Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Human nature (Score 1) 100

We also know that this collusion was irrelevant to the Fukushima accident. We also know that collusion with regulators wasn't the cause of the accident at Chernobyl either. So no, "learned nothing" is an empty assertion.

Your opinion differs from the official report which states the nuclear industry "managed to avoid absorbing the critical lessons learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl" so, yes, it's an accurate assertion. Organizational failures led to the accident in both cases.

What neglect?

Cited from the official report "NISA’s failure to demand action, and TEPCO’s failure to act, together constitute negligence which led to the accident.", that neglect.

The research that indicated this was a problem was done in 2001. Which was kind of irrelevant in that the plant was originally going to be decommissioned starting in 2011.

A claim that you have consistently made with no evidence to support it, expecially considering the fact that Unit four was off-line for maintenance and refueling. I've searched for evidence to support your claim and found none.

Seriously, step through this time line, nuclear power decision making is very conservative and deliberate, precisely because hasty, impromptu decision making is considered extremely negligent.

I did, it's a full quarter of the time the facility has existed. Taking 10 years to not make decisions that would protect the facility is the nonfeasance that constitutes the neglect the commission is referring to.

They just haven't been that bad.

I think the people who have been evacuated from their homes and communities that pre-dated the plant would disagree. Perhaps the destruction of these communities is meaningless in the pursuit of nuclear power, as long as no one diea, it's ok to ruin their communities.

I see you are finally accepting the seawall and backup generator issues though I note your original prediction that the cleanup would cost $10 billion at odds with the Japanese Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry estimate it will be around $200 billion, so far.

Personally, I'd be really sad if the beautiful place I live was decimated by an accident like that, maybe that's not something you can relate to.

keeping in mind that both they didn't have access to your amazing powers of hindsight

Your ad homs are meaningless, they show me you have no argument.

Considering my assertions are similar to the conclusions the official report made, nine months later after examining the evidence the word you are looking for is insight.

Like Chernobyl, TEPCO did something stupid and placed the backup generators where they would be vulnerable to flooding and then failed to improve the seawall protection when new conclusions about tsunami risk was assessed, they had the hindsight of many professionals to draw on, TEPCO just ignored them.

Even your own criteria of "don't do something stupid" was met to agree that Fukushima shows that the Nuclear Industry learned nothing from Chernobyl.

I'm happy to say that it looks like Fukushima has finally turned a corner with the removal of the spent fuel rods from the spent fuel cooling pool no longer threatening the northern hemisphere with the fall out from a plutonium fire. I am certain that a restart of the Japanese nuclear industry is being considered. Lets hope this is something you can tell me I was wrong about.

The primary conclusion has been:

It is simple to look through you previous posts how many conclusions you were wrong about on this matter because of the conclusions you don't accept. Dogmatically skeptical, you transpose your idealism of nuclear power onto reality with as much zealotry as a religious fanatic. Social proof isn't proof and your "arguments" haven't held up to facts that we have learned about Fukushima.

Fukushima shows that the Nuclear Industry learned nothing from Chernobyl.

Comment Re:Human nature (Score 1) 100

No, it would increase capacity factor because right now the standard response is a shutdown. If the power is reduced, instead of eliminated, the reactor itself can provide the power needed for cooling.

During an earthquake and Tsunami - that is insane idea. We are only discussing this as an option because of Fukushima and they may have had this option *IF* the seawall was protecting the reactor from flooding and damage. So this option wasn't available to Fukushima operators.

However, proposing running reactors at less than their full capacity is something I agree with, especially for older reactors like Fukushima. I've considered the same thing via an independant authority that approves the output of a reactor after inspections so that it is certified to run at that capacity. I believe this is how NP subs are certified for the depths they operate at. So in that regard, it's a good idea and I agree that it would reduce the severity of accidents.

However doing so will reduce their return on investment over time as they are running at some fraction, say 2/3's of their output capacity and I just can't see a board running a reactor facility at anything less than its full available output or without it making a lot of financial sense. So Capacity Factor would go up by reducing output capacity, and it would not be a fix for LOCA, just loss of power - which should never happen.

Sure, if you look at only those two then nuclear power does not look very safe. If you compare this to the hundreds of nuclear reactors that didn't fail then it does look very safe.

I think communities look at what happen to Fukushima, Chernobyl and places like Lake Karachy and realize that it is a threat they may face.

Had we kept building them then those failed reactors in Japan would have been decommissioned years before the tsunami hit.

I think they would run the reactors to the very end of their service life to squeeze every bit of return out of the capital expenditure that they can.

We do know what happens if we abandon nuclear power. Just look around at what happens. People turn to burning oil and brown coal.

They also turn to wind, solar, geothermal and wave power and these are proving that they can replace NP with a better ROI and scalability. That doesn't mean nuclear is going away however maybe it's role is baseload only.

The issues of nuclear waste have been solved but politics prevent addressing them responsibly.

Breeders exacerbate the problem of nuclear waste. Burners resolve it however the technology need materials technology advancements. Currently IFR style is the best burner reactor option however the oil and coal industry have lobbied heavily to destroy the technology that was prototyped and tested because it takes their market (produces electricity and hydrogen).

Other solutions use granite mines lined with bentonite clays to stop ground water contamination, which is what Yucca *should* be. Other solutions are on the drawing board however it is far from being solved.

Comment Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now? (Score 2) 173

So the cleanup costs for nuclear accidents so far is about 3% of the price of the electricity nuclear generates. Or 0.6 cents per kWh so far.

Thank you, your insights are very interesting however I think you mean those are the cost's incurred so far. It would also be interesting to map in energetic costs as well.

Chernoby cleanup cost $235 billion, Fukushima was around $200 billion. Three Mile Island was about $1 billion.

This is the cost to *ESTABLISH* cleaning up Chernobyl, now the work begins. We have not established the clean-up costs for Fukushima, only estimated, incurring and accumulating.

I have not looked at the status of TMI, have all the core elements been removed? Don't we still have to dismantle the facility? Will it require a NSC? Will Fukushima?

How much does it cost to dismantle a reactor core that has been operating for 60 years. Will every Nuclear reactor need a NSC to dismantle it?

These are the only major commercial nuclear accidents in history, and their total cost is $436 billion.

I guess Lake Karachay and Hanford were done on purpose so do clean up costs there count?

What about the cost of the 'non-major' accidents added together, are those costs externalized, like carbon?

What about the cost of spent fuel containment, not the test site at Yucca, a site that can contain radio-products without leaking?

Infrastructure to said containment facility (incidentally, that's why you want to pick a place that works)?

Cost per reactor decommissioning?

What about decommissioning of Enrichment facilities?

Mine tailings clean up, or are those costs externalized onto other countries?

It would be interesting to see the impact of decommissioning even if you ignored everything else. I think it has only been done once and on 150Mw reactor, IIRC it was Yankee Rowe however I am not sure if they have been able to remove the spent fuel. I'll dig out the numbers if I can find them.

Doesn't seem so expensive when you put it in proper perspective, does it? For even more perspective, compare to the subsidies for different power sources []:

You've missed out the value of the insurance subsidies for damaged caused, which are forced onto the taxpayer. Geothermal, wind and Solar don't get that kind of massive underwriting of liability as a form of corporate welfare because they don't need it. That's the flip side of Capacity Factor.

If these did not exist no one would invest in nuclear power as the liability cannot be calculated. Imagine what a hypothetical Indian Point INES7 accident would do to the asset value of NYC. How do you calculate that liability?

Comment Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now? (Score 1) 173

Did you even read the article you linked to? It ended with a solution to the nuclear waste problem, building more nuclear reactors.

Yes I did, several times over the years. I think to evolve NP you have to have an understanding of the reality. You said it's a small problem, well it isn't - it's a big problem. You said it's fixed but it isn't, you think the answer is simple, it isn't and you don't seem prepared to try to understand.

I'm not saying it's easy to understand either, I started from a position of supporting the Nuclear Industry decades ago and I'm still learning. The more I learned the more issues I uncovered to the point of being criticized for asking hard questions to answer or countering fiction with the facts and reality of the situation.

Yes, it really sucks that people made a mess with radioactive stuff, but scooping it up and dropping it in a hole doesn't make it go away.

If you design it right then it eliminates the real and justified concerns anti-nuke folk have and still allows advancement in reactor technology, i.e, you know where your transuranics are stored to use in your new reactor technology one day.

Most pro-nuke folk get fixated on idealism instead of reality and are blind to goals that are actually complementary because they seem to be unable to step out of the polarization of the argument or their own prejudices. You yourself politicized the issue and I just can't take that seriously.

To get rid of it requires nuclear reactors. While we're running those reactors to destroy this waste we can get power from it too.

I agree AND disagree with you. The technology of BURNER reactors already exists that resolves U283 and pu-239 stocks but requires material technology advancements to evolve the technology.

BOTH SIDES of the political debate have nailed the coffin into the nuclear industry so that the oil and coal industry can plunder it fro revenue. I (again) refer you to the 2005 US energy policy act where you will find that it is the oil and coal industry that is preventing the development of these reactors because a reactor that replaced coal and produces hydrogen to replace oil for the vehicle fleet is against their commercial interests. In fact the technology is being dismantled so it can't be studied by nuclear technologists. You say you are free because you are armed but do you have the courage to stand up to oil and coal interests?

Even if you do develop those reactors, you need a place to put them so why not put them in the same place you have stored all of the spent fuel so you can fully contain fuel reprocessing and reactor disposal as well? Do you understand how and why the return on reactor energy investment is so important and how that ties into material technology advances?

If the "pro-nuke" actually understood the situation you would understand that spent fuel storage is the way forward for the industry whilst giving us time to clean up the radiological mess this fucked up rushed prototype nuclear industry has left. But no you always think that it can be fixed with some new reactor with unknown basis design issues whilst making excuses for the failures of the existing technology and it's implementation. That's why normal people don't trust you and why people who have studied the industry think you are lunatics.

The problem is that nutty nukkers are so intent on blaming NIMBYS and hippies that they are too mentally lazy to go and figure out what the real issues are even when someone sticks it right in their face, instead they choose to cherry picking the knowledge communicated to reinforce their deeply flawed arguments. Because of that the nuclear industry never evolves because nukkers believe it is without flaws. They don't respect the power of the elements that are in reactors and therefore they make excuses for the stupid things the nuclear industry does. Is that who you are?

Get this: Nuclear power is so dangerous that it has the potential to destroy the human genome so the birthrate declines and transgenic disease increases. Indeed with the plethora of radionuclides released this very slow process is already underway. Any Nuclear industry that is designed must have this as is NUMBER 1 consideration or it is not worth doing. This is why NSC was so important.

Do you think you can figure this stuff out and treat the nuclear industry as a serious concern or will you just continue with the shallow trite bullshit that every other nuke fanboi comes out with?

Comment Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now? (Score 1) 173

We are at the beginning of nuclear power's impact on the human species so perhaps we need new ways to look at nuclear power in order to understand how it is affecting us, we've just started acknowledging carbon as an externality imposed on our generation, so why not radioactive effluents on future generations?

We don't consider the radioactive waste an issue for future generations for many reasons. First, the size of the problem is actually very small.

You're right, it's just small enough to fit in a freight train that wraps all the way around the equator... and a bit more, maybe a third more.

We need to find a way to put nuclear reactors in everyone's backyard, I propose we put the big nuclear reactors right in the middle of cities, every city, lets call it the IMBY movement to force people into accepting nuclear power for their own good. We need purplies to hold down hippies and fart right in their smug faces after a chilli bacon and chipoltle pizza so hippies can appreciate how dangerous wind is.

Chernobyl and Fuklukshima demonstrated that nuclear powers are perfectly safe since no one's ever died from them unless they were a super villain. We need to put big nuclear reactors right in the middle of cities like New York city, London, San Fransisco, NOW! Fart right in their smug faces until they say 'it's safe'.

You've brought up some important points about solar. The sun will be radioactive for 4 billion years and there is still no way to dispose of it. Waste shade from wind installations are a problem we just keep piling on the earth, everywhere and, there is still no solution. Today there was some shade right where I was standing. If we keep using sand for producing solar cells there will be a bit less sand in the world and if we don't dispose of waste shade there will be night everywhere so solar won't work anyway, so suck it mdsolar.

The sun and the wind are really just too toxic compared to nuclear power, anyone who has *ever* had bad case of sunburn and wind burnt lips, will tell you that the wind and the sun are just too dangerous as if there was ever a major problem there would be minor inconveniences. There should be a moritorium on using the sun until we know how to dispose of it properly and until we learn how to stop passing wind, problems onto the next generation.

Comment Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now? (Score 1) 173

Stop nuclear power now before we have more accidents like these.

I agree. Nothing is more dangerous than nuclear power... >Nuclear power historically has the lowest number of deaths to energy produced

I think your approach to nuclear power is to have it at any cost. Transposing idealistic notions about NP onto reality and politicizing it doesn't really respect NP for either its potential or its dangerous nature.

Perhaps the metric is wrong for Nuclear Power. Perhaps the metric we should be using for NP is total failed births per GWh or lives destroyed per ton of radioisotope maybe we could use communities obliterated per GWh. I've never heard of a case where people are evacuated for 30 years because a wind turbine caught fire or because of a deadly outbreak of sunshine.

We are at the beginning of nuclear power's impact on the human species so perhaps we need new ways to look at nuclear power in order to understand how it is affecting us, we've just started acknowledging carbon as an externality imposed on our generation, so why not radioactive effluents on future generations?

Comment Re:100 years? (Score 3, Informative) 173

The deadly dose of Plutonium...

Which isotope?

Plutonium 239. As an oxide it is an inhalant, plutonium chloride and nitrate is organically bound easily in the blood and bones because they are iron analogues. These are the main concerns for bio-accumulation of nuclear industry effluents persistent in the environment for 24,000 years and why I'm optimistic that NSC is going to help control the release of any more of these effluents into the environment.

...for a 80kg human is something like 60 micrograms.

you would have a solid number instead of a vague guess that you can back away from later.

In 1944 , Robert Stone, the head of the Plutonium Project Health Division, made the earliest estimate of a permissible burden for plutonium by scaling the radium standard on the basis of the radiological differences between radium and plutonium. Those included the difference in their radioactivities and that of their daughters and the difference in the average energy of their alpha particles. The result indicated that, gram for gram, plutonium was a factor of 50 less toxic than radium, and the standard was set to 5 micrograms.

In July 1945, Wright Langham insisted that the 5-microgram standard be reduced by a factor of 5 on the basis of animal experiments that showed that plutonium was distributed in the bone differently, and more dangerously, than radium. Thus, the maximum permissible body burden for plutonium was set at 1 microgram.

Following those experiments, discussions at the Chalk River Conferences in Ontario, Canada, (1949 to 1953) led to further reductions in the plutonium standard to 0.65 micrograms, or 40 nanocuries, for a maximum permissible body burden. Since then, no further changes have been made.

Considering that the experiments were part of the Manhattan project and some of the subjects involved were not informed some of the specific results may still be classified.

Comment Re:Sources (Score 4, Informative) 173

It would nice if there were some primary sources in this post.....

Apologies, I've had food poisoning all week and not enough energy to filter out what I thought were the best primary sources, many of which are pdfs that I'm still getting through myself. Here are the ones that cover the salient details:

I would link to the Ukraine body of law that governs all this this however I don't speak the language.

Slashdot Top Deals

Men of lofty genius when they are doing the least work are most active. -- Leonardo da Vinci