THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE NUCLEAR POWER

[Moonbox]

it's hilarious to watch the reaction (meltdown! ) from science challenged when they get their brilliant ideas picked apart and shot down...

Out of curiosity, could you please tell us what your background is in science?

[segnosaur]

it's hilarious to watch the reaction (meltdown! ) from science challenged when they get their brilliant ideas picked apart and shot down...

Out of curiosity, could you please tell us what your background is in science?

Yeah, he does seem to be quite eager to pick apart other people's posts, but doesn't seem to be exhibiting much ability to demonstrate basic knowledge himself.

For the record, I myself have an M.Sc. And while I am not a nuclear technician, I have taken multiple university level courses in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Math. I would be willing to defer to someone with a more significant background (or even to someone who has references to back up their claims), someone who's sole claim to fame involves shouting "Meltdooooown" and ignoring everything else that's been posted isn't that person to defer to.

[segnosaur]

Here's another interesting take on the subject:

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology. A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

(The article goes on to point out that, as "green energy" makes up more and more of the grid, its advantages may decrease, as such methods will require things like additional storage methods, etc.)

The article also references the following XKCD comic:

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Some interesting parts:

- You actually get more radiation from eating a single banana than you do from living 50 miles from a nuclear plant for a year

- You actually receive almost as much radiation from living in a stone or concrete house for a year as you would have if you lived within 10 miles of Three Mile Island, or visited Fukishima town hall 2 weeks after the accident

- You receive more radiation from a chest CT scan than you would hanging out in Chernobyl for an hour

Edited October 4, 2012 by segnosaur

[Moonbox]

I would be willing to defer to someone with a more significant background (or even to someone who has references to back up their claims), someone who's sole claim to fame involves shouting "Meltdooooown" and ignoring everything else that's been posted isn't that person to defer to.

Check out the "Climate scientists keep getting it wrong" thread. It's a common theme for him.

[wyly]

OK, for purposes of argument, you are right and I am wrong.

it was never about you being wrong you asked if death from meltdowns was an urban myth, I answered and you delved into denial because it was me who answered and not timg, if tim had responded you wouldn't have challenged him like you did me...

chernobyl was the equivalent of 10 hiroshima bombs without the blast...70 tons of fuel, 700 tons of radioactive reactor graphite were ejected...people were dead before the next morning from the meltdown...depending on sources estimates for total related cancer deaths vary from 4K to one million...

A meltdown happened in a country run by arrogant dillholes. That country no longer exists. The situation there was totally unique and not likely to ever be repeated again.

Chernobyl is still operating, the countries are still there but under different names, humans are still in charge and they still make mistakes so yes the potential is still there for a repeat performance...

The test that destroyed Chernobyl was caused by a commissar type who over-ruled his engineers, NOT because of a disagreement between engineers as YOU stated! You really should google up the history of that disaster. It is a perfect example of what can happen under a statist socialist government.

i know the history quite well, I also watched the summation/testimony of events that convicted the vice chief engineer of negligence..

commissar? a nucler engineer was in charge at the time the testing experiment at the time of the meltdown...Anatoly Stepanovich Dyatlov Vice Chief Engineer(translation commissar?) of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant...graduate of Moscow Engineering Physics Institute....he spent 5 years in prison for the catastrophe, he broke safety guidelines regarding the reactor dismissing voiced concerns from jr engineers...

A lot of politicians everywhere are stupid enough to think they know more than engineers about engineering situations but can you give us any country in the world as an example that could repeat the Chenobyl error?

politicians didn't design Chernobyl and they weren't running it...there have been a number of nuclear incidents in the US as well...and it happened in Fukishima, different human error but still error none the less, they never considered a worst case scenario of earthquake/tsunami, building design...

[GostHacked]

Solar efficiency is very low. Less than ten percent of the energy is converted to electricity. Even if youcovered your whole roof with panels, the most power you could expect is something on the order of enough to run your clothes drier at around 5000 watts. And that would ony be when the sun is shining brightly. Otherwise,it's best to dump the solar power into the heat in your water tank. Even doing this is grossly inefficient. You'd be better off to use the heat from the sun to heat your water directly.

Well, one can hope that as time goes on, solar will become more efficient. As with any technology it should improve over time, and end up being cheaper in the long run.

[wyly]

Well, one can hope that as time goes on, solar will become more efficient. As with any technology it should improve over time, and end up being cheaper in the long run.

absolutely compare our cars and airplanes of 100 yrs ago and look at we have now...technology always takes the easiest least expensive path,..oil and coal were cheap plentiful fuels and that what set the course for technology...when solar or whatever green technology you like become the required options engineers will have a new direction, and they are already busy heading in that direction...

BMW has a new hybrid car supposedly coming to N america next year... 1.5 liter turbo/3 cylinder/electric...2.5 liters per 100km, 0-60 under 8 seconds...that's awesome fuel mileage plus city friendly electric commutes and decent performance...

Edited October 4, 2012 by wyly

[GostHacked]

Here's another interesting take on the subject:

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology. A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

(The article goes on to point out that, as "green energy" makes up more and more of the grid, its advantages may decrease, as such methods will require things like additional storage methods, etc.)

The article also references the following XKCD comic:

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Some interesting parts:

- You actually get more radiation from eating a single banana than you do from living 50 miles from a nuclear plant for a year

- You actually receive almost as much radiation from living in a stone or concrete house for a year as you would have if you lived within 10 miles of Three Mile Island, or visited Fukishima town hall 2 weeks after the accident

- You receive more radiation from a chest CT scan than you would hanging out in Chernobyl for an hour

To say no one has died because of the nuclear fall out is a myth. But you will have a huge increase of cancers for the next 50 years all due to Fukushima. As was seen with Chernobyl and the surrounding areas.

And yes poor design would store the cooling pools for the spent rods on TOP of the reactors. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

[segnosaur]

Well, one can hope that as time goes on, solar will become more efficient. As with any technology it should improve over time, and end up being cheaper in the long run.

Well, you could hope that, but that won't necessarily make it so.

You'll also expect nuclear to become more efficient over time as well, as they bring in new reactor designs.

[GostHacked]

Well, you could hope that, but that won't necessarily make it so.

You'll also expect nuclear to become more efficient over time as well, as they bring in new reactor designs.

The nuclear waste storage requirements tells me that it's more problems than it's worth.

[segnosaur]

The nuclear waste storage requirements tells me that it's more problems than it's worth.

Ah yes, back to nuclear waste storage, even though I've dealt with that already.

Once again, the problem with waste storage is largely political rather than engineering. Reprocessing would greatly reduce the volume, and a site like Yucca Mountain would be an adequate place to store the waste long term. The problem is not with the science or engineering, its political.

And the problem of that nuclear waste must be weighed against whatever byproducts are produced in the creation of solar panels. (And because you need a lot of solar panels to make up for the electricity produced by a nuclear plant, you will have a lot more byproducts.)

[TimG]

Well, one can hope that as time goes on, solar will become more efficient. As with any technology it should improve over time, and end up being cheaper in the long run.

Do the math. Even if solar panels were 99% efficient they would still not work in the dark and would still need massive amounts of copper wire to collect the diffuse power from remote locations. What is needed are cheap electrical storage solutions. Find those and the economics of the grid changes entirely. Without those centralized plants that produce large amounts of power will always be more economic.

[dre]

Well, one can hope that as time goes on, solar will become more efficient. As with any technology it should improve over time, and end up being cheaper in the long run.

Well besides that Manny is not correct.

Solar efficiency is very low. Less than ten percent of the energy is converted to electricity.

Thats is false. Silicon panels on the market today start at about 17%.

Sanyo HIP-200 - 17.24%

SunPower SPR-200 - 16.8%

Canadian Solar CS5a - 15.66%

And new multi-junction prototypes that will go into production in the near future are 30%+ efficient.

Even if youcovered your whole roof with panels, the most power you could expect is something on the order of enough to run your clothes drier at around 5000 watts

5000 watts is plenty to run an ordinary home as long as you have a little bit of storage. But lets look at your math... My roof has two sections that are 12 meters by 8 meters. 192 meters total. Lets assume that 1000 watts per square meter of sunlight hit your roof (its different everywhere in the world) and that your panels are 15% efficient. You need about 7 square meters to produce a kw when its sunny. So in reality even with present technology I would get about 27KW if I paneled my whole roof.

Your statement isnt even close to true.

Most low rise buildings could completely provide for all their power needs PLUS with solar PV today... the problem as I said before is cost. WildBill suggested its about 30 000, but Iv built two such systems and the cost for these was 55k and 70k or something like that. The panels are still too expensive.

[segnosaur]

To say no one has died because of the nuclear fall out is a myth.

Please give me a reference for any radiation-related that have occured in Fukishima since the start of the disaster.

But you will have a huge increase of cancers for the next 50 years all due to Fukushima. As was seen with Chernobyl and the surrounding areas.

There was a report from the UN that suggested an extra 6000 thyroid cancers (probably the most common with this type of radiation release) were attributed to Chernobyl. That's over about 20 years.

Fukishma released (I think) roughly 1/4 of the radiation that Chernobyl did. If deaths happen proportionally, that would mean 1500 deaths in the same time period.

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

Again though, that must be weighed against an increase in injury and deaths that would have been caused by industrial and mining accidents that would have occurred if the nuclear plants were replaced by solar.

[wyly]

Well besides that Manny is not correct.

Thats is false. Silicon panels on the market today start at about 17%.

Sanyo HIP-200 - 17.24%

SunPower SPR-200 - 16.8%

Canadian Solar CS5a - 15.66%

And new multi-junction prototypes that will go into production in the near future are 30%+ efficient.

5000 watts is plenty to run an ordinary home as long as you have a little bit of storage. But lets look at your math... My roof has two sections that are 12 meters by 8 meters. 192 meters total. Lets assume that 1000 watts per square meter of sunlight hit your roof (its different everywhere in the world) and that your panels are 15% efficient. You need about 7 square meters to produce a kw when its sunny. So in reality even with present technology I would get about 27KW if I paneled my whole roof.

Your statement isnt even close to true.

Most low rise buildings could completely provide for all their power needs PLUS with solar PV today... the problem as I said before is cost. WildBill suggested its about 30 000, but Iv built two such systems and the cost for these was 55k and 70k or something like that. The panels are still too expensive.

i worked on a home maybe 25-30 years ago that was nearly self sufficient, estimated yearly utility costs were projected at $100...it super insulated/airtight...solar panels/ battery storage/water heated...it was an experimental home and cost $1 million, not much today but back then for a 1800sq ft home that was a lot...

i expect there will be a solar technology breakthrough at some point in the near future that will negate the need for many new power systems...there is research into a solar collecting paint which has obvious benefits...when that breakthrough comes change will be very quick...

[Wayward Son]

There was a report from the UN that suggested an extra 6000 thyroid cancers (probably the most common with this type of radiation release) were attributed to Chernobyl. That's over about 20 years.

Fukishma released (I think) roughly 1/4 of the radiation that Chernobyl did. If deaths happen proportionally, that would mean 1500 deaths in the same time period.

Actually much lower as the prognosis for thyroid cancer is bettert than most cancers. Thyroid cancer has a 10-year survival rate of about 85%. If found at stage 1 or 2 it is almost 100%.

[wyly]

Actually much lower as the prognosis for thyroid cancer is bettert than most cancers. Thyroid cancer has a 10-year survival rate of about 85%. If found at stage 1 or 2 it is almost 100%.

any stats on thyroid cancer in the general public due to solar energy accidents...

[Bonam]

Well besides that Manny is not correct.

Thats is false. Silicon panels on the market today start at about 17%.

Sanyo HIP-200 - 17.24%

SunPower SPR-200 - 16.8%

Canadian Solar CS5a - 15.66%

And new multi-junction prototypes that will go into production in the near future are 30%+ efficient.

Cells with almost 40% efficiency already exist. And multijunction cells with 30%+ efficiency are already in use in applications where the cost is justified. Their efficiency can be further improved through concentration (they are more efficient at 2-10 sols than they are at 1 sol), and so can be used in conjunction with solar concentrator arrays, either mirrors or Fresnel lenses. However, these technologies are very expensive and so are not practical for home use. The prices for these cells are unlikely to drop significantly in the near future.

Silicon cells will remain the commercial standard for terrestrial applications. Their efficiency is locked at about 17% theoretically. The only way to increase that efficiency is to use frequency converters to convert sunlight from a broad spectrum to have a spectral energy distribution function that is heavily clustered around the band gap energy of the Silicon cells. Such frequency converts also exist, but are themselves even more expensive than some types of multijunction cells. One can also refrigerate the cells with cryogenic systems for modest efficiency gains, but again, that is not worth the cost. As such, the efficiency of 17% is pretty much the efficiency at which photovoltaic systems for home use will continue to function.

Keep in mind that 17% is the efficiency of the cell itself. In common use, these cells are left to sit on top of people's roofs for long periods of time, and dust, debris, bird droppings, etc, accumulate on them. Because of the nature of solar arrays, where a large amount of cells are connected in a series-parallel network with bypass diodes and Zener diodes to equalize and balance voltages, if a single cell is obstructed, voltages throughout the entire array will drop. Studies have estimated loss of efficiency due to dust obstruction to be up to 50%.

(Just gonna note here that I took an entire PhD level course on photovoltaic system design for space applications so I know a little bit about this topic).

This is not even taking account the inefficiency inherent in charging and discharging battery banks, which is not negligible. Realistically, losses in the power conversion system, battery charge and discharge cycles, etc, are likely to take another 10-20% off your net system efficiency. Further, solar cells themselves also degrade in efficiency over time, with manufacturers usually specificying about 1% per year.

The take home message is that a 10% net system efficiency is very optimistic, and most homeowners will see net system efficiencies in the range of 5-10%.

5000 watts is plenty to run an ordinary home as long as you have a little bit of storage. But lets look at your math... My roof has two sections that are 12 meters by 8 meters. 192 meters total. Lets assume that 1000 watts per square meter of sunlight hit your roof (its different everywhere in the world) and that your panels are 15% efficient.

You need about 7 square meters to produce a kw when its sunny. So in reality even with present technology I would get about 27KW if I paneled my whole roof.

Not even close.

1000 W/m^2 is the solar irradiance when the Sun is normal to the surface and near straight overhead. That is, if you have a satellite in space with an attitude control system that constantly points its array at the Sun, you can expect 1000 W/m^2. On Earth, the situation is much different. First, when the Sun is not overhead, the atmosphere scatters much of the directed sunlight (diffuse light is not nearly as effective). Second, home solar array systems are usually fixed, they do not track the Sun with motorized stands, hence the angle of incidence is not usually normal. The energy falls off with the cosine of the angle from normal.

Here is a map of solar energy resources in Canada:

=4240&CHKBOX[2057]=2057&CHKBOX[2701]=2701&CHKBOX[2700]=2700&CHKBOX[92163]=92163&units=1&tilt=1&period=13&title=PV+potential+and+insolation&title_e=PV+potential+and+insolation&title_f=Potentiel+photovolta%EF%BF%BDque+et+ensoleillement〈=e&LAYERS=2700%2C2701%2C2057%2C4240&SETS=1707%2C1708%2C1709%2C1710%2C1122&RLAYER=92163"]Map

The average in Southern parts of Canada is ~16 MJ/m^2/day. Converting to W/m^2, the average is only 185 W/m^2, far from the 1000 you claimed. With the above mentioned optimistic 10% array efficiency, you are looking at 18 W/m^2. To average 1 kW throughout the year from your solar array would require 55 square meters of solar panels. And, these can only be mounted on horizontal or south-facing parts of your roof. North-facing parts of a down-sloping roof are too shadowed. Your 12x8 meters of usable roof would provide an annual average of 1.7 kW of power.

Most low rise buildings could completely provide for all their power needs PLUS with solar PV today... the problem as I said before is cost. WildBill suggested its about 30 000, but Iv built two such systems and the cost for these was 55k and 70k or something like that. The panels are still too expensive.

A typical home housing a family of four uses about 2 kW of power on average, so with a sufficient energy storage to average over night time, cloudy days, the winter, etc, most of the power can indeed be provided by solar panels, if one assumes your 12x8 roof is about average. However, that is certainly not true of most "low rise" buildings. Low rise multi-family dwellings such as apartment buildings, condos, etc, have much lower roof surface area per inhabitant. And low rise commercial and industrial buildings tend to have much higher energy use than homes, and for them, solar energy could provide only a fraction of the total energy needs.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Bonam

[wyly]

a little searching I compiled a short list of nuclear accidents/incidents since 1952 from level 2 up.

country/facility/ severity

Ukraine/ussr Chernobyl - level 7

russia kyshtym level 6

japan Fukishima level 5

canada Chalk river level 5

UK Windescale Pile level 5

USA Three Mile Island level 5

France Saint Laurent level 4

Czechoslovakia Jaslovske level 4

Japan Tokaimura level 4

Russia Tomsk level 4

Belguim Fleurus level 4

UK Sellafield level 3

Hungary Paks level 3

Peru Yanagio level 3

Turkey Ikiteeli level 3

Spain Vandellos level 3

Japan Ishikawa level 2

France Cadarache level 2

Japan Tsuraga level 2

[carepov]

a little searching I compiled a short list of nuclear accidents/incidents since 1952 from level 2 up.

wyly,

How do you think France should meet its energy needs?

How would you advise a country like India?

[TimG]

a little searching I compiled a short list of nuclear accidents/incidents since 1952 from level 2 up.

So what?

[madmax]

i worked on a home maybe 25-30 years ago that was nearly self sufficient, estimated yearly utility costs were projected at $100...it super insulated/airtight...solar panels/ battery storage/water heated...it was an experimental home and cost $1 million, not much today but back then for a 1800sq ft home that was a lot...

LOL, I hope it wasn't my friends how... his was done 30 years ago, and all the projections of the power from the solar panels turned out to be enough to run his lights and the toaster in reality.

Buts it cool to be first in the neighbourhood.

[segnosaur]

a little searching I compiled a short list of nuclear accidents/incidents since 1952 from level 2 up.

Wow, congratulations... you looked at wikipedia.

Of course, I find it quite ironic that you complain about other people's references, but you don't give any of your own to back up your claims. But lets consider them, shall we?

Ukraine/ussr Chernobyl - level 7

Already dealt with. Reactor with design flaws that reactors in the western world don't have.

russia kyshtym level 6

This was at a plant for dealing with weapons. Not civilian nuclear power. Try again.

japan Fukishima level 5

Already dealt with.

canada Chalk river level 5

Not a power generating reactor. (And given the fact that the Chalk River facility is used for making medical isotopes, for which there is no alternative, you might want to give this one a pass.

UK Windescale Pile level 5

Another event that occured during weapons production, not civilian nuclear power.

USA Three Mile Island level 5

An accident at which nobody died.

More people have died falling off their roofs installing solar panels in the past year than died at 3 mile island.

But I guess since we can't use the scarry word "meltdoooowwn" those deaths don't really matter.

France Saint Laurent level 4

No radiation release outside the site. (1980)

Czechoslovakia Jaslovske level 4

Japan Tokaimura level 4

Russia Tomsk level 4

Belguim Fleurus level 4

UK Sellafield level 3

Hungary Paks level 3

Peru Yanagio level 3

Turkey Ikiteeli level 3

Spain Vandellos level 3

Japan Ishikawa level 2

France Cadarache level 2

Japan Tsuraga level 2

You know, I'm just going to go ahead and say it... you're full of crap.

Do you even know what the significance of each of the levels is? What they actually mean in terms of actual human and environmental damage?

I suspect not.

Anything classified at level 4 is designated:

Minor release of radioactive material unlikely to result in implementation of panned countermeasures other than local food control.

So all of those level 2,3 and 4s that you listed did not cause mass evacuations and huge areas left "unlivable".

Edited to add: Forgot the reference. You know, the thing that wyly doen't provide because it would show how empty and vacuous his arguments are.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/ines.pdf

Edited October 5, 2012 by segnosaur

[GostHacked]

Please give me a reference for any radiation-related that have occured in Fukishima since the start of the disaster.

It took them 6 months to admit that 3 reactors went into meltdown, how condifent are you that they are going to release accurate number of deaths related to radiation?

There was a report from the UN that suggested an extra 6000 thyroid cancers (probably the most common with this type of radiation release) were attributed to Chernobyl. That's over about 20 years.

Fukishma released (I think) roughly 1/4 of the radiation that Chernobyl did. If deaths happen proportionally, that would mean 1500 deaths in the same time period.

1/4 ????? How does that math work out for you?

Chernobyl had 1 reactor running at less than 25% capacity when it blew.

Fukushima had 3 reactors go into complete meltdown , all 6 were running full tilt.

[Wild Bill]

It took them 6 months to admit that 3 reactors went into meltdown, how condifent are you that they are going to release accurate number of deaths related to radiation?

1/4 ????? How does that math work out for you?

Chernobyl had 1 reactor running at less than 25% capacity when it blew.

Fukushima had 3 reactors go into complete meltdown , all 6 were running full tilt.

Chernobyl and Fusushima were totally different designs!

Russian reactors like Chernobyl were crap! They were crap from the start but they were the only politically approved design.

They are not a valid example of nuclear safety. It's like having a dog show and one entrant has rabies. Do you brand all the dogs as dangerous?