@Missileer71, you weren't paying attention to your INRAD and ALARA
training. Let me give you a recapitulation. 1) Alpha radiation (or alpha
particles) are helium nuclei without their electrons (hence they are ionizing
radiation). Unbroken human skin will block alpha radiation. 2) Beta radiation
(or beta particles) are electrons (hence they are ionizing radiation) emitted as
a result of radioactive decay. They are blocked by anything that will capture
an electron (any anti-static poly-sheeting will do as will a few feet (as many
as 12) of open air). 3) Gamma radiation .. yep, this guy is actually a wave
(more or less in quantum mechanics terms). Gamma radiation is very penetrating
and usually requires lead or concrete to stop it. That said, it doesn't
carry a lot of energy so you have to be exposed to a lot and/or for a long time
for it to really hurt you. 4) Neutron radiation ... tough to block. Usually
use materials with a lot of hydrogen (like water or paraffin). In any event.
none of them are the hysterically dangerous things you allude to.
@Misseleer:"The half life of nuclear radiation is not an
exaggeration of mine, its and exaggeration of those who want to pretend that
nuclear radiation is not hazardous for thousand of years."The
two most important nuclides of concern for high level waste storage are Cs-137
with a half-life of about 30 years and Strontium-90 with a half-life of about 29
years.After those two decay, and if you remove the Pu-239 (it is
fuel after all, so why not use it) what you're left with is less
radioactive than the unburned Uranium you started with.That happens
within about 1000 years. And although you seem to have rejected my
first proposal to "check it out" here's another:Get a
chart of the nuclides and a copy of Excel. Mathematically "split"
1,000,000,000 Uranium atoms and then, according to the laws of probability, find
out what mixture of fission products remain, and their half-lives. Track those
isotopes over time. After 1000 years, compare the activity of the
pile of fission products to the activity of unburned Uranium. I've actually done this, which is how I know what I'm talking about.
It's simple science.
The half life of nuclear radiation is not an exaggeration of mine, its and
exaggeration of those who want to pretend that nuclear radiation is not
hazardous for thousand of years. Accumulative means every time you are exposed
to nuclear or atomic radiation the exposure levels add to previous levels every
time you are exposed. The accumulative amount of radiation anyone can receive I
can't remember accurately but it is less than 500 roentgens then you cannot
be allowed to be in proximity of any device that emits nuclear radiation.Every worker that is exposed to radiation has an assigned dosimeter they
must wear every time they are in proximity of any radiation including that used
in hospitals (x-ray, MRI, etc.), power plants, and dentist office are required
by law to wear a dosimeter every day and measured monthly for accumulative
affects.In my military service I worked in areas where we were
trained and briefed and warned about the laws and regulations concerning
radiation and it can penetrate 6 feet of concrete, 6-7 inches of lead, and the
human body has a zero protection from Alpha, Beta, and gamma radiation. Alpha
being particles at point of detonation or activation.
I've been an environmentalist since the 90's but because of the
terrible lack of progress I have finally come around to accept nuclear power.
Today's reactors are millions of times more fuel efficient than any other
generator and thousands of times more materials efficient than any renewable
generator.It's been a long journey for me to challenge my
irrational fears around nuclear waste. Despite having the perfect education to
pursue a nuclear science degree I was too influenced by the propaganda of Ralph
Nader to consider it a future energy source.Instead of listening to
science fiction I urge everyone to look to science fact: NASA's James
Hansen was the first scientist to tell Congress that we need to pay attention to
our greenhouse emissions and now he's telling the world that we don't
have time to fight GHG emissions without nuclear energy. The NuScale pilot
project is incredibly important to help sustain America's nuclear
generation since many states like California have a ban on new nuclear plants
and are choosing to close their existing ones.Anyone with genuine
questions about nuclear can find answers to them from a great volunteer org like
@Doug10:"and 12,000 pages have been approved so far, Does anyone
think those pages were actually read let alone approved?"If you
ask google about "New Reactors Business Line Fee Estimates - NRC" you
can find a nice little table which the NRC publishes to let prospective
designers how much money they might need to spend to get a design
certification.And if the NRC charges $34.6M to review a new design,
they HAD BETTER read those pages.Furthermore, they issue these
things called "RAI" or Requests for Additional Information. To me, that kind of shows they're reading, reviewing and thinking about
the application. "less than a dollar"Within the
past 20 years, natural gas has been about 6 times as expensive as today, and the
average from 20 - 10 years ago is about 3 times more expensive. YMMV.
Natural gas - yes. Solar, wind, coal - ok. Nukes - no! Nukes are a huge
environmental disaster that will happen eventually.
environmentalists love the science behind global warming but apparently have an
issue with scientific advancements in nuclear power plant design. This seems to
have great potential, I wonder if it will ever see the light of day.
We live in 2018 not 1969. Technology of 1969 compared to 2018 is a light year
leap. Nuclear power is the only power source that can produce the same wattage
output of a coal plant minus all the coal emissions into the air. The technology
of a 21 century nuclear power plant is light years ahead of its 1970
predecessors. It's like comparing the technology of a Saturn 5 rocket that
first landed on the moon to our space vehicles today. The Saturn 5 computers fit
into a large room and stored millions of bytes whereas today computers fit on a
postage stamp and store trillions of bytes of data. Wind mills and solar are
fine for small scale power for individual homes but for cities of 8 million
people you would need a wind farm the size of the sun. In Nevada is Yucca
Mountain which has been around since the late 1970's for the storage of
nuclear waste. This incredible site has a safe-containment level of 10000 years.
Yes we are ready for clean nuclear power. Way to lead the way Idaho!
changing natural gas prices?contracts can be bought to hedge those
prices and for the past decade the price has fluctuated by less than a dollar
for a thousand cubic feet of natural gas.supply is resplendent. If
gas companies stopped drilling today there is enough natural gas in reserves to
last another 90 years. And for some reason the gas and oil companies are not
going to stop drilling.Economically more viable than nuclear big or
small please explain why the nuclear?and 12,000 pages have been
approved so far, Does anyone think those pages were actually read let alone
approved?seems another hurry up and lets get this going.Lets fix real problemswater shortagesair pollution in Salt
Lake Valleypond scum on Utah Lake (I mean really folks)high cost of
health carelots of real world problems without looking under nuclear
Nobody can be serious about green energy without supporting nuclear power.We certainly need increased funding for fusion power generation. But
until we get that working, fission provides abundent, safe energy with very
small amounts of waste, and none of that discharged into the environment.Why is it when a bullet train crashes with massive fatalities, mass
transit supporters are quick to tell us how statistically safe mass transit is.
But when a rare problem at a nuclear power plant hits, these same folks ignore
data and science, instead making emotional appeals to ancedotal occurances.Thousands die every year world wide mining coal. In most cases the
environmentalists tell us tens of thousands more die from polluted air.Chernobyle and Fukishima combined have caused fewer total deaths than one year
@Marxist:"Fukushima ? It's polluting the entire
planet."Really? The ENTIRE planet?Fukushima is
polluting the entire planet like sprinkling a teaspoon of sand over a baseball
field pollutes the baseball field.
I agree that nuclear is the only rational clean energy. I wish we were more like
the Europeans (in this respect), that have been using nuclear for decades. Very
safe the way they are built and run.
@Strom "Too much hysteria around nuclear power."Fukushima ?
It's polluting the entire planet. I wish with all my heart nuclear was
the solution, but it just isn't.
As long as the nuclear waste is stored in San Juan County, Utah - I'm all
Baron"So the advantage here is the small modular design that can
produce small amounts of energy. How is this any different that small wind power
projects (e.g., Spanish Fork) or solar plants with batteries? "They actually produce rational amounts of energy.
Too much hysteria around nuclear power.Safety events are rarer than
at other types (especially when you account for mining injuries).It
is the only rational clean energy source.
Excellent. Wind, Solar, and Nuclear are the future. We will continue to rely on
natural gas while we make the transition. Coal is dead or dying. Sorry.
@UtejbDepleted uranium can't be used to build a nuclear weapon.
Even before it's used, the purity is not high enough to cause an explosive
chain reaction. Uranium has to be enriched before it can be used in a weapon
(hence the term "weapons grade").
@Utejb:"how many centuries will it be toxic"About 7. It turns out that the stuff that is really radioactive is the stuff
that has a 30 year half life. The stuff with half lives of 1000's or
millions of years isn't toxic."nuclear waste will remain
securely contained and impervious to earthquakes, underground water, and
terrorists?"Egyptians successfully stored wheat in clay pots for
more than 1000 years in pyramids. A spent fuel cask is
significantly more robust than a clay pot. That covers
"earthquakes and water." Terrorists will have much better
targets than spent nuclear fuel. Just imagine the resources needed to get
access to, transport, and then open a spent fuel cask without killing yourself.
Now imagine they used those resources to actually harm people instead of tilting
at windmills. Frankly, I'd rather have them tilting at
windmills. Safer for everybody.
@RedSmith:"Clean natural gas power plants produce power at half
the cost of a nuke power plant 'Not half of NuScale. Maybe 25%
cheaper. Until of course a carbon tax is instituted.What
do you think the chances are that a carbon tax is instituted in the next 60
years?And then there's price volatility. Natural gas prices
are far more variable. It just makes sense to have a portfolio that is diverse.
That way you're not crushed by demand or supply changes in one fuel type.
@Misseleer71:"we are talking about thousands of roentgens of
continuous nuclear radiation for at least 5,000 years in a mass of land the size
of Idaho for each power plant melt down"This is exaggeration by
about 5 orders of magnitude on the radiation level, and 2 orders of magnitude on
the time.As it so happens, at a location very near to where the
proposed NuScale plant is to be built, there's a site that had a very bad
nuclear accident in early 1961. They literally blew the top off of the reactor
due to an uncontrolled criticality, killing all three people who were working
there that night. You can look at the location now in google maps,
43.518859N, 112.822864W. People drive by on highway 20 all of the time, about
1/2 mile from the site, getting no radiation exposure. But
don't believe me. It's less than a 5 hour drive from your house. Go
take a radiation meter and drive to the gate. It's a public road, and in a
quick stop you can verify the truth of my words.
Where will the nuclear waste be stored and for how many centuries will it be
toxic? How will we ensure that centuries from now, toxic nuclear waste will
remain securely contained and impervious to earthquakes, underground water, and
terrorists? Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, nuclear energy
is a bad idea. I am continually amazed at nuclear advocates’ ability to
gloss over the fact that nuclear energy is a short-term solution that
irrevocably spoils the nest in which we live.
I happen to like CO2, but greens do not and think it causes warming. However
even some big time environmentalists are beginning to realize belatedly that
wind and solar won't cut it. They are not cost effective.Hydropower is fine and should be pursued.The best option now is
the small nuclear power station. It has a nice advantage in that it can be
transported by truck I believe. If only the uranium will hold out.
Clean natural gas power plants produce power at half the cost of a nuke power
plant with no radio active issues.So what is the point of creating a
potential nuke mess for double priced power?
I do not like nuclear power plants because of the remotest of chances that they
have a melt down is more dangerous that breaking dams and hydro electric
production. Nuclear failure turns millions of acres of land into 5,000 year half
life that this land cannot be used or lived on our even grow basic food. Controlled by non human electronic devices, electronic failure is
probable and we cannot trust future of this country and absolute chaos in a
single failure of a single plant.When we have nuclear failure we are
not talking about a few dozen roentgens of nuclear exposure like Hiroshima and
Nagasaki Japan, we are talking about thousands of roentgens of continuous
nuclear radiation for at least 5,000 years in a mass of land the size of Idaho
for each power plant melt down. Russia can testify to the seriousness of nuclear
meltdown on a small nuclear failure does to a large land mass for hundreds of
miles from the blast site. Russian workers also knew the risk and hazards of a
nuclear power plant and most are now dead. So do we want to risk millions of
square miles of US territory for cheap(?) electricity? Lost lives is
This is a great step forward. Clean carbon free power, Too bad we are still
looking at almost six years before it starts producing, and that's assuming
it doesn't get further delayed by frivolous lawsuits.The
editorial page is full of letters calling for the end of fossil fuels, well
these plants are the big step towards that goal.
The environmentalist will argue against this plan based on the potential of
contaminating underground water sources and the fact that there is no
containment structure. But it sounds like a great plan for future development
particularly when there is no large water requirements. Also, Arco has been in
the business of nuclear research almost from the beginning. I can't think
of better place for a test reactor.
Carbon emissions vs. nuclear waste. Interesting comparison. I don't know
that solar energy or wind or geothermal have much if any in the way the same
problems as oil and gas and nuclear do.
EVERY and I mean every source of energy has it's detractors. Assuming we
don't want to go back to living as we did in the 1800's we need to
push past the opposition.The latest was the Indians opposition to
the Dakota Access Pipeline. I noticed though they showed up to the protests in
cars and RV's which of course all use fuel that comes from oil.
Hydro power plants are the most effective source of energy. Hoover dam for one.
But there has been a lot of dans being demolished. How remembers Idaho's
There will be some who oppose this no matter what, but it has potential to be
the most environmentally clean and economical and efficient of all forms of
energy. This a very good step forward in meeting our energy demands.
I'm skeptical.So the advantage here is the small modular design
that can produce small amounts of energy. How is this any different that small
wind power projects (e.g., Spanish Fork) or solar plants with batteries?
Renewables have zero nuclear waste and less risk.Nuclear proponents
don't talk about disposal of waste. Note that if Yucca Mountain is ever
approved, all that waste will be railroaded through the Wasatch Front, through
Ogden and Salt Lake City -- literally a couple of blocks away from the Temple.
I seriously doubt if Utah citizens and the LDS Church saw that nuclear waste
were to be shipped from Idaho (and across the nation) through Utah, it would
approve. Image one terrorist attack or an accident of a nuclear
waste spill near the sacred grounds of Temples, refineries, or Utah tourist
sights. It would devastate the state's economy and panic would ensue.Renewables with battery storage is the future. What's sad is that
UAMPS only has this option on the table, so it can't compare with a storage
project. Select this, and UAMPS is then stuck with it for 60-plus years --
along with the waste security/terrorist risks and maintenance.
"Many countries don't need a power plant that produces 2,000 megawatts
of energy, so the smaller modular nuclear reactors provide smaller-scale
options, he said."==========One of the many downsides to
the current centrally-sourced, wide-distribution model is the fragility built
into that kind of "all-the-eggs-in-one-basket" vulnerability. There is
a good reason that fears of someone "hacking the grid" are so high on
the worry list of the national security folks.If we could develop an
energy system modeled on these smaller, more widely distributed sources of
carbon-free nuclear power, especially ones that are inherently more robust and
safe than the current nuclear power systems using designs from 60 years ago,
such as the ones discussed here and several other more modern designs not
mentioned, it would go a long way toward solving, or at least alleviating, all
sorts of problems.