I'll have to agree about being able to measure higher radiation from coal plants than from nuclear plants, especially when nuclear plants are designed to contain radiation. Even when there are core explosions, unless you are in the proximity of radioactive contaminants, the exposure is relatively low. When contaminants are released, however, they tend to get into the food chain and the water supply. The danger from radioactive contamination is well-established. The radiation is important to consider when you have workers around a molten core trying to restore cooling mechanisms. For the general public though, radiation power density is not really an issue outside of the contamination problem. This is really something that I would expect a publication like Scientific American to address.
Great points, Vivi_liv. I questioned the statement of coal power plants producing more radiation than Nuclear at first, but then looked into it more, and it is indeed true. Here is an article from Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste. Perhaps having Nuclear Power Plants near earthquake zones is not the greatest idea (like Japan), but I think the media has had a huge influence on how the general population thinks about Nuclear power generation.
This has been a great debate so far. If we consider the effect of a tilt away from nuclear power to Electronic supply chain, I think there is no immediate cause to worry. The pace at which the Nuclear power generation industry works is much much slower compared to the core consumer and industrial electronics business. It requires years for the suppliers to get approved to supply nuclear grade components. It takes sometimes a decade to conceive and erect a nuclear power plant. So what ever shift occurs - away or towards the nuclear power , it will be very slow and the suppliers will have enough time to look for alternative pastures for their business conituity.
Hypocrisy is more common when the stakes are high, but there's one trend that's encouraging. That's people, who oppose turning regions of the world into no-man's land, applying their beliefs to changes in their lifestyle. They risk being branded as Luddites, but when the facts are so conclusive, it's actions, not words that count.
The extraction and consumption of any fuel, along with disposing of by-products, enough to power a modern economy, is never "clean". You are literally playing with fire, and thermal generation of electricity, especially nuclear, means having contingencies for low likelihood, but high-impact events. Adverse events involving fossil fuels can be destructive, maybe even more destructive than most nuclear events. However nothing in fossil fuel energy production exceeds the magnitude of disaster when the ability to cool a nuclear pile is lost.
The Chernobyl debacle may have been swept under the rug, but that disaster is still happening. The tons of concrete covering the molten fuel is reported to be undergoing disintegration, necessitating ever more maintenance. Fukushima looks to be worse off, and is also planned to be buried under concrete. The very existence of a human factor in the disaster equation should cause people to eschew nuclear infrastructure altogether.
Countries that cling to a nuclear infrastructure are also countries that cling to having a nuclear arsenal. France's bout with Greenpeace made their South Pacific nuclear weapons tests well publicized. France can say natural disasters don't happen there, but as a host to the many, many of the most highly destructive conflicts in history I wouldn't be too sanguine about a stable operating environment.
Not to put a damper on the nuclear supply chain, but this is a technology that should be scaled down considerably. Germany shows some hypocrisy by importing the nuclear energy produced just across the border, but the principled stand it took in banning nuclear power within its borders I think makes up for that.
Yes. Today's designs are a lot safer than 40 years ago designs. But they do not replace the human factor. Procedures and processes need to be in place to make a nuclear power place safe.
What happened at Cernobyl was simply put "playing with fire". Stop the primary cooling circuit without even engaging the secondary cooling circuit. Reactor got unstable....
At Fukushima it was underestimating the tsunami risk. Maybe they thought the probablity of a huge tsunami was 1/300 years when in reality is 1/100 years.... Again, no cooling for reactor caused the accident....
When 2003 blackout bit in Canada and US, reactors at Pickering Nunclear Power were running full power. It was peak demand in the middle of a summer day. The nuclear power plant started the shutdown procedure and diesel were engaged to to power the cooling pumps. The emergency shut-down procedure worked fine.These 6 reactors are located 36 km from Toronto.
Nuclear power is not the cleanest form of energy as small radioactive releases are part of every day life of a nuclear reactor, but it is a LOT cleaner than coal. In southern Ontario 50% of smog is caused by coal power plants. An areea of 80km around a coal power plant soil is contaminated with heavy metals (especially mercury).
Germany is building now 20 coal power plants to replace lost nuclear power and is importing nuclear power from France and Czech Republic. This is just a political maneuver: they are OK to continue using nuclear power as long as the reactors are located 40km across the border. Plus they start building coal power plants which are a lot worse polluters.
@vivi_liv Thank you for sharing this information about Canada. way back in 1960's India started its Nuclear power program in collaboration with first the US for plutonium based light water reactors and then with Canada for Uranium based heavy water reactors for power generation. I had been part of India Atomic Energy dept for a span of 5 years and had a deep exposure to the Nuclear science , nuclear engineering and reactor engineering. The kind of safety masures that are built into a nuclear reactor make it one of the safest plants compared to the other industrial plants. However with the kind of natural disaster that played havoc with the reactor cooling system in Japan,has made the designers to think of additional safety to be built into the reactor design. I am sure IAEA will come up with solutions for this problem so that the world will continue to enjoy the benefits of this cheap source of Electrical power generation.
Almost all of the 18 reactors are in souther Ontario within 140 km of Toronto.
50% of Ontario's electricity is Nuclear. The average Canadian is using 3 times more electricity than the average French.
Nuclear industry has a lot of support in Ontario as lots of communities are working in the industry.
2 more reactors will be build in Darlington starting in 2014 in order to replace 2 older reactors that will be shut down (in Pickering). 2 refurbished reactors will be started in 2011 and 2012 respectively. This is the Bruce Nuclear Power plant.
Canada has some of the best Uranium (highest grades) reserves in Saskatchewan.
Nuclear power has lots of support from public opinion. I believe more than 60% of population support nuclear power.
This is an interesting article. Nuclear power is one of the cheapest and most efficient energy sources out there. You have a lower cost, which means cheaper energy, and you have a lot less greenhouse gas production. As the world (particularly the U.S.) is promoting how we need to convert to cleaner emissions, why would you want to ditch a cleaner energy source to a much dirtier one?
The Japanese nuclear disaster was and still is a horrible situation. It will take the Japanese years to get back to normal. However, the problems that arose from this were caused by a "perfect storm". The Japanese plant had 3 large fail safes in place. All designed to prevent a disaster. Nobody could have imagined that between an earthquake and the following tsunami that they would fail. Japan was unfortunate due to their location. France and many other nuclear countries would not of had the same results. One of the fail safes would have kept the other intact.
It is sad when we let fear rule our lives. We have a cheap, cleaner energy source that people want gone for fear of a disaster.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.