Can a Closed Nuclear Power Plant From the ’70s Be Brought Back to Life?

Nuclear is back into the energy of the future planning. The Palisades nuclear power plant is on Lake Michigan directly west of Kalamazoo and in close proximity with Grand Rapids, Chicago, and Milwaukee.

https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/biden-nuclear-power-plant-loan-michigan-eee64904?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1#:~:text=COVERT, Mich.—When,on Aug. 27.)

 

A sign of the future.

 

They try to achieve a semblance of credibility by tying themselves to wind and solar.

That feeling has shifted, with a revived understanding of nuclear energy as green power that could add to renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydropower. Nuclear-produced electricity is also seen as more consistent than wind or solar.

Calling themselves "green". BS! There is nothing green about creating 90 million tons of radioactive waste, which is the amount of High Level waste in the US. They can't even manage the waste we have, much less create more.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hanford-nuclear-site-leaking-radioactive-chemical-waste/
An underground tank in Washington is leaking gallons of radioactive chemical waste

What kind of industry stores the most toxic waste known to mankind, in vessels rated for 200 years, when the waste will be around for hundreds of thousands of years?

Now they want to get buy-in on these old dilapidated plants. They're good for nothing else. Nobody wants to buy that real estate. Nobody wants to live near it. Spend a boatload of money. Raise electricity rates. Bring the plant online. Then as concrete fissures start to develop, take it off-line. Do repairs. Raise electricity rates. The most expensive power on planet earth just got more expensive.

 

Nuclear technology isn't all that complicated. Safe nuclear technology is complicated. But we know how to do safety. I don't see why an old power plant couldnt be brought back online.

The real problem is in MAINTAINING safety. Humans are notoriously complacent. And complacency + nuclear power = inevitable disaster.

 

Your denial is again showing. As posted previously "it's only waste if you waste it".

 

What kind of inevitable disaster?

 

Contemporary nuclear power is derived from harnessing the energy of a meltdown, which prevents meltdown. If (when) people stop harnessing the energy effectively, meltdown occurs. Inevitably, people tend toward a sate of ineffectiveness. Generally, this will be recitifed once the ineffectiveness reaches an unacceptable level, by disciplining or replacing those who become ineffective. The same is true in the case of nuclear power ...but in that case it happens after a meltdown occurs, and all the catastrophic events that result from meltdown. Contemporary nuclear power is perhaps the first (or perhaps second, relative to nuclear war) most potentially devastating innevitable human failure that currently exists.

If a coal or diesel power plant fails, it results in a large fire, pollution, and/or really expensive repairs. But not regional radiological contamination. Same with a solar field, hydroelectric dam, etc.

Inevitable human error is the problem with nuclear power, combined with its for-all-intents-and-purposes permanent repercussions.

I say 'contemporary' because there have been some recent advances in reactors, such as micro-reactors, that supposedly cannot ever meltdown or release any radiological emissions unless deliberately demolished with explosives. However these are small and do not produce a lot of power/dollar compared to large contemporary reactors. I'm sure this 'micro' technology will progress, an perhaps some day nuclear power will be safe enough that lazy, complacent humans can be trusted with it. Until then, I aim to keep nuclear reactors and my place of residence as geographically and meteorologically distant as possible. Because the most trustworthy thing people do is eventually fail, and nuclear safety is one of the few things where failure is neither acceptable nor recoverable.

The only thing seperating any one of our many reactors from becoming the next Chernobyl is the quality of our bureaucracy. How much faith do you have in bureaucracy?

 

What catastrophic events? Three mile island and Fukushima had partial core melt with no significant release of radiation. No one was injured from radiation effects.

 

Forgot the Tchernobyl meltdown? Some 10.000 people died/are still dying, around 5 billion $ of cost have been paid till now and the story wil go on.

Let's talk about nuclear plants as soon as Tchernoby is safe again.

 

Why do you keep spreading disinformation about the amount of nuclear waste from nuclear power generation?

There is around 90,000 tons of power generation related nuclear waste in the US. Not 90,000,000 tons. Multiple posters have corrected you on this on multiple occasions. Yes, there is a difference…..

 

We have discussed this previously. The Chernobyl reactor design was built by the Soviet Union. It was inherently not safe. There was no reactor containment. That design would never have been permitted in the the rest of the world. The Chernobyl reactor was moderated by graphite which caught fire resulting in a concentration of the radioactive material. There was no reactor core cooling system which put out the fire. Brave individuals sacrificed their lives to extinguish the flames.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Ch...sparked,station was officially decommissioned.

 

Facts can be adjusted to fit faith based narratives by the faithful as required. At least he has come down from 90 billion tons.

 

The only thing seperating any one of our many reactors from becoming the next Chernobyl is the quality of our bureaucracy. How much faith do you have in bureaucracy?

Your argument hinges on 'it hasn't happened here yet.' Over a long enough timeline, it 100% will, eventually.

 

My argument is based on reactor design and physics. Bureaucracy in fact prevents irresponsible reactor designs from being built in the weatern democracies. Totalitarian governments have no restraints.

 

You may enjoy reading this short synopsis of the damage (past, present, and anticipated) concerning the Chernobyl disaster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effec... 2006 report by,and 50,000 cases are expected.

This, of course, doesn't even touch on the Fukushima disaster, which many contend has created a toxic environment throughout nearly the entire Pacific Ocean.

 

The partially melted cores at Fukushima are fully contained. Many contend that 2 + 2 = 5.

 

Yes that is an improvement. Incremental progress.

 

The Euros classify nuclear as clean & green.


Europe Calls Gas and Nuclear Energy 'Green' - The New York Times

 

The reactor didn't explode because there was no safety design, it exploded because the poor, but existing, safety devices had been shut down by the staff.

You may believe in the star-spangled superiority of western designs, but never rely on that men don't make mistakes.

 

The Chernobyl reactor did not explode.

Nuclear reactors cannot explode.

 

Perhaps you had better stop listening to the industry propaganda.

https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/chernobyl#
Within seconds, an uncontrolled reaction caused pressure to build up in Reactor No. 4 in the form of steam. The steam blasted the roof off the reactor, releasing plumes of radiation and chunks of burning, radioactive debris.

About two to three seconds later, a second explosion hurled out additional fuel. A fire started at the roof of Reactor No. 3, risking a breach at that facility

 

Chernobyl was a design that would never have been approved in a democratic government system. You know that but keep claiming that Chernobyl is representative of global nuclear power plants.

 

One year ago, with the 'storage tanks' from Fukushima filled all the way to the top, Japan started dumping the
water charged with radioactive toxins into the Pacific Ocean.

Links:
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...mid-criticism-seafood-import-bans-2023-08-23/
https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...ed-fukushima-water-pacific/story?id=102523576
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66106162
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66610977 (which is a separate article from the one immediately above)

One of the worse problems associated with dumping this crap in the ocean is the radioactive element of hydrogen called tritium, which can't be removed from the contaminated water because there is no technology to do it.

 

The water is treated to remove radioactive material so that it is safe to discharge into the ocean. All levels are below health thresholds. Plus there is further dilution in the ocean. Every glass of water that you have consumed for your entire life contains water molecules composed of one or two tritium atoms and oxygen.

The Chinese Communist Party is grandstanding.

 

Nice try at a dodge. You blurted that there was no explosion at Chernobyl. I PROVED you wrong, and then you change the topic