Binswangled or Coatesified on Nuclear Safety?

[Philip Coates]

A decade or three ago, in the wake of Three Mile Island and movies like "The China Syndrome", I recall Harry Binswanger wrote a piece (it was probably in the The Objectivist Forum) in which he claimed to prove conclusively that a properly designed nuclear power plant with thick containment and cooling and the ability to withdraw the fuel rods was 100% safe from any natural disaster or terrorist attack whatsoever: Nuclear power is the fully safe form of energy and the environmentalists are hamstringing it without any shred of science behind them, said Harry B. with certainty.

My reply was to ask if he'd considered every possibility and if he was knowledgeable enough in this technology. What if there was not sufficient notice to withdraw the fuel rods? What if a jumbo jet slammed into the containment vessel? What if an earthquake caused one side of the containment vessel to be gripped by one side of the land or structure and if the other side was then 'sheared' or wrenched off?

Naturally, I was dismissed. That crank Phil again. Always looking on the dark side of things.

But that was before the destructive force of what a jumbo jet can do was fully made visible on 9-11.

And it was before the double whammy of earthquake + tsunami hit multiple nuclear plants in Japan in the last few days shearing walls, allowing hydrogen gas explosions, and knocking out the multiple levels of cooling system. And the electricity they need to run them.

...DOH !!!

Edited March 14, 2011 by Philip Coates

[sjw]

You're not the only one who failed giving HB a dose of reason.

Somebody should tell him that reason tastes a lot better than Castor oil...

Shayne

[caroljane]

A decade or three ago, in the wake of Three Mile Island and movies like "The China Syndrome", I recall Harry Binswanger wrote a piece (it was probably in the The Objectivist Forum) in which he claimed to prove conclusively that a properly designed nuclear power plant with thick containment and cooling and the ability to withdraw the fuel rods was 100% safe from any natural disaster or terrorist attack whatsoever: Nuclear power is the fully safe form of energy and the environmentalists are hamstringing it without any shred of science behind them, said Harry B. with certainty.

My reply was to ask if he'd considered every possibility and if he was knowledgeable enough in this technology. What if there was not sufficient notice to withdraw the fuel rods? What if a jumbo jet slammed into the containment vessel? What if an earthquake caused one side of the containment vessel to be gripped by one side of the land or structure and if the other side was then 'sheared' or wrenched off?

Naturally, I was dismissed. That crank Phil again. Always looking on the dark side of things.

But that was before the destructive force of what a jumbo jet can do was fully made visible on 9-11.

And it was before the double whammy of earthquake + tsunami hit multiple nuclear plants in Japan in the last few days shearing walls, allowing hydrogen gas explosions, and knocking out the multiple levels of cooling system. And the electricity they need to run them.

...DOH !!!

Go Team Coates! You're on a roll.

[sjw]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/japan-earthquake-fukushima-nuclear-reactors-deteriorate-explosions-fuel/story?id=13131123

[Selene]

How many deaths were there from Three Mile Island?

[Philip Coates]

Adam,

Did you have the impression from my post that I was totally against nuclear power as opposed to against Harry B's over the top claim of '100 percent safety'?

The question is not how many deaths from TMI, but how many deaths potentially from siting nuclear power plants near earthquake fault zones. Terrorist stuff (and plane strikes can be taken care of by just one surface to air missile.)

(There is no totally safe, totally sabotage or natural catastrophe free source of energy production. That doesn't mean we abolish all source of energy.)

Edited March 14, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

Adam,

Did you have the impression from my post that I was totally against nuclear power as opposed to against Harry B's over the top claim of '100 percent safety'?

The question is not how many deaths from TMI, but how many deaths potentially from siting nuclear power plants near earthquake fault zones. Terrorist stuff (and plane strikes can be taken care of by just one surface to air missile.)

(There is no totally safe, totally sabotage or natural catastrophe free source of energy production. That doesn't mean we abolish all source of energy.)

Phil:

I did not get any impression, nor did I make any assumptions.

I was trying to ascertain what your impression was of the US Tree Mile Island incident.

For example, I believe there were approximately 1,000 cases of Leukemia in the surrounding Chernobyl disaster that was caused by the incompetency of the Soviet staff at the plant. 97% of the people who contracted the disease were "cured.'

The terms used in the media's descriptions of nuclear power plants are fear filled. The term "meltdown" is terrifying. If a person is in a melt down, they are perceived as out of control.

Risk is part of life.

Hell, more people have been killed in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than all the nuclear power plants in America.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

Is there a verbatim reference for the "100% Safety" wording?

Edited March 14, 2011 by Ted Keer

[Philip Coates]

I don't know Ted, what Harry said is just my recollection from years ago. I don't own The Objectivist Forum, gilt-edged, hand-sewn collectors edition.

[BaalChatzaf]

.

And it was before the double whammy of earthquake + tsunami hit multiple nuclear plants in Japan in the last few days shearing walls, allowing hydrogen gas explosions, and knocking out the multiple levels of cooling system. And the electricity they need to run them.

...DOH !!!

The auxillary cooling generators (diesel fueled) were not properly maintained. This lead to the overheating of the reactor cores. Eventually they had to flood them with sea-water and boric acid to control the temperature. Even so, steam had to be vented which lead to a release of radioactive material. Most likely, the steel containment vessels will hold but the Fukushima unit is dead. Letting in corrosive sea water finished the unit. It will never produce another kilowatt of electrical power.

It was a combination of insufficient backup, bad maintenance and bad oversight the produced this extreme hazard.

There was nothing anyone could do about the earthquake but there is no excuse for the miserable state of the backup power units that could keep the fuel matrix properly cooled off.

The way these thing go down is either bad maintenance/oversight or something completely unforeseeable. If they had built these nuclear units sufficient to with stand a 9.5 earthquake it probably would have been too expensive to construct.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

I don't know Ted, what Harry said is just my recollection from years ago. I don't own The Objectivist Forum, gilt-edged, hand-sewn collectors edition.

Phil:

I would be quite suspicious of any assertion of 100% effectiveness of any system. Did you object to that assertion then?

Adam

[Selene]

Another explosion at the nuber two ( 2) reactor at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

Any damage to the steel containment vessel of a nuclear reactor is considered critical because it raises the prospect of an uncontrolled release of radioactive material and full meltdown of the nuclear fuel inside. To date, even during the four-day crisis in Japan that amounts to the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, workers had managed to avoid a breach of a containment vessel and had limited releases of radioactive steam to relatively low levels.

[sjw]

There was nothing anyone could do about the earthquake but there is no excuse for the miserable state of the backup power units that could keep the fuel matrix properly cooled off.

The way these thing go down is either bad maintenance/oversight or something completely unforeseeable. If they had built these nuclear units sufficient to with stand a 9.5 earthquake it probably would have been too expensive to construct.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bingo.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

Another explosion at the nuber two ( 2) reactor at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

Any damage to the steel containment vessel of a nuclear reactor is considered critical because it raises the prospect of an uncontrolled release of radioactive material and full meltdown of the nuclear fuel inside. To date, even during the four-day crisis in Japan that amounts to the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, workers had managed to avoid a breach of a containment vessel and had limited releases of radioactive steam to relatively low levels.

Only by flooding the inner containment vessels with sea water and boric acid to quench the heat. This by the was spells the end of this nuclear station. It will never generate another kilowatt of electrical power. It is kaput.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Another explosion at the nuber two ( 2) reactor at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

Any damage to the steel containment vessel of a nuclear reactor is considered critical because it raises the prospect of an uncontrolled release of radioactive material and full meltdown of the nuclear fuel inside. To date, even during the four-day crisis in Japan that amounts to the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, workers had managed to avoid a breach of a containment vessel and had limited releases of radioactive steam to relatively low levels.

Only by flooding the inner containment vessels with sea water and boric acid to quench the heat. This by the was spells the end of this nuclear station. It will never generate another kilowatt of electrical power. It is kaput.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes and that will increase Japan's need for oil.

[Guyau]

.

Competent Updates

Fukushima Plant

BWR’s BWR Safety Systems

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Local corrections:

It is control rods, not fuel rods, and it is dropping, not withdrawal, in an emergency shutdown.

The diesel engines turn electric generators to power pumps and other systems required for reactor control, power as a backup in the case of loss of plant (self-) power and loss of offsite (grid) power. (The locomotive manufacturer I worked for built diesel-electric-generator sets for both locomotives [like Dagny’s] and for nuclear-plant emergency standby power [and for submarines].)

US nuclear plants such as the one at which I worked (PWR) have containment buildings designed to withstand the direct hit of a commercial jet airliner. The seismic qualification of structures is elaborate even where we were located, in a very quiet zone.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[sbeaulieu]

Another explosion at the nuber two ( 2) reactor at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

Any damage to the steel containment vessel of a nuclear reactor is considered critical because it raises the prospect of an uncontrolled release of radioactive material and full meltdown of the nuclear fuel inside. To date, even during the four-day crisis in Japan that amounts to the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, workers had managed to avoid a breach of a containment vessel and had limited releases of radioactive steam to relatively low levels.

Adam,

I read somewhere that Chernobyl's plant didn't have a containment vessel. Let's see if Japan is able to contain the current damage and keep another meltdown from ocurring. At least they have that chance.

~ Shane

[Philip Coates]

> It is control rods, not fuel rods, and it is dropping, not withdrawal, in an emergency shutdown. [stephen]

Then why didn't they drop in this case? That would have shut off the problem they are having with heat continuing to rise.

> The diesel engines turn electric generators to power pumps and other systems required for reactor control, power as a backup

I read that the backups failed. Which sounds like it makes sense in the earthquake + tsunami type of massive destruction: something that would smash the main ones could smash the backups since they are in the same location.

> The seismic qualification of structures is elaborate

I just don't see how you can be assured of stability when the ground tears underneath you and when a tidal wave hits. There were some reports on the news about the weight of water and how a enormous wave of water can hit with the force of a nuclear weapon.

I repeat: Build nuclear plants. Just don't build the damn things near an earthquake fault. (And perhaps not within several miles of on certain coastlines.)

(I also read that Japan has some of the world's 'safest', best designed nuclear plants because they are relatively paranoid about in this area, given Hiroshima.)

Edited March 15, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Barbara Branden]

How many deaths were there from Three Mile Island?

None.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

How many deaths were there from Three Mile Island?

None.

Barbara

If you don't count abortions from scared mothers to be.

--Brant

[Selene]

How many deaths were there from Three Mile Island?

None.

Barbara

Barbara:

Correct.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

My understanding from the radio is that the plants did shut down, but even then there are several days of extreme heat from radioactive byproducts. Since the plants are no longer generating power they cannot self cool, and since the grid was down they had to rely on the diesel generators, which failed. My understanding is that the explosions have been caused by hydrogen gas, which is a secondary biproduct of beta decay, that could not be vented properly due to the power failure.

I do remember reading Binswanger's article, but don't remember objecting to any extraordinary claims. I was also aware, back then, that plants were built to withstand the impact of an airliner.

[DavidMcK]

Reading online I discovered it takes 5 to 6 days to cool down after a SCRAM (safety control rod axe man...i.e. the man at the first self-sustaining reaction whose job it was to cut the rope holding the control rods with an ax if things got out of control).

[BaalChatzaf]

Reading online I discovered it takes 5 to 6 days to cool down after a SCRAM (safety control rod axe man...i.e. the man at the first self-sustaining reaction whose job it was to cut the rope holding the control rods with an ax if things got out of control).

You are talking about the Fermi I reactor under the stands at the University of Chicago. It was the worlds first suicide cooled reactor. When you get right down to it, what else are graduate students good for?

Incidentally, Fermi I had essentially the same design as the ill starred reactor at Chernobyl. It was a graphite reactor with no containment shell. The first victim of the nuclear age could have been the City of Chicago.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited March 15, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[Philip Coates]

NYT this morning-->

"By late Tuesday, the water meant to cool spent fuel rods in the No. 4 reactor was boiling, Japan’s nuclear watchdog said. If the water evaporates and the rods run dry, they could overheat and catch fire, potentially spreading radioactive materials in dangerous clouds.

Shigekatsu Oomukai, a spokesperson for the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, said the substantial capacity of the pool meant that the water in the pool was unlikely to evaporate soon. But he said workers were having difficulty reaching the pool to cool it, because of the high temperature of the water.

Temperatures appeared to be rising in the spent fuel pools at two other reactors at the plant, No. 5 and No. 6, said Yukio Edano, the chief cabinet secretary. Meanwhile, workers continued to pump seawater into the No. 1 and No. 3 reactors, where cooling systems remained unusable. "