Skip to main content

View Diary: Germany's solar installations generate 10% of the nation's electricity in May. This is a failure? (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  65 nuclear power plants with 104 reactors. n/t (25+ / 0-)

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 07:24:43 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  ... and lots of spent waste pools, growing ... (17+ / 0-)

      "Four more years!" (Obama Unencumbered - The Sequel)

      by jwinIL14 on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 07:43:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And how many are in risky unsafe condition? n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

      by 417els on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 06:58:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  By what measure? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alain2112

        Likelyhood of a meltdown?  IIRC many plants claim less than once per million years.  If they're found not to be in line with regulatory limits they have to fix the problem ASAP or shut down.

        Historically, there's been one core-melting accident (Three Mile Island 1979) in power plants in the US.  As a rough estimate, say 100 reactors x 20 avg years of operation (including decomissioned units).  Two thousand reactor-years.  So the history is 5 times higher than the predicted occurence of meltdowns.  Keep in mind however that TMI happened before reliability engineering became systematic.

        Many of our reactors are old, although this is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of safety.  Older plants are more predictable and better understood.  The tricky part is accounting for the effects of ageing.

        Nuclear power is inherently dangerous to exploit because the energy output is so powerful and concentrated.  But nuke plants are not coal mines.  They have the toughest safety requirements of any industry except maybe NASA.  If by "risky, unsafe" you're thinking of Deepwater horizon - like explosions, contaminated groundwater and collapsing mine shafts, I'm pretty sure the answer is zero.

        •  Very very selective data (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          417els, translatorpro

          I oft wonder whether you folks are more deluded or dishonest.

          Once per million years? Chernobyl, tmi, multiple japanese reactors .. and on and on.

          Only counting actual core meltdowns? How about the classified incidents that happen on a regular basis? And the near misses.

          Nuclear power is unsafe because we have no clue what to do with the waste products, because mining uranium is an environmental nightmare, because when there are accidents they affect every genome on the planet in perpetuity.

          Btw you know what they call a nuclear power plan that has been shut down? Nuclear waste..

          A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

          by cdreid on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 01:31:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh so now (0+ / 0-)

            Chernobyl and Fukushima are in the US?  I knew someone with poor reading skills would try to move the goalposts.  The US has no control over the design and safety features of reactors in other countries.  As much as I deplore mine safety in the US, it wouldn't exactly be fair to the industry to count accidents in China in their fatality statistics, would it?

            Classified incidents... you sound like a conspiracy theorist.  You have no idea how not only accidents but incidents and even precursors have to be reported on a monthly basis to the NRC.  Yeah, maybe there have been some K-19 style nasty incidents involving reactors in the military  that have been kept under wraps.  But they too have little or nothing to do with the commercial exploitation of nuclear power.

            You can call decommissioned reactors whatever you want.  This scary waste consists of ceramic pellets in metal tubes stored mainly in concrete silos.  The volume is comparatively tiny.  I don't suppose you care that the waste hasn't killed anyone in the US either.

        •  Earthquakes, flooding and industry regulations (0+ / 0-)

          that are side-stepped come to mind.  Aging structures.  Inadequate inspections (due, in part, to not having enough inspectors).

          The tricky part is accounting for the effects of ageing.
          Tricky...tricky?  Sounds risky all right.  Sheesh.

          The ever increasing nuclear waste is an additional safety issue, but not what I was asking about.  Stuffing nuclear waste out of sight...in caves and canyons? That's just leaving a problem (along with unforeseeable unintended consequences) for someone else down the line to deal with.

          "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

          by 417els on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 03:46:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The term "risk" (0+ / 0-)

            has a quantifiable meaning in realiability analysis.  Calling something "risky" is meaningless.  Everything is risky.  The "one in a million years" value actually comes from the random risk of death from external causes among the US population, which is around 1 in 10,000.  1 percent of something (think OWS) is commonly, or maybe psychologically, considered the limit between having a negligible vs. significant contribution to a value.  Its the way to argue wether nuclear power, or anything else, has a statistically significant risk of harming people.

            Stuffing nuclear waste out of sight...in caves and canyons? That's just leaving a problem (along with unforeseeable unintended consequences) for someone else down the line to deal with.
            No, it isn't.  Yucca mountain was chosen for its geological stability.  Nothing's being "stuffed".  The idea is to engineer the repository so that it can be sealed and nothing else needs to be done to it.  Bear in mind radiation occurs naturally in the earths' crust, even natural nuclear reactors, and that the the active, nasty isotopes decay fairly quickly.  Nobody's shoving barrels of green goop into tres with tentacles.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site