(no subject)
Let me tell you a little secret: I believe that the best way to meet the energy needs of the world, if they stay the same or continue to increase, is nuclear power.
Why do I say that? Because of what else I have to say.
Ever since the earthquake in Japan, those with a vested interest or a fervent religious belief in nuclear power have been singing praises of how nothing "bad" could actually happen, how nuclear was incredibly safe, how containment was impervious to everything, including a full core meltdown, and that in the "first world", nothing could ever happen like it did to the "stupid careless Russians."
For days, I've been reading "fascinating" derisive calls from scientists, nuclear engineers in academia, and people who feel themselves above the "unwashed masses" claiming that the alarmist media and the alarmist public has nothing to fear, that they shouldn't worry about it.
http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N13/yost.html -- Events in Japan confirm the robustness of nuclear power, not a failure.
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/5/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/ -- FUKUSHIMA IS A TRIUMPH FOR NUKE POWER: BUILD MORE REACTORS NOW!
et al.
There is a basic problem with something so criticized that it must be heavily defended; its defenders often develop an overall view of the issue that is incomplete. The simple fact is that the behavior of any large system cannot be completely predicted or modeled. You can design backup into a system, but you can't ever eliminate risk.
This problem of perception is particularly severe among geeks of all stripes.
The attitude of those in the nuclear industry should be an attitude of humility; they should acknowledge the failure of design, and the difficulty in lifecycle management for capital investments such as power plants as what they are. What they should not do, what they must not do, and what many have done, is continue to poo-poo concerns in an event of mounting severity. Who, now, can possibly trust the nuclear industry after this show of "injecting sanity" into a situation? There can be no overall victory without humility in the face of defeat.
There will always be outliers who react with hysteria--"Worse than Chernobyl! Stop all nuclear power NOW, OMG!!!111; this does not address the fact that much of the intelligent world is rapidly coming up to speed on BWRs--especially GE Mark I BWRs. Almost every table in the cafeteria where I work was rife with discussions of steam pressure, suppression pool operation, core reconfiguration... as they should be. The earthquake in Japan is a world event, but the nuclear accident in Fukushima is also a world event--linked, but separate, and while not yet remotely near the scope of human harm of Chernobyl or the earthquake/tsunami itself, much more relevant to nearly the entire world.
I have many thoughts on the core systems issue, but it's not my place to second guess anyone, nor is it anywhere near the time.
When things are thermally cool, with no risk of increased levels of radiation, and the timeline is examined, there might be time for recriminations, and human-factors analyses.
There might even be the time to laud the design of what went right, what served its function, and how many things failed safe.
That time, however, is not now.
~Foxy
Why do I say that? Because of what else I have to say.
Ever since the earthquake in Japan, those with a vested interest or a fervent religious belief in nuclear power have been singing praises of how nothing "bad" could actually happen, how nuclear was incredibly safe, how containment was impervious to everything, including a full core meltdown, and that in the "first world", nothing could ever happen like it did to the "stupid careless Russians."
For days, I've been reading "fascinating" derisive calls from scientists, nuclear engineers in academia, and people who feel themselves above the "unwashed masses" claiming that the alarmist media and the alarmist public has nothing to fear, that they shouldn't worry about it.
http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N13/yost.html -- Events in Japan confirm the robustness of nuclear power, not a failure.
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/5/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/ -- FUKUSHIMA IS A TRIUMPH FOR NUKE POWER: BUILD MORE REACTORS NOW!
et al.
There is a basic problem with something so criticized that it must be heavily defended; its defenders often develop an overall view of the issue that is incomplete. The simple fact is that the behavior of any large system cannot be completely predicted or modeled. You can design backup into a system, but you can't ever eliminate risk.
This problem of perception is particularly severe among geeks of all stripes.
The attitude of those in the nuclear industry should be an attitude of humility; they should acknowledge the failure of design, and the difficulty in lifecycle management for capital investments such as power plants as what they are. What they should not do, what they must not do, and what many have done, is continue to poo-poo concerns in an event of mounting severity. Who, now, can possibly trust the nuclear industry after this show of "injecting sanity" into a situation? There can be no overall victory without humility in the face of defeat.
There will always be outliers who react with hysteria--"Worse than Chernobyl! Stop all nuclear power NOW, OMG!!!111; this does not address the fact that much of the intelligent world is rapidly coming up to speed on BWRs--especially GE Mark I BWRs. Almost every table in the cafeteria where I work was rife with discussions of steam pressure, suppression pool operation, core reconfiguration... as they should be. The earthquake in Japan is a world event, but the nuclear accident in Fukushima is also a world event--linked, but separate, and while not yet remotely near the scope of human harm of Chernobyl or the earthquake/tsunami itself, much more relevant to nearly the entire world.
I have many thoughts on the core systems issue, but it's not my place to second guess anyone, nor is it anywhere near the time.
When things are thermally cool, with no risk of increased levels of radiation, and the timeline is examined, there might be time for recriminations, and human-factors analyses.
There might even be the time to laud the design of what went right, what served its function, and how many things failed safe.
That time, however, is not now.
~Foxy