Government and Nuclear Power...

tr3mor

kittiwoz wrote:

Yeah. If you look back at my other posts you will see that is why I am in favour of nuclear fission as a short term solution to keep the lights on and the economy going so that scientists and engineers can work on an alternative long term solution in a stable environment.

What? Like nuclear fission? It was invented 50 years ago, keep up dear!

kittiwoz

Not sure what you mean by that tbh. I don't think I ever implied I though nuclear fission wasn't a current technology. Is is that you intend to say it is suitable as a long term solution? I don't think that is the case. Uranium is a finite source and there are known dangers associated with nuclear fission that have been discussed at some length on this thread. Although the risk is highly controlled and is often overstated by anti-nuclear campaigners it is certainly not something to be ignored. I don't see the sense in downing tools on research into renewable energy resources and fusion to make ourselves completely dependent on fission while we sit around waiting for the uranium to run out and get economically overtaken by every other country that has had the sense not to make themselves reliant on a single source of fuel for which there is no guarunteed long term supply.

BaJi_2

kittiwoz wrote:

I imagine though that if such a thing were ever to be achieved it would require either significant amounts of storage or a Europe wide grid.

We do have a DC link to Europe. I agree that investment in the grid is good we don't want to be in the same situation as the US finds themselves in now.

BaJi_2

talksalot81 wrote:

Blow it up? An enormous lump of reinforced concrete deep within the ground would be difficult to destroy with anything short of a nuclear weapon. It is a totally unrealistic risk.

Is the Chernobyl reactor deep beneath the ground? I still wouldn't have faith in reinforced concrete. There's usually a way to do something. I'm pretty sure there is a way to attack concrete chemically and then use explosives.

talksalot81 wrote:

As for removing the material inside... if it was that easy that would be one of the decommissioning steps. It would be a job of enormous magnitude and enormous risk.

That's why I said it was a suicide job and we've seen that planty of times. Yes it would be tough to get into. But there are easier ways to get your hands onto radioactive material. See below.

talksalot81 wrote:

If we were to let a reactor out of our sight for several years in order that terrorists with enormous budgets could work, then we probably deserve the outcome. I dont think any country in the world would be so careless and I dont think any terrorist group in the world comes close to the capability.

Granted. In the US there is massive security around their radiative material and waste stores. Although I remember watching a TV program which showed Russian nuclear waste stored in some shed in a deserted location guarded by a dog.

talksalot81 wrote:

However you lose credibility with the comment on airliners. Even if terrorists got into this situation, they would be needing to fly into the middle of a large area to a target which they could not see, they would need to penetrate the structures overhead, they would be aiming at a target BELOW the ground thus would need an enormously steep attack and they would need to do this in the biggest airliner they could get their hands on. I have my suspicions that even this is impossible...

I disagree. Even a medium sized aircraft carries enough fuel to cause serious damage. Old designs of reactor didn't have an aircraft flying into them as part of any risk assesment.

BaJi_2

tr3mor wrote:

It's just to build one of the biggest windfarms in the UK on top of one of our biggest populations of Golden Eagles is taking the Michael.

Then campaign for bird scaring equitment near the turbine.

tr3mor wrote:

Also your point about knowing some people who live near some windfarms and have never seen any evidence of there being dead birds is awfully similar to Boris Johnson's argument about kids not needing seatbelts because it never did him any harm!!

I think birds are smarter than you think.

talksalot81

BaJi wrote:

Is the Chernobyl reactor deep beneath the ground? I still wouldn't have faith in reinforced concrete. There's usually a way to do something. I'm pretty sure there is a way to attack concrete chemically and then use explosives.

Yes it is underground. Yes it is possible, but you are talking about something that would be a difficult job for the US governement even with all their funds, it is just not realistic when talking about a terrorist group. If they had the expertise to do it, they wouldnt need to.

That's why I said it was a suicide job and we've seen that planty of times. Yes it would be tough to get into. But there are easier ways to get your hands onto radioactive material. See below.

It would be more than a suicide job. It would require a great many sacrifices because, in a reactor with sufficient material to make it worth while, it would be a long, painstaking job in conditions which a person would die rather rapidly and rather horribly. Rather like trying to stop a lava flow with a human barrier. It is entirely possible with enough manpower and sacrifice.

I disagree. Even a medium sized aircraft carries enough fuel to cause serious damage. Old designs of reactor didn't have an aircraft flying into them as part of any risk assesment.

Enough to cause serious damage, but not to spread the damage to disasterous proportions. The physics just doesnt add up to that. As I said already, it requires hitting a tiny target which is hidden under the ground with a difficult to control aircraft and then hoping that the safety measures are all disabled and then hoping that something else goes seriously wrong. It isnt like blowing up a petrol dump or something, it is a solid lump of earth, metal and concrete which is inherently non flammable and has endless safety protocols (including those which will activate when all power etc fails). If international terrorists wished to concentrate their efforts on such a goal, I would be very happy because they will never do the sort of damage that they are currently achieving with other targets.

talksalot81

BaJi wrote:

Then campaign for bird scaring equitment near the turbine.

That is so environmentally unfriendly it isnt true! This is a rare species which will be highly susceptible to changes in its habitat. The mere acton of scaring them could well seriously impact upon the population. It is two faced to on one hand be giving the view of being an environmental protector, whilst on the other hand taking potshots at the wildlife.

By the same logic, why cant we just employ people scaring equipment near nuclear fuels?

BaJi_2

talksalot81 wrote:

That is so environmentally unfriendly it isnt true! This is a rare species which will be highly susceptible to changes in its habitat. The mere acton of scaring them could well seriously impact upon the population. It is two faced to on one hand be giving the view of being an environmental protector, whilst on the other hand taking potshots at the wildlife.

By the same logic, why cant we just employ people scaring equipment near nuclear fuels?

Nonsense. Global warming is a big threat to their habitat and just about every other species on this planet. They don't just live in the area you mentioned. I would promote conservation in all of the western parts of Scotland. Along with tough policing on shooting and poisoning of the birds.

We need to take action on climate change now. Nuclear power plants take a long time to build and commision. For the same amount of energy that is used to build a nuclear power plant, how many other forms of energy generation and power saving measures can be made? And in less than half the time that it takes to build a nuclear power plant.

If we really do need nuclear power plants the issue can then be re-addressed in 10 years from now. This still give us breathing space with the current projected lifetime of existing nuclear power stations.

BaJi_2

talksalot81 wrote:

Yes it is underground. Yes it is possible, but you are talking about something that would be a difficult job for the US governement even with all their funds, it is just not realistic when talking about a terrorist group. If they had the expertise to do it, they wouldnt need to.

Can you quote your references that state that the reactor is underground please. Look at the position of the Chernobyl reactor compared to ground level in the second diagram of this link:

http://groups.msn.com/AAEA/chernobyl.msnw .

Also you can see from the picture that it is difficult to imagine that the whole of the reactor is below ground level.


With regards to attacking a reactor sarcophagus. Remember once a reactor core is covered in concrete (or whatever) it has to stay that way for many, many years. The concrete will also be chemically attacked naturally. If it is neglected (easily done) then at any point in the cores decay lifetime it is vulnerable to attack by anybody, especially if it is very old. Providing humans are still around or some other 'intelligent' species.

Incidently, the current sarcophagus at chernobyl is vulnerable to attack, because it is poorly constructed. Maybe a number of rocket propelled grenades will open it up? Maybe a passing truck might do it? Let's hope it holds out whilst the new shelter is being built.

talksalot81 wrote:

It would be more than a suicide job. It would require a great many sacrifices because, in a reactor with sufficient material to make it worth while, it would be a long, painstaking job in conditions which a person would die rather rapidly and rather horribly. Rather like trying to stop a lava flow with a human barrier. It is entirely possible with enough manpower and sacrifice.

Sounds like they would have to be extremists, can't be many of those about can there?

talksalot81 wrote:

Enough to cause serious damage, but not to spread the damage to disasterous proportions. The physics just doesnt add up to that. As I said already, it requires hitting a tiny target which is hidden under the ground with a difficult to control aircraft and then hoping that the safety measures are all disabled and then hoping that something else goes seriously wrong. It isnt like blowing up a petrol dump or something, it is a solid lump of earth, metal and concrete which is inherently non flammable and has endless safety protocols (including those which will activate when all power etc fails). If international terrorists wished to concentrate their efforts on such a goal, I would be very happy because they will never do the sort of damage that they are currently achieving with other targets.

These aircraft always seem easy enough to control everytime I come back and land from trips abroad. I know pilots who say that they could take a landing approach to hit a building, remember the Pentagon during 9/11? They don't need to hit the core. As you said the Chernobyl accident was caused by a chemical explosion in the coolant system. All these pipes run outside the reactor as are the control systems for the reactor. It just takes these to be damaged and you've lost control.

talksalot81

BaJi wrote:

Nonsense. Global warming is a big threat to their habitat and just about every other species on this planet. They don't just live in the area you mentioned. I would promote conservation in all of the western parts of Scotland. Along with tough policing on shooting and poisoning of the birds.

We need to take action on climate change now. Nuclear power plants take a long time to build and commision. For the same amount of energy that is used to build a nuclear power plant, how many other forms of energy generation and power saving measures can be made? And in less than half the time that it takes to build a nuclear power plant.

If we really do need nuclear power plants the issue can then be re-addressed in 10 years from now. This still give us breathing space with the current projected lifetime of existing nuclear power stations.

You have zero evidence about the effect of climate change. Further to that point, as a physicists, you should be aware that changes in the climate do in fact occur naturally and our planet has known much more severe changes than it currently is suffering.

As for the time and money... whilst there is alot of arguement about it, I have never once seen a scientific report with figures which remotely suggest that we will have enough power production capability to supply demand once fossil fuels and fission were stopped. Building a space craft is expensive and dangerous, but you cant go into space without it. So if we have a need, we have to fill it. I dont know what people expect we should do instead? Do they propose we just let energy go short and let the poor (who cant afford it) go without?

BaJi wrote:

Can you quote your references that state that the reactor is underground please. Look at the position of the Chernobyl reactor compared to ground level in the second diagram of this link:

http://groups.msn.com/AAEA/chernobyl.msnw .

Also you can see from the picture that it is difficult to imagine that the whole of the reactor is below ground level.

The basic principle is true whatever way you argue it, the reactor is surrounded by a dense network of concrete/metal/earth, not only from the reactor structure itelf, but also from the surrounding buildings. I re-itterate my earlier question: If an attack is so possible and has such deadly consequences, why have terrorists not tried it? As far as I can see the answer is because its impact is so much less significant than hitting the likes of the twin towers.

With regards to attacking a reactor sarcophagus. Remember once a reactor core is covered in concrete (or whatever) it has to stay that way for many, many years. The concrete will also be chemically attacked naturally. If it is neglected (easily done) then at any point in the cores decay lifetime it is vulnerable to attack by anybody, especially if it is very old. Providing humans are still around or some other 'intelligent' species.

Incidently, the current sarcophagus at chernobyl is vulnerable to attack, because it is poorly constructed. Maybe a number of rocket propelled grenades will open it up? Maybe a passing truck might do it? Let's hope it holds out whilst the new shelter is being built.

Whilst your point is valid, it is moot because almost anything is open to attack. However the risk posed by that attack has not been made clear. I dont understand how a physicist can have such a fear of the consequence so I see there is no point attempting to convince so I simply ask my question again: If it is so easy and so devastating, why has no one tried it already? If all it takes is a truck or a bomb, it doesnt even require a well organised and funded group. So why hasnt it happened?

Sounds like they would have to be extremists, can't be many of those about can there?

You would be requiring many hundreds of people, many of whom will end up dead and horribly disfigured. Death through radiation poisoning is quite easy to spot, you would require an incredible coverup of what would be the worlds largest single terrorist operation. If you think that is genuinely viable, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

These aircraft always seem easy enough to control everytime I come back and land from trips abroad. I know pilots who say that they could take a landing approach to hit a building, remember the Pentagon during 9/11? They don't need to hit the core. As you said the Chernobyl accident was caused by a chemical explosion in the coolant system. All these pipes run outside the reactor as are the control systems for the reactor. It just takes these to be damaged and you've lost control.

The difference to 9/11 is that you are now asking a pilot to hit room 482 on the 77th floor in order to cause serious damage. You also have it complicated because there is surrounding infrastructure at the level necessary. Again your comments confuse me. The safety features are present to account for this sort of eventuality. Even in my own laboratory, if the water system fails, the experiments shutdown safely on their own, same for gases and even the power and this is only a small lab! In the absence of all safety measures, yes what you say may be true (this was in fact what happened at chernobyl), but you would thus require them all to be disabled. You might say this sounds reasonable, but the nuclear industry learned lessons from chernobyl and have all but elliminated the possibility.