dgs49 wrote:Andrew weighs in. It gets gooder and gooder.
Andrew, tell me why a terrorist group with the intelligence and resources to obtain and deploy a nuclear weapon would go after a power plant AND NOT JUST BLOW UP NEW YORK?
Typical dishonesty. Perhaps dgs49 can point us to where I referred to "a terrorist group with the intelligence and resources to obtain and deploy a nuclear weapon"?
Oh, no? But why? Because I didn't?
Just the usual red-herring bullshit.
dgs49 wrote:Ten successful, simultaneous attacks on ten separate nuclear power plants. That's realistic.
Taking down both World Trade Center Towers and slamming an airplane into the Pentagon, thereby killing almost 3000 people. That's realistic.
The simple fact remains that no potential target is or ever has been or ever will be completely invulnerable. No set of safety systems is or ever has been or ever will be completely immune to malfunction. No set of safety systems is or ever has been or ever will be completely impervious to assault.
The questions for thinking people involve assessing the likelihood of various possibilities, assessing the likely results of those possibilities, and weighing those assessments (which, combined, are the assessed risk) against the assessed benefits. That whole thinking process requires careful analysis, careful deliberation, and some unavoidable amount of educated guesswork.
That is the kind of process that adults engage in. But overgrown infants like dgs49 do not.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Crackpot wrote:Your previous post extolled their safety record.
Merely making an observation: despite running reactors (which, unlike civilian plants, absolutely DO use weapon-grade fuel!) in some of the worst possible conditions, the safety record is PERFECT.
But how relevant is our experience with nuclear-powered submarines to the risks posed by civilian nuclear power?
I don't have the exact figures, but I doubt that I'm going out on much of a limb by suggesting that the amount of power required to operate a submarine is a whole lot less than the amount of power required to run New York or Los Angeles. Maybe that matters -- just as in the assessment of risks, it matters whether one is assessing the risks of handling a firecracker or of handling a stick of dynamite.
And maybe the phrase "some of the worst possible conditions" is not entirely accurate. Sure, I can see (in broad terms at least) how operating nuclear reactor in a tiny vessel thousands of feet below the surface of the ocean presents safety issues not presented by operating a nuclear reactor in a big facility comfortably ensconced on land.
But what about terrorism? It seems to me that terrorists would have a much harder time locating and attacking a U.S. military nuclear-powered submarine than locating and attacking a clearly visible nuclear reactor at, say, Diablo Canyon or San Onofre.
Again, any risk assessment must include both of the essential components: (1) How likely is it that the bad thing will occur? and (2) how bad is that bad thing?
And I think that the public's misgivings about nuclear power are mostly driven by (2), not by (1). Yes, nuclear power has a very good (though not perfect) safety record. But if something goes catastrophically wrong at even one nuclear power plant, half a million people might be killed.
It's like playing Russian roulette with a ten-thousand-chamber revolver. Sure, the likelihood that you'll land on the one live round is low. But if you do, the result is that you become brain-splatter. The odds may be very much in your favor, but the consequence is enough to give many of us serious pause.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Do you have any idea how strong nuclear plans are built? My friend was on the crew that overhauled Millstone a few years ago...the plant is designed to survive a direct hit by a round from a 16" battleship gun. Even a fully loaded airliner wouldn't seriously damage it. The risks are infintesimal. The chance of, say, turning a tanker, a storage tank, or a CNG carrier into a gigantic bomb are several thousand times greater. Heck, a matural gas storage tank could be turned into a giant fuel-air-explosive with an ordinary antitank rocket.
We don't know what the safety record of US military reactors is. While it is unlikely that they could have concealed some forms of catastrophic failures it is not impossible. But anything short of that would be easy to conceal.
The record for civilian plants is not as good as you say. There was a design flaw which led to more than 90% of the steel being eroded away, invisibly, which was only caught in time by accident. When they investigated they found this flaw in several reactors. All of them could have failed before this was detected. I'll have to look up the details.
And the types of safety issues are multiple. What will happen when terrorists make the leap from planning for several years (9-11) to planning for 10-20 years? When that happens they have time to get people educated trained and hired to work in 'secure' plants.
Also, nuclear costs more. Right now a watt from a nuclear plant costs several times as much as current rates even if we pretend that you are never going to pay the costs of decommissioning. All additional security adds to that cost.
And a further consideration is that the type of nuclear plants used to generate electricity consume fissionable material. According to a dept of energy report if we opened a new reactor every week for 10 years we would meet the current needs (global), and we would run out of radioactive material in another 10 years. You can make fissionable material with a breeder reactor but those are much more dangerous and we would not want other countries to have them.
So the scorecard for nuclear is 1) Much more dangerous. 2) Costs a lot more. and 3) Temporary.
I am not opposed to using nuclear to generate electricity. I think we should do so when it makes economic sense (including costs to the environment by all forms of elec. generation in the calculation). But it only looks like a simple solution to people who are uneducated simpletons.
If I were a German citizen I would be a lot more worried about being dependant on the Soviet Union, I mean Russia!, for natural gas. As they are now.
Rubato is free to make things up if he chooses to do so, or to cite "coulda, shoulda, mighta," instances, but the facts remain. No deaths. No diseases. No injuries resulting from radiation leaks or "accidents" at any U.S. or Western European, or Japanese commercial power reactors. Ever. More than 50 years. And in our litigious society, there is no doubt whatsoever that if there were even a chance of some health impacts to Nuke plant or Navy workers, it would have been litigated already.
As for the terrorist threat to a nuclear power plant, the threat is so remote as to be bizarre. The containment structures are so robust that it would be pointless for any terrorist instrumentality to even consider trying to harm a larger population by destroying a commercial nuclear reactor. It would be infinitely more efficacious to devote that same amount of effort to attacking a population center itself. Times Square at 11:59pm, 12/31/XX, perhaps?
The number of half a million people killed by the destruction of a NPP is also an anti-nuke pipe dream. 65 years after the fact, the total human toll resulting from Hiroshima and Nagasaki comes nowhere near that figure, and the total radioactive package in a NP reactor is a small fraction of what is present in even a "suitcase" nuclear bomb.
Commercial reactor fuel is less than 5% U235; bomb material is 95% U235.
If you get your facts from "The China Syndrome," then of course you believe that there is some possibility that an "accident" at a Nuclear Power Plant could result in "an area the size of Pennsylvania will become uninhabitable for ten thousand years." Of course, if that's the case you also probably believe that Godzilla, a living, fire-breathing dragon, was actually created by genetic mutation of a pond frog, caused by nuclear radiation.
Commercial nuclear power is, by any objective, quantifiable measure, the safest, most promising source of energy on the planet, and its production creates no CO2 or other pollution. SOme of its byproducts are hazardous, but they can be safely contained, and there are scientifically sound and proven opportunities to re-use those waste products, which would result in a literally infinite source of energy for the future.
The longer we allow empty-headed "protesters" to interfere with the exploitation of this tremendous resource the longer we will be living with the deaths and diseases that are the proven result of burning coal, oil, diesel, and even natural gas. No serious energy expert gives any credence to the claims (prayers, actually) that "renewable" energy sources like wind and solar will ever play a significant role in overall energy production either here or around the world. They are little more than novelties promoted by tree huggers, not economically viable and only extant through massive public subsidies.
I don't personally give much credence to the more inflammatory claims about global warming, but isn't it ironic that those who give them the most credence are the same people who are the most hysterical in opposing the one great promising technology we have to reduce CO2 emissions?
"...
Nuclear power is a second conceptually viable option. Producing 10 TW of nuclear power would
require construction of a new one-gigawatt-electric (1-GWe) nuclear fission plant somewhere in
the world every other day for the next 50 years. Once that level of deployment was reached, the
terrestrial uranium resource base would be exhausted in 10 years. The required fuel would then
have to be mined from seawater (requiring processing seawater at a rate equivalent to more than
1,000 Niagara Falls), or else breeder reactor technology would have to be developed and
disseminated to countries wishing to meet their additional energy demand in this way.
... "
Nuclear is not a long-term option. It is strictly short-term 'bridge' technology
And a further consideration is that the type of nuclear plants used to generate electricity consume fissionable material
That can be solved with the stroke of a pen: dump Carter's moronic ban on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. When reprocessed, it becomes...more fuel. That isn't even mentioning the breeder reactors.
Yet again, a competent assessment of risk requires evaluating both the likelihood of the negative outcome and how negative that outcome is.
The fact remains that numerous assessments by reputable, competent entities have concluded that in a worst-case-scenario, the negative consequences would be catastrophic.
(Note to Lord Jim: I am not asserting as a fact that in the worst-case scenario, the negative consequences would be catastrophic. I am asserting as a fact that assessments to that effect have been made. In my subjective judgment, those assessments are at least plausible enough to merit serious consideration and, in light of the paucity of contrary expert opinions, probably correct. If you want to take on the experts in the relevant fields, feel free to have at it.)
Simply wishing away that hugely negative consequence doesn't cut it, except for people who make up their minds in advance. For the rest of us, the question is when we weigh the risks of nuclear power (the combination of how likely it is that the bad thing will happen and how bad the bad thing is) against the risks of solar power, wind power, etc. (same combinations), what is the best option? Contrary to the expressed views of some around here, making that determination is not a simple matter.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Jarlaxle wrote:Merely making an observation: despite running reactors (which, unlike civilian plants, absolutely DO use weapon-grade fuel!) in some of the worst possible conditions, the safety record is PERFECT.
We "know" that it is perfect, because the military tells us so. And as we alll know, the military has never lied to the public about anything ....
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Andrew, you are simply wrong. The "competent entities" you refer to have uniformly started with the conclusion they wished to reach. The people who know the science - those who work in the field - have no hesitation to work or live in or near these facilities because they understand the risks and the measures that have been taken to manage them. If you actually read the science and listen to those who are most technically competent, these issues were resolved a couple generations ago.
Rubato, as for the cost, at least 75% of the projected cost of a U.S. power plant now is related to excessive permitting and built-in delay costs, over-engineering, and generally responding to public and political paranoia. THe cost to build the same plants in China is less than half as much. And again, those who know the technology have concluded that we will NEVER run out of fuel. We will never have to extract uranium from seawater because reprocessing (which was foolishly killed by President Carter, bless his soul) is easier and more cost effective (and done outside the U.S.). And that's not even considering the further develoment of breeder reactors, which create more fuel than they burn.
Rubato, as for the cost, at least 75% of the projected cost of a U.S. power plant now is related to excessive permitting and built-in delay costs, over-engineering, and generally responding to public and political paranoia. THe cost to build the same plants in China is less than half as much. And again, those who know the technology have concluded that we will NEVER run out of fuel. We will never have to extract uranium from seawater because reprocessing (which was foolishly killed by President Carter, bless his soul) is easier and more cost effective (and done outside the U.S.). And that's not even considering the further develoment of breeder reactors, which create more fuel than they burn.
False. The high costs of nuclear are true everywhere in the 1st world including France where there has been a national consensus to build them. It is not the high costs of 'over' regulation*. And China is building COAL-fired plants by the dozen and very FEW nuclear plants because they cost more.
False again, Carter has not been in office for almost 30 years and no president has changed that decision. Saying it was "killed by Carter" is just gasbag rhetoric. I believe restricting re-processing has more to do with national security, nuclear non-proliferation, than energy policy in any case.
Go back and read the linked report. It is written by the people who know the science, and you are not among them.
When Carter left office we were the world leaders in photovoltaic technology. Reagan killed it and gave that lead to Japan and Germany (and then borrowed $400 billion to bailout the S&L he deregulated).
yrs,
rubato
Last edited by rubato on Sat Nov 13, 2010 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Breeder reactors are a good way of making materials for nuclear weapons (which can be 'dirty bombs' as well as fission or fusion-based explosives). That is why they are undesireable. We cannot build them ourselves and then enforce a ban everywhere else in the world.
False again, Carter has not been in office for almost 30 years and no president has changed that decision. Saying it was "killed by Carter" is just gasbag rhetoric. I believe restricting re-processing has more to do with national security, nuclear non-proliferation, than energy policy in any case.
Then you're delusional. But that is hardly news...
