Nuclear Power and Overreaction

No traction at all huh?

There are more than a thousand alternatives to fossil fuel and nuclear: [link to peswiki.com]

It depends heavily on the application of the energy source as to whether it's a viable alternative. I have designed high power compressor units to flow measuring computers that could run off a relatively small solar panel. It all depends on how much juice you need over what time frame and where you are, but I don't think we should just walk away from nuclear simply because of a single design flaw that can be remedied.

Unless humanity scales WAY WAY back in terms of energy consumption, there really is no combination of so called green energy that could possibly make up what we used in fossil fuels.

You are correct in noting that its not really the problem of the reactors here, however you don't mention the spent fuel, or spent fuel pools. There is no current solution to the huge amounts of waste piling up around the world. Hopefully the event at fukushima will illustrate the danger of letting the fuel pile up at the reactors.

YOU are a fucking idiot!

We were told nuclear power would be safe, clean, and too cheap to meter.

Yet over the years we have had:



1950's

* December 12, 1952 — INES Level 5- Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Reactor core damaged
o A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output at AECL's NRX reactor. The operators purged the reactor's heavy water moderator, and the reaction stopped in under 30 seconds. A cover gas system failure led to hydrogen explosions, which severely damaged the reactor core. The fission products from approximately 30 kg of uranium were released through the reactor stack. Irradiated light-water coolant leaked from the damaged coolant circuit into the reactor building; some 4,000 cubic meters were pumped via pipeline to a disposal area to avoid contamination of the Ottawa River. Subsequent monitoring of surrounding water sources revealed no contamination. No immediate fatalities or injuries resulted from the incident; a 1982 followup study of exposed workers showed no long-term health effects. Future U.S. President Jimmy Carter, then a Lieutenant in the US Navy, was among the cleanup crew.[1]
* October 10, 1957 - INES Level 5 - Windscale, Cumbria, Great Britain - Core fire
o The graphite core of a British nuclear [weapons programme] reactor at Windscale, Cumberland (now Sellafield, Cumbria) caught fire, releasing substantial amounts of radioactive contamination into the surrounding area. The event, known as the Windscale fire, was the worst nuclear accident in Great Britain.
* May 24, 1958 — INES Level needed - Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Fuel damaged
o Due to inadequate cooling a damaged uranium fuel rod caught fire and was torn in two as it was being removed from the core at the NRU reactor. The fire was extinguished, but not before radioactive combustion products contaminated the interior of the reactor building and, to a lesser degree, an area surrounding the laboratory site. Over 600 people were employed in the clean-up.[2][3]
* October 25, 1958 - INES Level needed - Vinča, Yugoslavia - Criticality excursion, irradiation of personnel
o During a subcritical counting experiment a power buildup went undetected at the Vinca Nuclear Institute's zero-power natural uranium heavy water moderated research reactor.[4] Saturation of radiation detection chambers gave the researchers false readings and the level of moderator in the reactor tank was raised triggering a criticality excursion which a researcher detected from the smell of ozone.[5] Six scientists received radiation doses of 2—4 Sv (200—400 rems) [6] (p. 96). An experimental bone marrow transplant treatment was performed on all of them in France and five survived, despite the ultimate rejection of the marrow in all cases. A single woman among them later had a child without apparent complications. This was one of the first nuclear incidents investigated by then newly-formed IAEA.[7]

* July 26, 1959 — INES Level needed - Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California, United States - Partial meltdown
o A partial core meltdown may have taken place when the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) experienced a power excursion that caused severe overheating of the reactor core, resulting in the melting of one-third of the nuclear fuel and significant releases of radioactive gases.[8]

1960's

* July 24, 1964 - INES Level needed - Charlestown, Rhode Island, United States - Criticality Accident

* An error by a worker at a United Nuclear Corporation fuel facility led to an accidental criticality. Robert Peabody, believing he was using a diluted uranium solution, accidentally put concentrated solution into an agitation tank containing sodium carbonate. Peabody was exposed to 10,000rad (100Gy) of radiation and died two days later. Ninety minutes after the criticality, a plant manager and another administrator returned to the building and were exposed to 100rad (1Gy), but suffered no ill effects.[9][10]

* October 5, 1966 — INES Level needed - Monroe, Michigan, United States - Partial meltdown

* A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial meltdown at the Enrico Fermi demonstration nuclear breeder reactor (Enrico Fermi-1 fast breeder reactor). The accident was attributed to a zirconium fragment that obstructed a flow-guide in the sodium cooling system. Two of the 105 fuel assemblies melted during the incident, but no contamination was recorded outside the containment vessel.[11]

* Winter 1966-1967 (date unknown) – INES Level needed – location unknown – loss of coolant accident
o The Soviet icebreaker Lenin, the USSR’s first nuclear-powered surface ship, suffered a major accident (possibly a meltdown — exactly what happened remains a matter of controversy in the West) in one of its three reactors. To find the leak the crew broke through the concrete and steel radiation shield with sledgehammers, causing irreparable damage. It was rumored that around 30 of the crew were killed. The ship was abandoned for a year to allow radiation levels to drop before the three reactors were removed, to be dumped into the Tsivolko Fjord on the Kara Sea, along with 60% of the fuel elements packed in a separate container. The reactors were replaced with two new ones, and the ship re-entered service in 1970, serving until 1989.

* May 1967 — INES Level needed - Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, United Kingdom - Partial meltdown

* Graphite debris partially blocked a fuel channel causing a fuel element to melt and catch fire at the Chapelcross nuclear power station. Contamination was confined to the reactor core. The core was repaired and restarted in 1969, operating until the plant's shutdown in 2004.[12][13]

* January 21, 1969 — INES Level needed - Lucens, Canton of Vaud, Switzerland - Explosion

* A total loss of coolant led to a power excursion and explosion of an experimental nuclear reactor in a large cave at Lucens. The underground location of this reactor acted like a containment building and prevented any outside contamination. The cavern was heavily contaminated and was sealed. No injuries or fatalities resulted.[14][15]

1970's

* December 7, 1975 – INES Level 3 - Greifswald, Germany (then East Germany) - Partly damaged

* Operators disabled three of six cooling pumps' electrical supply circuits to test emergency shutoffs. Instead of the expected automatic shutdown, a fourth pump failed causing excessive heating which damaged ten fuel rods. The accident was attributed to sticky relay contacts and generally poor construction in the Soviet-built reactor.[16]

* February 22, 1977 – INES Level 4 - Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia - Fuel damaged

* Operators neglected to remove moisture-absorbing materials from a fuel rod assembly before loading it into the KS 150 reactor at power plant A-1. The accident resulted in damaged fuel integrity, extensive corrosion damage of fuel cladding and release of radioactivity into the plant area. The affected reactor was decommissioned following this accident.[17]

* March 28, 1979 – INES Level 5[citation needed] - Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States - Partial meltdown

* Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station 15 km (9 miles) southeast of Harrisburg. While the reactor was extensively damaged, on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (less than annual exposure due to natural sources). Area residents received a smaller exposure of 1 millirem (10 µSv), or about 1/3 the dose from eating a banana per day for one year. There were no fatalities. Follow-up radiological studies predict between zero and one long-term cancer fatality.[18][19][20]

See also: Three Mile Island accident

1980s

* March 13, 1980 - INES Level 4 - Orléans, France - Nuclear materials leak

* A brief power excursion in Reactor A2 led to a rupture of fuel bundles and a minor release (8 x 1010 Bq) of nuclear materials at the Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant. The reactor was repaired and continued operation until its decommissioning in 1992.[21]

* March, 1981 — INES Level 2 - Tsuruga, Japan - Radioactive materials released into Sea of Japan + Overexposure of workers

* More than 100 workers were exposed to doses of up to 155 millirem per day radiation during repairs of the Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant, violating the Japan Atomic Power Company's limit of 100 millirems (1 mSv) per day.[22]

* January 25, 1982 - INES Level unknown - Ontario, New York - Radioactive materials released

* A steam pipe burst at the Ginna Nuclear Generating Station, resulting in a loss of coolant and gasses were intentionally vented to the atmosphere to reduce risks of explosion.

* September 23, 1983 — INES Level 4 - Buenos Aires, Argentina - Accidental criticality

* An operator error during a fuel plate reconfiguration in an experimental test reactor led to an excursion of 3×1017 fissions at the RA-2 facility. The operator absorbed 2000 rad (20 Gy) of gamma and 1700 rad (17 Gy) of neutron radiation which killed him two days later. Another 17 people outside of the reactor room absorbed doses ranging from 35 rad (0.35 Gy) to less than 1 rad (0.01 Gy).[23] pg103[24]

* April 26, 1986 — INES Level 7 - Prypiat, Ukraine (then USSR) - Power excursion, explosion, complete meltdown

* An inadequate reactor safety system[25] led to an uncontrolled power excursion, causing a severe steam explosion, meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant located approximately 100 kilometers north-northwest of Kiev. Approximately fifty fatalities (mostly cleanup personnel) resulted from the accident and the immediate aftermath. An additional nine fatal cases of thyroid cancer in children in the Chernobyl area have been attributed to the accident. The explosion and combustion of the graphite reactor core spread radioactive material over much of Europe. 100,000 people were evacuated from the areas immediately surrounding Chernobyl in addition to 300,000 from the areas of heavy fallout in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. An "Exclusion Zone" was created surrounding the site encompassing approximately 1,000 mi² (3,000 km²) and deemed off-limits for human habitation for an indefinite period. Several studies by governments, UN agencies and environmental groups have estimated the consequences and eventual number of casualties. Their findings are subject to controversy.

See also: Chernobyl disaster

* May 4, 1986 – INES Level needed - Hamm-Uentrop, Germany (then West Germany) - Fuel damaged

* A spherical fuel pebble became lodged in the pipe used to deliver fuel elements to the reactor at an experimental 300-megawatt THTR-300 HTGR. Attempts by an operator to dislodge the fuel pebble damaged its cladding, releasing radiation detectable up to two kilometers from the reactor.[26]

* October 19, 1989 – INES Level 3 - Vandellos Nuclear Power Plant, Spain -fire in one of its two turbogenerators

* After the fire in the turbogenerators the Spanish commission determined a large list of issues in the plant that was closed by the owners due to economical unviability


1990's

* April 6, 1993 — INES Level 4 - Tomsk, Russia - Explosion

* A pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure in a 34 cubic meter stainless steel reaction vessel buried in a concrete bunker under building 201 of the radiochemical works at the Tomsk-7 Siberian Chemical Enterprise plutonium reprocessing facility. The vessel contained a mixture of concentrated nitric acid, uranium (8757 kg), plutonium (449 g) along with a mixture of radioactive and organic waste from a prior extraction cycle. The explosion dislodged the concrete lid of the bunker and blew a large hole in the roof of the building, releasing approximately 6 GBq of Pu 239 and 30 TBq of various other radionuclides into the environment. The contamination plume extended 28 km NE of building 201, 20 km beyond the facility property. The small village of Georgievka (pop. 200) was at the end of the fallout plume, but no fatalities, illnesses or injuries were reported. The accident exposed 160 on-site workers and almost two thousand cleanup workers to total doses of up to 50 mSv (the threshold limit for radiation workers is 100 mSv per 5 years).[27][28][29]

* June, 1999 — INES Level 2[30] - Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan - Control rod malfunction

* Operators attempting to insert one control rod during an inspection neglected procedure and instead withdrew three causing a 15 minute uncontrolled sustained reaction at the number 1 reactor of Shika Nuclear Power Plant. The Hokuriku Electric Power Company who owned the reactor did not report this incident and falsified records, covering it up until March, 2007.[31]

* September 30, 1999 — INES Level 4 - Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan - Accidental criticality

* Inadequately trained part-time workers prepared a uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a precipitation tank at a uranium reprocessing facility in Tokai-mura northeast of Tokyo, Japan. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to (neutron) radiation doses in excess of allowable limits. Two of these workers died. 116 other workers received lesser doses of 1 mSv or greater though not in excess of the allowable limit.[32][33][34][35]

See also: Tokaimura nuclear accident

2000's

* April 10, 2003 — INES Level 3 - Paks, Hungary - Fuel damaged

* Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets at Paks Nuclear Power Plant. It is suspected that inadequate cooling of the rods during the cleaning process combined with a sudden influx of cold water thermally shocked fuel rods causing them to split. Boric acid was added to the tank to prevent the loose fuel pellets from achieving criticality. Ammonia and hydrazine were also added to absorb iodine-131.[36]

* April 19, 2005 — INES Level 3 - Sellafield, England, United Kingdom - Nuclear material leak

* 20 metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 litres of nitric acid leaked over several months from a cracked pipe into a stainless steel sump chamber at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The partially processed spent fuel was drained into holding tanks outside the plant.[37][38]

* November 2005 — INES Level needed - Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak

* Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon's Braidwood station. Groundwater off site remains within safe drinking standards though the NRC is requiring the plant to correct any problems related to the release.[39]

* March 6, 2006 — INES Level 2[40] - Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak

* Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown. A required public hearing on the licensing of the plant was not held due to the absence of public notification.[41][42][43][44]

2010's
See also: Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents

* March 11–20, 2011 - INES Level 5,[45] previously 4[46] or higher (6[47][48][49] as of March 15 according to Andre-Claude Lacoste, president of France's nuclear safety authority. It is not an official rating[50])
Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, Japan - Overheating, explosions, fire, radioactivity emergency

Main article: Fukushima I nuclear accidents

* After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, the emergency power supply of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant failed. This was followed by deliberate releases of radioactive gas from reactors 1 and 2 to relieve pressure. On March 12, triggered by falling water levels, a hydrogen explosion occurred at reactor 1, resulting in the collapse of the concrete outer structure.[51][52][53][54][55] Although the reactor containment itself was confirmed to be intact,[56][57][58] the hourly radiation from the plant reached 1,015 microsievert (0.1015 rem) - an amount equivalent to that allowable for ordinary people in one year."[59][60] Residents of the Fukushima area were advised to stay inside, close doors and windows, turn off air conditioning, and to cover their mouths with masks, towels or handkerchiefs as well as not to drink tap water.[61] By the evening of March 12, the exclusion zone had been extended to 20 kilometres (12 mi) around the plant[62] and 70,000 to 80,000 people had been evacuated from homes in northern Japan.[63] A second, nearly identical hydrogen explosion occured in the reactor building for Unit 3 on March 14, with similar effects.[64] A third explosion in the “pressure suppression room” of Unit 2[65] initially was said not to have breached the reactor’s inner steel containment vessel,[66] but later reports indicated that the explosion damaged the steel containment structure of Unit 2 and much larger releases of radiation were expected than previously.[65]
* Disposed rods of reactor Unit 4 were stored outside the reactor in a separate pool which ran dry, yielding fire and risk of serious contamination.[67]
* Staff was brought down from 800 Fukishima, who have been named the "Fukishima 50" by the press.[67] Events are still developing.

* March 11–13, 2011 - INES Level 3,[68] Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant, Japan - Overheating, possible radioactivity emergency

* After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, the cooling systems for three reactors (numbers 1, 2 and 4) of the Fukushima-Daini nuclear power plant were compromised due to damage from the tsunami.[69] Nuclear Engineering International reported that all four units were successfully automatically shut down, but emergency diesel generators at the site were Damaged by the 9.2 magnitude earthquake[70] People were evacuated around 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) from the plant. An evacuation order was issued, because of possible radioactive contamination.[71][72] Events are still developing.

Yet YOU want to continue this madness?

Every fucking idiot like YOU should be taken out and shot in the foot, and if you keep repeating your fucking idiocy...
a finishing shot should be applied!!

And I should add after 60 odd years still no viable method to deal with the nuclear waste generated.

As that stuff keeps piling up there will not be enough money in the world to take care of it in a responsible manner.

And to top everything else off:

You now have a CME coming that could knock down a large number of power grids.

Which gives the possibility of NUMEROUS Fukushima type incidents happening to a large number of nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools.

All human endeavors in technology have an associated risk. They always have. Trains to automobiles are reasonable for more deaths than nuclear power.

I simply believe we can mitigate the risk to a reasonable level by elimination of the dependence on pumps for cooling after the need to shut down the process. I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It isn't impossible to mitigate or manage the safety systems far better and I am not an idiot.

Humans are imperfect and the fruits of their labors are imperfect. We were not intended to bypass this but to learn this and appreciate it.
Any plan that assumes perfection will be disappointing. Regardless of the level of detail you want to explore, youre not gonna change anything in the long run. Any society not focused obsessively on absolute honesty and objectivity in all things will fail and so far there are none on the horizon. Most belief systems assume some form of tribal entitlement to exploitation of outgroups and the one that doesnt has been hijacked by the opposition and human nature.

The decommissioning of the Super Phoenix and subsequent scrapping of all reactors of this type has made the mess that we are in.

It does not matter now how it came about but the paranoia about the availability of plutonium and or enriched uranium has left us in the state that we are all in regarding present reactors.

The other issue is extending the lifespan of parts within the reactors when they were designed with all parts having a replacement time frame that was also tied to power output.

Many is not most American reactors currently online are operating well past their designed parameters and several are also operating at a higher than designed load.

More accidents waiting to happen.

For those of us in the US, the real question we should be asking is why are 40 year old nuclear power plants being given 10 year life extensions? They were only designed to last 25 years, and have made the anticipated return. They need to be decomissioned.

The new power plant designs by Westinghouse and Areva are much, much safer than the designs we are discussing. What happened in Fukushima with a loss of e-power would not affect the new designs. I am a supporter of these new designs. But, new nuclear plants need to be replacing the old ones, not adding to them until they are all replaced.

Sadly, money is money and the stupid utilities will fight on both fronts, keep the old plants and build new ones.

As for storage of spent fuel, Yucca Mtn. will work, but should only be used for US produced spent fuel, not the world.

That is a fact. The risk here to me is not following up on the life cycle of the design and continuous improvement thus leaving a dependence on older equipment that is reaching its 'run to fail' limitation without an effective upgrading, maintenance migration path due to the politics of fear.

We should be modernizing these plants, not abandoning them.

Last Edited by Elijah on 04/10/2011 09:25 AM

We need the breeders to reprocess...ironically Iran is the only place that they are building exactly what is needed to deal with the spent fuel.

The truth is sitting right there in plain view

I would be interested in understanding the specifics with the spent fuel issue. My main experience is in programming the safety systems that control these enterprises in several key energy production and management systems, not the environmental compliance planning beyond the instrumentation used to measure it.

Most people are clueless as to the extent of the problem.

Do you have any idea as to the amount of nuclear waste kept in an unsafe manner (in regards to how many years the containment is viable) at Hanford Reservation, Rocky Flats, etc.? And the Russians were even less careful. They had a nuclear waste facility that exploded back in 1957 that created a huge exclusion zone. You still can't stay in the area for any length of time.

I will do everything in my power to make sure no new nuclear power plants are built in the US in my lifetime.

OMFG...

yeah the friggen Iranians are GREAT candidates to be running a nuclear power plant.

Well they enjoy being martyrs, good opportunity for that.

I'll have to research the spent fuel issue to have any useful input to make. My main emphasis and knowledge surrounds the safety systems that allow systems of this magnitude to operate safely. Within that scope the problem is related to a lack of innovation in cooling systems and funding to upgrade the plants that are exposed to this risk in the event they lose their diesel backup generators.

I didn't want to mention this before but...

let's talk about terrorism for a moment.

If they wanted to create a disaster at a NPP it would be very easy. If they took over a site all they would have to do is sabotage the power inputs to all the cooling pumps for the reactors and spent fuel pools. If this was done while the plant was actually operating, it would self-destruct in a short amount of time.

Yeah, dude, you are. Your reasoning is that of an idiot. Trains do come with inherent risk--to a very few. Nuke power comes with an inherent risk that can destroy life across the planet. If you don't see the difference, then yeah, you're an idiot. Don't be sad tho. Not everyone can be smart!

I think the problem lies in the fact that we are still using 50 year old technology because the power brokers in the energy industry refuse to relinquish their stranglehold on the general public.

They refuse to acknowledge that their system is coming to an abrupt end. These reactor failures are symptomatic of a much larger problem for all of us.

My point was that all technology has gone through a discovery cycle of unforeseen risks and mitigation. You will not make progress without trying and if we shutdown every technology because of the risk to life and property then we may as well return to farming and tribalism.

Everyone wants the benefits of energy without any of the risk associated with generating it or extracting it. I do get the difference between working in a auto plant and being offshore sitting in the control room of a bomb.

OP, the consequences of the Fukushima disaster are yet to be seen.

when millions of innocents have died, will you still be so defensive of nuclear power?

You are more exposed to a terrorist with a 30 aut 6 at a thousand yards with natural gas production.

No, it isn't impossible - it just won't get done.
That's because money is always put before safety, especially where private companies are involved as was the case here.
Mankind has a long history of not learning anything from past mistakes.
The problem with nuclear power isn't that it can't be made safe, it's that it won't be made safe - which is why the only sane option is not to use it.

Now I think you are onto the real problem. In a margin business, it provides little return on investment to upgrade equipment as opposed to a run to fail mentality. In this industry, that is a recipe for disaster. The systems have to be maintained which drives up costs. The refining leg of the oil industry is also exposed to this risk and it's really all about $$, not what is possible or required for safety.

Safety is painted over with a broad brush and regulated by a bunch of government paper pushers who really don't know much about the reality of the systems, just the bottom line.

Last Edited by Elijah on 04/10/2011 10:11 AM

I think I love you

What do you suggest be done with all the spent fuel already stored unsafely?

The only viable solution is reprocessing through breeder reactors.

There is no where on the planet that the amount that is already stored can be disposed of.