Radioactive steel

You sound like you are touting Nuclear Fission as a viable power solution on the basis of 'lives lost' .... its not the only issue by a long way.

In Britain alone, there are over 20 'worn out' reactors that will take from 100 to 300 years to be safe to dismantle completely, let alone use as any kind of facility.

Nuclear power is insidious in its effect on the environment, radiation is full of undocumented side effects. Look at effect of the use 'spent uranium' tank shells in Iran, and then talk to me about 'lives lost'.

How Chernobyl and Fukushima - that have devastated the lives of people in the area, are caused by " improper operator actions or sabotage" is news to me.

 

Dangerous stuff.

Hope scientists come up with a better energy solution soon.

The nuclear temptation is irresitable for energy starved countries

 

<<sigh>> Only a fool would ask God to stop all nuclear power. Nuclear power is the way the architect of the universe intended it. In terms of lives...it is the safest way to produce energy, just compare to how many die in Nigeria each day from oil money.

Besides, man's inhumanity to man knows no bounds. You would perfer to fight wars (over oil you've argued BTW so if everyone used nuclear for power generation we wouldn't have war?) with a thermite round, phosgene or mustard gas, perhaps anthrax or a land mine? All of those pre-date nuclear power, all weaponized by European states, and all now reviled.

 

Give me strength !!

Now its a 'divine' power ?


The biggest source of nuclear power is 150 million kilometres away, and without the power of the earths magnetic shield, we would all be bubbling pools of goo.


If you can invent a containment material that doesnt fracture from the constant bombardment of neutrons like steel does - go ahead and build as many fission plants as you like - until then, I prefer my radiation on the other side of the Van Allen Belt - "like God intended"



" On March 6, 1987, California's Public Utilities Commission unanimously accepted an engineering firm's forecast that decommissioning Pacific Gas & Electric Company's Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant would cost $578.6 million (1985 dollars). Taking inflation into account, the proposed rate increase necessary to pay for the cost of shutting down the plant adds up to $1.6 billion over a 30-year period, or $53.2 million a year. Based on average monthly electric bills statewide, this rate increase will cost every PG&E customer between 35 to 37 cents a month.

It is unlikely that any large commercial reactors will be dismantled this century. Instead they will be fenced in and guarded, at an annual cost of approximately $1 million for each site.27"
http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/decommission.htm

 

Ah, decommissioning of nuclear plants... The unmentionable beast of the nuclear fairy-tales.

 

nuclear power is not as economical as other forms of power, particularly natural gas power plants. low cost, relatively low tech, safe, and relatively clean.

I do not know why so many think it is such a good idea, it is just not cost effective. For that reason alone is should be rejected.

 

WRT Chernobyl, what *was* it other than improper operator actions? OK it was a crap design but my understanding is, they did something really really dumb and lost it. Anyway, the surrounds are now a wildlife refuge so it wasn't all bad, really.

You have a point WRT decommissioning time and neutron bombardment. That's why I've always proposed Queenstown as the perfect site for Australia's first nuke plant. If something went wrong, how could anyone tell the difference?

Or anywhere on the coast in South Australia. Not like there's anything that matters there.

PDW

 

I worked in Idaho in a Navy nuclear training facility.
We often had days where the winds were still where the Radon would collect, setting off the radiation monitors. We had to do a special check to see if it was just natural conditions or something leaking from the reactor.

It was always the naturally occuring Radon from basalt in the desert in the 2 years I was there.

We were warned that taking our dosimeter badges to the beach would result in higher radiation doses than were real from working in the nuclear power plant. It was a punishable offense to take the badge with you. Anyone not in a nuclear industry would never think of being concerned about going to the beach!

Seems a little senseless to be concerned about naturally occurring radiation mankind has lived with for eons.
Seems senseless for hysterics to carry on about low level radiation.

IMHO

There was a Nuclear power plant being built in Waukeegen Ill when I was in the Navy in the next town.
Nader organized a hysteria group and started saying how it had affected health in the town. 300% more still births, 200% more lukemia, other claims I don't remember. After the sheep started yelling for the plant to shut down, it was revealed that there was no nuclear material at the plant - it had not been fueled yet. The only thing there was a concrete containment building and lots of steel pipe. Of course the lukemia was an increase of 1 case to 2. I believe the second case had just moved into the town when diagnosed.

 

Actually, the cost of nuclear power is artificially inflated, often due to fear mongering, deliberate misinformation, and high risk associated with sunk costs in for profit economics. PG&E is a prime example of why for-profits should not be involved. TVA has managed nicely thank you, and cites their nuclear plants as having less cost than their coal or hydroelectric units.

As far a decommissioning, thank the Obama administration for that fiasco. In 2009 he threw a wrench into 30 years of planning and stole 27 billion dollars from power users to fund his debit increases.

 

Whoa..Queenstown. !!! I once rode a bicycle thru that region...incredible disaster zone.

This was more than 25 years ago...is it still apocalyptic ?

 

I'm sure the inhabitants of the South Australian coast would "react" adversely to pdwiley's suggestion ! Plenty of people report favourably on places like the Eyre Peninsula.

 

My own personal favourite location would have been to convert Battersea power Station in London to nuclear. Perfectly safe... and just upwind from the hot air in Westminster. Plenty of cooling water from the Thames, close to the demand ie central London etc etc.

Just that at Dounreay the beaches 35 miles away are considered contaminated and unsafe to eat sea food from and in some cases swim (water is COLD) with quite a lot of sealife deformities.

Lots more research needed which I do support, if the grail of fission is to be found. But also lots of careful thinking about existing 'waste' from the older fusion reactors. I'm actually fairly open about it, just not convinced the current state of play is justified. Now tidal power is a different thing, unless we lose the moon....

 

It may still happen.

A lot of keen energy may be available with the deuterium or helium-3 on the moon being used for fusion power generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

If they carved out the moon to look like a half moon, then no-one would even notice

 

A few years ago a truck carrying structural steel just drove past the Los Alamos Energy Facility (they do all kinds of nuclear research & development). The shipment was going to a building not related to Los Alamos, but the truck on the highway set off the radiation alarms at the facility. I wonder how often something similar occurs, but without the radiation alarms present.

I have spent nearly half of my career in the field of nuclear plant safety analysis. One must put proper perspective on the word "safe", which has two components: the probability of mishaps (low for well managed nuclear plants) multiplied by the potential consequences (very high for many accident scenarios).

We allow men to have a pocket knife, it can do damage, but rather limited. A modern handgun is capable of much more damage, we put stricter controls on allowing that machine. Hand grenades even more dangerous, we do not allow members of the public to have them....... A nuclear plant that contains the radiological equivalent of perhaps 1000 Nagasaki bombs, what level of control is prudent here?

The experiences of several nuclear mishaps that have had radio releases many orders of magnitude above what the safety analyses predicted may provide some insight as to whether we should be allowed to proceed. Draw your own conclusions.

 

I am a truck driver. I drive a flatbed. About 50% of my cargo is steel. Every steel mill I go to has radiation detectors on the inbound truck scales to make sure no radioactive material enters the facility. The majority of them also have radiation detectors on the outbound lanes as well to make sure the product they are selling is not contaminated. I have a hard time believing that any reputable steel manufacturer is selling radioactive steel.
Of course, that says nothing about the bargain basement disreputable types. That right there is a great reason not to buy cheap imported steel.