answers and you have given me many good ones. Maybe I should have said something on the side of Pro but you did so good that I did not have any new ones. Again those Pro nuclear you have done well, I am almost at a draw now which means all power are equally bad. If there is anything I haven’t challenged please through it out there no matter what or how silly it maybe. Again thanks all.


    Quote Comment
  96. 96
    Matte Says:

    Perry, I should clarify.
    References need to be peer-reviewed that is the only hard currency accepted here, anything else is just woo-woo.

    So far you have only supplied Woo-woo, sorry.

    But I agree with you about anything we humans do, it consumes resources and hurt the environment. We have to pick the energy production means that destroy the environment the least. The only renewable than can compare to nuclear in terms of polution and power production is hydro and even that is not certain for hydroelectric dams placed in subtropical or tropical areas, if you are to believe recent research.

    Where are your facts?


    Quote Comment
  97. 97
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matte said:

    Perry, I should clarify.
    References need to be peer-reviewed that is the only hard currency accepted here, anything else is just woo-woo.

    So far you have only supplied Woo-woo, sorry.

    But I agree with you about anything we humans do, it consumes resources and hurt the environment. We have to pick the energy production means that destroy the environment the least. The only renewable than can compare to nuclear in terms of polution and power production is hydro and even that is not certain for hydroelectric dams placed in subtropical or tropical areas, if you are to believe recent research.

    Where are your facts?

    Yes there are no studies and that is exactly why there is a problem, we are going ahead with nuclear and we do not have any good evidence that long term non-linear low radiation is safe, leaner is not in question because that’s the weaponry and it will go on regardless. The only so called study they have is Linear Low and high Radiation over several years. We have no idea what it will do to the generations to come, our great, great, great grandchildren may look back to us and say what kind of monsters were we. The other problem is the background radiation increases with each new accident and I am not convinced that we can reduce the rate of accidents, now on average of 1 in 15 years and more are getting older. I believe it comes down to, do we go ahead and take are chances or not. The other sources of power are bad also but if we stall maybe we will find a better form of power. It would be great if new technology in the future will allow us to tap the earth’s core at a reasonable cost and solve all problems. If it does not, then in brace nuclear and hope for the best. For me this is the way to go until we can get better info on nuclear radiations effects. This is what I got out of this site.


    Quote Comment
  98. 98
    DV82XL Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    Yes there are no studies and that is exactly why there is a problem,

    While I strongly doubt a moron like yourself could understand any of them, there are many many studies that have been done, and published in peer-reviewed journals as even a cursory search with Google would show you. True not all of then are positive, but nevertheless the sweeping statement that ‘there are no studies’ is categorically and specifically wrong, and again indicates that you are an idiot.

    That is if your utter incapacity to understand this site’s commenting syntax, or the basics of the web in general, weren’t indication enough.


    Quote Comment
  99. 99
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [40] You think taking a risk of crashing his government and admitting they have caused so much damage to so many people and had to appoalagise for the incurred losses that the people blame them for is offset by maybe selling more oil that they are gradually running out of. You really believe that. If that is believable than why in the world would we in trust anyone with safety of plants of any kind or weaponry , as anyone seems to be susceptible to extreme greed.

    The Soviet Union was an oppressive government not really afraid of just murdering people who caused them problems.

    Besides, Russia still has plenty of oil and methane left to sell.


    Quote Comment
  100. 100
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    The Soviet Union was an oppressive government not really afraid of just murdering people who caused them problems.

    Besides, Russia still has plenty of oil and methane left to sell.

    The USA has been at war for years with countries all over the world and have killed more fouren people then Russia. Russia has at least for the most part stayed in their on area that has about 10 threatening countries on its boarders or close by, USA has two countries on its boarders and they are friendly. USA with no enemies on its boarder has been in war after war. We have no idea what Russia has to defend, Russia’s cost for armament is many times the cost of USA, this is a great drain on the people and because of this their government has to operate deferent. If their government operated like USA the people would be starving to death because of the costs. They may look evil from time to time as countries around them increase their armament like USA’s aggression against Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Aphanistan, Iran, etc. and these are not even on their boarder. The point I’m trying to get across is maybe they’re not as evil as you think because we see the bad without the why as the media we see is from USA perspective. So I do not believe that they would treat their people that way as the people where OK with their government just prior to Chernobyl.


    Quote Comment
  101. 101
    Matthew Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    The USA has been at war for years with countries all over the world and have killed more fouren people then Russia. Russia has at least for the most part stayed in their on area that has about 10 threatening countries on its boarders or close by, USA has two countries on its boarders and they are friendly. USA with no enemies on its boarder has been in war after war. We have no idea what Russia has to defend, Russia’s cost for armament is many times the cost of USA, this is a great drain on the people and because of this their government has to operate deferent. If their government operated like USA the people would be starving to death because of the costs. They may look evil from time to time as countries around them increase their armament like USA’s aggression against Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Aphanistan, Iran, etc.

    and these are not even on their boarder. The point I’m trying to get across is maybe they’re not as evil as you think because we see the bad without the why as the media we see is from USA perspective. So I do not believe that they would treat their people that way as the people where OK with their government just prior to Chernobyl.

    Russia not attacking its neighbours? Did you really not pay attention throughout the twentieth century?

    Let’s see… much of Eastern Europe (including putting down revolts in its satellite states), Chechnya, and Afghanistan for starters.

    Restricting ourselves to the past 30 years:

    The USSR invasion of Afghanistan is generally put at somewhere near 1.3 million deaths, and its war in Chechnya at around 200,000. Plus killing something like 30 million of their own people in purges, planned famines, etc.

    The current US conflicts have a total casualty estimate (on all sides) somewhere in the high tens of thousands (certainly under 150,000, even if you count all deaths in the Iraqi civil war).

    You really *are* ignorant, aren’t you?


    Quote Comment
  102. 102
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matthew said:

    Russia not attacking its neighbours? Did you really not pay attention throughout the twentieth century?

    Let’s see… much of Eastern Europe (including putting down revolts in its satellite states), Chechnya, and Afghanistan for starters.

    Restricting ourselves to the past 30 years:

    The USSR invasion of Afghanistan is generally put at somewhere near 1.3 million deaths, and its war in Chechnya at around 200,000. Plus killing something like 30 million of their own people in purges, planned famines, etc.

    The current US conflicts have a total casualty estimate (on all sides) somewhere in the high tens of thousands (certainly under 150,000, even if you count all deaths in the Iraqi civil war).

    You really *are* ignorant, aren’t you?

    See this first site I picked up on my search : http://www.vietnampix.com/intro.htm
    2.5 million deaths, I would think more killed by USA bombing than any other fighting, that is what the USA does in every war, bomb the hell out of the area and then send in troops and if they have trouble they back out and bomb some more. They do not count the dead in their states very often because it does not look good because of the civilian deaths. I would listen to American news and the USA government bragged about the tens of thousands they killed each month, it was like a quota and challenge between army and air force to see who killed the most. I do not know where you live but out of the state’s news were portrayed differently as in USA they wanted the people to know that they were killing lot’s so they were winning, outside they portrayed themselves as a none aggressor. They carpet bombed thousands of square miles. I did not mean no aggression to neighbor I meant they were in that region of the world not like USA fighting in area’s half way around the world from them. I will leave it at that, will not search any more. When you have a powerful army fighting, both sides will have huge deaths and wounded. Because of bombing many many Vietnam soldiers where disabled and USA killed many civilians with the bombing. The deforestation with agent orange killed off thousands of square miles of crops, I would laugh when people wondered why USA bombed same sites time and time again, about every 4 to 5 months when time to harvest. This is done by every invading force and they burn all the houses it is a scorched earth program. P.S. Also Russia would lose the 60% uranium market it had at that time, it is more than extra oil they may sell, also Russia can reduce their price of oil to take the market size they want. So do not believe everything you read from any source, I usually look at both sides and end up at mittal ground because both sides portray it as they want the public to think. Dam politics.


    Quote Comment
  103. 103
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    The USA has been at war for years with countries all over the world and have killed more fouren people then Russia.

    Are you kidding? The Soviet Union killed an estimated hundred million just under Stalin without even needing to go to war (though they tended to kill a lot of people when they did go to war).

            Richard Perry said:

    Russia has at least for the most part stayed in their on area that has about 10 threatening countries on its boarders or close by, USA has two countries on its boarders and they are friendly.

    Never mind the cold war when both countries were fighting proxy wars.

            Richard Perry said:

    USA with no enemies on its boarder has been in war after war. We have no idea what Russia has to defend, Russia’s cost for armament is many times the cost of USA, this is a great drain on the people and because of this their government has to operate deferent.

    Actually the US has much higher military spending (almost as high as everyone else combined).

            Richard Perry said:

    If their government operated like USA the people would be starving to death because of the costs.

    Towards the end of the Soviet Union they were dependent on US foreign aid not to starve to death.

            Richard Perry said:

    They may look evil from time to time as countries around them increase their armament like USA’s aggression against Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Aphanistan, Iran, etc.

    Russia now isn’t as evil as the Soviet Union.

            Richard Perry said:

    So I do not believe that they would treat their people that way as the people where OK with their government just prior to Chernobyl.

    You sure you’re not doing satire?

    The only reason the people in the Soviet Union tolerated their government was because those who didn’t got shot or sent to Siberia (hard labour from which most did not survive).

            Richard Perry said:

    P.S. Also Russia would lose the 60% uranium market it had at that time, it is more than extra oil they may sell,

    I highly doubt Russia (or the then Soviet Union) had that much of the uranium market ever (it’s typically around 40% Canada and 20% Australia) and if you sell raw materials you make a lot more profit selling a million litres of oil than a kilogram of uranium (even though the uranium actually has more energy in it).


    Quote Comment
  104. 104
    George Carty Says:

            Anon said:

    Are you kidding? The Soviet Union killed an estimated hundred million just under Stalin without even needing to go to war (though they tended to kill a lot of people when they did go to war).

    What kind of right-wing propaganda did you get that number from? 100 million dead may be about right for the total body count of all the Communist regimes of the 20th century (including Maoist China, and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia), but for the Soviet Union alone it’s nuts.

            Anon said:

    The only reason the people in the Soviet Union tolerated their government was because those who didn’t got shot or sent to Siberia (hard labour from which most did not survive).

    Maybe true under Stalin, but not his successors. The Gulag system was scaled down and became a lot less deadly. And while dissidents were still liable to be beaten up by regime thugs, or to lose their jobs, or to be confined to insane asylums, they weren’t usually instantly silenced with bullets as they were back in Stalin’s day.


    Quote Comment
  105. 105
    Matthew Says:

            George Carty said:

    Maybe true under Stalin, but not his successors. The Gulag system was scaled down and became a lot less deadly. And while dissidents were still liable to be beaten up by regime thugs, or to lose their jobs, or to be confined to insane asylums, they weren’t usually instantly silenced with bullets as they were back in Stalin’s day.

    Fair enough (though Berya was pretty bad, if I recall correctly, and none of the successors hesitated for a second to send troops to put down revolts and such in satellite states, with the Hungarians in 1956 being one of the better known examples) – but the fact is that the USSR and Russian Federation have consistently waged aggressive warfare (and whatever you want to call it, sending troops across the border to kill people and break things constitutes warfare IMHO) against its neighbours. That’s the original point – Rich Perry’s claim that Russia is a peaceful nation that doesn’t attack its neighbours is, bluntly, false.


    Quote Comment
  106. 106
    George Carty Says:

            Matthew said:

    though Beria was pretty bad

    He would have been as bad as Stalin (if not worse) if he’d actually been able to consolidate power, but the other leading Communists to survive Stalin’s regime knew that, and realized that if they wanted to live, they’d have to whack Beria. Once they did, they decided to to run the country on a collective basis from then on. Something similar also happened in China with the downfall of the Gang of Four.


    Quote Comment
  107. 107
    drbuzz0 Says:

            George Carty said:

    He would have been as bad as Stalin (if not worse) if he’d actually been able to consolidate power, but the other leading Communists to survive Stalin’s regime knew that, and realized that if they wanted to live, they’d have to whack Beria. Once they did, they decided to to run the country on a collective basis from then on. Something similar also happened in China with the downfall of the Gang of Four.

    And this has… what to do with nuclear energy?


    Quote Comment
  108. 108
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    Are you kidding? The Soviet Union killed an estimated hundred million just under Stalin without even needing to go to war (though they tended to kill a lot of people when they did go to war).

    Never mind the cold war when both countries were fighting proxy wars.
    [50] I agree.
    Actually the US has much higher military spending (almost as high as everyone else combined).
    [50] But USA has only had homeland security cost recently. Russia has needed a large budget to do this the KGB, border guards and other expenses not included in pertecting thier land, as any country they like to be viewed as less military. You can imagine the homeland security with all these countries, USA and Canada do not protect their common boarder much and USA gets mad at Canada for not protecting its other boarders. Canada is fortunate we have next to no homeland security or army and it keeps are taxes low, so is a richer country for it.

    Towards the end of the Soviet Union they were dependent on US foreign aid not to starve to death.
    [50] Yes and had a spell of very poor croups because of the weather.
    Russia now isn’t as evil as the Soviet Union.

    You sure you’re not doing satire?

    The only reason the people in the Soviet Union tolerated their government was because those who didn’t got shot or sent to Siberia (hard labour from which most did not survive).

    I highly doubt Russia (or the then Soviet Union) had that much of the uranium market ever (it’s typically around 40% Canada and 20% Australia) and if you sell raw materials you make a lot more profit selling a million litres of oil than a kilogram of uranium (even though the uranium actually has more energy in it).

    [50] I am not sure but uranium may not have much copatition and they may get an exceptional profit margin. Canada seems to do very well on its royalties. I did see an article in the last couple of days that claimed that Russia(here I go it will always be Russia to me I am just to dam old, Ha) had 60% of the market before they greatly reduced their market share, the article did not explain why the reduction in production, maybe cost of mining or, maybe Chernobyl but I am not sure. I would think it maybe a wash between a maybe increase of oil requirements if nuclear fails verses what production is now, I am going by the high price of oil , if you see different let me know. I do not see how they may conclude that oil production would go up if nuclear power stopped production, it will go up no matter what, we have more and more cars and oil we know will run out so they will want to keep production down for future wealth. Has Russia stopped plans to build new nuclear plants.


    Quote Comment
  109. 109
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matthew said:

    Fair enough (though Berya was pretty bad, if I recall correctly, and none of the successors hesitated for a second to send troops to put down revolts and such in satellite states, with the Hungarians in 1956 being one of the better known examples) – but the fact is that the USSR and Russian Federation have consistently waged aggressive warfare (and whatever you want to call it, sending troops across the border to kill people and break things constitutes warfare IMHO) against its neighbours. That’s the original point – Rich Perry’s claim that Russia is a peaceful nation that doesn’t attack its neighbours is, bluntly, false.

    [60]I may have wrote this bad, I know Russia has been monstrous to countries in that area but what I thought I was conveying is Russia for the most part have stayed in their area of the world not like USA fighting half way around the world in a country that has no aggression to them. I was saying Russia and USA are very similar so why would we believe Russia’s actions any more then USA. The media in both areas conditions are images of what the government wants us to believe. We are way off topic here.


    Quote Comment
  110. 110
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matthew said:

    Russia not attacking its neighbours? Did you really not pay attention throughout the twentieth century?

    Let’s see… much of Eastern Europe (including putting down revolts in its satellite states), Chechnya, and Afghanistan for starters.

    Restricting ourselves to the past 30 years:

    The USSR invasion of Afghanistan is generally put at somewhere near 1.3 million deaths, and its war in Chechnya at around 200,000. Plus killing something like 30 million of their own people in purges, planned famines, etc.

    The current US conflicts have a total casualty estimate (on all sides) somewhere in the high tens of thousands (certainly under 150,000, even if you count all deaths in the Iraqi civil war).

    You really *are* ignorant, aren’t you?

    [60]I may have wrote this bad, I know Russia has been monstrous to countries in that area but what I thought I was conveying is Russia for the most part have stayed in their area of the world not like USA fighting half way around the world in a country that has no aggression to them. I was saying Russia and USA are very similar so why would we believe Russia’s actions any more then USA. The media in both areas conditions are images of what the government wants us to believe. We are way off topic here.


    Quote Comment
  111. 111
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matthew said:

    Russia not attacking its neighbours? Did you really not pay attention throughout the twentieth century?

    Let’s see… much of Eastern Europe (including putting down revolts in its satellite states), Chechnya, and Afghanistan for starters.

    Restricting ourselves to the past 30 years:

    The USSR invasion of Afghanistan is generally put at somewhere near 1.3 million deaths, and its war in Chechnya at around 200,000. Plus killing something like 30 million of their own people in purges, planned famines, etc.

    The current US conflicts have a total casualty estimate (on all sides) somewhere in the high tens of thousands (certainly under 150,000, even if you count all deaths in the Iraqi civil war).

    You really *are* ignorant, aren’t you?

    [60] See 102 comment.


    Quote Comment
  112. 112
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matthew said:

    Russia not attacking its neighbours? Did you really not pay attention throughout the twentieth century?

    Let’s see… much of Eastern Europe (including putting down revolts in its satellite states), Chechnya, and Afghanistan for starters.

    Restricting ourselves to the past 30 years:

    The USSR invasion of Afghanistan is generally put at somewhere near 1.3 million deaths, and its war in Chechnya at around 200,000. Plus killing something like 30 million of their own people in purges, planned famines, etc.

    The current US conflicts have a total casualty estimate (on all sides) somewhere in the high tens of thousands (certainly under 150,000, even if you count all deaths in the Iraqi civil war).

    You really *are* ignorant, aren’t you?

    ]60] See comment 102.


    Quote Comment
  113. 113
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matthew said:

    Russia not attacking its neighbours? Did you really not pay attention throughout the twentieth century?

    Let’s see… much of Eastern Europe (including putting down revolts in its satellite states), Chechnya, and Afghanistan for starters.

    Restricting ourselves to the past 30 years:

    The USSR invasion of Afghanistan is generally put at somewhere near 1.3 million deaths, and its war in Chechnya at around 200,000. Plus killing something like 30 million of their own people in purges, planned famines, etc.

    The current US conflicts have a total casualty estimate (on all sides) somewhere in the high tens of thousands (certainly under 150,000, even if you count all deaths in the Iraqi civil war).

    You really *are* ignorant, aren’t you?

    [60] See cmment 102 that is just one war, USA army has huge bombing, they seem to never count these deathes as not seen not confirmed deathes. Do I believe this number, no they exagerated thier kill’s but maybe the auther has allowed for that?


    Quote Comment
  114. 114
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matthew said:

    Russia not attacking its neighbours? Did you really not pay attention throughout the twentieth century?

    Let’s see… much of Eastern Europe (including putting down revolts in its satellite states), Chechnya, and Afghanistan for starters.

    Restricting ourselves to the past 30 years:

    The USSR invasion of Afghanistan is generally put at somewhere near 1.3 million deaths, and its war in Chechnya at around 200,000. Plus killing something like 30 million of their own people in purges, planned famines, etc.

    The current US conflicts have a total casualty estimate (on all sides) somewhere in the high tens of thousands (certainly under 150,000, even if you count all deaths in the Iraqi civil war).

    You really *are* ignorant, aren’t you?

    [60] See comment 102.


    Quote Comment
  115. 115
    Anon Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    And this has… what to do with nuclear energy?

    It’s called going off topic, something we just love doing around here. :-p

            Richard Perry said:

    [50] But USA has only had homeland security cost recently. Russia has needed a large budget to do this the KGB, border guards and other expenses not included in pertecting thier land, as any country they like to be viewed as less military.

    The Soviet Union only needed such a large KGB because they were an oppressive government (and the US homeland security is mostly a joke).

            Richard Perry said:

    You can imagine the homeland security with all these countries, USA and Canada do not protect their common boarder much and USA gets mad at Canada for not protecting its other boarders.

    What other borders does Canada have?

            Richard Perry said:

    Canada is fortunate we have next to no homeland security or army and it keeps are taxes low, so is a richer country for it.

    Of course Canada hasn’t appointed itself world policeman.

            Richard Perry said:

    [50] Yes and had a spell of very poor croups because of the weather.

    It wasn’t just the weather (western countries don’t starve due to bad weather).

            Richard Perry said:

    [50] I am not sure but uranium may not have much copatition and they may get an exceptional profit margin.

    There is quite enough competition that the profit margins really aren’t going to be exceptional (though they are pretty decent).

            Richard Perry said:

    Canada seems to do very well on its royalties. I did see an article in the last couple of days that claimed that Russia(here I go it will always be Russia to me I am just to dam old, Ha) had 60% of the market before they greatly reduced their market share,

    Possibly because about half of the uranium used in the US now comes from decommissioned Soviet warheads down-blended to low enrichment.

            Richard Perry said:

    the article did not explain why the reduction in production, maybe cost of mining or, maybe Chernobyl but I am not sure.

    Maybe because they don’t have an unlimited amount of old warheads using highly enriched uranium.

            Richard Perry said:

    I would think it maybe a wash between a maybe increase of oil requirements if nuclear fails verses what production is now, I am going by the high price of oil , if you see different let me know. I do not see how they may conclude that oil production would go up if nuclear power stopped production, it will go up no matter what, we have more and more cars and oil we know will run out so they will want to keep production down for future wealth.

    Oil production might not go up but oil prices would (especially if oil production stayed where it were.

    Right now almost no oil is burned to produce electricity (nuclear pretty much already replaced oil in electricity generation) although shutting down nuclear power plants is going to require fossil fuel power plants be built as they are the only thing which actually could replace nuclear (wind and solar are just pipe dreams). Most likely it’d be natural gas which actually gets used (along with some coal if the place trying to get away from nuclear has any) but natural gas tends to track the price of oil since they can be substituted for each other.

            Richard Perry said:

    Has Russia stopped plans to build new nuclear plants.

    Not that I know of.


    Quote Comment
  116. 116
    Richard Perry Says:

            DV82XL said:

    While I strongly doubt a moron like yourself could understand any of them, there are many many studies that have been done, and published in peer-reviewed journals as even a cursory search with Google would show you. True not all of then are positive, but nevertheless the sweeping statement that ‘there are no studies’ is categorically and specifically wrong, and again indicates that you are an idiot.

    That is if your utter incapacity to understand this site’s commenting syntax, or the basics of the web in general, weren’t indication enough.

    [60]I did not elaborate enough, there is no independent study not founded by the nuclear industry with proper control group, they are all after the fact studies with trying to evaluate what conditions where before the accident and after, then pick and chose what data stays in the end. The reasons why some info is thrown out that makes it bad for pro is ridicules. I will give two out of many, what is not in a study often tells the biases of the study. One study refused to gather the data in an area of concern by the population because, they said the country had no national record keeping! Why with the concern of the people did they not go to the doctors and ask to see their records as every doctor in this world keeps a proper file on every patient, otherwise how can he possibly treat them. If he does not have records he will be bared and yes bared as in stopped from practicing under his license to practice. Next, a poor area of a country where conserned about a high cancer rate and they started the study, so they continued with it and found there to be a higher than normal rate of cancer but threw that data out. Reason why, they claimed that this area is poor and health was not good because of being under nourished and that something else has caused the cancer. Now I see this differently which I am sure they thought about as I have very little experience with studies compared to these experts in this area. My thoughts are in the richer part of the area the children play indoors, why, was there not a computer game that came out in those days and it was not battery operated like today and had to plug it into the wall outlet. This and richer kids had VCR tapes rented or bought to keep them entertained, also if like in Canada the poor have no cable so the selection to watch on TV is poor for kids. Added to this is poor area live in small houses and apartments, the parents chase the kids out door. Added more is rich kids are driven around place to place in a steel framed car to protect them, also what about the surface they are on, paved areas the radiation is washed off by the rain and in some areas the streets are actually washed by road cleaning equipment(note: in Japan the government takes readings over paved areas but conserned groups read in the grass areas, again we see the manipulations as guess what will be the official record ) I lived in a richer area of my city and if I seen a kid under 16 years old it was unusual and I would take a good look because he may be a thief. This industry has had years to do a good controled study by an independent researcher for many years and because I have never seen one I am very concerned. Added to this is when there is an accident we get information that in many cases is a out and out lie, in many cases it is at great peril to the public, so how can I have trust in the safety of this industry when the studies that have been done are mostly exposure rates not the radiation in the environment where we eat and breath it, it is even in my sperm that may produce a child. So if anyone can show me a good study please forward it as I have tried several times with pro-government authorities and I get things like a study on monkeys or other animals and as a side bar it gave results, it maybe accurate but it was never meant to be the primary study and if duplicated may have turned out deferent and this is a picked study, how many did they throw away before choosing the one that shows it is safe. I do not see these as a reliable study because they can pick and choose the data they want or the studies, there is no control.


    Quote Comment
  117. 117
    Nick P. Says:

    Christ man, paragraphs are your friend.


    Quote Comment
  118. 118
    DV82XL Says:

            Anon said:

    It’s called going off topic, something we just love doing around here. :-p.

    It’s also called feeding trolls, something else we seem to do a lot around here.


    Quote Comment
  119. 119
    BMS Says:

            Nick P. said:

    Christ man, paragraphs are your friend.

    Indeed, as is a spellchecker and a minimal comprehension of English grammar.

            Richard Perry said:

    … it is even in my sperm that may produce a child.

    As if reading this exhibition of gross stupidity wasn’t depressing enough, he’s thinking of breeding. :-(


    Quote Comment
  120. 120
    Richard Perry Says:

            BMS said:

    Indeed, as is a spellchecker and a minimal comprehension of English grammar.

    As if reading this exhibition of gross stupidity wasn’t depressing enough, he’s thinking of breeding. :-(

    [70]Take a look at this, talk about safety. Also site about nuclear plant at Fort Calhoun, USA has a news black out by president. I do not know if this news ever reached use. But where is the safety and up keep of these plants. OH YA I forgot but plutonium is not as bad as one thinks.
    http://flyingcuttlefish.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/virginia-quake-updates/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AckqN57G2OU
    There are many sites about this plant.


    Quote Comment
  121. 121
    Richard Perry Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [60] See 102 comment.

    [60] I said I would leave the subject about deaths but I could not help it as it is to day’s news.
    100,000 civilians, how many soldiers maybe 30 times, wounded 100 times as USA tries hard not to kill the inaccent.
    Female Trafficking Soars in Iraq
    Rebecca Murray, News Analysis: “Prostitution and sex trafficking are epidemic in Iraq, where the violence of military occupation and sectarian strife have smashed national institutions, impoverished the population and torn apart families and neighbourhoods. Over 100,000 civilians have been killed and an estimated 4.4 million Iraqis displaced since 2003. “Wars and conflicts, wherever they are fought, invariably usher in sickeningly high level of violence against women and girls,” Amnesty International states. Sex costs about 100 dollars a session now. Many virgin teenage girls are sold for around 5,000 dollars, and trafficked to popular destinations like northern Iraq, Syria and the United Arab Emirates. Non-virgins are about half that price.”
    READ | DISCUSS | SHARE


    Quote Comment
  122. 122
    BMS Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [70] …

    Well, the grammar hasn’t become any better. I can only hope that the breeding hasn’t been any more successful. ;-)


    Quote Comment
  123. 123
    Matte Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [70]Take a look at this, talk about safety. Also site about nuclear plant at Fort Calhoun, USA has a news black out by president. I do not know if this news ever reached use. But where is the safety and up keep of these plants. OH YA I forgot but plutonium is not as bad as one thinks.
    http://flyingcuttlefish.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/virginia-quake-updates/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AckqN57G2OU
    There are many sites about this plant.

    Yes, but none of them report anything that has any resemblance with reality.

    I suggest you have a look at the NRC site, their information is accurate if a bit slow. (You now the NRC, their head honcho hates nuclear power, so why would they lie?)


    Quote Comment
  124. 124
    Richard Perry Says:

            BMS said:

    Indeed, as is a spellchecker and a minimal comprehension of English grammar.

    As if reading this exhibition of gross stupidity wasn’t depressing enough, he’s thinking of breeding. :-(

    [60] I said specifically that there where studies but that they are biased both pro and anti nuclear from almost zero to 2 million deaths, how can I believe in any of these studies when there is that great of a difference. It makes it look like studies of this kind are a joke and you can pick any number out of the air and claim the deaths. Sure does not look professional to me, what can I believe with this mess, do I just take an average and say it should be 1 million. That’s why I want to see a study close to this by an independent researcher, with 100 control animals with no radiation and 100 animals eating and breathing radiation in groups of ten animals with each of ten radiation types used, to see the effect over 40 years and the off spring shall be given the same dose rate. The test animals should have a life span of at least ten years and if there is, signs of a problem then go to longer living animals. The problem I see is what dose does one start with but I will leave that for the experts, by your standers high. I do not want a study where one can throw away data that does not favor the researcher’s expectations. Is this asking for too much with the risks involved? As of 2011/08/29, I have not received one test site and so I do not get a bunch of sites; send your best test site and I will go from there. (I turned on my grammar checker for you. In my work with life safety, short sentences were to the point and they were like a command, if it sounds like I am harsh and machine gunning, I do not mean to be, far from it.)


    Quote Comment
  125. 125
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [60] I said specifically that there where studies but that they are biased both pro and anti nuclear from almost zero to 2 million deaths, how can I believe in any of these studies when there is that great of a difference.

    Then you need to look at which studies are well conducted using proper statistics and trying their best to come as close to reality as possible and which ones just make things up.

            Richard Perry said:

    It makes it look like studies of this kind are a joke and you can pick any number out of the air and claim the deaths. Sure does not look professional to me, what can I believe with this mess, do I just take an average and say it should be 1 million.

    The argument to moderation is a logical fallacy so you can’t just take the average (though taking the average of the well conducted estimates has some merit, provided you also understand the error bars).

            Richard Perry said:

    That’s why I want to see a study close to this by an independent researcher, with 100 control animals with no radiation and 100 animals eating and breathing radiation in groups of ten animals with each of ten radiation types used, to see the effect over 40 years and the off spring shall be given the same dose rate.

    PETA won’t like it but we don’t like them very much around here.

    I should also note that most research on the effects of radiation is done by university researchers, many of who are not employed by the nuclear industry nor in any way financially dependent upon the nuclear industry (and with good job security due to tenure), you’ll find it was people like that who wrote the official report on the effects of Chernobyl.


    Quote Comment
  126. 126
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    It’s called going off topic, something we just love doing around here. :-p
    [60] But I like it, we get views from other part of the world, local is biased by are government.
    The Soviet Union only needed such a large KGB because they were an oppressive government (and the US homeland security is mostly a joke).
    [60] I agree and because of the aggressive countries around them, they will increase the size even more.
    What other borders does Canada have?
    [60] Canada calls the shoreline and sea 60 miles out to the Atlantic, Pacific and Northern seas as our borders and USA thinks we should secure them. It would break Canada with the labor requirements. They are afraid that terrorists can come through Canada and attack them. You are right Canada and USA have not much homeland security but it is larger than before 911. If they think we can secure the country by keep people out they are crazy. The border between Canada and USA is almost nonexistent.

    Of course Canada hasn’t appointed itself world policeman.
    [60] We have had that honor since Person came up with that idea to solve the problems in Cypress, it worked well it is about 30 years without conflict. We are asked to police countries in conflict that require a non-bias force to mediate. I believe we only do it if both sides ask for our help and have agreed to take orders from our men. They have had trouble in one country when one side changed their mind and attacked the other side and it was bad because government of Canada from afar gave orders to stop policing. Many of our men ended up in mental institute, as they were very young men and had to do terrible things. The reports we heard was that they were ordered not to interfere but unarmed men and women running for their lives from opposition with machetes came up to these young soldiers and would give them $10.00 to shot them so they would escape the swords, and that was the best that they could do. I believe now Canada writes into their contracts that they have the right to defend anyone in peril. In other conflicts in the same country the older soldiers disobeyed the government’s orders and helped those in peril; it is a hell of a way to learn about an unforeseen problem.

    It wasn’t just the weather (western countries don’t starve due to bad weather).
    [60] We had the dirty thirties in 1925-1935 many came close to starving. The price of goods dropped so bad that the governments caused a shortage of food so the demand would be greater then the supply. They shipped grain to Hudson Bay and dumped it in the sea, talk about stupidity. There are no records of people dying of starvation but many died from poor health before starving to death because of the dust in the air.
    There is quite enough competition that the profit margins really aren’t going to be exceptional (though they are pretty decent).

    Possibly because about half of the uranium used in the US now comes from decommissioned Soviet warheads down-blended to low enrichment.
    [60] I did not know that.
    Maybe because they don’t have an unlimited amount of old warheads using highly enriched uranium.

    Oil production might not go up but oil prices would (especially if oil production stayed where it were.

    Right now almost no oil is burned to produce electricity (nuclear pretty much already replaced oil in electricity generation) although shutting down nuclear power plants is going to require fossil fuel power plants be built as they are the only thing which actually could replace nuclear (wind and solar are just pipe dreams). Most likely it’d be natural gas which actually gets used (along with some coal if the place trying to get away from nuclear has any) but natural gas tends to track the price of oil since they can be substituted for each other.
    [60]In Canada, we use a lot of fuel oil for heating houses.
    Not that I know of.


    Quote Comment
  127. 127
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    Then you need to look at which studies are well conducted using proper statistics and trying their best to come as close to reality as possible and which ones just make things up.

    The argument to moderation is a logical fallacy so you can’t just take the average (though taking the average of the well conducted estimates has some merit, provided you also understand the error bars).

    PETA won’t like it but we don’t like them very much around here.
    [70] HaHa better than people and hope not dogs.
    I should also note that most research on the effects of radiation is done by university researchers, many of who are not employed by the nuclear industry nor in any way financially dependent upon the nuclear industry (and with good job security due to tenure), you’ll find it was people like that who wrote the official report on the effects of Chernobyl.

    [70] I cannot find studies like you are talking about. I have been looking since April, I wonder if the USA news blackout has anything to do with it, they are filtering key words relating to nuclear on the net since end of March. I sure would like a site to view. Man, if radiation is not too bad that would make my day because it would be the answer for sure because that is the only problem I have with it.


    Quote Comment
  128. 128
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [60]In Canada, we use a lot of fuel oil for heating houses.

    Ground source heat pumps would be a better technology (even if you used oil to produce the electricity you’d still get a significant saving just due to the vastly superior energy efficiency).

            Richard Perry said:

    [70] I cannot find studies like you are talking about. I have been looking since April, I wonder if the USA news blackout has anything to do with it, they are filtering key words relating to nuclear on the net since end of March. I sure would like a site to view. Man, if radiation is not too bad that would make my day because it would be the answer for sure because that is the only problem I have with it.

    http://www.hps.org/ is the profession association of people involved in radiation protection in the US, that’s generally considered to be a good starting point although you really need to be looking at the scientific literature if you want to go to the source.


    Quote Comment
  129. 129
    Richard Perry Says:

            BMS said:

    Indeed, as is a spellchecker and a minimal comprehension of English grammar.

    As if reading this exhibition of gross stupidity wasn’t depressing enough, he’s thinking of breeding. :-(

            Anon said:

    Ground source heat pumps would be a better technology (even if you used oil to produce the electricity you’d still get a significant saving just due to the vastly superior energy efficiency).

    [80]Info: A geothermal pipe system looks good and can greatly reduce home heating. My sister has gone that way. She claims her heating bill is now about $20.00 a month in coldest times -30 degrees C. The cost was not that bad, the hydro company paid Canadian $10,000.00 and should have cost them $20,000.00 but her husband did the labor and borrowed the machinery from his business. But they gained about 25 SQ FT of space in the basement so would be maybe $2,500.00 back, houses hear run at $200.00 to $250.00 a square foot so I have allowed $100.00 a SQ FT for gained basement area. Therefore, when done it cost them $0.00 dollars and gained 25 SQ FT otherwise would have cost $10,000.00 but gained 25 SQ FT = $7500.00 total cost. This system heats and cools the house and is very comfortable no noise. I do not know why cities do not place these piping systems under the road with the sewer pipes. This should reduce the cost greatly instead of piping the back yard. These systems should last for many years so can be part of the mortgage or city taxes and with energy jumping every year it should end up being much cheaper than any other energy as it is all most free after install. I believe you require about 500 to 1000 feet of pipe horizontally or vertical in the ground. In Canada, the heavy use of electrical is heating and cooling it would sure help our problems.


    Quote Comment
  130. 130
    MD Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [15] How easy is it for a small group to take over a power plant, shooting everyone on site. Is there any armed resistance to hold them back and prevent them from bombing their way in. In the states they have radical groups that would love to.

    I was reading back through the comments and couldn’t let this slip.

    … I worked at a nuclear plant, and I can’t say a whole lot about this matter, but lets just say that 20 lbs of ammunition at a minimum with highly trained soldiers with fully automatic weapons(mostly ex-military or military personnel on temporary leave) are the people guarding the plants in the US. If there were ever an attack on americans, or if there was a war on american soil, the first thing I would do is quit school and go back to work at the nuclear power plant. Why? Because I can guarantee you that no “radical group” or “terrorist” is going to crack into a nuclear plant with force. I wish I could give more information on the actual defenses of a nuclear plant but I do want people to know that even flying a fully fueled 777 plane into a nuclear power plant would hardly damage the superstructure.

    /end rant


    Quote Comment
  131. 131
    MD Says:

    Messed up the quoting option above, so forgive me but could someone give me a quick “hey do this” to get good quotes?


    Quote Comment
  132. 132
    George Carty Says:

            Anon said:

    Ground source heat pumps would be a better technology (even if you used oil to produce the electricity you’d still get a significant saving just due to the vastly superior energy efficiency.

    I don’t see how.

    If you use oil to generate electricity you have to pay Carnot his due, and you do not get all of this waste back by using heat pumps. Burning fuel directly to produce heat means you don’t have to pay Carnot at all.


    Quote Comment
  133. 133
    Anon Says:

    With 30% efficiency for an oil burning power plant (actually on the low side) and a coefficient of performance of about 7 (common for ground source heat pumps) you’ll end up with effective efficiency greater than 100% (and burning the oil directly won’t give you all the heat as some will have to escape up the flue, at least if you want to be able to breath).


    Quote Comment
  134. 134
    BMS Says:

    Physically, the savings come from the source of energy used to heat the building. For a heat pump, most of the energy that goes into heating comes from the local environment, in this case the ground. The electricity going into the heat pump is used only to move this energy from the ground into the building (minus efficiency losses), which depending on the temperatures involved, can be much less than the amount of heat being pumped.

    Compare this to the situation of a heater or furnace, where all of the energy used to heat the building must come in as electricity or fuel.

    Ground source heat pumps have the performance advantage of using a thermal reservoir with a very steady temperature.


    Quote Comment
  135. 135
    Richard Perry Says:

    … I worked at a nuclear plant, and I can’t say a whole lot about this matter, but lets just say that 20 lbs of ammunition at a minimum with highly trained soldiers with fully automatic weapons(mostly ex-military or military personnel on temporary leave) are the people guarding the plants in the US. If there were ever an attack on americans, or if there was a war on american soil, the first thing I would do is quit school and go back to work at the nuclear power plant. Why? Because I can guarantee you that no “radical group” or “terrorist” is going to crack into a nuclear plant with force. I wish I could give more information on the actual defenses of a nuclear plant but I do want people to know that even flying a fully fueled 777 plane into a nuclear power plant would hardly damage the superstructure.

    /end rant

    [90] To MD, I see you have some on hand Experian; I can believe your statement and glad to hear that the plants are strong. The other area is the spent fuel pools, at Fort Calhoun they have more fuel than Japan and it looked like the pools where out in the open with the river running through it, and it was strange that the operators said no radiation escaped, hard to believe. I would like more info, thanks.


    Quote Comment
  136. 136
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [15] How easy is it for a small group to take over a power plant, shooting everyone on site. Is there any armed resistance to hold them back and prevent them from bombing their way in. In the states they have radical groups that would love to.

    Would be one of the hardest possible targets to mount such an attach on.

    And what on earth would it get them? If they somehow managed to take over the whole plant then what? Turn off all the cooling systems and wait a few hours for the water to boil off so there would be a meltdown? Assuming that they could do this before the plant was stormed and re-taken, then what? It wouldn’t kill anyone. It would cause some expensive damage. What exactly would be the point?

    Now you want something scary, imagine a radical group hijacked a train carrying hundreds of tons of chlorine and started breaching the tanks in a populated area. That could kill thousands easily. Or what if they stormed a water treatment plant or paper mill, also with tons of chlorine on hand.

    What about a natural gas terminal? Or an oil refinery? Or a chemical plant?

    Do you have any idea how many industrial substances there are that could be released in huge amounts and kill tens of thousands? Hydroflouric acid, hydrazine, Methyl isocyanate and others. The later of which once killed several thousand in India when it was accidentally released.

    If you’re so worried about a nuclear plant being taken over, your fear is misplaced

            Richard Perry said:

    [90] To MD, I see you have some on hand Experian; I can believe your statement and glad to hear that the plants are strong. The other area is the spent fuel pools, at Fort Calhoun they have more fuel than Japan and it looked like the pools where out in the open with the river running through it, and it was strange that the operators said no radiation escaped, hard to believe. I would like more info, thanks.

    .
    Very good proof that you have no idea what you are talking about. First, the rivers did not run through the spent fuel pools. Secondly, if they did, they would not release anything. The fuel is a high density ceramic which is surrounded by an inert gas and packed inside zirconium alloy tubes. The only time anything can escape is if the cladding and fuel structure is compromised.

            Richard Perry said:

    [70] I cannot find studies like you are talking about. I have been looking since April, I wonder if the USA news blackout has anything to do with it, they are filtering key words relating to nuclear on the net since end of March. I sure would like a site to view. Man, if radiation is not too bad that would make my day because it would be the answer for sure because that is the only problem I have with it.

    There have been literally hundreds if not thousands of animal studies conducted relating to ionizing radiation going back to the 1920′s and earlier. Huge numbers were done in the 1950′s. Many were done by the US government. Others were done by governments around the world (UK, Canada, Australia, Japan etc, and many many by the Soviet Union) and still others were done by private universities and private bodies.

    Your best bet for finding the raw data is to use a scholarly journal search. This usually is a premium service. Most university libraries have them. You can check to find a university in your area with a library open to the general public. Many have that. Otherwise you can try to find a journal search that gives free abstracts, but you’ll have to pay a few bucks for the full article.

    There is no media blackout. I’ve seen plenty of absurdly negative press over Fukushima in the US media and on the web. I’ve never had any trouble accessing websites on it hosted in the US and outside the US and nothing I’ve ever published has ever been blocked in this country or elsewhere for such reasons. I’ve seen plenty of reports of everything from deformed rabbits to how millions will die of cancer.

    Not that you even really could block that from most US ISP’s. The system has too many backbones and nodes with overseas jumps to do so without a very large operation at all the major gigapops and routing areas, which could never be done covertly.


    Quote Comment
  137. 137
    Richard Perry Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Would be one of the hardest possible targets to mount such an attach on.

    And what on earth would it get them?

    If they somehow managed to take over the whole plant then what?

    Turn off all the cooling systems and wait a few hours for the water to boil off so there would be a meltdown?

    Assuming that they could do this before the plant was stormed and re-taken, then what?

    It wouldn’t kill anyone.

    It would cause some expensive damage.

    What exactly would be the point?

    Now you want something scary, imagine a radical group hijacked a train carrying hundreds of tons of chlorine and started breaching the tanks in a populated area.

    That could kill thousands easily. Or what if they stormed a water treatment plant or paper mill, also with tons of chlorine on hand.

    What about a natural gas terminal?

    Or an oil refinery? Or a chemical plant?

    Do you have any idea how many industrial substances there are that could be released in huge amounts and kill tens of thousands?

    Hydroflouric acid, hydrazine, Methyl isocyanate and others. The later of which once killed several thousand in India when it was accidentally released.
    [100] Yes India was bad but from my view it stayed there not like radiation that goes everywhere in the world and increases the back ground radiation that lasts for a very long time and most of the accidents you refer to had much of it retrieved, neutralized or cleaned up but not all. I also wonder if the radiation from nuclear accidents is changing the mix percent of back ground radiation that has been here for thousands of years. Correct me if I am wrong here but many countries claim that 1milSV per year is a safe dose for the public based on the mix of back ground and bomb radiation today but if the mix changes especially around the accident area can there not be dangerous levels of one type with little of others in which the higher rate may be of a type that attacks say the bones making it dangerous. From what I have seen and heard is that many hand held meters do not read some types of radiation and have a + or -40% accurasee depending on the meter and type\mix of radiation. This maybe the reasons that some groups in Japan are saying lower doses are dangerous because they have been told that in other areas with lower readings are having a high rate of one type of radiation that unless you have better meters to get accurate information. The public are asking for the Japan government or TEPCO to confirm that all types of radiation are at a safe level. The reason I am asking is that pronuclear are claiming that Japan public are over reacting so I would like your opinion on this as I do not know who to believe. Again I sure would like to know what’s up on this issue. Thanks
    If you’re so worried about a nuclear plant being taken over, your fear is misplaced

    .
    Very good proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    First, the rivers did not run through the spent fuel pools.

    Secondly, if they did, they would not release anything.

    The fuel is a high density ceramic which is surrounded by an inert gas and packed inside zirconium alloy tubes.
    [100] I jumped ahead and passed over some questions to get answer quicker because the fire caused outage of the generator and some not so reliable reports where suggesting that the fuel pool was rising in temperature and I was wondering if it happened and if so did it cause damage enough to leak radiation, so by your answer I would assume that this info was wrong, is that right. Information I have seen said there was bomb waste and I did not know that it was in high density ceramic form. I am surprised though because of an article I read years back claimed that several large companies had tried to incase bomb waste and spent billions including I believe Corning using ceramic/glass and they all failed, maybe they finally succeeded, is it or was it even in the pool as I have no knowledge about storing bomb materials. Why I am asking is that the fuel storage at Japan site seemed to be a big problem due to the events that happened and the only difference that I am aware of is the earthquake before flooding and the water receded in a short period of time compared to Fort plant. I am lacking any more info about the Fort plant that would make the results different than Japan plant other then the Fort plant happened to be shut down which seems to be just luck. I am hoping you have knowledge on these concerns, thanks
    The only time anything can escape is if the cladding and fuel structure is compromised.

    There have been literally hundreds if not thousands of animal studies conducted relating to ionizing radiation going back to the 1920′s and earlier.

    Huge numbers were done in the 1950′s.

    Many were done by the US government. Others were done by governments around the world (UK, Canada, Australia, Japan etc, and many many by the Soviet Union) and still others were done by private universities and private bodies.

    Your best bet for finding the raw data is to use a scholarly journal search.

    This usually is a premium service. Most university libraries have them.

    You can check to find a university in your area with a library open to the general public. Many have that. Otherwise you can try to find a journal search that gives free abstracts, but you’ll have to pay a few bucks for the full article.

    There is no media blackout.

    I’ve seen plenty of absurdly negative press over Fukushima in the US media and on the web.

    I’ve never had any trouble accessing websites on it hosted in the US and outside the US and nothing I’ve ever published has ever been blocked in this country or elsewhere for such reasons. I’ve seen plenty of reports of everything from deformed rabbits to how millions will die of cancer.

    Not that you even really could block that from most US ISP’s.

    The system has too many backbones and nodes with overseas jumps to do so without a very large operation at all the major gigapops and routing areas, which could never be done covertly.


    Quote Comment
  138. 138
    BMS Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    I also wonder if the radiation from nuclear accidents is changing the mix percent of back ground radiation that has been here for thousands of years.

    Thousands of years? Not only is this person incompetent when it comes to using the quotation system here, but he also appears to be a Young Earth Creationist.

    You do realize that the Earth is over four billion years old, don’t you? During the time when animals were slowly evolving into man, the background radiation on the planet was higher than it is today.

    Seriously, Richard, please enroll in some science classes. Perhaps there is a community college near where you live? Short of that, you could perhaps check out some science books from the local library. Helpful hint: don’t waste your time reading anything that mentions “Greenpeace” in the acknowledgments. You should want to learn science, not propaganda.

    Oh, and English writing lessons wouldn’t hurt either.


    Quote Comment
  139. 139
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [100] Yes India was bad but from my view it stayed there not like radiation that goes everywhere in the world and increases the back ground radiation that lasts for a very long time and most of the accidents you refer to had much of it retrieved, neutralized or cleaned up but not all.

    The methyl-isocynate released by the Bhopal disaster didn’t just stay there, instead it got out and kill thousands (had it just stayed there it would have been localised to the chemical plant and not killed any members of the public).

    It should also be noted that one way of disposing of dangerous substances is to dilute it to harmlessness.

            Richard Perry said:

    I also wonder if the radiation from nuclear accidents is changing the mix percent of back ground radiation that has been here for thousands of years.

    Not significantly in most places (much of the artificial background radiation is from atmospheric testing which is now illegal).

    Correct me if I am wrong here but many countries claim that 1milSV per year is a safe dose for the public based on the mix of back ground and bomb radiation today but if the mix changes especially around the accident area can there not be dangerous levels of one type with little of others in which the higher rate may be of a type that attacks say the bones making it dangerous.

    In all likelihood 100 mSv/a is perfectly safe.

            Richard Perry said:

    From what I have seen and heard is that many hand held meters do not read some types of radiation and have a + or -40% accurasee depending on the meter and type\mix of radiation.

    It depends on what technology the meter is using and whether it has been calibrated. Still, you shouldn’t be cutting things close enough for that kind of inaccuracy to be a problem.

            Richard Perry said:

    Why I am asking is that the fuel storage at Japan site seemed to be a big problem due to the events that happened and the only difference that I am aware of is the earthquake before flooding and the water receded in a short period of time compared to Fort plant.

    The spent fuel pool above unit 4 was a worry but it looks like that was pretty much a non-event (fuel never uncovered, still water in the pool).


    Quote Comment
  140. 140
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    The methyl-isocynate released by the Bhopal disaster didn’t just stay there, instead it got out and kill thousands (had it just stayed there it would have been localised to the chemical plant and not killed any members of the public).

    It should also be noted that one way of disposing of dangerous substances is to dilute it to harmlessness.

    Not significantly in most places (much of the artificial background radiation is from atmospheric testing which is now illegal).

    It depends on what technology the meter is using and whether it has been calibrated. Still, you shouldn’t be cutting things close enough for that kind of inaccuracy to be a problem.

    The spent fuel pool above unit 4 was a worry but it looks like that was pretty much a non-event (fuel never uncovered, still water in the pool).

    [100] MD thanks for the info.


    Quote Comment
  141. 141
    BMS Says:

            Anon said:

    In all likelihood 100 mSv/a is perfectly safe.

    Yes, I agree, and radiation experts also agree.

    The National Academy of Sciences has said that “at doses less than 40 times the average yearly background exposure (100 mSv), statistical limitations make it difficult to evaluate cancer risk in humans.” Nevertheless, they go on then to assume that the “risk would continue in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans” (BEIR VII, pg. 7). This is unfortunate, since they have no solid, convincing evidence for this assumption, and they themselves admit this.

    The position of the Health Physics Society is that quantitative risk assessments for dose levels below 50 mSv/year are essentially meaningless. They further recommend that any discussion of risk below this level emphasize that, “based on the uncertainties in estimating risk (NCRP 1997),” we are unable to detect any increased health detriment. Or in other words (their words), “zero health effects is a probable outcome.”

    This is what the experts in radiation protection and the effects of exposure to ionizing radiation say today.


    Quote Comment
  142. 142
    Richard Perry Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [100] MD thanks for the info.

    [100] Looks like I still have funny things happeming the name was MD on my posting but after posting chabged to Anon, go figure. Sorry about that Anon.


    Quote Comment
  143. 143
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    The methyl-isocynate released by the Bhopal disaster didn’t just stay there, instead it got out and kill thousands (had it just stayed there it would have been localised to the chemical plant and not killed any members of the public).

    It should also be noted that one way of disposing of dangerous substances is to dilute it to harmlessness.

    Not significantly in most places (much of the artificial background radiation is from atmospheric testing which is now illegal).

    It depends on what technology the meter is using and whether it has been calibrated. Still, you shouldn’t be cutting things close enough for that kind of inaccuracy to be a problem.

    The spent fuel pool above unit 4 was a worry but it looks like that was pretty much a non-event (fuel never uncovered, still water in the pool).

            Anon said:

    The methyl-isocynate released by the Bhopal disaster didn’t just stay there, instead it got out and kill thousands (had it just stayed there it would have been localised to the chemical plant and not killed any members of the public).

    It should also be noted that one way of disposing of dangerous substances is to dilute it to harmlessness.

    Not significantly in most places (much of the artificial background radiation is from atmospheric testing which is now illegal).

    It depends on what technology the meter is using and whether it has been calibrated. Still, you shouldn’t be cutting things close enough for that kind of inaccuracy to be a problem.

    The spent fuel pool above unit 4 was a worry but it looks like that was pretty much a non-event (fuel never uncovered, still water in the pool).

    [100] Anon, then is 100milSv/year of gamma radiation safe.


    Quote Comment
  144. 144
    Richard Perry Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Would be one of the hardest possible targets to mount such an attach on.

    And what on earth would it get them?

    If they somehow managed to take over the whole plant then what?

    Turn off all the cooling systems and wait a few hours for the water to boil off so there would be a meltdown?

    Assuming that they could do this before the plant was stormed and re-taken, then what?

    It wouldn’t kill anyone.

    It would cause some expensive damage.

    What exactly would be the point?

    Now you want something scary, imagine a radical group hijacked a train carrying hundreds of tons of chlorine and started breaching the tanks in a populated area.

    That could kill thousands easily. Or what if they stormed a water treatment plant or paper mill, also with tons of chlorine on hand.

    What about a natural gas terminal?

    Or an oil refinery? Or a chemical plant?

    Do you have any idea how many industrial substances there are that could be released in huge amounts and kill tens of thousands?

    Hydroflouric acid, hydrazine, Methyl isocyanate and others. The later of which once killed several thousand in India when it was accidentally released.

    If you’re so worried about a nuclear plant being taken over, your fear is misplaced

    .
    Very good proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    First, the rivers did not run through the spent fuel pools.

    Secondly, if they did, they would not release anything.

    The fuel is a high density ceramic which is surrounded by an inert gas and packed inside zirconium alloy tubes.

    The only time anything can escape is if the cladding and fuel structure is compromised.

    There have been literally hundreds if not thousands of animal studies conducted relating to ionizing radiation going back to the 1920′s and earlier.

    Huge numbers were done in the 1950′s.

    Many were done by the US government. Others were done by governments around the world (UK, Canada, Australia, Japan etc, and many many by the Soviet Union) and still others were done by private universities and private bodies.

    Your best bet for finding the raw data is to use a scholarly journal search.

    This usually is a premium service. Most university libraries have them.

    You can check to find a university in your area with a library open to the general public. Many have that. Otherwise you can try to find a journal search that gives free abstracts, but you’ll have to pay a few bucks for the full article.

    There is no media blackout.

    I’ve seen plenty of absurdly negative press over Fukushima in the US media and on the web.

    I’ve never had any trouble accessing websites on it hosted in the US and outside the US and nothing I’ve ever published has ever been blocked in this country or elsewhere for such reasons. I’ve seen plenty of reports of everything from deformed rabbits to how millions will die of cancer.

    Not that you even really could block that from most US ISP’s.

    The system has too many backbones and nodes with overseas jumps to do so without a very large operation at all the major gigapops and routing areas, which could never be done covertly.

    [100] Are they exposure or are they intake of radiation by breathing and or eating radiated food.


    Quote Comment
  145. 145
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [100] Anon, then is 100milSv/year of gamma radiation safe.

    The Sievert measurement has already been corrected for relative biological effect so all types of radiation at that level would be safe (just that you’d need more energy to get to that if it’s gammas compared to alphas).


    Quote Comment
  146. 146
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    The Sievert measurement has already been corrected for relative biological effect so all types of radiation at that level would be safe (just that you’d need more energy to get to that if it’s gammas compared to alphas).

    [100] I am not sure what you mean, the meters on the national sites read counts per second and I though the hand held did and when you switch to milSv range it just converted the cps to milSv. How does it allow for different types of radiation?


    Quote Comment
  147. 147
    Richard Perry Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [100] I am not sure what you mean, the meters on the national sites read counts per second and I though the hand held did and when you switch to milSv range it just converted the cps to milSv. How does it allow for different types of radiation?

    [100] I believe I errored should be counts per minute.


    Quote Comment
  148. 148
    Richard Perry Says:

            BMS said:

    Yes, I agree, and radiation experts also agree.

    The National Academy of Sciences has said that “at doses less than 40 times the average yearly background exposure (100 mSv), statistical limitations make it difficult to evaluate cancer risk in humans.” Nevertheless, they go on then to assume that the “risk would continue in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans” (BEIR VII, pg. 7). This is unfortunate, since they have no solid, convincing evidence for this assumption, and they themselves admit this.

    The position of the Health Physics Society is that quantitative risk assessments for dose levels below 50 mSv/year are essentially meaningless. They further recommend that any discussion of risk below this level emphasize that, “based on the uncertainties in estimating risk (NCRP 1997),” we are unable to detect any increased health detriment. Or in other words (their words), “zero health effects is a probable outcome.”

    This is what the experts in radiation protection and the effects of exposure to ionizing radiation say today.

    [100] I have no problem with exposure but what about studies of intake by breath or and eating radiation.


    Quote Comment
  149. 149
    Matte Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [100] I have no problem with exposure but what about studies of intake by breath or and eating radiation.

    There are models based on experiments that take ingested or inhaled amounts of radionuclides into account. The “hot particle” nonsense is well understood by radiation protection experts and is just a new buzzword for anti-nuclear ludites…


    Quote Comment
  150. 150
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matte said:

    There are models based on experiments that take ingested or inhaled amounts of radionuclides into account. The “hot particle” nonsense is well understood by radiation protection experts and is just a new buzzword for anti-nuclear ludites…

    [110] For the person with the problem with my posting, I use a numbering system so when someone comments on a previous posting I can do a search for all postings on that session and we can see under what context the posting was about also new viewers can do a search to see more info pertaining to the posted subject, I can use date but many times I go past midnight. Now is this a problem, does it confuse you in any way if so please let me know and I may be able to change to something you like, please send me how you would like the postings.
    [110] You say they allow for breathing and or eating in the study so I assume there are no studies about actual breathing and or eating radiation as I had stated earlier.
    If thats the case I am not interested in rubbish.


    Quote Comment
  151. 151
    BMS Says:

            Matte said:

    There are models based on experiments that take ingested or inhaled amounts of radionuclides into account. …

            Richard Perry said:

    [110] You say they allow for breathing and or eating in the study so I assume there are no studies about actual breathing and or eating radiation as I had stated earlier.

    If I were you, I’d focus a lot less on your posting techniques and a lot more on actually reading the comments.

    How can you have an experiment that accounts for the amount of radionuclides that has been ingested or inhaled without ingestion or inhalation of radioactive material?


    Quote Comment
  152. 152
    Richard Perry Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [110] I thought about billions but creationists would abject so choose thousands to include current time and viewer can add as many zeros on to thousands that they wish so it covers all ages, I also thought of saying eons of time but then could again be viewed that it does not count for current. I used thousands meaning many years. There are several views as to how radiation was created in and on this planet from the small particles and gas in the early years to the forming of rocks, metals, molten center and cooling that have had their effects. My opinion is that the age from the beginning to now is much older than people think as Carbon dating is one that I believe is very inaccurate for dating over 10,000 years because of changes do to the apparent great floods etc., I have no proof just that there is materials that are dated that do not make since in the flow of history.


    Quote Comment
  153. 153
    Richard Perry Says:

            BMS said:

    If I were you, I’d focus a lot less on your posting techniques and a lot more on actually reading the comments.

    How can you have an experiment that accounts for the amount of radionuclides that has been ingested or inhaled without ingestion or inhalation of radioactive material?

    [110] Why I am probing more is because I have been given so many studies and have reviewed them and none of the studies have breathing and or eating radiation, I am tired of the time I have put into this so I wanted assurance that there are sum, I looked at about half a dozen of your suggested sites and all have been exposure only, when you said allowed I thought you might mean is that they extrapolated the findings to come up with what they would expect if breathed or eaten radiation. Thanks for clearing that up for me I will continue viewing the studies


    Quote Comment
  154. 154
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [110] I thought about billions but creationists would abject so choose thousands to include current time and viewer can add as many zeros on to thousands that they wish so it covers all ages, I also thought of saying eons of time but then could again be viewed that it does not count for current.

    Don’t concern yourself with what creationists would think around here (I suspect more than half the regulars are atheists anyway).

            Richard Perry said:

    I used thousands meaning many years. There are several views as to how radiation was created in and on this planet from the small particles and gas in the early years to the forming of rocks, metals, molten center and cooling that have had their effects.

    Maybe you should read up a bit on the basics of radioactivity.

            Richard Perry said:

    My opinion is that the age from the beginning to now is much older than people think as Carbon dating is one that I believe is very inaccurate for dating over 10,000 years because of changes do to the apparent great floods etc.

    Actually the reason carbon dating doesn’t work past about 50,000 years or so is because ¹⁴C has a short half life along with being relatively rare.

            Richard Perry said:

    [110] Why I am probing more is because I have been given so many studies and have reviewed them and none of the studies have breathing and or eating radiation, I am tired of the time I have put into this so I wanted assurance that there are sum, I looked at about half a dozen of your suggested sites and all have been exposure only, when you said allowed I thought you might mean is that they extrapolated the findings to come up with what they would expect if breathed or eaten radiation. Thanks for clearing that up for me I will continue viewing the studies

    Doing human studies like that is likely to run into problems with the ethics committee though animals studies have been conducted.


    Quote Comment
  155. 155
    BMS Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [110] Why I am probing more is because I have been given so many studies and have reviewed them and none of the studies have breathing and or eating radiation …

    First of all, one cannot breathe or eat “radiation.” All radiation is either some sort of subatomic particle or a photon, not something that is either edible or breathable. You can eat or breathe radionuclides or radioactive materials — that is, something that produces radiation. Please do us all a favor and use accurate terminology if you want a serious discussion of scientific studies.

    Next, if you want a review of the recent epidemiological scientific literature involving internal exposure through inhalation or ingestion, then you might want to read Chapter 9 of BEIR VII. It’s available online from the National Academy of Sciences to read for free.


    Quote Comment
  156. 156
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    Don’t concern yourself with what creationists would think around here (I suspect more than half the regulars are atheists anyway).
    [120] Oh Ya. Ha Ha
    Maybe you should read up a bit on the basics of radioactivity.
    [120] Yes I am getting more and more, hope you can help.
    Actually the reason carbon dating doesn’t work past about 50,000 years or so is because ¹⁴C has a short half life along with being relatively rare.
    [120] Thanks for the info on carbon dating I thought it was my imagination now I have some good evidence to go with.
    Doing human studies like that is likely to run into problems with the ethics committee though animals studies have been conducted.

    [120] Ha, Ha: Yes but they should have done this 60 years ago; it would not have been an issue then. They can do it in other countries as the chemical companies are now.


    Quote Comment
  157. 157
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [120] Ha, Ha: Yes but they should have done this 60 years ago; it would not have been an issue then.

    They actually did do quite a bit of that (using rather high doses too).

    Not that it was just radiation where they did that kind of crap.


    Quote Comment
  158. 158
    Richard Perry Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [120] See this site http://www.news.google.com/newspapers?id=OpsJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nkkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5123,1102573&dq=embrittlement+nuclear&hl=en
    Was any of the material over 50 years old as I wrote before I had seen an article about this before and found this one? I only saw dry cast above ground at Fort, is the fuel pool water proof because I see almost everything under water.


    Quote Comment
  159. 159
    Richard Perry Says:

            Anon said:

    The Sievert measurement has already been corrected for relative biological effect so all types of radiation at that level would be safe (just that you’d need more energy to get to that if it’s gammas compared to alphas).

    [120]Many hand held meters do not read Alpha particles, I believe the plastic housing prevents Alpha particles from entering the meter, so zero times any conversion would be zero.


    Quote Comment
  160. 160
    Anon Says:

    Looks like a whole lot of nonsense to me especially since neurons are pretty much only going to be emitted inside the reactor (there are delayed neutrons from some fission products but those are emitted relatively quickly), not in the waste dump, the fuel would be sent to one when it can’t sustain a chain reaction, not to mention the lack of a moderator and there are so many other barriers in place which won’t ever be exposed to a serious neutron flux that it just isn’t a legitimate concern (even if a chain reaction starting up in a waste dump were a concern just putting a bit of boron in the containers should be enough to prevent it).

            Richard Perry said:

    Was any of the material over 50 years old as I wrote before I had seen an article about this before and found this one? I only saw dry cast above ground at Fort, is the fuel pool water proof because I see almost everything under water.

    The swimming pools are pretty hard to drain.

            Richard Perry said:

    [120]Many hand held meters do not read Alpha particles, I believe the plastic housing prevents Alpha particles from entering the meter, so zero times any conversion would be zero.

    True, though alpha emitters are really only dangerous when they’re inside you (the dangerous fission products are pretty much all beta and gamma emitters anyway).


    Quote Comment
  161. 161
    DV82XL Says:

    High energy neutron bombardment does degrade the structural integrity of many materials it is true, and it is also true that this, along with neutron induced swelling, is a limiting factor in fuel rod life in a reactor. However, like most metal embrittlement, this only becomes a concern when the item in question is under load. Used fuel, in a dry cask is not under any mechanical strain, (such as on the walls of a pressure vessel) and at any rate the cask, not the fuel support, is responsible for maintaining integrity in long term storage.

    This is another example of a half-truth being spun to insinuate something that is just not so.


    Quote Comment
  162. 162
    BMS Says:

    Dry storage casks are overdesigned to the point of being almost obscene. Even the professional anti-nuke liars admit that they don’t have anything to hang their hats on there.


    Quote Comment
  163. 163
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    [120]Many hand held meters do not read Alpha particles, I believe the plastic housing prevents Alpha particles from entering the meter, so zero times any conversion would be zero.

    It depends on the instrument. It’s true that many geiger-muller tubes and scintillation probes will not detect alpha particles. Many will, however. They need to have a thin wall, typically made of mica. It’s sometimes made of mylar on some scintillation and gas proportional probes.

    Alpha particles won’t travel far though. They’re blocked by a thick piece of paper and won’t go through more than a few feet of air. Even a few inches of air will attenuate alpha readings by quite a bit.

    Normally you would not be scanning for background alpha levels anyway. Alphas are only harmful internally. The equipment used to assess the risk from alpha fallout is usually some kind of air sampler or something like that.

    You don’t need to detect alpha particles to get a good assessment of the level of material present somewhere either. In nearly all isotopes, alphas are present in combination with gamma radiation. An instrument can detect the gammas easily and then that can be used to compute how much material is present or any levels of contamination.

    If you want to assess the biological dose to someone, you have to consider the pathway of exposure, the type of radiation etc. There are formulas that have been developed to do this.


    Quote Comment
  164. 164
    Richard Perry Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    It depends on the instrument.

    It’s true that many geiger-muller tubes and scintillation probes will not detect alpha particles.

    Many will, however. They need to have a thin wall, typically made of mica. It’s sometimes made of mylar on some scintillation and gas proportional probes.

    Alpha particles won’t travel far though.

    They’re blocked by a thick piece of paper and won’t go through more than a few feet of air. Even a few inches of air will attenuate alpha readings by quite a bit.

    Normally you would not be scanning for background alpha levels anyway. Alphas are only harmful internally.

    The equipment used to assess the risk from alpha fallout is usually some kind of air sampler or something like that.

    You don’t need to detect alpha particles to get a good assessment of the level of material present somewhere either.

    In nearly all isotopes, alphas are present in combination with gamma radiation.

    An instrument can detect the gammas easily and then that can be used to compute how much material is present or any levels of contamination.

    If you want to assess the biological dose to someone, you have to consider the pathway of exposure, the type of radiation etc.

    There are formulas that have been developed to do this.

    [130] Thank you all, this has been of great help for me and puts me at ease, I will take some time looking at all these studies, it will be awhile and again thanks for putting up with me. Richard


    Quote Comment
  165. 165
    Richard Perry Says:

    [130] I don’t know if you have seen this site about Canada.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/connectingdots1#p/a/u/3/EBfvkCEr-Is
    http://www.youtube.com/user/connectingdots1


    Quote Comment
  166. 166
    Anon Says:

    Looks like a typical crank to me.


    Quote Comment
  167. 167
    Matte Says:

    333 Bq, how is it measured? Did somebody stand too close to the detector? What was the background at the site?

    1,5 micro Sv/h would equate to 17 mSv/year…but what isotope, not to mention that levels are much lower than at the powerplant so I wouldn’t take this very seriously.

    What Anon said, typical crank…


    Quote Comment
  168. 168
    George Carty Says:

    Isn’t the relative ages of the two Fukushima reactors a red herring?

    The real issue is that due to the undersea topography, the tsunami which hit Fukushima Daichi was 14 m high, while it was less than 8 m high at Fukushima Daini and at Kashiwazaki–Kariwa (the reactor closest to the earthquake’s epicenter). Those other reactors would most likely also have been wrecked if hit by a 14 m tsunami.

    (thanking Leslie Corrice for this…)


    Quote Comment
  169. 169
    Steve Buchanan Says:

    So how do you propose we replace the 100 or so quote quote old technological reactors here in the US? Not only is it extremely dangerous but its extremely expensive when it comes to fixing and replacing pieces on a reactor. Not to mention how much it costs to shut down a plant and safely remove and demolish its structure. Your proposing that we should built more plants? Why do we want more of our precious land being devoured by concrete platforms where nuclear waste sits long after the plant is removed (see Maine Yankee). Why build when we don’t have anywhere to put the waste? Wake up!


    Quote Comment
  170. 170
    DV82XL Says:

            Steve Buchanan said:

    Why do we want more of our precious land being devoured by concrete platforms where nuclear waste sits long after the plant is removed (see Maine Yankee). Why build when we don’t have anywhere to put the waste? Wake up!

    please contrast and compare the amount of land occupied by the ash ponds from coal-fired generation with that of existing nuclear waste and get back to us. (hint: we’re not the ones that need to wake up!)


    Quote Comment
  171. 171
    Steve Says:

            DV82XL said:

    please contrast and compare the amount of land occupied by the ash ponds from coal-fired generation with that of existing nuclear waste and get back to us. (hint: we’re not the ones that need to wake up!)

    Are you really comparing it too coal and other fossil fuel plants. I should of been more clear… IT’S ALL A WASTE OF VALUABLE LAND. Fortunately organizations like the Sierra Club have been shutting down coal plants left and right. Who is forcing the shut down Nuke plants? No hint common sense here


    Quote Comment
  172. 172
    Matte Says:

            Steve Buchanan said:

    So how do you propose we replace the 100 or so quote quote old technological reactors here in the US? Not only is it extremely dangerous but its extremely expensive when it comes to fixing and replacing pieces on a reactor. Not to mention how much it costs to shut down a plant and safely remove and demolish its structure. Your proposing that we should built more plants? Why do we want more of our precious land being devoured by concrete platforms where nuclear waste sits long after the plant is removed (see Maine Yankee). Why build when we don’t have anywhere to put the waste? Wake up!

    Because it is cheaper than wind or solar (which requires a lot more concrete for the equivalent energy production and magnitudes more for equivalent base load production), it is a h**l of a lot cleaner than coal .

    Removing a single windfarm (VESTA 90/100 2MW) would cost in the region of $2-300’000 US not including the concrete slab, which is not much compared to a nuke plant. But considering that the equivalent energy production, 4000 windfarms cost 800 million dollars to remove (which happens to be pretty close to what Main Yankee cost to decommission) excluding the concrete base mat for the windfarm ofcourse. For baseload production from wind it gets even worse, then you would need to remove 16 700 of them, at which point the argument about decommissioning costs really goes out the window. Your argument about concrete slabs taking up land is just plain silly in this context…

    Or did you actually have a valid point hidden somewhere in your post? What ever it was I fail to see it, care to elaborate please?!


    Quote Comment
  173. 173
    Matthew Says:

            Steve said:

    Are you really comparing it too coal and other fossil fuel plants. I should of been more clear… IT’S ALL A WASTE OF VALUABLE LAND. Fortunately organizations like the Sierra Club have been shutting down coal plants left and right. Who is forcing the shut down Nuke plants? No hint common sense here

    So you want to have people freeze and starve due to lack of power? Or go back to being medieval peasants dependent on muscle power only?

    That’s the logical end result of your argument.


    Quote Comment
  174. 174
    Matte Says:

            Steve said:

    Are you really comparing it too coal and other fossil fuel plants. I should of been more clear… IT’S ALL A WASTE OF VALUABLE LAND. Fortunately organizations like the Sierra Club have been shutting down coal plants left and right. Who is forcing the shut down Nuke plants? No hint common sense here

    Let me put it another way than Matthew did. What is your alternative? How should we produce the energy required for our hospitals, food production, heating our homes and cooking our food and lighting our streets and houses at night?

    This is not trivial but I am dying to hear what you propose… literally!


    Quote Comment
  175. 175
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Steve Buchanan said:

    So how do you propose we replace the 100 or so quote quote old technological reactors here in the US?

    Actually, older reactors have proven to be capable of operation for decades beyond their original estimated lifespan with upgrades and retrofits.

    Replacing power plants should focus on the bigger offenders, the coal burners. That said, it’s not that hard to replace nuclear reactors with new ones, given a favorable regulatory climate. The USAPWR, produces 1700 MWe, the EPR produces about 1600. The AP1000 produces 1200. Most older reactors are smaller, so a single new reactor may produce as much as three reactors from the 1970′s.

    Really, though, it’s not that big a problem, even with existing systems. Remember, we built most of those operating now in less than a 20 year period.

            Steve Buchanan said:

    Not only is it extremely dangerous but its extremely expensive when it comes to fixing and replacing pieces on a reactor.

    Not really. Happens all the time. But there are circumstances where a new reactor might be the way to go.

            Steve Buchanan said:

    Not to mention how much it costs to shut down a plant and safely remove and demolish its structure.

    Actually, nuclear plants are the only type of facilities that are required to maintain the funds for full decommissioning from the start.

    Connecticut Yankee is not far from me, and they completely decommissioned it. It’s amazing, really. You’d never see this in any other industry. Not only did they remove the reactor, they actually jack-hammered and hauled away the reenforced concrete and left it as a greenfield.

    I actually think it’s a bit silly. The site would have been well suited to a new power plant, utilizing the existing transmission lines. But that is what they do. They allocate the money for complete removal.

            Steve Buchanan said:

    Your proposing that we should built more plants? Why do we want more of our precious land being devoured by concrete platforms where nuclear waste sits long after the plant is removed (see Maine Yankee).

    Are you kidding me? We lose more “precious land” to landfills, housing developments, graves and tombs, abandoned shopping malls, disused airport runways, ash dumps, quarries, mines… damn near everything we built takes up more space than that.

    All the spent fuel ever generated by the United States could be placed in casks and stored in an area less than the size of two football fields.

            Steve Buchanan said:

    Why build when we don’t have anywhere to put the waste? Wake up!

    Yucca mountain would have been fine. It’s unfortunate, but it was built completely and then political rangeling shut that down. WIPP has been running well, but statutes prevent civil waste being taken there.

    In any case, it will surely be reprocessed some day.

    It can be stored where it is for the foreseeable future, however. It’s not expensive to warehouse. It’s chemically stable. There is no imperative to move it any time soon.


    Quote Comment
  176. 176
    RichardPerry Says:

            Matte said:

    Because it is cheaper than wind or solar (which requires a lot more concrete for the equivalent energy production and magnitudes more for equivalent base load production), it is a h**l of a lot cleaner than coal .

    Removing a single windfarm (VESTA 90/100 2MW) would cost in the region of $2-300’000 US not including the concrete slab, which is not much compared to a nuke plant. But considering that the equivalent energy production, 4000 windfarms cost 800 million dollars to remove (which happens to be pretty close to what Main Yankee cost to decommission) excluding the concrete base mat for the windfarm ofcourse. For baseload production from wind it gets even worse, then you would need to remove 16 700 of them, at which point the argument about decommissioning costs really goes out the window. Your argument about concrete slabs taking up land is just plain silly in this context…

    Or did you actually have a valid point hidden somewhere in your post? What ever it was I fail to see it, care to elaborate please?!

    RP: You are assuming that wind needs to relocate, why not repair or rebuild on same site. A high cost of building wind is the foundation, infrastructure of roads and power cables so why would this not be used over as long as possible with maintenance and rebuilds on the same site. Nuclear needs to be totally rebuilt from top to bottom and old site and waist decommissioned for many years at a cost that will probably be 100 times what the industry claims if it is like there estimates costs to build a plant that no company will insure against a plant meltdown or blow up and cover the extensive losses. If one used the cost to pay for insurance policies on a nuclear plant, electrical power would be 10 times the most expensive method of producing power. This is way to much.


    Quote Comment
  177. 177
    Steve Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Actually, older reactors have proven to be capable of operation for decades beyond their original estimated lifespan with upgrades and retrofits.

    Replacing power plants should focus on the bigger offenders, the coal burners.

    That said, it’s not that hard to replace nuclear reactors with new ones, given a favorable regulatory climate. The USAPWR, produces 1700 MWe, the EPR produces about 1600.

    The AP1000 produces 1200.

    Most older reactors are smaller, so a single new reactor may produce as much as three reactors from the 1970′s.

    Really, though, it’s not that big a problem, even with existing systems.

    Remember, we built most of those operating now in less than a 20 year period.

    Not really. Happens all the time.

    But there are circumstances where a new reactor might be the way to go.

    Actually, nuclear plants are the only type of facilities that are required to maintain the funds for full decommissioning from the start.

    Connecticut Yankee is not far from me, and they completely decommissioned it. It’s amazing, really. You’d never see this in any other industry. Not only did they remove the reactor, they actually jack-hammered and hauled away the reenforced concrete and left it as a greenfield.

    I actually think it’s a bit silly. The site would have been well suited to a new power plant, utilizing the existing transmission lines.

    But that is what they do.

    They allocate the money for complete removal.

    Are you kidding me?

    We lose more “precious land” to landfills, housing developments, graves and tombs, abandoned shopping malls, disused airport runways, ash dumps, quarries, mines… damn near everything we built takes up more space than that.

    All the spent fuel ever generated by the United States could be placed in casks and stored in an area less than the size of two football fields.

    Yucca mountain would have been fine. It’s unfortunate, but it was built completely and then political rangeling shut that down. WIPP has been running well, but statutes prevent civil waste being taken there.

    In any case, it will surely be reprocessed some day.

    It can be stored where it is for the foreseeable future, however. It’s not expensive to warehouse. It’s chemically stable.

    There is no imperative to move it any time soon.

    So i suppose you like the world to continue building nuclear power plants? Continue this old way of thinking… occupy foreign land for oil, build pipelines from sea to shining sea, frack until we can frack no more, eat genetically engineered food, and fill the ocean with plastics, oil, and radioactive particles. Why even worry/care about the environment the future is now and where its ends.

    P.S. The NRC had underestimated the full cost to actually fully decommission a power station, so most stations are short 300 million dollars. Also places like Maine yankee will continue to spend 8 million dollars a year to maintain there mess for well the rest of existence of the world, which because of thinking from you guys will probably be another 20 years.

    source for the so called “Trust Fund” http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i13/Nuclear-Retirement-Anxiety.html


    Quote Comment
  178. 178
    DV82XL Says:

    Wind and solar advocates like to get themselves whipped into a self righteous frenzy over the issues of other sources of energy without coming to grips with the fact that without the inputs these provide, wind and solar are next to useless as large scale generators. They also seem incapable of getting their heads around the problem of scale and have no conception of just how large wind and solar installations would need to be to replace combustion and nuclear as baseload generation, and what the environmental implications of that would be. The fact is is that wind and solar are nothing but figleaves for combustion (mostly gas) and that is all they will ever amount to.


    Quote Comment
  179. 179
    Anon Says:

            RichardPerry said:

    RP: You are assuming that wind needs to relocate, why not repair or rebuild on same site. A high cost of building wind is the foundation, infrastructure of roads and power cables so why would this not be used over as long as possible with maintenance and rebuilds on the same site.

    Not a point in favour of wind as you can also build new nuclear power plants on the same site once the old ones have been decommissioned.

    You also need a lot less such sites and are going to be rebuilding a lot less (though there is likely to be some downtime while you wait for the old reactor to be decommissioned).

            RichardPerry said:

    Nuclear needs to be totally rebuilt from top to bottom and old site and waist decommissioned for many years at a cost that will probably be 100 times what the industry claims if it is like

    Nuclear reactors have already been decommissioned so there is no way it’ll cost 100 times what the industry says it will (they’ve done it, the regulator supervised it, I think they might know better than you).

            Steve said:

    So i suppose you like the world to continue building nuclear power plants?

    Better than any alternative anyone has come up with.

            Steve said:

    Continue this old way of thinking… occupy foreign land for oil, build pipelines from sea to shining sea, frack until we can frack no more,

    I’d rather synthetic hydrocarbons produced using nuclear heat instead of the fossil fuel subsidy that is the US military.

            Steve said:

    eat genetically engineered food,

    Which is safer than the stuff that hasn’t been genetically engineered (no one has died from genetically modified food, people have died from ‘organic’ foods).

            Steve said:

    P.S. The NRC had underestimated the full cost to actually fully decommission a power station, so most stations are short 300 million dollars.

    You realise that if those plants continue operating that they could easily raise that money?


    Quote Comment
  180. 180
    fixx Says:

    Might as well wade in here too. Another difference between the plants is their location WRT the tsunami. Daini being more south was farther away from the epicenter and map have even benefited from Daiichi’s breakwalls: http://www.rotahall.org/photographkns/map-japan-tsunami-2011

    As much as the later designs are safer I am sure. They are not inherently safe as they should be when a disaster of this magnitude is a possibility.

    BMS: In case no one has suggested this, a study can ‘consider’ the effects of inhalation and ingestion by making assumptions. This is done is pretty much every scientific and technical field to some degree or another so without details of how these factors are considered one really has no clue.

    DV82XL: WRT to your comment about wind and solar generators. Large scale is not necessarily the way to go anyway. With the losses due to the transmission of electrical power considered, small localized grids make more sense. They also reduce the chance of large scale outages. The theories of alternate energy, generally, also consider that perhaps we use too much and that efficiency is worth pursuing.

    Anon (wondering if this is the same Anon I have responded to in the past):

    “Not a point in favour of wind as you can also build new nuclear power plants on the same site once the old ones have been decommissioned.”
    - The point for wind is mostly that it does not meltdown and kill a whole lot of people.

    “(though there is likely to be some downtime while you wait for the old reactor to be decommissioned)”
    - decommissioned or finished melting down as the case may be

    “Nuclear reactors have already been decommissioned so there is no way it’ll cost 100 times what the industry says it will (they’ve done it, the regulator supervised it, I think they might know better than you).”
    - Considering the half life of the waste the cost of storage is exponential. Providing you can even find someone who wants it “in their backyard”.

    “Better than any alternative anyone has come up with.”
    - A better alternate is to at least build inherently safe reactors (CANDU) but we don’t even do that. Even better are the proposed wind and solar alternatives.

    “Which is safer than the stuff that hasn’t been genetically engineered (no one has died from genetically modified food, people have died from ‘organic’ foods).”
    - The jury is still out on genetically modified foods. The big experiment on the unsuspecting and uninformed masses (referring to food labeling laws) is not over yet. Also, non-organic food is not immune to contamination from biological organisms used to fertilize both GM and non-GM food. People have likely died from eating contaminated GM as well.

    “You realise that if those plants continue operating that they could easily raise that money?”
    - I would assume that these plants are being decommissioned for a reason. To my understanding they have a lifetime (like everything else) and they either need to be rebuilt (expensive) or decommissioned. Failing either of these they are unsafe and should not be operated. It is also my understanding that there are lots of nuclear power plants operating that should have been rebuilt or decommissioned, I hope I am wrong in that though.


    Quote Comment
  181. 181
    Matte Says:

            fixx said:

    Might as well wade in here too. Another difference between the plants is their location WRT the tsunami. Daini being more south was farther away from the epicenter and map have even benefited from Daiichi’s breakwalls: http://www.rotahall.org/photographkns/map-japan-tsunami-2011

    As much as the later designs are safer I am sure. They are not inherently safe as they should be when a disaster of this magnitude is a possibility.

    *SNIPP!*

    No, Daini suffered pretty much identical infrastructure wash out as Daichi did, the only difference was that Daini had backup power located on a hillock or embankment above the local tsunami, which saved their bacon.

    I will let somebody else deal with the rest of your assertions, I can not be bothered today…


    Quote Comment
  182. 182
    BMS Says:

            fixx said:

    BMS: In case no one has suggested this, a study can ‘consider’ the effects of inhalation and ingestion by making assumptions. This is done is pretty much every scientific and technical field to some degree or another so without details of how these factors are considered one really has no clue.

    Why are you addressing this to me? Richard Perry was the one who was confused.


    Quote Comment
  183. 183
    DV82XL Says:

            fixx said:

    DV82XL: WRT to your comment about wind and solar generators. Large scale is not necessarily the way to go anyway. With the losses due to the transmission of electrical power considered, small localized grids make more sense. They also reduce the chance of large scale outages. The theories of alternate energy, generally, also consider that perhaps we use too much and that efficiency is worth pursuing.

    Except that if you read the assertions of solar/wind supporters the claim is made that intermittency issues can be solved by wide distribution. Their cry is, “the sun is always shining, and the wind is always blowing somewhere,” and endlessly invoke the ‘smart grid’ as the answer to every problem. Without inexpensive, dense storage, local generation from intermittent sources is just not workable.

    Those that believe that efficiency is the answer, generally have no idea what they are talking about as there is very little room for major gains in efficiency (as that term is properly used in engineering) that can be realized by end-users of electric power. What this is usually code for are systems of rationing power, generally by driving the spot price of usage as high as necessary to shed load. A buddy of mine just got back from N’Djamena in the Republic of Chad where he was working on a short contract. There the power to even the best hotels is cut off every night at 10PM local. If that is anyone’s idea of ‘efficient’ use of electricity, you can have it.


    Quote Comment
  184. 184
    Richard Perry Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Except that if you read the assertions of solar/wind supporters the claim is made that intermittency issues can be solved by wide distribution. Their cry is, “the sun is always shining, and the wind is always blowing somewhere,” and endlessly invoke the ‘smart grid’ as the answer to every problem. Without inexpensive, dense storage, local generation from intermittent sources is just not workable.

    Those that believe that efficiency is the answer, generally have no idea what they are talking about as there is very little room for major gains in efficiency (as that term is properly used in engineering) that can be realized by end-users of electric power. What this is usually code for are systems of rationing power, generally by driving the spot price of usage as high as necessary to shed load. A buddy of mine just got back from N’Djamena in the Republic of Chad where he was working on a short contract. There the power to even the best hotels is cut off every night at 10PM local. If that is anyone’s idea of ‘efficient’ use of electricity, you can have it.

    The cost to decommission and build a new NPP is more then the cost to build storage for wind and solar. Wind and solar can be up graded or maintained rather then having relocation costs of the plants. There is all so a cost for interest for 3 or more years because NPP need a long time to bring them on line(usually is not in NPP cost evaluations).


    Quote Comment
  185. 185
    DV82XL Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    The cost to decommission and build a new NPP is more then the cost to build storage for wind and solar. Wind and solar can be up graded or maintained rather then having relocation costs of the plants. There is all so a cost for interest for 3 or more years because NPP need a long time to bring them on line(usually is not in NPP cost evaluations).

    Just you saying it doesn’t make it so. If you want to argue that point, show the numbers, and remember: compare apples to apples – show the cost of 1500MW dispatchable of solar or wind with storage against the cost of a 1500MWe NPP and we will talk.

    As well if you are going to factor in financing charges for NPP DO NOT try and claim subsidies and subsidized rate supports for renewables.


    Quote Comment
  186. 186
    Richard Perry Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Just you saying it doesn’t make it so. If you want to argue that point, show the numbers, and remember: compare apples to apples – show the cost of 1500MW dispatchable of solar or wind with storage against the cost of a 1500MWe NPP and we will talk.

    As well if you are going to factor in financing charges for NPP DO NOT try and claim subsidies and subsidized rate supports for renewables.

    Rick
    Look at Solana in USA it is about or less then NPP construction cost with backup and does not have a huge decommissioning, just maintain or overhaul and no relocation of power lines at $1,200,000.00/Mile. Also can distribute plants to 6 locations reducing very high cost of power lines.
    If you look at a 120 year span using NPP you will need to build about 3 plants, decommission them, relocate power lines twice, buy fuel and deal with Spent fuel for ever. It is more difficult for NPP, costly to expand because of power lines and need to wait for large extra demand before doing it(solar can expand in 50 megawatt intervals).
    The recent NPP in UK is estimated at $26,000,000,000.00 for 3.3 gig watt and as every other none turn key NPP project has gone way over budget, so could be $40,000,000,000.00. But lets look at the estimate price, would be 3 X $26,000,000,000.00 = $78,000,000,0000.00 at today’s cost. This project will take 10 years if lucky with interest added. The insurance for damages caused by meltdown is $X,XXX,XXX.XX that the public is on the hook for.
    Fuel cost $5.00/migwattHr X 3.3gigwatt for 120 years = $16,000,000,000.00, average at $8,000,000,000.00.
    Decommission at 10% = .1 X $26,000,000,000.00= $2,600,000,000.00 twice = $5,200,000,000.00 see
    http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
    Solar actual cost $2,000,000,000.00 X 12 = $24,000,000,000.00 for 3.3 gig-watts.
    http://www.stockhouse.com/news/press-releases/2013/10/09/solana-begins-serving-customers-providing-solar-power-at-night

    Summery for 120 years UK new NPP USA Solana Solar project
    Build $ 78.0 Billion $ 24.0 Billion
    Fuel $ 8.0 Billion NA
    Decommission $ 5.3 Billion NA
    Fuel Storage $ ??.? Billion NA
    License for NPP $ ??.? Million $ ??.? Million
    Operating Cost $ ??.? Million $ ??.? Million
    Interest $ ??.? Million $??.?/2 Million
    Extra Land X2 $ ??.? Million $ ??.? Million
    Line Change X2 $ ??.? Millions NA
    Cost Over Run $ ??.? Billion $ ??.? Billion
    Insurance Risk $ ??.? Million $ ??.? Million
    —————————————– ——————-
    120 year operation $ 221.5 Billion + $ 24.0 Billion
    The Solar is low for that project because of sunny area and cheap desert land but solar can be put all most any where. But even if sun is 1/4th still solar is close.
    Check it over and see if you can get numbers that are more accurate or items of cost that I missed.
    I think that the solar project costs may be higher?
    This is a start not accurate so help is needed by all. Thanks


    Quote Comment
  187. 187
    Richard Perry Says:

    System TABS do not work so redone
    Look at Solana in USA it is about or less then NPP construction cost with backup and does not have a huge decommissioning, just maintain or overhaul and no relocation of power lines at $1,200,000.00/Mile. Also can distribute plants to 6 locations reducing very high cost of power lines.
    If you look at a 120 year span using NPP you will need to build about 3 plants, decommission them, relocate power lines twice, buy fuel and deal with Spent fuel for ever. It is more difficult for NPP, costly to expand because of power lines and need to wait for large extra demand before doing it(solar can expand in 50 megawatt intervals).
    The recent NPP in UK is estimated at $26,000,000,000.00 for 3.3 gig watt and as every other none turn key NPP project has gone way over budget, so could be $40,000,000,000.00. But lets look at the estimate price, would be 3 X $26,000,000,000.00 = $78,000,000,0000.00 at today’s cost. This project will take 10 years if lucky with interest added. The insurance for damages caused by meltdown is $X,XXX,XXX.XX that the public is on the hook for.
    Fuel cost $5.00/migwattHr X 3.3gigwatt for 120 years = $16,000,000,000.00, average at $8,000,000,000.00.
    Decommission at 10% = .1 X $26,000,000,000.00= $2,600,000,000.00 twice = $5,200,000,000.00 see
    http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
    Solar actual cost $2,000,000,000.00 X 12 = $24,000,000,000.00 for 3.3 gig-watts.
    http://www.stockhouse.com/news/press-releases/2013/10/09/solana-begins-serving-customers-providing-solar-power-at-night

    Summery for 120 years UK new NPP USA Solana Solar project
    Build $ 78.0 Billion $ 24.0 Billion
    Fuel $ 8.0 Billion NA
    Decommission $ 5.3 Billion NA
    Fuel Storage $ ??.? Billion NA
    License for NPP $ ??.? Million $ ??.? Million
    Operating Cost $ ??.? Million $ ??.? Million
    Interest $ ??.? Million $??.?/2 Million
    Extra Land X2 $ ??.? Million $ ??.? Million
    Line Change X2 $ ??.? Millions NA
    Cost Over Run $ ??.? Billion $ ??.? Billion
    Insurance Risk $ ??.? Million $ ??.? Million
    —————————————– ——————-
    120 year operation $ 221.5 Billion + $ 24.0 Billion
    The Solar is low for that project because of sunny area and cheap desert land but solar can be put all most any where. But even if sun is 1/4th still solar is close.
    Check it over and see if you can get numbers that are more accurate or items of cost that I missed.
    I think that the solar project costs may be higher?
    This is a start not accurate so help is needed by all. Thanks


    Quote Comment
  188. 188
    Richard Perry Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Just you saying it doesn’t make it so. If you want to argue that point, show the numbers, and remember: compare apples to apples – show the cost of 1500MW dispatchable of solar or wind with storage against the cost of a 1500MWe NPP and we will talk.

    As well if you are going to factor in financing charges for NPP DO NOT try and claim subsidies and subsidized rate supports for renewables.

    Look at Solana in USA it is about or less then NPP construction cost with backup and does not have a huge decommissioning, just maintain or overhaul and no relocation of power lines at $1,200,000.00/Mile. Also can distribute plants to 6 locations reducing very high cost of power lines.
    If you look at a 120 year span using NPP you will need to build about 3 plants, decommission them, relocate power lines twice, buy fuel and deal with Spent fuel for ever. It is more difficult for NPP, costly to expand because of power lines and need to wait for large extra demand before doing it(solar can expand in 50 megawatt intervals).
    The recent NPP in UK is estimated at $26,000,000,000.00 for 3.3 gig watt and as every other none turn key NPP project has gone way over budget, so could be $40,000,000,000.00. But lets look at the estimate price, would be 3 X $26,000,000,000.00 = $78,000,000,0000.00 at today’s cost. This project will take 10 years if lucky with interest added. The insurance for damages caused by meltdown is $X,XXX,XXX.XX that the public is on the hook for.
    Fuel cost $5.00/migwattHr X 3.3gigwatt for 120 years = $16,000,000,000.00, average at $8,000,000,000.00.
    Decommission at 10% = .1 X $26,000,000,000.00= $2,600,000,000.00 twice = $5,200,000,000.00 see
    http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
    Solar actual cost $2,000,000,000.00 X 12 = $24,000,000,000.00 for 3.3 gig-watts.
    http://www.stockhouse.com/news/press-releases/2013/10/09/solana-begins-serving-customers-providing-solar-power-at-night

    Summery for 120 years———-UK new NPP————–USA Solana Solar project
    ———-Build———————$–78.0–Billion———-$–24.0–Billion
    ———-Fuel———————-$—8.0–Billion———–NA
    ———-Decommission————$—5.3–Billion———–NA
    ———-Fuel Storage————–$–??.?–Billion———-NA
    ———-License for NPP———–$–??.?–Million———-$–??.?–Million
    ———-Operating Cost———–$–??.?–Million———-$–??.?–Million
    ———-Interest——————-$–??.?–Million———-$??.?/2–Million
    ———-Extra Land X2————$–??.?–Million———-$–??.?–Million
    ———-Line Change X2———-$–??.?–Millions———-NA
    ———Cost Over Run———-$-??.?–Billion————–$–??.?–Billion
    ———Insurance Risk———-$-??.?–Million ————-$–??.?–Million
    —————————————————————————————-
    120 year operation————–$-221.5–Billion +———$–24.0–Billion
    The Solar is low for that project because of sunny area and cheap desert land but solar can be put all most any where. But even if sun is 1/4th still solar is close.
    Check it over and see if you can get numbers that are more accurate or items of cost that I missed.
    I think that the solar project costs may be higher?
    This is a start not accurate so help is needed by all. Thanks


    Quote Comment
  189. 189
    DV82XL Says:

    Perry, your analysis is rubbish.

    First: If you are going to cost in the fuel for a NPP, and the cost of dealing with the waste, you must cost in the fuel for solar/wind backup as well, and if these are fossil-fuel powered (as they almost have to be) then you must cost the waste from those. The fact is that even natural gas generation dumps CO2 into the environment, and that has a cost. The fact that the law does not force them to pay for it is not nuclear’s problem.

    Second: Many NPP are refurbished rather than decommissioned, and even if this is needed, nothing is stopping one from building new on the same site. This issue is purely an imaginary one, as is this need you are attempting to invoke for incremental increases in capacity: the industry doesn’t run like that anywhere in the world.

    The fact is your numbers are all over the place and draw on U.K. U.S. and Australian estimates that are not really comparable since both the regulatory and financial environments of these three countries is very different.

    The bald fact is that commercial NPPs being operated in North America are profitable while wind and solar depend on artificial price supports and still do not deliver reliable power in the quantities needed to justify their sunk costs.


    Quote Comment
  190. 190
    Richard Perry Says:

    Good points so lets look further.
    The backup power is molten salt thermal energy storage not fossil fuel.
    See this site for US Turkey Point estimate of $8,000.00/kilwatt build is much higher then UK site I used. http://scitizen.com/future-energies/how-much-will-new-nuclear-power-plants-cost-_a-14-2287.html
    Provide a site stating that Solana Generating Station received incentives other then a loan guarantee, I could not find any.
    The refurbishing of a NPP is very expensive adding a great extra cost pushing up the kilwatt build cost.
    I have never heard of a NPP being built on a used site, main reason is the areas around a NPP can not be cleared back to the original radiation level because of cost and a plant running to long will increase the radiation levels around it to high with leaks and discharges, the citizens will shut it down. The problem is that no NPP can contain all radiation.
    They do not destitute power to save on power line costs because the NPP need to be large to keep operating cost low. This will change, the AP1000 maybe work better unless they will have to put many on one site to reduce operating cost. The proposed cost was going to be $3600.00/kilwatt build but that is yet to be seen as NPP have been grossly under estimated in the past by as high as 300%.
    All in all with the advancements in solar it has dropped by 98% from 50 years ago.
    I did not include the risk that a plant may not even produce any off site power after being built.


    Quote Comment
  191. 191
    DV82XL Says:

    First molten salt is not the backup for this plant – it is the storage medium. If you are going to extend opinions on a matter at least try and understand it first. Arizona Public Service Company which buys 100% of the power from Solana Generating Station uses coal, nuclear and natural gas to backup this solar plant. The Arizona Corporation Commission’s (ACC) mandate that the state’s regulated utilities (of which Arizona Public Service Company is one) provide 15% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025. APS will pay about 14 cents per kWh. Average generation costs about 11.5 cents per kWh in that region across all sources which means that the utility is paying a premium for this power, and that my friend, since they are forced buy this power, is a subsidy.

            Richard Perry said:

    The refurbishing of a NPP is very expensive adding a great extra cost pushing up the kilwatt build cost.

    Rubbish – In Canada we have been refurbishing our NPP for decades and we do it because it is a less expensive option. And before you try and claim that this was done with government support, know that the last plant refurbished was at Bruce – a privately held, for-profit company.

            Richard Perry said:

    I have never heard of a NPP being built on a used site, main reason is the areas around a NPP can not be cleared back to the original radiation level because of cost and a plant running to long will increase the radiation levels around it to high with leaks and discharges, the citizens will shut it down. The problem is that no NPP can contain all radiation.

    Pure unadulterated nonsense, again demonstrating you know little to nothing about this subject. You simply cannot provide any proof to support this statement.


    Quote Comment
  192. 192
    Richard Perry Says:

    See this sites about the huge loses and subsidies in Canada for NPP.
    The loses are huge and refurbishing a plant down time is long needing to buy power else ware at $500,000 a day for a year or more.
    The only reason for NPP is to make bombs as it is to expensive and CO2 is a joke, NPP produce CO2 as well.
    http://www.ccnr.org/Nuke_Quebec.html
    http://www.greenparty.ca/node/4218
    http://www.ccnr.org/cost_disadvantages.html
    http://www.cnp.ca/resources/nuc-subsidies-at-50-ex-sum.html
    http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp365-e.htm
    http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionC.htm#darlington
    See this site interview about US industry operation.
    http://endtimesnews.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/fukushima-cover-up-americas-worst-nuclear-disaster-covered-up-for-decades-taxpayer-bailouts-for-lethal-nuclear-technology/

    It would still be cheaper to build a duplicate plant to be on standby with more storage salts to carry over for a week, a week with out sun is not very likely. Some NPP use none nuclear power to handle flukulations in demand.


    Quote Comment
  193. 193
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    See this sites about the huge loses and subsidies in Canada for NPP.

    If you want to be taken seriously you should provide reputable sources.

            Richard Perry said:

    The only reason for NPP is to make bombs as it is to expensive

    Why does France have cheaper electricity than Germany?

    Besides, it’s not as if you could economically make bombs with CANDUs or LWRs anyway (you’d use dedicated reactors of a different design).

            Richard Perry said:

    and CO2 is a joke,

    CO₂ is very real, it is also very much warming the planet (the anti-nuclear movement can’t survive an attempt to really solve global warming at this time so switching to denying there is a problem isn’t unexpected).

            Richard Perry said:

    NPP produce CO2 as well.

    Not directly, when you look at lifecycle emissions (construction, mining, etc) nuclear turns out to be quite a bit better than solar PV and about equivalent with wind and hydro, even crackpots like SLS have found that nuclear does better than fossil fuels.

            Richard Perry said:

    It would still be cheaper to build a duplicate plant to be on standby with more storage salts to carry over for a week, a week with out sun is not very likely.

    A week with short days, lots of clouds on all those days and high power demand is another matter, we call it winter.

    With an all nuclear grid you’ll maybe be overbuilding to about twice the needed capacity but with an all renewable+storage grid you’re going to have to overbuild a lot more than that since you need enough storage to last about a week of little sun and no wind and you also need enough collectors for low capacity factor (≈20% average is being generous, compared to >90% for nuclear) to supply all the power needed at any given time plus enough to top up the storage (which won’t be 100% efficient).


    Quote Comment
  194. 194
    DV82XL Says:

    Perry’s first link and third links are to a site that is maintained by a single individual who claims to be part of a group that in fact was shut down by its own board of directors decades ago. The second link is to a page by the Green Party that is openly ideologically opposed to nuclear energy. The fourth link is to a page by The Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, hardly an unbiased source. But the fifth and sixth actually go to pages that support the Canadian nuclear industry – I guess he thinks no one would get that far and just added them to pad. The last link is to something called “End Times News, which seems to be concerned with the Apocalypse and is without any value in this discussion.

    I hate it when they think we are as big an idiot as they are.


    Quote Comment
  195. 195
    Richard Perry Says:

    You have not said any thing they claim is not true, list what you know is not true


    Quote Comment
  196. 196
    Matte Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    You have not said any thing they claim is not true, list what you know is not true

    Why should we do your dirty work for you, you know that everything you posted here is an outright lie or worse, so why don’t you write claims that can be independently verified from a reputable source.

    Fantastic claims require fantastic proof!

    Or crawl back to under your bridge, troll!


    Quote Comment
  197. 197
    Richard Perry Says:

    Good to see you Anon, The second plant would have 20 times the salt storage that is receiving energy for a long time between requirements and may mix with wind when there is low sun shine. Of coarse this site is an almost best location on the planet so hope new storage ideas will come along and all so get more energy from the sun. The cost has come down year after year. It may become good enough to compete with all soars of power almost any were. I do not know why they do not create a water storage high enough to use hydro plant and pump water up to storage area for drain back through hydro plant with $200Billion and have a small lake for play, boating, fish stock, birds and other wild life. The way the pacific is going with over fishing and FUKU we may need more fish for food.
    France is halting any more NPP, I believe its because the rivers fish stocks will not handle the heat. I do not know why they do not use there sea shores unless they are smarter then Japans ideas.
    France moves money back and forth between nuclear and civilian investments so that the public has know way of nothing what the actual cost rely is, they can sell power at a lose.
    http://esciencenews.com/articles/2013/01/07/a.french.nuclear.exit
    How many NPP melt downs can this planet have, I believe there is to many melt downs already and will increase even more when more are aged, we need to hold the build of new plants to see how bad it can get with the small fleet we have now. They should build new plants for replacements only and not use computer programs to evaluate aging plants with a lot of unknown faults that can be over looked or rationalize why they can over look them, the total effects of several flaws are hard to be understood.
    Since 911 small group of people can ride a plane into the spent fuel pool (many 100 feet in the air and the plant would melt down to, they have known this from the first plant built) at a site causing an event many times greater then FUKU , are they going to provide anti air craft protection raising the cost for nuclear energy greatly. NPP has a risk that is not acceptable for most people no mater how much can be saved by using it, do we need to make more bombs that bad, we have enough.
    I hear some claims the NPP should not be built on sea shores like FUKU because of radiating seas, if one thinks that, then they should not be built on rivers that dump into the seas ether.
    See this site, many reactors in France needing major repair after 25 to 30 years causing a shut down of to many plants, this can lead to taking chances with safety because of need. They also are having low water levels that are closing plants.
    http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Electricity_imports_hit_Frances_energy_autonomy_999.html
    See this site, radiation into seas.
    http://www.bing.com/search?q=frances+nuclear&pc=conduit&ptag=A06791A3BA59948F595F&conlogo=CT3210127&ShowAppsUI=1&first=41&FORM=PERE3
    Some problems with solar is the max output changes with sun angle through the seasons greatly reducing power, mixing with wind may fill in some losses. The biggest advantage I see is that on going you have a frame work, salt brine and land that has been paid for, replace pipe and fittings, replace or overhaul turbines but can run longer because of no danger of radiation when it breaks down, maybe replace mirrors, some work can be done in sections to get maximum use and keep cost stretched out, pay as you go. I wonder if high winds may damage these sail type mirrors, they may be able to rotate them to reduce wind loads.
    It looks like solar is advancing and hope they can in prove it enough to take the lead.
    NPP would be great but we will have to deal with many more Fuku type disasters, CO2 verses radiation is hard to accepte.


    Quote Comment
  198. 198
    BMS Says:

    Wow Richard! I think that you’re getting dumber with each post.


    Quote Comment
  199. 199
    DV82XL Says:

    Perry, please understand that no one here is going to buy nonsense arguments that you are obviously pulling out of your behind backed up by links to openly antinuclear sites which themselves are nothing but propaganda organs that do not provide legitimate references for the rubbish they post.

    Now like it or not, a thermal solar plant, like ALL thermal plants needs cooling because they work on deltat just like nuclear, and the basics of the Carnot cycle means that every type of thermal plant needs just as much cooling as any other per unit power. Thus any arguments against nuclear based on waste heat apply to your precious solar as well.

    The aircraft hitting a NPP trope has been trashed so many times I’m surprised anyone still takes it seriously. And again nuclear power reactors are not used to make bombs.


    Quote Comment
  200. 200
    Richard Perry Says:

    DV82XL, You are getting to up tight, at the beginning of this I was showing what the possibilities are not factual but possibilities with this technology, it has its problems but the dollars available for storing energy that to me is as good as backup because the maintenance of it should be very minimal, you can by pass faulty sections that many technologies can not, you would have take these system off line. The price of the energy has three parts, cost for plant construction, fuel used and maintenance, this solar looks low maintenance and very flexible for servicing with out shutting down the plant. The extra price I would think is do to this plant being used as a bit for base load and mainly for fill on high demand times and that does not guaranty a high usage all the time, after all they under estimated its maximum out put and were not sure of its usefulness with about 97 cloudy days per year in that area. But it may over come these problems with the dollar difference in build costs, no fuel cost per year and about $200Billion for storage/backup mix. We will have to wait and see.


    Quote Comment
  201. 201
    Richard Perry Says:

    In May 1974 India explodes its first atomic bomb using weapons-grade plutonium produced in the Canadian-supplied CIRUS reactor. The explosion takes place at the Pokhran site in the Rajasthan desert near the border with Pakistan.
    The name of the bomb test is ”Smiling Buddha”.
    http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/sabotage_and_attacks_on_reactors/spent-reactor-fuel-security.html

    They claim that a large plane will not compromise a spent fuel pool, yet many are like FUKU high in the air with sheet metal roof. There evaluation is a plane running into side at the center of pool. Why would anyone try this approach, aim plane below at ground level and take out the supporting structure or dive through the roof. They only looked at a center side impact. This the only info I could find and all so if anyone can believe that a cask on a rail car would not turn over when hit by the proposed plane when I have seen films of a plain smashing into other planes of same size throwing them in to the air, the casks make it top heavy. But I would not believe anyone would try to search done a mobile target it is crazy.


    Quote Comment
  202. 202
    Matte Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    They claim that a large plane will not compromise a spent fuel pool, yet many are like FUKU high in the air with sheet metal roof. There evaluation is a plane running into side at the center of pool. Why would anyone try this approach, aim plane below at ground level and take out the supporting structure or dive through the roof. They only looked at a center side impact. This the only info I could find and all so if anyone can believe that a cask on a rail car would not turn over when hit by the proposed plane when I have seen films of a plain smashing into other planes of same size throwing them in to the air, the casks make it top heavy. But I would not believe anyone would try to search done a mobile target it is crazy.

    Take out the supporting structure of a spent fuel pool…with a plane? If you can do that, why bother with the SFP? Why not go for the containment building that houses the reactor, as it is much easier to destroy in such a manner.

    Why would a fuel cask be worried about a thin aluminium tube when it will survive a direct corner side impact by a massive diesel locomotive? You seem fond of youtube so here you go;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dopK9r83WDU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_JhruRobRI
    The official reports are far more interesting. But what was the problem with knocking a fuel cask over? Sure it may be a pain to get it upright again, may have to use a big crane even…

    As to planes crashing into fuelbuildings or containment buildings, analysis and testing always takes the worst parameters into account. Testing was performed with a fighterjet (think flying armoured vehicle) at 600 knots which is worse than a commercial airliner (think fast flying soda can in comparison) doing 900 knots (not at ground level though).

    Work on your english mate, I could not understand that last bit…


    Quote Comment
  203. 203
    BMS Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    … this solar looks low maintenance and very flexible for servicing with out shutting down the plant.

    Well, the plant shuts itself down every night.


    Quote Comment
  204. 204
    BMS Says:

            Matte said:

    Why would a fuel cask be worried about a thin aluminium tube when it will survive a direct corner side impact by a massive diesel locomotive?

    Not just a “massive diesel locomotive,” a massive rocket-powered diesel locomotive.


    Quote Comment
  205. 205
    DV82XL Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    DV82XL, You are getting to up tight, at the beginning of this I was showing what the possibilities are not factual but possibilities with this technology,…

    This whole passage is incoherent tripe, the currency on these pages is fact and you are providing none. Yes that makes me angry – when someone wastes our time with unsupported assertions from their own imaginations.

            Richard Perry said:

    In May 1974 India explodes its first atomic bomb using weapons-grade plutonium produced in the Canadian-supplied CIRUS reactor.

    So what? CIRUS was not a nuclear power reactor, but a research reactor. As well the ‘US’ in its name stands for United States, who also had a hand in it, and the Pu was most likely made from targets acquired from France. I’m a bit tired of having Canada blamed for India’s nuclear weapons program on the strength of having supplied this reactor.


    Quote Comment
  206. 206
    Richard Perry Says:

    BMS, But starts up the next day.


    Quote Comment
  207. 207
    Richard Perry Says:

    Matte, did they use the target area on the side center for the evaluation. If so this should be better reinforced then the roof with out water pressure behind it. That’s what they used in evaluating a passenger plane hit. Ever hit a drum full of gas, it does not flex like a empty drum.


    Quote Comment
  208. 208
    Richard Perry Says:

    For those that do not think nuclear power does not lead to bombs, see this.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation

    Dual use technology[edit]
    Dual-use technology refers to the possibility of military use of civilian nuclear power technology. Many technologies and materials associated with the creation of a nuclear power program have a dual-use capability, in that they can be used to make nuclear weapons if a country chooses to do so. When this happens a nuclear power program can become a route leading to the atomic bomb or a public annex to a secret bomb program. The crisis over Iran’s nuclear activities is a case in point.[6]
    Many UN and US agencies warn that building more nuclear reactors unavoidably increases nuclear proliferation risks.[7] A fundamental goal for American and global security is to minimize the proliferation risks associated with the expansion of nuclear power. If this development is “poorly managed or efforts to contain risks are unsuccessful, the nuclear future will be dangerous”.[6] For nuclear power programs to be developed and managed safely and securely, it is important that countries have domestic “good governance” characteristics that will encourage proper nuclear operations and management:[6]


    Quote Comment
  209. 209
    Matthew Says:

    A question for Richard Perry:

    Which countries can you name that have parlayed their civilian nuclear programs into weapons?


    Quote Comment
  210. 210
    Anon Says:

    Whether it is possible to use a power reactor to make weapons grade Plutonium actually turns out to be irrelevant to nuclear proliferation because what really matters is whether it is easier to use a commercially available power reactor or to build your own Magnox or enrichment plant, if it is easier to go with dedicated equipment than to use a power reactor that is exactly what anyone who wants the bomb is going to do and it is also something they could do regardless of whether or not they have a power reactor.

    Turns out that building dedicated Plutonium production reactors is easier than trying to breed the stuff in LWRs or CANDUs and so is Uranium enrichment.

    Remember that the US managed to do both of the dedicated bomb making approaches in the Mid ’40s and they had no nuclear power plants back then.


    Quote Comment
  211. 211
    Matte Says:

    Richard, the term “dual use” is a political term and a smokescreen to hide actual components used to manufacture weapons. Many are available on the open market, critical components are riddled with exportrestitrctions and outright bans, and they are never used in the civilian nuclear industry but very often in civilian heavy industry.

    What US and UN institutions say and what they really mean is severely clouded by politics and has very little direct bearing on what this blog is about.

    Anyone touting the term dual use, is either a politician fishing for votes from greenies och incompetent or both…

    Buzzo, your spam-filter is stopping me from posting by the way.


    Quote Comment
  212. 212
    DV82XL Says:

    Having seen his original assertions reduced to trash, Perry is now resorting to the well-worn trick of throwing anything and everything up against the wall to see what sticks. Cut-and-paste from Wikipedia is the last resort of fools backed into a corner, not an argument.

    You might want to actually read the paper: Nuclear power without nuclear proliferation? by Steven E. Miller & Scott D. Sagan which the passage you quoted was drawn from. You might find that the situation is not as simple as it is being made out to be.


    Quote Comment
  213. 213
    Shafe Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    Why would anyone try this approach, aim plane below at ground level and take out the supporting structure or dive through the roof.

    Yes, just “dive through the roof.” How many dead terrorists would we have before one got within 100ft of the target?


    Quote Comment
  214. 214
    Matte Says:

            Shafe said:

    Yes, just “dive through the roof.” How many dead terrorists would we have before one got within 100ft of the target?

    All of them?


    Quote Comment
  215. 215
    Richard Perry Says:

            Shafe said:

    Yes, just “dive through the roof.” How many dead terrorists would we have before one got within 100ft of the target?

    Ha Ha good one May be 5 in the air plane when they hit the roof.


    Quote Comment
  216. 216
    Richard Perry Says:

    No countries citizens would have allowed the spending of the dollars to develop power as they did to create the Atom bombs, then they had to find away to reduce the cost so told us that they could produce atomic energy at the lowest cost, almost free, it was going to elevate the peoples standing so men would work 30 hour or less a week (now its ~80 hours per family to squeak by).
    One of the huge cost in most nuclear bombs is the production of plutonium and that is one of the remains in spent fuel from NPP. They had this cost now covered by power users but it still needs more work. They had to do this because of the arms race, was it right, YES. But now with the number of bombs in stock I now have to look at NPP the same as any other fuel or energy. I have wondered how much the war departments pay to power companies for the material they get? May be this money would make power to cheap to meter after all if it would show up on NPP ledgers, may be they do but I have not seen it or may be it is the processing companies that sell it to military.

    This site of many that makes the same statements:
    http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/nuclear-nucleaire/nca-acn.aspx?lang=eng

    A though: We have been storing and using great amount of energy since life started, we move up and down when we walk, we use thousands of machines that lift weight to store energy and droop it to use the energy, so there must be an economical way to use this in large scale other then with liquids(why not any solid material that are all around us like sand and rocks). There are small lights now that use any small weight set on it to and create light for a short time, in poor areas it is by far cheaper then oil lamps(cost ~$140.00 fuel a stone set on it and resets when load is removed, same cost as about 4 months of oil to produce light). It has the same problem as solar that the up front cost is high for poor people but those that have saved money from meager wages jump at getting one because they now pay nothing for oil.


    Quote Comment
  217. 217
    Matthew Says:

    Hey doc, the RSS feed on the comments seems to be busted. My reader is telling me it’s not a valid feed.


    Quote Comment
  218. 218
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matthew said:

    Hey doc, the RSS feed on the comments seems to be busted. My reader is telling me it’s not a valid feed.

    Sorry
    http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/nuclear-nucleaire/nca-acn.aspx?lang=eng


    Quote Comment
  219. 219
    BMS Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    One of the huge cost in most nuclear bombs is the production of plutonium and that is one of the remains in spent fuel from NPP.

    Yes, the US government needs plutonium so badly for its nuclear bombs that it has been working recently to build a facility to burn excess weapons plutonium in commercial nuclear reactors. /sarcasm

    Richard Perry, you have to be one of the stupidest SOB’s to comment on this site, and that’s saying a lot.


    Quote Comment
  220. 220
    Richard Perry Says:

            BMS said:

    Yes, the US government needs plutonium so badly for its nuclear bombs that it has been working recently to build a facility to burn excess weapons plutonium in commercial nuclear reactors. /sarcasm

    Richard Perry, you have to be one of the stupidest SOB’s to comment on this site, and that’s saying a lot.

    You are saying now but it has changed over the years, but for this industry to start it was different, I claimed this industry would not have started with out military wants, may be I was not clear about that. Anyone else miss under stood my point. It is so open with so much stored waste around the world it is imposable to watch were it goes, governments have admitted losses of atomic bombs even, they may as well tear the contracts up.


    Quote Comment
  221. 221
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matte said:

    All of them?

    HaHa, I agree but may be only a few, would they meet the 911 bunch in their heaven.


    Quote Comment
  222. 222
    DV82XL Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    One of the huge cost in most nuclear bombs is the production of plutonium and that is one of the remains in spent fuel from NPP. T

    First you idiot, making Pu is probably the least expensive part of the process, the rest of the effort needed to make an implosion device is far more costly. Second, there is no weapons -grade Pu in spent fuel. The Pu in used nuclear fuel is of a different isotope that cannot be used in weapons.

            Richard Perry said:

    You are saying now but it has changed over the years, but for this industry to start it was different, I claimed this industry would not have started with out military wants, may be I was not clear about that. Anyone else miss under stood my point. It is so open with so much stored waste around the world it is imposable to watch were it goes, governments have admitted losses of atomic bombs even, they may as well tear the contracts up.

    You know nothing about the early part of the nuclear fission story if you think it was driven by weapons – try doing some reading before running off at the mouth.


    Quote Comment
  223. 223
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matthew said:

    A question for Richard Perry:

    Which countries can you name that have parlayed their civilian nuclear programs into weapons?

    Read this to get a over view:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon#Nuclear_strategy
    In 1981, Israel had bombed a nuclear reactor being constructed in Osirak, Iraq, in what it called an attempt to halt Iraq’s previous nuclear arms ambitions; in 2007, Israel bombed another reactor being constructed in Syria.

    To show the countries that gained the Atom bomb were years ago, to prove the past you would have to file through news papers.
    If Wikipedia is believable, I feel they are not to bad no propaganda like from government organization promoting an agenda do a search, lots of info


    Quote Comment
  224. 224
    Richard Perry Says:

            DV82XL said:

    First you idiot, making Pu is probably the least expensive part of the process, the rest of the effort needed to make an implosion device is far more costly. Second, there is no weapons -grad e Pu in spent fuel. The Pu in used nuclear fuel is of a different isotope that cannot be used in weapons.

    You know nothing about the early part of the nuclear fission story if you think it was driven by weapons – try doing some reading before running off at the mouth.

    So there was no arms race and cold war, over 60,000 nuclear bombs were made and thousands tested, they needed NPP to speed up the manufacturing(Sold NPP in other countries to speed building), now they have many processing facilities to bypass the NPP at a high cost.


    Quote Comment
  225. 225
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    I have wondered how much the war departments pay to power companies for the material they get?

    They don’t pay anything as the Plutonium in spent fuel isn’t suitable for making bombs with (too much ²⁴⁰Pu and ²³⁸Pu).

            Richard Perry said:

    May be this money would make power to cheap to meter after all if it would show up on NPP ledgers, may be they do but I have not seen it or may be it is the processing companies that sell it to military.

    You’re at the point at which you’re just making crap up and hoping we won’t call you on not having a clue what it is you’re talking about.

            Richard Perry said:

    A though: We have been storing and using great amount of energy since life started, we move up and down when we walk, we use thousands of machines that lift weight to store energy and droop it to use the energy, so there must be an economical way to use this in large scale other then with liquids(why not any solid material that are all around us like sand and rocks).

    When you look at the scale it’d need to be done at the idea just collapses (we use a lot more power than you seem to think we do and there is no prospect of our energy consumption going down without civilisation itself collapsing).


    Quote Comment
  226. 226
    Anon Says:

    You were asked which countries turned a peaceful nuclear power programme into a weapons programme, you did not answer the question.

            Richard Perry said:

    In 1981, Israel had bombed a nuclear reactor being constructed in Osirak, Iraq, in what it called an attempt to halt Iraq’s previous nuclear arms ambitions; in 2007, Israel bombed another reactor being constructed in Syria.

    Reactors that were built for the specific purpose of breeding Plutonium, that doesn’t help you case.

            Richard Perry said:

    To show the countries that gained the Atom bomb were years ago, to prove the past you would have to file through news papers.
    If Wikipedia is believable, I feel they are not to bad no propaganda like from government organization promoting an agenda do a search, lots of info

    We know how every country that got the bomb did it, the US, Russia (then USSR), UK, France and China got the bomb before they had any nuclear power plants, India used Plutonium bred in CIRUS, a research reactor and not their power reactors, Pakistan got their enrichment technology from A. Q. Khan (who also spread the tech to Iran), Israel built a Heavy Water reactor (but has no nuclear power plants and it doesn’t look like they’ll build any soon), South Africa developed their own Uranium enrichment technology, North Korea built a dedicated Plutonium production reactor.


    Quote Comment
  227. 227
    Fixx Says:

    Because I like to revive long dead threads…
    “BMS Says:
    October 29th, 2013 at 6:44 am
    Richard Perry said:
    … this solar looks low maintenance and very flexible for servicing with out shutting down the plant.
    Well, the plant shuts itself down every night.” – BMS (just to be clear)

    And at any given time the Earth is being 50% exposed to the sun (astrophysicists correct me if I’m wrong, I’m pretty sure this is at lest the average). Our peak power usage is NOT while we are sleeping (should be in the dark, FU*K shiftwork (f*ck spellcheck, it is it’s own word)).

    BTW, your WP Anti-spam is Chinese to me, literally. An insert to all those paying attention. If you click on something you don’t understand are you culpable… under current laws… where do you live?… I suspect the answer is yes.

    Germany just made a milestone that even my pessimistic mind was pleasantly surprised at. The B.S. that Solar and Wind power are incapable of providing us with our (entitlement based) needs has been shattered. Don’t get me wrong, if aliens attack and for the purposes of space travel nuclear energy is fine but the old adage “don’t sh*t where you live” seems to apply here. The only argument I have heard that dampens the achievement is the issue of storage, despite the multitude of ways to store energy efficiently. The fact that with enough infrastructure we could provide enough energy for an energy conscious society to support itself (in time) has been made pretty clear. Politics and mega corporations aside, the Earth will provide if we so choose. We already have all the technology it just needs to be refined (continuous improvement, never a bad thing) and implemented and then we can get there. More and more I see built for purpose and retrofit systems in my country providing a net increase into the power grid, and the surface has been merely scratched. With further implementation and advancements we can supply beyond our needs. Eventually all illusions are revealed, thought I’d throw that in. Heated sodium in vacuum insulated vessels used to run steam turbines (or any other heat engine, sterling’s are pretty good) is an off the top, good enough for now solution to storage. The science is already there in so many ways. The energy is essentially free and anything we can do to decrease the net increase in temperature of our system is probably a good thing. Speculatively, if we can minimize our net enthalpy during a (historically) prelude to an ice age then we can minimize the depth of the ice age (a total guess, someone qualified please show me the err of my ways).

    Politics and empires are transient compared to the infinite nature of time (there is no single word for this ???, that I know of). If we want to survive as a species we need to shed our partisan ideals and accept that all the answers are in the grey areas as well as the math. We are all equal (who is the judge??). We are all knowing (as far as we know :) ) Altruism and information are the keys, necessity and laziness are the mothers of invention. No species has ever been in the position to control variables related to their survival as us. What or who is stopping us??? Let’s get over it! Knowledge is gather by scientists and used by megalomaniacs, see a problem with that??? Democracies are supporting dictatorships, contradiction??? Totalitarians are implementing communism, another contradiction. In an autistic world can anyone lie, a bit of an aside. Is the gratuitous use of impedance’s creating an un-forseen downside, another aside. Are biases creating an informaticide (apparently a word of my own creation, see harper’s (not deserving of a capital) burning of important information). F*ck you all for you are all F*cked. History repeats, and you either don’t care or are oblivious. Guess this may be a farewell ;)

    Despite what my compatriots (not sure who they are) may think I am suggesting they are biased by the basic law of self-preservation (I am unbound by that law somehow). If we thought as a whole we would be much more effective. The ideas of racial purity and any kind of superiority are archaic IMO (“in my opinion” to the acronym less savvy (may need a singular word for this soon)). Programmers note the nesting ;)

    Drinking the koolaide (I’ll accept the sp. for the lack of copyright infringement) and a lot of other cliches (proves how long we’ve known) seems to apply here, however, I will still always prefer to leave the masses to their own judgement (provided it has not been hijacked by those who desire power, not sure if there is an instance).

    The Internet is knowledge and “knowledge is power” (thank you Saturday morning cartoons). The masses now have the power. Learn to discern, down with the power and up with the masses (yup, definitely a goodbye).

    Science strives for a lack of bias. Science is about the facts. Militaristic and capitalistic interests pervert those facts into power. And then, scientists are haunted by those demons. It’s enough to make a true scientist hold their tongue. F you all, if you can’t do it right then let’s let it all fail and start all over again (fatalist’s viewpoint). What a f**ked up cycle. It’s all in the history, we have access in every medium. If you are looking for it you will see it is there. Willfully ignorant and you will betrayed.

    In specific response to Anon’s posts. You are pretty naive. Assuming you are the same person who usually posts under “Anon” you consistently post responses that reveal your naivety. I can only assume you are young and not well read (not to be demeaning). Israel was “given” nuclear power (in the bomb sense). A lot of nuclear power reactors can make weapons grade material. A non-nuclear power has no power of negotiation with a nuclear power. The politics of nuclear science is pretty clear. The ability of non-aggressive technologies (nuclear power) to be used for aggressive means (nuclear weapons) is a given until we see ourselves as one (hopefully it’s not too late).


    Quote Comment
  228. 228
    fixx Says:

    To DV82XL:
    “Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951″
    The first atomic bomb was dropped well before that.

    I would guess that nuclear weapons were the goal of the militaristic. Nuclear power was the goal of the industrialists. And politicians saw opportunity in both. Do not delude yourself that nuclear (and other) science is not a tool used by those who wish to dominate. Adversity has proven that co-operation trumps competition for efficiency. Domination is the path to failure (proven historically). A peaceful dialog is the path to progress, aggressive negotiations are like backing a wolf into corner, what would you expect?

    To be clear. My position as a true agnostic (a stand that a friend of mine denies can exist) suggests that you are unqualified to post due to an inherent bias based on your profession. A true scientist is as unbiased as they can possibly be. You cannot be unbiased since your former (possibly current) lively-hood is dependent on the nuclear industry. Not to mention that a true scientist would refrain from calling someone an “idiot” as a point of argument. Such references are archaic as they are subjective judgements made during the early years of psychology (ignorant of the types of intelligence and the difference between intelligence and wisdom). Also these types of comments are purely derogatory in nature, a path a true scientist would shun. As old as you are, grow up, make comments when you have done so. There are valid arguments but that is not what you are providing.

    I don’t mean to attack but I am drunk and bored and after all, it is you and those who post as you do that have caused me to post at all. It is the glimmer of optimism inside me that hopes you will see the light (not a religious reference) and change. Also, there needs to be some sort of sucker that is resilient enough to provide an alternate viewpoint on this blog.


    Quote Comment
  229. 229
    Anon Says:

            Fixx said:

    Because I like to revive long dead threads…

    Or because you’re one of the village idiots.

            Fixx said:

    “BMS Says:
    October 29th, 2013 at 6:44 am
    Richard Perry said:
    … this solar looks low maintenance and very flexible for servicing with out shutting down the plant.
    Well, the plant shuts itself down every night.” – BMS (just to be clear)

    And at any given time the Earth is being 50% exposed to the sun (astrophysicists correct me if I’m wrong, I’m pretty sure this is at lest the average).

    If you ignore clouds and assume that you can perfectly track the sun then yes, you’ll get 50% (which is crap).

    OTOH if you factor in clouds and also the fact that you won’t be pointing it perfectly you get much less than that (Germany has been averaging not much more than 10% capacity factor for solar, though that’s a bad place to put solar power even by Earth standards).

            Fixx said:

    Our peak power usage is NOT while we are sleeping (should be in the dark, FU*K shiftwork (f*ck spellcheck, it is it’s own word)).

    But how are we meant to charge those electric cars we’re told we’ll have to use while we sleep?

    There’s also nothing at all wrong with using cheap off-peak electricity from nuclear plants to run high energy industrial processes especially if they only need a few people to supervise.

    Another problem with solar is that our peak power usage is mid-afternoon to early-evening not local noon when solar produces its maximum output.

            Fixx said:

    BTW, your WP Anti-spam is Chinese to me, literally. An insert to all those paying attention. If you click on something you don’t understand are you culpable… under current laws… where do you live?… I suspect the answer is yes.

    WTF? The Captcha could be better implemented but what you said makes no sense.

            Fixx said:

    Germany just made a milestone that even my pessimistic mind was pleasantly surprised at.

    Oh yes, producing less energy from solar and wind than from nuclear despite solar and wind having a lot more capacity, quite a milestone.

            Fixx said:

    The B.S. that Solar and Wind power are incapable of providing us with our (entitlement based) needs has been shattered.

    It’s not BS and it hasn’t be shattered given that Germany still gets more energy from nuclear than from wind and solar and they are still using fossil fuels.

    Get back when they’ve phased out all coal and gas plants and aren’t requiring imports from France or Scandinavia to keep the lights on.

            Fixx said:

    Don’t get me wrong, if aliens attack and for the purposes of space travel nuclear energy is fine but the old adage “don’t sh*t where you live” seems to apply here.

    Which also means don’t use solar power because it’s waste problem is worse than the one nuclear has.

    But don’t worry, the anti-nuclear movement probably won’t survive the transition to a space based civilisation.

            Fixx said:

    The only argument I have heard that dampens the achievement is the issue of storage, despite the multitude of ways to store energy efficiently.

    None of those ways you mention can be assured to be able to scale up to the level we’d need them to for them to backup solar.

            Fixx said:

    The fact that with enough infrastructure we could provide enough energy for an energy conscious society to support itself (in time) has been made pretty clear.

    True, we’ve shown that nuclear power can do the job just fine on its own for thousands of years without any need for other primary sources to help out.

            Fixx said:

    Politics and mega corporations aside, the Earth will provide if we so choose.

    No, the Earth does not exist to sustain us, it does not care about us.

            Fixx said:

    We already have all the technology it just needs to be refined (continuous improvement, never a bad thing) and implemented and then we can get there.

    Yes we do, it is called nuclear fission.

            Fixx said:

    More and more I see built for purpose and retrofit systems in my country providing a net increase into the power grid, and the surface has been merely scratched.

    Which increase electricity rates for those who can’t afford them (great way to help the poor there).

            Fixx said:

    With further implementation and advancements we can supply beyond our needs.

    Yeah, fission can provide all the power we’ll need for a long time and the abundant low cost (especially off-peak) energy would allow us to run energy intensive industries to provide what we need.

            Fixx said:

    Eventually all illusions are revealed, thought I’d throw that in.

    Yes, you’re illusions aren’t exempt from that.

            Fixx said:

    Heated sodium in vacuum insulated vessels used to run steam turbines (or any other heat engine, sterling’s are pretty good) is an off the top, good enough for now solution to storage.

    Can you store enough to last a whole country at least a week in winter?

    Because that’s how much you’d have to store if you want the unreliables to not provide lots of rolling blackouts.

            Fixx said:

    The science is already there in so many ways.

    Yes it is, pity you can’t comprehend it.

            Fixx said:

    The energy is essentially free and anything we can do to decrease the net increase in temperature of our system is probably a good thing.

    Except that you have to pay to build the collector and being that the energy is low energy density you need big collectors (not cheap), then you’ve got to pay to maintain it.

            Fixx said:

    Speculatively, if we can minimize our net enthalpy during a (historically) prelude to an ice age then we can minimize the depth of the ice age (a total guess, someone qualified please show me the err of my ways).

    If we want to avoid an ice age we know exactly how to do it, just pump extra CO₂ into the atmosphere (it’s working at raising the temperature of the planet when we don’t want the planet warmed, no reason to assume it won’t work if we did want a warmer planet).

            Fixx said:

    Politics and empires are transient compared to the infinite nature of time (there is no single word for this ???, that I know of). If we want to survive as a species we need to shed our partisan ideals and accept that all the answers are in the grey areas as well as the math.

    Something tells me what you really mean is accept your ideals.

            Fixx said:

    We are all equal (who is the judge??). We are all knowing (as far as we know :) ) Altruism and information are the keys, necessity and laziness are the mothers of invention. No species has ever been in the position to control variables related to their survival as us. What or who is stopping us???

    Luddites aren’t helping that’s for sure.

            Fixx said:

    In specific response to Anon’s posts. You are pretty naive.

    Sure you’re not projecting.

            Fixx said:

    Assuming you are the same person who usually posts under “Anon”

    Mostly, though other people have been known to use that name.

            Fixx said:

    you consistently post responses that reveal your naivety. I can only assume you are young and not well read (not to be demeaning).

    Maybe, or maybe it’s a case of you reading fiction and thinking it is fact.

            Fixx said:

    Israel was “given” nuclear power (in the bomb sense).

    They had to develop the bomb themselves though did receive some help from France and Britain (exactly how much is still unknown).

    It’s also worth noting that the time period the assistance was provided was before the NPT.

            Fixx said:

    A lot of nuclear power reactors can make weapons grade material.

    Such as? But can they do it without anyone noticing or without the economics of power production being significantly hurt?

    For you see the power companies like to leave the fuel in the reactor for years at time while to make bomb fuel you’ve got to remove the fuel at least every few months for reprocessing.

            Fixx said:

    A non-nuclear power has no power of negotiation with a nuclear power.

    Not completely, but a nuclear armed state is impossible to truly defeat (they can be destroyed, but only at the cost of yourself being destroyed).

            Fixx said:

    The politics of nuclear science is pretty clear. The ability of non-aggressive technologies (nuclear power) to be used for aggressive means (nuclear weapons) is a given until we see ourselves as one (hopefully it’s not too late).

    It is very hard to use a nuclear power plant for weapons production (with the exception of the Magnox, UNGG and RBMK types and the Hanford N reactor, few if any of which are still in use and which no one is building new).


    Quote Comment
  230. 230
    Anon Says:

            fixx said:

    I would guess that nuclear weapons were the goal of the militaristic.

    No, they were considered necessarily to beat the Axis or at least not be beaten by the Axis (remember that Germany and Japan had nuclear weapons programmes as well as the US and Britain).

            fixx said:

    Do not delude yourself that nuclear (and other) science is not a tool used by those who wish to dominate.

    No different from any other technology, remember that unreliables are mainly a screen to divert attention from the fact that Denmark and Germany aren’t closing their fossil fuel power plants.

            fixx said:

    To be clear. My position as a true agnostic (a stand that a friend of mine denies can exist) suggests that you are unqualified to post due to an inherent bias based on your profession.

    I don’t see what knowledge as to whether or not a fictional character exists has to do with this but I would suggest that you are unqualified to post due to not knowing what you’re talking about.

            fixx said:

    A true scientist is as unbiased as they can possibly be.

    Yes, they also tend to be pro-nuclear.

            fixx said:

    You cannot be unbiased since your former (possibly current) lively-hood is dependent on the nuclear industry.

    I thought DV82XL worked in aviation and wasn’t dependant on the nuclear industry (except in so much as Quebec having a lot of low cost carbon neutral power plants to run industry on).

            fixx said:

    Not to mention that a true scientist would refrain from calling someone an “idiot” as a point of argument.

    It’s not an argument but a statement of fact.

            fixx said:

    Such references are archaic as they are subjective judgements made during the early years of psychology (ignorant of the types of intelligence and the difference between intelligence and wisdom).

    Neither of which you appear to posses.

            fixx said:

    Also these types of comments are purely derogatory in nature, a path a true scientist would shun.

    True scientists don’t tend to like crackpots very much.

            fixx said:

    I don’t mean to attack but I am drunk

    So that’s why you’ve been acting even more stupid than usual?

            fixx said:

    Also, there needs to be some sort of sucker that is resilient enough to provide an alternate viewpoint on this blog.

    You’d do a much better job providing it if you weren’t rambling incoherently half the time.


    Quote Comment
  231. 231
    fixx Says:

    Exuse my drunken ramblings. When I woke this morning I immediately regretted posting my comments on this blog. I should have remembered that any coherent comments I did make would be rebutted in your usual fashion. A point that did not need to be demonstrated again.

    For clarity this was what I was talking about WRT Germany:
    http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/263510/speedreads-germany-gets-50-percent-of-its-electricity-from-solar-for-the-first-time

    Agnosticism is not restricted to theology. It is the more common use of the word but it is not what I was referring to. It is my opinion that some people claiming to think scientifically hold to their beliefs with religious fervor. “Don’t become overly confident in your perception of reality”

    Once again I apologize for my posts. The tangents and railing on about nay-sayers and such was pointless and out of place.


    Quote Comment
  232. 232
    Anon Says:

    Reaching 67% solar and wind on a single day is more likely to mean they’re coming up on the limits of how many intermittents their grid can handle than that they are actually moving towards those energy sources (it’s still coal and gazprom providing most of the electrons).


    Quote Comment
  233. 233
    DV82XL Says:

            fixx said:

    Agnosticism is not restricted to theology. It is the more common use of the word but it is not what I was referring to. It is my opinion that some people claiming to think scientifically hold to their beliefs with religious fervor. “Don’t become overly confident in your perception of reality”

    Those that try and hold up the German experience with wind and solar are the the Western equivalents of the Cargo Cultists of the South Seas. Regardless of how often their perceptions are shown to be wrong, they insist on holding up random events as evidence that their underlying beliefs are right.

    Come back when Germany can claim a full quarter of 67% dispatchable generation 24/7 and I’ll be impressed. As it stands this is a meaningless metric suitable only for impressing those that have no idea just how electric power systems work.


    Quote Comment
  234. 234
    Shafe Says:

            Fixx said:

    The energy is essentially free and anything we can do to decrease the net increase in temperature of our system is probably a good thing.

    Coal is free, too. Both coal and solar energy require you to collect them and covert them into electricity. It just costs a lot more to do that with solar energy.


    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string 07tNtn to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam