How many kilowatts in a barrel of crude oil?

[steingar]

The point, of course, is that we shouldn't plan our future actions based on the risks that existed long ago if significant improvements have been made since then. If we looked at the record of air mail pilots we'd determine that flying is too dangerous to attempt.
-harry

True, but I doubt any of us is truly competent to critically analyze any of the modern reactor designs. Moreover, I'll bet money that the majority of those trumpeting those new designs are similarly unable. Like I said, nuclear science is complex, arcane, and understood by very, very few, most of whom are poor public speakers and don't make policy decisions.

I imagine newer designs have been designed to fix known problems, and thus will have new problems all their own.

And still no one has even a plan to deal with the waste.

 

[Bob Noel]

And still no one has even a plan to deal with the waste.

For me, that is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for advocating for more nuclear plants,

The safety of the plants we can probably make good enough, even considering the catastrophic failure modes. But what do we do with the waste?

The adverse health and environmental impacts of other energy sources may have solutions that could be implemented, at some expense, but what can we do with the spent fuel rods?

 

[mantakos]

... Like I said, nuclear science is complex, arcane, and understood by very, very few, most of whom are poor public speakers and don't make policy decisions...

Much like genetics.
-harry

 

[Cap'n Jack]

For me, that is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for advocating for more nuclear plants,

The safety of the plants we can probably make good enough, even considering the catastrophic failure modes. But what do we do with the waste?

The adverse health and environmental impacts of other energy sources may have solutions that could be implemented, at some expense, but what can we do with the spent fuel rods?

Toss them down a subduction zone?

 

[steingar]

Much like genetics.
-harry

Yup. But the probability of one of my experiments taking out vast swaths of poisoning multitudes is sufficiently remote that most mathematicians would give up and call it zero.

 

[Matthew]

Toss them down a subduction zone?

I've actually heard that proposed seriously. Under miles of saltwater, right back to where it came from (eventually).

 

[mantakos]

Yup. But the probability of one of my experiments taking out vast swaths of poisoning multitudes is sufficiently remote that most mathematicians would give up and call it zero.

So you can guarantee us that there's no chance of the creation of a genetically engineered virus escaping the lab?

And if you do give us this guarantee, why should we believe you, given that your science, like others, is "complex, arcane, and understood by very, very few, most of whom are poor public speakers and don't make policy decisions..."
-harry

 

[steingar]

So you can guarantee us that there's no chance of the creation of a genetically engineered virus escaping the lab?

Absolutely. Do you really think that people can create pathogens that are any better than those created by mother nature/God/Odin/Giant Ice Cream Pooping Taco in the Sky? Just a matter of common sense.

And if you do give us this guarantee, why should we believe you, given that your science, like others, is "complex, arcane, and understood by very, very few, most of whom are poor public speakers and don't make policy decisions..."
-harry

Actually, I'm an exemplary public speaker, at least according to my students. Besides, people have been genetically manipulating organisms for the whole of human history. Most of the plants and animals you contact every day are constructs genetically manipulated by humans. It is still going on. It has always gone on. Every wonder why a banana has no seeds? Because it is a sterile hybrid generated by Mesoamericans before the advent of Europeans. Thus my own genetics experiments and those of my colleagues are little more than a continuation of a process that is as old as humanity.

We cracked the atom about 60 years ago. Lots of people have been irradiated and died. Lots of land has been poisoned. Very, very different. Good try, but that straw man won't hunt.

 

[mantakos]

... We cracked the atom about 60 years ago. Lots of people have been irradiated and died...

Are we talking about the demonstrated record? I thought your argument was based on _potential_?

Given that your science is so arcane and understood by so few, why should we take any chances when there's potential for the mass extinction of the human species? Why should we give you the benefit of the doubt while refusing to trust the evaluations of nuclear engineers? Is it because you're an excellent public speaker but they're poor?
-harry

 

[steingar]

Are we talking about the demonstrated record? I thought your argument was based on _potential_?

Very good point Harry. I have been talking about potential hazards, though based on the real hazards pointed out through humanity's experience with nuclear power generation.

Given that your science is so arcane and understood by so few, why should we take any chances when there's potential for the mass extinction of the human species? Why should we give you the benefit of the doubt while refusing to trust the evaluations of nuclear engineers? Is it because you're an excellent public speaker but they're poor?
-harry

Most human endeavors are arcane and shared by few beyond its active participants, we of the aviation world know this far better than anyone else. However, few have the demonstrated and potential capacity for harm than nuclear.

My point was simple. I've heard before "the new plants are so much safer than the old ones". I've heard it a bunch of times. I began thinking, how does that person know that? A fundamental technique of critical analysis. and I came up with a quick realization. Harry, you don't know jack about it. Not meant as an insult. I don't either. There may be one person on this board who does.

Now, criticize the arcana of molecular genetics all you like, but we as a society are not debating whether or not to indulge ourselves in its practice. That's why it's a straw man. That debate happened forty years ago, resulted in conventions for genetic engineering, and as a result we have an enviable record of success with no harm done. If nuclear power generation had the same track record I would be all for it.

But nuclear power hasn't. Now, as a panacea, we are told the new designs are safer. How are they safer? What's so good about them? I bet no one here knows exactly. I'll further bet really good money that those claiming the designs are better have a rather large vested interest in seeing more of the things built. And why not, they well know that we Americans love privatizing profits and socializing risk and loss. Sorry, I for one ain't buying, and I don't think anyone else should either.

 

[mantakos]

... Harry, you don't know jack about it...

You're absolutely right, but if we limited discussion here to stuff where we knew what we were talking about, it would get very quiet.

But there's a difference between "I don't know" and "it is unknowable". I don't know the risks of genetics research, but you do, while denying the same level of understanding to your counterparts in nuclear engineering.

But whenever some talking head is telling us about Fukushima or Chernobyl, they helpfully inform us that newer designs are not subject to that failure mode due to features X, Y, and Z. And while I'm no expert on nuclear engineering, the failures at these places weren't the result of some arcane and unknowable subject, it was mundane stuff, water and generators and pumps and management processes and risk management.
-harry

 

[steingar]

You're absolutely right, but if we limited discussion here to stuff where we knew what we were talking about, it would get very quiet.

But there's a difference between "I don't know" and "it is unknowable". I don't know the risks of genetics research, but you do, while denying the same level of understanding to your counterparts in nuclear engineering.

But whenever some talking head is telling us about Fukushima or Chernobyl, they helpfully inform us that newer designs are not subject to that failure mode due to features X, Y, and Z. And while I'm no expert on nuclear engineering, the failures at these places weren't the result of some arcane and unknowable subject, it was mundane stuff, water and generators and pumps and management processes and risk management.
-harry

Except the risks are from a process that is itself complex. I think most engineers could analyze the failure modes of a damn or bridge. You don't hear many people worrying about building a new damn from a safety standpoint. Properly constructed, they don't tend to break. Rockets are very complex, and quite dangerous. Notice we launch them out over the ocean.

Like I said, nuclear fission is complex, and only understood by a handful. Thus when someone says our new plant won't break, I am suspicious. Does that person have the expertise to actually make that statement? That is lesson two in critical analysis. The one thing of which I am absolutely certain is the guys with the money don't, nor do the ones doing most of the talking.

Now, why would they market and invest in something that may be inherently dangerous? Because, we've proven as a society that if you input enough money, we will insulate you from your own folly. The ones doing that insulation is us, which is, by the way, the ones who will suffer if one of these things goes tango uniform.

Harry, usually if someone pulls this kind of logic, you'll put up a link with some sort of cleverly worded come-back. I've seen you do this many, many times, and enjoyed it immensely. So where is it? I'll bet it isn't out there, at least not where any of us can get it. I admit, I haven't spent a lot of time looking.

And still, after all this, there is no plan, or even the beginnings of a plan, to deal with the waste. The best option I've seen so far is to bury it inside a geologically stable mountain in the middle of the biggest patch of desert we own, and we can't even do that.

 

[mantakos]

There is no "link" that will prove that nuclear has no risks, nor one that shows that CO2 has no risks, nor one that promises that pollution from burning fossil fuels doesn't lead to respiratory illnesses and premature deaths, nor one that proves there are no risks to pouring trillions of dollars on dubious third-world countries in trade for their oil, nor one that shows that military action is never motivated by foreign oil, nor is there one that proves that there is no cost to dramatically curtailing energy consumption.

This lunch comes with a bill at the end. So do all the others.
-harry

 

[steingar]

There is no "link" that will prove that nuclear has no risks, nor one that shows that CO2 has no risks, nor one that promises that pollution from burning fossil fuels doesn't lead to respiratory illnesses and premature deaths, nor one that proves there are no risks to pouring trillions of dollars on dubious third-world countries in trade for their oil, nor one that shows that military action is never motivated by foreign oil, nor is there one that proves that there is no cost to dramatically curtailing energy consumption.

This lunch comes with a bill at the end. So do all the others.
-harry

Actually, that is patently untrue. You can find lots of links that say nuclear has risks, though I admit they're as suspect as the ones that say it doesn't. Resembles the climate debate to some degree, except in the climate debate it was the scientists who sounded the alarm mostly for altruistic reasons. The risk of premature death from fossil fuel combustion is well-known and easily found, and there is no doubt much of our military action goes toward securing oil supplies. The US is the largest non-empire ever in recorded history, we have interests in practically every corner of the globe. So the military gets around.

We come back to that fact that the risks for wide-scale catastrophe from fossil fuels is well-known, but a bit more arcane for nuclear. Personally, I think we in America could easily reduce our energy consumption by at least a fold or more, but it would require lifestyle changes that we as a society are unwilling to embrace. I would far rather see us forced into them by uncertain fossil fuel supplies than augment with enormously expensive and potentially dangerous nuclear plants. But that's just me.

 

[seand]

If the byproducts of hydrocarbon extraction, refining, transportation, and combustion were all pixie dust and ice cream the fear of nuclear power and radiation would make more sense.

It's easy to believe that hydrocarbons are clean and risk free when the impact has been largely isolated from the users and kept at the sources. I greatly encourage anyone who is against nuclear on the basis of what might happen to look at what is happening and the human toll because we haven't adopted other energy sources.

 

[Matthew]

First - I tried hard to keep these quotes in context, I'm not trying to play any games. If I messed up the meaning, I apologize:

I've heard before "the new plants are so much safer than the old ones"
...
Now, as a panacea, we are told the new designs are safer. How are they safer? What's so good about them?

Safety has always been relative - risk vs reward. What is safe enough?

Are the new designs safer? That has to be relative, too. The failures that have occurred, and those which conceivably could occur, can be designed out. Failsafe systems, systems that don't need pumps to circulate cooling water (that's what killed the Fukushima reactors - the generators flooded, then batteries took over, but outside power couldn't be restored before the batteries failed.) The seawall could have been higher, the generators could have been located on higher ground, all human decisions. All this wouldn't have been an issue if there hadn't been a huge tsunami after an equally huge earthquake.

Think about airline travel (not GA) - pretty much a zero failure rate. Are the planes safer than a generation ago? Or are training and procedures better? Is it actually possible that we can learn from mistakes?

Will the new designs have their own problems? Possibly, probably - that's where we get into the knowns, unknowns, the known-unknowns, and the unknown-unknowns.

..
But whenever some talking head is telling us about Fukushima or Chernobyl, they helpfully inform us that newer designs are not subject to that failure mode due to features X, Y, and Z. And while I'm no expert on nuclear engineering, the failures at these places weren't the result of some arcane and unknowable subject, it was mundane stuff, water and generators and pumps and management processes and risk management.
-harry

Yeah - I do think the failures, TMI included, were human - either a bad design, or bad procedures, or a failure to follow procedures. Again, I bring it back to airline travel - what about the Air France Airbus? A couple of bad sensor readings, and the humans couldn't figure it out in time. OK - the autopilot threw a curveball into the equation, but even that was a design decision.

Like I said, nuclear fission is complex, and only understood by a handful. Thus when someone says our new plant won't break, I am suspicious. Does that person have the expertise to actually make that statement?

I haven't heard anyone say they won't break - maybe someone has. But the design decisions for later generations of reactors have been to simplify, not to complicate. The KISS approach - makes it easier to understand the relationships between the internal systems and how failures could propogate or be mitigated if they do happen. I suspect the downside to this is going to be that the reactors will be designed to scram at the earliest possible out-of-tolerance condition, and that they'll end up with high downtime ratios. That will add into the $/kW production costs.

The best option I've seen so far is to bury it inside a geologically stable mountain in the middle of the biggest patch of desert we own, and we can't even do that.

I think the last line should be "... we won't even do that." It's not a technological problem, it's political. But yeah, politics are a reality.

All in all - my opinion - newer designs, standardized designs, and simplified designs all come together to lower the chances of an uncontrolled release of radiation. All the way to zero? Nothing has zero risk.

I think the problem still remains political.

 

[steingar]

I think the problem still remains political.

A really good post with a bad ending. Of the course the problems are political. Were our government more authoritarian than it is and the Maximum Leader decided nuclear was the way to go, it would be here already. Of course the plants can be built. Fortunately, our government is at some level responsive to the populace, and few want these things here, or anywhere for that matter.

No matter how simple, people frak up. That's the heart of what caused the nuclear disasters we've seen. No matter how you design the plant, it has the potential to get away from its minders, who will suffer distraction. complacency, and all those other pesky human conditions. And nobody can think of everything that might happen to a plant over a half century. You start thinking about 100 year floods and hundred year storms and the like.

 

[Matthew]

A really good post with a bad ending.

D'oh! Missed it by THAT much!

LEt me put it this way - political will - yep, it comes from the 'people'. Either we get with it, or not. Politicians, all of them, want job security.

And yes, no matter what, the 'wetware' is the weak point, but I'd never want to get to a system that doesn't include somebody who can make a real decision. I'm not going to fly on some autopiloted drone - I'll take my chances with a properly trained (hopefully) ATP up front. But it is possible to create a design where the design itself minimizes the effects of a poor human decision.

 

[steingar]

But it is possible to create a design where the design itself minimizes the effects of a poor human decision.

There is nothing so foolproof that a fool can't break it.

 

[Matthew]

There is nothing so foolproof that a fool can't break it.

I think the only thing you can do is try to make the accident chain as fault-tolerant as possible, and keep the fool out of the system as much as possible. Eventually, though, something will go wrong. A bad weld? Undetected corrosion? Malicious human intervention? That's going to be the case for any system.

heh - I work with a guy named "___". We try as hard as we can to "___-proof" things. One solution would be to remove the "___" from the feedback loop and replace him with, well, anybody else. But, we just can't do that - bless his heart.

 

[Palmpilot]

Here's a Wikipedia article on nuclear safety. I don't see much that addresses the concerns being discussed here, but it seems interesting anyway.

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