Obama giving go ahead for Georgia nuke

[kandrathe]

"President Barack Obama next week will announce a loan guarantee to build the first nuclear power plant in the United States in almost three decades, an administration official said Friday."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9822967

The first of dozens I hope. I wonder what the tree huggers will do?

[--Pete]

Hi,

I wonder what the tree huggers will do?

The smart ones will celebrate, the stupid ones will protest -- just like thirty years ago.

We need some way to establish the permission to build something like these power plants. Some kind of environmental, safety, location, etc. survey performed by some standards and the results should be final. After that, no injunctions, no stop work orders, no suits. What kills the building of nuclear plants are a small group of idiots taking advantage of the legal system. Every delay, every court appearance, every new hoop costs the builders large sums. At some point, they run out of money and the idiots win. Again.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

We need some way to establish the permission to build something like these power plants. Some kind of environmental, safety, location, etc. survey performed by some standards and the results should be final. After that, no injunctions, no stop work orders, no suits. What kills the building of nuclear plants are a small group of idiots taking advantage of the legal system. Every delay, every court appearance, every new hoop costs the builders large sums. At some point, they run out of money and the idiots win. Again.

We are in agreement. They will find a bug at the last minute that needs protection under the endangered species act.

[Jester]

The first of dozens I hope.

I'd go to hundreds, but I'll settle for dozens.

-Jester

[Zenda]

tree huggers... stupid ones... idiots...

Good to see how you guys do your best to make this a rational discussion, based on factual arguments and without personal attacks :lol:

[kandrathe]

tree huggers... stupid ones... idiots...

Good to see how you guys do your best to make this a rational discussion, based on factual arguments and without personal attacks :lol:

Um, that would be "sensitive" for some of us. I mean tree hugger in the best possible sense of the word.

http://www.treehugger.com/

Just to warn you... I'm also likely to use the terms "birther" and "9/11 truther", or anarchist. We all have our place in the lunatic fringe.

[--Pete]

Hi,

tree huggers... stupid ones... idiots...

Good to see how you guys do your best to make this a rational discussion, based on factual arguments and without personal attacks :lol:

You offended? Because I call them as I see them.

--Pete

[Lissa]

"President Barack Obama next week will announce a loan guarantee to build the first nuclear power plant in the United States in almost three decades, an administration official said Friday."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9822967

The first of dozens I hope. I wonder what the tree huggers will do?

Three words: About freaking time.

Now if he'll work on some kind of treaty to get reprocessing brought back (one of Carter's biggest offenses) so we can take the "waste" from hundreds of thousands of years to waste that that takes about 700 years to decay away to background.

(and I bet some of you are wondering why waste is probably quoted, that's because what we consider waste is mostly still usable fuel, about 2% of the total volume is not fuel. Of that 2%, half to two thirds is usable while the remaining amount is the true waste which must be stored. The upside of the actual waste is that is only takes around 700 years to decay away to background levels, ie, harmless. The true waste is maybe a quarter ton at most after reprocessing instead of the 50 tons that come out of a reactor now. We are, in essence, throwing the baby out with the bathwater since Carter stopped reprocessing.)

[--Pete]

Hi,

We are, in essence, throwing the baby out with the bathwater since Carter stopped reprocessing.

Not to mention, we'll be using up the available uranium about a thousand times faster. Reprocessing is a big part of making nuclear energy practical and cheap. But, hey, I'm glad Carter didn't ban fuel oil and fertilizer. They too can be used to make bombs. The Peanut is a great humanitarian, was a good governor (I lived in Georgia during his term), and a disaster as a president. A shining example of the Peter Principle. :whistling:

--Pete

[DeeBye]

Do the "tree-hugging" (forgive the term) environmentalists hate nuclear power specifically, or do they hate all forms of power generation equally? I would have though that they would embrace nuclear power as the lesser of the evils.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Do the "tree-hugging" (forgive the term) environmentalists hate nuclear power specifically, or do they hate all forms of power generation equally? I would have though that they would embrace nuclear power as the lesser of the evils.

That is a very complex question. Many do indeed embrace nuclear power as the best solution, usually in combination with various eco-friendly renewable sources. Some are anti-nuke because of the waste problem (made worse by the present once through policy). Others fear accidents, both possible and fantastic, or the use of waste in a dirty bomb. Many are just Luddites and hate anything more complex than a sharpened stick. An amazing number do not distinguish between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. And at least one, whom I know personally, thinks that cheap and readily available energy will just continue to fuel the population explosion leading to a bigger collapse when the day comes.

And those are just the ones that come immediately to mind. I'm sure there are more.

--Pete

[eppie]

Three words: About freaking time.

Now if he'll work on some kind of treaty to get reprocessing brought back (one of Carter's biggest offenses) so we can take the "waste" from hundreds of thousands of years to waste that that takes about 700 years to decay away to background.

(and I bet some of you are wondering why waste is probably quoted, that's because what we consider waste is mostly still usable fuel, about 2% of the total volume is not fuel. Of that 2%, half to two thirds is usable while the remaining amount is the true waste which must be stored. The upside of the actual waste is that is only takes around 700 years to decay away to background levels, ie, harmless. The true waste is maybe a quarter ton at most after reprocessing instead of the 50 tons that come out of a reactor now. We are, in essence, throwing the baby out with the bathwater since Carter stopped reprocessing.)

And what is the reason for not profiting from cheap electricity? Oil-lobbiest? Or is it not so easy as you say it is?


I mean just blaming it on something that Carter did a few decades ago seems somehow too simple to me.

[Lissa]

And what is the reason for not profiting from cheap electricity? Oil-lobbiest? Or is it not so easy as you say it is?
I mean just blaming it on something that Carter did a few decades ago seems somehow too simple to me.

No, I'm blaming Carter for stopping reprocessing in the name of non-proliferation. 98% of what comes out of a reactor is still usable fuel. Right now, every nuclear power plant in the world will pull about 15 to 20 tons of fuel out every year and literally throw it away where as only about 100lb to 200lb of that is true waste.

As to the power itself, I blame the Nuclear Power Industry in the US for not fighting the misinformation and lies that were spewed that the general public gobbled up and went anti-nuclear in this country. I cannot tell you the sheer amount of misinformation that was allowed. Suffice it to say, the Nuclear Power Industry was it's own worst enemy here in the US until the last decade or so when it actually started to fight the misinformation.

[Lissa]

Hi,
That is a very complex question. Many do indeed embrace nuclear power as the best solution, usually in combination with various eco-friendly renewable sources. Some are anti-nuke because of the waste problem (made worse by the present once through policy). Others fear accidents, both possible and fantastic, or the use of waste in a dirty bomb. Many are just Luddites and hate anything more complex than a sharpened stick. An amazing number do not distinguish between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. And at least one, whom I know personally, thinks that cheap and readily available energy will just continue to fuel the population explosion leading to a bigger collapse when the day comes.

And those are just the ones that come immediately to mind. I'm sure there are more.

--Pete

This is more to expand on what Pete is saying.

Western style reactors are nigh impossible to meltdown now, in most designs it takes an act of sabotage to cause the meltdown due to so many passive design safety measures. One design I know of uses natural bouyancy to have the normal coolant water flow over the reacotr with a borated water in a trouph pool below. If the coolant starts to boil off, the borated water then flows upwards and over the reactor shutting it down without operator involvment. There are other designs even more elegant that this.

The funny thing is that some of the rabid environmentalists don't realize that some of the power options they push have very detrimental effects on the environment. Wind power tends to kill large numbers of migrant birds, hydro tends to cause issues with fish stocks and removal of habitats for some animals, geothermal can't be done on large scales except in very specific areas and it lowers the water pressure of the area over time, tidal can only be done on a coastal area with significant altitudual changes of the coast line (works on the west coast of the US, not so well on the east), and solar isn't that effected on large scale either (typically a solar plant to supply a city will end up taking up twice the size of the city to supply everyone with power).

If you look at all the pros and cons, Nuclear really is the best choice for large scale power production.

[Kevin]

No, I'm blaming Carter for stopping reprocessing in the name of non-proliferation. 98% of what comes out of a reactor is still usable fuel. Right now, every nuclear power plant in the world will pull about 15 to 20 tons of fuel out every year and literally throw it away where as only about 100lb to 200lb of that is true waste.

I don't think this is true. In the US, sure, but I thought France was reprocessing pretty much everything and that a few other EU countries had started to as well. Maybe I'm thinking about something else, but I really seem to recall a big stink about France and the breeder reactors they were using for reprocessing.

[kandrathe]

I don't think this is true. In the US, sure, but I thought France was reprocessing pretty much everything and that a few other EU countries had started to as well. Maybe I'm thinking about something else, but I really seem to recall a big stink about France and the breeder reactors they were using for reprocessing.

The purpose of the main process used is to reclaim the reusable Uranium and Plutonium isotopes, and reduce the amount of dangerous high alpha emitting isotopes for secure sequestration. The remainder still has many useful chemical components, and there is study of how to further refine the "waste" to remove those bits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing and most often http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX

Even animal waste has its uses if allowed to mellow in a dung heap. You just need to guard from the runoff getting into the water supply. Radioactive materials are just 1000's of times more lethal, yet easier to detect with Geiger counter.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Radioactive materials are just 1000's of times more lethal, . . .

I agree with the rest of your statement, but this bit is just a common misconception. I can't seem to find a good table of relative toxicity, but I have found a number of articles like this. Plutonium is often touted as an extremely lethal material. The reason for this is that when it was being studied in Los Alamos during the Manhattan project, no one wanted to take the time to determine its toxicity, so it was arbitrarily assigned an extremely high value to keep people cautious. While that error has been officially corrected, it continues to be quoted today both because it makes a better story and it is better 'evidence' of the dangers of nuclear power/weapons. In fact, plutonium is actually safer than nicotine in terms of the quantity needed to kill someone.

The same holds true for many of the materials in radioactive waste. The most toxic materials known are almost all naturally occurring bio-toxins. You're safer around plutonium than you are around preserves put up by a beginner. Botulism is the "1000's of times more lethal".

--Pete

EDIT -- if the above link doesn't seem to work, try this and then click the link from there marked plutonium pollution.

[Lissa]

Hi,
I agree with the rest of your statement, but this bit is just a common misconception. I can't seem to find a good table of relative toxicity, but I have found a number of articles like this. Plutonium is often touted as an extremely lethal material. The reason for this is that when it was being studied in Los Alamos during the Manhattan project, no one wanted to take the time to determine its toxicity, so it was arbitrarily assigned an extremely high value to keep people cautious. While that error has been officially corrected, it continues to be quoted today both because it makes a better story and it is better 'evidence' of the dangers of nuclear power/weapons. In fact, plutonium is actually safer than nicotine in terms of the quantity needed to kill someone.

The same holds true for many of the materials in radioactive waste. The most toxic materials known are almost all naturally occurring bio-toxins. You're safer around plutonium than you are around preserves put up by a beginner. Botulism is the "1000's of times more lethal".

--Pete

EDIT -- if the above link doesn't seem to work, try this and then click the link from there marked plutonium pollution.

Well, Plutonium is highly toxic, but not in it's pure form and not because of radioactivity. Plutonium Oxide is one of the most lethal poisons in existance. If you get even a small amount in your system, you will die, quite painfully I might add. A few mg of Plutonium Oxide is all that is needed to kill even the healthiest of individuals.

[Lissa]

I don't think this is true. In the US, sure, but I thought France was reprocessing pretty much everything and that a few other EU countries had started to as well. Maybe I'm thinking about something else, but I really seem to recall a big stink about France and the breeder reactors they were using for reprocessing.

France doesn't run breeders. What everyone was up in arms about with France was that they started doing underground testing again some years back when the test ban treaty ran out to make a point. Needless to say, they got a new test ban treaty reaffirmed and signed by all the major powers rather quickly.

[Lissa]

The purpose of the main process used is to reclaim the reusable Uranium and Plutonium isotopes, and reduce the amount of dangerous high alpha emitting isotopes for secure sequestration. The remainder still has many useful chemical components, and there is study of how to further refine the "waste" to remove those bits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing and most often http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX

Even animal waste has its uses if allowed to mellow in a dung heap. You just need to guard from the runoff getting into the water supply. Radioactive materials are just 1000's of times more lethal, yet easier to detect with Geiger counter.

Alpha emitter lethality depends on where the alpha emitter is. If it's external to the body, alpha emitters are harmless, if inside the body, they do a lot of damage (alpha particles cannot get past the detrious layers of skin, that that is already dead, so cannot cause harm externally).

Radiation damage all depends on where the source is relative to you and what the source is. Alpha and beta emitters are not harmful if external to the body (high energy betas could be a minor issue, but you would have to take extreme does for betas to kill you), internally they are very harmful because they slow down in a very short period causing a lot of damage as they do so. Neutrons and Gammas are not as harmful if internalized, but overall tend to be the most likely causes of death (the faster the neutron is going the less harm it will cause as it's unlikely to interact before exitting your body, thermal neutrons, those moving around 2.2km/s are worse than those moving 100 km/s)

Radiation lethality is dependant on numerous factors (type of emitter, distances from source, flux, energy of emitter, and time in the flux).

And the whole reason for reprocessing is more than just getting back the usable fuel (and I include Plutonium in that catagory), it's to also get the useful fission fragments for industrial and medicinal purposes. Where do you think those tracers and the like come for finding things in the body that shouldn't be there?

As I noted previously, less than 1% of what comes out of a reactor is truly waste, the remaining 99% is useful in some way (either as fuel, in industrial uses, and in medicinal uses).