nuclear power [Archive]

View Full Version : nuclear power

melly

02-13-2006, 08:14 AM

What do you think?? Good? Bad?

It's the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl in April... and the UK are trying to decide whether to build new nuclear power stations...

There is an online petition asking them not to-- it's here if u are interested.

To: Prime Minister of the UK

We petition the Prime Minister of the UK to the effect that
we do not want any new Nuclear Power Stations, because nuclear power:

* facilitates proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide and endangers our security
* amasses vast amounts of waste, which remains lethal for 100,000s years
* has an exorbitant cost and is not carbon free
* will not provide the answer to climate change
* has left a lethal legacy of tens of thousands abandoned uranium mines on the land of indigenous people worldwide

http://www.petitiononline.com/NUCLEARX/

Would be interested to hear people's opinions on nuclear power :)

melly

David

02-13-2006, 01:09 PM

What do you think?? Good? Bad?I think nuclear power is good.

strandinthewind

02-13-2006, 01:15 PM

I think nuclear power is good.

The actual power itself and the production of it is far more efficient and cleaner than other methods. The problem is with the destruction of the used readioactive matter, to wit:

As we near the end of the century, the disposal of nuclear waste is becoming a concern. Many nuclear power plants around the world are nearing the end of their operating lives. This is particularly true in the United States where most nuclear power plants are approaching the end of the operational time period allowed in their licenses. Locally the Ginna power plant, 20 miles northeast of Rochester, on Lake Ontario, is attempting to deal with these issues. The close of the cold war has left us with radioactive waste from decommissioned nuclear missiles.
The disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and nuclear missiles is as politically intense an issue as the plants and missiles themselves. Yet the three issues have remained curiously separate in spite of their close physical ties. Few debates on nuclear power or nuclear weapons discuss the problems of waste disposal should the power plant or missile be decommissioned. Few debates on nuclear waste disposal discuss the opportunities to close nuclear power plants or get rid of nuclear weapons a disposal site would afford.

Nuclear waste can be generally classified a either "low level" radioactive waste or "high level" radioactive waste. Low level nuclear waste usually includes material used to handle the highly radioactive parts of nuclear reactors (i.e. cooling water pipes and radiation suits) and waste from medical procedures involving radioactive treatments or x-rays. Low level waste is comparatively easy to dispose of. The level of radioactivity and the half life of the radioactive isotopes in low level waste is relatively small. Storing the waste for a period of 10 to 50 years will allow most of the radioactive isotopes in low level waste to decay, at which point the waste can be disposed of as normal refuse.

High level radioactive waste is generally material from the core of the nuclear reactor or nuclear weapon. This waste includes uranium, plutonium, and other highly radioactive elements made during fission. Most of the radioactive isotopes in high level waste emit large amounts of radiation and have extremely long half-lives (some longer than 100,000 years) creating long time periods before the waste will settle to safe levels of radioactivity. This area will describe some of the methods being under consideration, for dealing with this, high level, waste. These include short term storage , long term storage, and transmutation.

http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/EZRA/

also

Electricity : Benefits / Effects

The role electricity plays in our lives by enhancing our productivity, comfort, safety, health, and economy is obvious. We live with the benefits of electricity everyday. So much so that we take it for granted that whenever we plug our gadgets into the wall socket, the power will be there. While most people give little thought to where electricity comes from, there are many different ways to generate electricity - including coal, oil, gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, and solar. Each option inherits certain advantages that merit consideration whenever there is a need for a new power plant. Nuclear generated electricity is unique in that it inherently addresses many of the short-comings of the other means for power generation. The use of nuclear power provides answers for many problems in the areas of the environment, safety, economics, reliability, sustainability, and even waste.

Environment:

The environmental impact of any power generation station can be measured by quantifying the burden of fuel delivery, emissions of byproducts and wastes and the potential impact on the lives (human or otherwise) of those living nearby:

Fuel Delivery:

Like fossil fuels, the nuclear fuel raw materials come from the Earth. Uranium, the primary fuel material, is mined. The environmental impact of mining is well know; however, the advantage of nuclear power comes from the amount of power that comes from a small amount of uranium. The power from one kilogram of uranium is approximately equivalent to 100,000 kilograms of oil; therefore, as a function of power consumption, very little uranium needs to be removed from the ground; hence, the environmental impact of uranium mines is much less compared with mining and drilling for fossil fuels.

Unlike oil or gas, nuclear fuel is solid; hence, nuclear fuel is immune to the environment problems posed by spillage during transportation to a power plant. Unused nuclear fuel is only slightly more radioactive that naturally occurring underground. Fuel delivery casks are designed with a high margin of safety to ensure that even in the event of a transportation accident, the environment remains free of contamination from the nuclear fuel.

Emissions:

In contrast to fossil fuel plants (coal, oil and gas), nuclear power plants do not produce any carbon dioxide or sulfur emissions, which are major contributors to the greenhouse effect and acid rain, respectively. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, U.S. nuclear power plants prevent 5.1 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 2.4 million tons of nitrogen oxide, and 164 million metric tons of carbon from entering the earth's atmosphere each year.

Nuclear power reactors do contribute a measurable increase in radiation to the environment around a nuclear power plant. However, this increase is relatively small compared to natural background radiation, and is less than the radioactivity released from a typical coal plant. Even with this increase in radiation, most employees of nuclear power plants receive exposures typically of workers in all occupations. In addition, no evidence exists that show that small increases in radiation exposure having negative health effects.

Impact on Local Habitat:

Because nuclear power plants are relatively self-sufficient, plant siting is more amenable to environmental concerns. Oil and gas plants must be sited close to major pipelines and hydroelectric plants must be sited on rivers. Impact to wildlife habitat and municipalities may have to be compromised in order to site these type of plants. For example, public outrage over fish kills from hydroelectric power plants have limited new plant construction and policy makers are seriously considering the removal of existing dams around the United States. Meanwhile, strict siting regulation ensures that nuclear power plants have minimal impact to their surrounding areas.

Waste:

The most pressing environmental concern facing the nuclear industry is the issue of waste disposal. All processes produce waste. Nuclear waste from a power plant is unique in that it can be highly radioactive. While highly radioactive waste is hazardous to all living beings, nuclear fuel is amenable to containment, treatment, reduction and reprocessing (recycling). Processes have been developed to separate reusable fuel and the highly radioactive elements from used nuclear fuel. The waste products can then be made into a glass or ceramic waste pellet for disposal. The hazard associated with this pellet has a expected duration of about 100 years. Considering that chemical hazards maintain their nature indefinitely, this waste form may be preferable. Currently, such a waste treatment process is not being utilized in the United States because of political resistance; however, research continues to find new solutions to this problem.

Safety:

The nuclear power plant accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in Ukraine are well known; however, despite these incidents, nuclear power has a remarkable record. About 16% of electricity generated around the world comes from nuclear power, and in the last forty years of this production, not one single fatality has occurred as a result of the operation of a civilian nuclear power plant in the United States, Western Europe, Japan, or South Korea. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the year 2000, the nuclear industry's safety accident rate-which tracks the number of accidents that result in lost work time, restricted work or fatalities-was 0.26 per 200,000 worker-hours. By comparison, the accident rate for U.S. private industry was 3.1 per 200,000 worker-hours in 1998 (the most recent year such data was available).

Economics and Reliability:

Nuclear power plants are one of the most economical forms of energy production. Nuclear fuel costs (as a function of power generation potential) represent only a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels. Including capital and non-fuel operating costs, the cost of operating a nuclear power plant is roughly equivalent to fossil fuels. Recently, the average electricity production cost for nuclear energy was recognized as the cheapest source of electricity. In 1999, the average cost of power generation by nuclear plants was 1.83 cents per kilowatt-hour, for coal-fired plants 2.07 cents, for oil 3.24 cents, and for gas 3.52 cents. Costs for solar and wind are still well beyond that considered to be competitive to the public.

The cost of regulation and industry oversight of nuclear power generation is substantially more than that of other power generation sources; however, improvements in reliability and operational and maintenance efficiencies have contributed to reducing those costs. Currently, nuclear power plant capacity factors average over 75%. This is competitive with those of fossil fired plants. Most plants are designed to operate in a base load configuration; that is, they run at full power regardless of the demand on electricity. Nuclear power plants are particularly well suited for this purpose since they are designed to produce large quantities of power and can sustain operation for up to two years without refueling.

Sustainability:

The future of civilization will depend upon the indefinite supply of electricity. Clearly, there is a limit to the supply of fossil fuels. The most optimistic estimates have fossil fuel lasting no more than 100 years; however, they may become economically undesirable in much less time. Obviously wind, solar, and renewable energy sources (such as ethanol) can sustain our world with power indefinitely. However, the power generation potential from even a small amount of uranium is so great, even nuclear fuel can be included on this list. In the right configuration, nuclear power can provide electricity for generations. The right configuration is in the "Breeder Reactor." The design of the breeder reactor is such that even as fuel is consumed, new fuel is created as a byproduct. Only a few breeder reactor plants have been built. Since plutonium - a material used in nuclear weapons - is created in these plants, governments have been hesitant to allow their construction. Nonetheless, applying the breeder concept can reduce fuel prices so low that even the extraction of uranium from the worlds oceans would not be an overly expensive endeavor. In an article printed in the American Journal of Physics (vol. 51, Jan. 1983, B. Cohen), there is enough uranium in all the worlds oceans and the earths crust under the oceans to last 5 billion years (assuming that 6500 metric tons of uranium is removed annually). For all practical purposes, this is a reliable power source for all time.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=Electricity,Benefits_%5E_Effects

So, other than that issue and the potential for another Cheryoble or Three Mile Island esq. accident, I am all for it.

bretonbanquet

02-13-2006, 01:29 PM

DavidMn

02-13-2006, 01:36 PM

strandinthewind

02-13-2006, 01:42 PM

I tell you that Chernobyl will look like a day out at an amusement park as soon as some motherfunster decides to fly a plane or two into a nuclear power station. Then everyone will wonder why we ever built them.

Good point:

THE VULNERABILITY OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
CONTAINMENT BUILDINGS TO PENETRATION BY AIRCRAFT

Edwin S. Lyman, PhD

Nuclear Control Institute

September 21, 2001

ABRIDGED*

Introduction

Since the occurrence of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there has been considerable concern among the public regarding the ability of nuclear power plants to withstand a direct attack by large, high-speed passenger jets with nearly full fuel tanks. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not require detailed reviews of aircraft hazards to nuclear power plants to be carried out except for plants with non-negligible probabilities of being affected by an aircraft crash, i.e. those located near busy airports, military training routes or federal airways.[1] However, even for those plants for which such reviews have been conducted, "the NRC did not specifically contemplate attacks by aircraft such as Boeing 757s or 767s and nuclear power plants were not designed to withstand such crashes," and detailed engineering analyses of a large airliner crash have not yet been performed."[2]

Despite this admitted absence of technical evidence, both the nuclear industry and the NRC have been giving the impression in their public statements that nuclear reactors would be likely to survive such a severe attack. For instance, a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) fact sheet states that "reactors at nuclear power plants are enclosed in containment buildings made of steel and reinforced concrete up to four feet thick" and that "inside the containment building, the reactor is encased in a steel pressure vessel up to a foot thick," which "minimizes the risk of penetration from outside forces."

However, a straightforward calculation shows that a large passenger jet like a Boeing 767, colliding into the reinforced concrete containment structure of a typical U.S. nuclear reactor, would in fact have a high likelihood of penetrating the containment.

While certain U.S. reactor designs are more vulnerable than others, all are potentially at risk. Gross structural failure of the containment building is also a possibility, especially for older plants which have experienced age-related degradation of containment materials.

The shock of such an impact would probably cause substantial damage to plant systems inside the containment, and the effect of a subsequent jet fuel fire or explosion would cause further mechanical and thermal damage to the containment, metal reactor components and the reactor vessel itself. Following such an assault, the possibility of an unmitigated loss-of-coolant accident and significant release of radiation into the environment is a very real one.

http://www.nci.org/01nci/09/aircrashab.htm
__________________________________________________________

Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants Shows Aircraft Crash Would Not Breach Structures Housing Reactor Fuel

WASHINGTON, D.C., Dec. 23, 2002—Structures that house reactor fuel at U.S. nuclear power plants would protect against a release of radiation even if struck by a large commercial jetliner, according to analyses conducted over the past several months by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

The independent analyses were conducted at the request of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).

State-of-the-art computer modeling techniques determined that typical nuclear plant containment structures, used fuel storage pools, fuel storage containers, and used fuel transportation containers at U.S. nuclear power plants would withstand these impact forces despite some concrete crushing and bent steel.

The computer analyses, which cost more than $1 million, are summarized in a report entitled, “Deterring Terrorism: Aircraft Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant’s Structural Strength.” A summary of the study’s findings is accessible on NEI’s web site at http://www.nei.org.

“The results of this study validate the industry’s confidence that nuclear power plants are robust and protect the fuel from impacts of a large commercial aircraft,” said Joe F. Colvin, NEI’s president and chief executive officer. “Clearly an impact of this magnitude would do great damage to a plant’s ability to generate electricity. But the findings show, far more importantly, that public health and safety would be protected.”

The study was performed for EPRI by ABS Consulting’s Irvine, Calif., office and by San Diego-based ANATECH. It was peer reviewed and critiqued as the computer modeling was being done by internationally recognized experts with decades of experience in structural analysis.

The analysis used several criteria that increased the severity of the crash scenario. Most notable was the assumption that a large aircraft traveling low to the ground at speeds similar to the estimated speed of the jetliner that struck the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, precisely executes a hit that transfers the full impact of the crash to the structure being struck. Separate analyses assumed direct hits by both the aircraft’s fuselage and a 9,500-pound engine. This size engine is typical of the majority of aircraft currently in service; it would envelop engines on 767-400s, 757-300s, 747-400s, 737-800s, DC 10-30s, MD11s, A320-200s, A330-200s and L1011-500s.

The analysis also increased severity by assuming that a Boeing 767-400 would strike at its maximum takeoff weight (450,000 pounds) even though fuel would be consumed both in takeoff and en route to any power plant site.

The nuclear energy industry is confident in the robustness of nuclear plant structures that house reactor fuel to withstand aircraft impacts, even though they were not specifically designed for such impacts.

“This confidence is predicated on the fact that nuclear plant structures have thick concrete walls with heavy reinforcing steel and are designed to withstand large earthquakes, extreme overpressures and hurricane force winds,” the report states.

EPRI served as the technical lead on the study to test the bases for industry confidence in power plant structural strength against aircraft crash impacts. EPRI was founded in 1973 as a non-profit energy research consortium. Its mission is to provide science and technology-based solutions to global energy customers through scientific research, technology development, and product implementation.

The Boeing 767-400 was used for the analysis for several reasons. For example, Boeing aircraft account for almost two-thirds of the commercial aircraft registered in the United States. The Boeing 767 series is the most widely used “wide body” aircraft in the U.S. commercial fleet—with more planes than the 747 and 777 combined—and the 767-400 envelops 88 percent of all commercial flights in the United States employing Boeing aircraft.

Nuclear plant structures are considerably smaller than the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, making it physically impossible for both engines and the fuselage of the plane to transfer the full force of impact to the containment building or other facilities analyzed.

The assumed speed of the aircraft used in the study is 350 miles per hour—approximately the speed at which the aircraft struck the Pentagon, based on reported flight recorder data and analysis of security camera video that captured the impact. Experienced pilots say this is a realistic speed to apply in a scenario where the pilot of a large jetliner wishes to maintain flight maneuverability close to the ground and execute a precise hit.

Although full analytical details will not be released to the public for security reasons, NEI announced the following general results:

· For the models representing all types of U.S. containment buildings, no parts of the engine, the fuselage, the wings or the jet fuel entered the containment buildings. The containment structure was not breached, despite some crushing and spalling (chipping of material at the impact point) of the concrete.

· Evaluation of the models representing both types of used fuel pools determined that the stainless steel pool liner ensures there would be no loss of pool cooling water even though some crushing and cracking of the concrete occurred at the point of impact. Because the used fuel pools were not breached, there would be no release of radioactivity to the environment.

· For the analyzed dry fuel storage facilities, the steel canister containing the used fuel assemblies was not breached. Because the dry storage structure was not breached, there would be no release of radioactivity to the environment.

· For the analyzed used fuel transportation container, the container was not breached, so there would be no release of radioactivity to the environment.

Representative structures were analyzed because U.S. nuclear power plant construction varies from site to site.

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=4&catid=470
_________________________________________________________

Also

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21131.pdf

**** so apparently they can be built to withstand such attacks, but are not being built that way.

bretonbanquet

02-13-2006, 07:14 PM

Even assuming that US power stations could withstand such an attack, the US would still be badly affected by a major attack on a nuclear facility in another territory, which may not have been built to such a high standard. There are nuclear facilities in Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Jamaica and Venezuela, as well as plenty in Russia.

Any of the (almost certainly poorly constructed) nuclear reactors in Eastern Europe would severely affect all of Europe in the event of a terrorist attack.

I believe this is the main point of contention when discussing nuclear power, given that we are at a relatively high state of alert concerning terrorist attacks.

strandinthewind

02-14-2006, 11:04 AM