Chernobyl vs. today's Nuclear designs was RE: Hazards of Coal Burning

From: Gary Miller (garymiller@starband.net)
Date: Wed Feb 05 2003 - 08:08:02 MST

  • Next message: John K Clark: "Failed Dreams (was Hydrogen as SCAM?)"

    > The effects of Chernobyl where significantly, even though we are
    >1500km
    away. I've found a quote that describes the most important effects: "A
    large amount of agricultural produce in Europe had to be dumped due to
    contamination from fallout. For instance, most vegetables in the region
    around Munich were destroyed because they had become contaminated with
    iodine-131. The southern portion of the former West Germany was more
    contaminated than the rest of it. There were also severe restrictions on

    agricultural activities, including sales of meat from three million
    sheep
    and lambs in northwestern England and the neighboring portions of
    Scotland and northern Wales, which were affected by rain-out of
    radioactivity when the fallout cloud passed over them."[2]

    If we would have just one accident like that in western Europe, we could

    only shut down everything and look for another place to live.

    ========

    I understand that the nuclear power plants being designed and built
    today are much smaller in size and safer than the design of Chernobyl.

    Shouldn't it be possible to design such a facility underground to
    contain whatever accidents might arise? This may add to the overall
    cost of the project but should remediate a large portion of the risk
    involved and local opposition.

    In the event of an accident, workers could be evacuated and the facility
    could be sealed.

    HAZMAT clean up could be undertaken once it had burned itself out and
    cooled containing the contamination.

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
    On Behalf Of Kai Becker
    Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 4:30 AM
    To: extropians@extropy.org
    Subject: Re: Hazards of Coal Burning was RE: Hydrogen as SCAM?

    Am Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2003 03:37 schrieb Chuck Kuecker:
    > Argonne Labs here, had its IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) program

    Oops, liquid Na coolant, just next to high pressure steam. Na is
    extremely difficult to handle and in its liquid form is a hazard by
    itself. What happens if the core is shut down? You can't open the liquid

    Na to the open air. How is the coolant kept flowing in case of a shut
    down? Na also transmutes under neutron radiation to Na-24, which decays
    to Mg-24. That makes a Mg extraction necessary, which will also be
    contaminated.

    "Sodium catches fire on contact with air and explodes on contact with
    water. Further, the nucleus of ordinary sodium absorbs a neutron and
    turns into a highly radioactive isotope sodium-24. [I don't know the
    rate
    of this reaction and Na24 has a t1/2 of only 15h, so I can't estimate
    the
    radioactive risk of Na24 --Kai] [...] To prevent leakage of sodium-24
    into the environment, sodium-cooled reactors are designed with two
    liquid
    sodium loops. The secondary, non- radioactive sodium loop draws heat
    from the primary loop and, in turn, is used to boil water in a steam
    generator. The December 1995 accident at the Japanese breeder reactor
    at
    Monju involved a large leak of sodium from the secondary loop."[1]

    > The "FSU" (good acronym!) has a multitude of sins to answer for - but
    > I believe that in a free market, power plants would be built
    > responsibly and run responsibly - because to do otherwise would ruin
    > the profits.

    As far as I've seen free (i.e. totally uncontrolled) markets, the
    profits
    will be driven to the maximum (also by reducing costs for safety,
    security and personnel) by shareholders far away enough. These
    shareholders will write off their investment at the point where the
    risks
    and costs rise, and the profit decreases, leaving the ruin behind with
    no
    budget to cover the proper handling, probably sell it for a Dollar to a
    post box corp. After all, safety is always a cost factor and becomes
    even
    more uneconomical when not being outweighted by profits.

    > Not a loony, simply a knowledgeable, concerned person who lives a
    > whole lot closer to Chernobyl than I do..

    The effects of Chernobyl where significantly, even though we are >1500km

    away. I've found a quote that describes the most important effects: "A
    large amount of agricultural produce in Europe had to be dumped due to
    contamination from fallout. For instance, most vegetables in the region
    around Munich were destroyed because they had become contaminated with
    iodine-131. The southern portion of the former West Germany was more
    contaminated than the rest of it. There were also severe restrictions on

    agricultural activities, including sales of meat from three million
    sheep
    and lambs in northwestern England and the neighboring portions of
    Scotland and northern Wales, which were affected by rain-out of
    radioactivity when the fallout cloud passed over them."[2]

    If we would have just one accident like that in western Europe, we could

    only shut down everything and look for another place to live.

       Kai

    [1] http://www.ieer.org/reports/npdd.html
    [2] http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd7.html

    -- 
    == Kai M. Becker == kmb@kai-m-becker.de == Bremen, Germany ==
      "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced"
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 05 2003 - 08:11:30 MST