Nukes are Killing Electric Cars

[ESdude]

I'm currently finishing plowing through UC Berkeley's risk management for nuclear engineers course (the one they pulled for some lame reason (UC Berkeley Webcasts | Video and Podcasts: Search Courses and Events), but I managed to download all the videos beforehand).
Here what I can say (as a "knowledgeable person"):
Nuclear power plant can be engineered to acceptable levels of risk by pretty much any standards. Term "risk" I use to cover both risk to life, health and financial stuff.

The problem is that there is a fine print to that evaluation. It's all calculated under explicit assumption that human factors such as incompetence, corruption and outright sabotage are under control (unfortunately as we all know that this is not the case.) Adding humans to the equation transforms system from "complicated" to "complex" and thus makes the problem intractable by today's means.

As engineer I used to get pissed when someone doubts our ability to make stuff. But I honestly started to have some doubts...
(especially after they classified the risk assessment of spent fuel pool at Indian Point)

 

[Doug_G]

Nuclear energy is strange. It's both much worse and much better than people think.

Fukushima did three full meltdowns. Primary and secondary backup systems were wiped out by nature. But not all of the engineered protection failed. The cores may have melted, and there was significant release of radiation... it's a huge mess. But the melted nuclear fuel is sitting in the bottom of the reactors, as designed. The radiation release, as bad as it was, was a tiny fraction of what is in the reactors, and is unlikely to cause more than localized problems. A big, horribly expensive mess, but not a catastrophe. I'll reserve that term for the quake/tsunami.

 

[ESdude]

What you wrote is called "hand waving". No offense. :biggrin:

A big, horribly expensive mess, but not a catastrophe.

That's called "financial catastrophe".

And no, it should not have happened if proper protocols for risk assessment were properly followed. Even Three Mile Island wouldn't have happened (most probably) if Wash-1400 was put into action in time.

As I see it, entire Fukushima ordeal should be filed under "corruption" category.

 

[Lloyd]

What really upsets me about nuclear energy, I live 20 miles from Diablo Canyon, is that they have no liability insurance. The government supposedly backs them, but in the event of a disaster there is nobody there to pick up what is left or compensate if anybody is damaged. I believe that in order to operate a nuclear plant, they should have to carry insurance just like everybody else. The insurers will help keep the business safe as it is in their financial interest to do so!! Just my HO.

 

[Doug_G]

That's called "financial catastrophe".

Unquestionably. But I don't have a problem with companies risking their own financial well-being, as much as I might think it very stupid. It is of course a rather more serious matter to other peoples' well-being.

And no, it should not have happened if proper protocols for risk assessment were properly followed. Even Three Mile Island wouldn't have happened (most probably) if Wash-1400 was put into action in time.

There certainly were some upgrades that they knew should have been done to the plant, but never were. But I'm not sure those changes would have prevented the meltdowns. Some might have prevented the hydrogen explosions.

The more fundamental problem is that they seriously underestimated the geologic risks. What was really needed was increased conservatism, namely assuming the worst-case geologic incident would be a full magnitude worse than predicted. Yes, the people doing the oversight fell short on that one, as did the designers of the plant. But I wouldn't necessarily assume that's due to corruption. Yes, there is corruption in the Japanese nuclear industry, which is far beyond shameful. But is there any evidence that they deliberately ignored known major geological risks?

Of course an underlying problem is that engineers learn the most from disasters. A lot of bridges fell before engineers learned how to build them properly.

 

[Doug_G]

What really upsets me about nuclear energy, I live 20 miles from Diablo Canyon, is that they have no liability insurance. The government supposedly backs them, but in the event of a disaster there is nobody there to pick up what is left or compensate if anybody is damaged. I believe that in order to operate a nuclear plant, they should have to carry insurance just like everybody else. The insurers will help keep the business safe as it is in their financial interest to do so!! Just my HO.

Yes. Of course that would be the end of the nuclear industry right there.

 

[ESdude]

they have no liability insurance.

That's actually reasonable.

For one - no one but government have sufficient funds to ensure them.

Another reason: This works under "for the public good" doctrine. Hence intense government regulation in exchange for ass covering.
Basically the good that it brings to have the station outweighs all the risks you're saddled with.
It's utilitarian ethics. It doesn't make it right. But it helps us sleep at night ("us" = people in Washington: > 50 miles to nearest station :biggrin

 

[ESdude]

The more fundamental problem is that they seriously underestimated the geologic risks.

I disagree on this point. Risks where not underestimated because of lack of "human knowledge" (What? no one knew that tsunamis happen after earth quakes?!). Even for such rare events, when you calculate probabilities you get that risk is too high considering financial consequences (probability multiplied by liability). What happened is that they actively prevented those known risks to get into power plant's risk assessment because that meant multi-million dollar retrofits. Again, this is corruption, plain and simple.

 

[Lloyd]

The more fundamental problem is that they seriously underestimated the geologic risks. What was really needed was increased conservatism, namely assuming the worst-case geologic incident would be a full magnitude worse than predicted. Yes, the people doing the oversight fell short on that one, as did the designers of the plant. But I wouldn't necessarily assume that's due to corruption. Yes, there is corruption in the Japanese nuclear industry, which is far beyond shameful. But is there any evidence that they deliberately ignored known major geological risks?

.

Yes, in my area it is not a question of IF they will have a quake of major proportions, it is when! 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, 500 years, who knows?? I like the energy that they provide for us, but not the risk which tends to be brushed over in the intersest of progress!!

 

[Doug_G]

I disagree on this point. Risks where not underestimated because of lack of "human knowledge" (What? no one knew that tsunamis happen after earth quakes?!). Even for such rare events, when you calculate probabilities you get that risk is too high considering financial consequences (probability multiplied by liability). What happened is that they actively prevented those known risks to get into power plant's risk assessment because that meant multi-million dollar retrofits. Again, this is corruption, plain and simple.

Cite your sources, please.

 

[ESdude]

Cite your sources, please.

I believe there was BBC coverage of corruption angle in regard to Tepco's dealings.

Like this for example: BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Japan's shaky nuclear record

 

[Doug_G]

I believe there was BBC coverage of corruption angle in regard to Tepco's dealings.

Yes, that is well-established... I was questioning the implication that they were ignoring the geological evidence.

Interplate megathrust earthquakes and tsunamis along Japan Trench offshore Northeast Japan |

The March 11 earthquake ruptured all 6 segments in a single earthquake. This conjunctive gigantic earthquake seems to be far beyond seismologists’ imagination as the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake.

What actually happened in this instance is the geologists had no clue that this could happen. As a result the tsunami protection was far below what was actually needed.

 

[dpeilow]

Anyway, as I was saying If your EV battery ran out, and you had to choose nuclear or coal energy to recharge and get home, which one? ;-) #EVChat

 

[doug]

Anyway, as I was saying If your EV battery ran out, and you had to choose nuclear or coal energy to recharge and get home, which one? ;-) #EVChat

Well given that coal kills (by some reports) 4000 times as many people than nuclear per unit energy, the choice should be pretty clear.

 

[ESdude]

Yes, that is well-established... I was questioning the implication that they were ignoring the geological evidence.

Interplate megathrust earthquakes and tsunamis along Japan Trench offshore Northeast Japan |

What actually happened in this instance is the geologists had no clue that this could happen. As a result the tsunami protection was far below what was actually needed.

The answer is in your own post: "be far beyond seismologists’ imagination as the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake"
Seismologists do not do risk assesment for power plants. Their opinion is considered and checked against their track record. After 2004 their (NRC's counterpart in Japan) risk models should be skyrocketing. That's how it works (or supposed to).

 

[ESdude]

Anyway, as I was saying If your EV battery ran out, and you had to choose nuclear or coal energy to recharge and get home, which one? ;-) #EVChat

Nukes.

My opinionated opinion is: If you weight only well being of people living within like 25 mile radius of all the stations vs all the economic good power plants produce, then probably coal will win.

BUT.
If you add global climate change to the equation, then my gut filling is on the side of nukes.

 

[Doug_G]

The answer is in your own post: "be far beyond seismologists’ imagination as the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake"
Seismologists do not do risk assesment for power plants. Their opinion is considered and checked against their track record. After 2004 their (NRC's counterpart in Japan) risk models should be skyrocketing. That's how it works (or supposed to).

That in itself does not support your contention of corruption as being the cause. Sure, it's a possible cause. But for all we know they were already investigating but hadn't completed the process yet. Maybe they failed to realize the significance of the Sumatra event; after all engineers aren't seismologists either. Or maybe they were simply insufficiently competent. In any case, we can't really know without some kind of investigation taking place. Hopefully the Japanese government will do that. If they don't the people should hold their feet to the fire.

 

[TEG]

I had seen some documents showing how they repeatedly petitioned and were granted the right to pack more and more spent rods in the cooling pools to the point where they seemed dangerously overloaded. I think they were even storing waste from other reactors from other parts of the globe as a way to get money to take other people's problems off of their hands. Who were the ones who should have said "enough" and stopped packing in more? It is another case of "as long as nothing goes wrong we can get away with this." One problem I see with the reactors is that the waste just keeps piling up over the years, and we don't have a good answer of what to do with it. It seemed politically easier to use the reactor site as a waste dump since it is already a controlled / secure location, and people are less likely to complain about bringing radioactive material to a reactor site. I think there is a lot of radioactive material that leaked from the site (even "dry casks floating away") that will cause unaccounted for harm for generations to come. It is difficult to judge the real harm to life caused by these facilities particularly when they suffer a breech/meltdown/disaster like this. I read these stories of "worst case wasn't so bad" because the number of directly attributed injuries and deaths is relatively small, but what of long term cancer rates both locally and globally?

 

[Doug_G]

FWIW, I would take a nuclear plant over a coal plant. Neither of these things should be built close to heavily populated areas.

 

[ESdude]

That in itself does not support your contention of corruption as being the cause. Sure, it's a possible cause. But for all we know they were already investigating but hadn't completed the process yet. Maybe they failed to realize the significance of the Sumatra event; after all engineers aren't seismologists either. Or maybe they were simply insufficiently competent. In any case, we can't really know without some kind of investigation taking place. Hopefully the Japanese government will do that. If they don't the people should hold their feet to the fire.

OK, I went through this slightly contentious thread again and realized, that we shifted a little bit from my original point.
My point was that we cannot estimate risks associated with nuclear power given the presence of corruption (check), incompetence (check) and sabotage (no check... yet... lucky us!)

Now I agree to add to that list earthquakes and tsunami (we cannot predict them too)

So, what do we have? In the absence of realistic risk estimation throwing numbers around is a pointless exercise.

The only argument going for nukes, as I see it, is global warming. We basically have no other (practical, for now) choice.