It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ototheb85
I’m afraid I have to agree with kro32, turning of nuclear power plants is not the logical solution!
How will I heat my daughter’s bath water?
How will we post on ATS?
How will I microwave last night’s Chinese!
No thanks keep nuclear power just improves safety and shutdown procedures.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by InnerPeace2012
So you accept all of the assumptions made by other posters? You think that it is sharp and clear to make assumptions that could possibly be false? That would be a good idea if you wanted to push a false agenda such as those that people often claim that TPTB do.
Originally posted by Eavel
reply to post by Unity_99
Nuclear power is safe. If electricity fails, omg nuclear power makes electricity.
Not my fault you project your own perceived shortcomings onto others, if you don't understand something look it up buddy.
Nuclear power is safe? Do you know how many people have died as a result of nuclear power in a timespan of only 50 years? This technology has been around for less than a century and killed how many people? Caused how many defections and mutations in newborns, contaminated how much of our Earth's ocean?
If the OP wanted to properly state the seriousness of this he would have researched and presented the possible scenarios in which every single nuclear plant could face a loss of power that would cause a meltdown. He briefly mentions some solar activity that could knock everything out but doesn't state how that's possible.
He doesn't mention if a nuclear reactor immediately goes into meltdown after a loss of power or whether or not there are safety measures in place for that....
Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors
(updated 26 July 2011)
* From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials.
* There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. One was contained without harm to anyone, the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and the third severely tested the containment, allowing significant release of radioactivity.
* These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries.
* The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants are very robust.
* Safety is achieved through "defence in depth".
One mandated safety indicator is the calculated probable frequency of degraded core or core melt accidents. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies that reactor designs must meet a 1 in 10,000 year core damage frequency, but modern designs exceed this. US utility requirements are 1 in 100,000 years, the best currently operating plants are about 1 in 1 million and those likely to be built in the next decade are almost 1 in 10 million. While this calculated core damage frequency has been one of the main metrics to assess reactor safety, European safety authorities prefer a deterministic approach, focusing on actual provision of back-up hardware, though they also undertake probabilistic safety analysis for core damage frequency.
Even months after the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident in 1979 it was assumed that there had been no core melt because there were no indications of severe radioactive release even inside the containment. It turned out that in fact about half the core had melted.....
Regulatory requirements today for new plants are that the effects of any core-melt accident must be confined to the plant itself, without the need to evacuate nearby residents.
The main safety concern has always been the possibility of an uncontrolled release of radioactive material, leading to contamination and consequent radiation exposure off-site. . Earlier assumptions were that this would be likely in the event of a major loss of cooling accident (LOCA) which resulted in a core melt. The TMI experience suggested otherwise, but at Fukushima this is exactly what happened. In the light of better understanding of the physics and chemistry of material in a reactor core under extreme conditions it became evident that even a severe core melt coupled with breach of containment would be unlikely to create a major radiological disaster from many Western reactor designs.....
An OECD/NEA report in 2010 pointed out that the theoretically-calculated frequency for a large release of radioactivity from a severe nuclear power plant accident has reduced by a factor of 1600 between the early Generation I reactors as originally built and the Generation III/III+ plants being built today. Earlier designs however have been progressively upgraded through their operating lives.
It has long been asserted that nuclear reactor accidents are the epitome of low-probability but high-consequence risks.Understandably, with this in mind, some people were disinclined to accept the risk, however low the probability. However, the physics and chemistry of a reactor core, coupled with but not wholly depending on the engineering, mean that the consequences of an accident are likely in fact be much less severe than those from other industrial and energy sources.
Experience, including Fukushima, bears this out. [commissioned in 1971]
The article is very LONG and full of information. It goes on to say
...The use of nuclear energy for electricity generation can be considered extremely safe. Every year several thousand people die in coal mines to provide this widely used fuel for electricity. There are also significant health and environmental effects arising from fossil fuel use. To date, even the Fukushima accident has caused no deaths, and the IAEA reported on 1 June 2011: "to date, no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation exposure."
At Chernobyl the kind of reactor and its burning contents which dispersed radionuclides far and wide tragically meant that the results were severe. This once and for all vindicated the desirability of designing with inherent safety supplemented by robust secondary safety provisions and avoiding that kind of reactor design. [Chernobyl was a completely different beast]
The main safety features of most reactors are inherent - negative temperature coefficient and negative void coefficient. The first means that beyond an optimal level, as the temperature increases the efficiency of the reaction decreases (this in fact is used to control power levels in some new designs). The second means that if any steam has formed in the cooling water there is a decrease in moderating effect so that fewer neutrons are able to cause fission and the reaction slows down automatically.
In the 1950s and '60s some experimental reactors in the Idaho desert were deliberately tested to destruction to verify that large reactivity excursions were self-limiting and would automatically shut down the fission reaction. These tests verified that this was the case.
Beyond the control rods which are inserted to absorb neutrons and regulate the fission process, the main engineered safety provisions are the back-up emergency core cooling system (ECCS) to remove excess heat (though it is more to prevent damage to the plant than for public safety) and the containment.
Traditional reactor safety systems are 'active' in the sense that they involve electrical or mechanical operation on command. Some engineered systems operate passively, eg pressure relief valves. Both require parallel redundant systems. Inherent or full passive safety design depends only on physical phenomena such as convection, gravity or resistance to high temperatures, not on functioning of engineered components. All reactors have some elements of inherent safety as mentioned above, but in some recent designs the passive or inherent features substitute for active systems in cooling etc. Such a design would have averted the Fukushima accident, where loss of electrical power resulted is loss of cooling function.
The basis of design assumes a threat where due to accident or malign intent (eg terrorism) there is core melting and a breach of containment. This double possibility has been well studied and provides the basis of exclusion zones and contingency plans. Apparently during the Cold War neither Russia nor the USA targeted the other's nuclear power plants because the likely damage would be modest.
Nuclear power plants are designed with sensors to shut them down automatically in an earthquake, and this is a vital consideration in many parts of the world..... www.world-nuclear.org...
Anyone worried about Nuclear power should read the entire article not just the snippets I posted
edit on 23-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: added sentence & broke up it up a bit
Originally posted by woogleuk
It wouldn't happen........although I'm not too familiar with the inner workings, I'm fairly sure there is a manual method of getting the water in to cool the system, i know newer plants have a passive method which would not fail in the event of a power outage. Also, a solar flare wouldn't knock out the diesel backup generators, and then there is battery backups which I believe can last for up to 8 hours......giving time to sort somthing else out.
Originally posted by Unity_99
Originally posted by kro32
If humans lived by being afraid of "what if's" we would never have left the cave.
I notice you offer no solutions so what do you suggest to replace them?
Salt Water makes fuel and lots of electtricity.
Just about everything does!
You name it!
Like Lauren Moret said.
No species kills its children for energy!edit on 21-8-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)
“...Today three companies, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, and Bunge control the world’s grain trade. Chemical giant Monsanto controls three-fifths of seed production. Unsurprisingly, in the last quarter of 2007, even as the world food crisis was breaking, Archer Daniels Midland’s profits jumped 20%, Monsanto 45%, and Cargill 60%. Recent speculation with food commodities has created another dangerous “boom.” After buying up grains and grain futures, traders are hoarding, withholding stocks and further inflating prices....” www.globalissues.org...
...Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it “a silent mass murder”, entirely due to “man-made actions.” Through the 1990s, Goldman Sachs and others lobbied hard and the regulations [controlling agricultural futures contracts] were abolished. Suddenly, these contracts were turned into “derivatives” that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture. A market in “food speculation” was born. The speculators drove the price through the roof....” www.independent.co.uk...
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy
Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."
....Lang’s ‘Solar Realities’ paper (download the 17 page PDF here) is summarised as follows:
This paper provides a simple analysis of the capital cost of solar power and energy storage sufficient to meet the demand of Australia’s National Electricity Market. It also considers some of the environmental effects. It puts the figures in perspective. By looking at the limit position, the paper highlights the very high costs imposed by mandating and subsidising solar power. The minimum power output, not the peak or average, is the main factor governing solar power’s economic viability. The capital cost would be 25 times more than nuclear power. The least-cost solar option would require 400 times more land area and emit 20 times more CO2 than nuclear power.
solar power is uneconomic. Government mandates and subsidies hide the true cost of renewable energy but these additional costs must be carried by others.
Along came nazi's elected in thinking they were sales people who sold what we paid for to US corporations, robbing Canadian citizens, and now we're being milked twice as much. Thats an example of conservative policy by the way. Rip off the people and hand it to some rich friend to milk them, though they already paid for a service at low cost.
No, we, the people, paid for development of Hydro in our province with our tax dollars, and land. 100% Canadian.
and sold that like a business to some rich US company, though we paid for it
and we didn't agree to sell our utility company, and have some US thief own our tax dollars and development, own a chunk of our real estate dams, and land, and control over it, and charge us more.
That is akin to you buying a car, and then the government sells it to the US and they charge you for use. Or building/buying a house. And the government sells it to the US and they charge you rent and raise it. IT WAS HIGHWAY ROBBERY AND MANY MANY PEOPLE WROTE IN ABOUT IT BECAUSE HERE IN CANADA, WE GET THESE KIND OF THINGS. IN FACT IT WAS HALTED BY THE COURTS INITIALLY AND THEY PULLED SOME ILLEGAL SLIGHT OF HAND BY PASSING SOME PSUEDO CRIMINAL BILL TO ALLOW THEM TO SELL OUR INFASTRUCTURE AS IF THEY WERE LEGALLY REAL ESTATE AGENTS STEALING FROM THE PEOPLE!