5 ms·

As terrible as that may sound I wonder if they thought about the idea to move nuclear reactors back into big cities for the convenience of the people working in

As terrible as that may sound I wonder if they thought about the idea to move nuclear reactors back into big cities for the convenience of the people working in them. Sound as if they neither see a problem with that.

scotty79 5y ago
Actually moving reactors (back?) into the cities would be a great move because that would make people understand how incredibly safe those thing are. Meanwhile we have coal power plants in the cities spewing out harmful particulates, gases and even radiation and people percieving them as safe because they live next to them.
- cronix 5y ago
  A lot (most?) of them are. Trojan, in Portland Oregon, wasn't. It left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Oregonians, especially the main population center of the state in Portland, to the point the basically banned it. Also a lot of Washingtonians were not happy that the leftover nuclear waste was buried up in their state as well as increased radioactive levels in the Columbia River detected since then, and higher than average deformation of fish. It was on the ballot year after year to get it closed down and finally leaked docs from the US NRC sealed the deal. I got to watch them blow it up! :) > After 16 years of irregular service, the plant was closed permanently in 1992 by its operator, Portland General Electric (PGE),[3] after cracks were discovered in the steam-generator tubing. Decommissioning and demolition of the plant began the following year and was largely completed in 2006 > The Trojan steam generators were designed to last the life of the plant, but it was only four years before premature cracking of the steam tubes was observed.[citation needed] In October 1979, the plant was shut down through the end of the year for repairs.[14][15][16] The plant had an extended shutdown in 1984, with difficulty restarting. > In December 1992, documents were leaked from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission showing that staff scientists believed that Trojan might be unsafe to operate.[26] In early January 1993, PGE chief executive Ken Harrison announced the company would not try to restart Trojan > In 2005, the reactor vessel and other radioactive equipment were removed from the Trojan plant, encased in concrete foam, shrink-wrapped, and transported intact by barge along the Columbia River to Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington, where it was buried in a pit and covered with 45 feet (14 m) of gravel, which made it the first commercial reactor to be moved and buried whole.[31] It was awaiting transport to the Yucca Mountain Repository until that project was canceled in 2009. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    Random factoid: Kodak had a small nuclear reactor in the basement of its Rochester, NY headquarters for thirty years (until the plant and HQ was closed). Emphasis on small. Not a true secret; fully regulated and licensed. But they didn't talk about it! https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kodak-reveals-it-had-secret-nuclear-reactor-for-30-years-7754328.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kodak-reve... "...it came pre-loaded with nearly 1.5kg of uranium enriched up to a level of 93.4 per cent, which is just about right for an atomic warhead."
    - thesz 5y ago
      https://eng.mephi.ru/research/facilities/the-reactor https://eng.mephi.ru/research/facilities/the-reactor I think it is about 10-15km from center of Moscow.
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
  Another advantage is that it would become practical to use the waste heat for district heating.
- sumedh 5y ago
  Do you want a nuclear plant near your backyard?
  - naasking 5y ago
    If it meant not having fossil fuel plants nearby instead, I 100% would want a nuclear pant near my backyard. Perhaps you don't realize how many people die per year due to air pollution. Comparing the safety records of fossil fuels and nuclear is frankly laughable.
    - justatdotin 5y ago
      Comparing the safety records of fossil fuels and nuclear, while ignoring the safety of solar, is dishonest. >150% of my power requirements is produced by panels on my roof.
      - naasking 5y ago
        If it feels dishonest, then you should do more research. Nuclear is safer than solar too: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi...
        justatdotin 5y ago
        do you have a supporting reference from this century? or at least, more recent than Chernobyl?
        godelski 5y ago
        I do[0] > the death toll of history’s two nuclear disasters we have added the death rate that Markandya and Wilkinson (2007) estimated for occupational deaths, most from milling and mining. Their published rate is 0.022 deaths per TWh. > The sum of these three data points gives us a death rate of 0.07 deaths per TWh. We might consider this an upper estimate. > For example, included in this database were deaths related to an incident where from a water tank ruptured during a construction test at a solar factory. It’s not clear whether these supply chain deaths should or shouldn’t be attributed as a death from solar technologies. Deaths: Nuclear 0.07 vs Solar 0.02. Greenhouse gasses: Nuclear 3 tonnes vs Solar 5 tonnes Here's one from 2012[1] where they breakdown nuclear deaths to include Chernobyl and Fukushima and remove those (i.e. electricity). Nuclear wins by a lot. Or a 2014 study[2] showing nuclear beating solar rooftop (note, concentrated solar is a lot safer than rooftop. Concentrated is actually safer than nuclear but the death rates are so small I'm not sure why we're arguing over them). There's plenty of sources showing nuclear's death rates are roughly the same as solar, wind, and hydro. All of which are 2 orders of magnitude below biomass and natural gas and 3 below coal and oil. Similarly also 2-3 orders of magnitude less than coal, natural gas, and oil (1 magnitude less than hydro). These discussions are absurd. We just end up sitting here quibbling over a small tradeoff between emissions and deaths (a very difficult thing to measure) while we just keep producing gas, oil, and coal. Pick your battles. When we have a clean grid we can quibble over these numbers because at that point they will be significant. But at this time they aren't even close. If you want to complain about the cost of nuclear, sure, that's a fair and honest discussion we can have. But there is no evidence to suggest that nuclear isn't safe and green. This is very concerning when it represents 50% of the zero carbon emission energy in the US. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?sh=59ea929b709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/rates-for-each-energy-source-in-deaths-per-billion-kWh-produced-Source-Updated_tbl2_272406182 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/rates-for-each-energy-so...

scotty79 5y ago

Actually moving reactors (back?) into the cities would be a great move because that would make people understand how incredibly safe those thing are. Meanwhile we have coal power plants in the cities spewing out harmful particulates, gases and even radiation and people percieving them as safe because they live next to them.

cronix 5y ago
A lot (most?) of them are. Trojan, in Portland Oregon, wasn't. It left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Oregonians, especially the main population center of the state in Portland, to the point the basically banned it. Also a lot of Washingtonians were not happy that the leftover nuclear waste was buried up in their state as well as increased radioactive levels in the Columbia River detected since then, and higher than average deformation of fish. It was on the ballot year after year to get it closed down and finally leaked docs from the US NRC sealed the deal. I got to watch them blow it up! :) > After 16 years of irregular service, the plant was closed permanently in 1992 by its operator, Portland General Electric (PGE),[3] after cracks were discovered in the steam-generator tubing. Decommissioning and demolition of the plant began the following year and was largely completed in 2006 > The Trojan steam generators were designed to last the life of the plant, but it was only four years before premature cracking of the steam tubes was observed.[citation needed] In October 1979, the plant was shut down through the end of the year for repairs.[14][15][16] The plant had an extended shutdown in 1984, with difficulty restarting. > In December 1992, documents were leaked from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission showing that staff scientists believed that Trojan might be unsafe to operate.[26] In early January 1993, PGE chief executive Ken Harrison announced the company would not try to restart Trojan > In 2005, the reactor vessel and other radioactive equipment were removed from the Trojan plant, encased in concrete foam, shrink-wrapped, and transported intact by barge along the Columbia River to Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington, where it was buried in a pit and covered with 45 feet (14 m) of gravel, which made it the first commercial reactor to be moved and buried whole.[31] It was awaiting transport to the Yucca Mountain Repository until that project was canceled in 2009. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  Random factoid: Kodak had a small nuclear reactor in the basement of its Rochester, NY headquarters for thirty years (until the plant and HQ was closed). Emphasis on small. Not a true secret; fully regulated and licensed. But they didn't talk about it! https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kodak-reveals-it-had-secret-nuclear-reactor-for-30-years-7754328.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kodak-reve... "...it came pre-loaded with nearly 1.5kg of uranium enriched up to a level of 93.4 per cent, which is just about right for an atomic warhead."
  - thesz 5y ago
    https://eng.mephi.ru/research/facilities/the-reactor https://eng.mephi.ru/research/facilities/the-reactor I think it is about 10-15km from center of Moscow.
Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
Another advantage is that it would become practical to use the waste heat for district heating.
sumedh 5y ago
Do you want a nuclear plant near your backyard?
- naasking 5y ago
  If it meant not having fossil fuel plants nearby instead, I 100% would want a nuclear pant near my backyard. Perhaps you don't realize how many people die per year due to air pollution. Comparing the safety records of fossil fuels and nuclear is frankly laughable.
  - justatdotin 5y ago
    Comparing the safety records of fossil fuels and nuclear, while ignoring the safety of solar, is dishonest. >150% of my power requirements is produced by panels on my roof.
    - naasking 5y ago
      If it feels dishonest, then you should do more research. Nuclear is safer than solar too: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi...
      - justatdotin 5y ago
        do you have a supporting reference from this century? or at least, more recent than Chernobyl?
        godelski 5y ago
        I do[0] > the death toll of history’s two nuclear disasters we have added the death rate that Markandya and Wilkinson (2007) estimated for occupational deaths, most from milling and mining. Their published rate is 0.022 deaths per TWh. > The sum of these three data points gives us a death rate of 0.07 deaths per TWh. We might consider this an upper estimate. > For example, included in this database were deaths related to an incident where from a water tank ruptured during a construction test at a solar factory. It’s not clear whether these supply chain deaths should or shouldn’t be attributed as a death from solar technologies. Deaths: Nuclear 0.07 vs Solar 0.02. Greenhouse gasses: Nuclear 3 tonnes vs Solar 5 tonnes Here's one from 2012[1] where they breakdown nuclear deaths to include Chernobyl and Fukushima and remove those (i.e. electricity). Nuclear wins by a lot. Or a 2014 study[2] showing nuclear beating solar rooftop (note, concentrated solar is a lot safer than rooftop. Concentrated is actually safer than nuclear but the death rates are so small I'm not sure why we're arguing over them). There's plenty of sources showing nuclear's death rates are roughly the same as solar, wind, and hydro. All of which are 2 orders of magnitude below biomass and natural gas and 3 below coal and oil. Similarly also 2-3 orders of magnitude less than coal, natural gas, and oil (1 magnitude less than hydro). These discussions are absurd. We just end up sitting here quibbling over a small tradeoff between emissions and deaths (a very difficult thing to measure) while we just keep producing gas, oil, and coal. Pick your battles. When we have a clean grid we can quibble over these numbers because at that point they will be significant. But at this time they aren't even close. If you want to complain about the cost of nuclear, sure, that's a fair and honest discussion we can have. But there is no evidence to suggest that nuclear isn't safe and green. This is very concerning when it represents 50% of the zero carbon emission energy in the US. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?sh=59ea929b709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/rates-for-each-energy-source-in-deaths-per-billion-kWh-produced-Source-Updated_tbl2_272406182 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/rates-for-each-energy-so...