Confessions of a Nuclear Power Safety Expert

[kpete]

SCIENCE
June 14, 2011
Confessions of a Nuclear Power Safety Expert
Nuclear engineer Cesare Silvi studied unlikely outside threats to nuclear plants in Italy, which soured him on the energy source and caused him to go solar.


“… I soon came to the conclusion that neither international cooperation nor technological advancements would guarantee human societies to build and safely run nuclear reactors in all possible conditions on Earth (earthquakes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, wars, terrorism, climate change, tsunamis, pandemics, etc.). I am sadly reminded of this turning point in my life as I listen to the news about the earthquake, tsunami and extremely worrying nuclear crisis in Japan.”

Upon leaving the Institute, he added, he moved away from nuclear energy and focused on solar energy.

“Nuclear today only generates about 12 percent of the developed world’s electricity. By instituting an energy efficiency program,” Silvi suggests, “we could fill the gap caused by shutting them all down and put this malevolent genie back into the bottle.

“Human history is full of madness, full of catastrophes. Imagine if we had nuclear reactors when we fought wars in the past. If you try to consider all the events that might happen over the years, you start to ask, ‘What are the benefits of such an effort, especially when you have opportunities to get electricity in many other ways?’”

MORE:
http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/confessions-of-a-nuclear-power-safety-expert-32220/

[plumbob]

1. Thank you!

Yes, we need to immediately shut down and disassemble all of these filthy, dangerous, expensive, incredibly stupid machines whose sole purpose is to boil water.

Really really one of the stupidest stunts ever.

[damntexdem]

2. What a shame: to have been an expert in a nonexistent topic.

I'm glad he moved on to something beneficial.

[RC]

3. OK, then - -

What what will guarantee that any power source will continue to be safely run in all possible conditions on Earth (earthquakes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, wars, terrorism, climate change, tsunamis, pandemics, etc.)? I can't think of anything, can you? This is an absolutely ridicules assertion.

Also, most of the nuclear power plants in operation now are 50+ year old technology. We have much better and safer reactor designs now.

“… I soon came to the conclusion that neither international cooperation nor technological advancements would guarantee human societies to build and safely run nuclear reactors in all possible conditions on Earth (earthquakes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, wars, terrorism, climate change, tsunamis, pandemics, etc.). I am sadly reminded of this turning point in my life as I listen to the news about the earthquake, tsunami and extremely worrying nuclear crisis in Japan.”

[obxhead]

4. When a solar plant or windmill, or hell even a coal plant,

explodes (or whatever) it isn't followed by decades of radioactive material causing some of the most horrific problems humankind has ever faced.

Nothing can be made 100% safe. That's the exact reason all nuclear power needs to be shut down.

[RC]

5. "Nothing can be made 100% safe. That's the exact reason all nuclear power needs to be shut down."

Since nothing can be made 100% safe, only nuclear power needs to be shut down?
I take it you never took any kind of logic class or any critical thinking courses, because you seem to be lacking both.

Did you bother to read the rest of my post where I said we are still using 50+ year old technology and newer designs are much safer? Of course not, that would introduce a few good facts about nuclear power and we wouldn't want that now would we?

[retread]

6. There ARE some promising ideas in Gen IV. Why then build the flawed AP 1000 design in Georgia?

If the idea is to get away from 50+ year old technology why light water reactors at all?

We built a thorium fluoride reactor in the late '60's, early '70's(don't remember the exact date). There exists a great deal of suspicion that this technology was abandoned because there wasn't enough weapons grade material generated.

The optimistic view is we will stumble along attempting to put lipstick on these dinosaurs until we decide around 10 years from now to buy the safer technology from China!!

[lbrtbell]

7. "Safer" doesn't mean safe

It's your logic that's failing, because you're ignoring the fact that other technologies don't create such disastrous results when something else goes wrong.

Nuclear energy is dangerous, and stupid besides. There are better ways to boil water....

[RC]

12. Do you mean safe like coal?

New Harvard study examines full cost of coal
Posted by Beth Daley February 16, 2011 10:00 AM
The report, being published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, notes that fully accounting for these
costs would double to triple the price of electricity from coal, thus making wind, solar, and other forms of renewable
energy far more competitive.

The report focused in on one region in the counry, Appalachia, but its conclusions were national. For example, it
showed that accidents since 1900 have killed over 100,000 U.S. miners and more than 200,000 have died from black
lung disease, with long-term support of them dependent on state and federal funds. Mountaintop removal was
examined -- some 500 Appalachian summits have been removed, transforming 1.4 million acres -- to extrapolate costs
of polluted and buried streams, drinking water contamination, and methane and carbon releases due to disturbed
lands.

The report examined sludge, slurry and fly ash ponds left over from coal mines and processing plants, air pollution
from coal burning power plants, ecological impacts, and even deaths in railroad accidents from the transport of coal.

It also examined carbon capture and storage to note that it would almost double the cost of electricity at plants and
pose dangers such as leaching heavy metals into ground water and the unintended release of highly-concentrated
carbon dioxide into the air that can harm plants, animals, and humans.


http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2011/02/new_harvard_study_looks_at_ful.html

Why isn't anyone up in arms about this. The damage is extensive and forever.
Compare the people who have died from coal with those that have died from nuclear power plants. Coal is far more dangerous than nuclear.
Coal is a better way to boil water? I don't think so.

[immoderate]

17. Coal is bad. That doesn't make nuclear any less insane.

Coal companies want to maximize profits. They take shortcuts. Black lung and mountain top removal could be avoided. Not mining coal would be even better. Are nuclear and coal your only choices for how to boil water? (Ever hear of the forced choice fallacy? E.G.: Do you want to invade Iraq, or do you hate America?)

How can you be sure that nuclear companies will not take shortcuts? When nuclear fails, they contaminate the planet for generations. It's a bad bet.

--imm

[immoderate]

13. OK, Mr. Logic...

The unlikely, over time becomes the inevitable. Multiply that by the number of installations.

The benefits are minor, the means are non-essential, the downside is to lose a part of the only planet we have for a geological time period. Does your logic include cost-benefit over time?

You claim superior logical abilities. Do something logical!

--imm

[SpoonFed]

15. Get back to us when...

a solar farm blows up and wipes out 1/3 of Japan. I'll start listening to your nonsense if/when that happens.

[ergot]

8. How dare you bring scientific facts to a well-established hysteria?

sheesh

[bananas]

9. He didn't bring any scientific facts, he just brings his own hysteria.

Nuclear isn't needed at all - it is dangerous, dirty, expensive, and unnecessary.
Only 30% of Japan's electricity came from nuclear.
Offshore windmills were unaffected by the tsunami.
It's time to phase out nuclear and fossil fuels, and phase in renewables.

[ergot]

10. It is not dangerous compared to most other technologies.

The percentage is irrelevant,
windmills are neat but not even close to meeting current energy needs
and nuclear is expensive because of the over-regulation that makes new construction virtually impossible.
We can never catch up using wind and solar unless we use nuclear power...because it's the only way we can produce enough electricity to manufacture the hardware for those gadgets.

[bananas]

11. It's extremely dangerous, especially compare to other technologies.

The percentage is very relevant - and when you look at their total energy use, rather than just electricity, it's an even smaller percentage.
Either wind or solar on their own are more than capable of fully powering a high-energy technological civilization with billions of people.
Nuclear is not expensive because of over-regulation, that is a myth. The nuclear industry collapsed in 1974, five years before TMI caused new regulations which were completely justified.

Where do you get this from:
"We can never catch up using wind and solar unless we use nuclear power...because it's the only way we can produce enough electricity to manufacture the hardware for those gadgets."
Your statement is completely wrong - nuclear is just a small percentage of our total energy supply, almost all energy for building new wind, solar, or nuclear will come from fossil fuels.
Wind is cheaper and comes online faster than nuclear now,
and in a few years the same will be true of solar.

[SpoonFed]

14. Citations required

to back up your unequivocable statements for nukers. Think something along the lines of all the stuff that is well documented that Kristopher posts on a regular basis.

Your argument about over-regulation is total BS.
Try about under-insurance instead.

[RC]

19. Just because it is "Well documented" doesn't necessarily make it true

Look at our own 9/11. That is 'Well Documented" also (notice the quoits). Nuclear power is the same way because in both cases, some people will not except what should be the obvious truth. They will seek out what they already believe (nuclear is bad) to reinforce what they already "know", and disregard logical facts and historical evidence to the contrary (Hundreds of thousands of people have died to supply coal, few have died from nuclear power, but coal is safer).
The paranoia surrounding nuclear power is the same as around religious fundamentalism. Fear driven, with a dearth of facts.
Example of thought process: Microwave ovens nuke food. Nukes are bad. Therefore microwave ovens are radioactive inside. Makes sense if you don't think about it.

[SpoonFed]

20. Tangential strawman arguments --- ignored n/t

[RC]

21. You helped to make my point.

[SpoonFed]

24. Is your point that you don't provide a single citation, evar? n/t

[bananas]

26. LOL - You think the engineer in the OP doesn't understand how microwave ovens work?

You guys crack me up!
:rofl:

[SpoonFed]

28. Nice catch. n/t

[ergot]

23. I'm not familiar with the word "unequivocable" but I'll stick with the incontrovertible facts

about how many people have actually died from the various energy enterprises. That's the only metric that impresses me.

[SpoonFed]

25. Which incontrovertible fact is that?

2000, 200,000, or 1,000,000 Chornobyl-related deaths?
I think petty pointing out of spelling mistakes is a metric that also floats your boat.

[RC]

16. Sorry. I'll try harder next time.

:P

[immoderate]

18. Being wrong is hard work.

--imm

[spanone]

22. no nukes. we assign everything to the lowest bidder. no nukes

[novealphtang]

27. Here's a pro nuke blog for a leaking plant that has literally crumbled b4 our eyes

http://yesvy.blogspot.com/
If you click and read some of the posts you can get a flavor of the righteous attitude these nuclear engineers have about the "rationality" of the energy policies they support.
The NYtimes just ran an artice about reason not bei used to get to the truth,instead it is used to dominate.i believe this is what these nuclear engineers do,they simply choose the position "support nuclear energy" and then abusively use their epyewrs of study to undermine the rational selfinterest of the rest of us non-nuclear industry people to be opposed to nuclear energy.