Can you describe the hypothetical characteristics of a reactor you would be comfortable with?”

My knowledge base, to be sure, is rudimentary, but I’ll take a stab at it. I’m confident, with your expertise, that you’ll correct my obvious errors and misstatements.

Of the 436+/- reactors, the majority are pressurized water reactors, followed by boiling water and pressurized heavy water. These account for over 400 of the total. Gas reactors use CO2 as coolant, fast neutron reactors use liquid sodium as coolant. Most reactors use enriched plutonium for fuel, a few might use natural uranium, some add plutonium to the mix. Most use water as the ‘moderator’, facilitating the desired rsate of fission; a few use graphite; the two liquid sodium fast neutron reactors don’t use a moderator.

These differences are actually not relevant to the concerns I’m trying to raise. The relative differences in safety, aside from age of the reactor itself, are incremental (over time, corrosion and radioactive degradation of concrete and steel also become greater concerns).

My focus is on the basic elements of the process. The core, composed of rods of zirconium clad uranium pellets, stacked in precise arrangements, at specific distances to otpimize reaction rates; control rods to separate the rods and stop the sustained chain reaction when desired (or necessary, in an emergency); the cooling process; containment; and the storage of spent rods. These elements are present in all reactors.

All are mechanical processes, except containment in the general sense, which is a structural feature (materials, design, engineering).

The outcome I find unacceptable is the release of radioactive materials into the environment, or the emission of high energy radiation outside the containment structure (I would include radiation exposure that produce health effects–radiation sickness, cancer, birth defects, etc.– in plant workers as unacceptable).

Both the mechanical processes and structural features are subject to failure (being rendered inoperative) through multiple routes; human error, materials failure, natural events (meteorological, seismic) is the main one that seems to have caused catastrophic failures repeatedly in the last 30 years (not including the deliberate disregard for safety that characterized Hanford and Oak Ridge).

The mechanical processes that maintain stable fission, and arrest it in an emergency, depend upon properly functioning equipment, utilized in the way intended, with no substandard materials, and according to specific protcols (which is where the human operator variable comes in).

Let’s take control rods as an example. When a reactor is ‘scrammed’, the first line of defense is the control rods performing as expected. However, even with redundant switches to activate them, it is possible that the control rods don’t perform as anticipated (or the operator doesn’t activate them, or the controls are damaged, etc.) Now fission continues. By itself, not a major problem. Unless cooling fails. Not a problem, unless containment fails (meltdown, explosion, containment materials ripped apart by earthquake or plane flying into them).

I’ve read any number of times (including in these comments, that each of these events, seperately, is highly unlikely; further; a squence of multiple failures is even more unlikely. This is defintiely true if we look at each reactor in isolation. However, each possible route of failure can be viewed as a roulette wheel being spun throughout the day every day, at all operating reactors.

That’s all abstract probability stuff, except catastrophic failures have now occurred on the order of once every ten years for the past thirty, and serious events happening several times a year. That’s why I think the ‘likelihood’ esytimates of nuclear proponents, their assumptions, need revisiting.

Is there a reactor that can rely solely on passive mechanisms for arresting fission, and mainatain containment?

Another think I like to mention now and the but haven’t had a chance lately is this: When people say “wind is nice but it is too variable” they are cheating. If you want to say that, then you must also say “Nuclear is too nice but it is too variable” because any given reactor a) has to be shut down now and then and b) could always .. ah … melt down or otherwise go wrong and then it becomes … unavailable in a very unpredictable way.

Wind, on the other hand, is increasignly used with these semi-truck sized sodium whatchamacallit batteries that significantly smooth out the variation. Wind is actually very steady in many parts of the world, very predictable to be available certain days, certain times of the day, at a certain minimum. But even where it is less predictable, it is everywhere, and with these batteries can be used very effectively.

The earth is a flaming hot ball covered with a dried up crust. Why anyone would build a structure without geothermal from this point forward (this point being a few years ago) I have no clue. It should be required where it works.

Ionized air is common and has a huge amount of energy stored in it. I know of no research pursuing that source.

I guess I want to throw away the word “alternate” and start using the word “costly” and apply “costly” to coal and nuclear.

Any argument where you begin with “This is not a….” tends to be blowing straw.

So here we are, Japan is in the middle of a large scale disaster and there are all these ‘experts’ offering ‘un-definitions’. It isn’t this/it isn’t that…and looking to restore some feeling of control over an unresolved situation is quite normal.

Am I anti or pro nuclear energy? Here’s how I see it. Australia has a lot of coal. It also has a lot of uranium. Japan buys the uranium. The coal is more expensive. Japan needs the cheaper option due to a downturn in its economy. Banning the selling of uranium has that profiteering slant to it..and it would be tacky to give a nation hit by a tsunami another economic punch in the guts. Of course we also have a lot of Sony and Japanese technology as we are trading partners…are we profiteering at the expense risk of another nation?

Being against something isn’t a real position/action stance. It’s always made of straw…because it is an inactive position and incomplete. We call this logical fallacy: failure to state.
I really don’t want to have a massive electricity bill and I support alternative energy. It’s still an inactive position…I’m perfectly aware that we don’t have a solar battery that will fly a passenger jet on international flights or launch a rocket.

Therefore I support coal and nuclear energy,where alternative tech cannot replace it, but prefer mixed energy sources for where alternatives are available and efficient.
I mean if alternative energy sources were such a great idea (cheap, easy to obtain etc) then it would be a nobrainer.
I don’t think about the technology I use in my everyday life in my home and workplace…because what else would I do…get my solar garden lights and try to plug them into the power grid or stick my coffee pot out in the sun and hope it will solar charge? I may have some qualms and try to reduce my appliances’ energy star rating because coal is a fossil fuel. But I’m not really going to give up my fridge and washing machine.
So that’s the current challenge…to get less common forms of energy to the no-brainer stage.

Is nuclear energy safe? Well you know…any form of energy concentrated in massive amounts isn’t safe when things go wrong. I’d hate for anything to go wrong with the sun for example. So I guess we always just end up spreading the problem around…the problem isn’t the energy source its the amount of energy.

If we want to get rid of the potential for waste pollution (accidental wate pollution included) perhaps we need an energy form that is ‘symbiotic?’

Okay I’m not a scientist. Being unscientific is actually a normative statistic for my sample group. Just saying.

I wouldn’t use data feeds and dials, I would use web cams. It is cheaper, there is no hard-wired interface and it isn’t subject to non-obvious censorship as easily.

They could put up ads and get paid for clicks. That might even cover the cost of it.

Except, of course, for whatever is going on in Sector 7-G

The difference with nuclear plants is that they are operating and ongoing sources of revenue. They are operated by people who are paid to keep them running, and who are able to tell when bad shit is going on (mostly). Those are big and gigantically valuable assets. The owners of those assets want those assets to stay in good condition and to remain valuable. That means taking good care of them.

If there was complete transparency in the operation of the nuke plant, that is if all communication channels between workers and between workers and management were completely public and in real time, stuff couldn’t be done in secret. When bad shit is found, the public would know as soon as the plant managers and the plant owners would know.

The cost to do that kind of transparency would be pretty cheap. I have a hard time imagining any insurmountable down-sides to a nuclear power plant doing this, other than a paranoid culture of secrecy and competitive advantage. Trying to â??gameâ? the stock market and energy prices would be the biggest thing to watch out for, but with all that data online and recorded, the â??gamersâ? could be gone after at leisure.

If it were made a condition of an operating license, the utility would have to do it. Homeland Security probably wouldn’t allow it because of their paranoia, but as we all know, obscurity is no solution to security. Obscurity is a way for wrong doing and incompetence to be covered up.