Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

iamconfusedagain

If I Was A Terrorist I Would Encourage Nuclear Power

Recommended Posts

Hi

The title was mainly to make you click.

But it is a genuine worry of mine that there is lots and lots of this nasty stuff who no one has really thought about storing properly.

I am poorly informed so was wondering if anyone knows a bit about the real situation (safe storage/disposal). I wish someone had spent more than a couple of quid on renewable energy. The trouble with the internet is people are so polarsed in their opinion facts just get lost or sidelined.

The first link i found was this:

http://www.psr.org/home.cfm?id=Securing_Nuclear_Waste

Spent fuel pools are not secure from attack or sabotage. Many are above ground, protected by a corrugated steel super-structure unlikely to withstand an attack. A plane crash or large explosion could displace or evaporate enough water to leave the radioactive rods exposed. The resulting build-up of heat would trigger a release of radiation large enough to have significant public health and environmental impacts. In fact, the damage from an attack on a spent fuel pool could exceed the effects of the Chrnobyl accident in 1986.7

A National Academy of Sciences report concluded in March 2005 that there is a significant risk of a terrorist attack on a spent fuel pool and that the federal government should act to expedite the removal of spent fuel rods to dry storage casks that are more resilient against attacks.8

At present, most of the high-level radioactive waste is stored at the power plant at which it was generated. Because of plans to open a central storage repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, however, transportation of high-level waste is projected to increase in the future.Nuclear power plants are located throughout the U.S., so shipments would pass through 44 states and the District of Columbia to get to the Nevada repository.

Approximately 108,500 truck shipments would be required to move the 77,000 tons of high-level waste expected to be buried at Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. The U.S. Department of Energy predicts 66 truck accidents during this transportation process; others predict as many as 130 accidents during shipment.10. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, an accident could result in cask failure and the release of radioactivity. The resulting contamination could cause thousands of deaths and would cost billions of dollars to clean up.11 Meanwhile, shipments traveling in or near major U.S. cities would put millions of people at risk of exposure to radiation. 12

Although shipment casks are designed and tested for resilience against many accident-related stresses, their ability to withstand significant intentional damage has not been determined. A dedicated terrorist organization or saboteur could possibly obtain information about shipping dates and routes, making nuclear waste shipments vulnerable to such attacks and sabotage.13

7.Helfand I, Forrow L, Tiwari J. “Nuclear Terrorism.” British Medical Journal. Vol. 324. 9 February 2002.
8 Vedantam S. “Nuclear Plants Are Still Vulnerable, Panel Says.” Washington Post. 7 April 2001. A12
9.Vedantam S. “Nuclear Plants Not Keeping Track of Waste.” Washington Post. 12 April 2005. A19.
10/12 Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (FEIS). U.S. Department of Energy. EOE/EIS 0250. February 2002. J-37
11.Lamb M, Resnikoff M. Radiological Consequences of Severe Real Accident Involving Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipments to Yucca Mountain: Hypothetical Baltimore Rail Tunnel Fire Involving SNF. Radioactive Waste Management Associates. September 2001. 13-16
13 Ballard JD. Shelter in Place: The Necessary Logic Behind Nuclear Waste Security. Prepared for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. January 2002.

I know the options may be limited, and nuclear may need to be expanded. But does anyone wonder about the problems. I have always worried about human error (there is a lot of truth in the simpsons). But the evil god squad must be well happy about all this waste lying around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am puzzled by the reasons trotted out by Tony Blair et al on nuclear power.

One of their justifications is that we don't want to rely on anyone else for our power. An admirable idea, but unless I am wrong (probably am!) last time I looked we didn't mine any uranium and therefore still rely on others for our energy.

I am dead against it.

NDL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the energy used to mine uranium too? I don't know the figures, but it is far from 'carbon free' as a lot of people would like to believe.

Is it not a bit like gold mining, i.e. shifting tons of rock for ounces of uranium?

I suppose there's lots of potential fuel in nuclear warheads though that could be used up which would make sense since it's already there.

In my opinion, nuclear power is great in theory, but it's the human element that brings the 'practice' into it, be it humans trying to deliberately blow up reactors as a form of terrorism or just plain old incompetence such as that which caused the Chernobyl explosion. There's the other very human of traits too called neglect and complacency which worry me.

I think it's only a matter of time before we have another Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or Windscale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far more people have been killed by coal-fired power plants than nukes.

As for meltdowns, any sane nuke program would use fail-safe reactors which don't have that problem: the Chinese are already heading down that route.

But at the end of the day, I think the choice is going to be pretty simple: do you want to produce power from 'EVIL ATOMS!', or do you want to go back to candles and wearing six layers of clothing through the winter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far more people have been killed by coal-fired power plants than nukes.

As for meltdowns, any sane nuke program would use fail-safe reactors which don't have that problem: the Chinese are already heading down that route.

But at the end of the day, I think the choice is going to be pretty simple: do you want to produce power from 'EVIL ATOMS!', or do you want to go back to candles and wearing six layers of clothing through the winter?

I am simply worried about what might happen in the future. From the little I have read it seems that storage and transit of high level waste is wide open to accidents/nutters.

I bet it works out a lot more expensive than people will admit too

You may be right that we will need to use the EVIL ATOM. But it is not a nice choice to have to make. I guess its years of underinvestment in renewable options. I think its about 30 billion us dollars in 2004. At least that is up from 7ish in 1995.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know people say a nuclear plant is vulnerable to terrorist attack. But do you not think that plans have been drawn up to protect it like they have for Heathrow? If you look at the area round Sellafield there are 2000 troops within 3 hrs driving time of being given the go signal. ou will have to be a devout martyrdom seeker to have a cabby at that amount of troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.