Nuclear reactors

[Topaz]

Toshiba, want to build a "mini" nuclear reactor in the oil sands by 2020 to help get the deposits way down in the ground. It take a lot of water presently to get the deposits and the reactor already uses steam water. Good or bad idea? http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Canada-Considering-Nuclear-Reactors-in-Alberta-Tar-Sands-Fields.html

[GostHacked]

Stupid idea, we need to start moving away from nuclear power and find something better.

[Mighty AC]

Ideally, we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels and leave the tarsands in the ground. Until that happens, we have to clean it up as much as possible. What are they using to generate steam now? Coal? Natural Gas? Nukes sound like a better idea to me. Ideally the reactors would desalinate sea water for the process as well.

Do they have the ability to separate the toxic sludge from the waste water? It would be nice to re-bury the thick tar sludge and use the water again. Are there any tests being done on alternatives to water for the separation process? Sound waves, vibrations generated by other means, the tears of natives; locals and wildlife?

[Bonam]

Nuclear energy is the best we've got right now, should be used wherever possible.

[waldo]

Ideally, we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels and leave the tarsands in the ground. Until that happens, we have to clean it up as much as possible. What are they using to generate steam now? Coal? Natural Gas? Nukes sound like a better idea to me. Ideally the reactors would desalinate sea water for the process as well.

whaaa! Nuke the tarsands! Oh my! Ok, ok... yes, since that reliance isn't ending/reducing anytime soon, then......

tarsands oil companies have been flirting with this for some time; every so often there's another lil' teaser thrown out on some manner of a "scaled" form of traditional nuclear. Everything from described "portable sauna size" reactors all the way to a full scale tarsands (only) dedicated nuclear plant that was talked of (by Shell, I believe???). The "green labeling" undertone of replacing natural gas with nuclear is pure green-washing... it's really being targeted for those areas where bringing in natural gas is not cost-effective. If related emissions was any focus for tarsands companies they wouldn't have directly (or indirectly by their absence/interest) bailed on CCS trial/development.

Do they have the ability to separate the toxic sludge from the waste water? It would be nice to re-bury the thick tar sludge and use the water again. Are there any tests being done on alternatives to water for the separation process? Sound waves, vibrations generated by other means, the tears of natives; locals and wildlife?

I don't understand these nuclear flirtations to offer any improvements on water (use) requirements and accompanying waste... or 50km long tailing ponds to hold the waste for "eons" under the guise of "eventual" reclamation/restoration.

[GostHacked]

Nuclear energy is the best we've got right now, should be used wherever possible.

I think something like Fukushima (still spewing out high levels of radiation almost 2 years after) is a reason to rethink nuclear power.

Even if we stopped using nuclear power now, we still have all this radioactive waste to consider. How long does a fuel rod last? How long do you have to store a spent fuel rod? Seems we could think of better ways to boil water.

[Guest Manny]

Do they have the ability to separate the toxic sludge from the waste water?

Sure, with very little U-232 in it...

[Guest Manny]

How long do you have to store a spent fuel rod? Seems we could think of better ways to boil water.

Depleted uranium has a 1/2 life (meaning its radiation level drops by 50%) of about 1 billion years. Plus it's an alpha emitter... the most toxic of particles.

[Bonam]

Depleted uranium has a 1/2 life (meaning its radiation level drops by 50%) of about 1 billion years. Plus it's an alpha emitter... the most toxic of particles.

Depleted uranium is just that.. depleted. It's residual radioactivity is no greater than what one might find in nature. DU is routinely used in a variety of civilian applications, including counterweights on aircraft and other equipment, due to its high density. It is also used as radiation shielding in medical instruments and containers for storing radioactive goods, precisely because it emits no significant radiation itself but absorbs radiation emitted from other sources excellently. Further, alpha radiation is the easiest to deal with of all types of ionizing radiation.

Nor is depleted uranium even the radioactive waste product that is of relevance when considering nuclear reactors to begin with!

It helps to know wtf you are talking about before commenting. But, of course, as is characteristic of the anti-nuclear crowd, facts are the last things on their minds.

[Guest Manny]

It helps to know wtf you are talking about before commenting. But, of course, as is characteristic of the anti-nuclear crowd, facts are the last things on their minds.

I work with the stuff myself directly, for decades so I do know what I am talking about. And I have been exposed to it, and had to be given a special scan at el-dorado nuclear facility to determine if I have ingested or inhaled any of the particles.

Because of the short range of absorption, alphas are not, in general, dangerous to life unless the source is ingested or inhaled, in which case they become extremely dangerous. Because of this high mass and strong absorption, if alpha-emitting radionuclides do enter the body (upon being inhaled, ingested, or injected, as with the use of Thorotrast for high-quality X-ray images prior to the 1950s), alpha radiation is the most destructive form of ionizing radiation. It is the most strongly ionizing, and with large enough doses can cause any or all of the symptoms of radiation poisoning. It is estimated that chromosome damage from alpha particles is anywhere from 10 to 1000 times greater than that caused by an equivalent amount of gamma or beta radiation.

Alpha particles also give off high energy secondary radiations which are harmful.

Not only do alphas themselves cause damage, but approximately equal ionization is caused by the recoiling nucleus after alpha emission, and this energy may in turn be especially damaging to genetic material.

"WTF" are you talking about, eh?

[Bonam]

I work with the stuff myself directly, for decades so I do know what I am talking about. And I have been exposed to it, and had to be given a special scan at el-dorado nuclear facility to determine if I have ingested or inhaled any of the particles.

Grats.

Because of the short range of absorption, alphas are not, in general, dangerous to life unless the source is ingested or inhaled, in which case they become extremely dangerous.

So don't eat alpha emitters? Like I said, easiest to deal with. Other radiation sources need to be shielded behind thick layers of dense material, at the bottoms of deep pools of water, etc. Alpha sources just need to be not eaten or inhaled.

Alpha particles also give off high energy secondary radiations which are harmful.

Not only do alphas themselves cause damage, but approximately equal ionization is caused by the recoiling nucleus after alpha emission, and this energy may in turn be especially damaging to genetic material.

A recoiling heavy nucleus would be even more easily screened and just as harmless if not ingested/inhaled. No one is proposing to deal with nuclear waste by feeding it to people.

But the main point is clear: DU has commercial applications and is actually a useful resource, not a waste. Some other highly radioactive byproducts of nuclear reactors are actual dangerous waste, not DU.

[Guest Manny]

Grats.

So don't eat alpha emitters? Like I said, easiest to deal with. Other radiation sources need to be shielded behind thick layers of dense material, at the bottoms of deep pools of water, etc. Alpha sources just need to be not eaten or inhaled.

A recoiling heavy nucleus would be even more easily screened and just as harmless if not ingested/inhaled. No one is proposing to deal with nuclear waste by feeding it to people.

But the main point is clear: DU has commercial applications and is actually a useful resource, not a waste. Some other highly radioactive byproducts of nuclear reactors are actual dangerous waste, not DU.

Dont inhale.

[Bonam]

Dont inhale.

There is 5 billion tons of uranium naturally in the Earth's oceans. Natural uranium is more radioactive than depleted uranium. If you're scared of the tiny amount of DU produced by humankind, consider that for a moment, and I guess you really better avoid inhaling.

[Guest Manny]

There is 5 billion tons of uranium naturally in the Earth's oceans. Natural uranium is more radioactive than depleted uranium. If you're scared of the tiny amount of DU produced by humankind, consider that for a moment, and I guess you really better avoid inhaling.

What's in the ocean we don't breath in, we dont get into close proximity with it. When its on fire at a nuclear facility like Fukushoma, billowing steam and smoke plumes, it presents a completely different problem.

[Mighty AC]

What's in the ocean we don't breath in, we dont get into close proximity with it. When its on fire at a nuclear facility like Fukushoma, billowing steam and smoke plumes, it presents a completely different problem.

So we have to evaluate risk. I would rather leave the tar sand in the ground and I don't think the cost of nuclear power makes it an intelligent source of grid power going forward. However, we are currently extracting tar sand and the process requires a lot of energy, which, is currently being supplied by fossil fuels. Is the small risk of nuclear disaster in a more geologically and geographically stable area, safer than guaranteed pollution? I think so.

[GostHacked]

Depleted uranium is just that.. depleted. It's residual radioactivity is no greater than what one might find in nature. DU is routinely used in a variety of civilian applications, including counterweights on aircraft and other equipment, due to its high density. It is also used as radiation shielding in medical instruments and containers for storing radioactive goods, precisely because it emits no significant radiation itself but absorbs radiation emitted from other sources excellently. Further, alpha radiation is the easiest to deal with of all types of ionizing radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Radiological hazards

The primary radiation danger from depleted uranium is due to alpha particles, which do not travel far through air, and do not penetrate clothing. Thus, the primary concern is internal exposure, due to inhalation, ingestion or shrapnel contamination. Available evidence suggests that this risk is small relative to the chemical hazard.^[78]

According to the World Health Organization, a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass; the radiological dangers are lower due to its longer half-life and the removal of the more radioactive isotopes. However, in a matter of a month or so, depleted uranium generates amounts of thorium-234 and protactinium-234 which emit beta particles at almost the same rate as that of the alpha particles from the uranium-238.

Ask Iraq how they are doing with all the DU rounds littering the place from the A-10s.

Nor is depleted uranium even the radioactive waste product that is of relevance when considering nuclear reactors to begin with!

It helps to know wtf you are talking about before commenting. But, of course, as is characteristic of the anti-nuclear crowd, facts are the last things on their minds.

Chernobyl. Fukushima, 3 Mile Island, Fort Calhoune, San Onofre..... just to name a few incidents.

I still cant tell how long a fuel rod lasts for compared to how long it needs to be safely stored. Still does not seem worth it considering the hazards.

[Bonam]

Is the small risk of nuclear disaster in a more geologically and geographically stable area, safer than guaranteed pollution? I think so.

Indeed, you are correct.

In the US alone, from coal power alone, 13,200 people die every single year. That's about the same number of deaths as has been linked with nuclear energy in the entire history of nuclear energy worldwide.

http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf

Here's an illustrative image:

I don't really know what else needs to be said. Manny can keep going on about the supposed risks of depleted uranium, one of the least radioactive byproducts of nuclear reactors, and one that has commercial applications, but the numbers on actual deaths related to different types of energy production don't lie. In fact, nuclear is even safer than hydroelectric, just by the numbers of people killed when hydro dams have failed.

[GostHacked]

So will the claim be made that very few died from Fukushima? Do we know the types and rates of cancers associated with nuclear power? Sure short term not many died from the radiation, but what about long term? Why are cancer rates expected to get much higher in the next decade?

Personally I think the numbers do not reflect the real dangers of nuclear power plants.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/us-japan-disaster-sunflowers-idUSTRE77I0PG20110819

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant some 50 km away suffered a series of core meltdowns and explosions after the massive March 11 earthquake and tsunami knocked out cooling systems, setting off the world's worst nuclear accident in 25 years and forcing tens of thousands from their homes.

"It is as if an invisible snow had fallen on Fukushima and continued to fall, covering the area," said Koyu Abe, chief monk at the Buddhist Joenji temple.

"This snow, which doesn't melt, brought a long, long winter to Fukushima."

Some 80,000 people were forced to evacuate from a vast swathe of land around the reactor as engineers battled radiation leaks, hydrogen explosions and overheating fuel rods -- and have no idea when, if ever, they can return to homes that have been in their families for generations.

Worse still, radiation spread well outside the mandatory evacuation zone, nestling in "hot spots" and contaminating the ground in what remains a largely agricultural region.

Rice, still a significant staple, has not been planted in many areas. Others face stringent tests and potentially harmful shipping bans after radioactive cesium was found in rice straw.

Excessive radiation levels have also been found in beef, vegetables, milk, seafood and water and, in hot spots more than 100 km from the plant, tea.

[Bonam]

So will the claim be made that very few died from Fukushima? Do we know the types and rates of cancers associated with nuclear power?

Yes, we do. The increased risk of cancer and birth defects on nuclear energy workers has been extensively measured and characterized. In Canada, I believe the stats show that a nuclear energy worker who works their entire career at a nuclear plant and receives the maximum allowed dose every year (very few do receive the max dose every year) has a 4% increased chance of dying from cancer as opposed to other causes.

As for nuclear incidents, we know how many people died from cancers associated with Chernobyl, and those numbers are included in the above graphic. In the case of Fukushima, the associated cancer deaths will be much lower. You know your quote about rice and vegetables from radiation zones? Yeah, those got detected and not eaten. In Chernobyl, due to the incompetence of Soviet bureaucracy, a lot of such stuff went unnoticed or undocumented, leading to more exposure.

By the way, people are exposed to MORE radioactive material as a byproduct of fossil fuels than nuclear energy.

[Guest Manny]

For the record, I work in the nuclear industry and am not one of the "anti-nuclear crowd". And Bonham, I do know "wtf" I am talking about, as far as my own field is concerned.

We are all charicatures of ourselves here, so don't assume people are really what they appear to be. And there's no reason to get personal or say things that are offensive towards one another. That is stupidity at the lowest level.

---

My view is that nuclear energy is probably the best option we have for now, in comparison with other technologies but it inherently carries greater risk when it goes wrong. So people should speak out against those forces that seek to cut corners in safety design or in training of nuclear personnel for the sake of economics, as was suspected to be part of the problem in Japan.

Nukes still have problems that have never been solved. The waste is still the biggest problem, and you can see what happened at Fukushima. They had to store the spent rods in pools of water. They had vast numbers of rods in storage. They cannot get rid of them. You're not allowed to move DU around in Canada without a special license. You must have a license to possess it and to store it. You must do annual testing to make sure it's not deteriorating into fine debris. This testing is enforced and reviewed by the federal regulator.

DU is not harmless, and it's not treated as harmless by the CNSC, or by people who are properly trained in radiation safety. Otherwise we wouldn't be wasting all this time and money paying attention to it.

---

Problem with reactors is that standards are not as high and the quality not as good in countries where they've made the cheaper graphite reactors, such as in eastern europe. Or in the case of Japan, a water moderated reactor but poor planning and no continegency plan for the inevitable disaster they faced. It seems unconsionable that they wouldn't have thought of it in advance. Or else maybe they too thought it was, no big deal. There's some evidence that they may have less "respect" for nuclear safety, ironically considering what they've been through. But the smoke and airborne radionuclides do not recognize international borders.

Also with reactors there is a security hazard. Security has become a very big deal in radiation safety, in some ways even bigger than the safety part itself. Terrorists have threatened to attack soft targets like hospital radiological labs, where isotopes are kept in storage such as cobalt, radium, yttrium, technitium. The intent is to make dirty bombs that cause contamination. Even if it is only mild, the terror aspect of using a dirty bomb is significant. There's also threats been directed toward reactor facilities. DU would make an impressive dirty bomb, with its long half life and potential for biological hazard when airborne particles are absorbed into the body. I remember hearing about the threat to fly airplanes into the reactors. At that time the nuclear safety commission was looking at the possibility of installing surface to air missiles at Bruce Darlington and the Pickering reactor. Never heard if they actually did it, nor would I expect to if they did.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't use nuclear tech. Just sayin'...