PBMR gets green light

NaZKuL said:
Why can't they build all these nuclear plant thingies away from cities and ppl???!!! I live about 30km away from Koeberg, every time i hear the word meltdown, i get shivers down my back... well, i'm used to it now...
Click to expand...
It's perfectly safe and again you're falling victim to nuclear myths. The reactors are housed in containment buildings. So even if there was a meltdown (small chance of this actually happening), no radiation would escape into the atmosphere.
 
Unlucky Naz!

How's that third arm working for you? ;)

I suppose it isn't the technology that's faulty, just the fact that humans have to run it.
 
Highflyer_GP said:
It's perfectly safe and again you're falling victim to nuclear myths. The reactors are housed in containment buildings. So even if there was a meltdown (small chance of this actually happening), no radiation would escape into the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

you just saying that cos u live in gauteng!!! :p
jokez...:D
 
As Dr. Edward Teller, the father of the H-bomb said, "Sooner or later a fool will prove greater than the proof even in a foolproof system." Accidents can and do happen in the inherently dangerous business of splitting the atom. Human error occurs at every level of development, construction and operation of the process. Material and component failures along with aging can break down or defeat operational and safety systems.

In 1985, the experimental THTR-300 PBMR on the Ruhr in Hamm-Uentrop, Germany was also offered as accident proof--with the same promise of an indestructible carbon fuel cladding capable of retaining all generated radioactivity. Following the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident and graphite fire in Ukraine, the West German government revealed that on May 4, the 300-megawatt PBMR at Hamm released radiation after one of its spherical fuel pebbles became lodged in the pipe feeding the fuel to the reactor. Operator actions during the event caused damage to the fuel cladding.

Radioactivity was released with the escaping helium and radioactive fallout was deposited as far as two kilometers from the reactor. The fallout in the region was high enough to initially be blamed on Chernobyl. Government officials were then alerted by scientists in Freiburg who reported that as much as 70 % of the region’s contamination was not of the type of radiation leaking hundreds of miles away in Ukraine. Dismayed by an attempt to conceal the reactor malfunction and confronted with mounting public pressure in light of the Chernobyl accident only days prior, the state ordered the reactor to close pending a design review.
"INHERENTLY SAFE" GERMAN PBMR COVERS UP RADIATION ACCIDENT AND SHUTS DOWN

Seems somewhat different technology and 'they' did run another test PMBR successfully in Germany for 21 years, and China is also building these. Still any accident is too horrendous to contemplate. But we always get told the truth so I'm sure things are just spiffy, I mean who would want to turn a city into a slagheap?

Pebble bed reactor
and THTR-300
 
Highflyer_GP said:
The reactor core meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, which happened when its core cooling system failed, also produced a lot of radiation; but the containment building the reactor was housed in kept it from being released into the atmosphere, and there were no injuries or deaths.
Click to expand...
No injuries ??? So contaminating reporters going about their business nearby is not an injury then?



kilo39 said:
Seems somewhat different technology and 'they' did run another test PMBR successfully in Germany for 21 years
Click to expand...
I think this successful one was very very small reactor.
 
Skeptik said:
No injuries ??? So contaminating reporters going about their business nearby is not an injury then?
Click to expand...
Nothing escaped into the atmosphere because the reactors were housed in containment buildings. If these reporters got infected, then in all honesty they deserve it for being so stupid. They probably had to be inside the containment building, and when you are near a radiation site you need to take the proper precautions (attire, safety precautions etc.). Did these reporters bother contacting anyone in order to find out what precautions were required before doing any of their investigations?

In any case, you're once again going on speculation. As asked by somebody earlier, please provide some links for your allegations.
 
Syndyre said:
I can understand building one in PE just not sure what the logic of building near St Francis is, maybe to supply the Garden Route? I think they also want to build a PBMR at Koeberg.
Click to expand...
Population density & location near coast. Eskom have a number of rings drawn around the site in which development may not increase average population density above certain predetermined levels.

The St. Francis site (Thyspunt) is actually reserved for another Koeberg type base load station (which is why it's near the sea). The PBMRs use Helium as a coolant so they do not need to be near a source of water.

See here.
 
Last edited:
Highflyer_GP said:
Nothing escaped into the atmosphere because the reactors were housed in containment buildings. If these reporters got infected, then in all honesty they deserve it for being so stupid. They probably had to be inside the containment building, and when you are near a radiation site you need to take the proper precautions (attire, safety precautions etc.). Did these reporters bother contacting anyone in order to find out what precautions were required before doing any of their investigations?

In any case, you're once again going on speculation. As asked by somebody earlier, please provide some links for your allegations.
Click to expand...

As quoted in another thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island

Over the next week the steam and hydrogen were removed from the reactor using a recombiner and, more controversially, by venting straight to the atmosphere. It is estimated that a maximum of 13 million curies (480 petabecquerels) of radioactive noble gases were released by the event, though very little of the hazardous iodine-131 was released.[6]
Click to expand...

As I said in that thread:

IMHO humans are particularly incapable of handling nuclear/radioactive substances. Some interesting links:

Database of Radiological Incidents and Related Events:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/index.html

U. S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS ACCIDENTS:
http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm

U.S. Nuclear Accidents:
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

U.S. NRC Event Reports ( these are fun! ):
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/

Anyone for a quick game of SCRAM????
 
Last edited:
rwenzori I'm not denying that accidents don't happen :) What I am saying is that nuclear technology is perfectly safe if managed properly, and proper precautions are taken. Human error is the source of many disasters, and not just when it comes to nuclear technology, but almost any technology where the potential for disaster exists.
 
Highflyer_GP said:
rwenzori I'm not denying that accidents don't happen :) What I am saying is that nuclear technology is perfectly safe if managed properly, and proper precautions are taken. Human error is the source of many disasters, and not just when it comes to nuclear technology, but almost any technology where the potential for disaster exists.
Click to expand...
rwenzori has just given you many links
Here's another just for you ;) http://www.tmia.com/PressP2.html
Yet you still challenge the point. Some people will never be convinced. I don't see any big reactors going up in GP. Explain that one.
 
Highflyer_GP said:
rwenzori I'm not denying that accidents don't happen :) What I am saying is that nuclear technology is perfectly safe if managed properly, and proper precautions are taken. Human error is the source of many disasters, and not just when it comes to nuclear technology, but almost any technology where the potential for disaster exists.
Click to expand...

Sure, but just follow some of the links I quoted and you'll see that "managed properly" is a bit hard. Look at all the almost-daily stuffups on the NRC site - some small, some really big.
 
Those so vehemently anti nuclear power, what alternatives are you suggesting?
 
There are so many options, there isn't time to list them all.
We have sunshine galore, wind, waves, etc etc. None fully explored.
Many decisions by government are political (as you may have noticed) rather than common sense so we will never see them
 
Solar and hydraulic power does not generate anywhere near the same amount of power for the same amount of time as nuclear power does.

Anyway wasn't the PBMR supposed to address some of the shortcomings of nuclear power? So why is everybody so much against it?
 
Skeptik said:
There are so many options, there isn't time to list them all.
We have sunshine galore, wind, waves, etc etc. None fully explored.
Many decisions by government are political (as you may have noticed) rather than common sense so we will never see them
Click to expand...

No need to list them all, give us one viable option that can be constructed now and that can produce the capacity of a nuclear plant.
 
icyrus said:
No need to list them all, give us one viable option that can be constructed now and that can produce the capacity of a nuclear plant.
Click to expand...

That is not the issue. The issue is enough power to meet our needs, not the same capacity as a nuclear plant.
 
rwenzori said:
That is not the issue. The issue is enough power to meet our needs, not the same capacity as a nuclear plant.
Click to expand...

We *need* the capacity of a nuclear plant. More, if we want the economy to expand. Wind is fickle, and requires a lot of space and some heavy construction. Solar cells never return the power put into their production. Coal is nowhere near as clean as nuclear. Look further into your options.
 
There may well be better technology in the future but at the moment nuclear seems like the best option. And lets be honest, we need the power NOW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X