HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
<<  <  Page 13/16  >  >>
ChasChas
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Good news for nuclear
ChasChas   4/29/2013 1:41:01 PM
 

All nuclear plants should be on huge barges by the ocean.

When trouble comes, they can be quickly towed out to sea and repaired or sunk.

What could be safer? This seems the procedure for the Navy. They have the best safety record.

NiteOwl_OvO
User Rank
Gold
Re: Nuclear still safer
NiteOwl_OvO   4/29/2013 1:31:41 PM
What about the 980,000+ deaths attributed to the Chernobyl catastrophe?

Source:

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan).
Volume 1181, December 2009
335 Pages

NiteOwl_OvO
User Rank
Gold
Re: Good news for nuclear
NiteOwl_OvO   4/29/2013 1:18:42 PM
I happen to live very near TMI and I would much rather live near a modern coal burning power plant. There are too many incidents at TMI. Like the one last year (September 2012) where radioactive steam was released into the atmosphere. The original news reports stated that the core was briefly exposed, but there was no danger to the public. That news story has been scrubbed. I read that it was another case of a stuck valve at TMI, which limited coolant flow causing the coolant to overheat. A safety valve popped releasing radioactive steam and triggering a shutdown of the reactor. At least the auto-shutdown functioned. Otherwise, we might have had a repeat of 1979.

ab3a
User Rank
Platinum
Re: World Trade Center
ab3a   4/29/2013 12:40:14 PM
There is a saying in aviation: A new design of an aircraft will not be issued until the weight of the paperwork in the application exceeds the weight of the aircraft. I believe nuclear power plants are the same way. 

As an aside: please get your facts right. At the time the WTC was designed, the 707 was the state of the art. There was no 737. 

But that's not the point of discussion here.

The failure at the Fukushima Daichi was not really a failure of nuclear power as much as it was a failure of civil engineering to protect the plant. The design parameters were simply too lenient.

There are new plant designs that are more fail-safe. The new AP 1000 design has finally been approved by the NRC. China is building on these designs now.

Regarding the learning experiences, allow me to point out that when the review process is as long and bureaucratic as anything in Nuclear is, the opportunity to "learn" anything is diminished. We have used bureaucracy to bollix up nuclear engineering to the point where we have little hope of being permitted to improve upon existing designs. Furthermore, if you chose to build something that might be revolutionary, such as a thorium fuel based reactor, you might as well give up right now.

The answer will almost always be NO, even if it is a vast improvement over what we are doing now. Since the days of TMI, we have staffed the industry with drones who would be lost without their paperwork.

Oddly enough, if we want a safer industry, we need to allow for innovation, and that means we need to make it less bureaucratic. There is an extreme at both ends of the spectrum. We went from an anything goes environment of the 1960s to an uber bureaucratic insanity by the 1990s. While I'm not in favor of removing all bureaucratic review, we need to allow for some lighter weight review cycles if we have any hope of updating anything. 

 

Jake Brodsky

Mwitthof
User Rank
Bronze
Test pass is correct
Mwitthof   4/29/2013 11:57:29 AM
Given the catastrophic events that let to the issue at Fukishima, and comparing it with the Chernobyl incident it seems that this plant did indeed contain a vast amount of radaition when put under unbelievable stress. However what this shows is opportunities for future plants that can survive something in this magnitude or greater thru automation, perhaps shutdown protocol could have averted even this paltry exposure???

Rob Spiegel
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Good news for nuclear
Rob Spiegel   4/29/2013 11:49:29 AM
Nice list of the shortcomings, Patb2009. A lot of the regulatory control over the energy industry has been gutted during the last few decades. So I'm not surprised a post-Fukushima operation could get the OK without new retraints

Rob Spiegel
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Good news for nuclear
Rob Spiegel   4/29/2013 11:41:36 AM
Good point on the comparison to coal, Chuck. If you add in the risks involved in extracting coal (health as well as accidents), Nuclear energy begins to look very good. 

naperlou
User Rank
Blogger
Nuclear still safer
naperlou   4/29/2013 11:16:13 AM
Chuck, as your article points out, the number of illnesses and deaths from a really bad nuclear power plant accident are very low.  Even those out year predictions are just that, predictions.  Here in Chicago, there is a coal fired plant that opponents claim cause many more illnesses that claimed for Fukushima. 

With the desire to reduce carbon emissions and provide abundant power clashing, it is a real shame that more people don't look at the actual numbers.

GeorgeG
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Good news for nuclear
GeorgeG   4/29/2013 10:11:22 AM
Your teacher was not wrong: 1) nuclear reactors only pose a threat to health if they have a substantial failure; coal plants provide a continuous and ongoing threat. 2) under normal conditions, exposure to fugitive radioactive ions is higher for coal. There are a number of scientific studies that make this conclusion. 3) the total accessible exposure is higher for coal plants because they are in greater number and less judiciously sited. 4) other emmissions such as mercury, arsenic, VOCs, sulphides, fine particulates, etc. from coal are unmatched by nuclear. 5) the volume of hazardous solid waste produced is much higher and less well contained with coal compared to nuclear. 

BrusselsSprout
User Rank
Gold
Does being lucky really constitute success?
BrusselsSprout   4/29/2013 10:02:37 AM
  I am an avowed proponent of nuclear power, just not the type that the US government has instituted.  I do not consider the Fukushima power plant a measure of success.

  Ask yourself what would the present conditions be like if this been a coal fired plant instead of a nuclear power plant?  The affected zone would have been confined to the facility and we would not be arguing about measures of success, for two things.

  There are some amazing oversights in the implementation of this power plant that were apparent long before this earthquake.  That they were not addressed is a condemnation of the culture, both there and abroad.  I know we can do better so I am not ready to condemn nuclear power because of the failure at Fukishima.

  To argue that we can use wind and solar power as a substitute for nuclear. coal or natural gas power plants does not even merit a response.

  Given what we know already, we have the ability to do nuclear power safely.  That we haven't yet is an example of the same failure mode in culture that is clearly demonstrated by the Fukushima power plant and US government mandates.

<<  <  Page 13/16  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Take a look at the top 20 US undergraduate engineering programs. Then tell us -- did your school make the cut?
Producing high-quality end-production metal parts with additive manufacturing for applications like aerospace and medical requires very tightly controlled processes and materials. New standards and guidelines for machines and processes, materials, and printed parts are underway from bodies such as ASTM International.
Engineers at the University of San Diego’s Jacobs School of Engineering have designed biobatteries on commercial tattoo paper, with an anode and cathode screen-printed on and modified to harvest energy from lactate in a person’s sweat.
A Silicon Valley company has made the biggest splash yet in the high-performance end of the electric car market, announcing an EV that zips from 0 to 60 mph in 3.4 seconds and costs $529,000.
The biggest robot swarm to date is made of 1,000 Kilobots, which can follow simple rules to autonomously assemble into predetermined shapes. Hardware and software are open-source.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
7/23/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/17/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
6/25/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
5/13/2014 10:00 a.m. California / 1:00 p.m. New York / 6:00 p.m. London
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Sep 8 - 12, Get Ready for the New Internet: IPv6
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: September 30 - October 2
Sponsored by Altera
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service