Notes on Nuclear Power [Citation Needed]

[athelind]

... This is just a quick note. No substance, no references, no citations.


A lot of people are up in arms about how the situation in Japan underscores the "dangers of nuclear power".

To this point, the radiation leaked into the environment is minimal. Things are Very Bad Indeed if you're within a certain radius of the plant, but my suspicion is that the increased health risks and hazards caused by this amount of radiation will still be substantially less than those caused by fossil fuel plants.

Let me emphasize this:

The environmental and human impact of a complex of nuclear reactors failing catastrophically after a major disaster is less than that of fossil fuel plants in the regular course of their operation.^{[Citation Needed]}

I will endeavor to find numbers to confirm or deny this next week, after I return home.

---

Yes, I just used the Lorax as an icon in a possibly-pro-nuclear post.

---

Comments

[fengi.livejournal.com]

That's one massive "citation needed". I think this falls into the range of statements which one shoudn't offer - let alone in bold increased size - until after one has presented clear evidence. I suspect this is going to involve a lot of caveats, dubious comparisons and selective data.

In short: Chernobyl.

[hinoki.livejournal.com]

An improper comparison, as the Soviet RBMK-style reactor had no shielding.. unlike the Japanese reactors. Moreover, they were shown to have cut any and all safety protocols in the course of daily operation.

A more apt comparison would be "3 Mile Island" which was a pressurized water reactor of similar design to the Japanese model. In both cases, the radiation release was minimal.

It is also important to note that the Japanese nuclear reactors had only their primary cooling system fail due to the earthquake. The secondary system snapped in exactly as it ought. The diesel generators failed when they were flooded by the Tsunami.

The failure in design was not with the reactor, but with the secondary power supply; they clearly did not take enough precautions isolating the diesel generators from any and all disturbances. They could easily have adapted a strategy not unlike what we used for diesel submarines in order to provide secondary power; instead, they went with a strategy not unlike the 'boxcar'.. a diesel engine stuck in a box alongside the facility or thereabouts.

[moonfires.livejournal.com]

It was a failure in site planning. The reactors themselves were at sea level and the generators in the basement, below sea level.

[hinoki.livejournal.com]

No argument there regarding site planning, but even that could've been accounted for if they'd used a backup power supply that was designed to be, if not directly submerged.. indirectly. Like that in a submarine.

They certainly designed a core and supporting superstructure that withstood the earthquake. It was the Tsunami that bit them in the arse on this one.

[moonfires.livejournal.com]

Submarine power supplies are designed to work underwater, but still inside the dry confines of the sub :>

[hinoki.livejournal.com]

*grin* That's why I said 'indirectly' submerged. Stick the backup power supply in a shell that's designed to get wet, so that the PS doesn't. :)

[notthebuddha.livejournal.com]

It's nothing like the "Chernobyl" tragedy so far; no structural fires, no significant escape of long-lived isotopes, no dangerous exposures, let alone fatal ones. The overzealous order to evacuate nearby hospitals even of very ill people that shouldn't have been moved and whatever traffic accidents the departing inhabitants have had have been the only source of casualties not caused by the tsunami itself.

[notthebuddha.livejournal.com]

Checking back, I see there were injuries reported from one of the hydrogen explosions. I am not able to find if these injures were severe enough to count as casualties, FWIW.