1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

The Future of Nuclear Power

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by rocketsjudoka, Mar 15, 2011.

Tags:
  1. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,167
    Likes Received:
    48,334
    How do y'all think the problems with the Fukushima plants will affect the future of nuclear power? Right now the MN legislature is debating lifting the ban on new power plants. It had been thought that this ban would be lifted with little opposition but things might change given the situation in Japan.
     
  2. bnb

    bnb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    316
    It will have an effect. No doubt. Uranium stocks are down.
     
  3. Depressio

    Depressio Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,416
    Likes Received:
    366
    [​IMG]

    Keep it going, but have strict building codes and regulation for safety's sake.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Qball

    Qball Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,151
    Likes Received:
    210
    I don't think it would be fair to judge nuclear energy on the basis of one incident happening in one of the most earthquake prone areas. Japan to a risk building it but with good measure. Unfortunately, failure occured even with triple redundancy. That, to me, seems like just plain horrid luck.

    For something with such a high magnitude of risk, any sane engineer would ensure 3-sigma protection to mitigate the risk. I'm sure the calculated chances of all 3 fault prevention systems failing were REALLY low.
     
  5. bnb

    bnb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    316
    well....that's kind of the point. Those against nuclear reactors aren't super cool with the risk being reaaalllly low. How were we supposed to know? Won't ever ever ever happen again (until the next time). Just horrid luck. Bummer.

    If it actually happens, the perception that it could happen get's a little stronger, no?
     
  6. Beavis

    Beavis Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    11
    there are plants in Palo Verde and the Vallecitos..my dad has connections with these

    it is these plants that are near the san andreas fault and so we are going to have a disaster here at home. People on here keep begging me for information, thats private.

    Look , do I have to spell it out for some of you guys? When the plant overheats,it can bust a uranium rod and this will not be a "mushroom cloud" it will be a ground wave of radiation thats black and will cover all of Arizona and South California.

    My dad who for the past 40 years has been in control of engineering the building of these plants tells me that the FCC isnt allowed to warn people. People are stupid sheep.

    Think about it, you want to raise a family, so oh I know, lets go live in AZ or Cali near a fault line that has a nuclear plant within 30 miles. Dumb. They are not 9.0 quake proof. This is one of my hints that I said in the other thread I would drop.
     
  7. Beavis

    Beavis Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    11
    Interesting you mention engineer. Luckily I have private access to one of the engineers that not only was responsible for the building project of Palo Verde but also the costs and management today. The engineers didnt plan on the ground freakin sinking because of an pole shift earthquake. They tested for earthquakes,they didnt plan ever on a pole shift from the comet that is going to pass in September(15th) this year between the sun and earth and sink the freaking plant to the ground when san andreas breaks open and emits radiation all over southern cali and az.
     
  8. bnb

    bnb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    316
    I should resched my Cali trip this Sept?

    Will the PNW still be OK?
     
  9. Beavis

    Beavis Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    11
    http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=elenin;orb=1;cov=1;log=0;cad=1#cad

    use java to move the path

    march 15th 2011 was direct parallel to earth and sun and japan erupted with first pole shift


    sept 15th 2011 it will be closest to earth,and will eclipse the sun and will cause 2nd shift with +- 10 days....so between sept 10-oct 15 there will be no more los angeles or phoenix depending on which part of san andreas erupts

    if its north cali,then la gets flooded just like japan, ifs its south cali,then the palo verde station will explode

    either way, people will think its the end of the world...not yet, wait till the rocky mountains collapse because as of right now they are hollowed out from our government building underground cities...the cities will die because the government didnt plan on mountains caveing in on them from the pacific ridge pressure. http://img860.imageshack.us/i/dddddddds.jpg/
     
  10. RedRedemption

    RedRedemption Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    32,542
    Likes Received:
    7,752
    If Nuclear power were truly unsafe, there would be a lot more disasters than the Fukushima plant, which was primarily caused by natural disasters which the plant was pretty much unprepared for; the magnitude of it at least.

    Nuclear power is much more cleaner than burning fossil fuels. And it's not like we have a choice; once we run out of fossil fuels it's game over. We either funnel billions/trillions of dollars into funding a fruitless race in the search of a new miracle power source... or we can go with Nuclear power.

    Just invest heavily in nuclear power and make it safer. That's all that can be done at this point.
     
  11. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,373
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    <object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BRELablT7T4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BRELablT7T4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>
     
  12. madmonkey37

    madmonkey37 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    52
    Do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
     
  13. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,167
    Likes Received:
    48,334
    We have choices such as renewables and also conserving more. Also you have to consider the very high cost of building a nuclear plant and given what is happening in Fukushima the costs are likely going to go up. One thing I have heard is that the reasons why nuclear plants aren't being built in the US has more to do with cost of construction rather than regulation.

    Personally I am neutral on the subject on the nuclear energy and agree that overall the track record is good but I am curious to see whether this event will affect the nuclear industry.
     
  14. Mathloom

    Mathloom Shameless Optimist

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    21,088
    Likes Received:
    22,535
    Maybe the answer does not have to be extreme, and we can build nuclear power plants in places that aren't prone to earthquakes. lol
     
  15. madmonkey37

    madmonkey37 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    52
    I think its the other way around. Regulation cost are huge, I'll have to look around, but Ive read that new plants require $1+ billion in licensing cost before construction even begins. Then you have to deal with frivolous law suits\actions from environmental groups and politicians who want to exploit the situation that further prolong the construction time.

    China is building several nuclear power plants designed by Westinghouse Electric, which are projected to cost a little under $6 billion for the first two reactors, while a single reactor is projected to cost $5 billion alone here in the US.
     
  16. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,167
    Likes Received:
    48,334
    The licensing cost are huge but so are the construction cost. My understanding is that while many people in the political sphere are pressing to build nuclear plants so far there isn't much of a clamor among utilities to do so even if current bans and other regulations where lifted.
     
  17. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,167
    Likes Received:
    48,334
  18. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    35,055
    Likes Received:
    15,229
    I expect a lot of plans for nuclear plants will get scrapped in the US. Pressure to engineer for safety in the face of disaster will change the profitablity of the undertakings. The renaissance was already on shaky ground with expectations that shale gas could keep electricity plentiful in the foreseeable future.

    You could simply avoid fault lines. But, what about a terror attack on a nuclear plant? Could a well-placed suicide bomber or hijacked airplane set off a similar systemic failure and cause a meltdown? I'd expect a lot of localities fighting like crazy to keep nuclear plants out of their backyard.
     
  19. madmonkey37

    madmonkey37 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    52
    This sounds about right, nuclear plant builders and utilities were hoping that some sort legislation limiting carbon would be passed to give them the advantage. Theres too much uncertainty in building nuclear plants in the US, if you look at the history of nuclear power in the US, you'll find a bunch of half built and abandoned plants.

    Nuclear reactors are protected by a giant concrete containment building that is several feet thick, test revealed a fighter jet crashing into one at over 400mph did only 2 inches of damage. Besides terrorist go after soft targets, not a giant concrete bunker with guards equipped with automatic weapons. I'd be more worried about terrorist hitting petrochemical plants.
     
    #19 madmonkey37, Mar 15, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2011
  20. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,167
    Likes Received:
    48,334
    Here is an article about the design used for the Fukushima reactors and potential problems.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42094554/ns/world_news-asiapacific

    Reactor design in Japan has long been questioned
    Memos show concern about robustness of primary containment vessel

    The warnings were stark and issued repeatedly as far back as 1972: If the cooling systems ever failed at a Mark 1 nuclear reactor, the primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheated. Dangerous radiation would spew into the environment.

    Now, with one Mark 1 containment vessel damaged at the embattled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and other vessels there under severe strain, the weaknesses of the design — developed in the 1960s by General Electric — could be contributing to the unfolding catastrophe.

    When the ability to cool a reactor is compromised, the containment vessel is the last line of defense. Typically made of steel and concrete, it is designed to prevent — for a time — melting fuel rods from spewing radiation into the environment if cooling efforts completely fail.

    In some reactors, known as pressurized water reactors, the system is sealed inside a thick, steel-and-cement tomb. Most nuclear reactors around the world are of this type.

    But the type of containment vessel and pressure suppression system used in the failing reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant — and in 23 American reactors at 16 plants — is physically less robust, and it has long been thought to be more susceptible to failure in an emergency than competing designs.

    G.E. began making the Mark 1 boiling water reactors in the 1960s, marketing them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.

    American regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.

    In 1972, Stephen H. Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy Commission, recommended in a memo that the sort of “pressure-suppression” system used in G.E.’s Mark 1 plants presented unacceptable safety risks and that it should be discontinued. Among his concerns were that the smaller containment design was more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen — a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

    “What are the safety advantages of pressure suppression, apart from the cost saving?” Mr. Hanauer asked in the 1972 memo. (The regulatory functions of the Atomic Energy Commission were later transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)

    A written response came later that same year from Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the N.R.C. He called the idea of a ban on such systems “attractive” because alternative containment systems have the “notable advantage of brute simplicity in dealing with a primary blowdown.”

    But he added that the technology had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials that “reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of nuclear power.”

    In an e-mail on Tuesday, David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Program at the Union for Concerned Scientists, said those words seemed ironic now, given the potential global ripples on the nuclear industry from the Japanese accident.

    “Not banning them might be the end of nuclear power,” said Mr. Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who spent 17 years working in nuclear facilities, including three that used the G.E. design.

    Questions about the G.E. reactor design escalated in the mid-1980s, when Harold Denton, an official with the N.R.C., asserted that Mark 1 reactors had a 90 percent probability of bursting should the fuel rods overheat and melt in an accident. A follow-up report from a study group convened by the commission concluded that “Mark 1 failure within the first few hours following core melt would appear rather likely.”

    In an extreme accident, that analysis held, the containment could fail in as little as 40 minutes.

    Industry officials disputed that assessment, saying the chance of failure was only about 10 percent.

    Michael Tetuan, a spokesman for G.E.’s water and power division, staunchly defended the technology this week, calling it “the industry’s workhorse with a proven track record of safety and reliability for more than 40 years.”

    Mr. Tetuan said there are currently 32 Mark 1 boiling water reactors operating safely around the globe. “There has never been a breach of a Mark 1 containment system,” he said.

    Several utilities and plant operators also threatened to sue G.E. in the late 1980s after the disclosure of internal company documents dating back to 1975 that suggested the containment vessel designs were either insufficiently tested or had flaws that could compromise safety.

    Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Oversight Project with Beyond Nuclear, an organization opposed to nuclear power, says that regulators and utilities began raising concerns about the containment design as far back as the 1970s.

    “The key concern has always been that the containment structure was undersized, and that a potential accident could overwhelm and rupture it,” Mr. Gunter said.

    The Mark 1 reactors in the United States have undergone a variety of modifications since these initial concerns were raised. Among these, according to Mr. Lochbaum, were changes to the doughnut-shaped torus — a water-filled vessel encircling the primary containment vessel that is used to reduce pressure in the reactor. In early iterations, steam rushing from the primary vessel into the torus under high pressure could cause the vessel to literally jump off the floor.

    In the late 1980s, all Mark 1 reactors in the United States were also ordered to be retrofitted with venting systems to help reduce pressure in an overheating situation, rather than allow it to build up in a containment system that regulators were concerned could not take it.

    It is not clear precisely what modifications were made to the Japanese boiling water reactors now failing, but James Klapproth, the chief nuclear engineer for General Electric Hitachi, said a venting system was in place at the Fukushima plants to help relieve pressure.

    With electrical power cut off in the aftermath of the earthquake and backup sources of power either failing or exhausted, workers have been struggling to inject seawater into the reactor to maintain control, but they have had some trouble venting the resulting steam.

    Mr. Gunter argued that in any event, such venting amounts to a circumvention of the whole notion of containment in the first place. “They essentially have to defeat containment to save it,” he said.

    What role the specifics of the G.E. design is playing in the rapid deterioration of control at the Fukushima plant is likely to be a matter of debate, and it is possible that any reactor design could succumb to the one-two punch of an earthquake and tsunami like those that unfolded last week in Japan.

    Although G.E.’s liability would seem limited in Japan — largely because the regulatory system in that country places most liability on the plant operator, the company’s share price was down more than 2 percent at midday Tuesday as the situation at the Fukushima plant deteriorated.

    Still, Mr. Lochbaum said it was important to emphasize that the design specifications for containment and cooling on any reactor are a matter of balance. The primary alternate reactor design, the pressurized water reactor, calls for a thicker and bigger containment structure, for example. A boiling water reactor design like the one at Fukushima does allow for scaling back on the size of the containment system while ostensibly maintaining the requisite safety margins.

    In that sense, Mr. Lochbaum said, G.E.’s the boiling water reactors should be no better or worse in weathering accidents than any other design.

    Should the ability to cool the reactor completely fail, however, Mr. Lochbaum said, “I’d certainly rather have a bigger, thicker containment structure.”
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now