Can the nuclear industry be trusted?

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm giving Ivan the benefit of the doubt... I suspect he means that due to hysteria and lobbies it's going down, not by need alone.

Yes, and I wouldn't call it hysteria. While there is certainly some of that, every argument made in favor of nuclear power for the last twenty years will serve as evidence that the nuclear industry cannot be trusted. We were told the reactors were safe when they were built. We were told that new reactors are much safer now - you know, new and improved? Which means you were selling us the old crappy stuff the first time and still operating it? We couldn't trust you before but we can now?

What really sinks this for me is the cause of the failure. It is EXACTLY the sort of lame oversight that I have talked about in the past - the reason I don't trust any form of heavy or light industry. I have seen it too many times at too many levels. Nothing about the engineering can be trusted when industry can be so incredibly blind to the weakest link.

When we allow cost to compromise public safety or common sense, this is what we get. Those generators should have been tsunami proof, not tsunami resistant. This was caused by approximately the same mistake that sank the Titanic - the lame assumption was made that the water would never go over the wall. It was a pedestrian oversight. It was completely preventable. It wasn't a matter of failed nuclear engineering, this isn't rocket science, just as we saw in the Gulf last summer, it was a matter of failed responsibility. It is an unforgivable oversight and I seriously doubt the public trust can be recaptured. The spin masters will make mince meat of the pro-nuclear position, and at this point I have to agree with them.

I know that good people with good intentions build these systems to the highest standards. I understand that it is not a betrayal of good faith. I also know that we need nuclear power. But it is true at every level of industry that the almighty bottom line challenges reason and responsibility. What caused this disaster was the need to save a few bucks, nothing more. And for that, all of the grandiose statistics and calculations go right down the toilet. What people will remember are exploding nuclear power plants. Do I want that in my backyard? Hell no!

Public perception is I think a lost cause. It will be another thirty years before the public starts to buy into this again, and by then we may no longer need it.

 

[Al68]

Yes, and I wouldn't call it hysteria. While there is certainly some of that, every argument made in favor of nuclear power for the last twenty years will serve as evidence that the nuclear industry cannot be trusted.

Only to the ignorant.

We were told the reactors were safe when they were built.

I'd say that was a gross understatement considering reality. How many people have been killed or harmed by nuclear power plants built since then? How about other power sources? Should nuclear power be compared to zero risk perfection instead of its alternatives?

We were told that new reactors are much safer now - you know, new and improved? Which means you were selling us the old crappy stuff the first time and still operating it?

Nope. That's not what "new and improved" means.

When we allow cost to compromise public safety or common sense, this is what we get.

Nonsense. Cost must be considered, the alternative is to live in the stone age.

The spin masters will make mince meat of the pro-nuclear position, and at this point I have to agree with them.

Then you would be just as grossly and obviously ignorant and confused about reality as they are.

But it is true at every level of industry that the almighty bottom line challenges reason and responsibility. What caused this disaster was the need to save a few bucks, nothing more.

Nonsense again. This "disaster", even assuming the worst expected case, is a success story by any reasonably sane standard. The standard of being risk-free is not reasonably sane. The standard of being very safe relative to its alternatives is reasonable, sane, and was greatly exceeded in this case.

It will be another thirty years before public starts to buy into this again, and by then we may no longer need it.

Only because of hysteria, fraud, and misinformation like your post here.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Only to the ignorant.

Okay, you need to take some desperation shots, I understand.

I'd say that was a gross understatement considering reality. How many people have been killed or harmed by nuclear power plants built since then? How about other power sources?

You statement makes no sense. We are in the middle of a crisis with no knowledge of the final outcome. And there is more to this than a simple body count.

Should nuclear power be compared to zero risk perfection instead of its alternatives?Nope.

Strawman. No one said anything about zero risk, just unacceptable risk. This wasn't supposed to be possible. We've heard it all before.

Nonsense. Cost must be considered, the alternative is to live in the stone age.

Nonsense? If it can't be made safely at cost, then it can't be made safely. That is pretty much the same argument made by a pro-nuclear pundit the other night. In other words, the definition of "safe" is a moving cost-based target. Good luck selling that one!

Then you would be just as grossly and obviously ignorant and confused about reality as they are.

More personal insults? Should I infract you now? Are you capable of responses that go beyond cheap desperation shots?

This "disaster", even assuming the worst expected case, is a success story by any reasonably sane standard.

Yeah, I can see that. No further response required.

Only because of hysteria, fraud, and misinformation like your post here.

More personal insults. Not really much to say, eh?

 

[russ_watters]

Strawman. No one said anything about zero risk, just unacceptable risk. This wasn't supposed to be possible. We've heard it all before.

Yes, we have heard this before. Since this is the first major accident in 20 years (and the second major accident ever for nuclear power, in terms of environmental damage), anywhere, what is your interpretation of "unacceptable risk"? Something less than that, presumably...without clarification, that sounds pretty much like zero risk to me. You're splitting hairs when your definition of "unacceptable risk" is infinitesimally close to zero risk.

As people have pointed out multiple times in multiple threads, even if there was a Chernobyl type event about once a year, the risk would still be lower than with coal power.

We were told that new reactors are much safer now - you know, new and improved? Which means you were selling us the old crappy stuff the first time and still operating it? We couldn't trust you before but we can now?

Huh? You're calling them liars for not selling new and improved reactors before they were even invented? What nonsense is this?

You statement makes no sense. We are in the middle of a crisis with no knowledge of the final outcome.

Yet you are arguing we're already past the point where "safe" can be used to describe nuclear power. Again, you present the issue - quite improperly - as if it were binary. The choices are not "safe" and "unsafe", nor have they ever been and one accident in 20 years doesn't suddenly flip a switch from "safe" to "unsafe". Yes, we don't know how much worse this will get, but there isn't enough nuclear material in those reactors to reduce the safety level of nuclear power due to this event to below coal power.

The spin masters will make mince meat of the pro-nuclear position, and at this point I have to agree with them.

I agree with the first part at least in the short term, but c'mon Ivan - you can't present that as if they are a 3rd party and you are a dispassionate outsider looking in. We've had this discussion enough times to know that beyond always already agreeing with them, you are an anti-nuclear "spin master". Your post is almost entirely spin (propaganda)!

And there is more to this than a simple body count.

Of course there is! But if memory serves, you believe that global warming will be a near cataclysmic event this century, with millions displaced by rising sea levels and mass extinctions. Given that, your position on the relative safety of nuclear power is wildly irrational.

 

[Al68]

This wasn't supposed to be possible.

I'll ignore most of your post and just respond to this. Who said this wasn't possible? You have a source?

 

[jreelawg]

Because some radioactive species have half-lives longer than one million years, even very low container leakage and radionuclide migration rates must be taken into account.[40] Moreover, it may require more than one half-life until some nuclear materials lose enough radioactivity to cease being lethal to living things. A 1983 review of the Swedish radioactive waste disposal program by the National Academy of Sciences found that country’s estimate of several hundred thousand years—perhaps up to one million years—being necessary for waste isolation “fully justified.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Management_of_waste

This is what bothers me the most.

As for wether or not nuclear industry can be trusted, it's people who can't be trusted. Having already made such a cynical but practical statement, I'll just add that I would have to expect that what can go wrong will go wrong.

 

[cobalt124]

it's people who can't be trusted.

I'd say this is more accurate. The whole industry cannot be held to account for isolated events. Governments and nuclear plant operators maybe. I cannot see any blame going to the plant designers (I'm no expert), only, as ever, lessons to be learned (learnt?).

 

[humanino]

I for one am rather sad that a clever individual such as Ivan reacts irrationally. I will point out that there is no fault on the scientific side. If the politician wanted to buy a magnitude-10 proof plant, there is no reason to doubt it would have been designed for the proper tsunami wave. Scientists provided the best information and politicians decided to pay for a magnitude-8 proof plant. The design performed better than what was bought. I praise the engineers who are now risking their life to fix the mess. The toll is completely negligible so far. Listen to fear mongering medias if you enjoy them.

 

[nismaratwork]

Lets put aside risk for a second:

What are our options?

Oil
Coal
LNG
Solar
Wind
Biofuel

The latter three are not up to the task yet, and I don't know that we can afford to wait.

LNG is a middle ground, but the extraction is not so great, and coal is a disaster.

I truly believe that genIII+ nuclear reactors provide the possiblity of relatively safe power without many of the risks associated with coal.

Ivan, I don't understand your position... it seems unlike you in so many ways. You know i"m not again you however, so talk to me... what is it about nuclear power or the industry that is so unnacceptable? If we're resigned to something less than the ideal for now, shouldn't we embrace it, fund it, and try to refine it (no pun)?

Fusion, we know can see, is not in our near or even distant future. The challenged of breeding H_3] from lithuum in the reactor liner, AND capturing more neutrons for energy, AND avoiding the destructive effect of energetic neutrons on metal (brittle), AND containing the plasma or fast NIF-type fusion (which I doubt).

Solar is growing, but it's not there yet, nor are supercapacitors to extend our grid and add storage. We need a constant source of power, and the only option I see that carries the least total risk is Nuclear.

NIMBY and the lack of central storage for waste is an issue, but purely one of political making... old plants... same thing. I want to understand Ivan, not convince you, just understand the core of your objections.

 

[Al68]

I truly believe that genIII+ nuclear reactors provide the possiblity of relatively safe power without many of the risks associated with coal.

Ivan, I don't understand your position... it seems unlike you in so many ways. You know i"m not again you however, so talk to me... what is it about nuclear power or the industry that is so unnacceptable? If we're resigned to something less than the ideal for now, shouldn't we embrace it, fund it, and try to refine it (no pun)?

That's an especially good point. It seems obvious that not only should we not equate today's designs with technology over a half century old, a technology in its infancy, the potential for future nuclear plant designs is huge. Nuclear power is the only reasonable long term option to provide for safe, efficient energy for an ever increasing demand. And the potential for dramatic improvements in efficiency and safety is enormous, on top of the fact that it's already far safer than any alternative. Far, far safer, if only one considers reality instead of media distortion.

And what will our demand for power be in a hundred years? What is it today relative to a hundred years ago?

 

[Kracatoan]

Fusion, we know can see, is not in our near or even distant future.

Don't be so sure, quite recently I was lucky enough to pay a visit to the Joint European Torus at Culham and was fascinated to learn that their smaller experiment (MAST) would have been capable of producing a steady, albeit small, output of power if only they had taken the trouble of fitting it with a lithium blanket during construction. Another thought voiced by the scientists and engineers working there was that they felt the biggest obstacle in the way of fusion power is not our technology, but rather public fear, especially seeing as the orginal name of the JET project, something like the Experimental European Thermonuclear Reactor (I can't quite remember), had to be changed as it sounded too threatening to non-scientists.

However, back on topic, I feel it is wrong to talk of making something "Tsunami Proof" or saying that the power station should have been designed to withstand Magnitude 9 earthquakes. You can never build something and say "I have built this in such a way that it can never be damaged or destroyed", you can only build something to resist damage as best you can.

Also, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Yes of course we can look back now and say "The sea defences should have been x high and the walls should have been y strong", but back when the power plant was built, all they had to go on was what had happened in the past, seeing as there is no way to accurately predict the future, and so, they built it to withstand what they knew could definitely happen, and not waste resources making it strong enough to withstand a disaster no-one knew would or could happen.

Finally, accidents as disaster go hand in hand with progress, its just that now we are more aware of risk then we were in the past. Think, how many people have died from car accidents? or coal mining? or industrial machinery? or chemical accidents? the list goes on and on. If you want to live a risk free life then, as Al said, you would be living in the stone age. Yes this disaster in Fukushima is a dreadful, dreadful thing, but to abandom nuclear power would be much, much worse.

 

[Hurkyl]

However, back on topic, I feel it is wrong to talk of making something "Tsunami Proof" or saying that the power station should have been designed to withstand Magnitude 9 earthquakes. You can never build something and say "I have built this in such a way that it can never be damaged or destroyed", you can only build something to resist damage as best you can.

No you don't. Generally speaking, no matter how damage resistant you can make something, you could have make it more damage resistant.

What you do do, at least if you're doing things right, is balance the cost of making something better against the cost and likelihood of it failing.

seeing as there is no way to accurately predict the future, and so, they built it to withstand what they knew could definitely happen, and not waste resources making it strong enough to withstand a disaster no-one knew would or could happen.

You can make predictions about the future. A quick google search turns up the Wikipedia page which has a table that lists how often we expect to see earthquakes of various sizes. Current estimates are to see something in the 9 - 10 range once every 20 years. (I don't know if a list that estimates the likelihood of it appearing near any particular spot, though)

A quick and dirty bit of searching suggests that the Chilean earthquake of 1960 caused larger waves in Japan than the recent earthquake. I can't really say how the two really compared, though.


I recall similar facts being brought to light when New Orleans was hit by the hurricane.

Finally, accidents as disaster go hand in hand with progress,

(I'm assuming you're just reacting the OP's suggestion that we should prevent all accidents, rather than suggesting we shouldn't try to prevent them at all)

 

[AlephZero]

For all the hand-wringing. the fact is that 75% of Japan's nuclear electric capacity survived the incident with no effect on output.

Maybe the anti-nuclear lobby have a view on how what the situation would be the same investment had been put into developing wave and offshore wind power, or tidal barrier schemes, as a green alternative.

My guess is that what survived would have been nearer 0% than 75%, and the rebuilding time would be several years - even if the sea bed is still in a state where things can be built on it at all.

 

[humanino]

Anybody has information on a dam failure, actually not far from the power plant, causing about 200-300 death toll ?

 

[CAC1001]

As people have pointed out multiple times in multiple threads, even if there was a Chernobyl type event about once a year, the risk would still be lower than with coal power.

Just curious, but what is the risk of coal power and why would a Chernobyl event once a year still be lower than with coal power

 

[nismaratwork]

Don't be so sure, quite recently I was lucky enough to pay a visit to the Joint European Torus at Culham and was fascinated to learn that their smaller experiment (MAST) would have been capable of producing a steady, albeit small, output of power if only they had taken the trouble of fitting it with a lithium blanket during construction. Another thought voiced by the scientists and engineers working there was that they felt the biggest obstacle in the way of fusion power is not our technology, but rather public fear, especially seeing as the orginal name of the JET project, something like the Experimental European Thermonuclear Reactor (I can't quite remember), had to be changed as it sounded too threatening to non-scientists.

However, back on topic, I feel it is wrong to talk of making something "Tsunami Proof" or saying that the power station should have been designed to withstand Magnitude 9 earthquakes. You can never build something and say "I have built this in such a way that it can never be damaged or destroyed", you can only build something to resist damage as best you can.

Also, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Yes of course we can look back now and say "The sea defences should have been x high and the walls should have been y strong", but back when the power plant was built, all they had to go on was what had happened in the past, seeing as there is no way to accurately predict the future, and so, they built it to withstand what they knew could definitely happen, and not waste resources making it strong enough to withstand a disaster no-one knew would or could happen.

Finally, accidents as disaster go hand in hand with progress, its just that now we are more aware of risk then we were in the past. Think, how many people have died from car accidents? or coal mining? or industrial machinery? or chemical accidents? the list goes on and on. If you want to live a risk free life then, as Al said, you would be living in the stone age. Yes this disaster in Fukushima is a dreadful, dreadful thing, but to abandom nuclear power would be much, much worse.

I'm glad that you enjoyed your visit, but the progress in magnetic containment of the plasma is an ongoing challenge, and the fusion blanket breeding tritium, capturing energy, and not requiring so much downtime that it becomes economically worthless... is still as unproven as it ever has been.

I'm not downplaying the progress made... it's impressive as hell to bottle a star, but that doesn't make it a viable source of power for the grid. You make a good point about claiming to have "proofed" something (other than dough), and I'd agree. The thing is, we're not comparing "nuclear accidents every 20+ years" to "joy and peace", but rather the former POSSIBILITY against coal mining and firing. We're the proverbial frog in the slowly heating skillet, and we don't seem to grasp that.

I do, to a great extent, blame the various competing industries, which often have little to gain from giving up their importance in favor of another. In the clamor of competing lobbies and NIMBY mentality, we default to a country where we burn coal... a LOT. Who suffers?... mostly the poor. Why? Well, if you have money, you don't live near a coal fired plant, a mill, a rail-line, etc... so the people being hurt most are the least likely to report it, be believed, or have anyone care.

NUCLEAR on the other hand, is seen a threat to the gentry.

@Al68: I agree, and beyond that there's the economics of this; we can either take he helm, or let others do so. In my experience we're rather more safety conscious than say... China and Russia, so I'd prefer we do it. (plus the $$$ and jobs) We don't have a choice here, only a choice of who is at the forefront when this becomes inevitable... as it did for Japan

@CAC1001: A very fair question, and for the moment for the sake of not starting another debate let's leave anthrogenic climate change out of this. I believe in it, but it's not necessary for this argument.

Here is one view:
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

While this is 'agenda driven' it's well cited, and details the higher end estimates of the impact of coal on people around the world.

http://www.edf.org/documents/9553_coal-plants-health-impacts.pdf

In general coal in one way or another is generally estimated to be a major causal factor (depending on source) for between 8K-14K dead per year. I find it hard to believe anything like that toll can be exacted from nuclear.

We are in short, enamored with a familiar evil, and still quite frightened by the prospect of the unfamiliar. Is something which produces radioactive waste, and can do what we see in Japan safe? No. Is coal safe? No.

Why is this issue not open to the same risk-reward analysis we'd do for anything else?

 

[DaveC426913]

Just curious, but what is the risk of coal power

Coal power pollution is generally accepted as a contributor for many* deaths due respiratory distress, especially in the old, young and ill.

I guess I should post a citation, but really, you won't find many people refuting it.

*The yearly number of worldwide deaths range into the hundreds of thousands.

 

[Phrak]

This is a day of days. Ivan and I actually agree on something.

Yes, and I wouldn't call it hysteria. While there is certainly some of that, every argument made in favor of nuclear power for the last twenty years will serve as evidence that the nuclear industry cannot be trusted.

People advance their own cause. This, they can be trusted to do.

[Do I need a sanctified scientific source to make this statement, or do I have to call it an opinion?]

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Also with coal you have the nasties of fly ash, SO_x, NO_x, CO_x, mercury, several other heavy metals including uranium and thorium (gasp)

For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html"

Given the safety record of the USA nuclear power industry I'd rather live down wind/stream of a nuclear power plant then a coal power plant

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The cascade of events at Fukushima had been foretold in a report published in the U.S. two decades ago. The 1990 report by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an independent agency responsible for safety at the country’s power plants, identified earthquake-induced diesel generator failure and power outage leading to failure of cooling systems as one of the “most likely causes” of nuclear accidents from an external event...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/japan-s-nuclear-disaster-caps-decades-of-faked-safety-reports-accidents.html

So they knew about it but did nothing [or not nearly enough!]. This is why I don't trust industry. I think my case has been made beyond refute.

Of those responding, it would be helpful to know if you have ever actually worked in heavy or light industry, or is your position purely academic. In my case, I have 30 years of experience doing R&D/technical work across a broad spectrum of heavy and light industry. So my opinions have not formed in vacuum.

 

[DaveC426913]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/japan-s-nuclear-disaster-caps-decades-of-faked-safety-reports-accidents.html

So they knew about it but did nothing [or not nearly enough!]. This is why I don't trust industry. I think my case has been made beyond refute.

Of those responding, it would be helpful to know if you have ever actually worked in heavy or light industry, or is your position purely academic. In my case, I have 30 years of experience doing R&D/technical work across a broad spectrum of heavy and light industry. So my opinions have not formed in vacuum.

But what is your case? You don't trust them? OK. No one will refute that.

Is your argument that Japan should simply do without power? Or do you recognize that there are competing needs here?


OK, they didn't build the thing to withstand the 4th largest earthquake recorded in a century occurring a mere 80 miles away. Negligence?

Where is the limit? If a Mag 10 quake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale#Richter_magnitudes") occurs next year, will you claim they should have built for it? Sure, "your invincible powerplant will be ready in the early 2040's, sir". There are practicalities involved.

Having worked in the industry for 30 years, why would not you know that there is no such thing as zero risk?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But what is your case? You don't trust them? OK. No one will refute that.

My point is that they cannot be trusted to operate nuclear power plants safely. This is why, for example, I have suggested in the past that if we must do this [I do think we have other options], the military should assume control of nuclear power. And for that matter, nuclear power plants should be protected like military installations.

Is your argument that Japan should simply do without power? Or do you recognize that there are competing needs here?

I stated in my original post that we need nuclear power. The problem is, we can't afford to live with it. So logically, for the future, our efforts should go towards viable alternatives. Note that Israel has already announced that it is ditching nuclear power and that it will pursue other options.

OK, they didn't build the thing to withstand the 4th largest earthquake recorded in a century occurring a mere 80 miles away. Negligence?

Read my post. The earthquake didn't do this. A flooded basement did. Yes, the generators could have easily been tsunami proof. This was not a problem. This was completely foreseeable, as it was foreseen, it was manageable, and preventable, but they did nothing. This was a failure of responsibility and it will happen again and again and again. Why? Because compromises will always be made that involve too much risk. It is the nature of both economics and humans - it is unavoidable.

Having worked in the industry for 30 years, why would not you know that there is no such thing as zero risk?

Who says that I don't. Why are you making assumptions when you haven't even read my points? What is your experience in industry?

 

[Hurkyl]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/japan-s-nuclear-disaster-caps-decades-of-faked-safety-reports-accidents.html

So they knew about it but did nothing [or not nearly enough!]. This is why I don't trust industry. I think my case has been made beyond refute.

I'm completely boggled by this. I don't even see you making a case, let alone one beyond refute.

This latest post is just plain confusing -- it's practically a tautology that there will be a most likely cause of failure. Even if you fixed that one, there will still be a most likely cause of failure. I can't even begin to imagine how you have twisted that into a condemnation of anything at all.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have 30 years of experience ...

What is your experience in industry?

So, argument by authority.


You do not trust industry. No refutation here. (How could we? It's a opinion, beyond need for defense). That's not a discusison, that's a rant.
If you want to others to be convinced then "because I know more than you" is not a valid argument.

Ivan, you are better than this. Close this thread, recompile your case removing the subjective components, then open a new one with the ratonal facts. None of this 'I don't trust' and 'I've seen a lot' stuff.

 

[AlephZero]

My point is that they cannot be trusted to operate nuclear power plants safely. This is why, for example, I have suggested in the past that if we must do this [I do think we have other options], the military should assume control of nuclear power.

Given the history of the military control of nuclear power, I think the Japanese may take a different view about that.

But I expect N Korea and Iran would agree with you. We should just get of their backs and let them show us the way forward, I guess.

 

[Al68]

Of those responding, it would be helpful to know if you have ever actually worked in heavy or light industry, or is your position purely academic.

First, I'm an ex- US Navy nuclear operator currently a Radiological Engineer (B.S.-Radiation Protection). I'm familiar with reactor design, operation, and radiological control and protection.

Second, my first point was just to answer your question, it's completely irrelevant, and not the least bit "helpful" in honest debate. No one should use my credentials as substantiation for any claim I make.

I stated in my original post that we need nuclear power. The problem is, we can't afford to live with it. So logically, for the future, our efforts should go towards viable alternatives.

That's illogical, considering that those alternatives are far more dangerous than nuclear power by any reasonable standard, as has been actually shown by evidence and logic instead of irrational hysteria, and illustrated very well by FlexGunship:

Not to be overly utilitarian, but if you're discussing the dangers of power generation (which is not the purpose of the thread) shouldn't you count it in terms of watt-hours per death. Obviously, higher would be better! More power with fewer deaths.

Since I invented the unit, I'd like to call it the "toasty" (symbol is the Jesus fish, ichthys).-Wind is pretty bad at 6.66 teratoasties.
-Rooftop solar is horrible at 2.27 teratoasties.
-Hydro is okay if you ignore Banqiao (the Chernobyl of hydroelectric) at 10 teratoasties, but a crappy 0.71 teratoasties if you include it.
-Nuclear has the best ratio at 25 teratoasties if you INCLUDE Chernobyl. If you don't include Chernobyl then it has a rating of 1875 teratoasties. That's 1.875 petatoasties! (That number includes a single death that was attributed to radiological exposure of a plant worker. There is still debate over that.)

For comparison, coal is only 0.006 teratoasties, and oil is 0.028 teratoasties.

Banqiao was responsible for 26,000 deaths directly, and 150,000 from famine and disease after. Chernobyl was responsible for 56 deaths directly and 19 more later were attributed to it. I vote we stop talking about Chernobyl entirely, forever, in the context of nuclear safety. It essentially works out to a rounding error for coal or oil.

EDIT: source: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

 

[Pattonias]

I seem to recall a thread similar to this that opened during the gulf oil crisis that discussed how we have been mislead by industry and we shouldn't allow any drilling because of the possibility of disaster. I would like to point out that it is nowhere near as bad as we thought it was going to be and before anyone points out that they are still studying the long term effects of the disaster, I would like to say that the general thinking was that the effects would be obvious and not need aggressive searching to find the damage done to the environment.

Lets wait until they fix the problem before we start talking about how bad it is or may get. This will end fast enough that we won't need to speculate, we'll have the results right in front of us.

It just pisses me off how much the failure of a 40 year old reactor could hold back the progress of the new development and construction that is going on right now. I'm just waiting for someone to insist on a moratorium on nuclear power until all the plants in the world can operate while being shaken by a 8.9 earthquake and smashed with tsunamis.

 

[Gokul43201]

My point is that they cannot be trusted to operate nuclear power plants safely. This is why, for example, I have suggested in the past that if we must do this [I do think we have other options], the military should assume control of nuclear power. And for that matter, nuclear power plants should be protected like military installations.

If not, we end up with fatality rates of _________ (fill in the blank), and an annual cost to society of __________ (fill in the blank).

So far, you've repeated your position that the level of risks assumed by the nuclear industry (or any industry, in general), are unacceptable. But you haven't (to my knowledge) ever quantified what these risks have been costing society so far. I think it is meaningless to proceed without any actual numbers.

 

[nismaratwork]

My point is that they cannot be trusted to operate nuclear power plants safely. This is why, for example, I have suggested in the past that if we must do this [I do think we have other options], the military should assume control of nuclear power. And for that matter, nuclear power plants should be protected like military installations.



I stated in my original post that we need nuclear power. The problem is, we can't afford to live with it. So logically, for the future, our efforts should go towards viable alternatives. Note that Israel has already announced that it is ditching nuclear power and that it will pursue other options.



Read my post. The earthquake didn't do this. A flooded basement did. Yes, the generators could have easily been tsunami proof. This was not a problem. This was completely foreseeable, as it was foreseen, it was manageable, and preventable, but they did nothing. This was a failure of responsibility and it will happen again and again and again. Why? Because compromises will always be made that involve too much risk. It is the nature of both economics and humans - it is unavoidable.



Who says that I don't. Why are you making assumptions when you haven't even read my points? What is your experience in industry?

Beyond the fact that I'd generally agree no element of the energy industry is trustworthy, what is so special about nuclear energy? Ivan, I like you, respect you... you know this... hell we usually agree. I'm completely baffled here; I WANT to understand, not entrap you... I just have no idea why you're so vehement. Normally you'd lay out a case, here I feel that it's an emotional reaction. Then again, we all have weak points, but I'd urge you to at least consider expanding your position.

I have no connection to the nuclear industry, or energy in general... I'm pretty impartial, and willing to be wrong. Do you believe the choice is Nuclear or Green?... if so then I get it, but if you accept that it's Nuke or Coal... how can you choose coal by default?

 

[Zryn]

-Nuclear has the best ratio at 25 teratoasties if you INCLUDE Chernobyl. If you don't include Chernobyl then it has a rating of 1875 teratoasties. That's 1.875 petatoasties! (That number includes a single death that was attributed to radiological exposure of a plant worker. There is still debate over that.)

I couldn't see anywhere in this http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html" (1134 square miles) around Chernobyl because the area is not safe for people to inhabit (though there is 3000 people working there).

I believe the major concern is more for "unforeseen circumstances" with Nuclear, and that this article is perhaps irrelevant.

The entire town of Pripyat (population 49,360), which lay only three kilometres from the plant was completely evacuated 36 hours after the accident. During the subsequent weeks and months an additional 67,000 people were evacuated from their homes in contaminated areas and relocated on government order. In total some 200,0000 people are believed to have been relocated as a result of the accident.

Some 150,000 square kilometres in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are contaminated and stretch northward of the plant site as far as 500 kilometres. An area spanning 30 kilometres around the plant is considered the “exclusion zone” and is essentially uninhabited. Radioactive fallout scattered over much of the northern hemisphere via wind and storm patterns, but the amounts dispersed were in many instances insignificant.

Under extremely hazardous conditions, thousands of "Liquidators" worked to contain the remains of the fourth reactor. The shelter surrounding the reactor was completed less than six months after the explosion during peak radioactivity levels. The massive concrete and steel "Sarcophagus", quickly constructed using "arms length" methods, has deteriorated over the years, creating a potentially hazardous situation. Several repairs were made to the current shelter, including the stabilisation of the ventilation stack and reinforcement of the roof. In addition, a plan for the construction of a more secure and permanent structure to be built around the existing Sarcophagus was drafted; work has already begun on the infrastructure of this new shelter. The plan, called the Shelter Implementation Plan, is a project of the Chernobyl Shelter Fund. Both efforts, whose combined expected expenditures over the next eight or nine years exceed $765 million, are administered by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml"

When Soviet authorities finally admitted publicly that something had gone wrong, they spoke in vague terms. The delay and opaqueness appear to have hindered protective measures Ukrainians could have taken. Many first heard advice to take iodine to try to stave off thyroid cancer on Voice of America broadcasts they listened to clandestinely.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110320/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ukraine_chernobyl_s_lessons"

Doesn't this sound familiar, with what most non-Japanese nuclear experts have said compared to what everyone else is saying?

I agree with the idea that people ($$) are the problem, not the science.

 

[boros1124]

I think the question is not whether you can be left to the nuclear energy, but different. The question is, how it can be induced and that this kind of energy? But another question is the one dealing with nuclear waste, why not? There have already been many books on the subject as well.

 

[nismaratwork]

I couldn't see anywhere in this http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html" (1134 square miles) around Chernobyl because the area is not safe for people to inhabit (though there is 3000 people working there).

I believe the major concern is more for "unforeseen circumstances" with Nuclear, and that this article is perhaps irrelevant.







http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml"



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110320/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ukraine_chernobyl_s_lessons"

Doesn't this sound familiar, with what most non-Japanese nuclear experts have said compared to what everyone else is saying?

I agree with the idea that people ($$) are the problem, not the science.

I would take a 19 mile exlusion zone over global pollution by coal, which is also not exactly loving the land. At least nuclear disasters are largely localized, whereas coal contributes to acid rain, IMO global warming, and far more immidiate waste and environmental destruction.

I'm not sure how you compare the unmitigated and unique disaster that was Chernobyl to this... and again, without aknowledging the alternative is far worse. The problem is that people are scared by radiation, and too used to coal... it's like airplanes vs. cars or even guns vs. cars... utter lack of rationality.

 

[Al68]

I'm not sure how you compare the unmitigated and unique disaster that was Chernobyl to this...

Good point. While Chernobyl has been included in the data to show nuclear power to still be much safer than alternatives, it's not really appropriate to do so, considering that no currently operating (or proposed) similar nuclear plants exist.

 

[nismaratwork]

Good point. While Chernobyl has been included in the data to show nuclear power to still be much safer than alternatives, it's not really appropriate to do so, considering that no currently operating (or proposed) similar nuclear plants exist.

Agreed, and besides... it was a unique set of political, practical and other circumstances. It was a true cluster "copulation", that I doubt we'll ever see again.

 

[DaveC426913]

Agreed, and besides... it was a unique set of political, practical and other circumstances. It was a true cluster "copulation", that I doubt we'll ever see again.

Wait. Isn't that the very kind of thing Ivan is complaining about?

"Oh this was unique. An aberration. Won't happen again."
Until the next cluster copulation...


I'm not suggesting I agree with Ivan's stance, but it seems to me that he gets to count these aberrations as valid points in favour of his case.