Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 28.05.2019, 16:18
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,700
Groaned at 211 Times in 179 Posts
Thanked 20,447 Times in 8,716 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Instead of a few big and highly dangerous plants you have many more small but barely less dangerous ones which, unless you accept higher running costs, are much less well protected, and probably kept by less-well trained personnel. That can only increase the risk of accidents and theft.
Rather than a large reactor, you could have an array of small reactors on the same site. This way you could share any security arrangements as well as control room and logistics, cooling towers, generator, grid interafce etc. The higher number of smaller units would allow some redundancy for maintenance etc, and also if you scale that across different sites, there would be sufficient demand to keep some sort of production line running which would mean a high level of standardization for an affordable, proven and safe design.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 28.05.2019, 16:27
krlock3's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 2,889
Groaned at 41 Times in 29 Posts
Thanked 2,009 Times in 999 Posts
krlock3 has a reputation beyond reputekrlock3 has a reputation beyond reputekrlock3 has a reputation beyond reputekrlock3 has a reputation beyond reputekrlock3 has a reputation beyond reputekrlock3 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
From a technical point of view there is no doubt that nuclear is the most efficient and clean way to go, the real issue is all about safety and perceived safety - including weird ideas like a hijacked plane crasing on a reactor and so on.
It is only weird until it happens.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 28.05.2019, 16:42
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Leimbach, Zürich
Posts: 5,414
Groaned at 311 Times in 246 Posts
Thanked 5,883 Times in 2,988 Posts
EdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Rather than a large reactor, you could have an array of small reactors on the same site. This way you could share any security arrangements as well as control room and logistics, cooling towers, generator, grid interafce etc. The higher number of smaller units would allow some redundancy for maintenance etc, and also if you scale that across different sites, there would be sufficient demand to keep some sort of production line running which would mean a high level of standardization for an affordable, proven and safe design.
It is all not that easy.

Does 20x50MW need the same cooling as a 1x1GW for example or is it much more, what are the diff in maintenance costs for 1 big installation or 20 smaller ones etc.. etc..
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank EdwinNL for this useful post:
  #24  
Old 28.05.2019, 17:05
venetian's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Zuerich
Posts: 95
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 89 Times in 50 Posts
venetian has earned some respectvenetian has earned some respect
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
It is only weird until it happens.
That's the point. It's difficult to estimate the cost of this event and make informed decisions, until it happens and you must evacuate half a million people and the associated activities.

What could be the cost for Swiss economy, should Zurich or Geneve areas suddenly become off-limits for 50 years due to contamination?

PS: to stick to the original post and to be clear, I'm most definitely not defending coal here. That's slowly making the entire planet off-limits, not just Zurich!... I'm just saying that the negative outputs of nuclear accidents are so impacting, and for so long, that even when multiplied for the tiniest probablity they can result in something unacceptable. And the error in this estimate is probably a few orders of magnitude, because the scenarios are complex to assess - that's why unlike plane safety or car safety there is so much room for opinions in this particular topic.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 28.05.2019, 17:07
JagWaugh's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eglisau
Posts: 7,465
Groaned at 47 Times in 46 Posts
Thanked 14,046 Times in 5,483 Posts
JagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
What could be the cost for Swiss economy, should Zurich or Geneve areas suddenly become off-limits for 50 years due to contamination?
There would be dancing in the street in Basel.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank JagWaugh for this useful post:
  #26  
Old 28.05.2019, 17:45
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 7,426
Groaned at 246 Times in 209 Posts
Thanked 8,943 Times in 4,684 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
If the half-life is thousands of years, it is NOT highly radioactive.

Tom
Tell that NAGRA, the company tasked with finding a location and building such a facility. I'm pretty sure they know a tad more about the issue than you.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at Urs Max for this post:
  #27  
Old 28.05.2019, 18:00
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Leimbach, Zürich
Posts: 5,414
Groaned at 311 Times in 246 Posts
Thanked 5,883 Times in 2,988 Posts
EdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Tell that NAGRA, the company tasked with finding a location and building such a facility. I'm pretty sure they know a tad more about the issue than you.
The higher the half life the less radioactive something is
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank EdwinNL for this useful post:
  #28  
Old 28.05.2019, 18:05
BasP72's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Adliswil (close to Zurich)
Posts: 1,642
Groaned at 62 Times in 31 Posts
Thanked 1,319 Times in 660 Posts
BasP72 has a reputation beyond reputeBasP72 has a reputation beyond reputeBasP72 has a reputation beyond reputeBasP72 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Instead of a few big and highly dangerous plants you have many more small but barely less dangerous ones which, unless you accept higher running costs, are much less well protected, and probably kept by less-well trained personnel. That can only increase the risk of accidents and theft.

Especially in these times you want to minimise the risk of enabling dirty bombs.

And there is of course another elephant in the room:
You create nuclear waste with half-lives of thousands of years. No definitive storage facility (word? "Endlager") for highly radioactive waste exist, after 60 years of civil use.
This is why Thorium reactors are the better choice. I belie e there the half life of waste is 300 years, plus it can burn the waste of the uranium reactors.

At the time (50ies) uranium reactors were developped and thorium was shelved, due to thorium reactors not delivering bomb grade fissable materials....

https://youtu.be/kybenSq0KPo
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank BasP72 for this useful post:
  #29  
Old 28.05.2019, 18:33
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,651
Groaned at 351 Times in 302 Posts
Thanked 13,781 Times in 7,576 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
That's the point. It's difficult to estimate the cost of this event and make informed decisions, until it happens and you must evacuate half a million people and the associated activities.

What could be the cost for Swiss economy, should Zurich or Geneve areas suddenly become off-limits for 50 years due to contamination?

PS: to stick to the original post and to be clear, I'm most definitely not defending coal here. That's slowly making the entire planet off-limits, not just Zurich!... I'm just saying that the negative outputs of nuclear accidents are so impacting, and for so long, that even when multiplied for the tiniest probablity they can result in something unacceptable. And the error in this estimate is probably a few orders of magnitude, because the scenarios are complex to assess - that's why unlike plane safety or car safety there is so much room for opinions in this particular topic.
Was there ever an evacuation of half a million people?

Nuclear reactors have been around for about 60 years and there have been very few mass evacuations.
Difficult to get accurate figures but I understand around 200,000 were evacuated after Fukushima? This was probably unnecessary had they distributed iodine tablets like Switzerland.
Last time I checked there was only one confirmed cancer death among the Fukushima power plant workers. Over 1,000 deaths have been attributed to failures in the evacuation; mostly among old people who were exposed to extreme cold or failed to get prompt medical treatment for non nuclear related sickness.

Compare this with the millions evacuated every year due to storms, floods, fires and you see nuclear accidents are way down the extreme hazard list
__________________
It is naive to assume my posts are my own work
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #30  
Old 28.05.2019, 18:51
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,700
Groaned at 211 Times in 179 Posts
Thanked 20,447 Times in 8,716 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Last time I checked there was only one confirmed cancer death among the Fukushima power plant workers. Over 1,000 deaths have been attributed to failures in the evacuation; mostly among old people who were exposed to extreme cold or failed to get prompt medical treatment for non nuclear related sickness.
True, and even for Chernobyl, now that many of the people who were working on site back then are approaching an age where they are likely to die of natural causes, the number of cancer-related deaths is far far behind predictions.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #31  
Old 28.05.2019, 20:08
slammer's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lummerland
Posts: 4,746
Groaned at 117 Times in 82 Posts
Thanked 7,991 Times in 2,995 Posts
slammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
True, and even for Chernobyl, now that many of the people who were working on site back then are approaching an age where they are likely to die of natural causes, the number of cancer-related deaths is far far behind predictions.
It´s not as bad as the media breathlessly told us and if you think about it there have been over 2000 nuclear explosions all over the planet, that´s the equivalent of a UdSSR/USA nukefeast showdown right there. And we are still around.
But, I was in Armenia a few years after Chernobly went snap crackle and pop and met people being treated in Etchmiadzin, better put, slowly dying in Etchmiadzin. They had been taken by helicopter to the reactor with only rudimentary protection and had used shovels and indeed their bare hands to shovel the radio-active debris back into the shell of the reactor.
They told of a nightmare that we can´t imagine.
__________________
Lummerland
Eine Insel mit zwei Bergen,
und im tiefen weiten Meer,
mit viel Tunnels und Geleisen
und dem Eisenbahnverkehr
nun wie mag die Insel heißen
ringsherum ist schöner Strand
jeder sollte einmal reisen
in das schöne Lummerland
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank slammer for this useful post:
  #32  
Old 28.05.2019, 21:06
venetian's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Zuerich
Posts: 95
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 89 Times in 50 Posts
venetian has earned some respectvenetian has earned some respect
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
Was there ever an evacuation of half a million people?
I don't think so, of course. I came up with that huge number in the context of how "weird" and very unlikely events could still scare people and boost figures for worst-case estimates.

Quote:
Compare this with the millions evacuated every year due to storms, floods, fires and you see nuclear accidents are way down the extreme hazard list
I believe that on average even cars are more dangerous than nuclear power plants. But the point was that one single bad nuclear accident can be many times more impacting than one single bad storm. Again, the context was "estimating the costs", and you have to think about worst-case scenarios. Plus, you can decide if building a nuclear plant, you can't decide if having a storm or not.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at venetian for this post:
  #33  
Old 28.05.2019, 21:25
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,651
Groaned at 351 Times in 302 Posts
Thanked 13,781 Times in 7,576 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
I don't think so, of course. I came up with that huge number in the context of how "weird" and very unlikely events could still scare people and boost figures for worst-case estimates.


I believe that on average even cars are more dangerous than nuclear power plants. But the point was that one single bad nuclear accident can be many times more impacting than one single bad storm. Again, the context was "estimating the costs", and you have to think about worst-case scenarios. Plus, you can decide if building a nuclear plant, you can't decide if having a storm or not.
"you can't decide if having a storm or not." You can always try building storm shelters and storm proof houses?

"one single bad nuclear accident can be many times more impacting than one single bad storm" completely untrue rubbish!
Just one example; Hurricane Katrina caused $81 billion in property damages, but it is estimated that the total economic impact in Louisiana and Mississippi may exceed $150 billion! It impacted 93,000 square miles. It destroyed or rendered uninhabitable 300,000 homes. Katrina displaced 770,000 residents. Katrina's death toll was 1,836 people.

So what is the nuclear accident you can quote that was "many times more impacting" than Katrina?
__________________
It is naive to assume my posts are my own work
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #34  
Old 28.05.2019, 22:35
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 26,523
Groaned at 1,641 Times in 1,261 Posts
Thanked 30,719 Times in 14,673 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
The higher the half life the less radioactive something is
My point exactly.

Far too many think that longer half life = more radioactive.

Tom
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 28.05.2019, 23:13
venetian's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Zuerich
Posts: 95
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 89 Times in 50 Posts
venetian has earned some respectvenetian has earned some respect
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
So what is the nuclear accident you can quote that was "many times more impacting" than Katrina?
We were talking about possibilities and risks, because what has been driving the anti-nuclear trend we have seen recently in politics is the updated perception of risks and possibilities, and (unfortunately) not statistics. Does not matter that there was no huge accident YET, the question is how to estimate a potential big accident, and how to keep it into account when calculating overall costs of technology.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 29.05.2019, 00:57
22 yards's Avatar
Only in moderation
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Basel-Land
Posts: 8,366
Groaned at 244 Times in 197 Posts
Thanked 15,534 Times in 6,417 Posts
22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute22 yards has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
"you can't decide if having a storm or not." You can always try building storm shelters and storm proof houses?

"one single bad nuclear accident can be many times more impacting than one single bad storm" completely untrue rubbish!
Just one example; Hurricane Katrina caused $81 billion in property damages, but it is estimated that the total economic impact in Louisiana and Mississippi may exceed $150 billion! It impacted 93,000 square miles. It destroyed or rendered uninhabitable 300,000 homes. Katrina displaced 770,000 residents. Katrina's death toll was 1,836 people.

So what is the nuclear accident you can quote that was "many times more impacting" than Katrina?
Not to mention the human cost of producing power without any accidents (although you did mention that point in your OP ). How "many times more impacting" are the greenhouse gases and toxins emitted by normally, safely operated coal- and gas-powered electricity generation than the zero emissions of normally, safely operated nuclear facilities?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 29.05.2019, 09:25
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,651
Groaned at 351 Times in 302 Posts
Thanked 13,781 Times in 7,576 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
We were talking about possibilities and risks, because what has been driving the anti-nuclear trend we have seen recently in politics is the updated perception of risks and possibilities, and (unfortunately) not statistics. Does not matter that there was no huge accident YET, the question is how to estimate a potential big accident, and how to keep it into account when calculating overall costs of technology.
"the updated perception of risks and possibilities" usually known as scaremongering, or I do not have a soundly based argument so I will try some shroud waving!

If you want to move away from nuclear power into "calculating overall costs of technology" then you find nuclear power moves even further down the risk list!

Some examples from the many hundreds;
Bhopal; The final death toll was estimated to be between 15,000 and 20,000, while a half million survivors suffered respiratory problems, eye irritation or blindness.

Savar building collapse. An eight-story factory building collapsed and killed 1129 people.

Karachi, Pakistan, 289 people died in a fire at the Ali Enterprises garment factory,

Looking at the side effects of alternative fuels to nuclear;
Deepwater Horizon; immense damage had been done to the Gulf of Mexico’s economy and ecology.

The Exxon Valdez; 11 million gallons of crude oil over some 1,300 miles of Alaska shoreline.

Mining disasters; Monongah coal mine disaster killed 350 miners. Courrières mining disaster killed 1,100 people. Honkeiko mining disaster killed 1500 people.

Sayano–Shushenskaya power station accident. Seventy-five people were killed at a hydroelectric power station when a turbine failed.

San Juanico Disaster. An explosion at a liquid petroleum gas tank farm killed hundreds and injured thousands

Val di Stava dam collapse killing 268 people, destroying 63 buildings and demolishing eight bridges.
__________________
It is naive to assume my posts are my own work
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #38  
Old 29.05.2019, 13:08
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 7,426
Groaned at 246 Times in 209 Posts
Thanked 8,943 Times in 4,684 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
The higher the half life the less radioactive something is
For the same purity of the radioactive substance, the same number of radioactive nuclei if you will. Sure, that's trivial.

However that's also what (also) differs between the various waste types.

Used-up fuel elements can contain double-digit percentages of radioactive elements, that's probably many magnitudes higher in concentration than you're likely to see anywhere outside of the core.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 29.05.2019, 13:25
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Leimbach, Zürich
Posts: 5,414
Groaned at 311 Times in 246 Posts
Thanked 5,883 Times in 2,988 Posts
EdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond reputeEdwinNL has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Keep nuclear power

Quote:
View Post
For the same purity of the radioactive substance, the same number of radioactive nuclei if you will. Sure, that's trivial.

However that's also what (also) differs between the various waste types.

Used-up fuel elements can contain double-digit percentages of radioactive elements, that's probably many magnitudes higher in concentration than you're likely to see anywhere outside of the core.
Problem with those waste materials is that there is so much of it. Even materials that are not highly radio-active can kill somebody within days, one just needs enough of the materials.

(waste materials are however a mix of high and low emitting materials.)

Last edited by EdwinNL; 29.05.2019 at 16:50.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 29.05.2019, 16:01
szhjcn's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,727
Groaned at 2 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 364 Times in 291 Posts
szhjcn has earned the respect of manyszhjcn has earned the respect of manyszhjcn has earned the respect of many
Re: Keep nuclear power

One of the videos I watch from the posted youtube link shows 161 deaths per Twh of power from Coal vs 0.04 for Nuclear.

I agree we should be keeping existing Nuclear Plants open as long as they are safe and looking at building Thorium Nuclear plants which can help deal with some of the waste from the Current Nuclear Plants
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank szhjcn for this useful post:
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Excursion to nuclear power-station Mariia Travel/day trips/free time 0 05.08.2015 20:27
Beznau nuclear plant e.kazemi Other/general 96 07.12.2012 22:24
can I re-apply for a new UK licence so I can keep my CH separate? keep my shelldo10 Transportation/driving 24 09.11.2012 18:17
Is nuclear power a necessity ?? miss_bean International affairs/politics 95 30.05.2011 18:49
Swiss nuclear smuggling. hoppy Swiss politics/news 1 25.10.2010 14:59


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 22:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0