Well that's exactly right!

Ok, back in reality, I agree that the genie can be put back in the bottle. Nuclear power plants are not designed to operate indefinately. And while they are currently being used and that is unavoidable, what is avoidable is the building of more of them. Then over the next 30 to 50 years as plants are mothballed, we could conceivably convert to more renewable sources of energy, reducing the risk, and providing an inexhaustible source of power for the future.

 

Nicely put snax!

 

My point wasn't that nuclear power shouldn't be used.

Just adding another area where deaths may have been caused by disregard for fallout exposure that would of course be impossible to quantify but could add up to more than all "accidents" combined.

 

This morning, I was discussing with my dad a paper he's writing on Reactor Neutrinos. He's a physicist. I mentioned to him this discussion we've all been having, and how I was thinking that it might add something to the debate if I came up with a list of some of the important benefits we've realized because of nuclear technology. Reactor neutrinos might not be at the top of the list, but they're going to be on there! Unfortunately, I'm headed out of town this afternoon, but when I get back, I'm going to sit down and do a little research and write out a few things to try and address your question.

 

Cool, I can't wait.

Perhaps some of my safety concerns are out of line?

Here are some safety questions I'd like to see answered:

What happens in one of those fancy new super high pressure water only (no steam) jobies when you get a leak and lose the pressure that is keeping the water from becoming steam?

Gas cooled "pebble" reactors are cooled by blowing an inert gas in the spaces in between the pebbles. How do you cool a pebble type reactor if it gets hot enough to melt some of the pebbles and the melted pebbles fill the normally empty space where the gas normally flows?

Do they make pipes that can withstand radiation and super high pressure? Seems like I've heard of guys waving brooms at high pressure pipes to locate leaks. They have found the leak when the bristles get cut off by the high pressure leak. I've got the impression such a leak will dismember a person if they don't find it using the broom. Is this all Hollywood or does this really happen?


Seems to me like nothing inside the business end of a reactor could hold up over time. The radiation changes on material into another (breeder), does this not also happen to the structural components or are they radiation proof?

 

Reality check time. I just went back and reread all of the posts. First of all, I am not "pro-nuclear." I voted #2, because like Bob, it sounds like the most logical alternative. I have real concerns about safety.

However, a time will come (either due to a diminishing supply, exorbitant pricing, global conflict, or an energy independance commitment) when we will need lots of electricity. I'm thinking this will happen sooner than later. Renewable sources will not (initially) fill the bill. I nominate Chuck for the most concise summary to date:
It would appear that the clear majority of the participants here would agree...

 

Kraken it seems we are finally getting closer to being on the same page. You did start out sounding VERY pro-nuke. You should be able to understand why that might get a response.

We seem to be past that now (I hope) SMILE! If I thought that renewables could not fit the bill I'd agree with you 100%. We really are not that far off in opinion after all. In fact the only difference is that I have a little more optimism tward renewables....

 

Reactor SCRAM, meaning the control rods drop and fission shuts down within seconds. (They are held by electromagnets and "fail open," meaning if anything happens to that system they fall right in.) If necessary, there are very large tanks of borated water available to replace coolant as it leaks out through the breach in the pressure boundary. This is necessary because, though fission has stopped, there is still natural decay within the fuel rods that produces a great deal of heat within the first couple of days after shut down. Those tanks are sized to supply coolant for an extended period of time. As for a "flash boil" scenario, I don't think it is likely. Some coolant would definitely boil off as it escaped but would remain within the sealed containment structure and eventually condense. Now that I think about it, some boiling at the fuel rods would be your friend due to the fact that you can get really good heat transfer out of that phase change. Depends on the severity of the boil, though.

That's the beauty of ceramic pebbles: they don't melt. You can shut down the coolant stream and they will stay intact. They don't have the same decay heat concerns as our light water ractors.

Never heard that story. I suppose it's possible, but would they ever place humans in containment to look for a leak while the reactor is at power? Doesn't strike me as something that the regulators...or common sense...would allow.

This is part of licensing. The behavior of materials that we use in the high pressure environment/neutron flux is well understood. Engineers recognize those limitations and take them into account when designing the plant and determining whether or not it is appropriate to grant a life extension beyond the plant's initial license, which is generaly for 40 years of operation. Life extension generally involves significant upgrades to all things safety related.

Pebble bed reactors are really good option frome the standpoint of safety. The likelihood of a radiological release is reduced to just about nil. Of course you still have to deal with the waste.

The other "dreamland" option is a workable fusion reactor. That's a totally different beast and a much "cleaner" form of nuclear energy because you don't have those spent fuel bundles to deal with. All they have to do is, you know...produce energy rather than consume it. I think it will happen within my lifetime (I plan to live for a while ).

 

Between what Tim has posted and what I have found on websites, I must confess that I am less anti-nuke than when we started this discussion. Unfortunately human nature dictates that if you can trust people to do one thing, it is to screw up. That's probably my biggest concern with it now even above what to do with the waste.

 

I still have not made the time to run approximate (VERY approximate) numbers for the potential increase in electrical demands, but intuitively, I do not share your optimism toward renewable energy. Someday (emerging technologies permiting), but not in the foreseeable future.