> Very funny. Tell that to the victims of Chernobyl. > > Nuclear fusion carried out in the depths of space is one thing. > > Nuclear fission on a planets surface where the biota are susceptible to > death from the radioactive by-products that have a half life longer than > any containment system known is not big or clever.
You shouldn't villify nuclear power by citing the worst reactor design ever as an example. Yes, it is an example of a horrible reactor design. No, it is not an example of a typical reactor. In case you are wondering about my qualifications, I am *not* a nuclear engineer. However, my father *is* a nuclear engineer. He says the Chernobyl reactor design was a disaster waiting to happen, and it's amazing it didn't happen sooner than it did. The 2 worst design flaws of the Chernobyl reactor are: 1) The thermal dynamics of the reactor have a positive coefficient. That means it is prone to thermal runaway. Hotter temperatures causes an increase in nuclear reaction, which causes hotter temperatures... 2) The reactor is not contained in a negative pressure vessel. Any steam or vapors can just diffuse out into the atmosphere, with no way to prevent it. He attributes that terrible design to these factors: 1) The former Soviet Union was in an expensive arms race with the West during the Cold War era. The limitations of a socialist economic system prevented the Russians from spending the time, effort, and money to match Western designs in terms of safety and reliability. 2) There were no methods of public protest in the USSR that could rectify the safety problems with their reactors. Even if it had been widespread public knowledge that the Russian reactor was poorly designed, there was nothing the Russian public could have done to change that. And no pressures the West could have applied would have worked, either. As for the spent fuel, this can be reprocessed into other useful materials. Plutonium, for example, is used in radioisotope thermal generators (RTG's), which are the preferred means of on-board power generation on deep space probes. And of course, weapons - please let's not argue the usefulness (or detrements) of those... Much of the radioactive waste is low-level waste, such as old hazmat suits, sludge (from decontamination with subsequent dionization of the waste water), old reactor parts, etc. Although this stuff is still too radioactive to casually dispose of, it can be buried in a containment facility. The problems with containment facilities such as Yucca Mountain are political, not scientific. Any proposal to store radioactive waste is met with NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) opposition. The US had it's own nuclear power catastrophe, Three Mile Island. Although serious, TMI was nowhere near as severe as Chernobyl. The TMI reactor rods did partially melt down, ruining the reactor, but containment was never breached. The cause of the meltdown was a failure in the high-pressure water injection system. This was compounded by an error in judgement by the control room staff. The upshot is that they should have compensated for the failure by activating the low-pressure and medium-pressure water injection systems, but they didn't. This failure scenario has since been corrected at other reactors of similar design, and additional training of the control room staff. As to the effects of radiation on biota, is it possible that the reason there are so many diverse species on Earth is because of the naturally occurring background radiation that exists in this biosphere? Radiation can damage DNA structures, resulting in mutation of the cell. In most cases, this damage is detrimental, and results in death of the organism. In fewer cases, it results in a beneficial mutation of the organism. I bet if it were possible to do a control experiment on biosphere evolution, you would see vastly fewer species in the radiation-free environments. What has this got to do with nuclear power? Simply that if you can keep the radiation dosage of nearby stored waste to a level not much above the background level, you won't have any more problems with mutations or cancers than you would naturally have. Is nuclear power perfect? No. But when properly designed and operated, it's not nearly as hazardous as it is hyped to be. So why is there so much opposition to nuclear power? IMO, for these reasons: 1) The public's lack of scientific knowledge. We don't all have to be nuclear engineers (I'm not), but everyone should have some basic understanding of science. At least enough to know that they should not have knee-jerk emotional reactions to environmental science issues. Yes, that's a lot to ask of the US education system and US culture, which is biased against nerdy pursuits :-( I don't know how good or bad the Australian educational system is, so I leave that issue to Tom. 2) The fact that "nuclear" also means weapons, and the horrific death and destruction they can cause, is guilt by association. 3) The tendency of media to sensationalize nuclear power for ratings and profit. 4) The profit and fame motive of protest leaders. If you are an engineer and you oppose nuclear power, but you haven't studied the science and the real facts behind it, you are doing a disservice to the public good. The non-engineering public has not had the science training to know any better, and is swayed by emotional outbursts of protest, but you should know better. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Luttrell PWRCOM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Open Topic Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 6:03 PM Subject: RE: [OT] Re: [PEDA] Lead free - *was* re design > Very funny. Tell that to the victims of Chernobyl. > > Nuclear fusion carried out in the depths of space is one thing. > > Nuclear fission on a planets surface where the biota are susceptible to > death from the radioactive by-products that have a half life longer than > any containment system known is not big or clever. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kearney, David > > Sent: Friday, 10 December 2004 9:50 AM > > To: 'Open Topic Forum' > > Subject: RE: [OT] Re: [PEDA] Lead free - *was* re design > > > > Since it was created... Shortly after Creation! > > > > Regards, > > David Kearney > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tom Luttrell PWRCOM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 2:49 PM > > To: Open Topic Forum > > Subject: RE: [OT] Re: [PEDA] Lead free - *was* re design > > > > > > Since when has nuclear power been good for the environment? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, 10 December 2004 12:09 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: [OT] Re: [PEDA] Lead free - *was* re design > > > > > > Yes, because in Europe it is produced using Nuclear power, > > > and in Asia by burning coal. Of course that's good. > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >On Behalf Of Dennis Saputelli > > > >Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 6:47 PM > > > >To: Open Topic Forum > > > >Subject: Re: [OT] Re: [PEDA] Lead free - *was* re design > > > > > > > > > > > >no one has mentioned (lately) > > > >the significantly higher energy use for lead free (higher temps) > > > > > > > >is this good for the environment ? > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You are subscribed to the OT discussion forum > > > > To Post messages: > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Unsubscribe and Other Options: > > http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/ot_techservinc.com > > > > Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > > Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You are subscribed to the OT discussion forum > > > > To Post messages: > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Unsubscribe and Other Options: > > http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/ot_techservinc.com > > > > Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > > Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You are subscribed to the OT discussion forum > > To Post messages: > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Unsubscribe and Other Options: > http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/ot_techservinc.com > > Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the OT discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/ot_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
