Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“MORE NEW WIND GENERATING CAPACITY THAN NUCLEAR INSTALLED WORLDWIDE FOR SECOND YEAR IN A ROW”

-American Wind Energy Association

A nuclear power plant hasn’t been ordered successfully since 1973 and none have gone online since 1996, and recent capacity additions have simply been installation of more efficient equipment at power plants. So windmill companies have built more than nothing.

Congratulations to them. Meanwhile, back in reality…

Filed under Alternatives, Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Fun With Statistics, Industry Performance

Posted on October 31, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 3 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“The fuel rods, full of enriched uranium, are packed together in the core of the reactor”

-The Birth of Europe (BBC, 1991)

As the narrator said this, they showed a picture of the storage rack in the spent fuel pool. Classic. (See also the August 3, 2006 Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day.)

Oh, and they’re not “full of enriched uranium.” They are 3%-5% enriched uranium, and given that they are uranium rods, that’s like saying “the I-beams, full of enriched iron, are packed together in the wall of the building.”

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Clueless, Physics

Posted on October 30, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“Exponential functions are used to model situations in which growth or decay change dramatically. Such situations are found in nuclear power plants, which contain rods of plutonium-239, an extremely toxic radioactive isotope.

Operating at full capacity for one year, a 1,000-megawatt power plant discharges about 435 lb of plutonium-239.”

-Finney, et al, Calculus

The plutonium-239 is mixed in with other plutonium isotopes. This is important because plutonium-239 can be used in atomic bombs and the mixture found in a nuclear power plant cannot.
Nor are there “rods of plutonium” at a nuclear power plant. Fuel rods are never more than 2% plutonium (a “dramatic change”). The rest is uranium and waste.
The word “discharge” is sometimes used to mean “taken out of the reactor.” Such is the case here; it does not mean that the rods are allowed to leave the plant in any way. They are stored in an underwater rack. Also, the rods are not taken out every year; they are taken out every six years (one-third of the rods are taken out every two years for a total of six years in the reactor), and since only one-third of the rods are taken out at a time, it’s not 435×6=2,610 pounds either. And, obviously, the figure they give is for total plutonium in the rods, not total plutonium-239 in the rods.
Plutonium is also not “extremely toxic.” It’s about as toxic as caffeine, not very mobile, and completely harmless outside the body. The only place where it can really do harm is in the lungs, and in fairly high amounts at that.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Health, Physics, Plutonium, Radiation

Posted on October 28, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“One concern is that a boat could ram the plant and spill waste into the water. An even bigger fear is that a nasty storm could cut the plant off from the land-based power supply required to run plant operations. Should emergency generators fail, says David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Chernobyl-like disaster could ensue. In a worst-case scenario, an overheated core could melt through the bottom of the barge and drop into the water, creating a radioactive steam explosion. Such a cloud could do far more damage than the plume of nuclear fallout kicked up by the 1986 explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the former U.S.S.R., Lochbaum notes, because the human body absorbs radioactive water droplets more easily than it does radioactive ash.”

-Popular Science

1. Spent fuel (”waste” even though it’s only 3% waste) consists of ceramic fuel rods stored in an underwater rack. A collision with a boat could release water from the spent fuel pool if the spent fuel pool is above the waterline. If it were below the waterline, water is water and it’s not going to flow up. But the waste isn’t something that can be spilled; it’s all solid. The other practical alternative–fuel oil–can be spilled, however, and routinely is.
2. External power is not necessarily required. All reactors have emergency generators, and many can operate at low power while disconnected from the grid.
3. In meltdowns of this type of plant, the core settles to the bottom of the pressure vessel in a puddle. It does not melt through because it can’t.
4. It’s not necessarily a given that radioactive material will come off in large amounts due to a steam explosion even if it did reach the water. Even so, the water itself wouldn’t be radioactive–just the material that it carries along–and any radioactive material that is ejected would settle out.
5. It’s rather interesting to say something will be worse than Chernobyl when there is no dispersal mechanism.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Chernobyl, International, Physics, Safety, Three Mile Island, Waste

Posted on October 28, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“Although the technology exists to contain a burning core, Rosenergoatom won’t say if the plant–which was designed a decade ago–will include the most modern safety measures.”

-Popular Science

Cores don’t burn.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Chernobyl, International, Physics, Safety, Three Mile Island

Posted on October 27, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 2 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“CHERNOBYL REMEMBERED

20 Years Since the World’s Worst Civil Nuclear Disaster”

-Abolition 2000

How ironic that this particular anti-nuclear group does not recognize that the only reason anybody would ever build a Chernobyl-type reactor is weapons production. It would be such a strong argument for them.

But it would undercut their efforts to get rid of the only effective devices to consume bomb materials–reactors.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Chernobyl, International, Proliferation, Safety

Posted on October 25, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“To be logically consistent, [nuclear advocate Patrick] Moore would also have to believe that buying a house is always cheaper than renting (because property taxes and maintenance cost less than rent) and that owning a car is always cheaper than riding a bus (because gas costs less than bus fare).”

-Council on Foreign Relations

Uh, mostly, yes, they are. Even if you include mortgage payments, buying is usually cheaper than renting. And an ESBWR is cheaper than a coal plant that meets emissions standards.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Clueless, Economics, Industry Performance

Posted on October 25, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 1 Comment »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“The NRC defends the poor state of security at nuclear reactors by saying that a force as large as the 9/11 team constitutes an enemy of the state, rendering the protection of nuclear power plants the job of the Pentagon and the federal government (who would never get to the reactor in time).”

-Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer, p.91

Well, it is. That’s rather like the Southern governments that “couldn’t guarantee” the safety of the Freedom Riders–that’s their job.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Security and Terrorism

Posted on October 24, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“I am delighted to serve as the Honorary Chairman for Beyond Nuclear. It represents a wonderful and timely opportunity to shatter the myth of the “peaceful atom” forever.”

-Ed Asner, as quoted by NIRS

Do you want to shatter things or do you want to make them work?

Yeah, and math is relative. I know it’s true because Jan Peczkis told me so.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Crackpots, Physics, Proliferation, Their Actions

Posted on October 23, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“GNEP may as well stand for giving Nevada everyone else’s problem, because that is precisely what will happen if this plan moves ahead.”

-Rep. Shelley Berkley

It specifically involves reprocessing, so that Yucca Mountain is less needed, if at all.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Fuel Cycle, Politics and Regulation, Waste

Posted on October 22, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share
Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
by Bravenet.com
taking viagra woman; Order Viagra Cheap gerneric viagra cheap herbal herbal viagra viagra viagra 576.