- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 17,140
Best place as far as what? Landowners that are willing to allow them? Because unless I'm mistaken farm lands typically do not have a constant flow of somewhat strong winds which is ideal for windmills.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
600HP Electric Car
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Best place as far as what? Landowners that are willing to allow them? Because unless I'm mistaken farm lands typically do not have a constant flow of somewhat strong winds which is ideal for windmills.
Amen. Maybe I can put in a Lightsaber noise when I pass cars....
I have serious problems with someone who represents a magazine that was once put together by some of the best minds in engineering and science, who drives with one hand while using the other to hold his microphone in New York traffic, then decides to drive it down an "empty side street" only to NOT open it up at all, but also to risk a car that I'm guessing is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in such an environment. Call up the lab and schedule a test run on a track, you muppet!
kleptophobiac
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 7,839
The best coal plants are about 40% efficient. I don't know about the nuclear plants, but I'll point out that their safety is fairly good. Mixed oxide fuel pellets expand as they heat up, creating a built in safety system. As they heat up their nuclei get further away, so the percentage of neutrons that hit a nucleus causing decay falls sharply (with the cube of the mean distance). Such fuels make a meltdown impossible.
Also, modern plants no longer use water as their primary fluid. Now it's mostly mercury or molten salt (a eutectic mixture of sodium and calcium chloride).
Also, modern plants no longer use water as their primary fluid. Now it's mostly mercury or molten salt (a eutectic mixture of sodium and calcium chloride).
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,542
The only thing that was ever WRONG with nuclear power was the PRIVATE SECTOR doing it FOR PROFIT. As soon as the bottom line got in the way the next thing you know safety systems were dropped, weld inspections were fudged, etc, etc.
Make ONE perfected design, and build a bunch. Build a vitrification plant into the facility, and the spent fuel gets mixed with molten glass and stored in stainless containers for the looooooong sleep in Yuca mountain.
The Navy's success stems from making a perfected design and building it to the highest standards and maintaining them flawlessly from there. As for what to do with the plutonium byproducts.... we'll need it for space exploration out of the sun's range.
Make ONE perfected design, and build a bunch. Build a vitrification plant into the facility, and the spent fuel gets mixed with molten glass and stored in stainless containers for the looooooong sleep in Yuca mountain.
The Navy's success stems from making a perfected design and building it to the highest standards and maintaining them flawlessly from there. As for what to do with the plutonium byproducts.... we'll need it for space exploration out of the sun's range.
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,542
On Oil independence, remember the US and Canada have 700 BILLION barrels of oil, plus hundreds of years of coal. We the People need to make sure WE get a fat check for our share of the oil-shale. We've had enough of a handful of assholes raking in the profits from oil/coal/gas on public lands.
Meantime by all means SUCK HAJJI DRY.
Meantime by all means SUCK HAJJI DRY.
Negative Decibel
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 3,588
germans are waaaay ahead with wind power they have 20GW of wind turbines so don't talk about electicity being more polluting (at least in europe).
quite a few toyota hybrids around where i live - they are dead silent & the drivers go slow because they know you (pedestrians) can't hear them - so you turn to cross the street & you freak out cuz a prius is in the way
quite a few toyota hybrids around where i live - they are dead silent & the drivers go slow because they know you (pedestrians) can't hear them - so you turn to cross the street & you freak out cuz a prius is in the way
And what do you do when Yuca mountain is full? And what do you do when the train carrying the waste to the mountain derails?
I'm not saying nuclear is a definite no, but I am saying we have to think about this stuff. Oil should have taught us that when we use a fininte resource, eventually it runs out. Now we're suggesting using a fininte resource (storage space) to throw the extremely dangerous waste of a nuclear power plant away. All we're doing there is shoving the energy problem off onto future generations.
kleptophobiac
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 7,839
French breeder reactors use far more of the total energy available in a mixed oxide fuel than our own designs. Their reactor design can utilize many of the byproducts of uranium fission and can get away with less fuel reprocessing while using a greater fraction of the total available energy.
Nuclear based steam reformation to produce hydrogen or methanol (from coal and water) should be the way we power our vehicles and produce some of our electricity. Water heating and electricity should come from a combination of wind, solar (concentrators and photovoltaics), and possibly geothermal.
Of course, all of these are interim solutions for the day (probably sometime the week after I die) when we finally master controlled nuclear fusion. Sure that's just burning another finite resource, but I'll point out that the sun does the same thing. Plus, it doesn't seem like we're going to run out of hydrogen anytime soon.
Nuclear based steam reformation to produce hydrogen or methanol (from coal and water) should be the way we power our vehicles and produce some of our electricity. Water heating and electricity should come from a combination of wind, solar (concentrators and photovoltaics), and possibly geothermal.
Of course, all of these are interim solutions for the day (probably sometime the week after I die) when we finally master controlled nuclear fusion. Sure that's just burning another finite resource, but I'll point out that the sun does the same thing. Plus, it doesn't seem like we're going to run out of hydrogen anytime soon.
Nasty_Savage
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2001
- Messages
- 37,851
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,542
Umm "vitrified" means mixed with molten glass and cooled. It's a solid chunk of glass. Derail all you want, just pick it back up and keep going.
The storage containers they are using now are completely safe, more indestructible than an M1 tank. I have ZERO concern.
We have INFINITE storage space.... just DIG DEEPER.
Try not to forget, the earths CORE is a giant nuclear reactor. The reason it is moltan rock is that an enormous amount of uranium is busy fissioning its ass off.... and has been for 3.5 BILLION YEARS.
The fear mongering around "nukular" shit is pathetic. I love the mainstream press reporting.... they speak of Depleted uranium as a "radioactive" hazard, etc, etc. It isn't radioactive... THAT is why its called DEPLETED. It is no more dangerous than LEAD or other heavy metals. Dangerous but not psychotic insane dangerous like the press and others with ulterior motives like to depict it as.
For the rest of the byproducts, just seal it up and bury it in safe places.... like Yucca. The best place would be central Australia, there are parts of the outback that are so old and unaltered they have the original surface of the earth still standing.... 3+ BILLION years old. That proves pretty serious stability over time, likely not to change for another 3 BILLION years. Desolate, uninhabitable, sounds perfect.
Again, the most critical element is reactor designs that DO NOT produce large amounts of radioactive waste. Build in the ability to filter/clean all the water used so you dont end up with pools of contaminated crap you need to get stored.... instead build the system in the firstplace to deal with all the excess.
The storage containers they are using now are completely safe, more indestructible than an M1 tank. I have ZERO concern.
We have INFINITE storage space.... just DIG DEEPER.
Try not to forget, the earths CORE is a giant nuclear reactor. The reason it is moltan rock is that an enormous amount of uranium is busy fissioning its ass off.... and has been for 3.5 BILLION YEARS.
The fear mongering around "nukular" shit is pathetic. I love the mainstream press reporting.... they speak of Depleted uranium as a "radioactive" hazard, etc, etc. It isn't radioactive... THAT is why its called DEPLETED. It is no more dangerous than LEAD or other heavy metals. Dangerous but not psychotic insane dangerous like the press and others with ulterior motives like to depict it as.
For the rest of the byproducts, just seal it up and bury it in safe places.... like Yucca. The best place would be central Australia, there are parts of the outback that are so old and unaltered they have the original surface of the earth still standing.... 3+ BILLION years old. That proves pretty serious stability over time, likely not to change for another 3 BILLION years. Desolate, uninhabitable, sounds perfect.
Again, the most critical element is reactor designs that DO NOT produce large amounts of radioactive waste. Build in the ability to filter/clean all the water used so you dont end up with pools of contaminated crap you need to get stored.... instead build the system in the firstplace to deal with all the excess.
Nasty_Savage
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2001
- Messages
- 37,851
Considering its the present owners that count...the 'yellow journalism' comment still stands.
As I recall the public was assured the Three Mile Island reactor was safe as well. . .
First off, since the earth itself is not infinite, we by definition do not have infinite space.
When you further reduce that available space based on the material you're digging in (not much good to store the stuff in a sand pit) or the capability to dig there (ok, YOU go dig a cavern at the bottom of the ocean), or based on area population (hint: Chicago is not going to let you dig a tunnel under the city and dump plutonium there), or geopolitical boundaries (no, Germany will not let the US store nuclear waste in their country), and you'll find that we actually don't have all that much space to store it.
That of course explains why nuclear waste from the Prarie Island plant in Minnesota was placed in barrels on a pad near the plant for so many years.
First, no it isn't. It's a solid hunk of iron and possibly nickel. You are probably referring to the mantle. And the idea that it's a nuclear reactor is just a theory at this point, and one which has quite a bit of controversy surrounding it.
And how would you suggest we dig down to the core whether it's nuclear or not? The temps and pressure down there would destroy anything we tried to dig with.
Oh, I see what you seem to be saying - -because the earth's been nuclear at its core for 3.5 billion years and no one's gotten radiation poisoning from it, nuclear power must be safe? Kinda breaks down when you think about it doesn't it? I mean, I have a bottle of bleach sitting under my kitchen sink, and it hasn't poisoned me yet while sitting in the bottle, but that doesn't mean it's safe for me to drink it.
I agree with you that many reporters get it wrong when they're talking about nuclear issues - - -but then they get it wrong when they're talking about anything that has to do with science. People in general do not understand science or scientific concepts. However, just because someone who lacks understanding says something is dangerous, does not mean it is automatically not dangerous.
There is absolutely no question that nuclear power is dangerous. If it was safe, we wouldn't have all the crazy safeguards in place that we have. The goal we must set for ourselves is to make sure that danger is managed and minimized, not just during the energy extraction process, but also in the long term storage.
A few months ago it got out that officials were trying to figure out how to mark nuclear waste as dangerous to a non-human society - - they figured it's possible that in 100,000 years we might not be here, and we'd better warn whoever is that we put something really nasty in the ground. Any time you have to do that kind of planning that far out, you're dealing with something that should and must not be taken lightly. I'm not saying don't use nuclear - I'm saying don't use nuclear until we've figured out a safe way to deal with the waste.
Let's do a thought experiment here - -- what if an earthquake hits? Can the containers hold up under millions of tons of rock slamming down on them? I doubt it myself. And before you protest that there's no fault line there, other places on earth experience no-fault-line earthquakes. We're not sure why, but we know that they happen. Some places that have never had an earthquake in all of recorded and deciphered history suddenly have an earthquake.
Maybe, but I wouldn't want to be on the American diplomatic team that tries to convince Australia to store our crap for us.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,553
It was safe. It contained the fuel like it was supposed to. Pressure had to be vented and it was. From the immediate surrounding area of the vented gas, less radiation was exposed than a medial chest x-ray.
This is very close-minded mentality. I'm guessing you have very little experience around radioactive materials and radioactive waste, so you don't know much about it. It doesn't need to be stored under thousands of feet of water or hundreds of miles from people. 20 feet of water insulates uranium that came straight out of a reactor still glowing purple from harming a human with less than 1mrem/h.
The NRC now regulates all forms of any operation in a nuclear plant. Prairie Island still has on site storage, as well as pretty much every nuke plant in the country. Its nothing new and nuclear safety at plants is more prominant than you can imagine. The temp storage is filling up, Yucca Mountain needs to be opened.
LOL, I find this paragraph humorous. Please, let us know why it is 'dangerous'. What aspects of it are dangerous? Have you even been inside a nuclear plant in your life? I really want to see what you come up with, this should be good.
If nuclear waste is properly stored, it poses not a single threat to society. What do you envision nuclear waste is and what it does? Do you imagine it as a slurry that seeps into your drinking water? rofl.
Nuclear sites are chosen because of their geological location least prone to disaster. But wait, what does it matter even if an earthquake crushed and sealed nuclear waste inside of a mountain? Nobody could get anywhere near it to even have any sort of exposure.
The best place to store the waste is right in our own country. This ensures the security of the containment, plus we can re-use the spent fuel in the future. It still has tons of potential energy left in it. From one pellet of spent fuel the size of a pencil eraser, you could power your home for a couple dozen years.
really it comes down to just one thing - politics.
in a democracy the politicians listen to the majority of the population, in Germany all nuclear will be gone by 2020. it only takes a tv documentary on Chernobyl,- with 5 legged dogs & two headed frogs - to turn the public anti nuclear.
ask anyone if they want to live next to a wind farm, or a nuclear plant & there are no prizes for guessing what they'll choose.
zero point you forming rational arguments, people have their minds made up. helium airships anyone?
fusion, people are yet to form opinions, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4627237.stm
in a democracy the politicians listen to the majority of the population, in Germany all nuclear will be gone by 2020. it only takes a tv documentary on Chernobyl,- with 5 legged dogs & two headed frogs - to turn the public anti nuclear.
ask anyone if they want to live next to a wind farm, or a nuclear plant & there are no prizes for guessing what they'll choose.
zero point you forming rational arguments, people have their minds made up. helium airships anyone?
fusion, people are yet to form opinions, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4627237.stm
If it was safe, there wouldn't have been a near-miss.
I know it doesn't need to be stored under the ocean - i'm saying that your claim of infinite space is further whittled away by the fact that it is anywhere from impractical to impossible to store it there.
And you apparently don't have much experience with political matters. Sure, mayb eit's safe to store it close to people, but do you seriously think the people will go for that? There's a reason you buy picowaved food instead of irradiated food - because if people thought you were irradiating it they wouldn't get near it. Whether it's safe or not, people's perception of its safety is all that matters. If the people tell their local government not to allow a nuclear waste pit next to the elementary school, then it's not gonna happen.
Again, safe or not, it's still a political issue - - if Yucca mountain is safe, that's one thing, but if you can't convince Joe Public of that, then you still have a problem of where to store this stuff. It's not responsible to charge ahead generating more of it until you know for sure what you're going to do with it.
Yes, several times. You? I think you and I have two different definitions of dangerous. Nuclear material is dangerous. If it wasn't we wouldn't have to shield ourselves from it. It may be rendered safe provided you contain it properly, and provided that containment does not fail, but the material itself is still dangerous. If you're seriously trying to convince us that nuclear material is inert, you're barking up the wrong forum.
I really want to see what you come up with, this should be good.
Did that work for ya?
No, I imagine it as something that, as you said, if it's properly stored is pretty much safe. But then we're relying on people to properly store it. People can be incompetent. People can be greedy. If there's a way to maximize profits, they'll take it, even if its illegal, as long as they figure they can get away with it.
There's a toxic waste dump in Colorado that's sickened and killed people for decades. It's there because the companies that dumped the waste did so illegally, and without regard for public safety, but it saved them the cost of properly disposing of it. Who's to say the nuclear plants won't do the same thing?
The federal government oversees meat production too, but just about every piece of raw chicken in the supermarket has salmonella on it. Federal oversight doesn't really count for much in my book.
Then Prarie Island is pretty damn stupid considering the number of tornadoes that hit Minnesota every year. . . .
Depends entirely on how deep it was buried, and what exactly the waste is composed of.
You just told us that the best place is in Australia. Which is it?
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,553
Chernobyl was a positive void coefficient reactor, poorly maintained, and the workers were not trained in any scenarios. Sadly, the media still reports nuclear plants like they are all of this type, which is completely opposite the case. "modern" nuclear plants are not of this design and will not "explode" like Chernobyl. They are negative void coefficient reactors and will not explode or suffer a catastrophic meltdown even with control rods fully inserted and no core flow. There are also dozens of backup safety system in place, both manual and automatic.
I'd rather have a nuclear plant in my back yard than windfarms, and I actually do (and work there). Another nuclear plant on the same site is going to be built in a few years as well. I'd gladly take a nuclear plant over a hideous array of windmills which it would take dozens upon dozens to produce as much power as one nuclear plant, if they were lucky to get enough wind, and lucky enough to get all the space to build dozens.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,553
That's the point, there was no "near-miss". The histerical media played it up to be. It was a normal scenario that comes up that the operators were not trained properly for. As a result, the NRC has manditory training for hundreds of different events that you couldn't even dream up. Operators are required to have a shitload of training in a replica control room before even touching anything in the plant control room.
I never made an 'infinite' claim.. what are you talking about?
Of course you need to store waste away from people, but it is safe in nature. The sun gives you more radiation than spent fuel contact on a yearly assessment. Hmm.. but I wonder whom the public's view on nuclear power is responsible? It looks like you fell trap to the media as well.
Its actually made out to be a political issue by hippie "environmentalists" and liberals. It should be a scientific issue, not political. But now that Greenpeace has accepted nuclear power, the hippies are somewhat confused.
Of course if you don't take the proper precautions with anything it can be harmful. You have to know how to treat each different chemical or material with respect. It is no dangerous as anything else.
no.Did that work for ya?
Obviously. The NRC oversees anything to do with nuclear materials in the corperate and private sector. Nobody gets away with anything. If you haven't witnessed it first hand, you won't understand and think its just like any other gov't branch. You are incorrect.
See above. Regulations by the NRC prohibit it. This is fricking hilarious you even brought it up. Your knowledge on the subject is so miniscule, you are making a fool of yourself.
Of course, nobody trusts the government 100%. I wouldn't be surprised if you were anarchist. There are thousands like you.
Tornadoes and hurricanes don't effect a nuclear plant. They are specifically built to withstand them. They also have their own weather centers which warn of any threatening weather and if a tornado or hurricane comes near, the plant goes into a lower mode or shutdown phase. Any outer objects around the plant, especially if there are fuel kasks, those are meant to withstand it as well.
We know exactly the strenghts of radiation emitted by spent fuel. It is measurable by scientific instruments. Just a few feet of solid concrete and lead/steel shields the most potent active uranium inside a reactor.
I think you think I am someone else... re-evaluate the past posts.
That ain't safe man. . .
Glad to hear it. Now prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the materials and systems in all future nuclear power plants will be of the highest quality, and that there will be no skimping on design or materials in the name of greater profits, and you might have something. . .
Sorry - looked again and it was another poster.
It doesn't matter who's responsible for the public view. The fact remains that it exists. And until you figure out how to change that, you're gonna be spinning your wheels as far as storing it.
Hippies have nothing to do with it. It IS a political issue. Everything that involves putting anything anywhere is a political issue. Figuring out whether to build and where to place a water tower is a political issue. You can't just run out and build a nuclear waste facility on a whim. You need the approval of various governments, and it is therefore a political issue.
I agree that if you treat it with respect that it can be rendered fairly safe. However you are once again failing to take human nature into the equation. Many ideas look great on paper but fail utterly because the paper failed to take human nature into account. Humans are by and large lazy individuals who will do as little as possible to achieve their goals. Until you address that fact regarding the issue of nuclear safety, you can never say that it will always be safe. You can have the best materials, systems, and procedures possible, but if people don't follow them, you're still screwed.
No, I'm not. Used to be people said that about the meat inspectors. Then Reagan came along. Things happen. Politicians looking to trim budgets love to go after regulatory agencies. What makes this especially troublesome here is that once you start a nuc plant, you can't just shut it down when the regulatory agencies start falling down on the job. The radiation is still there, it still needs to be contained, and the company that's running the plant might not be interested in doing that if the agency isn't making them.
No, read, really really carefully, and you might get this. EPA regulations prohibit the toxic waste dump. It's there anyway. According to your argument that's impossible, but this isn't Sesame Street. In the real world, real companies sometimes do things that are illegal.
Where the hell did that come from? Seems to me you can't take the heat of any criticism of your beloved industry.
And the world trade center was built to withstand a jetliner crashing into the tower.
I would LOVE to see the nuclear plant that can survive a strong EF5 tornado. Anything sticking up in one of those things gets destroyed. I don't think you'll be able to provide me with evidence that any manmade structure can without a doubt survive a 250+ mph tornado.
Does a lot of good when the tornado picks up the uranium and flings it into the next county doesn't it.
You mean like the drums full of nuclear waste that's stored at the Prarie Island facility? And how exactly are those tornado proof?
True. Apologies again.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,553
lol, this is getting so rediculous, I'm not even going to respond. Someone else can pick you to pieces. When you learn/know how a nuclear plant operates and the safety procautions and build codes, come back with a debate instead of incoherent hear-say. Uranium in kasks being tossed into the next county? ROFL. Seriously..
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,553
Oh, wait wait.. LOL, I'm sorry, I just have to comment on this one.
Hollywood strikes again! ahahah.
I seriously cannot comment on building specs. It is not for public knowledge.
Making smartassed remarks isn't going to help you win an argument. You're trying to convince us that nuclear power generation is 100% safe, will always be 100% safe, and there is no chance of anything remotely bad happening. We who live in the real world understand that idea is bullshit. Nothing is 100% safe. Nothing has a 0% chance of failure. Nothing. At all. Ever.
And in all this you have still failed to address the political aspect. Whether a tornado can destroy a nuclear reactor or not (and I'll tell you right now, it can - I've chased for years and have seen plenty of "tornado proof" structures wiped out), it only matters that people in the public might think one can. If the people don't think it's safe, you're not going to get your way, and acting the asshole posting up stupid hollywood movies and trying to insinuate that they are where I get my arguments from is not going to change that mindset.
And in all this you have still failed to address the political aspect. Whether a tornado can destroy a nuclear reactor or not (and I'll tell you right now, it can - I've chased for years and have seen plenty of "tornado proof" structures wiped out), it only matters that people in the public might think one can. If the people don't think it's safe, you're not going to get your way, and acting the asshole posting up stupid hollywood movies and trying to insinuate that they are where I get my arguments from is not going to change that mindset.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,553
Of course nothing is 100% safe. I'm saying nuclear power is the safest form of mass generation of power to date. Of course skeptics and media only need one blip on the radar to call a sailboat an attack warship as well.
I cannot comment on building codes, I have already said that. The plants are built to withstand tornadoes and hurricanes. That is all I can say obviously. I'm sorry about the hollywood movie, but that feels like the level of intelligence I'm dealing with. Just look back at your comments and assumptions, they are utterly rediculous.
nuclear needs re-branding, before you even try to sell the argument.
A long time ago I worked at an NMR - yes Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, company. Would you go into hospital & get a scan with one of those things? maybe? maybe not?
Thats why they rebranded them to MRI - same damn thing, different letters.
A long time ago I worked at an NMR - yes Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, company. Would you go into hospital & get a scan with one of those things? maybe? maybe not?
Thats why they rebranded them to MRI - same damn thing, different letters.
What I'd personally love to see is the US build a small array of plants just to power the whole US and then we wouldn't have to worry about burning coal, oil and the other fossils fuels just to power our houses or cars. Be nice not to have to worry about the atmosphere as much and on the plus side the new plant designs reduce the plants size of around 70% (Rough estimate) so that we don't need to use so much space. And then by the time that we find a truly renewable energy source the spent uranium (plutonium, whatever. If anyone knows of a good guide to Nukes then post it please.) will depleted and we'll have the array of Hydrogen Power Plants to worry about. (The HPP's are a reference from SC4 ) NUKES YIMBY!
(Yes In My Back Yard!)
) NUKES YIMBY!(Yes In My Back Yard!)
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,553
Shit, I wouldn't mind having one in my basement to power my house or a micro nuke plant powering my car. Nuclear subs are good for 30+ years of operation without a refuel. But then again, independent personal use of uranium is shunned upon, especially in the days of modern terrorism.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,553
OK, I'll go with you on that one - but only if you explain to me how wind turbines are more dangerous than a nuclear reactor
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,553
They simply aren't more dangerous if you put it in general terms. But, wind turbines aren't a form of mass power production to meet the US economy's growing power demand. Wind doesn't always blow, and most the wind turbines today are less than a megawatt. GE just released a 1.5 megawatt turbine in 2004, but its huge and of course relies upon wind to produce power. You would need an array of 1000 of them to produce as much power as one single reactor nuclear plant, but your yearly output from the wind power would be dramatically less unless the wind blew 24/7/365.
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,542
Ummm... did anyone see the news? Seems in the middle of an F5 in Kansas, the plain jane cement GRAIN SILO at the feed plant held up just fine against a 1.5 MILE WIDE F5 monster.
No tornado could ever take out a nuclear containment, they were design to withstand a direct hit from a speeding airliner, and an indirect hit from a russian nuke. Yes the rest of the plant will get FK'd up, but the reactor containment is not at risk. In fact most of the plant can be built UNDERGROUND for safety and weather reasons, with just the transmission lines, containment and water towers above ground.
By using less-enriched fuel, we dont run the risk that our basement baby-nuke plants could be used for badness. To get from that to bombgrade requires the same effort as ore to bombgrade, its not a shortcut.
Maybe someday we'll have MrFusion at home
No tornado could ever take out a nuclear containment, they were design to withstand a direct hit from a speeding airliner, and an indirect hit from a russian nuke. Yes the rest of the plant will get FK'd up, but the reactor containment is not at risk. In fact most of the plant can be built UNDERGROUND for safety and weather reasons, with just the transmission lines, containment and water towers above ground.
By using less-enriched fuel, we dont run the risk that our basement baby-nuke plants could be used for badness. To get from that to bombgrade requires the same effort as ore to bombgrade, its not a shortcut.
Maybe someday we'll have MrFusion at home
Ummm... did anyone see the news? Seems in the middle of an F5 in Kansas, the plain jane cement GRAIN SILO at the feed plant held up just fine against a 1.5 MILE WIDE F5 monster.
No tornado could ever take out a nuclear containment, they were design to withstand a direct hit from a speeding airliner, and an indirect hit from a russian nuke. Yes the rest of the plant will get FK'd up, but the reactor containment is not at risk. In fact most of the plant can be built UNDERGROUND for safety and weather reasons, with just the transmission lines, containment and water towers above ground.
By using less-enriched fuel, we dont run the risk that our basement baby-nuke plants could be used for badness. To get from that to bombgrade requires the same effort as ore to bombgrade, its not a shortcut.
Maybe someday we'll have MrFusion at home
The actual reactor itself is underground the only thing above ground is the Administration tower, the cooling towers, and the other essential buildings. So the reactor is quite safe actually.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,553
Not all plants are setup like that though. At our plant, the undervessel and drywell is in the sub-basement, then the rest of the reactor stems all the way from the basement to in between the 4th and 5th level. The top 2-3 levels of course are for the water and the cap that goes on top of the reactor.
I've only read the new plant specs so I'm not the most knowledgeable person here but we must all understand that that is reinforced concrete walls not drywall and wood here.
Now if you could give me those building plans, yes?
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,553
Neg.
Neg.
Quick question for ya...
What the hell happened at Chernobyl exactly and how long till the radiation will disperse? And was their an explosion or am I just playing too much STALKER?
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,553
I'm no expert on Chernobyl, but you can get plenty of factual information on what happened.
As far as I understand it, there was a steam pipe rupture which resulted in the reactor needing to be scramed. The safety systems in place were not adequate to handle the makeup water loss. Control rods were fully inserted during the scram, but an inexperienced operator had withdrawn control rods earlier that caused in increase in reactor power as I understand it. Since it was a positive void coefficient reactor, the prior power level increase caused a buildup of steam in coolant lines which added more and more pressure to the reactor. On top of this, it had a poor rod design where the control rods got stuck because the fuel rods fragmented and got in the way. It pretty much went out of control due to improper training and poor design, then it blew up. It blew because of steam pressure building up, not because of some 'nuclear explosion' like some people believe.
I don't know how long the area will be radioactive, but there are all sorts of different half-lives for the different radiological materials disbursed in the area. I wouldn't live in the general vicinity of it though.
As far as I understand it, there was a steam pipe rupture which resulted in the reactor needing to be scramed. The safety systems in place were not adequate to handle the makeup water loss. Control rods were fully inserted during the scram, but an inexperienced operator had withdrawn control rods earlier that caused in increase in reactor power as I understand it. Since it was a positive void coefficient reactor, the prior power level increase caused a buildup of steam in coolant lines which added more and more pressure to the reactor. On top of this, it had a poor rod design where the control rods got stuck because the fuel rods fragmented and got in the way. It pretty much went out of control due to improper training and poor design, then it blew up. It blew because of steam pressure building up, not because of some 'nuclear explosion' like some people believe.
I don't know how long the area will be radioactive, but there are all sorts of different half-lives for the different radiological materials disbursed in the area. I wouldn't live in the general vicinity of it though.
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,542
More issues.
The ONLY problems we have with nuclear power are the PRIVATE for profit sector building them. The moment you bring the cost/profit issue into the equation, safety and redundancy gets short changed.
The only way to make this work out on a large scale 100% safely is to have the finest minds working under the govt (HONEST Govt, not faithbased republican bullshit govt) do the DESIGN and spec it all out. Then with that as the ONLY LEGAL design, let the private utility companies build the plants and be watched like hawks in the doing. You take a shortcut, fudge the welds, whatever.... summary execution.
The Navy's success comes form a fantastic design overseen by Rickover who was a perfectionist and a zealot for safety and reliability. I have total confidence in the Navy designs and have no qualms about nuclear ships being in my harbor.
Ditto our fusion warheads, flawless safe design that will only go BANG when they approach BinLaden's head.
On Chernobyl.... TOTALLY different and INSANE design that we used and discarded in 3 years flat. Only the research reactor and the initial nuke material for the first 3 bombs came from that design.
The Russians stole the design and ran with it (as well as the original bomb designs) and never bothered to realize OMFG this is DANGEROUS.
The Graphite reactor is an accident waiting to happen. As it is, the FIRST CHERNOBYL almost happened here.... Enrico Fermi almost BLEW UP CHICAGO!!!
We went to water cooled almost immeditely thanks to the near catastrophy... can you imagine how bad Enrico pissed himself when he realized how close they came to BANG.
There are still a BUNCH of those reactors in the former soviet union. We really need to help them replace them with proper designs.... before we all GLOW.
As for storing the crap, what is the big deal. Yucca has plenty of room now AND if we ned more, fire up some tunnel boring machines and MAKE MORE ROOM. Yeah the CRUST is 8-10 miles thick.... plenty of space to store all our waste, there is only about 4 footbal stadiums full of material so far to be stored, we aren't talking about needing to FILL TEXAS. If Yucca gets too crowded, we can find another mountain to bury more under.
Or have the tunnel boring machines go DOWN and turn left and hollow out some caverns UNDER THE PACIFIC, stuff the crap in there and quit worrying.
We are AMERICANS there is NO technical problem we cannot over come.
The ONLY problems we have with nuclear power are the PRIVATE for profit sector building them. The moment you bring the cost/profit issue into the equation, safety and redundancy gets short changed.
The only way to make this work out on a large scale 100% safely is to have the finest minds working under the govt (HONEST Govt, not faithbased republican bullshit govt) do the DESIGN and spec it all out. Then with that as the ONLY LEGAL design, let the private utility companies build the plants and be watched like hawks in the doing. You take a shortcut, fudge the welds, whatever.... summary execution.
The Navy's success comes form a fantastic design overseen by Rickover who was a perfectionist and a zealot for safety and reliability. I have total confidence in the Navy designs and have no qualms about nuclear ships being in my harbor.
Ditto our fusion warheads, flawless safe design that will only go BANG when they approach BinLaden's head.
On Chernobyl.... TOTALLY different and INSANE design that we used and discarded in 3 years flat. Only the research reactor and the initial nuke material for the first 3 bombs came from that design.
The Russians stole the design and ran with it (as well as the original bomb designs) and never bothered to realize OMFG this is DANGEROUS.
The Graphite reactor is an accident waiting to happen. As it is, the FIRST CHERNOBYL almost happened here.... Enrico Fermi almost BLEW UP CHICAGO!!!
We went to water cooled almost immeditely thanks to the near catastrophy... can you imagine how bad Enrico pissed himself when he realized how close they came to BANG.
There are still a BUNCH of those reactors in the former soviet union. We really need to help them replace them with proper designs.... before we all GLOW.
As for storing the crap, what is the big deal. Yucca has plenty of room now AND if we ned more, fire up some tunnel boring machines and MAKE MORE ROOM. Yeah the CRUST is 8-10 miles thick.... plenty of space to store all our waste, there is only about 4 footbal stadiums full of material so far to be stored, we aren't talking about needing to FILL TEXAS. If Yucca gets too crowded, we can find another mountain to bury more under.
Or have the tunnel boring machines go DOWN and turn left and hollow out some caverns UNDER THE PACIFIC, stuff the crap in there and quit worrying.
We are AMERICANS there is NO technical problem we cannot over come.