To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
Nuclear Power
Prompted by Morro's article in the Peak this week.
Some nitpicks -
First off, the USSR has had more nuclear-plant disasters than just Chernobyl. One was very well-covered-up in the 1950s, IIRC.
Second off, simply saying "nuclear is good" (I can do the math that proves the energy density of uranium or thorium is way higher than that of coal, but so what) doesn't obviate the engineering issues involved, which ties into the first point. A poorly-engineered, poorly-managed nuclear plant is a major problem. Soviet engineering wasn't highly-prized except in specialized fields for some very good reasons, one of them being there was no drive for innovation when the government chose not to specify that in the Five-Year Plan.
Now, in Europe, Canada and the USA, the engineering principles are (one hopes) better-understood and better-utilized. In point of fact the latest CANDUs are purposely designed so that any shift in the geometry of the reactor core due to meltdown will kill the nuclear reactions pretty much immediately; that is, it's impossible for it to suddenly spike in power output and blow the roof off the plant (unlike Chernobyl).
Still, it takes a long time to build a plant. It's not like you snap your fingers and shazam, there's nuclear power waiting to go. :tongue:
I concur that a nuclear energy base is a necessary transition point for humanity's well-being pending a continuing search for getting fusion working, but to pooh-pooh peoples' concerns about it kind of defeats the purpose of advocating it. :teeth:
Some nitpicks -
First off, the USSR has had more nuclear-plant disasters than just Chernobyl. One was very well-covered-up in the 1950s, IIRC.
Second off, simply saying "nuclear is good" (I can do the math that proves the energy density of uranium or thorium is way higher than that of coal, but so what) doesn't obviate the engineering issues involved, which ties into the first point. A poorly-engineered, poorly-managed nuclear plant is a major problem. Soviet engineering wasn't highly-prized except in specialized fields for some very good reasons, one of them being there was no drive for innovation when the government chose not to specify that in the Five-Year Plan.
Now, in Europe, Canada and the USA, the engineering principles are (one hopes) better-understood and better-utilized. In point of fact the latest CANDUs are purposely designed so that any shift in the geometry of the reactor core due to meltdown will kill the nuclear reactions pretty much immediately; that is, it's impossible for it to suddenly spike in power output and blow the roof off the plant (unlike Chernobyl).
Still, it takes a long time to build a plant. It's not like you snap your fingers and shazam, there's nuclear power waiting to go. :tongue:
I concur that a nuclear energy base is a necessary transition point for humanity's well-being pending a continuing search for getting fusion working, but to pooh-pooh peoples' concerns about it kind of defeats the purpose of advocating it. :teeth:
Comments
Chernobyl wasn't the only nuclear accident of the USSR, but it was the only nuclear disaster. The others were not nearly as severe in their consequences. It might be an arbitrary distinction, but hey. Also bear in mind that Chernobyl happened not only because of the older technology in use, but also the extreme disrepair of that archaic tech. The USSR simply didn't have the money to keep it running properly.
I'm not poo-pooing concerns in general, but most of the concerns that get raised (waste, meltdown, general radiation output, etc) are ill informed. Those issues that do exist are totally manageable, and in all cases less severe than those from coal power.
But, again, WRITE ME AN ARTICLE FOOOOOOOOL! :)
Believe me, they've had their share, Morro.
As for nuclear generally - keep in mind that energy release of radioactive isotopes is a legitimate concern. After all, nuclear processes by their very nature have much more energy to play around with than chemical ones. Bottom line - the heat output from wastes is a concern that needs to be dealt with. Polonium, for example, is so radioactive that an aqueous sample of it can boil in sufficient concentration.
Also, the biological hazard posed by the heavy metals in radioactive waste is a legitimate danger as well, Plutonium transports surprisingly well in water, depending on its oxidation state. Groundwater leakage into a waste facility is one of the concerns people have with Yucca Mountain, IIRC (and anyway, the Canadian Shield would be far more geologically stable and even less prone to any problems, IMV :tongue: ).
That having been said, induced fission of the actinides and alpha emitters in the waste products of power plants would be a good idea. Fission products are uniformly beta emitters, and all you need for those are plastic shields. Plus you can't build a bomb with them, since you can't fission the lanthanides.
A MILLION GERBILS ON A MILLION GERBIL WHEELS!!
It is easier if you spend the money to curtail the energy demand instead of building this and that to meet energy need.
Then again, if this shit is safe, by all means, build it.
Speaking of the Chernobyl Disaster, I have actually done a project on the Chernobyl Disaster for my CHEM 192 course (God bless Professor Goyan and the course). Bufli's right, the operators in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant at that time were indeed performing a safety test. They want to see rather the generator can still operate to power the water pump that supply cooling water to reactor 4 in the event of a power failure. It didn't quite work out and 100 million curies of radioactive matter were released into the atmosphere, leading to things such as the abandonment of Chernobyl and the decades of cancer and deformity for residents of surrounding areas and countries.
What I am trying to say is that the Chernobyl Disaster is indeed a setback in the development of nuclear power. However, we have learned much from this disaster and have made great improvement in nuclear power safety. Are we going to let this one setback keep us back from cleaner and more efficient energy, HELL NO!
Anyone who watched Batman Begins should remember this line...
Alfred: Why do we fall, Master Wayne? So that we can learn to pick ourselves up.
And we have.