- #1
Ken Natton
- 187
- 0
Do the events at the Fukushima nuclear plant change the arguments for and against the use of nuclear power as any part of the solution to our future energy needs?
I agree and will expand and then throw in a big caveat:Borek said:That is open to interpretation, but IMHO no.
When it comes to serious, technical discussion - this is just another lesson that will teach engineers how to design safer reactors.
When it comes to panicking public not understanding the science behind - it will just add to the arsenal of demagogic arguments, but I would not classify them as new, they will play on the same old fears.
That's not how risk analysis works/there is no such thing as a "worst case scenario". Things can always be worse and the only way to properly deal with risk is to accurately quantify it. Ie:Proton Soup said:i think the biggest change (at least i hope so) will be that you can't assume some statistical chance that say "it is only 99% likely that the biggest earthquake to be experienced in the lifetime of the facility is a 7.0". rather, you're going to have to design them for worst-case scenarios, 9.0 or higher. especially as production of nuclear power plants ramps up. and even if you are nearly certain that natural disasters are not a possibility where you site the plant, you've still got the man-made unknowns like war to deal with.
That goes without saying: a safety factor (over-design) is a part of any engineering design/analysis.so, my vote is on over-design.
It is early, but people are always going to look for expansion of the discussion as soon as the news slows down. It's being discussed in the media and others have brought it up here, so it is important to try to have a rational discussion of the issue rather than wait and allow the sensationalism to take over.rootX said:Too early to discuss.
russ_watters said:That's not how risk analysis works/there is no such thing as a "worst case scenario". Things can always be worse and the only way to properly deal with risk is to accurately quantify it. Ie:
-What is the worst possible earthquake in Japan? 9.0? 9.5? 10.0? How about in Pennsylvania? Should we assume a 9.0 even though nothing higher than 6.0 has ever been recorded?
-How many years should a nuclear waste repository be designed to last? 100? 1,000? 10,000? a million?
This isn't just important for nuclear power, but it is important for comparing one power source to another. Coal power has known risks and costs. Nuclear's risks are tougher to quantify because while the odds of a major failure are spectacularly low, the magnitude of such failures can be spectacularly high. But we have to try, because the reality of the last 30 years in the US is that we've accepted a course of action that killed hundreds of thousands of people when the alternative could have saved most of them.
One of the more successful tactics of anti-nuclear activists is to get the safety, economic, and/or regulatory bars set unreasonably/impossibly high, then just sit back and watch nuclear power fail to get over the unreasonable bar. That goes without saying: a safety factor (over-design) is a part of any engineering design/analysis.
russ_watters said:It is early, but people are always going to look for expansion of the discussion as soon as the news slows down. It's being discussed in the media and others have brought it up here, so it is important to try to have a rational discussion of the issue rather than wait and allow the sensationalism to take over.
russ_watters said:One of the more successful tactics of anti-nuclear activists is to get the safety, economic, and/or regulatory bars set unreasonably/impossibly high, then just sit back and watch nuclear power fail to get over the unreasonable bar. That goes without saying: a safety factor (over-design) is a part of any engineering design/analysis.
Unfortunately, that's not true in the US. In the US, nuclear power has been held back for almost completely political reasons.rootX said:It will be the causes that going to determine what will be changed not the event outcomes IMO. Without having proper report of what happened, what were the causes, it is not possible to discuss the changes. But as Borek already pointed that's rather part of more technical than political discussion.
Then I'll explain: It is unreasonable to set the bar higher than the bar is set for the alternatives. Or alternately, a "reasonable" analysis fairly and objectively weighs the risks of all the alternatives rather than measuring the different alternatives against different standards. [edit] Also, a "reasonable" analysis weighs risks based on criteria that have a meaningful possibility of happening. That's tougher to explain, but the Yucca project's risk analysis/design criteria is an example of what not to do. The facility was required to be designed for a very long lifespan; essentially a lifespan longer than civilization itself has lasted. What are we protecting there? It isn't us! In addition, the current choice is between Yucca and local storage and local storage isn't designed for anywhere near that long. So in order to be better (and be worth doing), Yucca only has to provide a somewhat longer storage life expectancy. Yucca also has other politically mandated flaws, such as the requirement that the disposal be permanent (ie, that we can't go back and reclaim/reuse the spent fuel), despite the fact that much of it remains useful/vaulable.Ivan Seeking said:"Unreasonable" has no clear definition. To use such language in the absense of definitive examples is the equivalent of fear-mongering.
People can say whatever they want, of course, Ivan - the problem is that your position contradicts the facts and has no rational basis. You're free to keep forwarding that - and in doing so, you provide a good demonstration of the non-technical barriers holding back nuclear power.You say may say the demands of the anti-nuclear crowd are unreasonable, whereas I say the pro-nuclear position is radically naive and irresponsible - a case of tunnel vision.
This thread is going in circles for no reason. As has been demonstrated already, and pointed out many times, there are no safer options.Ivan Seeking said:I do have a reference showing that nuclear power is historically more expensive than coal [or at least no better]. In the end, all options are driven by price. This has been the trouble with alternative fuels. Ex: We could switch to algae power almost immediately, but for a price. Same is true of solar now. It is all about cost. If we want to live with higher cost, then let's choose simpler and safer options.
Such an analysis must also include a technical analysis of how solar power can be made to handle baseline electrical load. Otherwise, you're comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't matter if solar is cheaper and safer than nuclear power at producing a kWh of electricity if it can't produce that kWh at night or in the winter while nuclear can.Ivan Seeking said:Here are some questions that I think are significant: How much do we plan to spend on nuclear power over the next thirty years? What would be the result of investing that same money in safer options? For example, how does the future of solar cells affect the viability of nuclear power [the price has been falling very quickly with breakthroughs almost every week]?
Nuclear is somewhat expensive as well as financially risky. However, both of those are still largely political issues, which by the way also affect other energy sources to a lesser but still surprisingly large extent (see the fight over Cape Wind).David Brooks speculated that nuclear is dead not because of this accident, but because the cost is too high. It hasn't proven to be as cheap as was expected. According to him, it was likely already dead through market competition.
No need: it is quite well accepted that coal power is by a fair margin the cheapest high capacity power source we have.I do have a reference showing that nuclear power is historically more expensive than coal [or at least no better].
Incorrect. Solar power doesn't work at all at night and its capacity varies with the weather and seasons. It is therefore incapable of supplying more than perhaps 20% of our electric power needs and it requires a significant level of backup. In other words, if you replace nuclear power with solar power, you also still need to build coal plants or natural gas plants.We could switch to algae power almost immediately, but for a price. Same is true of solar now.
Since it just plain can't do what nuclear does, that isn't a relevant question.What are the risks associated with solar, compared to nuclear?
Ivan Seeking said:"Unreasonable" has no clear definition. To use such language in the absense of definitive examples is the equivalent of fear-mongering.
You say may say the demands of the anti-nuclear crowd are unreasonable, whereas I say the pro-nuclear position is radically naive and irresponsible - a case of tunnel vision.
Ken Natton said:I don’t agree with even those that share my opinions
Borek said:
WhoWee said:I admire the Japanese people for their collective behavior in this crisis. Especially, I admire the personal sacrifice made by the workers at the plant.
Given this is a political thread, I'd like to pose a politically relevant question. If this event happened in the US and the workers were unionized - do you think we would see the same level of personal responsibility - or would union leaders demand someone else do something?
nismaratwork said:I think if you placed them in the same situation as Japan; a small country where you know the next guy who has to go into that radiation field if you don't, where you know that your friends, family, and everything you love and know is downwind... and I think you'd see the same actions.
WhoWee said:I agree the workers would react in a similar fashion. However, I asked a very specific question (my bold) - "would union leaders demand someone else do something? ".
nismaratwork said:Right, and my response was a kind way of saying that you're talking about apples and engine blocks... veeeery different. There is no US equivalent you can hold up, IMO because of the scale of the country and the ability to escape disaster. If you could make a similar model, I think you would have silence from union leaders, nobody else COULD do anything. This action in Japan is desperate, and there is no place to run; there are different bosses there, and they're ordering in the troops so to speak.
I'm afraid this just isn't a good example for your view of unions; people come together in a catastrophe that effects their whole country; nothing like that has happneed in the USA. Katrina was huge, but still if you lived away from the region and turned off your TV, it could be nonextistant to you. People can call for NOLA to be abandoned... a catastrophic release at Fukishima would harm EVERYTHING these people know and love.
You can't take a completely foreign experience and twist it into a meaningless hypothetical. What union leaders said in such a situation would be meaningless, and likely tailored to the inevitable response of the rank and file. Why protest when their own families and homes are ALSO on the line?
WhoWee said:I think this is a perfect example. At the end of the day people will rise to the occasion and do the right thing. The idea that workers must be protected from the Government or large corporations falls apart under life and death circumstances.
As for (the flood that occurred AFTER the hurricane) Katrina (partly because local politicians chose to build a bridge with the money Bill Clinton gave them to secure the levees) - I'd like to engage in a thread exploring union behavior in the months (years now) that followed.
nismaratwork said:Ooook, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree; this is not an exception to prove the rule, or visa versa. You're better than using this as a prop for an anti-union agenda.
WhoWee said:At our current point in time this thread is speculative - accordingly, I'm speculating - label IMO please.