3 ms·

"As a result, the minimum standard was relaxed first by raising the reference temperature 50 percent, and then 78 percent above the original — even though a bro

"As a result, the minimum standard was relaxed first by raising the reference temperature 50 percent, and then 78 percent above the original — even though a broken vessel could spill its radioactive contents into the environment." Amazing. I know that there are many who still think nuclear energy is safe, but I think it's inherently unsafe, not because the original designs are flawed or anything technical like that, but because people seem to get greedy or too complacent around them, and that's what can ultimately lead to nuclear disasters.

ScotterC 15y ago
I'm sorry but people seem to get greedy and too complacent only around nuclear?
- blhack 15y ago
  Worst case scenario at a coal-fired power plant is what? The plant gets destroyed? A few tens or hundreds of people die? This is a tragedy, of course, but nowhere near the level of a nuclear disaster like we're seeing in Japan right now.
  - orangecat 15y ago
    The worst case scenario for coal is very close to the average case scenario, which is that tens of thousands of people die every year from pollution-induced heart attacks and strokes, as well as mining accidents. But that doesn't make exciting headlines. This is a tragedy, of course, but nowhere near the level of a nuclear disaster like we're seeing in Japan right now. Last I heard the current death toll from Fukushima was 2, and those workers were killed by the tsunami itself.
  - william42 15y ago
    Worst case scenario at a coal-fired power plant is that it becomes a thermobaric bomb, or the Centralia Mine Fire.
jws 15y ago
I am well out of my specific expertise here, but consider these facts for a less frightening interpretation that would not sell newspapers… • There are reactors in operation that were designed in the age of slide rules. Even in 1980, $5 million "supercomputers" ($15M in today's dollars) were less powerful than my phone. • In "An Overview of Radiation Embrittlement Modeling for Reactor Vessel Steels" 1993, http://books.google.com/books?id=quzCvTWt9CMC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=nuclear+embrittlement+history&source=bl&ots=JBkpjOEbWi&sig=P_d5sfOBkQmAuvZEK4B1u3MzZ6Q&hl=en&ei=5cf_TfbtC8iWtwfokuzqAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=nuclear%20embrittlement%20history&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=quzCvTWt9CMC&pg=PA99&#3... the oldest work in the bibliography specifically on embrittlement that I see is from the 1970s with the bulk being in the 1980s. • When faced with uncertainty, engineers set the limits high enough to encompass the worst case. • When faced with approximation, engineers set the limits to encompass the error of the calculation. A poorly understood phenomenon coupled with primitive, coarse grained models (in order to be computable by the existing resources) is going to get you an overly conservative operating range. 25 years of studying what actually happens in live reactors, 25 years of theoretical studying, and unimaginably fast computers for verifying models and simulating situations is going to get you a different answer to the question.
- maxxxxx 15y ago
  I wish there had been a careful reexamination of standards based on new knowledge. More likely is that bringing old plants up to standard was too expensive. Or even worse, taking them off the grid. In my view this is the real danger of nuclear power: New plants are probably quite safe but they are very expensive to maintain when they get old. On the other hand, if you relax the standard they are more profitable the older they get. So at some point you end up with a lot of old plants that are extremely expensive to maintain or shut down.
- watmough 15y ago
  On the other hand, the commercial pressures of operating complex metal and concrete structures way beyond their design-life may lead to pressure to relax standards, that when combined with aging materials, lead to a chain of events that creates a serious accident. We've had quite a few very narrow escapes in the US. Here's just one: Davis-Besse http://events.nace.org/library/corrosion/NuclearIndustry/nuclear-accident-2.asp http://events.nace.org/library/corrosion/NuclearIndustry/nuc... >High pressure inside the reactor vessel pushed the stainless steel outward into the cavity formed by the boric acid. The stainless steel bent but did not break. Cooling water remained inside the reactor vessel not because of thick carbon steel but due to a thin layer of stainless steel. Picture of corrosion here: http://www.nirs.org/photogallery/davisbesseimages.htm http://www.nirs.org/photogallery/davisbesseimages.htm Personally, I'll support nuclear power if based on a reasonably clean low-waste producing technology, and if it can be proven that a safe passive shut-down is possible under station black-out conditions, without human intervention.
nevinera 15y ago
All of the 'nuclear disasters' in history collectively did far less ecological and environmental damage than the BP oil leak last year. People tend to rate dangers they don't understand very well much higher than those they do.
- watmough 15y ago
  This is an amazing photo-essay on some of the legacy of Chernobyl. http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl If you can point me at a similar legacy of birth defects suffering and eviction from the land, tied to the BP spill, please do so. I'm not belittling the terrible effects on the Gulf of Mexico, but for people on land, I'm not sure I'd quite put it in the Chernobyl league.
  - nevinera 15y ago
    I can't point to a "similar legacy of birth defects suffering and eviction from the land" in conjunction with any other kind of disaster, up to and including earthquakes causing millions of deaths. The 'league' of a disaster in your head is not an important metric; the oil spill is responsible for far more environmental contamination, food supply reduction, and long term ecological damage than Chernobyl. Coal plants kill more people every year without even being called 'disasters' - the birth defects caused by the radiation being put in the atmosphere by those plants is distributed over a far larger area, but it's way out of the 'Chernobyl league'. You are attributing extra importance to Chernobyl because it causes an unusual type of localized damage, but it never caused that much of it.
- derobert 15y ago
  For another stark example, compare them to the damage done by properly-operating coal plants every year. Mining coal, just mining it, directly kills more people every year (on the order of 10k) than Chernobyl will. Then there are the various mining-related lung diseases. Then there are the 10–20k (in the US alone, depending on which estimate you believe) deaths/year from the pollution.
uvdiv 15y ago
Since when are temperature increases measured in %? Comparing with this other article, it seems are taking figures in °Fahrenheit and dividing them. http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/54828a5e8d9d48b7ba8b94ba38a9ef22/Article_2011-06-20-Aging%20Nukes-Brittle%20Vessels/id-22e7f3355e1040dba689ef4d9fd91076 http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/54828a5e8d9d48b7ba8b94ba38a9ef22... I.e. 300 °F / 200 °F = 150%, and 356 °F / 200 °F = 178%.
nosse 15y ago
Your argument is perfectly valid. It would also be perfectly valid considering commercial flight, ship transport, passenger trains...

ScotterC 15y ago

I'm sorry but people seem to get greedy and too complacent only around nuclear?

blhack 15y ago
Worst case scenario at a coal-fired power plant is what? The plant gets destroyed? A few tens or hundreds of people die? This is a tragedy, of course, but nowhere near the level of a nuclear disaster like we're seeing in Japan right now.
- orangecat 15y ago
  The worst case scenario for coal is very close to the average case scenario, which is that tens of thousands of people die every year from pollution-induced heart attacks and strokes, as well as mining accidents. But that doesn't make exciting headlines. This is a tragedy, of course, but nowhere near the level of a nuclear disaster like we're seeing in Japan right now. Last I heard the current death toll from Fukushima was 2, and those workers were killed by the tsunami itself.
- william42 15y ago
  Worst case scenario at a coal-fired power plant is that it becomes a thermobaric bomb, or the Centralia Mine Fire.

jws 15y ago

I am well out of my specific expertise here, but consider these facts for a less frightening interpretation that would not sell newspapers… • There are reactors in operation that were designed in the age of slide rules. Even in 1980, $5 million "supercomputers" ($15M in today's dollars) were less powerful than my phone. • In "An Overview of Radiation Embrittlement Modeling for Reactor Vessel Steels" 1993, http://books.google.com/books?id=quzCvTWt9CMC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=nuclear+embrittlement+history&source=bl&ots=JBkpjOEbWi&sig=P_d5sfOBkQmAuvZEK4B1u3MzZ6Q&hl=en&ei=5cf_TfbtC8iWtwfokuzqAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=nuclear%20embrittlement%20history&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=quzCvTWt9CMC&pg=PA99&#3... the oldest work in the bibliography specifically on embrittlement that I see is from the 1970s with the bulk being in the 1980s. • When faced with uncertainty, engineers set the limits high enough to encompass the worst case. • When faced with approximation, engineers set the limits to encompass the error of the calculation. A poorly understood phenomenon coupled with primitive, coarse grained models (in order to be computable by the existing resources) is going to get you an overly conservative operating range. 25 years of studying what actually happens in live reactors, 25 years of theoretical studying, and unimaginably fast computers for verifying models and simulating situations is going to get you a different answer to the question.

maxxxxx 15y ago
I wish there had been a careful reexamination of standards based on new knowledge. More likely is that bringing old plants up to standard was too expensive. Or even worse, taking them off the grid. In my view this is the real danger of nuclear power: New plants are probably quite safe but they are very expensive to maintain when they get old. On the other hand, if you relax the standard they are more profitable the older they get. So at some point you end up with a lot of old plants that are extremely expensive to maintain or shut down.
watmough 15y ago
On the other hand, the commercial pressures of operating complex metal and concrete structures way beyond their design-life may lead to pressure to relax standards, that when combined with aging materials, lead to a chain of events that creates a serious accident. We've had quite a few very narrow escapes in the US. Here's just one: Davis-Besse http://events.nace.org/library/corrosion/NuclearIndustry/nuclear-accident-2.asp http://events.nace.org/library/corrosion/NuclearIndustry/nuc... >High pressure inside the reactor vessel pushed the stainless steel outward into the cavity formed by the boric acid. The stainless steel bent but did not break. Cooling water remained inside the reactor vessel not because of thick carbon steel but due to a thin layer of stainless steel. Picture of corrosion here: http://www.nirs.org/photogallery/davisbesseimages.htm http://www.nirs.org/photogallery/davisbesseimages.htm Personally, I'll support nuclear power if based on a reasonably clean low-waste producing technology, and if it can be proven that a safe passive shut-down is possible under station black-out conditions, without human intervention.

nevinera 15y ago

All of the 'nuclear disasters' in history collectively did far less ecological and environmental damage than the BP oil leak last year. People tend to rate dangers they don't understand very well much higher than those they do.

watmough 15y ago
This is an amazing photo-essay on some of the legacy of Chernobyl. http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl If you can point me at a similar legacy of birth defects suffering and eviction from the land, tied to the BP spill, please do so. I'm not belittling the terrible effects on the Gulf of Mexico, but for people on land, I'm not sure I'd quite put it in the Chernobyl league.
- nevinera 15y ago
  I can't point to a "similar legacy of birth defects suffering and eviction from the land" in conjunction with any other kind of disaster, up to and including earthquakes causing millions of deaths. The 'league' of a disaster in your head is not an important metric; the oil spill is responsible for far more environmental contamination, food supply reduction, and long term ecological damage than Chernobyl. Coal plants kill more people every year without even being called 'disasters' - the birth defects caused by the radiation being put in the atmosphere by those plants is distributed over a far larger area, but it's way out of the 'Chernobyl league'. You are attributing extra importance to Chernobyl because it causes an unusual type of localized damage, but it never caused that much of it.
derobert 15y ago
For another stark example, compare them to the damage done by properly-operating coal plants every year. Mining coal, just mining it, directly kills more people every year (on the order of 10k) than Chernobyl will. Then there are the various mining-related lung diseases. Then there are the 10–20k (in the US alone, depending on which estimate you believe) deaths/year from the pollution.

uvdiv 15y ago

Since when are temperature increases measured in %? Comparing with this other article, it seems are taking figures in °Fahrenheit and dividing them. http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/54828a5e8d9d48b7ba8b94ba38a9ef22/Article_2011-06-20-Aging%20Nukes-Brittle%20Vessels/id-22e7f3355e1040dba689ef4d9fd91076 http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/54828a5e8d9d48b7ba8b94ba38a9ef22... I.e. 300 °F / 200 °F = 150%, and 356 °F / 200 °F = 178%.

nosse 15y ago

Your argument is perfectly valid. It would also be perfectly valid considering commercial flight, ship transport, passenger trains...