Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 01:09 AM Apr 2014

Nuclear Power Plans for More Disasters

The nuclear people now realize that their big power plants are not safe from catastrophic failures. They have come to this conclusion after seeing three plants explode in the last 35 years.

So instead of planning that there will be no more exploding power plants, they have decided to begin planning how to clean up the mess when it happens.

This is a real turn of events for the nuclear industry. In the past all claims were that the plants were safe; that the nuclear facilities would not get out of control and blow sky-high.

I guess they figure there is some real money to be made in the clean ups? After all, estimates of the cleanup at Fukushima are now estimated to be in the ball park of one trillion dollars.

Just think of exploding power plants as job creation, and it's all good?

40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nuclear Power Plans for More Disasters (Original Post) RobertEarl Apr 2014 OP
"Three plants explode in the last 35 years"? Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #1
Right RobertEarl Apr 2014 #3
Your argument is kind of like saying "the Titanic sank, therefore we shouldn't build more ships" Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #6
That is false RobertEarl Apr 2014 #8
Are you serious? daveMN Apr 2014 #9
Eh? RobertEarl Apr 2014 #11
Coal and gasoline emissions kill far more every year than nuclear. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #13
We have like 2% total of nuclear sourced energy RobertEarl Apr 2014 #15
75% of energy in France is nuclear; how many meltdowns and evacuations have they had? Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #16
There was a report from France RobertEarl Apr 2014 #17
With the result that Germany is now burning more coal. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #19
Hmmm RobertEarl Apr 2014 #20
Actually, no, it doesn't. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #21
What are your plans for the nuke waste? RobertEarl Apr 2014 #22
There are any number of things that can be done with the waste. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #23
Well, you are wrong, again RobertEarl Apr 2014 #24
"Come up with ways to decrease CO2 by capture and storage" Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #25
Yes, I do RobertEarl Apr 2014 #31
The issue lies, I believe, in human reliability and laziness. Gravitycollapse Apr 2014 #4
Yes. This is key Tom Rinaldo Apr 2014 #30
Nuclear power was and continues to be the safest form of mass energy production. Gravitycollapse Apr 2014 #2
Safest? RobertEarl Apr 2014 #5
Nuclear power has the lowest deaths/TWh of any mass energy production scheme. Gravitycollapse Apr 2014 #7
What you don't seem to care about... RobertEarl Apr 2014 #10
I guess you prefer today's Japan Union Scribe Apr 2014 #12
I feel better, yes RobertEarl Apr 2014 #14
Energy policy is way more complex than that. Conservation and load shifting are being used. Kolesar Apr 2014 #27
If the Government is serious about Global Warming what are they doing nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #18
Dangerous matter johnstyle Apr 2014 #26
There are several other melted cores that were quietly taken off line in the USA Kolesar Apr 2014 #28
This message was self-deleted by its author NuclearDem Apr 2014 #29
Eh? RobertEarl Apr 2014 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author NuclearDem Apr 2014 #33
Three exploded RobertEarl Apr 2014 #34
This message was self-deleted by its author NuclearDem Apr 2014 #35
Good decision to delete your posts RobertEarl Apr 2014 #36
Whatever you say, Robert. NuclearDem Apr 2014 #37
You are finally learning, eh? RobertEarl Apr 2014 #38
This is hilarious. NuclearDem Apr 2014 #39
They still haven't said RobertEarl Apr 2014 #40
 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
1. "Three plants explode in the last 35 years"?
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 01:19 AM
Apr 2014

Which ones? If you mean Chernobyl? It's irrelevant, because Western reactors don't use the inherently unsafe design of the Chernobyl reactor; if you mean Fukushima, it's also largely irrelevant because most nuclear power facilities are not located on fault lines in earthquake zones. Chernobyl is an argument against using Soviet control-rod design, Fukushima an argument against building nuclear plants on floodplains in earthquake zones. Neither is an argument against nuclear power in toto.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
3. Right
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 01:30 AM
Apr 2014

They were all safe. These examples can not be used as examples that the nuclear is not safe.

Bwahahahaa....... No. Wait. Not funny. Nothing funny about nuke plants like TMI melting down. And now the WIPP hole, where they store nuclear waste, has exploded.

In toto, nuclear power, when viewed through clear eyes, is the stupidest fucking thing humans have ever done.


 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
8. That is false
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 01:50 AM
Apr 2014

The Titantic did not have the capability of killing anything but that which was in its immediate vicinity. Nuclear explosions kill far beyond their immediate vicinity.

Try again?

daveMN

(25 posts)
9. Are you serious?
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 01:55 AM
Apr 2014

I think you are being willfully ignorant. Nuclear power plants can not explode like a nuclear bomb. The burning of coal has killed thousands of times more people then Chernobyl and Fukushima ever will. Where is your outrage about that?

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
11. Eh?
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 02:03 AM
Apr 2014

You can see into the future? And you think your crystal ball shows nuclear waste somehow magically disappearing?

It is a denial of nuclear science what you are proposing. The science says that some transuranics are deadly for thousands of years.

Did you see the explosions at Fukushima on you-tube? Those were explosions of the power plants. Explosions that spread nuclear material far and wide. Around the world.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
13. Coal and gasoline emissions kill far more every year than nuclear.
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 02:20 AM
Apr 2014

The number of deaths in mining and oil rig accidents far exceeds the number of fatalities related to nuclear power plus Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Coal combustion puts mercury into the atmosphere where it ends up in precipitation and ultimately in the oceans (which is why mercury in fish is a concern). Air pollution from coal and diesel and gasoline exhaust is a major contributing factor to COPD and lung cancer in urban populations. If you're doing a cost/benefit analysis nuclear power looks like a much better option than what we have currently.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
15. We have like 2% total of nuclear sourced energy
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 02:32 AM
Apr 2014

The other 98% comes from other sources, mainly fossil fuels.

Can you name one place that had to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people as has been done in Ukraine and Japan because of a plant explosion? Not just evacuate but removed, maybe never to return?Of course not.

Nuclear is special. Now just imagine a 100% nuclear sourced energy supply. That would be 50 times what we now have. The math says we would have had 150 nuclear plants exploded by now. 50 X 3.

The science, the bankers, the environmentalists all agree: No more nukes. You should join us.


 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
16. 75% of energy in France is nuclear; how many meltdowns and evacuations have they had?
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 02:35 AM
Apr 2014

Helpful hint: none.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
17. There was a report from France
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 02:47 AM
Apr 2014

It was about nuclear power plant failure. It was determined that something similar to Fukushima, in France, would bankrupt France. France has, shall we say, been lucky. How long will that luck hold out? They've had nukes for less than 50 years.

But what you seem to be forgetting is that the waste from nuclear will be around for thousands of years. Which means it will outlive all the French. Did you hear what France's neighbor, Germany, has done? They have decided to close down all their nuke plants.


 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
19. With the result that Germany is now burning more coal.
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 03:25 AM
Apr 2014

But hey, why worry about global warming when we can be paranoid over nuclear power because of Fukushima? (Never mind that Germany is not in a seismically active, volcanically active, or tsumani-prone region of the globe and the chances of a Fukushima-style disaster are nil.)

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
20. Hmmm
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 03:38 AM
Apr 2014

You do realize that most of the CO2 comes from transportation uses. That most fossil fuel use is used in cars and trucks, and that the US has been the main contributor to global warming, right?

Again, if we had 100% nuclear sourced energy, there would be now be, at the given rate, over 150 nuclear plant explosions around the world.

We've all been fed the line of bullshit that nuclear is safe and, eh, "Too cheap to meter". Germany said: FTS. We are not believers.

One of the main reasons Germany rejected nukes is the matter of the waste. What are your plans for the waste?

I'll repeat it because you seem to not hear about the waste or think about the waste: What are your plans for the nuke waste?

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
22. What are your plans for the nuke waste?
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 04:02 AM
Apr 2014

Did you hear about our WIPP hole in the ground?

It was meant to contain nuke waste for a thousand years. Safely.

Well, it is now closed. Why is it closed? They can't send people down into the hole to inspect or work.

Why can't they send people down in the hole?

Because it is not safe. Because there was smoke pouring out of it last month. They even admitted that 10 to 20 employees were contaminated by the waste that is no longer safely contained.

So.... what are your plans for the waste?

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
23. There are any number of things that can be done with the waste.
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 04:36 AM
Apr 2014

Which include sealing it in lead-lined cement and dropping it to the bottom of the ocean or placing it in deep disused mineshafts. The problems of nuclear waste, whatever they may be, are less an issue than the almost certain outcomes of continues greenhouse gas emissions and the further impacts of global warming. (Which is potentially an extinction level event; look up "methane clathrates".)

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
24. Well, you are wrong, again
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 04:53 AM
Apr 2014

You've shown that you are still caught up in the "nukes are safe" and "nukes are too cheap to meter" mindset.

One thing you suggest, the drop in mine shaft, is what the WIPP program has done. It has failed. What you are suggesting is already, after just 15 years, a failure. And you wish to make more nuke waste? You can't even handle what you have, and you want to create more of the deadliest stuff man has ever produced?

CO2 is a natural product. It can be safely handled, unlike nuke waste. Plants could not survive without CO2. We can compress CO2. Doing so makes dry ice.

In short, if you really were all that concerned with CO2 you would come up with ideas to decrease the amount of CO2 by capture and storage. Instead you want to make more nuke waste that is deadly, and hardly containable?

I don't understand such thinking. It makes no sense at all.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
25. "Come up with ways to decrease CO2 by capture and storage"
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 05:32 AM
Apr 2014

do you have ANY IDEA how incredibly STUPID it sounds to say "well we can develop technology we don't have to deal with the problem!"? This is something we should be dealing with NOW, not in five or ten years. As part of transitioning away from fossil fuels, nuclear absolutely has to play some role along with renewables (because renewables alone can't supply the energy we currently get from fossil fuels).

And the deadliest stuff man has produced? Greenhouse gas emissions over the industrial era are 100% responsible for global warming and climate change. CO2 is far from the only greenhouse gas, by the way. Methane is far more potent in terms of warming and we're at a point where quite a lot of it is likely to be released from melting permafrost. (Fun fact: a massive methane release was responsible for the Permian-Triassic extinction.)

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
31. Yes, I do
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 08:58 AM
Apr 2014

You asked:
do you have ANY IDEA how incredibly STUPID it sounds to say "well we can develop technology we don't have to deal with the problem!"?

That is exactly what we are doing with nukes. We have developed nuke tech and are not dealing with the problems nuke radiation presents.

CO2 is natural. Nuke waste is not. We can breathe non-toxic CO2, and be fine. We can not breathe nuke waste and be fine.

One aspect of the CO2 problem is that we have cut down our forests and we continue to drive wasteful, polluting automobiles. We tear at the earth changing the ecology. We add heat to the atmosphere constantly. We fly airplanes in the sky dumping huge amounts of CO2 in place where there is nothing to absorb it. I know about CO2. I also, unlike you, know about nukes and the waste.

Nuke waste is a far larger problem. And it adds to the CO2 problem. It is not, as you suggest, an answer to the GW problem at all.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
4. The issue lies, I believe, in human reliability and laziness.
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 01:32 AM
Apr 2014

Which itself does not condemn nuclear energy. But it certainly doesn't help the case.

Nuclear energy production demands strict adherence to scientific and safety regulation. As we have seen with at least two catastrophes, there was a break down in that regulation. Two accidents is essentially nothing in the power industry statistically speaking. But the volatile nature of materials used in nuclear production exacerbates the severity.

That is a legitimate protest against nuclear energy now that renewable energy production is approaching viability. But it is not the one most often wielded by the OP.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
30. Yes. This is key
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 08:19 AM
Apr 2014

I have long opposed nuclear energy with two arguments central to my conclusion. You make note of both here. One is the unreliability of humans above and beyond the reliability of the technology we devise. The other is the extreme mulch-dimensional aspect of a nuclear catastrophe I have argued that it wasn't the vulnerability to a tsunami that make Fukushima so dangerous, it was the inherent human tendency to cut corners and fail to properly prepare for contingencies that were seen as unlikely. In Japan it turned out to be a tsunami, somewhere else it may prove to be a coordinated terrorist attack that "no one could have foreseen". Somewhere else it could be defective building materials and faked inspections that officials were bribed to sign off on.

In Southern California it could end up being the Hosgri earthquake fault that was discovered and initially covered up after the plans for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant had already been approved. It was literally during a massive civil disobedience blockade of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant in the early 80's that an engineer blew the whistle on the inconvenient fact that somehow the plant owners, PG&E, had screwed up installing the earthquake supports that were ordered for the two units after the new fault line was discovered running very close to the plant. The two units had symmetrical but inverted layouts, and millions of dollars worth of retrofitting on each got installed for both using blueprints that, in each case, were intended for the opposing unit. Which meant that the retrofits were useless and added no structural strength to either unit. Although it has never been confirmed I am certain that the very expensive error that took years to subsequently correct would never have been revealed had thousands of protesters and international media not been converging on Diablo Canyon on the literal day when the error "was discovered".

This is where the second issue which I call the mulch-dimensional aspect of the nuclear threat comes in. When engineers screw up the design of a parking garage, or contractors shave cost with lower grade steel, and it collapses a tragedy can follow, but that tragedy is contained for the most part to the immediate vicinity and to those lives that were directly touched by the physical collapse of that structure. Radiation is different. Virtually all releases into the atmosphere or seas ultimately move toward global. Radiation is ingested and moves up the food chain. Microscopic partials lodge in the body and can cause death a decade or more later. Radiation can mutate our genes making the threat it causes inter-generational. Because of the half life of the radioactive isotopes created and released large areas of land and major water bodies can become fatally contaminated for decades, centuries, or longer.

Nuclear wastes must be isolated from the environment for eons. Not only does that require technology that we have not mastered, it requires an assumption of extremely long term societal stability regardless of the technology utilized. The United States government still can't safely contain radioactive wastes that we are actively monitoring in Washington State a half century after it was created. Japan, another first world nation, can't contain the radioactive sea water it is creating trying to prevent further fuel melt downs at Fukushima. Both nations are among the richest in the world and have full access to state of the art technology. What about the rest of the world where nuclear power plants operate? During my lifetime the Soviet Union collapsed and Iran went from being a front line U.S. client state to being one of this nations leading Geo-political adversaries. Pakistan may become as ungovernable some time in the not so distant future as Somalia is today. How many civilizations have come and gone during the half life of plutonium?

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
2. Nuclear power was and continues to be the safest form of mass energy production.
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 01:25 AM
Apr 2014

However, it is not without its short comings and one of those shortcomings is that despite the risk of accident being EXCEPTIONALLY low, the consequences are potentially catastrophic.

And "system accidents" are an inevitable consequence of complex systems.

The situation is not as bad as you consistently seem to wish it was. But it is something that needs addressing and I will continue my support in moving towards total renewable energy sources.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
5. Safest?
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 01:39 AM
Apr 2014

I guess you are one of those who has a special dictionary that defines 'safest' as something different than the rest of us know to be true.

There is nothing safe about the use of nuclear power. NOTHING.

As for your accusation that I wish it to be worse than it is, you have just proven yourself to not know that of which you speak. You should stop doing that.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
7. Nuclear power has the lowest deaths/TWh of any mass energy production scheme.
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 01:46 AM
Apr 2014

By that definition, it is the safest. It is the safest, most reliable form of mass energy production out there.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html


To be the safest does not mean to be incapable of accident. As I've said, system accidents are inevitable in complex systems. Add to that human failure and will have a few very serious accidents over the life time of nuclear energy production.

The actual debate, the one you don't care about, is whether this risk is worth it. I would argue it was until renewable energy became viable. Now that we are approaching that goal, we should be reaching the terminus of mass nuclear energy production.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
10. What you don't seem to care about...
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 01:57 AM
Apr 2014

Since you are desiring to make this personal, I will come back at you with this: You don't care about the future. Because if you did, you would consider that nuclear waste will be deadly for thousands of years. That you don't give a damn that the nuke waste you support creating will be around for hundreds of generations.

It's like this: If the Romans had had nuclear power, we would be dealing with that waste today.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
12. I guess you prefer today's Japan
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 02:14 AM
Apr 2014

where all of the reactors are offline and as a result they are importing dozens of billions of dollars worth of fossil fuels to make up the gap and have had to put their carbon emission deadlines on hold for the foreseeable future. Yay global warming! At least it's good old fashioned pollution and not that scary Godzilla-makin' stuff! The important thing is that you feel good about it.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
14. I feel better, yes
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 02:23 AM
Apr 2014

Did you hear the report that up to 14 nuke plants in Japan were damaged? And that 160,000 people were forced to evacuate their homes from around Fukushima? Maybe never to return?

Did you hear Japan is rapidly building solar and wind generating plants?

What makes me sad is that the US, my country, is the largest contributor to global warming than all the other countries combined. And that even tho we tree-hugging environmentalists have been arguing for years for clean energy, we still lead the world in pollution.

Maybe you don't understand the ramifications of nuclear power plant explosions? Well, the nuclear power plant people do. So do the bankers who have stopped loaning money for new construction.

Kolesar

(31,182 posts)
27. Energy policy is way more complex than that. Conservation and load shifting are being used.
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 07:18 AM
Apr 2014

But, this is the DU where simplistic hyperbole is to be expected.

nationalize the fed

(2,169 posts)
18. If the Government is serious about Global Warming what are they doing
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 03:08 AM
Apr 2014

allowing new nuclear plants on coastlines? They are only serious about a new tax and exchange scheme to further rip off the useless eaters.


Locations of new reactor cores and nuclear plants

Soon after its passage, The Washington Post critically analyzed the legislation and found that the nuclear industry received serious concessions from the government in the Environmental Policy Act of 2005...

"The bill's biggest winner was probably the nuclear industry, which received billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks covering almost every facet of operations. There were subsidies for research into new reactor designs, "fusion energy," small-particle accelerators and reprocessing nuclear waste, which would reverse current U.S. policy. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Tex.) even inserted a $250,000 provision for research into using radiation to refine oil...The bill also included $2 billion for "risk insurance" in case new nuclear plants run into construction and licensing delays. And nuclear utilities will be eligible for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees of as much as 80 percent the cost of their plants...

...Because of the enormous costs involved, the nuclear industry requested more loan guarantees from the government, totaling $100 billion. In February 2010, President Obama, who ran on a pro-nuclear platform, negotiated with the companies and added $36 billion to the budgeted $18.5 billion, bringing the total of $54.5 billion to the Presidential 2011 Budget for the DOE loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_policy_of_the_United_States


Using nuclear fission to boil water is one of the most absurd things humans have managed to ever dream up. For Shame.

A Fraction of the nuke dollars invested in Solar/Wind/Hydrogen would actually make huge differences. But Washington DC doesn't want energy independence, they want energy dependence.

More proof that Obama is really an 80's republican, as he states himself.

johnstyle

(15 posts)
26. Dangerous matter
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 05:39 AM
Apr 2014

Nuclear Energy is the very dangerous for the living on the earth. So every nations have try to be prevent from the using Nuclear sources.

Kolesar

(31,182 posts)
28. There are several other melted cores that were quietly taken off line in the USA
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 07:20 AM
Apr 2014

The power companies ate the lost expense, or perhaps they passed the expense on to the public.

Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
32. Eh?
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 09:05 AM
Apr 2014

The nuclear people now realize that their big power plants are not safe from catastrophic failures. They have come to this conclusion after seeing three plants explode in the last 35 years.

So instead of planning that there will be no more exploding power plants, they have decided to begin planning how to clean up the mess when it happens.

This is a real turn of events for the nuclear industry. In the past all claims were that the plants were safe; that the nuclear facilities would not get out of control and blow sky-high.

I guess they figure there is some real money to be made in the clean ups? After all, estimates of the cleanup at Fukushima are now estimated to be in the ball park of one trillion dollars.

Just think of exploding power plants as job creation, and it's all good?

Response to RobertEarl (Reply #32)

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
34. Three exploded
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 02:43 PM
Apr 2014

You can see the Fukushima explosions on you tube. Two plants blew up there.

A power plant's heart is a nuclear explosion that is contained and controlled. When one of the power plants gets out of control and releases nuclear matter to the atmosphere and destroys the plant, it is an explosion.

Four power plants have exploded. I was wrong. Not three, four.

Of course at Fukushima alone there are 6 dead power plants. It appears just two of the six dead had explosions to the atmosphere.



Response to RobertEarl (Reply #34)

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
36. Good decision to delete your posts
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 03:07 PM
Apr 2014

"Standing on shaky ground"

So now they are expecting other explosions, as well they should.

That means more cleanups which means more jobs which means the money keeps rolling in to the nuclear people. The gravy train has returned.

Notice how no one calls nuclear safe any more? Notice how that all the 'hysterical' anti-nuke people have been proven all too correct?

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
38. You are finally learning, eh?
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 03:28 PM
Apr 2014

Like the pro-nukers who have quit trying to tell us it is safe and have relegated themselves to mumbling about CO2.

Why do they do that? Even here on this thread they have been mumbling. At least you were smart enough to trash your own posts. I will give you credit for that. You are learning....

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
40. They still haven't said
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 04:01 PM
Apr 2014

There has been no statement from the biologists about what is killing the starfish. We do know the west coast got hit with cesium and plutonium from Fukushima. We do know both radionuclides are concentrated in one of the favorite foods of the starfish: mussels.

There is of course a great deal of big money on the line when it comes to nuclear pollution. So it is understood why any death caused by any nuclear pollution would be squashed. They've been squashing the science for decades.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nuclear Power Plans for M...