Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!ut-sally!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci Subject: Re: Nuclear power vs Coal vs Alternatives Message-ID: <227@cci632.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Jul-86 19:38:29 EDT Article-I.D.: cci632.227 Posted: Wed Jul 16 19:38:29 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 17-Jul-86 06:30:26 EDT References: <628@bu-cs.UUCP> <1943@ihlpg.UUCP> <796@whuts.UUCP> <1557@ames.UUCP> <442@meccts.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY Lines: 85 Xref: watmath net.politics:17410 net.sci:1269 Summary: Safer nuke power! In article <442@meccts.UUCP> mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) writes: >In article <1557@ames.UUCP> eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: >>> Actually, the pure costs (non-legal) of nukes has actually gone down, >>> even before inflation, but the legal costs have gone up exponentially. >> >> No, the non-legal costs have gone up. But it also >> gets harder to separate: e.g., are clean-up mops considered legal >> cost? > >One article I read said it took about 5 years on the average to build >a nuclear power plant in Japan. This is in a country which is much >more earthquake prone then the US. In the US it takes somewhere like >15 years to build a nuclear power plant. It is the legal costs that >have destroyed nuclear power in this country. Fortunately that >hasn't happened in to many other countries. (Or they, like us, would be >using more dangerous methods of producing power.) Unfortunately, many other companies are not making attempts to make their nuclear plants safer. Chyrnobel(sp?) is one example of what can happen when people aren't encouraged to innovate toward safer plants. When incedents do happen, as they ultimately must in PWR plants where simple pressure and decay are critical factors, it only makes "anti-nuke advocates" say "see, we told you so". >Name one nuclear power plant that has *ever* blown up. A nuclear >power plant can never come close to ever getting a critical mass. A >chemcial explosion followed by a fire is not blowing up. As I recall, there was a nuclear waste dump in the U.S.S.R. that did explode. Note, this was not a plant, but a place where wastes were imprudently stored. The explosion was relatively trivial, not even as bad as Chyrnobel. >If you want to show that nuclear power is too dangerous, then simply >show a power source that can produce the same amount of power with a >lower cost in human life. Remember that coal emmissions kill an >estimated 10-50 thousand people a year and that radon gas (which >collects in tightly insulated homes) is suspected to cause up to 10 >thousand cancers a year. The original issue that raised this question was "why not solar, geothermal, wind, or tidal energy". As you point out, there is a problem of quantity, and reliability, in addition to cost. The reason this discussion was brought into net.sci however, was because the issue of how nuclear plants could be made safer came up. So, to put it simply: 1. Do you think nuclear plants are as safe as they could be? (me: no, the basic premise of most plants is pressure and heat, this might be OK if you replace the pipes every 10 years, but not if 1 set has to last 20-30 years.) 2. Do you think they could be made safe? (me: yes, if safety were a primary goal, they could be made safe) 3. Which plant(s) are the safest? (me: Ft. St. Vrain in Greely Colorado, is the safest, but could be safer). 4. How could one make them safer? (me: Use argon to convert neutron radiation to heat, use freon or some other non-radiation sensitive gas to retain heat. Sodium encased in concrete or ceramic, at least 1 layer all the way around, including underneath. Control rod mechanisms that drop before the pile gets too hot. Sodium at the base of the pile, sufficient to prevent melt-down. Coolant which is not temperature sensitive (or mimally so) to cool the pile reguardless of temprature or pressure. Several small piles/reactors rather than one large one. >Michael V. Stein Just as many elements such as silicon, gallium, arsenic, and boron have valuable electrical properties in certain combinations, so to do different elements have valuable nuclear properties. To simply use "pressurized water" because water is "cheap" is like using salt-water dimmers for home "light dimmers". Just as semiconductors can do a better and safer job of managing electricity, so too can certain combinations provide better management of nuclear power. Just because the first light bulb was created using burned cotton thread didn't mean all light bulbs had to be made with thread. Most of my suggestions come from other sources, such as nuclear physicists. I would love to see a "periodic table" of how each element is effected by nuclear radiation. Perhaps nuclear "batteries" or automotive engines would even be attractive if the right packaging were done :-).