This is mind blowing ignorance on the part of Al Gore. Gore in an 11/12/09 interview on NBC’s tonight Show with Conan O’Brien, speaking on geothermal energy, champion of slide show science, can’t even get the temperature of earth’s mantle right, claiming “several million degrees” at “2 kilometers or so down”. Oh, and the “crust of the earth is hot” too.
Temperature of the sun’s corona: 1–2 million kelvin
Temperature of the sun’s photosphere: 6,000 kelvin
Temperature of the Earths mantle, more than “2 kilometers or so down”: between 500 °C to 900 °C (773 to 1173 kelvin)
Watching Gore make a complete scientific idiot of himself on national TV: priceless
Don’t believe me? Watch the video from NBC below:
For a faster presentation, without a pre-viewing commercial, here is the same video on YouTube
Oh…and here is a graph of the vertical temperature profile with drilling depth:
And here is the temperature profile of the Earth’s crust, mantle, and core:
Source: Electropaedia (Mpower UK) page on geothermal energy
Sponsored IT training links:
Pass 1z0-050 exam in easy and fast way! We offer up to date JN0-304 study materials including latest HP0-S26 dumps with 100% success guarantee.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think I’ll have the feeling that windmills attract flesh eating unicorns or indeed million degree plumes of plasma & we ought to get rid of them all for that reason alone unless somebody can disprove such feelings to the satisfaction of everybody in the world.
Re: planes crashing into nuclear power plants, Just out of curiosity…
Anybody know why the 9/11 terrorists didn’t target at least one nuclear plant? Pentagon, White House I can understand, i.e. political and military leadership, but a nice nuclear disaster would seem to hold so much more potential than the WTC, especially if it led to another backlash against nuclear power, making the US even more dependent on fossil fuels from Guess Where.
Apologies if too far OT.
Okay Tom, you win, a plane crashing into a nuclear power station will NEVER release radiation. You’ve told us that because the word ‘could’ doesn’t prove anything then it MUST mean that radiation will not leak from an impact by a fully laden 747, so it must be true. There, how’s that?
Dear, oh lord…
Smokey, I’m well aware of that clip as it’s on my ‘favourites’ in youtube, but it doesn’t mean anything.
“Engineering experts are divided over whether concrete containment shields around nuclear power stations could withstand a direct hit from a large passenger aircraft, especially one carrying 200,000lb of fuel, as was flight 93.”
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/cnn2001a.htm
As experts are divided then Tom wouldn’t entertain the thought that he could be wrong, and I’m “ill-informed”. I think that if experts ‘think’ that it could happen then I’ll stay with my original thought – that it’s just not worth the risk.
Remember terrorists prefer bodies at rush hour.
So terrorism is a better argument against using big public transportation projects, which the environmentalists want to jam us into, than it is an argument against generating our own affordable power. We are far safer in our own cars.
Gary, http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/cnn2001a.htm
I should be on commission for providing that link.
“Tom, all I’m saying is that I don’t believe that a plane crashing into a nuclear power station WOULDN’T release radiation. That’s all I’m saying for crying out loud!”
Well, before making’d presumably have to have given some thought as to the failure modes by which the plane could cause the release. And then the sort of damage it’d have to do to cause that failure.
Let’s start with the most important one – a breach of the primary circuit (let’s assume a PWR of one of the types likely to be built in the UK; one resulting in overheating and core damage.
On an EPR, that assumes it penetrating two roughly 1M thick prestressed concrete walls (which means getting through not only the concrete, but all the prestressing tendons, which will be perhaps 20% of the volume of the wall), or one concrete wall, and then a pressure-bearing steel shell maybe 30mm thick on an APR. Then having sufficient energy to get through a 10mm or so liner in the EPR . Then either happening to hit a piece of exposed primary circuit piping (maybe 1/10th of 1% of the containment volume, or having sufficient energy to get through another metre or two of biological shield concrete. Then having sufficient remaining energy to shear or otherwise break a steel circuit with walls 8-12″ thick.
All at the same time, of course, as disabling the various emergency shutdown systems, and the emergency core cooling systems – which is hard to do, especially in the APR case, as they’re totally passive.
We could do the same, if you want, on themes like how to damage the spent fuel cooling ponds – but it’s hard to cause much release there, as by definintion the fuel’s pretty cool, and in a non-reactive configuration. Or ideas like somehow simultaneously disabling four independent shutdown and post shutdown cooling systems.
So, over to you. If you’re so sure it can happen, tell us how.
As to
“Experts say it is unclear whether a larger modern jet loaded with fuel, deliberately flown at high speed, could break open the reactor vessel. The resultant fire could, however, cause enough damage to allow radioactive material into the air.””
Which experts would these be? And do they actually know what they’re talking about, in terms of failure modes etc? Even more so, have they actually calculated any numbers about the energies involved?
Okay Tom, you win, a plane crashing into a nuclear power station will NEVER release radiation. You’ve told us that because the word ‘could’ doesn’t prove anything then it MUST mean that radiation will not leak from an impact by a fully laden 747, so it must be true. There, how’s that?
Strawman, argument from incredulity, argument from fear. Do you always communicate in logical fallacies?
There are no “absolutes” in this world. That is why I originally brought up the “precautionary principle”. Many children die of vaccine-preventable diseases becuase of the argument “prove that vaccines are 100% safe”. It cannot be done, so anti-vaccinationists claim the high ground, parents are frightened away from getting their kids shots, and some kids die.
Likewise, you demand absolute assurances that no plane can breach a reactor, not just the containment vessel mind you, but the entire structure, causing release of radiological products. That cannot be done. But what can be done is to do tests with actual plane crashing into actual structures. There really isn’t much more one can do to prove safety except to continue what they’ve been doing successfully for decades. But that isn’t good enough for you. Someone yells the word “RADIATION!”, and you curl up into the fetal postition.
I can’t help your irrational fear of nuclear power. But if you are serious about energy independence, nuclear is absolutely the ONLY viable alternative at the present time.
Errr….your source for the “experts” claim seems to be a “concerned citizen”
Tom, more bad news, but I guess you just won’t believe it…
“But we do know this: When Indian Point and a hundred
other nuclear plants like it were built across the United States, no one
considered a direct hit by a commercial airliner loaded with fuel to be a
credible threat. As a result, the plants were not built to withstand one.”
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission: “At this time, we
could not exclude the possibility that a jetliner flying into a containment
structure could damage the facility and cause a release of radiation that could impact public health.”
Would you like more Tom, or have I made my point? That point being that the possibility exists. However, having read this for the past 20 minutes I’m even more concerned than I was before!
” The vulnerable part of the existing nuclear plants is the spent fuel storage area.”
Ever been on a nuclear plant, and seen where spent fuel storage typically is?
The stuff isn’t stacked in a shed around the back, you know. It’s in an engineered, shielded storage facility, almost invariably below ground level, sealed and with a managed, multiply filtered air supply. If it’s wet stored, it’s under water, in a pond that itself is in a sealed tank. If it’s a dry store, like the one my former employers built at Wylfa, the fuel is stored as individual stringers in tubes sunk several metres under a concrete floor, with each tube capped by a steel and concrete lid.
And there’s another small point……even if all of that DID fail, the fuel is still inside it’s cans. Cans that are engineered to last for 20-odd years inside a nuclear reactor, at 500C plus, being buffeted by either rapidly-flowing water at 200 atmospheres, or with near-supersonic CO2 rattling them against the outer graphite shell of the stringer. Zirconium alloy in the LWR cases, stainless steel in the AGRs.
There’s noting better than experts who’ve not the faintest conception of what they’re talking about.
I love it.
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecurity/video/protecting_the_reactor
Ahem…..
EPRI study: reactor containment protects against 767 crashes
The Nuclear Energy Institute is releasing preliminary results of an EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) study that claims that reactor containment buildings would withstand credible aircraft crash scenarios proposed in the aftermath of 9/11: (Note: many points echo the “informed conjecture” presented in my FAQ on the subject at
http://www.ncf.ca/~cz725/cnf_sectionD.htm#terrorist)
“- The industry is very confident that the containment building would safely protect the reactor in the unlikely possibility that a commercial airliner is used as a weapon against nuclear power plants. Preliminary results of an industry study indicate that a commercial aircraft like that used in the Sept. 11 attacks would not likely penetrate the robust containment buildings where the reactor is located. Neither the mass of the aircraft nor the engines would likely penetrate the containment building.
– EPRI performed the studies of nuclear plant structural strength at the request of the Nuclear Energy Institute. Four engineering companies performed the engineering studies: ABS, Environmental Qualification Engineering, Erin Engineering, and Fauske and Associates. These companies are recognized industry experts in structural analysis. The results of the studies are being reviewed by an industry task force and are expected to be final by the end of June. Details of the report will not be distributed publicly due to the sensitive nature of the information, however the Nuclear Regulatory commission will be briefed on the results.
– The study did not analyze every type of containment structure, but used a containment building that is representative of a typical containment structure at nuclear power plants.
– The study evaluated the impact of a Boeing 767 – the aircraft used in the Sept. 11 attacks – and engineers are confident that containment buildings can safely protect the reactor against most commercial aircraft (including 757s and 777s). Assuming the low profile of nuclear power plants relative to the World Trade Center the study used the aircraft ground speed and angles associated with the Pentagon attack. That is the most realistic scenario in the unlikely event that an airliner is hijacked and used to attack a nuclear power plant. Given the ground forces at low altitude, a pilot could not accurately fly an aircraft at the speed of the World Trade Center attacks and target structures low to the ground like nuclear power plants.
– Given the angles at which aircraft would have to fly to strike containment buildings, the containment dome would only receive a glancing blow. It is virtually impossible for a skilled pilot to control a commercial aircraft in a steep dive that could hit a containment structure at the top of the containment dome. In fact, the wings of commercial jets likely would sheer off of the plane in such a steep dive a high speeds. Moreover, pilots cannot precisely control a large commercial aircraft at that steep dive angle.
– Spent fuel storage vaults at nuclear power plants also would be protected from direct aircraft crashes. Walls of spent fuel vaults typically are even thicker than reactor containment walls. All plants have this robust protection of concrete walls around their fuel vaults. The study also analyzed a 767 hitting a spent fuel vault, and although there is significant damage to the 4-foot to 5-foot thick concrete walls of the vault, the stainless steel liner of the vault remains intact and protects the used reactor fuel. Because the concrete walls absorb most of the energy from the aircraft, there is no penetration of the stainless steel liner that could cause a breach of the vault. There is not drainage of cooling water out of the vault in this scenario. The impact of an airliner on nuclear fuel dry storage containers is still being evaluated.
– The study also considered the consequences should auxiliary buildings at nuclear plants be struck by a commercial airliner. These buildings typically are 18-inch thick reinforced concrete. A commercial aircraft would penetrate the exterior walls of these structures, and the resulting damage to some plant systems would depend on he specific location and interior structure of the building. In any event, the availability of redundant and diverse safety equipment at other locations at the plant could be used to safety shut down the reactor.”
ATD. Those damn experts eh? What do they know? At least we have you and Tom, thank god for that.
Oops, strawman, argument from incredulity, argument from fear…always communicating in logical fallacies. Sorry.
Like I said earlier, dear oh lord!
So now we have “dueling cut-and-pastes”? Is that your idea of debate Barry?
I’ll leave aside you’ve completely ignored ADT and his/her points and quote the Congressional Research Service in a 2009 study:
“In light of the possibility that an air attack might penetrate the containment structure of a nuclearplant or a spent fuel storage facility, some interest groups have suggested that such an event couldbe followed by a meltdown or spent fuel fire and widespread radiation exposure. Nuclear industryspokespersons have countered by pointing out that relatively small, low-lying nuclear powerplants are difficult targets for attack, and have argued that penetration of the containment isunlikely, and that even if such penetration occurred it probably would not reach the reactor vessel.They suggest that a sustained fire, such as that which melted the steel support structures in theWorld Trade Center buildings, would be impossible unless an attacking plane penetrated thecontainment completely, including its fuel-bearing wings. According to former NRC ChairmanNils Diaz, NRC studies “confirm that the likelihood of both damaging the reactor core andreleasing radioactivity that could affect public health and safety is low.”
Of course, they didn’t say ZERO, so Barry you might want to continue to hide under your bed.
Which brings up the bigger point. Your problem is with currently functioning reactors. Nobody is proposing we build 30 year old designed reactors. The newer designs have the requirement that they withstand the impact of a large commmercial aircraft.
So why is it we can’t build new ones?
what ARE you on about?
Still won’t answer ADT, eh Barry?
How do you manage to type hiding under your bed like that?
Oh dear Lord…..
ATD. I see your 2002 report and raise you my 2006 one:
“What would happen if a plane crashed into a nuclear plant?
No one knows. U.S. nuclear power plants are built to withstand hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and small plane crashes. Their “containment walls” are typically made of two to five feet of reinforced concrete with an interior steel lining. But the NRC didn’t anticipate the type of attacks seen on September 11—large passenger airliners loaded with fuel slamming into targets. Both the NRC and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have said that U.S. nuclear plants were not designed to withstand such an impact, and the NRC has ordered a study of plant designs to look at what would happen in such a scenario.”
Oh, and ATD, there’s no need to cough “ahem” before you say something, unless you’re trying to do it for some sort of misplaced gravitas. There’s a good chap.
Tom, be patient, I did answer him (as you can see) and it was held up in the queue. Dear oh lord! And if he’d bothered to read the link I provided earlier he would read about “stuff stacked in a shed around the back”.
I repeat (for those who are having trouble) my original point:
“Can someone who advocates [nuclear power] tell me that if a terrorist crashes a plane into a nuclear power station there will not be a release of radiation?”
No, Tom, they cannot. Experts disagree (as you can read from the links). So you can fluff and bluster all you want, but even experts (people ATD has no time for) cannot give such an assurance. And that’s the point I’ve been trying to get through to you Tom! I’m afraid you’re not really paying attention.
No, Tom, they cannot. Experts disagree (as you can read from the links). So you can fluff and bluster all you want, but even experts (people ATD has no time for) cannot give such an assurance. And that’s the point I’ve been trying to get through to you Tom! I’m afraid you’re not really paying attention.
But my point, which you are continuing to ignore, is that all new reactors WILL be built to withstand a terrorist crashing an airliner into it. And since this thread is about new sources of power, that should suffice. But, of course, for you it won’t, because we can’t prove beyond a doubt that a plane crashing into a reactor won’t allow release of that scary radiation.
If you are so damn scared of a terrorist crashing into a reactor, why don’t you support building new ones to allow the old ones to be decomissioned?
BTW, my 2009 trumps your 2006 one (how the hell old are you?). And it was pretty specific that the likelyhood of everything coming together right to allow a plane to breach not only containment but the vessel itself is very unlikely.
Oh, and ATD, there’s no need to cough “ahem” before you say something
And there’s no need to write “oh dear lord” after just about everything you write…
Sheesh.
It wasn’t trumps, it was poker. Oh dear lord!
“What would happen if a plane crashed into a nuclear plant?
No one knows. U.S. nuclear power plants are built to withstand hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and small plane crashes. Their “containment walls” are typically made of two to five feet of reinforced concrete with an interior steel lining. But the NRC didn’t anticipate the type of attacks seen on September 11—large passenger airliners loaded with fuel slamming into targets. Both the NRC and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have said that U.S. nuclear plants were not designed to withstand such an impact, and the NRC has ordered a study of plant designs to look at what would happen in such a scenario.””
You mean, apart from the people who’d undertaken exactly such studies, like the lot I quoted in my last post?
Or the NRC, having done the study that’s been completed since your 2006 quote
“Since 9/11, the issue of an airborne attack on this nation’s infrastructure, including both operating and potential new nuclear power plants, has been widely discussed. The NRC has comprehensively studied the effect of an airborne attack on nuclear power plants. Shortly after 9/11, the NRC began a security and engineering review of operating nuclear power plants. Assisting the NRC were national experts from Department of Energy laboratories, who used state-of-the-art experiments, and structural and fire analyses.
These classified studies confirm that there is a low likelihood that an airplane attack on a nuclear power plant would affect public health and safety, thanks in part to the inherent robustness of the structures. A second study identified new methods plants could use to minimize damage and risk to the public in the event of any kind of large fire or explosion. Nuclear power plants subsequently implemented many of these methods.
The NRC is now considering new regulations for future reactors’ security. The goal is to include inherent safety and security features to minimize potential damage from an airborne attack…”
Low probability, in this context, btw, has a specific meaning – less that one chance in 10^7 reactor-years.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/security-spotlight/aircraft.html
That’s probably worth an “ahem” or two….
Tom:
“New reactors.
It might be thought that new reactors would be designed to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet, but a leaked document by Electricite de France (EdF) on the vulnerability to terrorist attack of the new European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR) – being considered or already under construction in several countries including UK, France and Finland – reveals a dangerously flawed approach to security. Nuclear engineering consultancy, Large and Associates, has assessed the secret EdF document and concluded that it includes seriously flawed assumptions about whether the reactor could withstand a potential terrorist attack using hijacked commercial aircraft.”
How much of this do you want me to post Tom? There’s more if you want it, and please note that it’s about the NEW reactors Tom.
As I keep saying, it’s not worth the risk, it simply isn’t!
How much of this do you want me to post Tom?
If you keep quoting no2nuclearpower.org and Greenpeace, I have no doubt you could cut-and-paste abject garbage all nite. At least now I know what side of the fence you are on. That being said, I’m not suprised you are still taking the “absolute proof” approach.
So let me ask you, what proof do you require that will assue you the safety of nuclear reactors?