Nuclear Power and it's strange revival

[Aesir]

I'm sure we have all read the news articles about Japan and the catastrophe and how it's all relating to the age old question; "Should we be pushing toward Nuclear Power?" Usually when I make a current events thread I just post an article, but hours of searching my usual sources proved disappointed.


Anyway the question I ask of the DH is; "Is Nuclear power a viable option? Given the fact that natural disasters seem to make it a very fragile and dangerous source of power should we still push for it?"

I would say Nuclear power is still a viable option , and even taking it's obvious faults into consideration it's still reasonable to push towards it.

If Japan is the reason for the sudden move toward anti-nuclear power, than it's an over-reaction, which is probably to blame by sensationalist journalism. The Reason why Japan was having trouble is those reactors were built 25 years ago, engineers did not compensate for 9.0 earthquakes.

Even looking passed this, if the potential danger was a turn off, then why do we still use coal? Coal mine collapses, oil drilling, ect.. all have killed more people than nuclear melt downs.

At the end of the day though it's silly to let one disaster (which was out of our hands to stop anyway) Deter us to a viable solution.

Thoughts?

 

[rvkevin]

The cooling system of nuclear reactor No. 1 at the facility malfunctioned yesterday morning after the 8.9-magnitude earthquake knocked the power out, and an inability to cool down nuclear fuel rods caused a buildup of heat and pressure at the facility.-Here

Its the power outage that was the problem, not the size of the earthquake. Without power, the facility can't pump in water to cool the spent fuel rods. Any disaster that leads to a loss of electricity would pose the same potential problems. This makes the problem to be active in a wide range of scenarios than being reserved only to the worst imaginable disasters of a specific kind. These are contingencies that we should be prepared for. To hold any view to the contrary would simply be irresponsible. If we are unable to prepare for reasonable problems (mere loss of power is not something that is unreasonable to foresee), then perhaps we should have more reservations about the use of nuclear power.

That being said, if proper safety protocol can be implemented, I think that nuclear energy can be an asset. However, I am uncertain as to which conditions (i.e. government, business will focus on costs, not safety) this can be satisfied.

Even looking passed this, if the potential danger was a turn off, then why do we still use coal? Coal mine collapses, oil drilling, etc. all have killed more people than nuclear melt downs.

I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation. If a mine collapses, the only people who suffer are those in the mine. If a nuclear plant melts down, depending on the wind, millions will be effected. This makes the risks of each nuclear accident greater in magnitude, but there is also a qualitative difference in the acceptance of risk. Those who work in mines accept the risk of lung disease or a collapse. Those who would be effected by a nuclear reactor does not necessarily accept the same risk as those who promote such activities.

 

[Sucumbio]

I tend to agree that we should not stop using Nuclear Power. The power outage to which was referred was the result of the Tsunami flood waters flooding out the back-up generators (which were the only fail safe in the event of a power outage). This happened because they were in the basement. Whoops! You can definitely attribute poor site design to this tragic event.... less so a lack of foresight and more an unsafe assumption. Obviously future plants in Japan will have back-up generators located in areas that resist flooding, or perhaps the site altogether will be located far enough away to avoid the potential for Tsunami flood waters to be a risk. It's actually quite fortunate that the earthquake itself did not cause significant damage to the structure.

Now here in the US there's been a lot of ... seemingly hasty decisions regarding plants and safty. This may be overkill, but as I alluded to in the CE thread, we may very well not be prepared for an earthquake of such magnitude, and so it becomes a game of catch-up, trying to levy all the latest engineering strategies against all the foreseable risks.

 

[Ganonsburg]

And as far as the generators go, the next generation of nuclear power-plants will have what's called a "passive cooling system." Source Here's what it does:

"The AP1000 reactor, designed by Westinghouse, can be shut down for three days without power. Instead of pumps, valves and human operators, the plant uses airflow, pressure changes and gravity to gradually cool the reactor."

So that takes away the concern rvkevin expressed. In general, nuclear power-plants are very safe already, and the energy supplied by them is enormous (in my physics lecture yesterday we compared the energy given by a mole of gasoline [1 x 10^6], and the energy given by a mole of U235 [ 2 x 10^13]). And throughout history there have been very few problems (9 that have had damages over $140 million: Source).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I do feel that this incident may be a death knell to nuclear power in the near future. It's certainly a stupid reason, but if incidents like this can happen, reactionary people who do not know what they are talking about will flip out and consider the dangers too high... regardless of how safe it is.

Nuclear plants should certainly have better protective measures, but the program as a whole is valuable.

 

[Aesir]

Its the power outage that was the problem, not the size of the earthquake. Without power, the facility can't pump in water to cool the spent fuel rods. Any disaster that leads to a loss of electricity would pose the same potential problems. This makes the problem to be active in a wide range of scenarios than being reserved only to the worst imaginable disasters of a specific kind. These are contingencies that we should be prepared for. To hold any view to the contrary would simply be irresponsible. If we are unable to prepare for reasonable problems (mere loss of power is not something that is unreasonable to foresee), then perhaps we should have more reservations about the use of nuclear power.

I feel I have to clarify, what I meant to say was "The Engineers didn't account for the 9.0 earth quake and the effects it would bring" This would include the effects of prolonged power outages ect. I wasn't saying the Earthquake was the main cause I was saying the design of these reactors were ill equipped with the effects of an earthquake at this magnitude.

I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation. If a mine collapses, the only people who suffer are those in the mine. If a nuclear plant melts down, depending on the wind, millions will be effected. This makes the risks of each nuclear accident greater in magnitude, but there is also a qualitative difference in the acceptance of risk. Those who work in mines accept the risk of lung disease or a collapse. Those who would be effected by a nuclear reactor does not necessarily accept the same risk as those who promote such activities.

When has a nuclear meltdown been this catastrophic as you say? not even Chernobyl which was probably the worst meltdown in history caused millions to suffer, it's effects were mostly contained. As I have said drilling for oil, mining for coal, have caused more deaths than nuclear melt downs. That's not to say we should over look problems, but the problems with nuclear power are often sensationalized by the media.

 

[rvkevin]

Before we discuss the negative effects of a nuclear accident, let me ask about how you or someone calculates the utility of a action. What do you think the total consequences of the BP oil spill consist of? Do you only look at the total number of people who died to measure the size of a disaster? If not, what else do you consider?

 

[Aesir]

Before we discuss the negative effects of a nuclear accident, let me ask about how you or someone calculates the utility of a action. What do you think the total consequences of the BP oil spill consist of? Do you only look at the total number of people who died to measure the size of a disaster? If not, what else do you consider?

number of deaths, economic impacts, environmental impacts.

Obviously worst case scenario nuclear power is devastating. What I'm arguing is, with proper regulation you can mitigate those effects drastically.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I would argue that Nuclear power is definitely a viable option. The fact is, even if you are arguing on safety grounds or emissions of radioactive waste, it is superior to coal. The only issue appears to be the fact that there is a potential for catastrophic failure, as we are seeing with the ***ishima plants in Japan. However, it should be noted that there is plenty of potential for catastrophic failure in other aspects of our society that we seem to take in our stride. The Deepwater Horizon disaster is one we have recently witnessed, and yet few are arguing that we should put a halt to the offshore production of oil. Another example is of the Bhopal disaster in 1984 where a insecticide plant vented toxic gases, which killed upwards of 3000 people and contaminated the local area. Now, I notice that the insecticide is still in use, although the production process is changed to make it much safer.

If we regard Nuclear Power as too risky, we are adhering to a double standard, one for Nuclear Power generation and another for chemical production and fossil fuel power generation. And nuclear power has other benefits anyway. By adopting it, we're switching to a method of power generation that has lower greenhouse gas emissions and produces far less air pollution which has adverse health affects by the way.

And as far as the generators go, the next generation of nuclear power-plants will have what's called a "passive cooling system." Source Here's what it does:

"The AP1000 reactor, designed by Westinghouse, can be shut down for three days without power. Instead of pumps, valves and human operators, the plant uses airflow, pressure changes and gravity to gradually cool the reactor."

The problem I thought was in mainly in the spent fuel rods. Although there have been some partial melt-downs.

And that problem was actually fixed with the development of the Pressurised Water Reactor, which has been used since the 1950s. It relies on the water actually slowing the neutrons down, to actually make the reactor work. If the water boils, the neutrons move too quickly and the nuclear reaction fizzles out. And in fact this has been the default reactor for Western countries.

In my mind, the fear of Nuclear Power is unjustified and irrational.