Educating the general public about pro nuclear energy?

[girts]

To that i can surely agree more education would help the general public in most areas of life not to mention nuclear and maybe this is the way to go because politicians are almost always too weak and dependable on their electorate to change things radically so instead of winning their support we should simply let them folks understand what are the consequences of each energy form and then the politicians will also sing a different tune as they will have to shift if the public opinion will have shifted. Although I am not sure whether this is realistic in the timescales which we need in order to limit climate change. Maybe Chomsky is right in his deterministic analysis oh humanity's energy resources

 

[anorlunda]

it doesn't complicate much to move them a little bit offshore , say 500 meters or such the only thing this complicates is probably expenses which is the main point of reference for business.

That is an unfounded statement. You do not know what info was available, or the constraints, or the risk trade-offs for a specific design change, or even if that alternative was considered or not. After-the-fact second guessing is permissible only after investigators have examined all possible evidence and interviewed all witnesses (such as after an airplane crash).

It is also bigoted to impugn the integrity of those engineers to suggests that they were motivated only by profit and not by public good. Shame on you.

you can read this IAEA documents about how BWR, PWR and VVER pressure vessels are transported,

(transported now, not in the 1960s)

 

[anorlunda]

A recurring theme in this thread is that the risk of tsunami could be foreseen, and that it was irresponsible to not do everything possible to eliminate the risk. Some people today think that sea level rise due to global warming is foreseeable. To be responsible and to eliminate possible risk, should we not start now to depopulate all the shaded areas in the maps below? I say no; that would be ridiculous.

My point is that in real life, we balance risk taking with human cost every day, in every way, in every field. Zero risk is an extremist view.

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/

 

[jim hardy]

A recurring theme in this thread is that the risk of tsunami could be foreseen, and that it was irresponsible to not do everything possible to eliminate the risk. Some people today think that sea level rise due to global warming is foreseeable. To be responsible and to eliminate possible risk, should we not start now to depopulate all the shaded areas in the maps below? I say no; that would be ridiculous.

I'll second that. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stationhome.html?id=8724580
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stationhome.html?id=8724580 and click "Sea level Trends"

Not quite an inch per decade? Might be another ice age in twenty one thousand years.

 

[mfb]

I wouldn't buy seaside property in Bangladesh or Pacific atolls (these are regions that get depopulated already), but Europe and the US can handle a meter (40y at the current trend) or two (80y) of sea level rise.

 

[jim hardy]

a meter (40y at the current trend)

40 ??

At 2.4 mm /year , the current rate along US east coast, a meter is 400 years.

 

[mfb]

Oops, forgot a zero.
The trend is expected to become nonlinear in the future, the sea level might rise as much as 2.5 meters until 2100. Here is a report, see table 5 for example. My numbers cover the worst case expected sea level rise.

 

[girts]

Well , anorlunda, my judgment wasn't about the engineers because TEPCO the company which owned the plant is a business, engineers may make various plans each a little different, one may be safer while others may be cheaper , the final say is for the one who pays the money not the engineers as you well know.
As long as the plan chosen by TEPCO or any other company fits the safety rules it can go ahead I assume, much like in other industries , although just because a certain plan is chosen doesn't mean its the best or safest.

If the data I see on the internet serves me right the seawall at Fukushima was not even as high as the ground base for the reactors on the shore, the my question is what's the use for such a seawall in a seismically active zone?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...designed-protect-Fukushima-nuclear-plant.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/tepco-...-protected-fukushima-from-the-tsunami/5356808
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Sure not academically acclaimed sources I have put here , and the dailymail link is just for photos,
anyway the seawall had probably lost some of its structural strength over the years being in a corrosive environment, also too low for a tsunami this big and the whole plant is basically at a very low elevation, now sure we can say that this is or was the best engineering result that they could have come up with in the late 60's but something tells me this was more of a compromise decision between what is considered extra safe yet technologically more challenging and expensive and what is not so safe but "fits the bill" and is cheaper.

If I build my private house I can pretty much care only about myself and my family and if a natural disaster destroys my house easily it's not that big of a deal locally yet even less globally but building infrastructure objects of high importance especially power plants of which nuclear would probably be that of highest safety requirements one would do wise to chose the more expensive yet technologically much safer way of doing things if he is located in a region which is known for problems like tsunamis for example.

As for those that say they could not anticipate such a high tsunami wave please refer to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_Sanriku_earthquake

The waves from this tsunami were just 1.5 meters lower than from 2011, so if this tsunami was the case it would have also destroyed Fukushima if all other variables are left the way they were at 2011, so they had a quite recent recorded history of possible danger for an inadequate seawall and/or backup generator storage location.
https://news.usc.edu/86362/fukushima-disaster-was-preventable-new-study-finds/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/asia/22nuclear.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'm not the biggest fan of mainstream media reporting on technical issues like nuclear power where the details are important but there is some truth behind every major article much like there is some truth in every joke.
Don't take my post as me being against physics or nuclear engineering etc , not at all , I'm interested in it and all for it , its simply that if we want to make it happen we need to pay more atention to the details and not let profit or other damaging deeds get in the way.

Capitalism may work for ordinary manufacturing and free trade but we have to be careful when it comes to private companies maintaining nuclear power reactors for profit electricity generation as in this case the profit driven state of affairs can be detrimental much like state owned huge bureaucratic apparatus was devastating for the state of affairs in Chernobyl.

 

[girts]

also if I may add, speaking about bureaucracy , so it happens to be that I am planning a visit to Chernobyl, not as much to the town as for the power plant itself, let's just say I'm fairly familiar with dealing with things like these, now some time ago I was in some other power plants that are located in Europe, both nuclear and hydro,
the thing I wanted to highlight is that the difference for example in the state of affairs between EU and Ukraine for example is breathtaking, where in EU everyone gave me clear information and knew their deal when I was contacting them, in Ukraine it feels like there is a rather large misunderstanding between regulatory bodies and government agencies, as I am contacting them one agency is telling me I need to do this another one is contradicting that 180 degrees out of phase so to speak.
Ask anyone that has dealt with these tings they will tell you the same.

So be it no surprise to anyone that back in 1986 some night shift personnel decided to go against some strict "DON'T DO THIS" rules in order to fill a good report for the director and local leaders to get their sympathy.https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465087752/?tag=pfamazon01-20
By the way I recommend this book, a very interesting read, especially as it portrays the human side behind the tragic events and the characters of those in charge, sometimes even to the point of facial expressions which tells you a lot and paints a good picture of some of the main folks and their character and attitude towards things.I think it would be fair to say that from a technological point of view nuclear might even be the safest of all industries both civil and military, it seems that the bad word to it has been largely given by those who either are not up to their task or those who are willing to "cut corners" in order to achieve some financial or other gains, sadly in a real world we must account for these obstacles since people make mistakes both accidentally and willfully and also the safety and regulatory standards differ a lot from country to country to regio

 

[jim hardy]

the final say is for the one who pays the money not the engineers as you well know.

Has anybody seen the safety analyses for units 5 and 6 at Fukushima ?
If they were analyzed for bigger wave height and nobody revisited 1 thru 4
then it's shame on the bureaucracy.

It is the job of engineers to make good use of their client's money , and an ethical obligation because in the end it's the public's money that pays the electric bill.

I have to believe the original design guys were unaware of that 1896 tsunami
but if they were aware of it and got overruled, well there you have your culprit.

Separating wheat from chaff is a process of judgement by humans and an occasional grain slips out with the chaff. That's why we have huge staffs that play "What If" and evaluate probabilistic risk.
It is the job of executives to make good use of their customers' money, especially in a utility where they have a monopoly it's an ethical duty. In return for that monopoly you MUST give the public good value.
Executives cannot keep up with every nitty gritty design detail they must rely on staff to give them facts upon which to base decisions.

If you insist on ascribing blame, look to those historical tsunami reports and why the PRA wasn't revised to include them
. Did they get stalled by passing the buck per "Bureaucratic Buckmastership" chapter in Parkinson's Law of Delay ?
That's what i think.
Did they get reviewed and squashed by somebody wanting to save money?
I cannot believe that, but i could believe it was somebody too insecure to pass bad news upward.

The executives i know would have wrapped a submarine hull around the electrical equipment and made doggone sure there were backups for water injection,
even if they were just giant pressure washers stored up on the hill.
They'd just need to be apprised, and credibly .

What we had over there was a failure to communicate.

old jim

 

[anorlunda]

@girts, you're doubling down on anti-corporate bias.

You neglect the social benefit of affordable and plentiful power. It does not come without risk, but the lowest possible risk means no affordable power at all and that harms society much more than any accident. That applies not just to power, but to all human enterprise.

You also seem ignorant of the regulated monopoly business model used for utilities in many countries for many years. The regulated monopoly is guaranteed a percent of cost (and investment) as profit. So the more things cost, the more profit. So if your personal bias visualizes corporations as greedy, then you should expect the utilities to choose the safer and more costly choices.

 

[OCR]

...but if they were aware of it and got overruled, well there you have your culprit.

STS-51-L...

NASA managers also disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures of that morning, and failed to adequately report these technical concerns to their superiors.

What we had over there was a failure to communicate.

...

Also, the "failure to communicate" aspect might have involved some go fever... ?

 

[girts]

Well Jim I doubt we can find the original information as to why they choose such a low elevation and such a low seawall, atleast it won't be easy, I believe most of the engineers are dead by now or either of old age since the plant was built in the late 60's and I believe an average nuclear power plant engineer is atleast 35 years of age or older.I must say I doubt if not altogether refuse to believe in the fact that engineers building a nuclear power plant did not know of a record high tsunami devastating the very site on which they are building just some 65 years prior, in that timescale I believe most of their fathers were alive that witnessed the tsunami in 1896.
Also at least where I live such big events are taught in schools history class.
I just find it impossible for them to not know about the last 100 years of tsunamis in Japan , given it's a country on an island sitting right next and on top of a seismic fault which also happens to be right next to the worlds largest water reservoir (the pacific ocean)

the thing I would believe and logically think was the real reason as in many other cases around the world is that they knew the dangers (otherwise they had to be blind) but they likely assumed that nothing of the sort would happen at their place , one of the reasons I read is that the 1896 tsunami happen more up north.I found an article that somewhat backs up my claims and gives them some credibility.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...ly-was-a-hill-safe-from-tsunami/#.WS2RedwlEdU

In the article few key points are given, first of all the other nuclear plant affected by the tsunami was sitting on a higher elevation and hence was fine, also it turns out that the backup diesels were underground so to speak next to the turbine generators, if this is not true please say otherwise.
Atleast they could have located the backup diesels further away from the plant, I can understand the wish to build the plant lower so that feedwater pumps can be operated at lower cost etc but at least locate the backups further up shore on higher ground, given that they will be your last resort if something happens.

Also geologists did warm TEPCO of the dangers such a plant could face being built so close to the sea and also so low. The seawall was about 5.7 meters above sea level although tsunamis that struck the cost of Japan since the plant becam operation in 1983 and 1993 respectively measured wave height of about 14m and 31m respectively which again if happened at or near the Fukushima coastline would have taken out the plant easily.@anorlunda Well I think you are taking my comments to harshly or my position as such, sure I understand everybody who does something especially if its something big also wants to see his own profit and sure we don't need to manufacture every car with a bulletproof window just because there are crazy gunmen in the world. I understand your point. The thing is I believe (haven't checked the data for now) that most of the PWR and BWR reactors in Europe and US for example are located on fairly "safe ground" so their maximum safety features can be less dramatic and so they won't and don't drive up the cost per KWH enormously. But if you happen to live or want to live in places that are known for their natural disasters and/or other dangers I'd say you must also be willing to spend more money on living there or work harder. It's like living in California and complaining that its hot, well that's what you get but you might as well live in Alaska, the same reasoning I would apply for Japanese coastline nuke plants, sure nuclear is a clean and rather safe energy but if you want to make it happen in a place that gets washed away literally once in a while then how about spending some extra buck to make it worthwhile and safe, I believe some not so complicated or overly expensive changes might have made the plant safe enough to withstand this tsunami.
After all sure we can talk about monopolies and profits but what's the profit if your nuke plant goes meltdown? I guess the cleanup costs + the unusable land and resettlement costs will outweigh the profits made by the Fukushima plant during its operation and if so that is a bad business model, they might have invested more but avoided problems and so would have ended their plant license term with a surplus instead of having to close it prematurely and with a large deficit in legal lawsuits and other possible problems.
Not to mention that such approach or mismanagement of nuclear power casts a bad look and dark shadow on the rest of nuclear energy worldwide, so it has longterm effects far beyond contamination and cleanup costs.

All I'm saying is those who want to make great advances in complicated geological places also need to be ready to put in great effort to make that reality sustainable. More specifically I think they should have either relocated the backup diesels and/or built a much more robust and higher seawall, probably both and that could have saved the plant, even if some water got over the seawall t would have been far less and the diesels continuing running would have also probably helped much. Instead the diesels were flooded and the seawall as small as it was collapsed altogether

 

[jim hardy]

I must say I doubt if not altogether refuse to believe in the fact that engineers building a nuclear power plant did not know of a record high tsunami devastating the very site on which they are building just some 65 years prior, in that timescale I believe most of their fathers were alive that witnessed the tsunami in 1896.
Also at least where I live such big events are taught in schools history class.
I just find it impossible for them to not know about the last 100 years of tsunamis in Japan , given it's a country on an island sitting right next and on top of a seismic fault which also happens to be right next to the worlds largest water reservoir (the pacific ocean)

Quite a good point.

The GE engineers probably in California may have been unaware
but local lore should have alerted somebody.
OCR's "Go Fever "Syndrome might have played a role. It was after all an early plant . I well remember the excitement of our 1972 startup

the backup diesels were underground so to speak next to the turbine generators, if this is not true please say otherwise.

Diesels are massive.
One likes to have massive things like turbines and diesels near the ground floor lest an earthquake toss them about as the building flexes, like cracking a whip.

 

[jim hardy]

The seawall was about 5.7 meters above sea level although tsunamis that struck the cost of Japan since the plant becam operation in 1983 and 1993 respectively measured wave height of about 14m and 31m respectively

I looked them up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Sea_of_Japan_earthquake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Hokkaidō_earthquake
Both of those were in Sea of Japan, opposite side of the island.
One would have to take what the geologists said about risk on the Pacific side.

Only huge one i was aware of on the Pacific side was a thousand years ago. Still, that's recent enough it ought to be in PRA.
And that's the one i keep beating the drum about. Wasn't record of it only discovered in 1990's ?

Law of Delay worked its mischief...

 

[girts]

Well if I were to build those plants a tsunami being on the opposite side of the island isn't much of a relief. Let's not forget that Japan has seismi faults running down its length on both sides of the island those lines even cross the island at two poinpts. Expecting a tsunami at that place is a safe bet i would say And correct me if I'm wrong but to the best of my knowledge 1960's geology and science in general was advanced enough to predict that in such a place a large tsunami is a given posibility say once in a 100 years whic is soon enough for any large scale infrastructure object to take into account

 

[Astronuc]

Here is a good understanding of the situation regarding TEPCO and the Japanese regulator NISA as it concerns the accident at Fukushima.
http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable-pub-47361

Steps that could have prevented a major accident in the event that the plant was inundated by a massive tsunami, such as the one that struck the plant in March 2011, include:

•Protecting emergency power supplies, including diesel generators and batteries, by moving them to higher ground or by placing them in watertight bunkers;

•Establishing watertight connections between emergency power supplies and key safety systems; and

•Enhancing the protection of seawater pumps (which were used to transfer heat from the plant to the ocean and to cool diesel generators) and/or constructing a backup means to dissipate heat.

NISA lacked independence from both the government agencies responsible for promoting nuclear power and also from industry. In the Japanese nuclear industry, there has been a focus on seismic safety to the exclusion of other possible risks. Bureaucratic and professional stovepiping made nuclear officials unwilling to take advice from experts outside of the field. Those nuclear professionals also may have failed to effectively utilize local knowledge. And, perhaps most importantly, many believed that a severe accident was simply impossible.

In 1974, Congress decides to abolish the AEC. Supporters and critics of nuclear power agree that the promotional and regulatory duties of the AEC should be assigned to different agencies. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; it began operations on January 19, 1975 (during the Ford administration). The AEC was divided into ERDA which became the US DOE and the US NRC.

Some background - https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/history.html

 

[Astronuc]

And correct me if I'm wrong but to the best of my knowledge 1960's geology and science in general was advanced enough to predict that in such a place a large tsunami is a given possibility say once in a 100 years which is soon enough for any large scale infrastructure object to take into account

Yes, but only some parts of the coastline were protected, while much of the coastline was not protected. For example, the airport in the city of Sendai was flooded, as were many towns and industrial sites. So it was not only the Fukushima NPP that was inadequately protected, but a large portion of the economic centers along the coastline.

I looked them up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Sea_of_Japan_earthquake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Hokkaidō_earthquake
Both of those were in Sea of Japan, opposite side of the island.
One would have to take what the geologists said about risk on the Pacific side.

Also, there was the 2007 Chūetsu offshore earthquake, which affected the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant. However, this event did not involve a significant tsunami.

 

[jim hardy]

In the Japanese nuclear industry, there has been a focus on seismic safety to the exclusion of other possible risks.

Parkinson describes that paradigm beautifully - a committee will spend all its time on what it understands.
Earthquake is acceleration and F=MA and that's why you put massive things as close as possible to the ground.
Electrical system is so spread out and interactive it's not amenable to such a simple mental picture...

Bureaucratic and professional stovepiping made nuclear officials unwilling to take advice from experts outside of the field. Those nuclear professionals also may have failed to effectively utilize local knowledge. And, perhaps most importantly, many believed that a severe accident was simply impossible.

Human failings . Narcissm Vanity Hubris ? We could easily digress into mythology, I've long thought Edith Hamilton should be part of MBA curricula.

I've said this before - previous generation of scientific people got our technology up to where it is. Now Management Science has to catch up.
My generation started addressing that toward latter part of our careers , perhaps it'll be our legacy.

old jim

 

[Astronuc]

We could easily digress into mythology, I've long thought Edith Hamilton should be part of MBA curricula.

I think it is rare that she is cited in a business/management textbook.

previous generation of scientific people got our technology up to where it is. Now Management Science has to catch up.

Interestingly, I had a parallel conversation today about the difference between management by scientist/engineers, who know science and technology, as well as business management versus management by business managers, who don't understand science or technology, but only business management.

 

[nikkkom]

40 ??

At 2.4 mm /year , the current rate along US east coast, a meter is 400 years.

Sea level change of 1 meter is not a huge problem.
In Netherlands, postglacial isostatic relaxation currently results in the lowest dry point of the country at 6.76 m below sea level!
I did not read in the news how horribly broken Netherlands is because it had to spend $$$ to build its dikes. Did you?

This is a practical proof that with proper engineering, it is possible to keep rising sea from flooding the land, even with several meters rise.

 

[nikkkom]

If you insist on ascribing blame, look to those historical tsunami reports and why the PRA wasn't revised to include them
. Did they get stalled by passing the buck per "Bureaucratic Buckmastership" chapter in Parkinson's Law of Delay ?
That's what i think.
Did they get reviewed and squashed by somebody wanting to save money?
I cannot believe that, but i could believe it was somebody too insecure to pass bad news upward.

It may be not about some low-level manager being afraid to pass bad news upward. Company's culture eventually determines what kind of low-level managers it has. If people which are honest and not afraid to speak their mind are penalized (fired/not promoted), they eventually leave. Only "yes men" remain. No wonder those wouldn't pass bad news up...

 

[Davy_Crockett]

The trend is expected to become nonlinear in the future, the sea level might rise as much as 2.5 meters until 2100. Here is a report, see table 5 for example. My numbers cover the worst case expected sea level rise.

Less than 0.1% chance seas will rise more than 8.6 feet by 2100 based on current trajectory (report, pp.vi, 21, 29). Keep Probabilistic Risk Assessment ink wet and cask powder dry, and don't discount greater tidal surge (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.10585) and especially overland flooding due to ~30% increase atmospheric moisture by that time (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17540863).

I'll second that.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stationhome.html?id=8724580 and click "Sea level Trends"
View attachment 204477

Graph shows data rising above the trend line since 2011. Expect possibility of upwardly revised rate curve with Jason-3 and GRACE data over next few years.

No complacency = no worries. My main concern is political resistance to the expert decisions with regard to removal of waste from flood risk areas. With placement in Yucca Mountain, for example, I understand there would be no risk of radiation exposure to the public while they were enjoying the mountain and the surrounding area. I would like to hear more public education and reassurance in this area of management.

 

[nikkkom]

With placement in Yucca Mountain, for example, I understand there would be no risk of radiation exposure to the public while they were enjoying the mountain and the surrounding area. I would like to hear more public education and reassurance in this area of management.

Anyone knows why just shipping it to French reprocessing plant is not being considered? French have very advanced reprocessing capabilities.

 

[mfb]

There is still waste after the reprocessing, although the amount gets smaller.

 

[jim hardy]

Graph shows data rising above the trend line since 2011. Expect possibility of upwardly revised rate curve with Jason-3 and GRACE data over next few years.

It does that periodically.

But a bit of rise wouldn't surprise me given reports of runoff around Greenland.

Hmmmm it'd be interesting to differentiate this formula

and figure how many tons of water per degree rise should make their way into the atmosphere, ΔP X area of earth?

But i digress. Sorry !

old jim

 

[nikkkom]

There is still waste after the reprocessing, although the amount gets smaller.

I know. But it will be in a neatly packaged non-soluble form (glass inside 5mm wall thickness steel cylinders, welded shut), and definitely no longer usable (U and Pu is removed). Perfect for, say, throwing them down some 9 km deep borehole in a subduction zone...

 

[Hiddencamper]

As far as I know, the hydrogen was outside containment when it ignited. The "outer containment" is a sheet metal building, normally maintained slightly below atmospheric pressure (to allow filtering of any normal leakage from the auxiliary systems). It is not designed for internal pressure. Maybe @Hiddencamper can chime in here with more specifics. The videos are certainly dramatic, but they do not show containment failure due to hydrogen explosion.

There was a lot of discussion about the SPEEDI system (and its problems) in the Fukushima threads.

Late response. Sorry we were in a refuel outage and I've been working a lot.

Bwrs use a secondary containment. It's designed to maintain 1/4" of water column of vacuum, just enough to prevent unmonitored radioactive releases. The secondary containment is typically the reactor building, but sometimes extends to other sections as well. Mark III bwrs have a shell around their primary containment which acts as a secondary containment, and also include the fuel building and select parts of the auxiliary building in their secondary containment envelope. The secondary containment has vacuum drawn by the standby gas treatment system, which uses HEPA and charcoal filters to reduce radioactive effluents, release them at an elevated point to minimize fallout effects near the site and help dilute releases with the jet stream, and ensure releases are monitored so that appropriate evacuation decisions can be made if required.

The secondary containment surrounds the primary containment, fuel pools, emergency core cooling systems, main steam lines up to the outboard isolation valves, residual heat removal systems, reactor water cleanup system, and any other potential primary coolant leak path or containment leak path. By having a secondary containment, you are allowed to have a larger amount of leakage from your primary containment, as the secondary will filter any leakage out.

The secondary is just the reactor building. The upper elevations utilize blowout panels for more extreme events to prevent catastrophic failure of the reactor building supports (which functioned at Fukushima during the H2 explosions). It's not designed to be essentially leak right like primary containment is, it's just designed to be a gas control boundary.

 

[Astronuc]

it's just designed to be a gas control boundary.

and keep the weather out.

 

[mheslep]

regarding waste disposal, it is a nonexistent issue as long as there is someone caring for them. ... How many generations

About 'one or two' is the right answer, when compared to i) harm presented in the environment by nature, i.e. naturally occurring elemental poisons like arsenic or radioactive elements, and ii) man made harm, especially those created in place of nuclear power like mountain sized coal ash dumps and the removal of mountain tops to obtain coal.

It is in the nature of the physics of nuclear processes that an event from a single nucleus can be detected with high precision with the right equipment. The same physics allows age determination of some artifacts via the decay of carbon isotopes, the determination of the age of the earth, and the tracking of trace amounts of compounds in the body for medical testing. The precision of these measurements does not also mean any and all radioactivty will harm people.

 

[mheslep]

and keep the weather out.

The slight internal low pressure has me curious about 'the weather', as it seams it would pull in both outside temperature extremes and humidity, making the outer containment volume hard on equipment or forcing the HVAC and HEPA to work quite hard.

 

[mheslep]

Everyone I know in the 'hard' sciences is pro nuclear

Same here. Unfortunately, everyone I know that works for or with some kind of environmental advocacy group or government agency is either at least hostile to nuclear or oblivious to nuclear as clean energy alternative.

 

[SredniVashtar]

Regarding waste disposal, it is a nonexistent issue as long as there is someone caring for them. ... How many generations...

About 'one or two' is the right answer, when compared to i) harm presented in the environment by nature, i.e. naturally occurring elemental poisons like arsenic or radioactive elements, and ii) man made harm, especially those created in place of nuclear power like mountain sized coal ash dumps and the removal of mountain tops to obtain coal.

So, just to be clear: according to you, that 3% of nuclear waste that decays between 1000 and 10000 years will not be a problem after one or two generations. That is, 35-70 years.
And that's because other elements - like arsenic - are poisonous. You must be a relativist.
Well, I do reckon that in 70 years of time, nuclear waste disposal will not be a problem to me. But your thesis appears extremely weak to me.

It is in the nature of the physics of nuclear processes that an event from a single nucleus can be detected with high precision with the right equipment. The same physics allows age determination of some artifacts via the decay of carbon isotopes, the determination of the age of the earth, and the tracking of trace amounts of compounds in the body for medical testing. The precision of these measurements does not also mean any and all radioactivty will harm people.

Was this randomly generated? We're not talking about radioactive bananas, here.

 

[mfb]

So, just to be clear: according to you, that 3% of nuclear waste that decays between 1000 and 10000 years will not be a problem after one or two generations. That is, 35-70 years.

There is nothing special about 1000 or 10000 years.
Everything on Earth is slightly radioactive, and will stay so as long as the Earth exists. Waiting until something "is not radioactive any more" doesn't make sense.
The vast majority of the radioactive nuclei in nuclear waste decays within the first 100 years, afterwards the activity is very low. Unlike chemical waste, nuclear waste gets less problematic over time. Yet chemical waste storages don't have to prove that they contain the material for thousands of years. We are back at the double standards.

We're not talking about radioactive bananas, here.

Nuclear waste safety regulations seem to be made based on "oh my god, we can detect some activity!" Yes we can, because the measurements are extremely sensitive. That doesn't imply it would be dangerous.

 

[mheslep]

It is the nature of radioactivity that the radioisotopes with the shortest half lives yield the most energy over a half-life, are the most dangerous. The highy radioactive fission product gases that travel and isotopes like iodine-121(8 days), strontium-89 (50 days) vanish in a generation. The radioisotopes with long half-lives are mostly alpha emitters that dose by ingestion, with no penetrating power. After 500-1000 years the radioactivity of a ton of spent fuel is on the order of that from a ton of Uranium ore dug from the ground. The uranium in the Earth has a half life of billions of years.

Harm is relative. That's a fact, not a position. Hence the case for medical x-rays.

 

[SredniVashtar]

There is nothing special about 1000 or 10000 years.
Everything on Earth is slightly radioactive, and will stay so as long as the Earth exists. Waiting until something "is not radioactive any more" doesn't make sense.

You are building a straw man, here.
You are probably confusing me with someone else, but I never said the waste will be harmless when it will be "not radioactive anymore". It is reported that 3% of nuclear waste will decay to the level of an equivalent amount of uranium ore (not inert material, uranium ore - care to compute how long will it take to reach the background radiation level?) in between a thousand and ten thousand years. It does not mean this waste will be no longer radioactive. We should wait an infinite amount of time for that, so - apart for the straw man you have just made up - nobody said that.

And, I get it that you prefer to shift the focus on the 97% of waste that decays much faster. But that is a mutatio controversiae: I wasn't talking about that.
Are you still standing by your statement that that 3% of waste that will decay (to the levels yaddayaddayadda...) between 1000 and 10000 years will be harmless after one or two generations?

 

[mfb]

You are probably confusing me with someone else, but I never said the waste will be harmless when it will be "not radioactive anymore".

I didn't say you would have said that. But I think I don't understand your "relativist" comment.

(not inert material, uranium ore - care to compute how long will it take to reach the background radiation level?)

Depends on what you call background level. Millions of people live above various uranium ores. That doesn't seem to worry people, probably because it is considered natural. Some even expect a positive health effect from radon springs.
Nuclear waste mainly consists of nuclides with shorter half-life than uranium. It reaches the activity level (per mass) of uranium within 1000-10000 years, afterwards it has a lower activity (see the plot above). But why do we compare 1 ton of uranium ore with 1 ton of waste? There is less than 1 ton of waste per ton of uranium ore mined. We actually reduce the total activity long before the "per ton activity" reaches the same level.

Are you still standing by your statement that that 3% of waste that will decay (to the levels yaddayaddayadda...) between 1000 and 10000 years will be harmless after one or two generations?

If you eat it after 2 generations: No. If you bury it properly: Yes.

 

[SredniVashtar]

I think I don't understand your "relativist" comment.

It was a joke, based on the concept of relativism, non relativity. Poison A is not poisonous since there is also poison B that is as much as poisonous.

Depends on what you call background level. Millions of people live above various uranium ores. That doesn't seem to worry people, probably because it is considered natural.

My point was that the "radioactive as an equivalent amount of uranium ore" is an estimate favorable to nuclear advocates, not tree-huggers. EDIT: But we can take that figure as starting point.

But why do we compare 1 ton of uranium ore with 1 ton of waste?

The point is that when the waste has the radioactivity of the same amount of mined ore, it's like you have never disturbed it. That radioactivity was there before using it and (apart from the different location, distribution and concentration in a single waste disposal facility - which in itself can be a problem), so you can say you did not pollute the planet.

If you eat it after 2 generations: No. If you bury it properly: Yes.

Good, so we are back to square one. How to bury it properly for ten thousand years. Please go back to this post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ro-nuclear-energy.914038/page-10#post-5769055

 

[mfb]

The point is that when the waste has the radioactivity of the same amount of mined ore, it's like you have never disturbed it. That radioactivity was there before using it and (apart from the different location, distribution and concentration in a single waste disposal facility - which in itself can be a problem), so you can say you did not pollute the planet.

You can reduce the specific activity (activitity per mass) by mixing the waste with random other stuff. Does that make the waste better? Specific activity is simply not the right metric if you dig out 1000 tons of ore and then produce 1 ton of highly-active waste out of it (+999 tons of other stuff). If you dilute the waste by a factor 1000, you reach the natural specific activity after less than 100 years. But that is just an accounting trick, it doesn't reduce the waste.

Good, so we are back to square one. How to bury it properly for ten thousand years.

Yes, but you don't need the "no atom can ever escape" approach that current regulations require (a bit exaggerated - but not much). Uranium ores stored their uranium for more than a billion years, with minimal leaks. Nuclear waste disposal sites try to be even better - otherwise we could simply dump the waste into uranium mines.

 

[jim hardy]

Mother Nature tested fission reactors long before she made us.https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ral-fission-reactors-in-gabon-western-africa/

 

[russ_watters]

Good, so we are back to square one. How to bury it properly for ten thousand years. Please go back to this post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ro-nuclear-energy.914038/page-10#post-5769055

With all of your unseriousness/sarcasm, it is difficult to tell if you even understood the point you were responding to (from me) or had any serious point of your own to make. So instead of going back, please try again to make your point in a serious way. Because I'm entirely serious when I say it doesn't need to be buried at all, much less for ten thousand years.

 

[SredniVashtar]

Unseriousness? C'mon, I've seen much less mutatio controversiae, straw men and logical fallacies in a new age newsgroup.
Let's take the above mentioned post, for example:

I said:

"As for the wastes, that 3% that decays between 1000 and 10000 years [...] can you be sure they will be taken care of after all that time? Will you write instruction in English, Latin, Sumerian, Hieroglyphs or Linear A? Ten thousand years is a long time."

You replied (in a highly serious way, let me add):

"So what/who cares? If civilization has fallen so far that whomever is left can't understand any current language or a giant sign with a skull and crossbones on it, they will certainly have bigger problems to be concerned about than what is in that barrel."

And now, you say you are entirely serious when you decide to change the subject (technically it's a mutatio controversiae) and say that it does not have to be buried and much less for ten thousand years. So, Why didn't you just say so in the first place? You could not defend that? Wanna use "protect" instead of "bury" and "five thousand years" instead of ten? I did not pull those figures out of a hat, I took them from the World Nuclear Association. Non exactly Green Peace.

 

[russ_watters]

Unseriousness?

Yes.

I said:
...
You replied (in a highly serious way, let me add):
...
And now, you say you are entirely serious when you decide to change the subject (technically it's a mutatio controversiae) and say that it does not have to be buried and much less for ten thousand years.

There is no change of subject there. Not having to be protected for a very long time means it doesn't need to be buried. So: do you have a serious response to that or not?

I did not pull those figures out of a hat, I took them from the World Nuclear Association. Non exactly Green Peace.

So what? Does that mean you don't understand what their point is and are just repeating them without being able to justify why it matters?

Also, since you didn't quote your own follow-up in the above exchange, I will take that as an acknowledgment that it wasn't serious. So moving forward, please make an effort to present your arguments more seriously.

 

[SredniVashtar]

There you go:

""As for the wastes, that 3% that decays between 1000 and 10000 years [...] can you be sure they will be taken care of after all that time? Will you write instruction in English, Latin, Sumerian, Hieroglyphs or Linear A? Ten thousand years is a long time."

Awaiting a serious answer.

 

[mfb]

Do we have to make sure that it will be taken care of?
That is the first question.

Is there any relevant danger to humans if no one takes care of it?

My comment about eating it was serious. Is there any risk that someone goes to nuclear waste and physically eats it? It is a collection of mainly heavy metals.

 

[russ_watters]

There you go:

""As for the wastes, that 3% that decays between 1000 and 10000 years [...] can you be sure they will be taken care of after all that time? Will you write instruction in English, Latin, Sumerian, Hieroglyphs or Linear A? Ten thousand years is a long time."

Awaiting a serious answer.

You're just reposting your [implied] claim, which has already been responded to, and ignoring the response you got. What I want a serious answer to is why you think it is necessary that we must assure *today* that it "be taken care of" for that amount of time.

As I said, due to your unserious previous response it isn't clear that you understood the objection you were given -- and now that you have ignored it completely.

 

[SredniVashtar]

"When we consider the longer-lived activities that might characterize spent fuel elements, we are interested in a time scale of the order of years. Figure 13.30 shows the activities of the long-lived fission products and actinides. After reprocessing, these activities must be isolated from biological systems for times of the order of 10^5-10^6 years. Several schemes have been suggested for achieving this isolation but no system has yet been adopted that can guarantee isolation over this time scale. Any leakage into groundwater or the food chain would be expected to result in an increase in deaths from cancer".

Kenneth Krane, "Introductory Nuclear Physics", 1988
A lot o time has passed, since then. Fast forward to february 2016, last update to the World Nuclear Association "Radioactive Wastes" page.

"The radioactivity of high-level wastes decays to the level of an equivalent amount of original mined uranium ore in between 1,000 and 10,000 years. Its hazard then depends on how concentrated it is.[...]
A small volume of nuclear waste (~3% volume of total waste produced) is long-lived and highly radioactive and requires isolation from the environment for many thousands of years.[...]
Waste is converted into a stable form that is suitable for disposal. In the case of high-level waste, a multi-barrier approach, combining containment and geological disposal, ensures isolation of the waste from people and the environment for thousands of years.[...]"

"Many people quite reasonably feel that the nuclear industry shouldn't continue operation without having a solution for the disposal of its radioactive waste. However, the industry has in fact developed the necessary technologies and implemented most of them[...]"
"Today, safe management practices are implemented or planned for all categories of radioactive waste. Low-level waste (LLW) and most intermediate-level waste (ILW), which make up most of the volume of waste produced (97%), are being disposed of securely in near-surface repositories [...]"
"High-level waste (HLW) is currently safely contained and managed in interim storage facilities.[...]
These facilities also allow for the heat and radioactivity of the waste to decay prior to long-term geological disposal.[...]
In the long-term however, appropriate disposal arrangements are required for HLW, due to its prolonged radioactivity. Disposal solutions are currently being developed for HLW that are safe, environmentally sound and publicly acceptable. The solution that is widely accepted as feasible is deep geological disposal,[...]"

So, my question still stands.
[edited by mod]

 

[russ_watters]

...
So, my question still stands.

None of that was responsive to the answer/follow-up question you got. I think therefore that your answer is that you haven't put any thought into the question. What I'm not totally sure of is if you realize it and are dodging or really don't understand that there must be a "why". So I'll lay it out for you. It is two-pronged:

The US government does not have the responsibility to protect you completely from all dangers today(1), much less perpetually(2).

1. For all the protection we get from the US government, planes and cars still crash, buildings burn and collapse and people die from inhaling the pollutants of other sources of energy. The government is required to make a reasonable effort to make you pretty safe -- it is not required, nor is it even possible, to make you totally safe. If it were, we wouldn't be using lead or any other heavy metal at all; we'd be collecting and burying it all in the geological storage facilities.

2. If the US government ends and enough people and technology are destroyed throughout the world so that no one understands English anymore - civilization literally gets set back to the stone age - the responsibility of the US government will have ended. Indeed, at that point the US government will have already failed in its responsibility. Any additional harm potentially caused by someone digging up nuclear waste (or finding it in a warehouse) will pale in comparison to that larger failure. So it is illogical to try to plan for it. You could make the similar case that in 100 years my house will become so old that it is dangerous to live in. But if the US government has collapsed and people are back to the stone age and someone needs a roof, maybe they'll choose to live in it. And maybe it will collapse on them and kill them. That will be yet another failure of the US government to provide perpetual protection. Why aren't we planning for that?

 

[mheslep]

So, my question still stands.

The quotes you partially reference from WNA are from a page on "myths and realities" about nuclear waste, a contrast not clear in the passage you quoted. In particular, you omitted parts of the reference which place radioactivity in context.

From the WNA reference, myth #5:

5. Nuclear wastes are hazardous for tens of thousands of years. This clearly is unprecedented and poses a huge threat to our future generations in the long-term

My take is your thesis in the above posts are summarized as myth #5 by WNA.

And the entire body of response #5:

Many industries produce hazardous waste. The nuclear industry has developed technology that will ensure its hazardous waste can be managed appropriately so as to cause no risk to future generations.

In fact, the radioactivity of nuclear wastes naturally decays progressively and has a finite radiotoxic lifetime. The radioactivity of high-level wastes decays to the level of an equivalent amount of original mined uranium ore in between 1,000 and 10,000 years. Its hazard then depends on how concentrated it is. Compare this to other industrial wastes (e.g. heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury), which remain hazardous indefinitely.

Most nuclear wastes produced are hazardous, due to their radioactivity, for only a few tens of years and are routinely disposed in near-surface disposal facilities. A small volume of nuclear waste (~3% volume of total waste produced) is long-lived and highly radioactive and requires isolation from the environment for many thousands of years.

International conventions define what is hazardous in terms of radiation dose, and national regulations limit allowable doses accordingly. Well-developed industry technology ensures that these regulations are met so that any hazardous wastes are handled in a way that poses no risk to human health or the environment. Waste is converted into a stable form that is suitable for disposal. In the case of high-level waste, a multi-barrier approach, combining containment and geological disposal, ensures isolation of the waste from people and the environment for thousands of years

[emphasis mine]

One area of agreement in all the above posts in this thread seems to be that nobody wants significant concentrations of radioactivity, cadmium, or mercury dumped into the food chain or water supply. This is different from suggesting a ban on radioactivity (or elements of the periodic table.)

Further, in your quote above from WNA on '3% volume', a sentence was clipped which I include here:

...Most nuclear wastes produced are hazardous, due to their radioactivity, for only a few tens of years and are routinely disposed in near-surface disposal facilities. A small volume of nuclear waste (~3% volume of total waste produced) is long-lived and highly radioactive and requires isolation from the environment for many thousands of years.

 

[SredniVashtar]

Still the same logical fallacy: since there are other poisons, this poison is not poisonous.
Also, my quotes are referring to facts, not the myth part.
I understand that you would prefer to talk about the 97% short-lived part of the waste, but - for the n-th time - this is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the 3% long-lived part that according to Krane and the Wolrd Nuclear Association requires long term storage (stated as a fact, not a myth).

And the bottom line of Russel's answer is "if the US government is no longer in charge, who cares?".
And now I also get censorship in my post and a threat to be banned from the thread (from one of the people I am arguing with)
Not exactly mature behavior.