tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post9066235705683269447..comments2023-09-28T07:23:51.376-07:00Comments on ProjectPerko: For Love of RadiationCraig Perkohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-31807817706479892182008-11-10T15:50:00.000-08:002008-11-10T15:50:00.000-08:00The waste water complaint is, as I've said before,...The waste water complaint is, as I've said before, crap. While some old-school reactors contaminate a lot of water, most modern reactors do NOT contaminate their water supply. Instead, they separate that water supply from their core by using ANOTHER water system, which is closed. IE, that water is radioactive, but it isn't leaving the reactor.<BR/><BR/>In addition, decontaminating radioactive water is a known process.<BR/><BR/>This means that the only real problem with radioactive water comes from plants that are THIRTY YEARS OLD. Even those are leaking SO LITTLE that the amount of radioactive material released is actually less than locals are allowed to dump LEGALLY.<BR/><BR/>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/national/17nuke.html<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, the point is moot. Regardless of how much I like to defend nuclear power, it's not cost effective.Craig Perkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-41747637885654342542008-11-10T15:28:00.000-08:002008-11-10T15:28:00.000-08:00I personally more concerned with the effect of nuc...I personally more concerned with the effect of nuclear plants on the ecosystem, mainly water use. Everything I've seen about nuclear power plants effect is concerned with the waste, which I think is problem solved enough. However everything that I've seen so far, about nuclear has not answer the water use problem, both the reactor sucking in huge amounts of water and more importantly, the water discharged.Chillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10742095724171892869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-74929061339635489152008-11-06T21:38:00.000-08:002008-11-06T21:38:00.000-08:00I agree but, as I said, nuclear power just isn't c...I agree but, as I said, nuclear power just isn't cost effective...Craig Perkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-50656052513661554602008-11-06T21:35:00.000-08:002008-11-06T21:35:00.000-08:00Ha, thanks for that, I never really thought about ...Ha, thanks for that, I never really thought about it, but the billions of batteries we throw away are much more dangerous than the (almost universally carefully handled) bi-products of a nuclear plant. Even when a plant does go up, the danger lies mostly in backwards third-world governments ignoring warning signs or trying to cover it up rather than acting quickly and openly.DmLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01867491782144075781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-81937080104288811342008-11-06T18:35:00.000-08:002008-11-06T18:35:00.000-08:00Well, every day we drive cars that burn gasoline. ...Well, every day we drive cars that burn gasoline. The chance that the gas tank will break open or a fire will break out is very small, but isn't it still troubling?<BR/><BR/>Of course not: the gasoline tank of a car is built such that not only is protected from everything, but it's also built such that leaks or failures will not end up endangering the driver's life.<BR/><BR/>The answer is the same, only the scale is different: a modern nuclear power plant is built such that the "gasoline" can never catastrophically fail, even if the facility is hit by a bomb. The "gasoline" of a nuclear facility is much more dangerous than that of a car, but on the other hand, a car only costs a few thousand dollars.<BR/><BR/>The problem with radioactive waste is a tricky one, not because radioactive waste is tricky, but because of the politics involved.<BR/><BR/>First off, radioactive waste is not significantly more dangerous than many other hazardous materials we never bother being worried about, such as the heavy metal runoff from manufacturing solar cells. It's only of more concern because everyone's been trained to think it's of more concern.<BR/><BR/>Second off, we're creating a lot more nuclear waste of a lot nastier sort than we actually have to. We could be using our fuel much more efficiently (and, as a side effect, producing less, shorter-halflife waste), but in order to do so, our fuel would be "weapons grade" for a while. Which is a political nightmare.<BR/><BR/>In the end, nuclear power is simply so tied up in its political and cultural stigma that it can't escape, even if we DID suddenly decide to start turning to nuclear power.Craig Perkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1334290042019969372008-11-06T18:14:00.000-08:002008-11-06T18:14:00.000-08:00Regarding the safety of nuclear power - is it not ...Regarding the safety of nuclear power - is it not a risk/consequence balance? That the chances of an accident at a nuclear facility may be tiny, but the consequences if one occurs are continental in scope, as compared to the still troubling but infinitely less worrying consequences of failures in traditional power sources?<BR/><BR/>Also, and I don't pretend to understand where the science is up to on this, but we're still not very good at disposing of the waste products of nuclear power generation, are we? And those wastes are, again, exponentially more troubling than those associated with other power sources?GregThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532920274312703426noreply@blogger.com