Japanese Company Admits To Nuclear Cover Up 295
a-charles writes "Just as power companies are considering the first expansion of nuclear power usage in the US since the 70s, Reuters reports on a disturbing anouncement from the nation of Japan. On Thursday the Japanese power company Hokuriku Electric Power admitted it had covered up a 1999 incident in which mishandling of nuclear fuel rods led to an unintended self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reaction. The mishap caused the plant, located in central Japan, to enter a 'critical state' for much of those 15 minutes. Apparently, this was in the same year that two workers were killed in a separate incident in Tokaimura, northeast of Tokyo. A pair of workers were killed after using buckets to mix nuclear fuel in a lab, a test that also created an uncontrolled chain reaction for a short time. The nuclear power industry already has a bad name for safety violations in Japan, and these revelations are unlikely to help with that public image."
New race of mutants (Score:4, Funny)
This is a well known nuclear power plant (Score:3, Funny)
We all know what [wikipedia.org] power plant is that. The Sector 7-G Safety Inspector Homer J. Simpson refused to make any statement, but was heard shouting "D'oh!" right after the incident.
Re: (Score:2)
Homer: "Nucular. It's pronounced "Nucular".
That makes two accidents in 1999 (Score:4, Interesting)
--
Fusion power today: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, too many 'flat earth' types are hindering scientific and technological progress with their foolish FUD campaigns and political action committees-- hindering third world countries efforts to build fossil fuel burning stations to provide basic services to their impoverished
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As you point out, different technology is called for. However, it is not at all clear that pebble bed reactors can be run safely on a commerc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nuclear vs. fossil fuel deaths (Score:2)
I hope you're aware that the coal mining industry suffered over 6000 accidental deaths [wikipedia.org] in 2004 alone. Given the relative safety records of coal vs. nuclear energy, it's not even close. Nuclear energy is safer by a long shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not this is true, I'd rather live 5 miles from a nuclear plant than a coal plant. With a nuclear plant, there is a tiny probability that something might be released into the air that will affect my health. With a coal plant, you KNOW it's happening daily.
Anyone who
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The one in 2006 in Sweden suggests that modern plants can't be operated safely but that the risk of a very large accident is one in forty years at the present level of reliance on nuclear power. If the list is very incomplete, as this cover up might urge us to consider, then the risk of large accidents could be much higher than one in forty years at the present level of reliance on nuclear power. In that case, increasing our reliance on nuclear power seems foolhardy and decommisioning existing plants on an accelerated schedule would be a good policy to adopt.
You do not have a clue about nuclear safety. As someone who was personally responsible for the safety of a nuclear reactor I can tell you are just fear-mongering. You have cited some abstract fear (that accidents aren't reported) that you somehow use to rubberstamp fear about every design of nuclear reactor, including in a latter post the pebble bed reactor. Do you have justification that the US industry is not safe and not reporting its issues? You damn well better because you are claiming that the US
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say that your list of studies does not really pass the smell test for a system that has any chance of ever being considered reliable on the safety front. Sounds like system complexity is a bit too high.
I have not seen companies that own reactors shutting down the coal plants that they also own so are you not being a bit optimistic on the idea that nuclear power can re
Re: (Score:2)
Now, to details: You say 90% of the list represents minor spills. I count two minor spills. Which are the others?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Buckets work waaaaay better than bowls.
(Unless its the bowl for a KitchenAid mixer.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doh! (Score:2)
Hmm, real life Homer Simpsons, now that is scary. So I guess it's not just airport security that has under trained people in important jobs.
Let the flamewares begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
I can imagine a solution to clean up the former (although this would make nuclear fuel even more expensive), but I haven't yet seen a (proven) solution for the latter*
Until we're there, nuclear just doesn't seem as viable as coal (sad tho' that may be).
The search for a better solution to our energy need continues. (be it sequestration for coal, waste disposal for nuke, higher efficiency for wind, cleaner materials & higher efficiency for solar, better storage techniques for all the above). There is no silver bullet.
* Not to mention the fact that we won't allow some countries to develop nuclear energy, so its an energy solution that's not even on the table for many parts of the world.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We could build them cheaply (they don't have to re-enter the atmosphere) and I think safely enough (lots of experience building rockets that don't fall apart when *leaving* Earth) not to have to worry.
But, I'm an intelligent environmentalist, there are lots of crazies out there
Re:Let the flamewares begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a crazy novel idea for you: Why just not stop wasting so much energy in the first place? If you need less energy, you need not worry as much about where you will get it from. Let's be honest, a lot of the energy used today is senselessly wasted on matters of pure convenience. We have standby circuits in many electronics products that needlessly waste energy, we leave our computers running all the time even if we're not around, same for light; we waste gigantic amounts of energy to produce things like
Re:Let the flamewares begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I don't think we could.
To reduce the no-load power requirements of transformers, you're going to have to drastically increase the price of each unit.
I certainly don't leave my computers running all the time unless necessary, and for those that do, CPU power-saving features have trickled down to desktops now, so computers are more efficient when idle than ever before.
Tin foil takes energy to manufacture, but cleaning and reusing takes time, money, and energy too.
And if you don't think the above points are important, I suggest you consider that people working to pay for their vastly more expensive gadgets will waste lots more energy than any of those could possibly save in return. Remember, only about 1/4th of the electricity in the US is used for residential purposes. The other 3/4ths is used by companies... The company where you work to get the money to buy things. The factory that assembles the brand-new (energy efficient) products you buy. etc.
There's little sadder than watching a rabid environmentalist throw away perfectly good, working equipment. Often, spending lots of money to buy a new "green" item gets you a product that is only marginally more efficient than the old one.
If you want to actually save a non-trivial amount of energy, the solutions aren't easy or glamorous. Better home insulation will make a huge difference. Turn down your heater, so your refrigerator doesn't have to work as hard. Dry your clothes on a line. Compost all your own garbage. Get the entire world to drive mopeds to work (hopefully with 4-stroke engines). etc. Hell, in warmer climates, you'll probably save hundreds of dollars each years on air conditioning if you spend a few minutes, and $20 to duct the hot exhaust from your refrigerator, directly outdoors.
If you consider things like indoor plumbing a convenience, then yes, lots of energy is wasted on modern conveniences. If you instead consider that a necessity, then no, relatively very little energy is wasted on conveniences.
And even if you cut out all completely non-essential human activity, we'll have the same issues with power that we have now. Even when you're burning less of it, coal is still toxic, oil is still expensive, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's no load, it shouldn't be connected to the mains at all. That's what the right kind of power switch will do, cut it off from the mains altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
A coworker of mine was going on and on about some new electric car that is coming out in a lotus like body. He was fawning over the lightweight composites and other clever weight reductions, like engines in the wheels so that there doesn't have to be the whole cam-shafty thingy.
What occurred to me here was that one of the best features of this vehicle is that it is lighter. That's definitionally energy-cons
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's a law [wikipedia.org].
Re:Let the flamewares begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding, right? There are many places where power can be saved. Example:
Sure it is, after all the whole planet is solar powered.
Also, I don't get what's the deal with "windmills chop birds". Yes, they do sometimes. But birds fly into skyscrapers quite often too, and for some reason that doesn't seem to stop anybody from building them. There are also types of windmills that rotate slower, and are less dangerous to birds.
Now, I have absolutely nothing against nuclear power, if well done, but what you say simply isn't true. Other viable alternatives exist as well, and nuclear isn't the only option.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they do sometimes. But birds fly into skyscrapers quite often too, and for some reason that doesn't seem to stop anybody from building them.
The windmills here in San Francisco kill something like 4,000 birds a year. I doubt that many run into skyscrapers.
Re:Let the flamewares begin! (Score:4, Informative)
You might wanna do a little research before making claims like this. For example, ignoring the clear sensationalism (it's MSNBC, after all), I have here an article where a researcher claims to have studied skyscrapes which kill 200 birds per day [msn.com].
Re: (Score:2)
"Since the mid-1980's, a number of research organizations, universities, and consultants have conducted studies on avian mortality due to wind turbines. In the U.S., these studies were prompted because of the relatively high number of raptors that were found dead at the Altamont Pass Wind Farms near San Francisco."
"After dozens of studies spanning nearly two decades, we now know that the Altamont Pass situation is
Re: (Score:2)
You're confused, I think, by the power line losses in transmission. Unless you're a physicist working on building superconducting power lines, I highly doubt you will be able to improve the efficiency of our power distribution system.
Re: (Score:2)
--
Gener
Reference? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it were true, then people in the 15th century would have used the same amount of energy as people living today, which is obviously false. Also obvious is the fact that nobody wants to live in a dark, cold world where long-distance transportation is near impossible, as humans in the 15th century did. So, what we need to do is find a way to reap the benefits of modern technology while using a lesser amount of energy. This is not impossible either, and the results are not trivial.
Germany, for example, gets by with a per capita energy consumption of around 40% of that of the United States without a significant loss in standard of living. How is this done? People habitually turn off lights in rooms that they are not in; smaller, more fuel efficient cars are the norm; waste products are heavily mined for reusable resources; every major city has a reliable, efficient, and widely utilized public transportation networks; people tend to choose bicycles or walking to nearby locations rather than driving; individuals reuse packaging (you bring your own bags to the grocery store); products are generally packed in less packaging material. Some of these things are done by individuals, some of them require government or corporate intervention. However, millions of people choosing to do the right thing creates significant, measurable results on that country's energy footprint.
So what can you do? Light bulbs are the single biggest user of energy in most western households. Turning off lights in rooms you are not in makes a small difference. Turning the heat down a couple degrees makes a small difference. Selecting a smaller car makes a small difference. Avoiding using that car when you don't need to makes a small difference. Sorting your waste materials for recycling makes a small difference. Taken together, these measures make a huge difference in the amount of energy you as an individual consume. If most of your fellow citizens do the same thing, together you will have a huge impact on the amount of energy your country consumes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There, fixed that for you. For nuclear power plants to be safe in the US, you have to have them built and run by non-profit or governmental organizations and heavily supervised by a third-party. Why? Because profit-oriented companies in the US repeatedly place profit first and safety second unless they are forced to. Since your governmental system is currently far too susceptible to lobbying and a private nuclear industry (building billion dollar plants) has plenty o
The small-uranium-reserves fallacy (Score:3, Informative)
Plus, there's thorium, which is three times as common as uranium and also fissile.
Sources:
http://www.n [nuclearfaq.ca]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There are many things you can do in the right location and improved distribution makes a lot of things viable. There's even a very large tidal power station in France that is around fifty years old - it's a far more mature technology than nuclear power.
Firstly I'll provide my opinion that anyone that pushes a single energy source no matter what it is
Re: (Score:2)
http://images.pennnet.com/articles/pe/cap/cap_0702 pe_technology01.gif [pennnet.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_controv ersy#Economics [wikipedia.org]
The technology is a solved problem, and building safe reactors is no longer a technological challenge.
Remember - no means nothing (Score:2)
No CO2? Nothing? Not a single bit? Consider the mining and the very heat intensive enrichment process - it takes a lot of heating to get Uranium Hexaflouride gas. Even a few thousand tonnes of concrete that make up the building and containment involves a lot of CO2 release - remember you start with calcium carbonate. No CO2 is only a convenient lie to paint the thing green. Less CO2 than most alternatives is what the nuclear lobby s
Links (Score:2)
One thing that may not be apparent to most however is the efficiency of thermal plants increases dramaticly with size up to a point while things like photovoltaics only have an additive benefit so the con
Re: (Score:2)
My electric bill says otherwise--after taking steps to reduce my usage and to be more efficient, I noticed a distinct savings (bill was reduced by about 1/3).
Is that trivial?
Or were you referring to power applications besides the home?
Re: (Score:2)
is this why most UK high street stores heat the store during the winter but jam the doors open to 'entice' people in?
You don't consider that wasteful?
Why are the street lights in the middle of nowheresville still on at 3AM when the only eyes looking at them are foxes?
Why are street lights not fitted with motion sensors for that stuff anyway?
Why are businesses leaving their billboard lighting on from 1am-5am every night?
We waste an incredible amount of energy all the time. The PC I'm typing t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-wi
There's a similar story down in Arkansas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just the thing to use to flame people - otherwise broadcast power is still a bit impractical even with good columnation.
Re: (Score:2)
Year after year, people try to get the US efficiency standards raised, and year after year, the car lobby forces such measures to be abandoned. But the fact that such standards exist at all (weak though they are) shows that the system works fine, we are just arguing over the extent to which such standar
Re:Let the flamewares begin! (Score:5, Informative)
> the latter*[nuclear waste]
> Until we're there, nuclear just doesn't seem
> as viable as coal (sad tho' that may be)
Of course, coal burning generates radioactive waste as well. The concentration is small but the volumes are very large.
sPh
Nuclear cycle (Score:2, Informative)
1. Mining.
This is the same as any other kind of mining, just that what you dig up is a bit more dangerous, so you'll have to be carefull. No fundamental problems here.
2. Reaction
No fundamental problems here, just handling dangerous materials, have to be careful. The good thing is that you'll actually reduce the amount of radioactive material in the reactor.
3. Waste
Well now you just put the material that remains back were it came from. End result
Re: (Score:2)
No fundamental problems here, just handling dangerous materials, have to be careful. The good thing is that you'll actually reduce the amount of radioactive material in the reactor.
Handling volatile radioactive fuel? Potential outbrake of uncontrolled chain reaction? Numerous points of failure? Some people with an almost complete lack of respect for regulations and instructions?
The reaction process is dangerous, just look at Chernobyl.
Although nuclear power has been relatively safe, but no one ca
Re:Nuclear cycle (Score:4, Informative)
Here are the Chernobyl facts:
o Chernobyl only has a single containment shell which is thinner what anyone considers safe for a single layer of a double layer containment design. In other words, any non-Russia design has two containment shells, both single layers are thicker than what Chernobly provided with its single shell. Why? Because its dangerously stupid to do it that way.
o Chernobyl has fewer safety mechanisms that is considered safe by the world, even as far back at the 1950s. Basically, all non-Russia designers have deemed Chernobyl a worst case accident waiting to happen and unfit to be built. Only in technologically inferior Russia could such a design be approved. Even by Three Mile Island standards, where some monitoring equipment was not installed, Chernobol is third world sub standard. This is important because by the time Three Mile island went online, even its monitoring equipment was considered sub standard by its opponents.
o What little was installed for Chernobyl's auxilary cooling systems were non-functional and in need of repair. They were offline. Ignoring all non-Russian operated reactors, the reactor would have been taken offline as a matter of safety protocol.
o But small penis Russia had something to prove, so they DISABLED their remaining safeties! Followed by a mandate from the Russian government that they begin a series of very dangerous tests. These tests would be considered dangerous for any fully operational, non-Russian reactor. In otherwords, basic protocols say you NEVER do these types of tests on a full scale reactor unless the reactor is specifically designed for these types of tests.
o And oh, let's make sure they do these tests while the reactor has a skeleton crew. Basically, they had so few people, they could never hope to react to any real emergency.
So in a nut shell, we have a design that is so flawed, it could NEVER contain any type of serious accident and by worldly comparison, is considered ufit and should never have been built. Most of its backup systems were never installed and what few were installed, were not operative and in need of repair. Both common sense and basic safety protocols were already violated yet they contained to run. What few safetys remain were purposely disabled by the skeleton crew to allow for a series of very dangerous tests. The tests caused a run away which any other non-Russian design would have safely handled. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume a non-Russian reactor would of failed...but all non-Russian containment shells would have properly contained the situation causing only a minimum of radioactive venting. And that's still assuming a 1960 - 1970s reactor design. Modern designs would simply melt into a slag, shutting down the runaway, preventing any and all containment loss.
Long story short, anyone that thinks Chernobyl is in any way, shape, or form an example of how dangerous nuclear power is is ignorant of the subject, and unworthy to debate it. Pointing to Chernobyl as a posterboy makes as much sense as pointing at a standard bomb and declaring nuclear is dangerous. Chernobly is a posterboy of how small Russia's penis is and nothing more. In otherwords, if one wanted to spread radioactive contamination over a huge area, you do it, by design, EXACTLY how Russia did it. Chernobyl is a posterboy of how to build a bomb while calling it a power plant.
If anything, it proves that we don't want Russia building nuclear power plants. If anything, it proves that Russia is technologically incompetent. If anything, it proves that the Russian government is unethical and immorale. If
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Admittedly, there were a number of issues with the RBMK reactor, and it probably wouldn't have been able to happen to common western designs, but then again it did have safety mechanisms which could have prevented what happened.
There weren't any "series of very dangerous tests", but a simple test
Re: (Score:2)
That was not my point. My point was, citing Chernobyl in any context as it relates to western nuclear safety (or general nuclear safety) is completely off topic. Chernobyl is what happens when people purposely go out of their way to create a nuclear cloud. Period. Citing nuclear weapons tests
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they have NOTHING to contribute... The Reason? Because incompetence, shoddy, inadequate equipment and good old fashioned dumb-ass bravado are things of the past. Such things can never again happen in the future. Never.
Re:Nuclear cycle (Score:4, Interesting)
The turbine spin-down test that the Soviets were attempting to do was not particularly dangerous and was a reasonable test. The Soviets wanted to determine how long the generators would be turned by the turbines if the site lost power from the electrical grid and steam production was lost (low reactor power, ruptured steam line, etc). The turbine spin-down time would provide information on how long they had to bring the diesel-powered generators online.
The problem was in the design of the test protocol and the lack of oversight by nuclear engineers. The test required that the power levels of the reactor be decreased. About 13 hours after the reactor was brought down to 50% power (1600 MWt), the reactor was ordered by the electric-grid dispatcher to resume full power in order to meet demand. At that point, if a nuclear engineer was in charge, would have postponed the test for several days because of Xe-135 production, which has a huge neutron absorption cross-section (it eats neutrons).
Instead of terminating the test, the test director resumes the test and orders the reactor power to be decreased. The operators fail to program the computer to maintain power at the 700 MWt to 1000 MWt. The excess of Xe-135 causes the power to fall to 30 MWt, so the operators withdrew the majority of the control rods in order to maintain power. Soon after, all eight coolant pumps were activated in order to keep the reactor cool after the test. The fact that the high-flow rate was part of the test protocol is unusual because it violated the operating rules, however, the automatic-scram was bypassed for the test. If a nuclear engineer was in charge, the test should have been terminated before this step (not because of the high-flow rate, though). The increased flow rate decreased the reactivity (remember graphite has a positive temperature coefficient), which require additional control rod withdrawl to maintain reactor power level. These control rod withdrawls was in violation of the operating procedures for the reactor. The fact that the operators were having difficulty in maintaining power was a big warning that there was a lot factors contributing negative reactivity to the system (Xe-135 poisoning, excessive heat removal).
At this point, the reactor is too difficult to control automatically, so the operators assumed manual control and turned off more of the emergency shutdown signals. One minute before the accident, the computer indicated excess reactivity was present and the operators blocked the emergency shutdown. Power started to increase rapidly (through the magic of a positive temperature coefficient) and the reactor operators began insertion of the control rods. This step had the opposite effect because the control rods had graphite leaders on them (in order to maintain symmetry when fully inserted). The graphite leaders introduced additional positive reactivity and displaced water (thus removing a source of negative reactivity). The power increased further because of this step. The reactor had several pules in power in the 100 - 500 time normal power range for about 4 seconds.
The operators at Chernobyl were some of the best in the Soviet Union, but were not adequately trained. The test director did not fully understand the safety requirements and was under pressure to complete the test before the May Day holiday. In addition, the next scheduled down time for the reactor would the next year. There was also a poor chain-of-command (too many "bosses") and the test planning process did not involve the desig
Re: (Score:2)
The turbine spin-down test that the Soviets were attempting to do was not particularly dangerous and was a reasonable test. The Soviets wanted to determine how long the generators would be turned by the turbines if the site lost power from the electrical grid and steam production was lost (low reactor power, ruptured steam line, etc). The turbine spin-down time would provide information on how long they had to bring the diesel-pow
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ion Propulsion (Score:2)
Once you have orbital launch vehicles that can be powered themselves on nuclear power then all you have to do is store your global radioactive waste up and every six months or so use your nuclear launch vehicle to propel the waste into orbit and then jettison te waste capsule with a small booster propelling it into the sun.
Problem solved forever.
I really have yet to see why more research is not being one into
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let the flamewares begin! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it is not a problem in the slightest, if we use modern designs like the Integral Fast Reactor [wikipedia.org]. Current reactors only extract a few percent of the energy from the Uranium, and throw out the rest. Merely by recycling this "waste", any new Uranium mining can be delayed for certuries.
Using the aforementioned technology renders the waste problem inconsequential. More than that, it is likely to actually improve the waste situation; these reactors burn away all of the really nasty elements, and the little remaining waste is much safer and (relatively) very short lived.
Furthermore, the design is passively safe, and meltdowns are impossible.
The search is over. Of course we should continue to investigate other technologies, but we have a perfectly workable and very nearly ideal one staring us in the face. For the foreseeable future, this is the silver bullet.
In any case, holding out for something like the Tokamak is a waste of time. While a Fusion machine, in the end, it is hardly radiation free; the neutronic fusion reactions will slowly irradiate the hundreds of tons of reactor, which will eventually need to be disposed of and replaced.
Much more interesting and promising in my opinion is the Polywell, [wikipedia.org] conceived of by Dr. Robert Bussard. The device seems like it may be perfectly feasible in the short term, and would have so many advantages, that it is madness not to make the minimal investment. I'm not going to discount Tokamak research, but we should really be investigating the alternatives as well. Anyway, here is Dr. Bussard's Google talk as well, for those who missed it: Should Google Go Nuclear? [google.com]
Nuclear is more viable (Score:2)
If we allowed breeder reactor and burner reactors then we could cut the amount of nuclear waste in tenth. At least one of these two technologies has been proven through extensive use in france. It is safe and cost effective. Studies have concluded that the resulting waste from burning all the (estimated) uranium in the US could be stored in a single Yucca mountain type proj
The problem with nuclear (Score:2)
"The real problem" suggests there is only one "real" probly. While both mining and disposal are certainly real problems, it is also true that a real problem with (commercial viability of) nuclear energy is the reactors themselves, and particularly their safety. The reason no reactors have been built in the US since the 1970s is the potential li
Re:SELL it to them, for oil! (Score:5, Interesting)
Feasible transmission distances (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm very much of the opinion that more nuclear power is a good thing, It's clean, generally safe, & could serve as a solution to the global warming problem, but the public'll never agree with it if monkeys like this keep screwing it up.
Re: (Score:2)
People are not safe (Score:3, Interesting)
[*]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_mile_island [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Po
Re: (Score:2)
But it somehow mixes well with huge hydro-electric dams, and coal/oil/natural-gas fired power plants?
I'd be far more worried about a dam in my backyard than I would about a nuclear power plant. Just ask China...
Re: (Score:2)
Statements like this are pure FUD.
I guess we're ahead of schedule (Score:2)
List of Nuclear Accidents (Score:2)
Statute of limitations (Score:2, Interesting)
I admit I take things like this kind of personally because my family and I live within striking distance of these incidents.
This is the sad side of a culture which doesn't question or criticize. If people want to hide their dirty laundry in an accounting or business situati
I just love it when people hate nuclear power (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I think everyone that hates nuclear energy should go jump of a bridge. What's next wind power fears, I mean we don't want to kill the birds or slow the earths rotation, and destroy the view. Oh wait do you mean my solar power panels have to be replaced every 10-15 years and produce huge amounts of localized heat. Oh then we have clean coal that produces more radioactive waste then any other form energy. Ok so its just radon and its half life is ~4 days.
So if we can't have Coal or nuclear power plants and well we don't want to slow the earths rotation down because it could cause the moon to crash in the earth. An well we have to free Niagara Falls so that its all natural again. Then we have to ban the sun and eliminated all animals because they produce more carbon than all the cars&factories on the plant. We also can't have Hydrogen cars because currently all industrial Hydrogen comes from oil. An because you hate nuclear power you can't have the high temp generation of nuclear power plants that are designed to produce hydrogen.
I guess that if you think we can control the thermal properties of the earth by using carbon emissions. We should build more nuclear power plants/dams/windmills no one solution meets are current and future power requirements. Ps if you would like to stop global warming ban all living animals! Go hunting and kill every creature you see. You will help prevent global warming. Ha if you kill more than 6 large animals you can drive hummer and still have a net carbon savings at the end of the year!
Cheers,
Bill T
Re: (Score:2)
Solar PV pays back its energy cost in 1.5-3 years according to this: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_basics.html [energy.gov]. Solar Cell manufacturers warrant their systems to last 20-25 years with many older systems going 30+ years (as is the expectation for current systems being installed).
In the long run, if we build a electric power infrastructure
Re: (Score:2)
I never thought I'd say this... (Score:3, Insightful)
I never thought I'd refer to France as exemplary... So, here it goes:
Critical State? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know what you mean about the misuse of the term "critical," but I think in this case it is the proper term to describe a bad thing. In the first situation a reactor (presumably shut down for maintenance, probably with no systems to come to the res
Don't let the sin... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, to my energy rant.
Nuclear power plants provide the most efficient production of electricity. It far outstrips the ability of coal, oil, solar, wind, whatever. And, it would be foolish to think that we are going to REDUCE the amount of electricity we need. So, please, all you tree-huggers, just go home. Society is dependent on an ever-increasing amount of the stuff, so just accept it. Thus, we need a power source that gives up the most bang for the buck.
This incident, as with others, provides invaluable data that we learn from, improving the process everywhere else.
All of the electric-car fantatics should be cheering for more nuclear power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you cook the books - if you want numbers closer to reality consider British Nuclear Fuels and the subsidy that every UK electricity user pays to keep them going. If you cook the books and not consider mining, producing the fuel or building the installations you get close to zero CO2 emissions too - I dodn't know why the books are being cooked there becuase people should be happy enough with it being around half what you woul
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that nuclear plants have to be run by human beings. It's the same problem we have with government: we can design systems that work great in theory, like communism, if we ignore the fact that humans make mistakes all the time, but to make a system that really works, we need to count on people screwing some things up but have a system in place where those screw ups won't kill us all.
I'm not
Re: (Score:2)
Second, yes, as long as humans are part of the safety formula, we are going to have issues. I took most issue with the request that we reduce our power needs to obviate the need for nuclear power.
I forget the count at the moment, but I think the American Navy is operating over 100 nuclear-powered vessels. Their safety record is impeccable. Not perfect, but impecca
Nuclear Plants a danger? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, people died so Nuclear energy is dangerous! Talk about FUD, Lets see how safe how great COAL mining is!
Stats are here for coal mining in the US alone. [msha.gov] You get around 30 people dying AND 2000+ injuries (or 5% of the work force) is involved in something harmful to their health EVERY YEAR.So WTF is dangerous about Nuclear power plants now?
False choice (Score:2)
--
Save money with solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Nuclear is much, much cheaper than any "alternative" energy sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_controv ersy#Economics [wikipedia.org]
Safety? Reliability?
Compare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disa sters_by_death_toll#Flood_disasters [wikipedia.org]
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disa sters_by_death_toll#Coal_mine_disasters [wikipedia.org]
with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disa sters_by_death_toll#Nuclear_ [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you consider coal to be a renewable
Re: (Score:2)
If you can write you should have outgrown such arguments. Nuclear power has to stand on it's own merits.
Re: (Score:2)
Gojira? (Score:2)
We can handle nuke power just fine. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm an advocate of atomic power in general, and I'm simultaniously completely opposed to atomic power under the control of a for profit corporation. Corporations aren't evil, but they are sin
Re: (Score:2)
If you screw up in a nuclear reactor, you've got the potential to kill or at least severely screw up hundreds or thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people.
Hence, we're a lot more willing to trust that the people operating gas devices are competent, or wear the risk that they aren't.
Note: i actually support nuclear power... playing devils ad