Whatever happened to lower priced diesel after winter? - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#61 04-13-2008, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbach36

You missed my point. I agree, we can't be worried about terrorist attacks everywhere, or we wouldn't have trains, planes, or automobiles. But to say that people are worried about nuclear "boogeyman stories", as though none of them are true, that's poppycock. Nuclear, if done right, I guess it is safe. But there WERE problems with Cherynoblyl and Three Mile Island plants.

jeff

Just to be clear; Chernobyl was a full blown disaster but the design and operation of Soviet era RBMK plants has very little in common with western designs.

On the other hand, TMI was really a case of extensive human error. At TMI, the operators misdiagnosed the condition and did just about everything wrong that they could. There were significant shortcomings in the operating procedures, training, emergency planning, maintenance, and instrumentation that resulted in the escalation of a relatively minor event into a core damage event. Significantly, no one was injured and the exposure to the public was minimal (well below background). However, the industry implemented significant changes as a result of TMI, the event should not have been allowed to proceed that far.

Regarding "boogeyman stories," the media coverage is not very useful in helping the public understand the actual issues and risks. The (non-technical) news media is simply not equipped to report on technical issues accurately. The public needs better information to make policy decisions.

Regarding security issues; without getting into details, I believe terrorist would find commercial nuclear plants a "challenging" target. Personally, I am more worried about "softer" infrastructure targets.

Lycoming-8 · #62 04-13-2008, 11:44 PM

Amen, Craig!!! The Chernot-so-nobyl style reactor has never been used in the US for power generation, and as such does not even deserve discussion. As for TMI, as you indicated the shortcomings in the procedures were fixed, and even without that nothing really happened!!!! Regardless what the greenies and the media would have us believe.

So with that, FI's comment that there were only two incidents should be down to one incident in 54 years. Don't believe the US refining industry can come anywhere close to that for just 5 years!!!

Quote:

Just to be clear; Chernobyl was a full blown disaster but the design and operation of Soviet era RBMK plants has very little in common with western designs.

On the other hand, TMI was really a case of extensive human error. At TMI, the operators misdiagnosed the condition and did just about everything wrong that they could. There were significant shortcomings in the operating procedures, training, emergency planning, maintenance, and instrumentation that resulted in the escalation of a relatively minor event into a core damage event. Significantly, no one was injured and the exposure to the public was minimal (well below background). However, the industry implemented significant changes as a result of TMI, the event should not have been allowed to proceed that far.

showme · #63 04-13-2008, 11:55 PM

Just a comment on the nuke's, here. As an Ironworker, I've worked Callaway nuclear plant in Missouri a few times on refuel shut-downs, right in the can (the reactor area). The walls in those things are about 8' thick, with missile doors that could stop a jet plane. That being said, I was told about 6 years ago that after 911, they hired the Navy Seals to attempt to overtake the plant as a check on security against terrorists. The security there all carry Glocks and AR15's, and are well trained (supposedly). Well, even with a heads up that it would take place some time in the next week, the Seals took over the control room of the plant in 7 minutes. That's after going over a 10' razor wire topped fence. In other words, if somebody wants to do something bad enough, they will. On the other hand, the power produced compared to the input of materials and the cleanliness of the running of the plant compared to a coal burner are not even on the same page. And here's something to think about from Phillip Schewe's book, The Grid ..."To operate a typical 1,000 megawatt reactor for 3 years, you would install about 75 tons of fuel. At the end of three year, having supplied about 25 billion kilowat-hours of energy to upward of a million people, you would remove 75 tons of spent fuel, minus 3 kilograms, or about 8 pounds. That, in a nutshell, is why reactors exist". The coal fired plants that I work in use 200 rail cars of coal a day to operate. BTW, there is a planned new unit that will be one and a half times the capacity to be built in the near future at Callaway. Since it was built in the 70's, I would imagine there are more all across the country that are heading that direction. But, as with statistics everywhere, Chernobyl, (which was the Russians screw up, not ours, and 3 Mile Island, come to a fraction of a percent in comparison with actual running time of all combined nuke's in the US. I'm for both of them, (Nukes and coal-burners), but if I had my choice, I'd go with wind, solar, hydro and wave technology. The bad thing is, unless it's owned or run at the grassroots level, we get raped by the corporations that own or deliver the goods from them. Which leads me back to the Enron problem. I'm going to build my own RE system, and disconnect myself from their greediness.

Sorry about the long winded dissertation.

#64 04-13-2008, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycoming-8

Amen, Craig!!! The Chernot-so-nobyl style reactor has never been used in the US for power generation, and as such does not even deserve discussion. As for TMI, as you indicated the shortcomings in the procedures were fixed, and even without that nothing really happened!!!! Regardless what the greenies and the media would have us believe.

So with that, FI's comment that there were only two incidents should be down to one incident in 54 years. Don't believe the US refining industry can come anywhere close to that for just 5 years!!!

I am a strong proponent of commercial nuclear power, but I do recognize the inherent risk associated with it. To date the U.S. has about 2500 reactor-years of experience and has had one core damage event. Although no one was hurt, that was one event too many. Everyone I know in the industry takes these risks very seriously, and I would not minimize them. Personally, I think it is the best near-term option; but we have to continue to do it right. From both a public safety and political/economic point of view, we cannot afford to make mistakes.

dxpoo · #65 04-14-2008, 12:06 AM

It's even cleaner when you recycle the spent fuel like France does.

In just about every responsible review of the topic I've seen, nuclear is the greenest option that we have that stands a chance at matching our power needs.

The waste is nasty stuff, but so are the 31 flavors of chemo-crude that entities such as DuPont, Dow, and any other chemical company pumps out. Nuclear disposal standards are some of the most strict in the country. I wish I could say the same for biological and chemical waste.

Hatterasguy · #66 04-14-2008, 12:45 PM

Considering how crappy everything the Soviets made was, I am surprised that Chernobyl was the only melt down they had. Soviet workers would usualy take the concrete so they could barter it for food, so the mix for the reacter shell is probably mostly water and sand. Also consider the intelligence level of the average Soviet peasent worker who built those things, IE zero school, none, nada.

dxpoo · #67 04-14-2008, 12:54 PM

Even then, I don't think it was so much materials... Well it was, but IIRC they were doing an emergency shut down test and one of the fuel rods jammed on the way back in and shattered, locking the reactor open and spiking the power output to about 10x maximum. Steam pressure then blew the roof off.

So even the junk runs well as long as you don't deliberately monkey up the system.

cphilip · #68 04-14-2008, 01:12 PM

IIRC they use a Graphite Moderator... and Graphite will burn like a mofo when it gets hot. Setting off the entire out of control situation that they saw but only after numerous stupid moves to get there. The explosion itself was bad enough but then the Graphite fire just made it out of complete control from that point on. We don't build them that way at all. It was always considered a cheap but dangerous set up.

Pretty good read

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

lietuviai · #69 04-14-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Considering how crappy everything the Soviets made was, I am surprised that Chernobyl was the only melt down they had. Soviet workers would usualy take the concrete so they could barter it for food, so the mix for the reacter shell is probably mostly water and sand. Also consider the intelligence level of the average Soviet peasent worker who built those things, IE zero school, none, nada.

The Soviet regime of the time had a notorious reputation for hiding things from the public so I wouldn't be surprised if their were lots of potential disasters leading up to the event.
Hatty, I wouldn't underestimate the intelligence of the Soviet era worker. Their ability to survive under such oppressive conditions deserve more credit. When you live under that system you won't give it your best effort. In fact people there had better opportunities for free education than we do here. Per capita they're actually better educated than we are.

Hatterasguy · #70 04-14-2008, 01:45 PM

Half of them don't have plumbing.

Back in the 60's and 70's when these things were built, the average peasent probably had never seen an indoor bathroom.

#71 04-14-2008, 06:56 PM

Years ago I read a book called "Ablaze: The Story of the Heroes and Victims of Chernobyl" by Piers Paul Read that was a good technical and political analysis of the accident. It's worth reading if you can find it.

lietuviai · #72 04-14-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Half of them don't have plumbing.

Back in the 60's and 70's when these things were built, the average peasent probably had never seen an indoor bathroom.

In a communist society there are no peasants. Everyone is equal.