<Peak Oil Booklet - Introduction and Chapter 1 - What Is Peak Oil? The Oil Drum NNEC: The Rush to Ethanol>

59 comments on Peak Oil Booklet - Chapter 2: Is This a False Alarm?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Flagg707 on July 17, 2007 - 12:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Permitting would be the big question mark. The BANANA crowd (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) would probably be able to prevent construction or at least drive up costs significantly.

Modern reactor designs (Gen III) have been built in roughly 4 years. GE's ABWR design[1] was built in Japan in 51 months - that's first concrete to commercial power operations (includes all the physics testing, piping checks, etc.). They got the facility itself up in 39 months (from first pour of concrete).

Potential bottlenecks on the materiel/personnel side include suppliers of the pressure vessel (no US suppliers left - Japan, France and South Korea can forge them), piping and wiring at a reasonable cost, skilled construction folks, etc.[2]

[1] http://npj.goinfo.com/NPJMain.nsf/504ca249c786e20f85256284006da7ab/5e5a0...
[2] http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070529/36605_id.html?.v=1 (go to bottom of article, subheading "Bottleneck in the Nuclear Renaissance?")

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Charles S on July 17, 2007 - 4:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Imagine a world without NIMBYs and BANANAs... well, maybe such is the case in regards to site selection for Coffeyville refinery and the Japanese nuclear power plant in recent news. I think it's too common to label concerned citizens as radicals and then when something goes wrong, people wonder WHY such safety concerns were not addressed in the first place.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
john milton on July 17, 2007 - 4:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Early days yet but what I've read about the Japanese nuclear power plant incedent so far says no big deal;

- A transformer fire, which could have happened at any type of plant.

- 2 small rad leaks, one trapped by the air filters in the plant, one small ocean release, both a factor of 10,000 under the plants permit limit, no human exposure, no measurable off site risk seen at this point.

- Some low level waste (i.e. dirty gloves etc) drums fell over (stand the drum back up), a few lids came off (stand the drum back up, replace lid, check floor with counter, decon. if necessary, remind staff about banding drum lids).

Obviously building a nuke plant in an earthquake zone is a calculated risk, seems from these news reports as if this plant came through with flying colors.

Radiation is released every day from coal plants at higher total levels, for some reason this does not get reported...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Charles S on July 17, 2007 - 7:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Of course, each side of the nuclear debate will take away what they will from the incident. The problem to me is WHO should be the one get to decide the "calculated risks" are acceptable for a specific site? If there were no NIMBYs, BANANAs, (or whatever negative labels people want to put on citizenry participation) to act as an opposing force to the vendors who are eager to promote the project, then descriptions like "pass with flying colors" would be the only news the public gets.

Coal, Wind, and even small-scale roof-top solar gets opposition from all sides, so nuclear is not the only red-head stepchild that pro-nuclear groups like paint. I believe Japan is much like France in terms of positive public opinion for nuclear energy. However, now, the news reports that its citizens' trusts are eroding, due to many incidents in the past (which of course, often get brushed aside as "minor" human errors). So what new terms can we dream up to ridicule the ex-pro-nuclear crowd?

My other point is that it is irrelevant how long a power plant can be build because of some "evil entity" obstructing progress, safety and trust should come first. If citizens know that they are not being scammed or held hostage by their power providers, I think any number of power plants can come online in a relative short time.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Flagg707 on July 18, 2007 - 5:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Valid points - but it comes down to who get's to decide and who get's to define the terms. Right now, those who create the headlines and those who edit the TV news reports get to decide how people will perceive events.

In regards to the Japanese situation, the plants actually operated in an outstanding manner. They were hit with a 6.8 earthquake and immediately shut down, safely. A few drums of Low Level Waste fell over and spilled liquid contamination into the sea. There is as much radioactivity in a shipment of bananas[1] (the yummy kind, not the concerned citizen kind), if not more, than there is in a typical LLW canister.

In light of those facts, what are the headlines that are being pimped out to the public?

"Japan Nuke Plant Leak Worse Than Thought"[2]

"Japan Company Admits Radioactive Leak Bigger Than Announced"[3]

Etc.

For someone who is not an engineer or familiar with nuclear science, such headlines are frightening and breed distrust. No one tells them that every second, their bodies undergo 6000 nuclear reactions, complete with gamma rays, beta particles and alpha emissions[4]. So how are they supposed to make a reasoned judgment?

Now, when power outages strike their towns[5] they may find incentive to dig deeper into the facts, but how many will really do that?

So, if I sounded a bit cynical, well, its because I am.

Back on topic, it still means that nuclear power has a huge barrier to climb in terms of public perception - all NIMBY or BANANA terms aside.

[1] http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/2004/Oct/abs1440.html
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6788809,00.html
[3] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1184672478639&pagename=JPost%...
[4] http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/13/article4/article4.html
[5] http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20070719TDY03001.htm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

59 comments on Peak Oil Booklet - Chapter 2: Is This a False Alarm?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version