Fuel cells:electricity or hydrogen powered

[bobbobwhite]

Meltdowns and results

What you continually fail to understand is that if humans die off at a time when nuclear reactors are providing all of the world's power, all electricity would soon stop, thus all cooling pumps and water pumps would stop and water supply to the rods would stop, and all already present water surrounding the rods would soon evaporate, then the rods would overheat and melt down uncontrolled...then the real fun starts. And we would not be there to remediate anything happening from that point on.

Not counting what terrible things would happen when 20,000 or whatever amount of total reactor sets of rods melt down deep into the Earth's core, we would then have the uncontrolled, remember we are all dead so we cannot control anything, emission of massive readioactivity worldwide. How many years of dissipation before life could possibly return? Who knows, maybe hundreds, depends on the total of all reactors, locations, etc. But, perhaps more years than anything could survive, even underground. Thus, everything now living would be permanently eliminated, even your giant ants. No oxygen, no light, no food, no life supporting climate, no water(boiled off), no life... another Mars.

I am truly sorry that I entered into this discussion with someone who only cares about this Earth as it relates to the humans on it. What a miniscule perspective that is. This is our true and permanent divide, and the real reason we could never agree on anything in a similar way as it relates to Earth and the fatal damage only its human inhabitants have irreversibly done to it, so I will stop trying. The tipping point of that cumulative damage has already passed, and you just don't realize that you are still trying hard, but ineffectively, to get the highest price for your piece of rope.

 

[shamrock5585]

hey bobbowhite i think you strongly underestimate our technology in the first place... if there is no technicians around to run the reactor it will shut itself down anyway... Chernobyl is extremely dated... we have these things called regulations now... and i respect your care for animals and the planet but realistically Earth and animals don't mean anything to us... do you really care for that cow while you eat it and then have its daughter (veal) right after? and care for those termites that eat your house... all humanity cares about is intelligence (the greatest thing we know) and survival (and of course you can throw all sorts of politics in there to cloud things up but you get the picture) ... Earth and animals are vital to our survival and that's the only real reason why we care about them in the end. argue if you may... but when the end of the world comes will you save your sister, brother or animals... humanity always come first!

 

[vanesch]

What you continually fail to understand is that if humans die off at a time when nuclear reactors are providing all of the world's power, all electricity would soon stop, thus all cooling pumps and water pumps would stop and water supply to the rods would stop, and all already present water surrounding the rods would soon evaporate, then the rods would overheat and melt down uncontrolled...then the real fun starts. And we would not be there to remediate anything happening from that point on.

Yes, and the upper limit of what can happen there, is a major fire driven by a WORKING REACTOR for several days, sending a serious fraction of its contents kilometer-high in the atmosphere... well, THAT was Chernobyl. As I said, it won't, because the reactor will NOT BE WORKING whenever this happens, there is the confinement building which, even if it leaks, will not allow for the radioactive stuff to get high up in the atmosphere but it will just leak out locally etc...

Also, most modern designs are passively cooled. For instance, the power plant I know best, the French 1300 MW system (not even the latest) doesn't need active pumping for the core to cool. (of course, it will need some cooling of the secondary circuit). Usually, diesel generators will start up and will provide for the needed electricity for a few more weeks after the day and hour everybody has suddenly dropped dead according to your bizarre scenario.

So the fuel we are talking about has already lost most of its extremely active components. Yes, it still generates heat, yes it will finally end up evaporating all water, yes, it might even start some kind of fire (although I'm not even sure about that: I'm not sure that the temperature of the unattended rods, after a few weeks of cooling, will reach more than 2000 degrees under passive air cooling). But it will in no respect ressemble to Chernobyl. So IF I take Chernobyl, I'm using an OVERESTIMATION which will give you a conservative upper boundary to what can really happen, simply because for Chernobyl we have ACTUAL DATA.

Not counting what terrible things would happen when 20,000 or whatever amount of total reactor sets of rods melt down deep into the Earth's core, we would then have the uncontrolled, remember we are all dead so we cannot control anything, emission of massive readioactivity worldwide.

what reactor rods deep into the Earth's core ?? Are you taking the phantasy of the China Syndrome for real ? Unattended rods still generate some heat due to radioactive decay, not due to their "working". If they get spread out over a certain area, then they will just warm that surface a little bit.

I showed a quick estimate that if we had 1000 reactors (that would be about sufficient to cover our current world electricity consumption if they were all of the latest type, like EPR) ALL undergoing a Chernobyl disaster, that this would not affect life in the slightest bit. It would turn about 2% of Earth's surface into a zone comparable to the 30 km zone around Chernobyl (left unattended, remind you!), where life is thriving. And then, they WON'T undergo a Chernobyl type of accident.

So what makes you think that this would ruin life on Earth ?

How many years of dissipation before life could possibly return? Who knows, maybe hundreds, depends on the total of all reactors, locations, etc. But, perhaps more years than anything could survive, even underground. Thus, everything now living would be permanently eliminated, even your giant ants. No oxygen, no light, no food, no life supporting climate, no water(boiled off), no life... another Mars.

All this because of 1000 reactors ? Where do you get these totally erroneous ideas ?

Again, EVEN if 1000 reactors underwent 1000 Chernobyls (and they won't), this would by far not happen. So on what do you base your argument ?

And on what do you base your argument that people will all together, drop dead on the same day ?

So you complain about nuclear power (which, BTW, is the only thing that could seriously do something about global warming if that story turns out to be correct) because you make the statement that, if we rely on it, and:
1) hypothesis: all humans drop dead the same day

then these reactors will:
2) quickly start burning, make a hole in the ground, kill all life on Earth (or nearly so), no oxygen, no water, no food, no light (huh?), ...

Now, I showed you that EVEN accepting hypothesis 1), and EVEN assuming that they all undergo a Chernobyl (again, which they won't), nothing serious will actually happen to life on earth. Apart from some local and regional difficulties, nothing serious would even happen to humans (except that they would be so scared to get out or eat anything that they would indeed starve to death). So you are complaining about a totally impossible scenario, several times over. Nuclear reactors, even of the worst kind, CANNOT DAMAGE seriously life on earth.

If we are to have impossible scenarios I give you my favorite: we should immediately stop building windmills, because they will cause a global storm that is so terrible that it will blow all life, and even all the air, off the earth, into space ! There. That's even worse. So do you join my campaign against these terrible irresponsible people who want to put windmills everywhere ?

I am truly sorry that I entered into this discussion with someone who only cares about this Earth as it relates to the humans on it. What a miniscule perspective that is. This is our true and permanent divide, and the real reason we could never agree on anything in a similar way as it relates to Earth and the fatal damage only its human inhabitants have irreversibly done to it, so I will stop trying. The tipping point of that cumulative damage has already passed, and you just don't realize that you are still trying hard, but ineffectively, to get the highest price for your piece of rope.

This is a different discussion, which doesn't matter to the fallacies in your other argument. Now, I suppose that every morning, you mourn about the death of the dinosaurs, which underwent a far far far worse catastrophe than wicked manhood, even in its wildest dreams, could ever do to Earth ? How can you even face the light of the day knowing what terrible terrible thing happened to Gaia 65 million years ago ? And then, the Permean extinction, now that must be heart-breaking to you, no ? How can you live with that ?

But you still didn't answer my question: would you advocate a massive genocide of the human race (if we found a way that didn't perturb Gaia, like, say, a very targetted disease or something) in order to save "the living earth" ? (hint: it is a trick question)

 

[russ_watters]

not fact. You say it won't, but you don't know a whit about whether 500-1000-20,000 or whatever number we "smart" humans deem the right amount of nuclear reactors would not ruin the Earth if melted down. Science says it will. You say no. I trust science more so science wins, you lose.

Just to make sure we're clear here, bob - this site is home to several nuclear scientists and engineers (including vanesch) and many more scientists and engineers in related fields. So saying "science says so" isn't really worth anything when you are directly contradicting scientists!

You need to provide a reference for your claims. They don't sound scientific at all (ie, one is a reference to the China Syndrome, which has no basis in science - it was pure fiction and has never been a real possibility).

 

[vanesch]

Also, most modern designs are passively cooled. For instance, the power plant I know best, the French 1300 MW system (not even the latest) doesn't need active pumping for the core to cool. (of course, it will need some cooling of the secondary circuit). Usually, diesel generators will start up and will provide for the needed electricity for a few more weeks after the day and hour everybody has suddenly dropped dead according to your bizarre scenario.

Just to digress on this a bit, I'd like to explain how this passive cooling works. The primary circuit is set up such that under normal functioning, "cold" water of about 290 degrees enters the reactor vessel, flows downward externally of the core, and at the bottom, enters the core envelope, and rises through the core where it gets heated to about 310 degrees, and then go into 4 different circuits, leading to the so-called steam generators, mounted above the reactor vessel. There, secondary water is heated and converted into steam (it's lower pressure), and huge pumps (6 MW motors!) pump the primary water now back in the reactor vessel where the path starts all over.

This circuit is designed such, that if the power developed by the core is less than 10% of the nominal power (about 4 GW thermal), the passive flow (rising hot water into the steam generator etc...) is sufficient so that one doesn't need the big pumps. A shut-down reactor (and the slightest bit of problem in a nuclear power plant will automatically shut down the reactor by shutting off the electro-magnets that keep the emergency control rods suspended above the reactor, so that they passively FALL into the reactor and stop it) will drop below the 10% power level in a matter of seconds, and the inertia of the pumps has been designed such that they can pump still enough during this time even without electricity.

Now, once passive cooling removes all the excess heat from the core to the steam generator, one still needs water in the steam generator from the secondary circuit. Well, there are steam-driven turbo pumps in the secondary circuit, which can be driven by the steam of the steam generator. No need for electricity. (these are backup pumps: the normal way to operate is with electric pumps). However, there IS a need to cool the condenser of the secondary circuit (with river water for instance) and there, a pump is needed, although there is also a big reservoir that can cool the secondary circuit passively, although of course only during a finite amount of time, until all this water has vaporized away.

 

[bobbobwhite]

And, sarcastically, I am so sure that used car dealers have in their hearts the best interests of the people they sell cars to. By this example I am trying to show that as a diehard proponent of nuclear energy you obviously are going to state, along with facts, biased opinions and gross suppositions, unestablished theories and even wild hypotheses that serve to support your position, all the while naysaying any opposing point of view. I am so very sure that this is the same type of "reasoning" and "intelligence" behind Dubya's invasion of Iraq. Check out what crap has happened as a result of that smart move when you get a chance.

I am the first to admit that I do not know all the issues of nuclear energy, but I do know that massive amounts of electricity cannot now be stored, and electricity is the primary power that fundamentally runs all the plants of of any kind in the world. When that power source is no longer available, all plants including nuclear plants and what's inside will be no longer operate as they were intended, to whatever end, however long it takes if it is not immediate. It will definitely happen and that, my friend, is a fact. My example of all people dying at the same time was made to illustrate that if that catastrophe did ever happen, would we be able to contain the results of the first imploding then possibly exploding destruction of all of the nuclear reactors and the results of that Earth and climate destruction to humanity and the world? You say yes, but your one sided argument does not influence me much as I find it much smarter and more reasonable to continually question the rantings of zealots than to slavishly follow what they say to do without substantial and telling proof of their speculated outcome. Again, reference Dubya statement above.

Also, please don't compare natural Earth events(not "disasters", please) over millions and billions of years with much more recent manmade ones, as that is totally dumb and surely beneath you and also shows clearly the total distortion of facts I stated above that diehard proponents of anything highly controversial typically mouth endlessly.

Finally, are you willing to test your "theory" and perhaps your life by standing nearby then shutting down the electricity supply to a large reactor to see what actually would happen? Do you possibly know if a scale model of that scenario perhaps has been researched and documented, and if so I would like to scour the results of that test to see if they were done by qualified and impartial researchers at full arm's length, and not by any self serving nuclear energy commission, the Bush adminstration, or the likes of you.

 

[vanesch]

And, sarcastically, I am so sure that used car dealers have in their hearts the best interests of the people they sell cars to. By this example I am trying to show that as a diehard proponent of nuclear energy you obviously are going to state, along with facts, biased opinions and gross suppositions, unestablished theories and even wild hypotheses that serve to support your position, all the while naysaying any opposing point of view. I am so very sure that this is the same type of "reasoning" and "intelligence" behind Dubya's invasion of Iraq. Check out what crap has happened as a result of that smart move when you get a chance.

This is an argument that can be used against any position. If person A states statement P, then you can always say that because he states statement P, he's obviously a proponent of statement P, and he is obviously going to state, along with facts, biased opinions and gross suppositions, unestablished theories and even wild hypotheses that serve the position in statement P, all the while naysaying any opposing point of view.

In other words, if you are convinced that a person, because he maintains position P, which seems not to be in agreement with your preconceptions, must be making biased statements, then no argument is ever going to be possible with you. You can fill in for P, just any statement: "grass is green", "dinosaurs lived up to 65 million years ago", "the Earth turns around the sun", ... anything.

My statement P is that nuclear reactors, even a thousand of them, are not in any significant way, going to exterminate (or even come close) life on earth.

I illustrated it with some extremely simple estimations which you should be able to follow.

I am the first to admit that I do not know all the issues of nuclear energy, but I do know that massive amounts of electricity cannot now be stored, and electricity is the primary power that fundamentally runs all the plants of of any kind in the world. When that power source is no longer available, all plants including nuclear plants and what's inside will be no longer operate as they were intended, to whatever end, however long it takes if it is not immediate. It will definitely happen and that, my friend, is a fact. My example of all people dying at the same time was made to illustrate that if that catastrophe did ever happen, would we be able to contain the results of the first imploding then possibly exploding destruction of all of the nuclear reactors and the results of that Earth and climate destruction to humanity and the world? You say yes, but your one sided argument does not influence me much as I find it much smarter and more reasonable to continually question the rantings of zealots than to slavishly follow what they say to do without substantial and telling proof of their speculated outcome. Again, reference Dubya statement above.

In other words, whatever I say, if it doesn't fit with your preconceptions, you're going to continue sticking to your position, no matter what argument is put forward ? Do you find that an intelligent way to debate ?
BTW, with reference to the "car salesman", I don't work in the nuclear power industry.

Finally, are you willing to test your "theory" and perhaps your life by standing nearby then shutting down the electricity supply to a large reactor to see what actually would happen? Do you possibly know if a scale model of that scenario perhaps has been researched and documented, and if so I would like to scour the results of that test to see if they were done by qualified and impartial researchers at full arm's length, and not by any self serving nuclear energy commission, the Bush adminstration, or the likes of you.

Well, chances are that this is done by people working in the nuclear sector (by definition), so this is in any case going to be by "experts in the field", and hence, according to you, biased.

But there are two fallacies in your argument. The first one is that you seem to ignore totally the safety requirements for a modern nuclear power plant. A power cut is not only a possibility, it happens sometimes for real, and OF COURSE these scenarios have been studied, and studied over in all possible ways. EVERY MONTH at our research reactor we have an exercise of a power cut and overtaking by diesel generators. This is the minimum.

But the second fallacy in your argument is the following: you seem to put next to you the fact that nothing worse can happen than Chernobyl: having a serious portion of the reactor content sent high in the air in a huge fire with a working reactor. There's nothing worse. That's the most extreme point of "the plant is not going to work normally". A reactor CANNOT EXPLODE like a nuclear weapon, if you think that. No more than your television set can explode like a nuclear weapon. So we err on the "safe" side if we assume that the worse thing will happen to every reactor. And if we suppose that, we see that this is by far not able to exterminate life on earth, as the only example we have has a thriving ecosystem around it.

So I'm not saying that we think that reactors will behave this and so and that there's nothing to worry about. I'm saying that even if the worst thing happens that can happen, your statement cannot be held up. Do you understand that logic ?

Again, it is as if I was stating that windmills can generate a world-wide storm that can blow life and the atmosphere from the surface of the earth. I would like to hear your argument why that won't happen (and hence, why it is NOT dangerous to build windmills). What would you do ? You would go to an extreme worst case: you would suppose that a wind mill goes crazy, and goes rotating at the speed that is still just bearable by its rotor. If it turns faster, it would blow itself apart. Now, you would then see what wind such a thing can blow, how many there are, and if that total wind is sufficient to blow the atmosphere in space. I didn't do the estimation - but sure it would convince me that my fear argument is maybe too strong.

 

[bobbobwhite]

Your serious deficiency in reading comprehension concerns me, as it makes it very difficult to discuss anything of content with you. In your retorts, you say I say things that I do not say, and you also distort and twist things I do say, perhaps/surely for your own slanted purposes. You must discontinue that manner for any debating respect from me, if ever. It's not even allowed in high school debating, so it surely shouldn't exist in the discussions of adults. You are an adult, aren't you?

Capitalism, communism, Socratic government, e.g., and so many other volatile theoretical topics of debate may seem to appear so reasonable and practical upon theoretical discussion of application, but it's in the actual application of operation of the theory where they so often fail. These failed theories are fundamentally flawed by always assuming that they will be performed perfectly by 100% totally consistent, dedicated, and expert operatives(machine-like humans? Why don't we make them first?), but it's always in the human failings of the human operatives of the theory that condemns the reality of too many of them to abject and total failure ultimately.

Thus, my concern with nuclear reactor energy production. Until it is extensively and intensively tested in scaled reality(not just in simulated lab experiments), and by doing so exposes the entire reactor area and related locale to all the destructive chain of human-caused events that could ever possibly occur as a result of totally unmanaged meltdown conditions(with you standing next to the reactor of course to prove that you will put your money where your mouth is and end up just fine)and is proven beyond any reasonable and practical doubt that it is no unremediable and significant threat to any Earth lifeforms, I will never be convinced of the miniscule damage scenario that you expouse with such vigor, but with what else? Your kind of Mad Magazine, "what, me worry" attitude and position on this topic always should seriously alarm anyone with more than only youth experience in this very humanly flawed world.

I was't going to mention this but now will...your moronic windmills example of whatever is something I might expect from a child...so totally flawed, unrelated and poorly reasoned that it makes me wince to even think about commenting on it in an adult discussion.

Actually, it makes me sadly think of what may have been said in a singularly obtuse, power mad, and duty-conflicted discussion scenario of Bush and Cheney in their "War Room" before their Iraq invasion. Possibly, "we will never allow a mine shaft gap!" and, "mein Fuhrer, I can walk!" Seems about right.

 

[vanesch]

Thus, my concern with nuclear reactor energy production. Until it is extensively and intensively tested in scaled reality(not just in simulated lab experiments), and by doing so exposes the entire reactor area and related locale to all the destructive chain of human-caused events that could ever possibly occur as a result of totally unmanaged meltdown conditions(with you standing next to the reactor of course to prove that you will put your money where your mouth is and end up just fine)and is proven beyond any reasonable and practical doubt that it is no unremediable and significant threat to any Earth lifeforms, I will never be convinced of the miniscule damage scenario that you expouse with such vigor, but with what else?

Now, as to me putting words in your mouth, this is what you said:

This talk about nuclear energy...I read a science article that stated if the world builds many reactors for total necessary energy supply and then, due to global warming elements already/subsequently released, humans are eradicated and thus not around to control all those reactors, the world would then be rapidly stripped of life due to overheating of the reactors and the resulting total melt downs which would release massive radiation, and the living natural world as it was for billions of years would end, and possibly another Mars would be the result.

In other words, nuclear reactors, according to you and your "science" article, would very probably annihilate ALL LIFE FROM EARTH. This is the utterly erroneous statement of which I try to make you see the absurdity. I don't have to show "minuscule damage", I have to show minuscule damage as compared to this claim. And that's what I did. It wasn't difficult.

I didn't say that individuals will not die. You claimed that the meltdown of a thousand reactors would annihilate life on Earth (and some more obscure things, which were not very understandable, like no oxygen, no water, no light... but there's a limit to the absurdity I'm willing to contradict).

As to scaled reality, what more do you want than Chernobyl ? Why is that "experiment" not sufficient ? If you are now going to claim that that was only ONE reactor, and not a thousand, ok, then in order to prove to you that a thousand reactors are not going to annihilate life on earth, we should blow up a thousand reactors ? Just to satisfy your unwillingness to accept some minor theoretical extrapolation to multiply the damage of one with 1000 ?

So, in order for my 1000 times Chernobyl argument to fail, you have to show me:
1) that your average nuclear reactor is going to do something far worse than what happened there. I think it is going to be difficult. What physical process do you have in mind that will be more lethal to biological life than what happened there: a significant part of the hot core of the reactor blown high in the atmosphere ?

Read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

2) contradict the actual observed ecosystem around Chernobyl. Mind you, something DID die at Chernobyl: the nearby "Red Forest" was indeed biologically destroyed: it represents a surface of about 10 square km and was nearby the plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest
But in the 30km zone, life is thriving - not exterminated, I refer again to the BBC article I linked to earlier on.
So you have now to tell me how a Chernobyl-like accident is going to kill all life in a perimeter around it, while the actual Chernobyl accident didn't, on the contrary.

3) Tell me how you are going to exterminate all life on EARTH by something that could at most affect a few percent of its land surface, given the individual effect, times the number.

In other words, my argument is pretty strong: I base it on an over-estimation, a real observation, and a simple extrapolation (from 1 to 1000).

Again, I'm not saying that something like a Chernobyl accident is not a disaster for the humans that live nearby. But we are talking here about all humans already dead. You were saying that nuclear reactors left on their own would destroy essentially "life as we know it" from the surface of the earth. My simple argument shows you that you are far off the mark.

But your demand is unrealistic: you would want people to undergo human disasters on a wide scale (we should blow up 1000 reactors) just to show you that in case that humanity disappears, not all rabbits are going to disappear off the surface of the earth, because you are unwilling to accept anything else. That's an unreasonable demand.

Ok, I challenge you again: show me that it is not life-threatening to Gaia to build many windmills, that they cannot blow life, and the atmosphere, into outer space when left unattended. Go ahead. And once you've demonstrated that to me, I'll analyse what kind of argument you are sensitive to, and I'll reformulate the argument of the 1000 reactors in a similar way.

Hell, show me that it is not life-threatening to Gaia that if all humans drop dead on the same day, that their rotting bodies will not poison the biosphere beyond repair! Shall we all drop dead (except one, to write down the observations) just to show you that it is safe to be here for Gaia ?

So tell me, what WOULD convince you that 1000 reactors, left to their own, cannot destroy life on Earth ? And are you willing to apply the same request for rigor to a lot of other human activities ? Or should nuclear reactors be treated differently ?

 

[russ_watters]

This is just nonsense. Thanks for destroying a perfectly good thread, bob.