CNN Documentary Propagates 3 Nuclear ...

CNN Documentary Propagates 3 Nuclear Power Myths

There are 14 comments on the Media Matters for America story from Nov 8, 2013, titled CNN Documentary Propagates 3 Nuclear Power Myths. In it, Media Matters for America reports that:

CNN aired the pro-nuclear power film "Pandora's Promise" on November 7, which propagated three common myths about nuclear power: it suggested the environmental movement's "scare tactics" are what has inhibited nuclear power, claimed nuclear power is cheaper than renewables, and downplayed complications from nuclear waste.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Media Matters for America.

BDV

Decatur, GA

#1 Nov 9, 2013
Oil propagandists out in force. If one compares Lac Megantic to Fukushima, it should be no question that oil is more dangerous than "nukular".
.
But how many people even remember Lac Megantic?
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#2 Nov 9, 2013
Nuclear has a role to play, especially as wind, solar and geothermal 'ramp up' to become significant. And the 'myths' are actually truths. The only 'green energy' that beats nuclear on cost is methane from land wastes.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electrici...

See figure one on http://www.ceri.ca/docs/CNA-sept2006_000.pdf

Currently, Natural Gas is indeed cheaper but it is not a long term resource. Fracking is problematic and distribution is limited. The real problem is that gas output declines rapidly after initial production.

Nuclear waste, is only a problem with the 'once through' paradigm. Reprocessing with pyro-processing would eliminate almost all high level waste which could then be usable in remote locations for small scale power and heat.

As to the environmental movement, yes. It was a factor in blocking nuclear in terms of the dangers of nuclear weapons proliferation. But there are many nuclear power options that are not only safe but cannot be used for nuclear weapons.
Pam

Toronto, Canada

#3 Nov 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#4 Nov 9, 2013
Pam wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =B4NRdbkGM_8XX
I do not support UNSAFE nuclear so what is your point?
BDV

Decatur, GA

#5 Nov 10, 2013
Shhh there's the oil megaexplosion at Lac Megantic to distrat the sheeple from!
.
And whatever you do don't point out that Fukushima Dai Ichi weathered the worlds 7th largest earthquake and a 40 foot tsunami (ergo, nuclear CAN be made THAT safe).
.
Shhhhhh!
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#6 Nov 10, 2013
BDV wrote:
Shhh there's the oil megaexplosion at Lac Megantic to distrat the sheeple from!
.
And whatever you do don't point out that Fukushima Dai Ichi weathered the worlds 7th largest earthquake and a 40 foot tsunami (ergo, nuclear CAN be made THAT safe).
.
Shhhhhh!
Light water reactors are not that safe as Fukishima demostrates. And what do you mean 'weathered' the event. It is still a disasterous collapes. As expected for light water reactors that must be actively cooled, even with the damping rods fully inserted (one meltdown was of an IDLED reactor). This puts a LOT of safety in the hands of fragile 'secondary systems'. Not good. We should eliminate light water reactors in the 'resurgence' and use reactors that WOULD have weathered the storm and tsunami (at least in earthquake prone regions).

1: Molten Salt Thorium Reactors in unstable regions (no possibility of proliferation)
2: Candu heavy water reactors (using MOX to deplete bomb stockpiles and pyroprocessing for recovery of fuel from spent rods)In countries that are stable and have high tech capability.
3: Traveling wave reactors (for small scale or 'mini' installations)
4: Pebble bed reactors (though I have some concerns with oxygen vs the carbon coating). For installations where high temperatures are required such as hydrogen generation.

And any other reactor design that can

1: Can be reliably shut down long before a meltdown can occur.
2: Can not go critical while shut down.

And the nuclear resurgence should be taken slowly so that capital funding is not depleted with upfront costs leading to high interest rates as with the first wave.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#7 Nov 10, 2013
I made a mistake. I meant Fukushima Dai Ni, where was no reactor meltdown, as opposed to the Dai Ichi, where were multiple meltdowns.
.
Still it is not clear to me what was the source of the cesium/strontium, namely was this a Chernobyl-like event or a Kyshtym-like event?
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#8 Nov 10, 2013
BDV wrote:
I made a mistake. I meant Fukushima Dai Ni, where was no reactor meltdown
"On March 11, 2011, a 9-meter-high tsunami struck the No. 2 plant, while the No. 1 plant was hit by a 13-meter-high tsunami. The tsunami caused the No. 2 plant's seawater pumps, used to cool reactors, to fail. Of the plant's four reactors, three were in danger of meltdown. One external high-voltage power line still functioned, allowing plant staff in the central control room to monitor data on internal reactor temperatures and water levels. 2,000 employees of the No. 2 plant worked to stabilize the reactors. Some employees connected 200-meter sections of cable, each weighing more than a ton, over a distance of 9 kilometres. It is pointed out only 40 employees would have been at the plant if the earthquake had occurred in the evening or on a weekend. According to the head of the plant, the plant was near meltdown."

This set of reactors was saved by pure luck (having one reactor still functional and a high voltage line to allow monitoring). It was one slip away from being the same as the Fukishima Daichi meltdown. I repeat. The light water reactors are NOT SAFE, and certainly should never be allowed in an earthquake zone.
BDV wrote:
Still it is not clear to me what was the source of the cesium/strontium, namely was this a Chernobyl-like event or a Kyshtym-like event?
Kyshtym was a totally different scenario with a chemical explosion from drying of nitrates. This was due to putting a 'reprocessing solution' for plutonium production is too small a container leading to high temperatures and evaporation of the water in the container.

The cesium is a byproduct of reactor operation, generated by the fuel rods and released by the meltdown.
BDV

Columbia, SC

#9 Nov 11, 2013
So, was it the Cesium/Strotium from the reactor proper, or the one from the cooling pools?
.
What is the breakdown,if both?
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#10 Nov 11, 2013
BDV wrote:
So, was it the Cesium/Strotium from the reactor proper, or the one from the cooling pools?
Does it matter? Both would have highly radiated reactor rods.
BDV wrote:
What is the breakdown,if both?
The release was estimated at about one order of magnitude smaller than Chernobyl. The specifics of where the fuel was is immaterial in my opinion compared to how much is released into water and soil.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#11 Nov 13, 2013
I disagree. It makes a huge difference. Because designing a storage that has the capacity to deal with a heat amount of X therms even without cooling is pretty straightforward. Would add few hundred mill USD to the cost of a reactor, but that would not be prohibitive. If the reactors themselves are the source, significantly different story.

And I am flummoxed about the paucity of details about the incident.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#12 Nov 13, 2013
BDV wrote:
I disagree. It makes a huge difference. Because designing a storage that has the capacity to deal with a heat amount of X therms even without cooling is pretty straightforward.
I am not sure that is true when dealing with fuel rods. Without water, they would heat up locally, possibly to the melting point or at least to outgassing. You need the water to conduct the heat to your cooling radiator. A passively cooled water pool, perhaps sealed might do it but that becomes awkward, and there is not the incentive in a well managed facility. A separate building for cooling pools might be a wise middle choice.
BDV wrote:
Would add few hundred mill USD to the cost of a reactor, but that would not be prohibitive. If the reactors themselves are the source, significantly different story.
Not really. Both deal with the necessity for active cooling of fuel rods. A Scrammed reactor isn't a lot different than rods in a fixed pool except that the pool rods should be farther apart.. But with the water leaked out or evaporated, they would each act very similarly..

Passive cooling of the fuel rods and core is possible but not in a light water reactor. The CANDU 6 can be idled and passively safe. It is one of the design features. There is really no great reason for light water reactors for power, except the penny pinching cost of heavy water production. But safe nuclear is a lot cheaper than unsafe nuclear in MY opinion. I believe that the primary incentive for light water reactors is and remains the 'excuse' to build enrichment facilities for the fuel. Which leads to weapons grade Pu. You need a few heavy water reactors (run for a brief period to generate maximum PU239 to generate the plutonium but a lot of light water reactors to justify the enrichment so that you can produce weapons grade enrichment without showing on the balance sheet... The real problem has been the US exporting this 'model' to the world for economic reasons.
BDV wrote:
And I am flummoxed about the paucity of details about the incident.
While regulated by government, the facility is not public. Private money doesn't need to disclose anything. Unless they get caught..
BDV

Atlanta, GA

#13 Nov 14, 2013
I guess putting the high radiation rods in the same type of arrangement as the reactor proper (thick concrete shell) could be one ticket - if the shell did its job at Dai Ichi.

That's why the details of the Dai Ichi accident are so important. Why did the Japs put cooling pools ATOP reactors, is the leaked radiation coming from cooling pools or the reactors?
BDV

Atlanta, GA

#14 Nov 14, 2013
"While regulated by government, the facility is not public. Private money doesn't need to disclose anything."

Even moreso when the gouvernement in not pressing. What embarrassing details are there for the Jap Gouvernement not to make TEPCO squeal, squeal like a pig?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wind Power Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Researchers project solar power may become chea... May 11 Solarman 1
News Ukraine seeks billion dollar investments to fue... May 10 reevs 1
News Offshore Wind Power Will 'Absolutely Cost Jobs'... May 8 Skeptic 1
News Australian push may open more doors for batteri... May 6 Solarman 1
News More big companies opting for green energy May 6 Solarman 1
News Battery Power Gives Boost to Renewables May 5 Solarman 147
News Australia on track to meet renewables target, s... May 3 Solarman 1
More from around the web