Posted on 05/15/2005 8:06:54 AM PDT by ricks_place
Several of the nation's most prominent environmentalists have gone public with the message that nuclear power, long taboo among environmental advocates, should be reconsidered as a remedy for global warming.
Their numbers are still small, but they represent growing cracks in what had been a virtually solid wall of opposition to nuclear power among most mainstream environmental groups. In the past few months, articles in publications like Technology Review, published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Wired magazine have openly espoused nuclear power, angering other environmental advocates.
Stewart Brand, a founder of the Whole Earth Catalog and the author of "Environmental Heresies," an article in the May issue of Technology Review, explained the shift as a direct consequence of the growing anxiety about global warming and its links to the use of fossil fuel....snip
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Ah yes., I remember those halcion days of 35 years ago when the leftists said we were all gonna die from radiation, spent fuel rods, gloom and doom movies like THE CHINA SYNDROME if we didn't get rid of Nuclear power.
Strange, but back in the 1950's those same leftists were singing the praises of that same nuclear power.
It's possible to design a reactor in such a way that it is impossible for it to melt down. The maximum temperature achievable by an uncontrolled reaction, according to the laws of nuclear physics, is less than the melting point of the fuel itself.
True. I believe they're called "pebble reactors". The fuel looks like golf balls (maybe larger) rather than fuel/control rods. I don't know the physics behind it, but the reaction is self-regulating such that a "China Syndrome" is highly unlikely if not impossible (famous last words, eh?!). Anyway, it's a much safer reactor than the current design.
Guess that since the French are OK with atomic power, the greenies are no longer automatically opposed.
In the category of words one would like to take back, a few years before Chernobyl, Scientific American had an article about "inherently safe" Russian reactor designs.
Current designs are proven safe, and while research should continue on alternatives, simplicity and redundancy are still proven to be best safety features.
I seem to recall they're about the size of billiard balls.
The physics involved is that as the fuel heats up, the coefficient of reactivity - the rate at which fission takes place - drops. A "negative temperature coefficient of reactivity."
So the hotter the core gets, the more the increased heating of the reactor is restricted, and with proper design, the reactor will all but shut down well before the temperature limit of the core is reached.
The problem with most nuclear reactors is that they're too big - "economy of scale" doesn't work the same way in nuclear power.
Here's some detailed information about the fuel pebble and the Modular Helium Reactor: http://gt-mhr.ga.com/3robust.html
The "inherently safe" nuclear reactor designs rely upon the laws of physics to prevent disaster. The reactors can never heat to the point of meltdown and combustible materials are not used.
However, deliberate terrorist actions must now be considered in the designs.
Yeah, we know that now. I think the argument was made that since emergency cooling was furnished by air, it couldn't overheat. The whole problem of fire was overlooked because they had fire extinction apparatus. Fire was the "easy problem". Problem was, the fire was started by a power spike that made a much bigger and hotter fire than they anticipated and overwhelmed the fire fighting capability.
Air cooling, the "inherently safe" feature precluded Western style containment structures.
Are Nuclear Plants Really Terrorist Targets? - http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_04-26-05.html
===
Nuclear plants are not natural targets. They are surrounded by protective shells that are generally constructed of several layers of thick, strong materials like concrete and steel. I have seen physical displays with portions of these containment vessels exposed - a typical example was a wall more than three feet thick reinforced with closely spaced steel rebar that was about the same diameter as my forearm. I am not a huge person, but I have been getting to the gym on a fairly regular basis for about 30 years.
In the extremely unlikely event of breeching the containment shell with anything less than a penetrating weapon with better capability than those designed to attack armored tanks, there are still more obstacles between an attacker and his ability to cause the release of radioactive material. I have a pretty active imagination, but I have a very difficult time conceiving of a possible path for releasing enough of the material in the core in a manner that would cause any injuries. In addition, nuclear plants have buffer zones, fences, a large security force, and a number of other measures that put them at the very bottom of my long personal list of concerns. I worry more about the possibility of getting hit by lightning on a sunny day on my way home from winning the New Jersey lottery. (I never buy lottery tickets and do not live in New Jersey.)
===
"Inherently safe" nuclear reactor designs rely upon the laws of physics to prevent disaster. Fire extinction apparatus at Chernobyl or water pumps at TMI are not inherently safe designs. Fire extinction equipment and water pumps can fail. The newer designs are "inherently safe" by the laws of physics. The adiabatic temperature of the reactor cannot exceed the material failure temperature by an acceptable margin.
"Inherently safe" nuclear designs require no external equipment or action to prevent disaster. Some may have thought that the Graphite design was safer than Pressurized Water designs but neither was inherently safe.
OK, but Terrorism is something to be considered natural target not.
It's not the containment vessel that I'd be worried about.
It's the spent fuel pool that's the concern for me.
Although I actively favor nuclear power for the US, I am not as knowledgeable as I need to be to win arguments.
Do you know of some websites that clarify how to sabotage proof reactors?
Nuclear Power Good= In the US Yes, with reservations (Long term disposal).
Nuclear Power Good= In much of the rest of the world No. (weapon production)
Nuclear is something that the French have done right. When it comes to this form of power, our nation is woefully behind, and it will continue to get worse. China is already commissioning loads of plants, which will further increase their competitiveness as to power.
Yeah, after getting all those folks to believe the big lie, it will be hard to convince them of the truth; that nuclear power is NOT the boogey-man the left has said it was for years.
No matter how good the reactor, if the human element falls apart, the reactor is dangerous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.