McCain Goes Nuclear (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

Evangel70 -> McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 4:33:47 PM)

McCain's latest talking point is to promote nuclear energy. Not surprisingly, no comments have been made regarding what to do with the nuclear waste or what precautions would be taken to prevent a chernobol or three-mile island.

Would you support the building of a nuclear facility or a nuclear waste facility in your neighborhood if it would mean decreasing our dependence on oil? Why or why not?



JimboFletch -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 4:42:02 PM)

We have one, Farley Nuclear Plant, and it has kept our electric bills lower than anywhere we've lived since we moved here in 1981. Besides that, it is one of the area's biggest employers with well-above average wages.



todd_t -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 5:34:06 PM)

I guess the main hang-up I have about nuke power is that at least with coal-fired plants (which I'm not really a fan of either), they don't radiate all area life with lethal dosages in the event of a system overload.

Further, nuclear produces a waste material with a 5000-year half-life.

Other than that, it's just peachy! [;)]



JimboFletch -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 5:36:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

I guess the main hang-up I have about nuke power is that at least with coal-fired plants (which I'm not really a fan of either), if they don't radiate all life with lethal dosages in the event of a system overload.

If you count on your fingers how many times that has happened in the US, how many fingers will you have left over, nine or ten?

Are you also skeered of driving a car - which has a gazillion and three times greater risk of killing you than your scenario about nuclear plants happening.



MrFribbles -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 5:40:13 PM)

Personally, I'm a big fan of nuclear power. Yeah, there are dangers, but there are dangers with any power source we use. One of the big differences between nuclear power and, say, coal power is that the dangers of nuclear power are potential, whereas coal power's dangers are currently being realized.
Ideally, of course, we'd use much safer forms of energy - solar, hydro-electric, wind, etc., but they just aren't feasible to supply our nation with energy at the present time.



todd_t -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 5:42:41 PM)

quote:

If you count on your fingers how many times that has happened in the US, how many fingers will you have left over, nine or ten?


All it takes is one big incident to cause a lot of harm to local populations for decades (e.g. Chernobyl - remember that?)

And yes, nuclear has a good safety record (thus far), but no system is foolproof.



JimboFletch -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 5:47:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

If you count on your fingers how many times that has happened in the US, how many fingers will you have left over, nine or ten?


All it takes is one big incident to cause a lot of harm to local populations for decades (e.g. Chernobyl - remember that?)

And yes, nuclear has a good safety record (thus far), but no system is foolproof.

Last time I checked, Chernobyl was still outside the US.

But sumpin' baaaad just might happen! Yeppers, it's that kind of lame argument that's helped keep the US dependent on fossil fuels for energy. I'm paying around $85 a month in the deep South in summer for electricity - and I don't skrimp on the AC - and you're huddled beneath your what-ifs.



todd_t -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 5:51:14 PM)

quote:

Last time I checked, Chernobyl was still outside the US.


So it's impossible for such an incident to happen here? Improbable, yes. But impossible?

I'm not anti-nuclear, per se. But let's just say I wouldn't want to live too close to a plant.



blessedinnyc -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 5:55:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blessedinnyc
A re-evaluation of the waste situation and global warming situation has prompted the UCS and the Sierra Club to change their anti-nuclear stance to a qualified pro-nuclear stance.

I just wanted to issue a correction on this. I was wrong. The Union of Concerned Scientists supports nuclear energy, but the Sierra Club is still opposed. I got them mixed up with one of the original founders of Greenpeace, who supports it because it is the lesser of two evils in a pragmatic world.



JimboFletch -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 5:55:54 PM)

I've lived about 10 os so miles from Farley Nuclear since September 1981. I've concerned about more than a few hurricanes and other bad weather but never lost any sleep over the plant.



blessedinnyc -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 6:05:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

Last time I checked, Chernobyl was still outside the US.


So it's impossible for such an incident to happen here? Improbable, yes. But impossible?

I'm not anti-nuclear, per se. But let's just say I wouldn't want to live too close to a plant.

Having a Chernobyl-style accident play out here the exact same way it played out in Pripyat would indeed be impossible. There are two major differences between Chernobyl's RMBK design and a western Light-water Reactor that this non-nuclear engineer can think of off the top of his head:

1.) Western reactors use a combined coolant/moderator- water. If the reactor loses coolant, it automatically shuts down. Chernobyl lost coolant, which caused a power surge and a steam explosion. Had the same thing happened at a western reactor, we might have seen some fuel damage (as we saw at Three Mile Island), but an above-ground breach of containment would have been as likely as burning embers escaping from a coal plant starting a catastrophic fire in downtown New York. I guess there's a 1 in 10,000,000 chance, but it's highly unlikely.

2.) Western reactors are built with a 4-ft thick containment dome that is designed to survive just about any kind of explosion that does not involve a nuclear weapon. According to various studies done after 1986, every major commercial power reactor in the US would have been able to survive Chernobyl's steam explosion and keep the radioactive materials inside the containment.

Either of these differences would have prevented Chernobyl. But the RMBK primarily had cost (lack of a containment dome) and on-line refueling (graphite moderator, not water) in mind (and not safety) in mind when it was designed. It would have never been licensed in the US, and I think even most nuclear supporters will agree that these plants should be shut down.



HighPlainsDrifter -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 6:21:27 PM)

You can build it in my back yard as long as I can run an extension cord over. [sm=biggrin.gif]



cow451 -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 6:35:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

Last time I checked, Chernobyl was still outside the US.


So it's impossible for such an incident to happen here? Improbable, yes. But impossible?

I'm not anti-nuclear, per se. But let's just say I wouldn't want to live too close to a plant.

Having a Chernobyl-style accident play out here the exact same way it played out in Pripyat would indeed be impossible. There are two major differences between Chernobyl's RMBK design and a western Light-water Reactor that this non-nuclear engineer can think of off the top of his head:

1.) Western reactors use a combined coolant/moderator- water. If the reactor loses coolant, it automatically shuts down. Chernobyl lost coolant, which caused a power surge and a steam explosion. Had the same thing happened at a western reactor, we might have seen some fuel damage (as we saw at Three Mile Island), but an above-ground breach of containment would have been as likely as burning embers escaping from a coal plant starting a catastrophic fire in downtown New York. I guess there's a 1 in 10,000,000 chance, but it's highly unlikely.

2.) Western reactors are built with a 4-ft thick containment dome that is designed to survive just about any kind of explosion that does not involve a nuclear weapon. According to various studies done after 1986, every major commercial power reactor in the US would have been able to survive Chernobyl's steam explosion and keep the radioactive materials inside the containment.

Either of these differences would have prevented Chernobyl. But the RMBK primarily had cost (lack of a containment dome) and on-line refueling (graphite moderator, not water) in mind (and not safety) in mind when it was designed. It would have never been licensed in the US, and I think even most nuclear supporters will agree that these plants should be shut down.

Took the words right out of my mouth.[sm=aside.gif]



inthysite -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 7:22:07 PM)

quote:


Took the words right out of my mouth.


Me too, only I would have put it differently.

I was going to say, "Nu uh!"



blessedinnyc -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 7:38:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

If you count on your fingers how many times that has happened in the US, how many fingers will you have left over, nine or ten?


All it takes is one big incident to cause a lot of harm to local populations for decades (e.g. Chernobyl - remember that?)

And yes, nuclear has a good safety record (thus far), but no system is foolproof.

This is where regulation comes in. The main difference between me and most Republicans on nuclear power is that I think the NRC needs to have a lot of teeth. Back in the 1980s, we had about two inspectors per plant. Today, we have just one. 20 years ago, less than 10% at the NRC were uncomfortable reporting safety problems. In a recent study, that number has gotten as high as 50%.

If you are operating a nuclear plant, you should accept the fact that the NRC can shut you down at any time for any non-political reason. Even with that caveat, it's very easy to make money running a nuclear plant.

The NRC estimates that using the worst assumptions, the odds of a nuclear meltdown are roughly 1 in 4000 reactor-years, and that doesn't even factor in the probability of an above-ground breach of containment (which most reports estimate to happen in 1 out of 100 meltdowns.) Had Three Mile Island resulted in a total breach of containment, it would have been highly likely that the effects would have mostly been underground- a moderate increase in the background radiation within maybe 5 miles of the plant and perhaps some problems with the water table. The reason Chernobyl was such a disaster was that several tons of radioactive iodine, cesium, and strontium were blasted into the air- and wound up in the air, water, and soil.

In the event of a below-ground breach, the radioactive materials would be contained underground.

However, with a little work, we can reduce the likelihood of a meltdown to one in 20,000 reactor-years. The NRC has had a number of gaffes over the past ten years. In particular, in 2001, the NRC allowed Davis Besse's operators to delay the inspection of a reactor vessel pressure head. When the head was inspected in 2002, the NRC discovered that acid had eaten through 90% of the primary containment. Had the reactor continued operating for as little as a few more months (it had operated for four years without a proper inspection), it could have resulted in an event as bad as TMI or potentially even worse.

Ref: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/overview_db.html

Still, even in the reasonably foreseeable worst case, we would have had a disaster that would have been closer to the scale of a minor dam breach than Chernobyl. It might have done as much environmental and economic damage as the coal or even the hydro industry does in a single year.



blessedinnyc -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 7:52:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: inthysite

quote:


Took the words right out of my mouth.


Me too, only I would have put it differently.

I was going to say, "Nu uh!"

Well, again, all this depends on the new plants that are approved. There are some questions, for example, over whether the Westinghouse AP-1000's containment is strong enough. My understanding is that it's not quite spec'd to the same standards that most commercial plants are spec'd to today.

I would like to see new nuclear plants, but our pols should be paying a fair amount of attention to safety, as well. It really wouldn't be that much work at this point make sure that new reactors are demonstrably twice as safe as existing reactors.



inthysite -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 8:17:58 PM)

sorry, my "Nu uh!" comment was directed at the possibility of a Chernobyl incident here, not at your response, which I thought was very good.



Evangel70 -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 8:32:09 PM)

quote:

I would like to see new nuclear plants, but our pols should be paying a fair amount of attention to safety, as well. It really wouldn't be that much work at this point make sure that new reactors are demonstrably twice as safe as existing reactors.


Perhaps I have a different perspective as a parent. Have those supporting a nuclear plant in their neighborhood considered the risk of nuclear waste leaking into the soil or water supply where the results may not be seen or recognized for many years down the road (i.e. having a school built on land that was used to store nuclear waste because the plant owner wanted to save money and not recognizing it until your children start developing lukemia at 6 or 7 years of age)?



blessedinnyc -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/5/2008 8:44:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evangel70
Perhaps I have a different perspective as a parent. Have those supporting a nuclear plant in their neighborhood considered the risk of nuclear waste leaking into the soil or water supply where the results may not be seen or recognized for many years down the road (i.e. having a school built on land that was used to store nuclear waste because the plant owner wanted to save money and not recognizing it until your children start developing lukemia at 6 or 7 years of age)?

Yes, nuclear plants occasionally have minor leaks. I think the US Navy got into trouble for operating a nuclear submarine that discharged the same amount of radioactive materials that would be found in two sacks of fertilizer in Japanese waters (potassium is slightly radioactive, but it's still safe to eat! [:D]).

However, I would feel more comfortable living next door to a nuclear plant than living four miles downwind from a coal plant, or heaven forbid- living next to a refinery or other chemical plant.

When I was at UIUC, I took a class in energy policy that was taught by a nuclear engineering professor. When Exelon was trying to get approval for a second nuclear plant at its Clinton site, he showed up to the hearing and said that he'd support a nuclear plant, but if Exelon switched to a coal plant, he'd be back there to oppose it.

As with any industry, nuclear power will occasionally have accidental releases of minor carcinogens. However, if we compare this against just about any other industry- plastics, agricultural chemicals, the automotive industry, the electrical supply industry, nuclear has the same- if not a cleaner record in terms of accidental discharges.



Evangel70 -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/6/2008 9:04:35 AM)

quote:

As with any industry, nuclear power will occasionally have accidental releases of minor carcinogens. However, if we compare this against just about any other industry- plastics, agricultural chemicals, the automotive industry, the electrical supply industry, nuclear has the same- if not a cleaner record in terms of accidental discharges.


I heard on the news yesterday that one of the biggest hold-ups of building nuclear power plants is that it takes 3-4 years to get the regulatory board to approve a license and then another 4 years or so to actually build a nuclear reactor. This doesn't even take into account the push-back builders would get from communities who don't want a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood or by their children's schools.

So we probably won't see the 40 new nuclear plants McCain is promising during the next presidential administration.



blessedinnyc -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/6/2008 9:24:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evangel70
I heard on the news yesterday that one of the biggest hold-ups of building nuclear power plants is that it takes 3-4 years to get the regulatory board to approve a license and then another 4 years or so to actually build a nuclear reactor. This doesn't even take into account the push-back builders would get from communities who don't want a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood or by their children's schools.

So we probably won't see the 40 new nuclear plants McCain is promising during the next presidential administration.

Well, right now we are already seeing 30 utilities announcing to the NRC that they want new nuclear reactors. Most of these reactors are being build adjacent to existing reactors, and according to an NEI survey, roughly 85% of the population in communities that have a nuclear reactor support nuclear energy.

We may not ultimately get 40 new reactors, but it's a realistic goal.

Not all of the time- but at least my nuclear professor's experience during hearings for the original Clinton reactor during the early '80s- was that it's usually outside groups that show up to these meetings to oppose these plants. Greenpeace had random people showing up from states like Oregon and New Hampshire to oppose the licensing hearings. One of its favorite tactics was to question random numbers used to calculate various tolerances- forcing the engineers to spend two weeks recalculating the numbers and come back to the meeting just to *prove* that the numbers were right- when they would then be asked about a number from a different part of the system.

Most of the residents supported the reactor, and most of them still do. I really don't think the utilities are going to bother trying to fight a long drawn-out battle with a community that doesn't want nuclear power; there are too many communities that do. The only real question is whether outside groups will choose to provide constructive criticism or try to hijack the licensing process.



Jhud -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/6/2008 9:29:31 AM)

The French get (and have been getting) up to 80% of their electricity from nuclear power - and if the French aren't scared, then no American should be.

Plus it will help prevent global warming, which as we all know will destroy the world as we know it.



blessedinnyc -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/6/2008 9:39:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

The French get (and have been getting) up to 80% of their electricity from nuclear power - and if the French aren't scared, then no American should be.

Plus it will help prevent global warming, which as we all know will destroy the world as we know it.

LOL, Jhud. That's part of the reason why most of the environmental organizations have changed course over the past 15 years to support nuclear (assuming it is properly regulated.)



Evangel70 -> RE: McCain Goes Nuclear (8/6/2008 1:03:05 PM)

quote:

As with any industry, nuclear power will occasionally have accidental releases of minor carcinogens. However, if we compare this against just about any other industry- plastics, agricultural chemicals, the automotive industry, the electrical supply industry, nuclear has the same- if not a cleaner record in terms of accidental discharges.


blessedinnyc,

Thank you for your posts. I really don't know enough about nuclear power to make an informed decision but your posts have encouraged me to research the issue and do a little homework.

Danny



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI