442 nuclear power plants worldwide, without people they meltdown within 1-5 days.

[Union Yes]

Granted that may sound like doom and gloom fear mongering.

Nuclear power plants(NPP) are basically electric power producing plants that use heat emitted from radioactive fuel rods that heat water to the point of steam. This steam powers the actual electrical generators.
So in a nutshell, a NPP is a high tech steam powered electrical generating plant.

Radioactive fuel rods that aren't submerged in water and kept cool will quickly raise in temperature to several thousand degrees. When they reach these high temps capable of melting most steels, they burst into flame.

Under normal operation fuel rods are always submerged and kept cool. Inside of most NPP they are stored in what looks like a large swimming pool filled with water. The rods are submerged in water and stored in a safe cool environment. Think of a swimming pool with a bunch of metal rods laying on the bottom and that's very similar to what you would see inside of a NPP.

The problem is that water evaporates and boils down. Have you ever forgotten a pot of boiling water on your stovetop? Only to remember and run into the kitchen to find an empty or near empty pot.

In a nutshell that's what happens when a NPP melts down. When the water in the earlier described 'swimming pool' that is filled with radioactive fuel rods began to evaporate that water level falls. As it falls it begins to expose the tops of the fuel rods to air. Immediately the temps of the tops of the fuel rods reach into the thousands of degrees and burst into flame. When this happens that remaining water in that cooling pool quickly evaporates as it boils off at over 1000 degrees. Exposing 100% of all fuel rods in a chain reaction. All fuel rods are now burning at several thousand degrees.

At this point, said NPP is experiencing a full meltdown.

Cascading plumes of radioactive smoke blow in whatever direction the wind blows it.

Killing or poisoning almost everything in it's path.

Back to the point of this OP.

NPP's require people to run and oversee said plants. Remove people from the picture and the above chain reaction starts within 1-5 days depending on the plant. Even if the plant were shutdown. The rods are always emitting radiation and heat. Always capable of creating a meltdown. The danger of meltdown never ceases. Regardless if the plant is in operation.

If fuel rods are on site then there is ALWAYS a danger of meltdown.

Add to that danger the ever present danger of human screw-ups. A nuke plant is no place for human screw-ups but screw-ups still happen at NPP's.

I don't really fear the lack of people as creating a meltdown here in America. But it could happen.

My biggest fear is NPP's in other countries. Are they regulating and providing government oversight in the strictest of terms they way we regulate and provide oversight of NPP's here at home.

Chernobyl's NPP melted down with explosive force. The explosion left a bunch of burning fuel rods behind. Emitting cascading plumes of radioactive smoke into the air to be blown around by the wind.
Chernobyl was a result of human screw-up.
.................................................................................................
You may ask..
Why would people leave a NPP unmanned?
Possibly a whole host of answers.

Extreme natural disasters, disease, war just a few examples. Any of these could cause a NPP to go unmanned.

We think we are safe here in America. But we do NOT control all of the worlds 442 NPP's.

I used to be a fan of nuclear energy. The more I learn about nuclear power more that view is changing.

We need to scrap nuclear and do it soon.

Green renewable energy should be our focus. Wind, solar etc.

Instead of NPP's here on Earth, let's use the biggest nuclear reactor that we know of - the Sun, to power our future.

I didn't even get a chance to talk about the radioactive waste produced daily at NPP's that must be contained and forever stored until it's half-life ends. Drums filled with poisonous radioactive waste as far as the eye can see. Have you ever seen a waste storage facility?

[anonymous171]

1. Coal power is also dangerous and deadly

But it's byproducts aren't RADIOACTIVE (OHHH SCARY) and so no one cares when they get dumped into public rivers.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. Uh, actually the byproducts of coal fired plants *are* radioactive.

But nobody gives a shit about that either.

[anonymous171]

6. Really? Wow. And here I was thinking they were just plain old toxic.

[TheWraith]

31. An average coal plant releases 18 tons of uranium and thorium into the air every year.

From trace elements in the coal that they burn.

Compare that with 33 tons of waste produced by a nuclear reactor of the same size, all of which is carefully contained away from the environment, and 97% of which can be reprocessed into fresh fuel.

[NYC_SKP]

56. That number sounds crazy high! I knew about mercury, cadmium, but uranium and thorium?

I would love a link to that data, if you have one.

THX.

[TheWraith]

62. Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant#Radioactive_trace_elements

[bananas]

96. Radioactivity releases from nuclear operations dwarf radioactivity releases from coal

Cut-and-paste mangles urls, valid links in the original post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3592611&mesg_id=3592910

struggle4progress Sun Nov-09-08 06:40 PM Response to Reply #13

17. Radioactivity releases from nuclear operations dwarf radioactivity releases from coal

Natural uranium is not very radioactive: 25,280 Bq/g or 0.000000683 Ci/g or 0.683 Ci/metric ton. So the annual 392 ton of U from coal corresponds total radioactivity of 267 Ci

In comparison, the Chernobyl accident released at least 100 million Ci (see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/NucEne/chern... ) -- and perhaps a hundred times that

The Three Mile Island accident released something like 2.4 million Ci, including 13-17 Ci radioiodine; see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/216/4542...

In 1981, average routine tritium emissions from the Pickering plant in Canada were 1350 Ci/mo to the atmosphere and another 625 Ci/mo to local waters; see http://books.google.com/books?id=xlTv3smyZQYC&pg=PA10&l...

Thus the local radioactivity releases from Chernobyl and TMI correspond respectively to about 375000 and 9000 years of burning coal worldwide at the current rate. The local radioactivity release from Pickering for 1981 corresponds to about 75 years of burning coal worldwide at the current rate. Note that I have mentioned only two incidents at two plants and one year at a third for nuclear, disregarding releases from fuel manufacture and waste handling -- while for coal I am discussing worldwide nuclear emissions from all plants

Nuclear fuel manufacture also has release potential

The 1999 Tokaimura criticality accvident in Japan released at least 162 TBq or about 4378 Ci of noble gases and radio-iodine

Beyond such exceptional cases, there are so-called "routine" releases from operating nuclear power stations: these can also be substantial individually and in aggregate will dwarf the radioactivity releases from worldwide coal consumption


Finally, I will add:

When considering "small" releases, the spatial and temporal features of the release are important: no one sane would consent to having a particle containing a nanogram of plutonium in his/her lung -- but that is rather different from a worldwide total combined release of a nanogram of plutonium into the atmosphere from thousands of locations over the course of a year

[Statistical]

73. The reason why is coal is not just coal.

Coal is "mostly" coal mining techniques are not sophisticated enough to extract 100% perfect coal and nothing else.

Hence what is burned in a reactor is a mixture of mostly coal and lots of heavy metals and other ores.

The fly ash left behind after burning is also very toxic lots of heavy metals and radioactive isotopes. There is also millions of tons of fly ash produced each year making waste management much more difficult.

[ddeclue]

84. Not at all high...

a pound of coal contains about 21000 BTUS of energy. A BTU is 778 ft.lb of energy.

This means a pound of coal contains 16338000 ft.lb of energy.

One horsepoewer=0.746 kW of power = 550 ft.lb/sec.

This means if you do the math that one pound of coal contains 22160 kW.sec of energy or about 6.15 kW.hr of energy.

When you factor in a conversion efficiency of about 40%, one pound of coal produces about 2.46kW.hr of electrical power at best.

The average coal fired power plant is rated at 667 MW of output. This means it burns 271138 lb of coal an hour or about 135 TONS of coal an hour. There are 8760 hours in a year so that's 1.1826 MILLION tons of coal a year at such a plant. The CO2 put out by such a plant is 4.34 MILLION tons a year.

18 tons of uranium and thorium is tiny compared to that number - it is just a "trace" amount but because the over all pollution is so large it becomes significant on its own.

Compared to coal - nuclear power is extremely clean. Compared to hydroelectric power, nuclear power has been extremely SAFE also.

Doug De Clue
Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Tech

[farmout rightarm]

44. Coal, and even some crude oil has lots of radioactive isotopes in it.

Heck, even garbage that's burned in some of these 'green' energy recycling plants does too.

[farmout rightarm]

2. If there were no people, who would care?

:shrug:

[closeupready]

9. If the OP were talking about what happens after a human extinction event, then

you have a valid question.

To the contrary, I think the OP - in light of his later discussion about NPP's in other nation-states - was talking about people authorized and charged with running and maintaining NPP's within sovereign states outside US jurisdiction. That is, if large numbers of the population within such a state die and there is social breakdown, we'd have all kinds of Chernobyl's all over the globe.

[farmout rightarm]

23. I probably misunderstood the premise...was thinking it was of a piece with the current

series "After people" that I occasionally run across (I think it's the History Channel?...not even sure) that
focuses on the rapid decomposition of human artifacts if all humans were to suddenly vanish. I don't think it's a "rapture" thing, just an interesting speculation on how quickly 'nature' would reclaim the world. The fate of nuclear power plants was the subject of a recent one.

Anyway, the chances of more than 1 or 2 of them going to 'meltdown' due to some catastrophe are so slim, the potential effects are miniscule compared with whatever caused it in the first place and so the proposal is pretty much a red herring. I was strongly opposed to nuclear power for many years but have come to embrace it the last dozen or so simply because given current technology, resources and capabilities it is the ONLY way to adequately supply power to the world whose demands is going up exponentially. Solar and wind power are great things but aren't anywhere near power"ful" enough to keep the lights on. And cannot ever be, since we haven't enough usable surface area on the planet to grab sufficient power even at 100% efficiency.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Worried about the rapture?

Is God going to rapture the control rods too?

[Union Yes]

16. If there were no safety concern like you seem to imply, then why did Chernobyl happen? nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Well it's not because they all went out for Thai food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Christ on a dildo.

[hobbit709]

93. Chernobyl happened because of stupidity.

Big boys in Moscow decided to run low power tests on reactor. Engineers tried to tell them it wouldn't work-political bosses didn't want to hear it. That reactor design is very unstable at low power lever levels. We know what happened at that point.

Same stupidity problem at TMI. Equipment worked as designed. Main cooling pump system failed-emergency cooling pumps kicked on. Operator didn't get alarm indication from main system fail, did not check flow rate gauges, decided that something was wrong with backup and turned backup pumps OFF.

It's impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so damn ingenious.

[TheWraith]

100. Because Chernobyl was a perfect combination of massive fuckups.

A reactor design that would have sent a qualified nuclear engineer fleeing for the hills. The control rods hollow tips, when they jammed in the wrong position, actually accelerated the reaction.

The lack of a complete containment building, as is required in every other country. If there had been a proper containment building instead of just a loose concrete cap, the explosion would have destroyed the reactor but not contaminated the environment.

Reckless and utterly irresponsible behavior on the part of the plant operators.

[PVnRT]

106. Human error, lack of oversight, not following procedures

[Egalitariat]

5. What happens to a moving car that no longer has a driver? What should we do about those?

[Union Yes]

24. Can a car without a driver cause a global environmental catastrophe like 1 meltdown can?

[qazplm]

33. depends

maybe it runs into a nuclear power plant, causing a meltdown.

Did you think about that?

[eqfan592]

71. I guess that would depend on who that car hits. ;)

Seriously, though, I don't think your argument is all that valid. While waste time talking about stuff like this, we could be looking at ways of making nuclear energy safer and more cost effective, something we should have been doing more of the last 20 years. Meanwhile, we're pumping tons of crap into the air and screwing up the entire planet anyway, and that's with the coal plants working RIGHT!

[donco]

7. Kinda makes one wonder

what would have happened if Haiti had a nuke doesn’t it?

[Union Yes]

13. Yup.

That's part of the point of this OP. A natural disaster could create a meltdown.

Had there been a reactor on Haiti it would probably be a dead island by now. Granted, a reactor probably wouldn't be built on a fault line in the first place but think about a major flood or other disaster happening on a reactor site somewhere else.

If their were no concern, Chernobyl wouldn't have happened.

Thanks for the thought provoking reply!



:fistbump:

[shraby]

25. The one at Indian Point in New York state is a mile

from a fault line, and there are some in California very close to fault lines.

[Union Yes]

14. Yup.

That's part of the point of this OP. A natural disaster could create a meltdown.

Had there been a reactor on Haiti it would probably be a dead island by now. Granted, a reactor probably wouldn't be built on a fault line in the first place but think about a major flood or other disaster happening on a reactor site somewhere else.

If their were no concern, Chernobyl wouldn't have happened.

Thanks for the thought provoking reply!



:fistbump:

[Beetwasher]

19. I Know What Would Have Happend

Godzilla, that's what. Or something equally horrendous that would stomp people to death and destroy our powerful military w/ heat rays.

[Union Yes]

30. People were joking about it before Chernobyl too. Then meltdown happened. They stopped joking. nt

[Beetwasher]

47. Who's Joking? Godzilla Is Nothing To Joke About

You probably laugh when all those little japanese people get squashed to death. What kind of sick, racist freak are you that you want little japanese people squashed to death by a giant lizard and then laugh about it?

[Regret My New Name]

95. +1

[Statistical]

46. Just look at Japan. Japan has lots of nukes and lots of earthquakes.

Biggest killer in Haiti was lack of building standards which caused buildings to collapse like pancakes.

[MadHound]

8. I'm not an advocate for nuclear power, far from it

You can go search my posts on this topic and see that is so.

However I'm also an advocate of truth, and having worked in a nuclear power plant I can tell you with authority that you are not telling the truth.

Each and every single nuclear plant has a fail safe mechanism that will shut down the nuclear reaction by inserting the dampening rods (a carbon mix) and thus keeping temperatures down. The entire bridge crew could walk out and the place will not melt down, rather the fail safe will kick in automatically, shutting down the nuclear reaction and cooling both the pool and the fuel rods.

Furthermore, each nuclear reactor has an emergency water fill, if the water is lowered to a certain level(well before fuel rod exposure) water will automatically pour into the pool, raising it back to safe levels.

Can these failsafes break down and not work, certainly, I've seen it happen myself. But the point is there are failsafes and outside the small chance that they won't work, you can have the bridge crew walk out and the pool will be just fine if they return the next day or next week or next month.

There are plenty of faults to find with nuclear power and frankly it show go the way of the dinosaur. However it doesn't help matters by spreading unsubstantiated BS.

[wtmusic]

10. It was people who caused both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island

Send 'em home.

[NightWatcher]

11. sounds a wee tad scarier than solar pv cells left unattended

[Confusious]

103. Yea, and those solar cells will work

All across America because we all have sunshine flowing out of our asses.

[Codeine]

12. Complete and total nonsense.

It doesn't work that way. There are automatic processes that prevent this sort of thing from occurring.

All the anti-nuke folks have is lies and misinformation. It would be funny if it wasn't so destructive.

[Javaman]

17. So in essence you are saying that nuclear plants run themselves?

wow, who would have thought!

:eyes:

[LanternWaste]

21. No more than fire sprinklers can manage a small business

"So in essence you are saying that nuclear plants run themselves? "

No more than fire sprinklers can manage a small business. That's how I read it, but I'm not very clever.

[Statistical]

42. However sprinklers can manage to put out a fire even if all the humans are dead. n/t

[LanternWaste]

53. But do the run the business as was implied the safety systems at a nuke plant do?

But do the sprinklers manage and maintain the business w/o people present as was the pejorative implication that safety systems at a nuke plant do?

it's merely six of one, and half a dozen of the other...

ed: sp

[Statistical]

40. No but in the absense of human input reactor will SCRAM shut itself down.

Computer controlled SCRAMs occur on dozens of reactors ever year as precuations as a result of part failure, non-compliant sensor readings, power fluctuations, insufficient cooling pressure etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCRAM

without human response the computer will trigger a SCRAM and reactor will shutdown as designed.

Terrorists could blow up entire control center to a nuclear reactor and all that will trigger is operating computer detecting lack of "stay alive signal" from control room = SCRAM.

It requires constant computer action to prevent computer from going into failsafe and shutting down the reactor.

[spoony]

48. Yep.

Thanks for posting this.

[Gabi Hayes]

20. yeah...as opposed to the lily-white, altruistic pro-nukesters,

ever-truth-tellers, they. your post deserves an unintentional DUZY.

Why don't you pitch in and rent out your basement to store some of the nuclear waste generated by your local hospital, for starters?

then, when that's filled up, use your bathtub for some spent fuel rods?

[farmout rightarm]

28. Wow, I completely forgot those...we need to shut down those damn hospitals!

...

[Confusious]

104. Yea, we need to tell those people with cancer

to STFU!

[Pavulon]

108. No such thing as cancer before 1940's

I mean it was invented when we invented the reactor.

[Union Yes]

22. You are wrong.

Many of the older plants do not have the safety systems that you talk about. Many plants outside of the US in other countries don't regulate the way we do in America.

Many of the 442 NPP's worldwide are 30+ years old.

[MadHound]

26. I can tell you with certainty that every single plant in this country, regardless of age

Has fail safe systems that I described in my post upthread. As does virtually every single plant worldwide, it is standard construction and design. I worked in a nuclear plant for years, I have the experience and knowledge to back up my assertion. What do you have?

As I said earlier, I'm anti-nuke, but I'm also pro-truth. You are doing the anti-nuke side a disservice by spouting such bullshit.

[Union Yes]

36. Can you say the same for all NPP's worldwide? 1 meltdown can create a near global enviromental..

catastrophe.

It's all good to be confident about the way we regulate our own NPP's. As I said in my OP.

It's the ones outside of the US that more concern me.

And I'm still not sold on the safety of American NPP's. We're playing with fire.

We always will be until we move beyond nuclear.

[farmout rightarm]

43. I guess you're thinking about something besides fossil fuels..? What lies "beyond" nuclear that is

even a rudimentary hypothesis at this time?

[MadHound]

51. Yes, I can

Despite your portrayal to the contrary, those who build and operate nuclear plants are just as concerned about safety as you are, if not more so.

Oh, and cut the hyperbole. Did Chernobyl "create a near global environmental catastrophe"? No, it was a regional problem, one that involved a few countries, not the entire planet.

I'm not sold on the safety of American plants either, but not for the same reasons. Please, educate yourself so that you can present cognizant, truthful accounts of the dangers involved in nuclear power rather than resorting to hyperbole and bullshit. You are doing the entire anti-nuke movement a great disservice.

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. Kind of a big backpedal there. Is it 445 or maybe one? n/t

[G_j]

81. my parents worked at the Hanford reactor

in fact, my mother had patents on some of those fail safe ideas. She always felt that when they went commercial they skimped, but then she thought in terms of multiple fail safe mechanisms, which were probably too costly in the end.

[spoony]

49. Where are you getting this information?

Not about the age, but about them lacking standard safety systems? Your OP ignores so many basic design features of plants that it's hard to figure where you're getting this stuff.

[wtmusic]

54. The World Association of Nuclear Operators

"Every one of the world's commercial nuclear power plants has now been peer reviewed by the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO). But the organisation must adapt with the changing nuclear landscape to ensure continued international safety cooperation, according to its chairman.

Speaking at the association's tenth biennial general meeting held in Delhi, India, WANO chairman Laurent Stricker told nuclear energy leaders that although the nuclear industry had collectively made great progress in safety and reliability over the past two decades, WANO must also be prepared to adapt to remain effective. "Our major programmes are being widely used as a resource by our members. With the nuclear revival underway we need to maintain this momentum and safety record," he said.

WANO was formed in 1989, in response to the Chernobyl accident, to improve safety at every nuclear power plant in the world. Its mission is to maximise the safety and reliability of nuclear power plants worldwide by working together to assess, benchmark and improve performance through mutual support, exchange of information, and emulation of best practices. Although its work goes largely unpublicised, WANO is nevertheless widely respected as providing an essential cornerstone for nuclear industry safety."

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Safety_milestone_for_WANO-0402108.html

[Forkboy]

27. You could always explain how if you really wanted to teach people something.

[Beetwasher]

15. That's Why We Need More Robots

Let them deal with that shit. I'll sit on the beach drinking a Mai Tai.

Nothing bad could possibly happen with more robots running everything.

[farmout rightarm]

29. "Welcome aboard Flight 992, this aircraft is completely operated by robots. Nothing can go wrong

go wrong
go wrong
go wrong
go wrong..."

;-)

[krispos42]

34. "We are ready to depart as soon as our lemon-scented napkins are delivered"

:evilgrin:

[Swamp Rat]

32. heheheheheheeee!!

[tkmorris]

58. I swear I heard that in the voice of Kelso.

[Echo In Light]

35. One of those threads where all one needs to read is the user name to know if they're yay or nay

lol

[krispos42]

37. Nope, this isn't true

In "Dawn of the Dead" the mall they were trapped in had power for months, thanks to the grid being supplied by a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant.

Romero trumps reality. :P

[Statistical]

38. Complete and utter BS. Reactor would SCRAM

Without human interaction the reactor will SCRAM. Cornerstone of reactor design is passive safety or "failsafe" meaning in a failure choose the safest option and the safest option is to shut down the reactor.

SCRAM is an automatic shutdown and requires no human interaction. It is done because computer can shutdown the reactor much faster than any human can. From SCRAM to fission halt is usually a matter of seconds. The computer doesn't wait for huamsns to ok the SCRAM it simply does it.

Reactor can scram for a variety of reasons, fault sensor, pressure outside of tolerences, power fluctuations, equipment failure, grid inbalance, as precaution on signal of brownout/blackout conditions, etc.

In the absence of humans the reactor will hum along just fine until an expected report from control center, or shift change, or any of number variables the computer expects to happen doesn't happen (because people who normally do it aren't there/dead). when that happens computer will query and without a response it assumes no human control and SCRAMS the reactor.

Failsafe = always choose safest option in an ambiguous situation.

1) So with no human contact at end of next shift the shift login check will fail (no humans reporting for shift and no response from outgoing crew). Computer will assume control center has been damaged, or compromised.

2) Reactor will scram. Power will be cut to electromagnetic grapples holding control rods out of reactor. Gravity will cause control rods to slide into reactor. Control rods absorb neutrons and without neutrons fission reaction will slow. Slower fission equals even less neutrons and more of them are absorbs and reaction slows further and further and further. Within seconds fission activity has halted.

3) As reactors heat output slows main turbine will slow down and disengage. This will trip onsite diesel generators which will provide power to reactor for weeks if necessary.

4) Without fission reactor heat output will drop rapidly but some heat remains from decay heat. Heat output is a tiny fraction of full power roughly 5% but that is still hundreds of MW of thermal heat. Without cooling reactor would eventually melt. Coolant pumps will continue to run via power from diesel generators.

After about a day the reactor heat output will no longer be sufficient to melt reactor pressure vessel. Cooling pumps will continue to run until all diesel power is expended just to be sure. Eventually diesel power will run out and pumps will stop, control room will go quiet, and computer will shut down.

Reactor will sit like that cold and lifeless for hundreds of years waiting for a human to power it back up again. If there are no humans left or none capable of restarting the reactor it will sit there it nuclear fuel slowly decaying to inert isotopes.

[Union Yes]

39. Is that the case with all 442 NPP's worldwide? nt

[Statistical]

41. Yes passive safety is a cornerstone of nuclear designs.

The sad irony is if the crew of Chernobyl reactor had died from say mad zombie virus that day the reactor would have scrammed and the disaster never would have happened. The crew intentionally bypassed security procedures to test a scenario where turbine output is reduced.

Had no bypass been made when turbine output was lowered the reactor would have scammed on its own.

[cherokeeprogressive]

45. Given your BS OP, I'd have assumed you already knew the answer to the question you just asked. n/t

[Forkboy]

55. That's the post I was hoping to see somewhere in this thread.

I knew it was something along those lines, but didn't know the actual details. Now I do. Thanks.

[Statistical]

57. There are a lot of concerns with nuclear reactors.

We should make sure they are well regulated.
We should make sure they are subject to full and impartial inspections.
We should ensure designs are peer reviewed and only best designs used.

We should limit number of years reactors operate.
We should replace older reactors with newer even safer designs.

We should heavily fine operators who hide data or obstruct investigations.
We must be concerned with proliferation issues.
We should seriously look toward safe, central storage of waste as other responsible countries (Finland, France, Japan) are researching.

So they were real concerns to think about when it comes to nuclear reactors however the OP was simple a science-fantasy nightmare not based on reality.

[Union Yes]

61. How do "we" regulate Iran? The IEAE? Perhaps.

Is your confidence meter pegged regarding Iran's venture into nuclear energy?

Remember the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Thank god the collapse of that government didn't lead to a breakdown of society to the point of a catastrophe regarding NPP meltdowns.

Without sounding like fear mongering we have to consider scenarios like what happened in the Soviet Union. Just a scenario, but think about the present danger when a government collapses.

442 NPP's world wide and we as a people seem to want to build more. Nations rise and fall, natural disasters happen, wars happen, terrorism happens. At some point one of the 442 will melt down. Due to one of many possible scenarios.

If nothing else leave it to good old fashioned human fuck-ups.

You and I both know that human fuck-ups can be the most dangerous scenario of all.

Can you say with 100% certainty that not a single 1 of those 442 NPP's will ever meltdown?

Anything less than 100% certainty to me is unacceptable regarding a meltdown.

We're playing with fire.

[Statistical]

68. Bunch of false solutions.

Thank god the collapse of that government didn't lead to a breakdown of society to the point of a catastrophe regarding NPP meltdowns.
Why would the fall of soviet union cause nuclear meltdowns?

You are aware how heavily reinforced reactor containment is? 747 can crash into containment dome without it breaking. We have shot containment structures with 155mm artillery.

So say a mob rushes a nuclear powerplant. Not sure why they would most people tend not to rush things they don't understand but lets say they do.

So mob kills all the operators and trashes the control room. Without signal from control room reactor shuts down. Reactor goes cold and quiet and waits to be started up someday (if ever).

Is your confidence meter pegged regarding Iran's venture into nuclear energy?
You claim are inability to regulate Iran means we should get rid of nuclear reactors.....
So after we get rid of nuclear reactors HOW WILL WE REGULATE IRAN? We aren't dictators of the world.
Iran wants nuclear weapons, the nuclear energy is a smokescreen (and not very good one at it).


At best US could adopt a policy to get rid of nuclear power however likely they would be replaced with coal. We simply don't have the capacity to replace nuclear power with wind overnight.

However even if we do Japan & France are heavily dependent on nuclear reactors. They won't stop using them just because US stops.

Can you say with 100% certainty that not a single 1 of those 442 NPP's will ever meltdown?
That wasn't the original post of the OP. The OP was your anti-nukker wet dream was that without human control nuclear reactors all over the planet will meltdown left and right.

After you were schooled that the EXACT OPPOSITE would happen you change the question.

If the US gets rid of nuclear power can you guarantee me Iran won't try to acquire nuclear weapons?
If the US gets rid of nuclear power can you guarantee me none of foreign reactors will ever meltdown?

Are you going to force the countries of the world to abandon nuclear weapons by military force?

Speaking of militaries have you considered even without nuclear electrical power our Navy requires nuclear power. Our submarine fleet uses nuclear power exclusively as does our aircraft carriers.

[eqfan592]

74. Out-f**king-standing, Statistical!

here's a graphical pint, on me. :)

:toast:

[proteus_lives]

91. Slam-Dunk!

Nothing left to say.

[Beetwasher]

97. Dude!!! WTF!!! Have You No Shame!!!!

It's people like you that allow monsters like godzilla to thrive and flourish. We must all work together in the common goal of humanity to rid ourselves of these nuclear mutations! I for one have seen too many tiny japanese people crushed to death by these malignant giant lizards!! And their death rays are UNSTOPPABLE!!!

[Statistical]

105. You aren't seeing the big picture.

Nuclear power is just a stepping stone to world-wide Godzilla power.

I know you will say it is too dangerous and Godzilla produces a lot of waste which must be stored forever but think about it 1000s of GWh (Godzilla watt hours) of clean reliable power.

[Beetwasher]

109. Oh Sure, Now You Make Godzilla Poop Jokes

But let me tell you something wise guy, carrying around that shovel is no laughing matter!

[asdjrocky]

67. My thoughts exactly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. Tangential question: Do you know what SCRAM is an acronym for?

Learned this from a Westinghouse nuke engineer about 20 years ago - 10 years after I left construction work at a nuke plant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scram

[Statistical]

70. "Safety Control Rod Axe Man"

One of first experimental reactors had control rods held up via a rope. In a malfuction the SCRAM was to cut the rope.

However that story is likely is a backronym. (SCRAM was made up afterwards to be an acronym for the story).

Anyways today the industry doesn't use the term SCRAM they use the more accurate trip.

As in:

Unlike the OP fantasy a lack of human interaction will result in an automated reactor trip.

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. The person I learned that from was one of the investigators of the Thresher incident.

He helped develop updated procedures to prevent its recurrence.

Which is actually not a bad example of your point. One reason the Thresher sank because the reactor automatically shut itself down and the crew was unable to restart it quickly enough.

[grahamhgreen]

79. Right, and my computer has never-ever crashed!

[Statistical]

94. The reactor control computer isn't the final level of redundancy

There are also mechanical backup safeties.

For example: nuclear poison. solution with high neutron cross section. During a reactor trip if computer notices fission rate remains high it anticipates a failure of the control rods. So nuclear posion is kept under extreme pressure in tanks connected to reactor. The computer opens valves to tanks and since poison is under higher pressure than the reactor it flows into reactor slowing and cooling it.

Nuclear poison is like a liquid control rod in that it blocks neutrons and thus reduces number of fission reactions per second.

But wait stats what if the computer made a mistake or crashed.

The valves connecting nuclear poison to the reactor are designed to melt at temperature higher than the of reactor. If reactor is operating normally then no problem, if fisison rate/reactor temp is too high computer triggers valves, if valves fail they are designed to melt and allow fission to enter the core.

This is only one tiny part of the reactor.

A reactor is layered safety. Remember I said the computer starts an SCRAM by lowering the control rods. This is backed up by neutron detectors and temperature sensors in the core. If neutron rate or temp exceeds operating rate a mechanical backup (like circut breaker) releases control rods.

So you have layers upon layers upon layers of redundancies.

Gen III+ reactors take this to any even higher level of safety.
The AP1000 reactor can for example shutdown and cool the reactor core without any electrical power by using passive safety features and natural forces.

[KamaAina]

50. What if there had been a nuke in Port-au-Prince?

:scared: :scared: :scared:

[Statistical]

52. What if there had been a nuclear reactor in Japan? Oh wait there are 2 dozen of them in Japan.

[tkmorris]

59. And numerous earthquakes have they endured

The OP is just wrong. Completely, demonstrably, wrong.

[Posteritatis]

65. If Haiti could have built one there, they'd be well equipped to design it properly. (nt)

[KamaAina]

69. It's not so much the reactor itself being damaged in the quake

as all the employees' homes, roads, etc., thereby potentially leaving no one around to run it, as envisaged in the OP.

[Statistical]

72. Except the OP fantasy is just that a fantasy.

Without human interaction the reactor would shutdown and wait for humans to restart it.

It would sit there for centuries cold and quiet waiting for humans to begin restart cycle to power it up.

[tkmorris]

60. Some reading material you might find enlightening

* Japanese, and most other, nuclear plants are designed to withstand earthquakes, and in the event of major earth movement, to shut down safely.

* In 1995, the closest nuclear power plants, some 110 km north of Kobe, were unaffected by the severe Kobe-Osaka earthquake, but in 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2009 Japanese reactors shut down automatically due to ground acceleration exceeding their trip settings.

* In 1999, three nuclear reactors shut down automatically during the devastating Taiwan earthquake, and were restarted two days later.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf18.html

I'm not pro-nuke but am VERY pro-facts.

[Posteritatis]

64. I see the usual absence of FUD and logical fallacies all through this thread, of course.. (nt)

[L0oniX]

76. Try to operate a nuclear power plant ...download here ....fun fun fun ...ooops melt down!

http://www.ae4rv.com/games/nuke.htm :nuke:

Summary
You are in control of a small commercial nuclear power plant.  Your goal is to produce as much power as possible without causing a meltdown.  You will do this by running the plant up to but not beyond it's safe operating limits.  You set your control rod and coolant flow settings once per day.  Once you are satisfied with your choices hit the Next Day button and check your temperatures and power output and adjust your settings again.

The Reaction
A Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) generates electricity by forcing steam through a turbine which turns a generator just like a coal burning plant does.  The main difference between an NPP and a traditional power plant is how the water is heated that creates the steam.  Inside the reactor, uranium atoms are split which release energy (heat) and a fast moving neutron.  The neutron will split another uranium atom if it is allowed to and this causes a chain reaction of atoms splitting atoms and is known as nuclear fission.  It is a very powerful source of energy.

Controlling the Reaction
Fortunately there is a way to control the chain reaction of uranium atoms splitting each other.   A reactor is equipped with control rods which stop the neutrons from splitting nearby atoms.  If the control rods are pulled out then the reaction is allowed to occur.  Pushing the rods in, incrementally slows down the reaction by stopping some of the neutrons.  Think of the control rod settings as the "gas pedal" of the reactor.  The reactor is "off" when the control rods are all the way in.

Primary and Secondary Coolant Loops
The Primary Coolant Loop carries heat from the reactor to the heat exchanger.  As primary coolant cools the reactor, it heats the heat exchanger.  Secondary Coolant carries heat from the heat exchanger to the turbine and then on to the cooling tower.  As secondary coolant water cools the heat exchanger, it turns in to steam to power the turbine, and then collects in the cooling tower, which it heats up before it cools back down.  Another type of coolant, Emergency Coolant, serves only to cool the reactor during an emergency or prior to reactor maintenance.

Playing the Game
This is a turn-based game.  Each day you set your control inputs and then click the Next Day button.  Watch the changes and trends in machine temperatures and power output and do it again.  Remember, your goal is to produce as much electricity as you can without running the machinery past it’s limits.  Keep running the plant until the fuel level gets below 5%, at which time your performance will be evaluated.  (Note: higher control rod settings are necessary towards the end of the game as the fuel level gets lower.)

The Displays
The Main Display shows most of the main data needed to monitor the plant.  It shows all the temperatures, temperature limits, power output, value of energy produced, coolant levels and coolant leakage.  The Analog Gauges give an alternate, more visual indication of the temperatures and power output.  The Warning Lights tell you if something is wrong or past it’s limits.  Try to keep them off!

Maintenance
If leakage, coolant pump failure, or other damage occurs you will want to shut the plant down to invoke system-wide maintenance.  To do this, shut down the reactor by setting the control rods to 0.  Once the reactor temperature gets below 100 degrees the plant will shut down and all systems will be thoroughly maintained.  You can use emergency coolant to speed the cooling of the reactor.  Tip:  Emergency Coolant is not recycled like the other coolants and your supply is limited.  You will get a new supply of emergency coolant during maintenance.

[suede1]

77. Not to mention it's the most expensive type of power.

[ddeclue]

78. MORE NUCLEAR SCARE TACTICS.. if there are no people left then why should it matter?

If we all disappear then it doesn't matter. Short of that there will ALWAYS be someone there to run the reactor and shut it down.

:argh:

[grahamhgreen]

80. Because some of us care about the REST OF THE PLANET!

[MicaelS]

82. Oh please, if we're all dead then there are no

Intelligent beings left on the planet to care.

[grahamhgreen]

87. What a legacy. Most animals care about their offspring. The earth itself is a treasure.

[ddeclue]

89. Yeah but still.. if there are no people don't you think we have bigger problems to worry about?

Like what happened to all the people? Turn off "Life After People" and watch something else already.

:eyes:

[ddeclue]

86. If you actually DID and knew anything about engineering you'd be PRO NUKE.

Read my other post on radiation put out by coal plants.

[grahamhgreen]

83. Falisafes can fail. Why do we need the possibility of disaster when we can produce energy cheaper &

safer?

I don't get it - it's a fools errand - a bad plan that will enrich certain corporations at the expense of the rest of us.

Hydro is certainly the cheapest and safest.

[ddeclue]

88. Hydro is absolutely NOT the cheapest and safest.

http://www.gbra.org/Documents/HazardMitigation/Section15.pdf

"History of Dam Failures
There are about 80,000 dams in the United States today.1 Catastrophic dam failures have occurred
frequently throughout the past century. Between 1918 and 1958, 33 major U.S. dam failures caused
1,680 deaths. From 1959 to 1965, nine major dams failed worldwide. Some of the largest disasters
in the U.S. have resulted from dam failures. In 1889, 2,209 lives were lost when the South Fork Dam
failed above Johnstown, Pennsylvania. The 1928 St. Francis Dam failure killed more than 500.
During the 1970s the Buffalo Creek, Teton, and Toccoa Creek dam failures collectively cost 175
lives and more than $1 billion in losses."

http://www.fema.gov/hazard/damfailure/index.shtm

"There are are more than 80,000 dams in the United States, according to the 2007 update to the National Inventory of Dams. Approximately one third of these pose a "high" or "significant" hazard to life and property if failure occurs."

This is an ongoing problem:
http://www.damsafety.org/media/Documents/PRESS/US_FailuresIncidents.pdf

[Statistical]

92. Hydro kills a lot of people and causes extensive habitate damage.

[Pavulon]

107. As dear leader hugo chavez found out this year

that technology requires rain. Rolling blackouts ensued.

[SidDithers]

85. Unrec for extreme innacuracy...

though the responses from Statistical in this thread should be required reading for anyone with questions about nuclear safety.

Sid

[ThomWV]

90. Un-Rec for a whole host of reasons, but mostly because they don't melt down, they shut down

[jobwithout]

98. Everyone on both sides of the issue is wrong.

And I have the empirical evidence to prove it. I got it at http://wwww.ihavetoberight.com . Go ahead and take a look and if you disagree with me ill have you look at http://www.youarewrong.com.

Really people, the road to energy independence is not as straight as any of us would like. Id love to be using 100% carbon free energy right as we speak but that just isn't possible. If nuclear the answer..no its not but it could be a small part of the answer.

My suspicion it that in 50 years so many of us would have been wrong and there may even be a source of renewable energy than none of us could have imagined.

[hayu_lol]

99. Anyone on either side of this question want to go to 100%...

coal fired plants? Anyone here want to shut down civilization as we know it because we failed to plan to have sufficient power to sustain said civilization.

Without sufficient power to keep us alive and supposedly working, we are going the way of the Dodo.

Green energy will give us a limited amount of power...but will not sustain today's electrical usage. Here come the electric cars...when will be power be available?

[Confusious]

101. And wolverine and laser eye guy with no mouth

Could have a fight on the top of the cooling tower, and that would create a big mess!

Or bigfoot could get pissed off and pull the fire alarm!

or aliens could come down and attack us all

and the moon landing were faked, and floride in our water is a communist plot!

[bridgit]

102. You mean of people just walked out the door, cause there is a shutdown protocol I am sure

[DCBob]

110. I guess if there were "no people" we might have a bigger problem than just a nuke plant meltdown..

IMO.