A new civil year - an opportunity to summarize the year 2011 in science: the end of the era of shuttles, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and the Higgs boson

43 תגובות

1. Michael,

   In my opinion, I addressed the points that can be addressed.
   Regarding terrorists, there are no miracle solutions, this danger must be dealt with as it is dealt with in military facilities. The danger of terrorists taking over a nuclear reactor seems to me to be less than taking over a large ammunition depot. The fact that miners are vulnerable does not rule them out of the blue.

   Regarding Israel, which has many undeveloped areas and strong sun most of the year, solar energy can be used (as is done to a small extent in Spain as well), but according to everything I know from the experts in the field, the additional energy that can be obtained this way is not substantial, it is able at best to cover the increase in energy consumption as a function of the time. Israel must therefore rely on the natural gas it possesses and who knows, maybe in the future it will be possible to jointly build a nuclear power plant with Jordan...
   The problem, as mentioned, is not the total amount of energy reaching the earth, but the ability to partially utilize it and the fact that the energy is not distributed uniformly in space and time. As mentioned, solar energy must be stored to be used during the night. The solution of converting the energy to another type of energy is a wasteful solution and if you add to that the fact that the usefulness of solar energy is theoretically limited by 30%, you get economic unviability.

2. sympathetic:
   1. You did not address the points I raised.
   2. At the individual level - energy storage is problematic, but at the national level it is possible to find applicable solutions already today. For example - it is possible to use excess production during the day to pump seawater and raise it to a height for hydroelectric use at night. This method is already in use today for load regulation in the existing power plants
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

3. sympathetic

   It is clear that the utilization of nuclear energy today is the best way to generate electricity. currently.
   It is clear that there is still no effective method of extracting energy from the sun to the extent that it will satisfy all the energy needs of the entire world's population.

   The point is that you present things as if there is no technology superior to nuclear technology for utilizing energy to produce electricity. While there are researchers and engineers working on technological developments in the field of renewable energy, it is many times preferable to nuclear energy for generating electricity.

   Apparently you say what you say for political reasons.

4. R.H. Rafa.im

   Yes, I'm sure I've checked them all, you have nothing to worry about... Regarding the future, your question should be whether the limitation of the usefulness of the energy sources is physical or engineering. Regarding some of the renewable energy sources, the limitation is physical, while others are engineering, but developing innovative technology takes a lot of time, and in contrast, the nuclear industry is already quite mature. Reasoning from the note "They didn't just think of this idea", so that's how they use what's there and when the discussion concerns their big interests there's also a lot of politics in it.

5. Michael and my father,

   I understand more about nuclear energy than solar energy, but from the little I have heard it is clear that solar energy is not a realistic substitute as an energy source and will not be able to do so in the near future.
   First, there is a problem with the energy storage plan for the night hours, the production of huge batteries is problematic and polluting, and the other storage methods are ineffective.
   Secondly, the usefulness of solar receptors is limited by a theoretical threshold of about 30%. The production of solar receptors is polluting and also getting rid of them creates tremendous pollution.
   Michal, in the link you referred to, they are not talking about alternative options, but about home heating and the like, and also in a superficial look at energy sources, solar energy is far behind nuclear, wind, and hydroelectric energy.
   It is true that almost all the energy on earth comes from the sun, but it is meaningless because it cannot be used.

   In addition to these, there is also the economic side of the cost of space and sunny areas. Since in Israel it is not economical to build a reactor for electricity needs and there are many sunny areas that are not inhabited, it may be possible to use solar energy to cover the annual increase in energy consumption, but this forecast is also optimistic according to experts dealing with the issue that I heard.

   In the context of calculations, it is enough to look at the area of ​​factories designed to produce solar energy in relation to the energy they produce compared to nuclear reactors to be convinced that in terms of energy, nuclear reactors are far superior.

6. According to the Nobel laureate, Prof. Walter Kuhn, the earth receives from the sun every hour all the energy that all humans consume in an entire year.
   https://www.hayadan.org.il/walter-kuhn-urge-to-move-to-wind-and-solar-energy-1312099/

7. sympathetic

   I'm not really an expert in the field either, so I'll also allow myself to talk about the subject. And I have a question for you:

   You wrote: "Finally, simple calculations show that renewable energy sources cannot satisfy humanity's energy consumption."

   Are you sure? Have you checked all renewable energy sources?

   There is also a chance that in the future an energy source will be found that will be able to provide the necessary amount of energy, and without side effects such as waste, but side effects from which more energy can be extracted. After all, they didn't just think of this idea.

8. sympathetic:
   1. But you did not refer to acts of sabotage.
   2. So what needs to be done in Israel and why can't the same solutions work in other places as well?
   3. As I said - in my opinion you will find ways to base yourself on renewable sources only. If anyone is bothered by the amounts of energy that can be produced in this way - they should read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy The episode called Energy from the Sun

9. Michael,

   The issue of safety is never perfect but there are miners who are not exposed to human error
   These reactors are Triga reactors, but as Camila mentioned, they are small research reactors and not power reactors, but there is a possibility that over time they will think of creative ideas for safe power reactors as well.

   In the context of human error, the safety mechanisms try to reduce the chance of an accident so that they have to exist
   Two different mistakes are independent to cause an accident and thus reduce the probability.
   Regarding disasters such as Fukushima, which are difficult to predict, the basic premise is that if a disaster occurs on such an unforeseeable scale as a meteorite fall or an earthquake accompanied by a tremendous water surge, then the damage caused by the accident in the reactor will be small in relation to the total damage. Such a scenario did happen in Fukushima, so I do not think that the accident in Fukushima indicates that nuclear energy should be abandoned as a source of energy, even though I heard an announcement that the Japanese government intends to close the reactors in Japan.

   Finally, simple calculations show that renewable energy sources cannot satisfy humanity's energy consumption. The hope for renewable sources is that they will be able to meet the increase in energy consumption that is growing year by year.

   As a side note, I do not believe that Israel has a place to build a nuclear reactor to produce electricity, I have already written that
   In one of the responses.

10. sympathetic:
    Without addressing the waste problem that you "wave", in my opinion, more easily than I would, I fear that you forget that what is now defined as Fukushima's design mistakes did not look like this before the accident.
    There is no doubt that when you know what the next failure will be, you can better prepare for it, but it turns out that even advanced and responsible countries fail in planning that takes all possibilities into account.

    It is clear that safety will increase over time, but beyond the fact that there is always the possibility of an unforeseen malfunction, there is also the factor of human error and the factor of human injury, and these two factors will never be overcome.

    Although mistakes of this type can occur anywhere, the extent of the damage they can cause when they occur in a nuclear reactor is very large and, in the best case, it "neutralizes" many parts of the country for long periods.

    In a small country like the State of Israel, such a fault can damage much more than a certain region and its inhabitants - it can cut the country into two parts with no land route between them.

    In my opinion, the solutions based on renewable sources will eventually be able to meet all needs.

11. Michael,

    First my claim was general about nuclear energy. A sweeping claim that disqualifies the use of nuclear energy because it produces long-lived waste is unacceptable to me. The introduction of advanced countries that choose nuclear energy as their main source of energy demonstrates in my opinion the claim that nuclear energy can be used in a responsible manner. As soon as the sweeping disqualification of nuclear energy as an energy source is removed from the chapter, probabilistic considerations enter, the validity of which is very difficult to assess. What is the chance of a serious accident? What is the damage caused by a serious accident? The probability of an accident is an estimate and is based on the existing safety mechanisms, past experience and planning for the future. So what have we learned from past experience?

    Serious accidents can occur in reactors, especially in countries where safety controls are not tight. Many of the accidents originate from the human factor. Miners can also survive significant natural disasters but the safety measures are not perfect even in advanced countries. In my opinion, even the terrible accident in Chernobyl, which is one of the most terrible events imaginable, an accident in a working reactor, teaches us that the devil is not so terrible. The number of victims in Chernobyl was, in my opinion, less than a thousand dead (which is also a huge number). The number of cancer cases following Chernobyl is also much inflated in my opinion. In addition, since Chernobyl, the safety measures in reactors have improved tremendously.

    The Fukushima accident is a disturbing event, an accident at an advanced reactor in an advanced country where we would have believed that there was strict supervision of reactors. The Fukushima accident is the result of poor planning of the reactor's safety mechanisms, for example the emergency generators were placed on the side of the sea (where the land is cheaper) and not high up on the land side. On the other hand, the accident in Fukushima teaches us that an advanced reactor can survive even a natural disaster that was difficult to predict in advance, therefore the claim that nuclear reactors cannot be operated due to earthquakes and the like is also a false claim.
    By the way, reactor operation is automatically stopped during an earthquake.

    Bottom line, miner safety isn't perfect but it's getting better and better. There are future plans for safer and safer reactors that produce less nuclear waste. In an age where oil is running out, the only real alternative to an alternative source of energy is nuclear energy.

12. sympathetic:
    I don't know why you try to conjure up my words with claims you have against Camilla's words.
    The truth is that I did not read the sources that Camilla pointed to because from the beginning I did not think that I could form a serious opinion without accumulating enough background and since the decision is not in my hands there is no need for me to form an opinion.

    I hope you know I'm not a donkey and I would never get stuck between two piles.
    Not that the experts on both sides of the fence are piles of straw, but let's leave the parable.
    As I said - I have no reason to make a decision. When a decision is required, I know how to decide what to do and take into account the possibility that I was wrong, but since my decision in this discussion has no practical meaning other than an unreasoned choice of one group of experts over another without any operative action resulting from it - I have no reason to do so.
    I am content with my modest contribution to reducing the problem by equipping myself with a hybrid vehicle and photovoltaic panels.

    I think you are not taking countries that avoid using nuclear energy with the seriousness they deserve.

    In some of them it is quite clear that the consideration is not economic because they enacted a law prohibiting it.

    The fact that certain countries have chosen to use nuclear energy is not proof that such use is safe. After all, the countries where disasters happened also chose to follow this path. It seems to me that the disasters are sufficient evidence that their decision was not optimal

    The problem of waste removal is, among other things, safety in itself.

    I assume that decisions on the matter are based on a number of location-dependent considerations such as "do we have a place far enough from any possible settlement where we can bury the waste".

    I don't think that the words of the French are from the language and outside.
    If someone thinks the miners are safe, they have no reason to state that an inspection is required. Such a decision achieves the opposite result of the one you think it was made for.
    A statement that an investigation is necessary actually causes more panic than it calms the public.

13. Michael,

    First to the question of relying on the words of the experts. I was not impressed that Camila quoted experts as I remember the two authors of the report she brings are far from being experts and even I can find inaccuracies in their words so that currently no one relies on experts. Even given experts with conflicting opinions, decisions can be formulated. The question that arises in such a case is an attempt to assess how expert the experts really are, as any manager who is not a professional or even a prime minister should do. Your argument that it is not possible to form an opinion given the conflicting opinions of experts reminds me just out of curiosity of the philosophical problem from the Middle Ages. In this problem a donkey has to choose between two piles of hay at equal distances from him, the paradox in the question is that according to logic the donkey should die of starvation since here he has no preference in choosing to go to the pile One swam over the other (the mention was made in jest and there is no need to refer to it).

    To the question of the countries and their decision whether to use nuclear energy. As mentioned, there are two fundamental problems in the use of nuclear energy: safety and the waste problem. Since there are countries that have decided to use nuclear energy and I, because these are responsible countries, I conclude from this that the problem of waste removal is not that serious, meaning that the price of waste removal can be safely reflected in the price of energy and still make a profit. In my opinion, the difference between countries that have decided or chosen not to rely on nuclear energy is firstly in the knowledge and infrastructure that exists in that country and in the economic assessment of how much it will cost to operate and maintain a reactor in a safe manner. This question is marginal in relation to the issue of safety. Given a developed country like Germany, the main consideration is an assessment of the chance of an accident. The assessment of the chance of an accident relies on the perception of nuclear safety at that time and the assessments based on past accidents. The basic approach was that miners are safe and then the US supplied miners to the various countries of the world including Israel. After a while, nuclear reactors had a number of accidents even in the USA, but until Chernobyl there was no accident in which a real nuclear disaster occurred. Therefore, the countries of the world could still live with the very unlikely feeling that a serious accident would occur in the reactor. After Chernobyl, the decision makers could still argue, indeed the Chernobyl disaster was terrible, but it is a communist country with a very low safety standard, something like this cannot happen in a western country with close supervision of the miners. This is where the Fukushima accident fits in. If an accident could happen in Fukushima when Japan is considered a very advanced country, then the other reactors in the West are not safe either. On the other hand, my argument based on the decisions of several advanced countries to continue developing reactors as a source of nuclear energy is. Reactors are becoming more and more safe, and the accidents that have occurred have also shown us that the danger and damage resulting from a leak in a reactor is not as terrible as it is presented. Given the lack of alternative and the strict supervision of reactors, in my opinion humanity has no other logical and responsible choice for energy production other than nuclear energy.

    In the context of the French quote about improving their safety system following Fukushima. It is clear to you that this is the required political statement to reassure the public and it is impossible that they would not have said it even if the French were convinced that their miners were completely safe.

14. withering – Regarding this response:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/summery-of-201/#comment-321621

    I did not say that you only complain about problems that belong to the past.
    All in all, I suggested increasing the focus beyond what Ehud suggested.
    Of course, if there are past problems that are also present problems - it makes sense to discuss them.

    sympathetic (https://www.hayadan.org.il/summery-of-201/#comment-321650):
    I did not say that an intelligent discussion cannot be held.
    We are intelligent, aren't we?
    I only said that we had to base the discussion on expert quotes.
    Among other things - this means that if there are experts with conflicting opinions - we will not be able to formulate a firm conclusion for any side.

15. It turns out from the above that in Israel the French miners are trusted more than in France:

    Following the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents, the head of France's nuclear safety agency has said that France needs to upgrade the protection of vital functions in all its nuclear reactors to avoid a disaster in the event of a natural calamity

16. The policy of equipping nuclear reactors by country:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_policy_by_country

    sympathetic:
    It is not clear to me why you propose to refer to the decisions of countries that have chosen to use nuclear energy and you do not propose to refer to the decisions of countries that oppose this type of use.

17. Correction: I meant in my opinion that the Chernobyl disaster caused fewer deaths than the Buffalo disaster and also fewer cancer patients and other casualties.

18. withering,

    We agree that the main danger is pollution either by accident or on purpose. The danger that terrorists will assemble a nuclear weapon is completely negligible, it is enough to look at the efforts of countries to put the idea into practice to understand how difficult it is.

    Regarding waste, it is important to understand that although radioactive waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, its toxicity decreases over time. The more active (dangerous) a substance is, the faster it decays. The main danger is therefore an accident in a working reactor and not in a switched off reactor. An explosion in a working reactor can cause a wide spread of radioactive iodine as happened in Chernobyl. The radioactive iodine is indeed a health hazard and against it there are iodine tablets to prevent the absorption of the radioactive iodine by the body. The other radioactive materials are less dangerous.

    In my opinion, the most terrible disaster that can be thought of in terms of nuclear reactors has already occurred in Chernobyl and the question arises to what extent it damaged human lives and the general quality of life. In my opinion the Fukishma disaster was terrible but it affected less people than the Bhopal disaster and I am not sure if it caused more cancer cases.

    Regarding propaganda, I can also find hundreds of websites on the Internet that explain the benefits of using reactors and how safe they are, unfortunately I don't have the time to search for such websites. Given that a debate in which each of us brings in experts here and there (although I doubt the knowledge of those experts you have already quoted) will not be helpful, I again suggest relying on the decisions of countries that have chosen to use nuclear energy for electricity production.
    In addition, I do not think that renewable energies can scratch the edge of the world's energy problem, but that is already a topic for another debate.

    To be a danger, a substance with high activity is needed, as well as the dispersion of the substance. Widespread dispersion of radioactive material is carried out in two main ways: a chemical explosion in a reactor that creates a radioactive cloud or seepage of the radioactive materials into the groundwater. Again the main danger is the dispersion of the material as happened in Chernobyl through an explosion.

    I will then answer your last question, another tsunami or an earthquake in the Fukishima area will not cause a wide spread of the hazardous materials and in addition, now months after the accident the reactivity of the hazardous materials has decreased miraculously.

    There are indeed security dangers in the use of nuclear energy, not everything is rosy, but as I tried to explain in my previous responses:
    The nuclear field is a field where there is close and much tighter supervision than in other plants.
    The nuclear waste can be buried in mines or isolated sites and this is done, besides the fact that it becomes less and less dangerous over the years.
    In the considerations of cost versus benefit, advanced European countries hint to us in their choice that the benefit outweighs the dangers.
    There are innovative ideas to improve safety and waste disposal within a new generation of reactors.
    Despite A's delusional idea of ​​sending nuclear waste into space, which in itself costs a lot of energy and creates pollution, A is right. The idea of ​​thorium reactors is a promising idea. If I'm not mistaken, there are already such reactors in India.
    In principle, the half-life of nuclear waste can be significantly shortened either by irradiation inside the reactor or by irradiation in accelerators so that even buried waste can be treated at later stages.

19. Michael,

    I wanted to avoid it but apparently there is no choice. Even when the Danes are not experts in a certain field, it can still be discussed objectively instead of debating the testimony of experts. When relying on the opinion of experts the essence of the discussion becomes the defamation of those who claim to be experts.

    The experts whose report Kamila brought are far from being experts in the field:
    A short search on the Internet reveals that Dr. Shahar Dolev is a Doctor of Philosophy of Science specializing in the basics of quantum theory, a field that is very far from mining engineering.
    Gerd Rosencrantz is also very far from the field and is just a journalist. He does have some scientific education, but it does not make him an expert in the nuclear field at all. If I were to rely on expert testimony, I would not rely on two of them...as a side note, I had enough for the reader to read a few lines from the report they issued to find fundamental mistakes and a lack of understanding of the subject (while I am also not an expert on the subject).
    Despite my limited knowledge on the subject, I hope later to answer Kamila objectively and not start a debate as to why the writers are actually experts.

20. I apologize to the readers who must have been bored...but I simply have one more question:

    sympathetic,
    Since some of the fuel rods were melted and even broke through the concrete shell and since it will take a long time to clean the reactor, do you understand the dangers of another earthquake and tsunami in the same area in terms of leaks? Do you agree that such a situation should be taken into account even if it did not actually happen but might happen?

21. By the way, does anyone know from an authorized source what is happening with the miners in Fukushima?
    Skimming about on Wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
    It is difficult to call what happened there a "success story" but a great luck.
    Ehud, do you have any idea how many years the miners there are going to be a danger before they can shut them down for good? Especially in light of the fact that a partial melting of the fuel did occur there.

22. Unfortunately, I probably won't have time in the coming days to address this important issue as I think it should. However, precisely because I am not an expert on the subject and have to rely on information from other sources, which at least I got the impression were reliable, I believe that the problems presented in those sources should be addressed. You repeat and ask about the concerns about nuclear waste, concerns that I have already explained before and which are raised in more detail in the previous links. I can bombard with many other testimonies and documents, but I see no point in doing so as long as there is no reference to the problems, which are not few and not simple, which are shown in the links I have already attached and as mentioned some of which I have addressed in my responses. The fear stems from the same problems and a combination of previous information about the dangers inherent in radiation and situations in which it is released in an uncontrolled manner (for example, in past events involving nuclear radiation). All of these illustrate the differences between a "normal" natural disaster such as an earthquake or a flood compared to a nuclear disaster, the potential of which is not only the immediate danger, but the potential for lasting harm (as in the Chernobyl area, for example). It's never pleasant to die when you don't want to, but unlike a flood or an earthquake regarding the nuclear reactors, humanity has a much better ability to influence, so the comparison between the things is demagogic in my opinion. The fact that there are countries that choose to rely on nuclear reactors does not remove any of the problems presented, it certainly does not solve it. Awareness of risks does not imply not taking them as has been demonstrated many times in human history. The question I am asking is exactly whether this risk is worthwhile and the discussion must refer to the problems that have been raised because it seems that before talking about the benefits of reactors, the litigants need to acknowledge the problems that exist in the use of reactors, at least with you and A. (who suggests in a demagogic and rather stupid way in my opinion, to build "ultra-strong storage vessels that will withstand an explosion in the event of a malfunction and the crash of the missile on which the waste will be launched" which indicates at most a difficulty in assessing risks). It seems that you currently do not recognize the inability to ensure supervision in a changing social reality where factors such as greed, political instability, economic instability can change the strictness of supervision. It seems that at the moment you do not recognize the fact that there is a very large amount of radioactive waste with a high level of danger (in terms of the properties of the isotopes it contains) for which there is no comprehensive solution at the moment other than storage in ponds or burial in the ground, such as the project in Finland in which a huge capital is invested (a capital that, in my opinion, should be sophisticated in calculating the economic viability of using reactors). It seems that you do not recognize the fact that reactor accidents are only a matter of time (even if they will gradually move to safer reactors) and that in every reactor accident there is the real potential for a disaster that will affect large areas due to the transport of pollution through the air or water. We do not know exactly how close the reactor in Fukushima was to the core melting, but there is no doubt that the situation there was far from the control of the Japanese for part of the time and that the fact that the reactor did not collapse completely is not because it was not a possible scenario but because fortunately the actions of the Japanese were sufficient to prevent it so that the damages were relatively limited to the damage potential. It seems problematic to me to ignore the fact that even a reactor considered safe could have collapsed. You do not recognize the general fact that a nuclear lease is a commitment for a much longer period of time than the company that operates it can guarantee, and this is a huge point of failure in my opinion. Only after recognizing these problems will it be possible to start referring to the advantages (which, as mentioned, do not go unnoticed both in the economic and medical and research fields).

    Mr.
    If I was only "complaining" about past problems then it really wouldn't be that interesting. The point is that the same problems that already exist today (for example the issue of handling nuclear waste that I have not seen anywhere anyone who claims that there is a comprehensive solution for this and the facts are that indeed this waste is only accumulating in huge quantities) will not only remain with us probably for a very long time but will also continue to exist and be added to, Even if at a reduced rate, even the new starters. There is no doubt that replacing the old reactors with new, safer reactors is a positive thing, the two questions are - is it indeed a replacement or an addition (and the meanings are different, if it is an addition, then pointing out the shortcomings of the old technologies is definitely relevant) and whether, in light of the risks and dangers of using nuclear reactors In general, shouldn't it be better to be smart and not be content with being smart - that is, to strategically decide to minimize the use of reactors even if they are more profitable in the short term (and I am not convinced that this is true if you take into account peripheral costs other than the construction and ongoing operation of the reactor itself, and also in this matter there is Examples in the link I gave about white elephants who invested capital in them that went down the drain instead of investing the money in less risky sources).

23. One more thing for focus.
    Since we are talking about what should be done in the future, there is no point in pointing out the shortcomings of the old technologies.
    It may well be that all the old stations need to be closed, but that still doesn't mean that new ones shouldn't be built.

    But we have a problem.
    Now - since we have focused the discussion, it needs to be held and it is not clear to me how we can do this if none of us is an expert on the subject.

    Therefore - quoting expert articles is perhaps the only thing we can do after all.

24. Oops

    Freudian fallacy:
    What is meant by "It's unbelievable, but it's much less pleasant to die in a flood"
    There was, of course, "It's not pleasant, but..."

25. withering,

    Since you chose to answer objectively without being offended or insulting (almost) I will answer you or rather I will try to focus the discussion.
    To be honest, it would help me if you could refine your questions:
    Do you think that the supervision situation today is bad but can be improved or that it is inherently impossible to supervise nuclear energy?
    The same goes for waste. Do you think that today's waste disposal situation is problematic and that it cannot be improved in any way? I would appreciate it if you could tell me what are the concerns you raise regarding the waste or the supervision of nuclear reactors, that is, what do you think can be done with nuclear waste? What do you think will happen if the waste is not sealed for a hundred thousand years?
    In short, what are the terrible things you are referring to: "Well, I already wrote that I have no complaints and answers about the positive aspects of miners, i.e. an excellent source of energy, but which comes in a package deal with terrible things."

    After I understand what are the things you are afraid of, we can develop an objective discussion of dangers versus benefits. In rational thought comparing risk to profit is it worth running miners as they chose to do in France or are the French indeed crazy slug eaters who are unaware of the risks?

    Note: I mentioned Triga as a curiosity because it is an amazing idea from a great physicist and I recommend you read what he writes about nuclear reactors.

    I do see Fukishma as a success. Although the environmental conditions were such that caused the death of thousands of people despite the abnormal environmental conditions the miners did not fail. Problems were indeed discovered in the storage ponds that caused a leak of radioactive material. Can you tell me how many people died as a result of this leak? How many people have been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation? Do you think that the lives of the residents of the area who were not killed in the flood were damaged as a result of exposure to radiation? I agree that many people were evacuated from their homes, it is unbelievable, but it is much less pleasant to die in a flood.

26. Israel,

    My knowledge about miners is limited, but I have several friends who are familiar with the subject. Based on my limited knowledge I can assure you with certainty that terrorists taking over a nuclear reactor cannot cause a nuclear explosion no matter how hard they try and that is a fact. Despite this, terrorists could have caused great environmental damage by spreading radioactive materials from the reactor, how severe the damage could be, I have no information, but with a finger estimate I would not assume that the terrorists could not cause greater damage than what happened in Chernobyl, sometimes the greatest damage is done unintentionally .

27. As long as the fear of nuclear weapons exists, nuclear reactors will always be accompanied by a lot of politics, unless there is a real transition to thorium reactors. Thorium reactors and strict control of uranium trade (no less if not more drug trade) accompanied by the latest safety improvements of generation 4 reactors and the like, will provide the future of humanity in a much better way than solar energy, which without a comprehensive space industry will probably never pay off.

    Regarding the storage of nuclear waste - I believe that the solution was and will be in sending the material to the sun. No one knows what will happen to the Earth in tens if not hundreds of thousands of years, and in my opinion it is much easier to invest in the development of ultra-strong storage vessels that will withstand an explosion in the event of a malfunction and the crash of the rocket on which the debris will be launched, than to try to create materials strong enough to survive 100,000 years.

28. sympathetic
    I believe that many who saw the disaster in Japan are quite worried. Since you seem to have some knowledge on the subject, maybe you could reassure us?

    After all, what happened there was an accident. But what would happen if suicide terrorists took over the reactor, on a day with a strong wind? Couldn't they have caused a mega attack that dwarfed Hiroshima? What about an attack in France? Or in Israel?

    Just facts please.

29. sympathetic,
    You are right, not all the information I give about myself is correct (below the nickname). I have previously explained why I feel the need to do this. Apart from that, all the other things in my comments are true. Do not believe? I don't really care, in any case what is important in my opinion is the design of the comments and not the identity of the person who wrote them.

    In the context of the cycle, the estimates speak of about 200,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste (the amount of waste that is defined as low- and medium-level is much larger). Every year the miners in the world (at least those that undergo proper supervision) a total volume of about 200,000 cubic meters of general waste, of which about 10,000 cubic meters of high level waste. High-level waste is waste whose half-life is estimated at many tens of thousands of years and up to about a hundred thousand years. To the best of your knowledge, how much waste can be treated with the recycling method? (in the report it is stated about 15%), what do you think should be done with the by-products that include plutonium? And what should be done with the cycle products that can no longer be recycled?

    Regarding the main points regarding the cycle:
    1) Strict supervision? The waste will remain with us for tens of thousands of years, only the ultra-Orthodox and their ilk know what is going to happen here in the future and that is only for the next two years. Does it really seem completely imaginary to you that the European or American economy will crash? That a war will break out between countries that possess nuclear waste? Will social instability lead to the overthrow of the relatively sane government under which a psychopathic dictator will rise? Do you seriously believe that even then in Bardak that something that will be important to everyone will be created is just to continue with the strict supervision? I previously gave a big assumption to humanity that the imminent danger is "only" human error stemming from greed, in view of the time periods we are talking about it is irresponsible not to take into account what history shows us about political and social stability, and this is also without referring to other great disappearances over such periods Regarding geological climatic stability (tsunamis, earthquakes).
    2) Did I just bother to bring the link to the report and the documentary? It would be fine if you would claim that they are lying there, but it is enough to see the footage in the film of the storage pools to understand that it is not close to a solution for more than a few decades (as professionals in the field also estimate). The dangers are very serious and are presented in great detail. What did I not deal with exactly? With the disasters that have already happened? With accidents and disasters that will still happen because it is impossible to guarantee XNUMX percent safety, as in everything, but here the implications of radioactive contamination carried in the air or in water sources may be much more serious than any flood or accident at a pest control plant? With the huge gap between the amount of waste, its lifespan in its dangerous form and the existing solutions that are good maybe, if we're lucky, for a few decades? With the increasing risk of radioactive materials reaching hands that don't want to use them in terrorist acts?
    3) I calmed down, there is a country that relies on reactors for energy supply. After all, I already wrote that I have no complaints and answers about the positive sides of miners, i.e. an excellent source of energy, but which comes in a package deal with terrible things. Why do you present as if I didn't address this and how does this argument even slightly solve the problems I detailed?
    4) The future reactors are supposed to be safe, and they are supposed to not produce much waste (and the supervision will also be very, very strict...). The experimental German reactor 300-SNR, near the city of Kelker in western Germany, a prototype of one of the fourth generation reactors of the 'fast' incubation reactor type, was abandoned after 19 years of development and construction and an investment of over 3.5 billion euros. It has not been used for even one day. So it's true, there really are a lot of promises about fourth generation reactors that will probably take decades before they start operating. Are they foolproof? Definately not. Will they produce dangerous nuclear waste even if in smaller quantities? The answer is yes. And it doesn't solve the amounts that have already been created and the waste that will still be added until those reactors replace all the old reactors, with an emphasis on all, and reality shows us that old reactors continue to operate for many years even when there are newer, safer reactors.

    Triga (Dyson's reactor) developed around 1960 is a research reactor, that is, a very small reactor with low power and with a much better control option. Why did you bring this example? What is the connection between this reactor and the reactors all over the world that are the source of the problems I raise here?

    The presentation of Fukushima as a success story is really a Guinness record and I must quote: "And although entire villages and towns were wiped off the map, the reactor did not fail. True, there was a leak, probably not very significant, and this is a certificate of respect and dignity for the safety of miners."

    Well enough, it seems a little silly to me to keep referring to your points and asking questions that you don't even bother to answer but just repeat the mantra - everything is fine, there is no problem. At least I can say that I agree with you on this point - the debate is over, back to the research.

30. Ehud, Camila is Camila and Michael is Michael. If you read them in depth you will see that there are differences between them in wording and emphasis. It is true that both are rational. But me too, so what are the three of us pretending to be?

31. Ehud, I agree with everything you said, except for the fact about radiation and cancer

    According to the special report of the American Academy of Sciences from 2005

    Any level of radiation is carcinogenic
    There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.

    Read here
    http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1

32. withering,

    First let me guess that your real name is not Camila. Secondly, the way you write reminds me in a very strange way of one of the main commenters on the site... I wouldn't want to call you a liar but I'm not sure that all the information you spread about yourself is true. But all these issues are not related to our eyes as well as your attempt to claim that I have shares in the nuclear industry in Israel. So much for the personal part that has nothing and a half to do with the subject we are discussing.

    In the context of the cycle, I explained to you that the cycle was carried out by screening the fuel in accelerators. I gave you an example of a complete and large country where the electricity is produced mostly (80%) from nuclear reactors and I am not aware of waste problems or greed causing the disaster.
    I will repeat again the main points with which you do not face but choose to insult or not to insult:
    1. There is very strict supervision over nuclear waste and nuclear reactors.
    2. The dangers pictured in reactors or in nuclear waste are not as serious as they are presented.
    3. There is at least one example of a country supplying its energy from reactors.
    4. The future reactors are supposed to be much safer and they are not supposed to produce a lot of nuclear waste.

    Regarding the safety issues that are not related to nuclear waste, that is, the operation of reactors.

    1. Nuclear reactors work with very high standards of safety several levels above any other industry.
    2. Future reactors are designed to be much safer.
    3. The accident in Fukushima demonstrates how despite human negligence miners are still safe. Despite this, there were a number of embarrassing mistakes in the design of the safety mechanisms in Fukushima, and even though entire villages and towns were wiped off the map, the reactor did not fail. True, there was a leak, probably not very significant, and this is a certificate of honor and dignity for the safety of miners.

    I don't want to go into details and explain what happened in the Chernobyl accident, but it is a very old reactor and a number of human errors that could not have happened in the West. Miner technology is a developing technology and has room to move forward. I recommend you read what the renowned physicist Freeman Dyson has to say about miners. By the way, Dyson is the father of the reactor called Triga, which is a reactor that is completely immune to human error and an accident cannot occur in it.

    I have no interest in starting to criticize your sources or claim that they are financed by interested parties. There is neither the time nor the energy for such an idle discussion. I am satisfied if you are indeed engaged in science and have the time for this kind of research.
    An objective debate can only be conducted between two people who have a similar level of knowledge on the subject of the debate and I don't get the impression that this is the case, so I think the debate is exhausted as far as I'm concerned.
    By the way, I would gladly be willing to move to live in the vicinity of Kor if the living conditions were favorable.

33. sympathetic,
    I'm far from an expert on nuclear energy but that still doesn't make me as stupid or ignorant as you try to make it out to be, even if it's done in a slightly disguised way. You're trying to portray me as a fool by selectively presenting my words in a way that makes it sound like I don't know what's bothering me or that I haven't explained it in previous comments. The fact that the nuclear waste bothers me a lot does not mean that it is the only reason for my opposition to the use of nuclear reactors. I don't understand why you are trying to present it that way.
    In response to the fear that criticism, no matter how severe, is still at the mercy of people who may do what should not be done because of greed. You yourself admit that the chance exists. Such an omission on the nuclear issue must include significant dangers and therefore it should enter into the system of considerations.
    Regarding the waste cycle, you refer back to the report. Which part of the following sentence, which constitutes the title and the essence of the report's message on this subject, did you not understand: "There is no place where waste can be disposed of permanently."
    You can say that what is written there is nonsense and make claims backed up by your own facts, but try to claim that the report itself shows that there is a reasonable solution to the problem? Do you really think readers are that stupid?

    You repeat the "promises" that the new generation miners will be safer, that the supervision will be excellent, that the waste is a solvable problem and free of special risks and that lying is a great thing in general and all that is needed is for you to recommend that everyone move to live near a reactor. I don't know what reality you live in, but it exudes from what you write and especially from the way you write that you have a closeness to the subject. I don't want to guess so I'll stop here. In any case, I write the things not because of the "public fear" or because of ignorance, but rather because of the information that comes from different sources that seem to me to be reliable and reflect the same reality. You are welcome to try to doubt those sources and back it up with other based information, you are even welcome to claim that I misunderstood the information given there, but you will have to show it and not just claim it in general. Meanwhile, it seems that you are not interpreting the same information in the correct way, ignoring it in some cases and even distorting it to your needs in other cases.

    Your words at the end seem puzzling to me. Why is it not possible to adapt the type of reactor and its output to the needs in Israel? After all, the costs depend on the type of reactor and there is no denying that there is no need for a facility whose power is greater than what is required. If miners abroad are so economically viable in your opinion, then how is it possible that a mine adapted to the size and needs of Israel cannot be economically viable? Do you have any information on an economic calculation made on the subject regarding the expected costs of such an addict relative to the costs that are currently spent in other ways?

34. One of the links that Camila brought leads to a video about nuclear waste treatment... the approach is very interesting, the claim is that the surface of the earth is very exposed to changes, especially when looking at ranges of 10,000 - 100,000 years. On the other hand, deep rock layers (500 meters and more) are very stable. In the layer that is used in Finland (Onklo site - an abandoned mine) the layer has been unchanged for 1.8 billion years. They also claim that any civilization that develops the ability to dig into the rock to such depths, will have to go through detection technologies for radioactive materials anyway - so that they recognize that these are dangerous materials.

35. withering,

    First, I understand that the problem that bothers you is the nuclear waste and not the safety of using reactors. By the way, the two problems are not completely unrelated, in particular, there are currently plans for Generation IV reactors that deal with these two issues at the same time. If the problem that bothers you is the removal of the nuclear waste, why did you write:
    "The use of nuclear energy, not only does not reduce costs, but also constitutes a constant danger to life that hovers over humans." Why is waste disposal a constant danger to life? You also claim that there is a fear that the removal of the waste will not be done in an adequate way for reasons of pig capitalism. First, the removal of nuclear waste is done under much, much closer supervision than the removal of other types of non-nuclear waste. With regard to nuclear materials, there is a fear that they will be used for improper purposes, so the supervision over them is very close, meaning that the chance that they will be disposed of improperly is low.
    It is true that the removal of nuclear waste has costs that are part of the price of fuel, but the removal is usually done for mines or for recycling.

    Regarding fuel cycle, it is also mentioned in the report to which you gave a link. The cycle is carried out by irradiating the nuclear waste in an accelerator, which paradoxically makes it less harmful. The example I brought of France, where 80% of the electricity is produced in nuclear reactors, shows that it is possible to get rid of waste cleanly and also get clean energy, so the waste problem is not an insurmountable obstacle.
    There are of course many more possibilities for the field of nuclear reactors to develop and Generation IV reactors indicate future directions. The problem is the ignorance and fear of the general public on the nuclear issue. I mentioned the Bhopal disaster only to show that industrial accidents of larger magnitudes than the accident in Fukushima have occurred and people are not aware of them, while nuclear reactor accidents receive huge media coverage and radiation levels around the world are measured because of them. The public fear stems from the fact that radiation is invisible but very easy to measure. By the way, there are no medical studies proving the effect of exposure to low radiation, does it increase the chance of getting cancer, there is even evidence that such radiation has medical benefits.

    In the framed article, I do not think it is necessary to build a reactor to produce electricity in Israel, neither for security reasons (which are also significant) nor for waste disposal reasons, but simply that we are a country with too little electricity consumption to cover the costs of building a reactor and monitoring it.

36. I strongly recommend everyone to read the report in the link:
    http://www.boell.org.il/downloads/Myths_About_Nuclear_Energy_Hebrew.pdf

    This is just one example, which I think should turn on a red spotlight with an ascending and descending siren.

    sympathetic,
    Many more people die from the flu, car accidents or heart attacks. What is the connection between a pest control plant and energy sources? Oil is indeed a notorious source of energy and I do believe that alternative energy sources should be adopted as soon as possible for several reasons that have not added health to this world for its animals, plants and inanimate objects. However, even the damned oil is an almost immediately expendable material compared to nuclear waste and in any case I don't understand the logic of why use one atrocity to replace another when there are other, less harmful options.
    I don't know of a recycling solution on a scale that can handle the amounts of waste that are difficult to call "some nuclear waste". I recommend watching the movie:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(film)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2EtAoZDmoI

    Although this is not a "scientific" film and there is no doubt that it is edited and presented in a way that creates drama, but it is still difficult to ignore the sights and data presented, among others, by those in positions in the field. In particular, it is shocking to be impressed by the lack of hands that are being broadcast by those who are supposed to provide a solution to the issue of "some nuclear waste".

    I would appreciate it if you could expand on the issue of waste recycling, because as mentioned I do not know of such a realistic solution.
    Rigid criteria is a toffee beauty, the problem is what happens that in the end someone puts a bar on the rigid criteria and does what is strictly forbidden to do in order to earn a few pennies. Happened in the past, is happening today even in Israel regarding environmental pollution. Are you really that naive to believe that rigid criteria are a fail-safe mechanism against pig capitalism?

    Certainly, the thing that bothers me is not the amount of electricity that is produced through reactors, but the meanings and consequences of production in this way, such as that much nuclear waste. Even if there was a country whose entire electricity consumption was provided by nuclear reactors, it would not change the severity of the problem in the slightest, on the contrary, the negative implications in such a case would be much more serious.

    What I wrote before:

    "The use of nuclear energy, not only does not reduce costs, but also constitutes a constant danger to life that hovers over humans. Increasing the use of nuclear reactors only increases the chance of the next nuclear disaster."

    can be considered as "cheap demagoguery and overreaching" therefore I will leave it to the readers to review the report and watch the film (and any other source they deem reliable enough) and form their own position on the matter. You will not convince me, Ehud, that the negative opinion I have about the use of nuclear reactors stems from ignorance, as you claimed (demagogically) about public opinion 🙂

37. withering,

    We will separate reactor operation from waste treatment.
    Reactors are a much safer source of energy than the alternatives. Don't you think that an accident in a hydroelectric dam is capable of causing greater damage than an accident in a reactor. Have you ever heard about the Bhopal disaster in which about 3000 people died and about 10000 people were blinded in an accident at a pesticide factory in India. Most people have not heard about this disaster (perhaps because it happened in India), on the other hand, almost everyone has heard about the Chernobyl disaster.
    Generation IV reactors are supposed to be much, much safer and the dangers of damaging the reactor are not so terrible. There are many cases where oil rig accidents have polluted the sea. Has anyone checked morbidity rates following them.
    Claims like "
    The use of nuclear energy, not only does not reduce costs, but also constitutes a constant danger to life that hovers over humans. Increasing the use of nuclear reactors only increases the chance of the next nuclear disaster."
    They are to stop cheap demagoguery and bridle extension.

    Regarding the nuclear waste. First, it can be recycled, as is done in France, for example. Second, have you tried to estimate the amount of waste produced by a reactor? Do you know what the strict criteria are for nuclear waste? The American criterion is that if a person builds his house on a waste site in 10000 years, yes ten thousand years, the radiation he will be exposed to will be less than the background. What other product is insured for 10000 years. Who knows what will happen in another 1000 years.

    By the way, experts claim that global warming is caused by an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. According to the experts, global warming is a possible disaster for humanity. Isn't some nuclear waste better than the next disaster to consume humanity?

    In conclusion, I remind you that in France, for example, 80% of the electricity is produced from nuclear energy and also in the US there was a period when there was an intention to switch to the production of the majority of electricity with nuclear energy, today it is 25% of the electricity that is produced in reactors in the US, the reason for stopping the momentum was negative public opinion characterized by ignorance.

38. sympathetic
    I am far from being an expert on nuclear energy, but a few months ago I was exposed to a report and at about the same time to a film made in Norway (if my memory serves me correctly) on this subject. Both of them had a very difficult feeling about the feasibility of using nuclear energy, both because of the dangers (which will never disappear due to planning failures, natural disasters, human negligence and because of the constant ambition on the part of terrorist organizations and anarchist groups to use such dangerous materials) and because of the maintenance costs, not of The miners themselves, which is the "small" money but in the maintenance of the nuclear waste bins, a cost that most of the public does not know at all and is not even aware that there is no real solution for that dangerous radioactive waste, the products of nuclear cooking, whose half-life is measured in many tens of thousands of years. The use of nuclear energy, not only does not reduce costs, but also constitutes a constant danger to life that hovers over humans. Increasing the use of nuclear reactors only increases the chance of the next nuclear disaster occurring.
    If there were really no possible alternatives, I would say, say, one day, if humanity survives until then, it will leave the polluted earth or at least find a realistic solution to the problems, but I wouldn't want to bet on a very large vanishing point as long as the alternatives actually exist.

    In the past I provided the links to the report and the film in one of my comments on the site. Could any of the site operators locate that comment to attach the links to this comment?

39. Avi,

    Thanks for the fixes.

40. Michael,

    Words have power and it is important to use them accurately. Of course, the demolition of one house is also a disaster...
    The comparison that should be made in the context of the nuclear accident in Fukishima is first with the tsunami
    and the damage caused to human life and the destruction of buildings. The damage from the tsunami is of course far greater. A comparison is required
    Another is the nuclear accident in Fukishima with the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl. Also for this comparison the exposure
    For radioactive materials what happened in Chernobyl is immeasurably greater. Therefore it is appropriate to call what happened
    The nuclear reactors in Fukushima, a nuclear accident and not a nuclear disaster. Ostensibly this is a semantic debate, but words have power. Calling an event a nuclear disaster establishes in public opinion the primal fear of everything related to nuclear, from a scientific site I would expect a different approach... Nuclear energy is one of the few ways to provide humanity with energy without polluting the environment (and without increasing global warming according to most scientists) so it is important to present its advantages As well as the disadvantages, but don't exaggerate and call the accident a disaster!

41. If you really want to be precise, it should be said that the number of people who died/will die as a result of the reactor accident is unknown and that the need to abandon homes in large areas for periods of years is also a disaster.

42. Avi,

    Thanks for the detailed list!
    As a side note, it is important to be precise in the details even when it comes to breaking news:

    At CERN, antimatter was not frozen for 1000 seconds, but antimatter was imprisoned
    together for 1000 seconds.

    There was no nuclear disaster in Japan. In Japan there was a natural disaster that caused the death of tens of thousands
    In addition, there was a reactor accident in Japan that caused controlled pollution. in the nuclear accident
    One person was killed and he was also killed by an explosion. Regarding the harm to civilians, there were no radiation victims
    Serious and therefore it is appropriate to call what happened in Fukushima a nuclear accident and not a nuclear disaster!

43. We can't wait for 2012 anymore

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.