For those who think all nuclear power is safe: A story from just this week - Page 4

Emfuser · 08-07-2006, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Do you think it's safe enough to really integrate into communities? Or should they be distanced enough that if something does go wrong, there's not as much of an impact from any radiation?

My personal worry is that despite precautions to make a reactor as safe as possible, there's still the lingering possibility that it could completely melt down and the number of deaths could be quite large..

Is that not the case?

You don't integrate a nuclear power plant INTO a community simply on the fact that it's going to be a huge, unattractive industrial site. Even with the newer designs phenomenal accident probability risk assessments being 1 every 10^7 or so years, they'd still be cited away from population centers just so people have that lay man's peace of mind.

motivez · 08-07-2006, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Emfuser

Ok

So, despite the failure of some of the electrical failsafes, other redundant ones picked up just fine.

I don't know why that clown said some shit about "almost a meltdown", but that wasn't. Those are boiling water reactors so the information they spit back about core covering depth and system balances was fine.

AREN'T YOU ALL GLAD TO KNOW THAT A 30 YEAR OLD REACTOR DESIGN THAT'S NOT EVEN UP TO US STANDARDS DID WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO TO MITIGATE AN ACCIDENT?

kthx

So on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is "zomg everyone is dead because the nuclear plant just melted down", how close was this to being a disaster?

I suppose that depends on the number of redundant system which may not be public knowledge (haven't had a chance to check the article yet)

6SpeedTA95 · 08-07-2006, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Emfuser

Ok

So, despite the failure of some of the electrical failsafes, other redundant ones picked up just fine.

I don't know why that clown said some shit about "almost a meltdown", but that wasn't. Those are boiling water reactors so the information they spit back about core covering depth and system balances was fine.

AREN'T YOU ALL GLAD TO KNOW THAT A 30 YEAR OLD REACTOR DESIGN THAT'S NOT EVEN UP TO US STANDARDS DID WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO TO MITIGATE AN ACCIDENT?

kthx

PetriW · 08-07-2006, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Do you think it's safe enough to really integrate into communities? Or should they be distanced enough that if something does go wrong, there's not as much of an impact from any radiation?

My personal worry is that despite precautions to make a reactor as safe as possible, there's still the lingering possibility that it could completely melt down and the number of deaths could be quite large..

Is that not the case?

And this is why we have chemical plants INSIDE cities? What about refineries? You have any idea about the destructive power of those? And those burn a damn lot more often than nuclear plants.

There is a crapload of stuff that's really really dangerous all around us, from refineries, power plants, airports (airplanes do fall from time to time!), to firework factories and chemical plants.

I don't know about the US but it's not too rare you read about some quite nasty accidents at those places.

Emfuser · 08-07-2006, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is "zomg everyone is dead because the nuclear plant just melted down", how close was this to being a disaster?

I suppose that depends on the number of redundant system which may not be public knowledge (haven't had a chance to check the article yet)

Not even close

All of your fission product barriers have to be breached for that to happen, and in the worst way.

Chernobyl would be a 10

TMI would be a 6-7

This would be a 1-2

Using a numerical scale to rate events in such complex plants is a bit inaccurate.

Emfuser · 08-07-2006, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by PetriW

And this is why we have chemical plants INSIDE cities? What about refineries? You have any idea about the destructive power of those? And those burn a damn lot more often than nuclear plants.

There is a crapload of stuff that's really really dangerous all around us, from refineries, power plants, airports (airplanes do fall from time to time!), to firework factories and chemical plants.

I don't know about the US but it's not too rare you read about some quite nasty accidents at those places.

Yes, I know full well just how dangerous those facilities are and how much they're lacking in safety and human performance compared to the nuclear industry.

PetriW · 08-07-2006, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Emfuser

Yes, I know full well just how dangerous those facilities are and how much they're lacking in safety and human performance compared to the nuclear industry.

We're in total agreement!

ballz2wallz · 08-07-2006, 06:27 PM

did em join this site just for this thread?

Emfuser · 08-07-2006, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

did em join this site just for this thread?

I was invited here for this, yes.

archangel003 · 08-07-2006, 06:58 PM

So in the US, this would be nothing more than a DOE Notification of Unusual Event, right Emfuser?

Emfuser · 08-07-2006, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by archangel003

So in the US, this would be nothing more than a DOE Notification of Unusual Event, right Emfuser?

Yes, likely an NUE.

hsmith · 08-07-2006, 07:42 PM

As I said before, how is this not safe? The system did exactly what it was supposed to do

Concept · 08-07-2006, 10:32 PM

It is a safe system, but just like flying an airplane, which is also quite safe, it can have drastic effects if it for some reason didn't do what it was supposed to.

Chernobyl. I realize that our technology has increased massively since then, but still, it is a great example of what may happen.

JaJae · 08-07-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Concept

It is a safe system, but just like flying an airplane, which is also quite safe, it can have drastic effects if it for some reason didn't do what it was supposed to.

Chernobyl. I realize that our technology has increased massively since then, but still, it is a great example of what may happen.

Chernobyl could never happen in this country. Chernobyl happened because of communism. Not nuclear technology.

There was never a time in history where US nuclear power was as unsafe as that fiasco.

Kytro · 08-07-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Concept

Chernobyl. I realize that our technology has increased massively since then, but still, it is a great example of what may happen.

So there is a risk. Does not mean one shouldn't proceed

JaJae · 08-07-2006, 10:41 PM

I figure I'd give a background of Chernobyl...

Took place in communist Russia obviously. They housed the system in an aluminum shed and the operators weren't properly trained.

They never vented the steam from the reactor and it displaced the water which is used to cool the rods. They overheated, had a meltdown and there was no containment system at all.

Concept · 08-07-2006, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Chernobyl could never happen in this country. Chernobyl happened because of communism. Not nuclear technology.

There was never a time in history where US nuclear power was as unsafe as that fiasco.

You're right, but I really wanted to point out Chernobyl more for the effects that may occur should something like that happen rather than the reasons for why it happened.

JaJae · 08-07-2006, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

So there is a risk. Does not mean one shouldn't proceed

More people have died in accidents related coal power plants than nuclear ones. That doesn't include the pollutant effects.

Concept · 08-07-2006, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

So there is a risk. Does not mean one shouldn't proceed

No, it doesn't, just that one should be concerned with risks. Just like flying an airplane.

Kytro · 08-07-2006, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by Concept

No, it doesn't, just that one should be concerned with risks. Just like flying an airplane.

Which in general is the case