The nuclear power industry will always be handicapped by the absence of a single responsible person, á lá the Navy's Admiral Hyman Rickover. There was never any doubt what would happen if Navsea 08 found out you were compromising reactor safety. Rickover once relieved three enlisted and three officers, including a Captain, for technicians not having the calibration procedure for a nuclear instrument open to the correct page while working.

That's the reason the Navy has operated hundreds of nuclear reactors within feet of the public with no significant public outcry. Yes, ships are horrendously expensive to build correctly, and their powerplants are actually tiny next to those providing electrical power to a careless public - but the principle stands.

There is an element of Naval reactor operation which may never be duplicated by shore operators: sailors all know in their bones that if the plant doesn't work right, you might die before you get to shore. You don't get to leave, go home, get away at all when you work, eat and sleep right there, every moment, with the sea's endless appetite looking for another hapless body. In contrast, I can show you where I work today dozens of people who are just there for a paycheck, and who are cheerfully unconcerned when something doesn't work or a reference document contains errors.

They go home, you see.

Not just nuclear, they also have it in for hydro. Just pour more $$$ into wind, solar, and ethanol.

Nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar are all wonderful options that have a place in a properly diversified energy portfolio.

The only issue with nuclear is that it really has no place in regions of high seismic activity (i.e., Hawaii or the west coast).

So not 30 miles away from where I sit are three reactors, of the same design as the ones at Fukushima. In 2011 we had the tornado outbreak here, and a tornado went through the plant's electrical yard, cutting it off from the grid. But a tornado is a foreseeable event here, and somebody long ago made it their business to think about that. The plant was able to start generators, and switch in a backup circuit that didn't go through the main yard, and by that they were able to safely scram and maintain control of the reactors.

This same plant had had an accident back around 1975 where some workers did something stupid and started a fire in some cable tunnels. The plant was closed for a long time after that, partly for repairs but mostly due to national paranoia. Around 1995, after literally decades of doing paperwork, TVA finally got permission to began restarting it. Now all three reactors have been operating for over 15 years with no problems, feeding electricity to a growing region and serving the function of fossil-fuel plants that would otherwise have to be built. Other than people who live in the immediate vicinity, hardly anyone ever thinks about them. They are a non-issue.

In the long run, they will eventually have to be replaced. All of the commercial reactors operating in the United States today are first-generation designs, based on concepts drawn up in the 1950s. Both the reactors themselves, and most of their control systems, are obsolete technology. (This was recognized in the investigation of the Three Mile Island accident, back in 1979.) Today, designs for much better reactors exist, ones that are inherently safer, more efficient, and create less radioactive waste. They can't be built because government and public paranoia stand in the way.

Energy policy in the U.S. has totally devolved into magical thinking. There's almost no one in Washington that has any serious policy proposals. There's a widespread belief that a few wind farms and solar panels, presumably made from unicorn horns, can easily supply all the energy that the country needs if only "the evil oil companies" could be moved out of the way. A lot of people seriously believe that none of coal, oil, or nuclear is necessary. Of course, a lot of those same people also believe that the public should "make sacrifices", while they themselves continue to enjoy the lifestyle they presently have. If hypocrisy and ignorance could generate electricity, we'd have an unlimited supply.

"The only issue with nuclear is that it really has no place in regions of high seismic activity"

Whelp, I guess we need to evacuate all those areas. If a modern nuclear plant is 'too dangerous' to operate in those areas it is probably too dangerous for human life.

The technology has advanced since the 1950s.

Whenever someone mentions Fukushima, I have to ask them something like, "What measures do you suggest to protect against the entire island nation of Japan jumping eight feet?"

And as Ben suggests, just what is prudent about allowing so many to live along the San Andreas and other faults? The death toll there for The Big One is going to dwarf our nuclear accidents.
The little one at Northridge killed more people immediately than Chernobyl did.

But it'll be "natural"!

Everything is just fine...

Whenever someone mentions Fukushima, I have to ask them something like, "What measures do you suggest to protect against the entire island nation of Japan jumping eight feet?"

Tell me if I'm wrong Rad, but from what I gathered from articles afterwards, it seem the plant would have been fine if they hadn't tried to save money by putting the emergency generators in a god damn basement and built the reinforced bunkers up the side of an onsite hill like the plans originally called for

Hindsight will always find a flaw, but that short assessment didn't notice that the tsunami was ~45 feet high, topping a ~19 foot seawall.

Obviously, if they'd chosen a different location for the entire plant, things could have gone better, too.

I don't recall suggesting that people living in regions of high risk for seismic activity was a great idea.

The point is that we have not demonstrated the capability of designing a nuclear facility that can survive the kind of earth quake or volcanic eruption that is possible along certain fault lines.

As a result it presents an unreasonable hazard to construct one in those regions when there is much more stable ground elsewhere and the nice thing about electricity is that it can travel from one place to another.

Nuclear is a wonderful option... but you have to be smart about where you deploy it. As it stands Illinois gets large quantities of power from Nuclear, that is a great location as the chances for a large earthquake are very low.

You need to educate yourself on nuclear technology Artemis. Fukushima was 1950s technology. In 60 years we have learned quite a bit.

What do you think would happen to a pebble bed reactor under the same conditions? I'll tell you, maybe you scatter some of the fuel around the area. How do you fix it? Put a guy in a rad suit with a shovel and a Geiger. Shovel the radioactive bits into a container. Wash the dirt off and put it away. Fix any damaged buildings and you are back in business. Period. End of story.

We have chosen the most dangerous option by refusing to upgrade any of our nuclear plants to modern designs. Intrinsically safe solutions are available, but legally we just can't use them.

Also, if you are worried about death via nuclear power you need some level of comparison.

Here are the deaths/trillion kWhr
Coal – global average 100,000
Coal – U.S. 10,000
Oil 36,000
Natural Gas 4,000
Biofuel/Biomass 24,000
Solar (rooftop) 440
Wind 150
Hydro – global average 1,400
Hydro – U.S. 0.01
Nuclear – global average 90
Nuclear – U.S. 0.01

This includes deaths related to mining and power plant disasters. So those 90 for the global nuclear death toll include Chernobyl and the like. Additionally, the US nuclear death total is overestimated.

Mind I'm not in the nuclear power industry. I develop oil field tools, so I'm a competitor. But these are the numbers.

Ben,

You are doing it again and having a conversation where you are WAY out of your depth.

I have not once mentioned Fukushima... yet this is what you believe I am talking about and ends up being the basis for your argument.

Here we are again where you base your entire argument on a fallacy... in this case it is called the straw man fallacy.

That is where you make up your opponents argument and then attack that as opposed to actually addressing what they actually said.

When you are ready to have a logical conversation let me know... until then your lack of reason prevents me from having a real conversation with you.

Also... I am not concerned at all about death via nuclear as compared to alternatives.

I am quite comfortable with nuclear, but like all portions of an energy portfolio they have a proper place to deploy and integrate into the grid.

Artemis -- how the hell do you talk about this issue without bringing up alternatives?

"I am quite comfortable with nuclear, but like all portions of an energy portfolio they have a proper place to deploy and integrate into the grid."
Right there, to establish those "proper places", you have to consider alternatives!

"As it stands Illinois gets large quantities of power from Nuclear, that is a great location as the chances for a large earthquake are very low."

New Madrid fault isn't all that far away. I have a buddy who worked at Quad Cities a few years ago; they think about it.

Artemis,

You made the rather irrational claim that nuclear power cannot be safely used around geologically unstable areas.

"The only issue with nuclear is that it really has no place in regions of high seismic activity ..."

As I pointed out, bull shit. Don't use antique technology. Nuclear is far safer than any alternative. The stats are undeniable.

Ben,

Here is the problem with the way you operate.

I certainly made a claim... but you never even bothered to ask for my justification or my reasons BEFORE declaring that the claim was in an of itself "irrational".

You don't have the foggiest clue why I made the claim or what data or reasons support my contention... yet you presume to understand all of this in great detail.

That is stupidity on your part.

If you were the least interested in having a real discussion you would have started this conversation by asking what my supporting logic or evidence was prior to setting up straw man arguments that I never made.

Now if you are interested in having an adult and rational conversation on this topic you are going to have to put on your big boy pants and do something that I know is very difficult for you... you are going to have to ask me why I made the claim I did without first assuming it was based entirely our of ignorance as opposed to me having a set of reasons to back up my contention.

That is how reasonable people talk to one another... you should try it sometime.

Radwaste Says:

"how the hell do you talk about this issue without bringing up alternatives?"

That is some pretty nice selective reading you have going there.

How did you manage to see the part where I talk about a balanced energy portfolio and miss the section where I said this:

"Nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar are all wonderful options that have a place in a properly diversified energy portfolio."

I listed a number of energy alternatives that you conveniently managed to ignore.

You know what Ben, I am going to try and make this easy for you since calm rational discourse isn't exactly your forte.

Lets start by evaluating the following question.

Over what time frame should a nuclear plant be able to resist the impact of seismic activity?

10 years?
100 years?
1000 years?
more?

This has to be the starting point as without understanding this we cannot possibly estimate the largest seismic event that a plant will potentially encounter.

If a building only has to resist seismic events for 50 years you do not have to design it the same way as if it needs to remain resilient over the course of 250.

Please keep in mind that nuclear plants aren't like other structures. If a skyscraper crumbles after 100 years you end up with a pile of rubble... if a nuclear plant crumbles you end up potentially exposing an entire region to radioactive material that can result in the region being essentially uninhabitable for upwards of 10,000 years.

That is a significant difference that needs to be accounted for in any risk analysis that goes above and beyond the very simplistic comparison you have been making.

"...if a nuclear plant crumbles you end up potentially exposing an entire region to radioactive material that can result in the region being essentially uninhabitable for upwards of 10,000 years."

FALSE!!! Please learn about modern nuclear plant design. It ain't the 1950s anymore.

Ben,

I would happily concede the point if you could provide one shred of evidence that a crumbled structure remains safe for hundreds of years.

You are drastically overestimating several when it comes to reactor design and testing.

Read this article for more information:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/nuclear-power-plants-and-earthquakes.aspx

In particular I want to point out quotes such as these:

"Japan's Rokkasho reprocessing plant and associated facilities are also built on stable rock and are designed to withstand an earthquake of magnitude 8.25 there."

"In April 2013 a magnitude 7.7 earthquake in Iran caused no damage according to Iran’s report to IAEA, though some cracking of concrete was later reported. The plant is designed to withstand magnitude 8 quakes."

Please note that modern nuclear facilities are typically designed to withstand seismic events that score ~8 on the Richter scale.

That is great, but there is a problem... that isn't the maximum potential earthquake that scientists now predict are possible.

You might also want to read this article that details what I am talking about:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one

Pay close attention to this part:

"If the entire zone gives way at once, an event that seismologists call a full-margin rupture, the magnitude will be somewhere between 8.7 and 9.2."

Please note that 9.2 on the Rickter scale is 10 times as powerful as the earthquakes that these "modern" facilities are designed to handle.

It hasn't even been demonstrated that we are able to construct a plant that can handle a 9+ event without significant issues.

That is the problem Ben... it really is quite simple.

All you need to know is that 9 is larger than 8.

The problem is that you, like most other people who remain ignorant of our under-designed plants look at the fact that they have been designed to handle an 8 looks great on paper because 9's are so infrequent.

The issue is that these plants are long-lived and as a result are likely to encounter a 9 at some point in the future... if they aren't able to handle a 9 (and I stress that they haven't been designed to handle a 9... nor is it clear that such a structure can be designed that is cost effective) then they have no business being constructed in regions of high seismic activity.

I rest my case.

Ben,

Just to summarize to make things simple for you.

It isn't that I need learn about modern nuclear plant design.

It is that you need to learn the simple mathematical fact that 9 is bigger than 8.

The issue here is not my ignorance of nuclear plant design but rather your apparent ignorance of earthquake potential along certain subduction zones that exceed the design specifications of modern reactors.

Classic Artemis, insults to try and cover ignorance.

"Japan's Rokkasho reprocessing plant" key word there. I actually agree that spent fuel reprocessing plants should be built in seismically safe areas. I further feel these should be military projects due to the ease of nuclear weapons proliferation issues such structures present.

Now you figure out what happens when a Gen IV pebble bed reactor ruptures in an earthquake. It sure don't go nova. There is no gas explosion spreading fuel material all over kingdom come. No 10,000 years of inhabitability. You clean up the site and rebuild.

Now the critics of pebble bed reactors have valid concerns. Economic fuel deposits are currently rare. Recycling spent fuel is more expensive. So there is a valid economic concern. Also the claims that no radioactivity escapes from the site I expect are not valid. But there will be less than a coal power plant typically produces.

Your concerns about the numbers 8 and 9 are completely beside the point. Eventually you will get a 10 or some other event will cause a failure. Perfection just is not an option. The solution is to design things so that when a failure occurs you fail in a safe direction. This is why I'm not a fan of sodium cooled designs. Yes it is economic, but eventually you will have a leak and when that sodium encounters water it will explode. Lead is better but I still have reservations.

Radwaste,

If you are still around have you kept up with current fusion research? I must admit I'm a bit behind the times. I've never approved of Tokamak designs. I just don't see how they can get around the no exhaust port issue. Mind, I've been wrong before. But the linear pinch method looked promising to me. I also liked the fusor design, though mostly because it is already a commercial product (all be it not for power generation). Over and over we see improvements in currently commercial products outpacing the speed of basic research in a revolutionary product. A milling small experiments doing more than one giant one. Though I admit the fusor has similar issue with the Tokamak.

Just curious about your views.

Ben says:

"If you are still around have you kept up with current fusion research?"

Good grief... I have been being lectured by a nitwit who doesn't even understand the difference between fission and fusion.

Fusion reactors are not even close to being commercially viable.

They are in the test phases only and the earliest we are expected to have one operational at the commercial level of funding is ~2050.

When we are talking about modern nuclear reactors we are talking only about generation III fission reactors.

Thanks for proving once again that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and yet you presume to tell me that I am ignorant.

Ben Says:

"Now you figure out what happens when a Gen IV pebble bed reactor ruptures in an earthquake. It sure don't go nova. There is no gas explosion spreading fuel material all over kingdom come. No 10,000 years of inhabitability."

Seems I jumped the gun a bit about the fission/fusion thing... sorry about that as I missed the first post.

Regardless, I never once mentioned anything about gas explosions... this is another strawman argument you are making.

In any event generation 4 nuclear reactors aren't on-line in a commercial capacity.

They aren't scheduled to be ready until ~2030.

We can't talk about "modern" reactors in the context of what is objectively a future reactor that is still in the design phases.

Current modern reactors (i.e., generation III) have all of the issues I have described.

Ben Says:

" I actually agree that spent fuel reprocessing plants should be built in seismically safe areas."

Great... then we agree.

The point is that at present the fuel reprocessing plants are constructed in the same locations as the nuclear reactors as a matter of practice.

There isn't a great distinction to be drawn here when people talk about nuclear energy as it is currently implemented.

In addition, transport of spent fuel rods out of seismically active regions presents the same risks.

"Your concerns about the numbers 8 and 9 are completely beside the point. Eventually you will get a 10 or some other event will cause a failure. Perfection just is not an option."

They are not beside the point Ben.. they ARE the point.

Energy can move through a power grid.

There is no reason to build nuclear plants in a region that has the potential for magnitude 9 earth quakes simply because we don't expect an issue for 100 years.

We have the option to build these things in places where we will never have a magnitude 9 quake (i.e., in the middle of a continent) and transport the power wherever we need.

Umm . . . Artemis . . . can you read? It said Radwaste right at the top. That was a different discussion. One about fusion research. Which if you could read you would have also gotten from the types of generators I referenced. The world doesn't revolve around you cupcake.

As for only gen III reactors being under consideration, I will admit I live in the US. I'm US centric. The US only just finally approved a plant for fueling that started construction in the 1970s. So nothing we are discussing will take effect here for another 40 years or longer most likely. Heck, the Watts Bar 2 reactor is a gen II design. So as far as US power production get IV designs are on the table as much as anything else.

As for reprocessing or recycling of nuclear waste, the US just doesn't. We dump our waste in a pond at the plant and forget it. This is part of the same stupidity that caused problems at Fukushima. But hey, politics.

As for the risks of a plant due to seismic damage there are a few realistic issues. One you have reactor breach issues which cause a runaway event leading to the pile acting like a bomb. Two you have a primary working fluid leak which ends up spraying fuel material all over the place. And three you have a containment breech that ends up slowly leaking fuel material into the local environment. As I said, all of that is beside the point. Seismic is not the only cause of plant failure. As Rad pointed out people getting stupidly casual is a major concern. Someone attacking the plant is another. It is far better to have an inherently fail safe system than overdesign and hope a critical event never happens.

Also, you want to run wires from Illinois to Hawaii?

I forget, but what is the effective loss rate between kw produced and kw received per mile of wire?

If i recall properly it was a loss of about a half a percent per mile.

At 4200 miles between IL and HI that be a total loss of over 20%

A SINGLE wire between those two point would be just under a billion dollars and that doenst even count the cost of the towers or the undersea pipe

Ben Says:

"Also, you want to run wires from Illinois to Hawaii?"

You really seem to be utterly incapable of actually arguing against anything other than strawmen.

Can you please show me where I suggested it would be a smart idea to run wires across the pacific ocean?

That is completely unrealistic... and yet this is what you choose to argue against.

If you can't address my actual arguments you might as well not say anything.

Ben Says:

"Umm . . . Artemis . . . can you read? It said Radwaste right at the top. That was a different discussion. One about fusion research. Which if you could read you would have also gotten from the types of generators I referenced. The world doesn't revolve around you cupcake."

See Ben... the difference between you and I is that I actually can read... and that when I notice I have made a mistake I acknowledge it and I apologize.

It is something called intellectual integrity.

If you were reading you would have noticed this comment I made:

"Seems I jumped the gun a bit about the fission/fusion thing... sorry about that as I missed the first post."

You see that Ben, I recognized that I made a mistake and I owned up to it.

You on the other hand have been butchering my arguments left and right, making up strawmen to knock down time and time again... and yet not once do you even come close to acknowledging this in any way.

All of your complaints with regard to me are nothing more than projection of your own actions.

You mess up my arguments constantly and yet I do it once and I apologize for it BEFORE anyone else even brings it to my attention... and I am the one who apparently cannot read.

Grow up.

"Can you please show me where I suggested it would be a smart idea to run wires across the pacific ocean?"

"The only issue with nuclear is that it really has no place in regions of high seismic activity (i.e., Hawaii or the west coast)."

"Energy can move through a power grid.

There is no reason to build nuclear plants in a region that has the potential for magnitude 9 earth quakes simply because we don't expect an issue for 100 years.

We have the option to build these things in places where we will never have a magnitude 9 quake (i.e., in the middle of a continent) and transport the power wherever we need."

What can I say Arty, your argument was flawed. As far as gen 3 designs go you won't see one built in the US. As you noted they have the risk of catastrophic failure. Due to politics that means they will never be approved for construction. So an 8 or a 9 quake is moot. Design for a 90 quake (at which point I suspect the planet may be gone but I haven't run the numbers) and it still wouldn't matter. Politics be crazy.

Lujlp,

There are other options to reduce that loss. But they aren't always worth it. There are other issues with highly centralized grid design, most notably stability. It is bad enough when a neighborhood or city loses power. Having 1/3 of the US go down due to a wind storm in the middle of nowhere and having those outages become regular occurrences is not something I consider acceptable. But California seems interested in it.

"Also... I am not concerned at all about death via nuclear as compared to alternatives."

This, Artemis, is where I got my idea that you weren't talking about alternatives. If you set aside risks, you simply aren't doing an evaluation correctly.

---------

About the term, "uninhabitable for 10,000 years" - over 1.5 million people live within pistol shot of Ground Zero of the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Yes, Chernobyl and assorted Pacific islands demonstrate lasting effects; they are not being processed as valuable real estate, as the Japanese sites were.

---------

Ben - about fusion: ~20 years ago, I was in correspondence with Dr. Gerald Kulczinski, of the University of Wisconsin, because there was a chance that Savannah River Site, in ascendency at the time, could be a new site for experimentation with the He-3 variant.
Then SRS fell under the axe, and became a waste processing site. The public has no use for plans beyond a few years.
I have not heard from him for some time - and in fact do/did not expect to, as my role here has always been unofficial w/r/t his work.
I am hoping someone gets off the pot, so to speak, but every time somebody finds an oil well, they claim oil's inexhaustible, quit bothering us about that.

Ben,

You are really twisting yourself into knots to justify your outrageous strawman that I in some fantasy land of yours argued for constructing a trans-pacific power line to shunt electricity from Illinois to Hawaii.

You are as dishonest as they come and have no integrity whatsoever.

In case it didn't sink in for you, everything I have said here is in light of the following statement that I made when I originally entered into this conversation:

"Nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar are all wonderful options that have a place in a properly diversified energy portfolio.

The only issue with nuclear is that it really has no place in regions of high seismic activity (i.e., Hawaii or the west coast)."

Is the idea of a diversified energy portfolio that is best adapted for the local conditions really that difficult for you to comprehend?

My argument is in no way flawed... the only thing that is flawed here is your ability to understand very simple concepts.

Radwaste says:

""Also... I am not concerned at all about death via nuclear as compared to alternatives."

This, Artemis, is where I got my idea that you weren't talking about alternatives. If you set aside risks, you simply aren't doing an evaluation correctly."

Fair enough, but that response was made to Ben who has been butchering my arguments and distorting them to try and win cheap points since the second he entered this discussion.

Let me expand and clarify my position.

I am not concerned about nuclear with regard to death statistics associated with routine power generation. As Ben pointed out, this number is very low as compared to other power generation options.

Where I am concerned with nuclear is with regard to the risks associated with proper deployment in suitable locations as the risks associated with catastrophic failure are substantial.

The argument is as simple as the following. The potential impact of a magnitude 9 earthquake on a solar array is many times less than the impact of a magnitude 9 earthquake on a nuclear facility when we take into account that these facilities are not designed to handle seismic events of that severity.

My entire point is that there are better energy choices for regions that are susceptible to very high magnitude seismic events.

That is precisely why I entered into this discussion talking about a diversified energy portfolio... that is what this concept means.

It means that we select the appropriate energy generation platform for each location after taking into account all of the relevant factors.

Nuclear is a great option for many places... just not regions that are susceptible to high magnitude seismic events. For those regions, other energy options are a better choice.

Rad,

It isn't so much about getting off the pot but that we just don't know how to do small scale fusion. You also have the big government project sucking all the funding out of other designs issue. Tokamak, Tokamak, Tokamak is almost the only thing I hear about for the last decade. And as I said there are inherent issues with turning a Tokamak into a generation facility. They are nice scientific tools but I think we've wasted a couple of decades pursuing an infeasible design.

Though if you haven't looked at Fusors you might give the wiki page a peek. There are actual desk top fusion units in commercial use at hospitals to provide short lived isotopes for medical use. As I said, not power generation but it's something.

means that we select the appropriate energy generation platform for each location after taking into account all of the relevant factors.

Nuclear is a great option for many places... just not regions that are susceptible to high magnitude seismic events. For those regions, other energy options are a better choice.

Artemis at April 25, 2016 3:25 AM

You don't know that because you are not privy to all the cost, and technical variables.
Wind and solar are inherently unreliable and you need a pretty big grid for a reliable power supply to avoid disruptions and brown outs.

Without reliable power, businesses and industry cannot exist.

California imports a great deal of its power now because of specious environmental concerns.

Buying power from a nuclear generation plant in Nevada would be a darn sight more environmentally conscious, than the current practice of buying it from coal and natural gas powered generating facilities, also located out of state.