Sorry, I absolutely have to disagree. It's not about maintaining the projects, either- it's mostly about the consequences of building them in the first place, and the tragic impacts that the PLANNED results have, even when the whole thing is working properly. Leaving aside the potentially disastrous results of failure, the results of success can be equally devastating. A dam decreases water flow downstream and creates or expands lakes or results in other types of flooding upstream, usually creating a reservoir. That's the intention- a dam is built to increase water levels on one side and decrease them on the other.

Sounds simple, right? But it isn't if you're the farmer downstream whose water source is cut off or you live in the town that ends up underwater, or your crops and home are flooded and your livestock drowns and rots and attracts vermin that carry disease and your neighbors get malaria and die. Pretty gross, yes? but I'm not trying to invoke the ick factor, just making a point. There's nothing red herring about these arguments.

Do even the tiniest amount of research about the dams on the Narmada River in India and you'll see what I mean. In fact, here's a link: http://www.irn.org/wcd/narmada.shtml
Literally hundreds of thousands of people will be displaced by the planned reservoir for the largest dam alone (out of 30 planned), and the consequences those people are looking at are about as severe as it gets. It isn't burning to death, no, but destitution, homelessness, loss of jobs and communities, being forced to be refugees in their own country, and the loss of huge tracts of arable land in a country where a million people a year die of starvation anyway. Some people have vowed to stay and face the flood waters with their land rather than leave their homes, so many probably will be killed by the floods. This, after years of protests, demonstrations, legal challenges, and political wrangling have failed to prevent the construction. I'm not saying there aren't other good things about dams (ie: irrigation), but it's also true that the study of radiation has its benefits (ie: cancer treatment).

Am I really making such a stretch when I say that for some dams, the costs compare to nuclear accidents? Wouldn't it be better to have nuclear power plants in India that don't take up so much space, for one thing, rather than these kinds of hydropower projects? How can people treat these known and certain human costs so dismissively when the relatively remote risks of nuclear power are given so much weight?

 

Man-made diversion of water can be significant.

Check out what it's done to the Dead Sea.

 

First I must disclaim that I am part of the nuclear industry. It's where my money comes from. That much must be said before I respond.

First, I do not see nuclear power as scary from the short-term safety perspective. The odds of another Chernobyl are incredibly low in the Western world, as our plants are far safer. Next gen plants, like those being sold to China and soon to utilities in the US, are safer still. One of the new designs doesn't even need diesel or grid power to the pumps in the event of an accident, as the cooling and containment structure is designed to cool the fuel via natural circulation, preventing failure and the release of radioactive particles.

**BUT**

Dealing with spent fuel is no picnic. It has to go somewhere, and it has to stay there for a very long time. Hundreds of thousands of years to be specific. That's the deal breaker for me. I just don't see how we can do this for the long-haul. For the sake of our own environment we must find something clean.

I voted the second option because I don't want to see coal plants going up without CO2 sequestration. Surving as a civilization to find that ultimate solution is priority #1 in my eyes, and I see nuclear as a vital component (but not the answer) to getting there. But getting the heck away from it and harmful fossil sources once this next batch of plants reaches end of life is next on the list.

One of my mid-term goals is to find a way to pay the bills while contributing to that ultimate goal. But that's a personal matter for a...well, no thread at all I guess.

 

Hi,
I've read some lay papers on what is in the spent fuel rods but was wondering if you have any open, sources that might more fully describe the isotopes.

My understanding is there are two classes of isotopes of great concern: (1) long lived, or (2) biologically active. I understand that plutonium is a particular problem for biological as well as half-life and of course, the radioactive gases. However, the published half-life for many of the biologically isotopes seemed short enough that if they were separated, they might decay to low grade radiation sources fairly quickly, decades, but a reasonable management time. But I'd really like to read more details about the fuel rod isotopes and chemistries and understand the reprocessing risks. Yes, I know about Hanover's tank farms but really am curious about more technical details of the problem.

Thanks,
Bob Wilson

 

A minor nuclear accident perhaps.

Absolutely not! Not in my backyard, not in my neighbors backyard, not on the other side of the planet - because ultimately just ONE major catastrophe can have such far reaching impact as to affect all life on earth to varying degrees.

Two things about the dam project in India: #1, it's an inappropriate location for it given the impact to the population. #2, the government is not providing fair compensation for the displaced population.

Obviously like you hinted, there are potentially large impacts to hydroelectric, but those impacts are largely diminished if the project is handled properly. The hydro-power in the Pacific Northwest is an excellent example of that. Yes, people and the ecology of the rivers have been and continue to be affected by the system, but these impacts are both known, and short of a dam rupture, 100% controllable.

You characterize nuclear power as 'relatively remote risk', compared to what? It sure isn't hydroelectric, solar, or wind power.

 

Accidents happen, in fact that is a huge part of my point. I'm quite sure hundreds of people are killed every year by electricity itself, reguardless of source. Ten's of thousands are killed every year in auto accidents, yet we all still drive our hybrids to work every day.

No other source of power compares to the threat of a nuclear disaster. As Kip pointed out nothing besides nuclear is going to leave vast tracts of land unusable for lifetimes to come. What is amazing to me is that the threat is not just a potential threat, it has already happened and yet people still fail to see the danger.

How long is the waste from a nuke plant dangerous? Are the man hours to maintain/babysit waste counted as part of the cost.

Joe Nukem: "Hello Kelly Services? I'm going to need a few temporary employees to stand guard at a waste site." Kelly Girl: "How long will you need these guards?" Joe Nukem: "Not long, only 24/7 for a few hundred thousand years!"

 

Last night I sort of weighed-in with my pocket book. There was a representative of Green Mountain Energy at Half Price Books store and I applied to switch to them (had been leaning to do it over the past six months). About 10% of the energy is from wind farms, 90% hydroelectric.

Accidents do indeed happen. Back in high school in the mid 70's the classroom was discussing nuclear power and like brick, my concern was the storage of spent fuel. Even that topic gets emotional due to the "alternate N-word".

In the news, there is a push for a second US storage site for nuclear waste, but it's on hold. Yucca will be full in a few years ( see http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660201194,00.html )

I think we just have to bite the bullet and find 1-2 more remote places. with an eye of how to sensibly reuse it somehow or send it into space.

 

Here's a quick hit sheet for you people with respect to Chernobyl:

#1 It was a partial meltdown. The reactor that was damaged was able to be contained by dumping 5000 tons of sand and boron on it from the air. Had there been a full meltdown of the first reactor, it could have been much worse! Estimates of material released are well under 10% of the core and estimated radiation released 30-40% of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings. Remember that radioactive Iodine and Cesium were spread worldwide from Chernobyl. How would you like that other 90% floating down on you.

#2 Chernobyl cleanup has an estimated cost of nearly 1Billion dollars according to the USNRC. That would pay for allot of alternative renewable energy.

#3 The sarcophagus of concrete used to entomb Chernobyl was a failure. It developed cracks and leaks, allowing further dispersal of radioactive material. As of 2000, efforts were underway to determine the best remedy for that.

So forget about trying to convince me that the risk of a disaster does not have huge potential problems. Try convincing me why another one can't happen.

 

snax,

I conceed you make excellent points - Cherynobyl was SL-1 (small US military accident in 1960) on a much larger scale.

If we were talking cars, Cherynobyl was a Yugo - it could have been built much better.

Maybe I'm not quite based in reality on this issue, but what about remote nuclear reactors in Nevada, cooled by a man-made lake, away from large populations?


Germany has already had this debate. They are planning to phase out their nuclear power plants by the 2020s. Meanwhile, France is buliding more plants.

 

Short of suggesting you reread the posts on improved techlonogy, risk management, and low probabilities, I'm at a loss.

It would be just spiffy if renewable energy sources could fulfill our short and mid-term needs. But they can't. Not with current technology.

It would appear that 70% of the people on this thread agree. I do hope they don't put a reactor in your backyard...