Hydro Fracking Trouble in Wyoming County

[DanW]

I note you changed terminology to "disaster" from "accident" regarding TMI. I agree, it was not a disaster. It was, however, a major accident considering it left one reactor in rubble. Just because the containment vessel wasn't breached, doesn't mean it wasn't a major accident.

I guess my main point is, counting "accidents" is not a valid way to compare nuclear reactors to fracking. There's 104 nuclear reactors in the US while there's 1771 active drilling rigs operating in the US (as of 4/12/13 according to Baker Hughes). 59 in PA alone, down from 101 last year this time.

 

[pcray1231]

If you're arguing that nuclear power is far safer than gas, I'm in full agreement. You don't compare by number of reactors vs. number of wells. You compare on an equal measure of "power produced". Because you HAVE to drill many wells to get the same amount of power as 1 reactor.

Gas may be far safer than coal, but it doesn't hold a candle to nuclear.

 

[DanW]

Actually, no. That wasn't my argument. My point was comparing the two is apples to oranges. The worst fracking accident would still be a minor event compared to a major nuclear accident. The area around Fukushima will be uninhabitable for at least 20 years. Nuclear accidents may be much rarer than a fracking accident, but a major nuclear accident is much more catastrophic than the worst fracking accident.

 

[pcray1231]

The area around Fukushima will be uninhabitable for at least 20 years.

Which is largely related to public fear, rather than reality. Yes, areas around the plant have tested higher than normal levels of radiation. High enough that people living there, and crops grown there, would cause residents to have a slightly elevated risk of developing certain cancers.

Increased radiation has been detected elsewhere too, such as in seafood, and is above Japan's tight limits, but not enough to statistically determine any health effects.

But even close to the plant, the danger level FROM RADIATION is currently lower than it is to live near a coal mine (or plant), or drill tailings, or in a natural concentration of radon. And those things add other dangers in addition to the radiation.

 

[JasonS]

I guess the obvious question is, if nuclear is so safe, why have we built a new plant in almost 40yrs?

 

[pcray1231]

I guess the obvious question is, if nuclear is so safe, why have we built a new plant in almost 40yrs?

Because reality and perception aren't always the same thing.

Also, our current plants are 1st generation plants, well past their designed lifetimes. Far less safe, and create far more waste, as well as that waste being far more dangerous, than modern designs would do. But we don't build modern plants to replace them, because, uhh, we're worried about waste and danger?

 

[Gone4Day]

pcray1231 wrote:
If you're arguing that nuclear power is far safer than gas, I'm in full agreement. You don't compare by number of reactors vs. number of wells. You compare on an equal measure of "power produced". Because you HAVE to drill many wells to get the same amount of power as 1 reactor.

Gas may be far safer than coal, but it doesn't hold a candle to nuclear.

Globally, NG produces 4 times the energy of nuclear. So on a "power produced" bases, we'd be talking about the equivalent of at least 12 Fukishima's, Chernobyl's and TMI's over the last 40 years.

Safety statistics for the O&G industry are well known, but it's difficult to separate gas from the oil. To stay on a "power produced" bases, we'd have to scale up nuclear accidents by another 6X for a total of 30. About the same rate of major oil spills and rig explosions.

So you're correct. O&G disasters can't hold a candle to nuclear ones.

 

[pcray1231]

Except even if you scaled up nuclear accidents, the impact is still far less.

Fukishima - zero killed - impact to public mostly out of abundance of caution.
TMI - zero killed - zero impact to public

Chernobyl is the ONLY commercial nuclear disaster in the world which had casualties. The worst U.S. nuclear incident was actually in Idaho in the experimental days of nuclear, on a national lab site. 3 people were killed, small amounts of radiation were released.

And when you start comparing industry injury rates from mining uranium on through power production, vs. gas drilling on through power production, the differences become more stark. We're not talking huge explosions which make the news, we're talking regular old safety of workers.

You could get into the indirect health effects that are difficult to prove. People get cancer around TMI, and they will around Fukishima as well. Rates higher than the general population? Not statistically, but it's hard to say with any certainty that it didn't contribute to any individual case. That said, if you use that, you also have to use indirect effects of gas drilling. Wastewater diluted in rivers - used for drinking. Air quality around drill sites. CO2 emmissions and global warming. Other airborn emmissions from power plants. Etc.

Pollution: Gas creates many times the amount of waste than nuclear. Tailings, wastewater, etc. Nuclear waste, while lower in volume, is TREATED as more dangerous, but 99% of it isn't. And with nuclear, the volume of fuel is so small that transportion isn't a big issue. Doesn't require pipelines and all the associated manufacturing pollution. CO2 emmmissions at the plants themselves are nil, as are other airborn pollutants.

Nuclear is cleaner and safer than gas, and that's with us making poor choices around it. It could be even safer and cleaner, with less dangerous and less volume of waste. All we'd have to do is build more modern designs, and recycle the waste (ALL of the high level waste is more fuel, which would decrease in volume 100x and be far lower grade afterwards to boot). It COULD also be cheaper, if we approved a single design, once, and built it many times. France does this. Our high nuclear costs are due to aging plants, and expensive red tape to upgrade or build new.

I'm a proponent of gas, it's the next best thing, certainly better than coal and oil. And it's a bad idea to go too heavily on only one source of power. But IMO, nuclear is better.

 

[wsender]

DanW wrote:

wsender wrote:

Nothing is fool proof, but there is NO reason why fracking can't have the same accident record nuclear power. 42 minor incidents and 1 'major' incident over 60 years is pretty good. I'm willing to bet that there has been more then 42 minor incidents involving fracking operation in the last 6 months.

One accident is one accident too many.

Just curious what you consider a "major" accident? By my count we've had at least 2 (Chernobyl and Fukushima), and I'm not sure TMI fits in the "minor" category. At least a fracking accident doesn't make the surrounding area uninhabitable for several centuries.

Now don't get me wrong. While I accept fracking as a necessary evil for our current energy needs, I do also believe the drillers should be regulated and monitored extensively to prevent the inevitable shortcuts that are often the cause of these accidents.

I was only speaking of domestic nuclear energy, not internationally. We have some of the tightest regulations for nuclear energy, I can't speak for other countries.

TMI was pretty tame with only 2.5 Curies of radiation being released. A person living within ten miles from the plant received about as much radiation as an average chest x-ray.

If a retention pond was damaged and flooded, I'd be willing to be no one would inhabit that area for years.

 

[wsender]

pcray1231 wrote:

Nuclear is cleaner and safer than gas, and that's with us making poor choices around it. It could be even safer and cleaner, with less dangerous and less volume of waste. All we'd have to do is build more modern designs, and recycle the waste (ALL of the high level waste is more fuel, which would decrease in volume 100x and be far lower grade afterwards to boot). It COULD also be cheaper, if we approved a single design, once, and built it many times. France does this. Our high nuclear costs are due to aging plants, and expensive red tape to upgrade or build new.

I'm a proponent of gas, it's the next best thing, certainly better than coal and oil. And it's a bad idea to go too heavily on only one source of power. But IMO, nuclear is better.

Correct me me if I'm wrong, but GE Mark IV reactors can use up to 100% of the available fissile material. Relevant xkcd...

 

[pcray1231]

You are correct. Should be noted that using all fissile material is not the same thing as ending up with zero radioactive waste. Not all material is fissile....

But ending up with over 1000x less, and having even what remains be far less dangerous than the status quo? Not to mention a huge source of hydrogen for a future hydrogen economy? Yeah, that's all true of Mark IV reactors. But we can't do it due to safety/environmental regs??? Ok, we'll keep our old, grandfathered plants running. Brilliant!!!

Of course, even our old plants still are far better (safer + cleaner) than any other known source of energy.

 

[wsender]

Nuclear waste is less radioactive that coal ash!

Also, a really great article/study from NASA today about nuclear power.

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-hanson-nuclear-power-saves-lives-2013-4

 

[DanW]

wsender wrote:
Nuclear waste is less radioactive that coal ash!

Yeah, that's why coal ash has to be stored in underwater pools. [/sarcasm]

 

[wsender]

DanW wrote:

wsender wrote:
Nuclear waste is less radioactive that coal ash!

Yeah, that's why coal ash has to be stored in underwater pools. [/sarcasm]

It's stored in water to cool.

If you think I'm lying, check it out.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

 

[pcray1231]

Less than 0.01% of nuclear waste is stored in pools. But it is the high grade stuff that is. And this is the material that is perfectly good fuel, could be used as such, with ALL of the resulting "waste" being far less dangerous. i.e. we took it out of the reactor before it was "done", so it's still reacting. We simply choose not to use it, not for commercial or technical reasons, but for geopolitical ones.

The water is more for heat than it is for radiation. Underwater, they are placed in a honeycomb structure of, typically, boronated stainless steel which attenuates thermal neutrons, and prevents the reaction from reaching criticality. The water does absorb some of the lower energy radiations, but it's mostly about keeping them cool. After a number of years, when the reaction slows enough, they can be removed from the pools and stored in dry casks, again made of boronated stainless.

The reason we don't recycle our fuel further is fair enough, and the only valid reason against nuclear. Proliferation. We take it out of the reactor prior to any weapons grade material being created. During the cold war (Carter admin), we made the call not to do this on the commercial level. Thus all weapons grade material is made only at national labs and can be controlled more closely. It's also a bad example for rogue countries like Iran, who CLAIM to want nuclear for peaceful purposes only. An attempt to separate power production from weapons production, in the idea that they can do one without being able to do the other.

 

[DanW]

wsender wrote:
It's stored in water to cool.

If you think I'm lying, check it out.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

The main premise of that article is the radiation from the coal ash escapes into the atmosphere or leaches into the soil or water. Not that the ash itself is more radioactive than the spent fuel from a nuclear reactor.

 

[pcray1231]

wsender,

To be fair, the article doesn't say that coal ash is more radioactive than spent nuclear fuel rods (the small proportion of waste that is stored underwater). It says that a person living near a coal plant recieves more radiation than a person living near a nuclear plant, which is true.

Yes, on the whole coal plants do produce more radiation than nuclear plants. On a per MW basis, far more. However, even in fly ash (which is concentrated compared to coal), that radiation is spread over a much larger volume. i.e. far higher volume of slightly radioactive stuff vs. very low volume of highly radioactive stuff from nuclear.

Yeah, the water is for temperature reasons. But the temperature issue lies in the fact that the fuel rods are still "hot", and not just thermally. They are still undergoing fission, which produces the heat. Water merely provides a poor barrier to thermal neutrons. So the rods themselves are housed in nuetron attenuating steels, which slow the neutrons. And heavy water is a fairly effective shield against slower neutrons.

Again, the whole concept of having ANY waste that is hot enough that it is dangerous to handle and has to be stored underwater is purely by CHOICE. France, for instance, uses a much higher % of nuclear than we do and doesn't have this issue. They call our waste "fuel".