Comments on: The Future of Nuclear Energy? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/03/14/the-future-of-nuclear-energy/ Where science collides with life, slams into culture, crashes with politics, and gets totaled. Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:28:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Atlanta Roofing http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/03/14/the-future-of-nuclear-energy/#comment-92847 Atlanta Roofing Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:01:58 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16762#comment-92847 Three Mile Island was never as bad as some in the media tried to make it (not even close to Japan's situation). Should know as my home town and family are approximately 19 miles from the plant. Three Mile Island was never as bad as some in the media tried to make it (not even close to Japan’s situation). Should know as my home town and family are approximately 19 miles from the plant.

]]> By: Eric the Leaf http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/03/14/the-future-of-nuclear-energy/#comment-92807 Eric the Leaf Wed, 16 Mar 2011 01:28:17 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16762#comment-92807 "God help us; we're in the hands of engineers." --Ian Malcolm “God help us; we’re in the hands of engineers.”

–Ian Malcolm

]]> By: Razib Khan http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/03/14/the-future-of-nuclear-energy/#comment-92658 Razib Khan Tue, 15 Mar 2011 05:04:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16762#comment-92658 yes before, and yes after. yes before, and yes after.

]]> By: Gary B http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/03/14/the-future-of-nuclear-energy/#comment-92656 Gary B Tue, 15 Mar 2011 04:39:32 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16762#comment-92656 I think it's interesting that it seems the media is completely deaf to the prospects of alternative nuclear systems such as the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor), also known in more general terms as the Molten Salt Reactor. There has been quite a rumble going on for several years in the nuclear community about this technology, India is already constructing a hybrid Thorium reactor, the economics, safety engineering and physics are all quite compelling, yet no mainstream media outlet that I am aware of has published a line of 'news'. One would think that with all the chasing after every new technology, the 'latest widget', etc. in every news medium, that this particularly interesting technology would not get more press, more investigation. Perhaps with this latest disaster showing the obvious problems with the classic light water reactors such as those in Japan and the US, this apparently much better technology will get some traction. I think it’s interesting that it seems the media is completely deaf to the prospects of alternative nuclear systems such as the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor), also known in more general terms as the Molten Salt Reactor. There has been quite a rumble going on for several years in the nuclear community about this technology, India is already constructing a hybrid Thorium reactor, the economics, safety engineering and physics are all quite compelling, yet no mainstream media outlet that I am aware of has published a line of ‘news’. One would think that with all the chasing after every new technology, the ‘latest widget’, etc. in every news medium, that this particularly interesting technology would not get more press, more investigation. Perhaps with this latest disaster showing the obvious problems with the classic light water reactors such as those in Japan and the US, this apparently much better technology will get some traction.

]]> By: Brian Too http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/03/14/the-future-of-nuclear-energy/#comment-92621 Brian Too Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:25:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16762#comment-92621 Honestly, I think this has set nuclear power back. The public only wants to hear a story about how nuclear power is completely controlled. This episode sends a message that, in this case, it was not controlled. Primary and secondary systems both failed and then the discussion is about a meltdown. You know, as soon as I heard about that I became concerned myself. Why are we having to talk about a meltdown if modern reactor designs are so safe? And spare me the the lecture about how these reactors aren't modern, or aren't North American, or aren't this or that or the other. A meltdown can't happen because that undermines all the soothing talk from nuclear proponents. End of story. Perhaps the only reactor designs we should be talking about are inherently stable designs, ones that shut themselves off. Such designs exists but are not normally considered as big power generation designs (so far as I know). I think the issue is, and I might be off base here, but true fail-safe designs do not have the same power generating potential as more mainstream designs. In inherently stable reactors, you have to "do something" to start or continue the nuclear reaction. Any failure to prime (and keep priming) the system results in an automatic shutdown. The reactor always defaults to a safe shutdown. The Oklo natural reactor had such a system, both simple and elegant. However it could not generate megawatts of power. Honestly, I think this has set nuclear power back. The public only wants to hear a story about how nuclear power is completely controlled. This episode sends a message that, in this case, it was not controlled. Primary and secondary systems both failed and then the discussion is about a meltdown.

You know, as soon as I heard about that I became concerned myself. Why are we having to talk about a meltdown if modern reactor designs are so safe? And spare me the the lecture about how these reactors aren’t modern, or aren’t North American, or aren’t this or that or the other. A meltdown can’t happen because that undermines all the soothing talk from nuclear proponents. End of story.

Perhaps the only reactor designs we should be talking about are inherently stable designs, ones that shut themselves off. Such designs exists but are not normally considered as big power generation designs (so far as I know). I think the issue is, and I might be off base here, but true fail-safe designs do not have the same power generating potential as more mainstream designs.

In inherently stable reactors, you have to “do something” to start or continue the nuclear reaction. Any failure to prime (and keep priming) the system results in an automatic shutdown. The reactor always defaults to a safe shutdown.

The Oklo natural reactor had such a system, both simple and elegant. However it could not generate megawatts of power.

]]> By: Jocie http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/03/14/the-future-of-nuclear-energy/#comment-92570 Jocie Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:22:11 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16762#comment-92570 No to nuclear energy pre-Quake/Tsunami and a hell no to Nuclear Energy post Quake/Tsunami. The Tsunami has certainly taken many lives in Japan, but now think of the difficulties and health implications the people will have to endure because of carcinogenic radioactive exposure. It's estimated that the Chernobyl disaster could have resulted in the upwards of 200,000 lives after the years following it. I just can't comprehend why with all the other alternative sources of renewable LEGIT clean energy, why risk lives, scares and disasters with energy such as Nuclear. It may be categorized as alternative, but I would certainly on the lowest of levels right next to coal and fossil fuels. No to nuclear energy pre-Quake/Tsunami and a hell no to Nuclear Energy post Quake/Tsunami. The Tsunami has certainly taken many lives in Japan, but now think of the difficulties and health implications the people will have to endure because of carcinogenic radioactive exposure. It’s estimated that the Chernobyl disaster could have resulted in the upwards of 200,000 lives after the years following it. I just can’t comprehend why with all the other alternative sources of renewable LEGIT clean energy, why risk lives, scares and disasters with energy such as Nuclear. It may be categorized as alternative, but I would certainly on the lowest of levels right next to coal and fossil fuels.

]]> By: Uncle Al http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/03/14/the-future-of-nuclear-energy/#comment-92569 Uncle Al Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:57:54 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16762#comment-92569 When you design, build, and install your core cooling backups... have at least one person on the team who can spell "common mode failure." NASA is poster hominid for multiple layers of FUBAR CYA that are all neutralized by the FUBAR. Now, Japan. Dolly Parton by the Sea (San Onofre, Southern California) was built against the largest temblor (7.0) and highest tsunami (30 ft) imaginable. Guards have been injured informally practicing quick draws - notably one in the men's room. This sets the theme for the whole place: punctiliously documented suppression of competence. When you design, build, and install your core cooling backups… have at least one person on the team who can spell “common mode failure.” NASA is poster hominid for multiple layers of FUBAR CYA that are all neutralized by the FUBAR. Now, Japan.

Dolly Parton by the Sea (San Onofre, Southern California) was built against the largest temblor (7.0) and highest tsunami (30 ft) imaginable. Guards have been injured informally practicing quick draws – notably one in the men’s room. This sets the theme for the whole place: punctiliously documented suppression of competence.

]]> By: Chris http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/03/14/the-future-of-nuclear-energy/#comment-92550 Chris Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:53:46 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16762#comment-92550 The Tsunami has killed more people than this nuclear disaster ever will. And yet we will never hear an outcry to move people away from the Oregon and Washington coasts because of the remote yet real possibility that a Tsunami of that magnitude could strike there. The Tsunami has killed more people than this nuclear disaster ever will. And yet we will never hear an outcry to move people away from the Oregon and Washington coasts because of the remote yet real possibility that a Tsunami of that magnitude could strike there.

]]> By: Guy LaCrosse http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/03/14/the-future-of-nuclear-energy/#comment-92539 Guy LaCrosse Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:32:40 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16762#comment-92539 I think Japan should switch offshore wind and solar. I think Japan should switch offshore wind and solar.

]]> By: radioactivegan http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/03/14/the-future-of-nuclear-energy/#comment-92535 radioactivegan Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:07:23 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=16762#comment-92535 I think the events in Japan just go to show that nuclear power really is safe. All reactors are designed to withstand earthquakes to some degree, and these reactors ALL withstood the strongest earthquake in Japan in 100 years with no damage to the (primary) containment building or the (secondary) reactor building. The plants in Japan are also designed to withstand tsunamis up to 6.5 meters; unfortunately the tsunami they experienced surpassed this, knocking out some of the back-up diesel generators. While it's clear that Fukushima unit 1 is lost for future operation, I don't think we're going to see any dangerous offsite doses from it. In my mind, this just shows that, with proper consideration for the acts of nature and well-trained, competent personnel (the operators and engineers in Japan have really made some excellent decisions in a very short amount of time to mitigate the effects of these natural disasters), nuclear power is a safe source of electricity and energy. What's more, these plant designs are legacy at this point. Newer designs are even safer, with passive cooling systems that are not reliant on off site power to maintain core temperature. I think the events in Japan just go to show that nuclear power really is safe. All reactors are designed to withstand earthquakes to some degree, and these reactors ALL withstood the strongest earthquake in Japan in 100 years with no damage to the (primary) containment building or the (secondary) reactor building. The plants in Japan are also designed to withstand tsunamis up to 6.5 meters; unfortunately the tsunami they experienced surpassed this, knocking out some of the back-up diesel generators. While it’s clear that Fukushima unit 1 is lost for future operation, I don’t think we’re going to see any dangerous offsite doses from it. In my mind, this just shows that, with proper consideration for the acts of nature and well-trained, competent personnel (the operators and engineers in Japan have really made some excellent decisions in a very short amount of time to mitigate the effects of these natural disasters), nuclear power is a safe source of electricity and energy.

What’s more, these plant designs are legacy at this point. Newer designs are even safer, with passive cooling systems that are not reliant on off site power to maintain core temperature.

]]>