airdvr 210 #1 March 14, 2011 In light of the events in Japan should we continue towards more use of nuke reactors?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #2 March 14, 2011 Don't build them near any major fault lines and you should be fine. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #3 March 14, 2011 We don't really have a choice. In the not too distant future, nuke power or less.......It is hard for me to understand that plants in Japan survived the quake only to have normal and emergency power systems flooded by the oceans after affect. All these brilliant engineers need to think a little more. Not much different than the Texas Medical Center. After Allison, mechanical rooms are 3 or 4 levels about the street to ensure more protection from floods and whatever else might happen...... "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #4 March 14, 2011 I heard that the problem was the lack of electrical power to run the cooling pumps.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #5 March 14, 2011 QuoteI heard that the problem was the lack of electrical power to run the cooling pumps. I would think that a nuke plant would have an emergency generator and an ample supply of fuel for it, and not be dependent upon an outside power supply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #6 March 14, 2011 The tsunami wiped those out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #7 March 14, 2011 The events in Japan will have totally unwarrated negative consequences. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #8 March 14, 2011 Don't see how it can be made "safer". It isn't called "The Devil's Fuel" for nothing. And no matter what happens, we'll leave a great steaming pile of nuclear waste for future generations to deal with. This is both shortsighted and utterly foolish. No thanks. Stop now, I say. It's simply that the establishment do not want anyone to have their own independent sources of energy, e.g., biofuels. That's why all the impediments are in place. Power has to be concentrated in the hands of the few, the wealthy, the wise. Once all the oil runs out, the establishment will surely find another means of keeping all the chips to themselves. Nukes are the ultimate expression of this: power, control, and concentration in the hands of the wealthy few, and to hell with everyone else. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #9 March 14, 2011 FUSION is the power source of the future. Always will be.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 March 14, 2011 Quote FUSION is the power source of the future. Always will be. Does that mean you think fusion will always be just beyond our grasp? quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #11 March 14, 2011 >I would think that a nuke plant would have an emergency generator and >an ample supply of fuel for it, and not be dependent upon an outside >power supply. They do; they have diesel generators. They were destroyed by the tsunami. They ran on battery power for a while, but that ran out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #12 March 14, 2011 Quote>I would think that a nuke plant would have an emergency generator and >an ample supply of fuel for it, and not be dependent upon an outside >power supply. They do; they have diesel generators. They were destroyed by the tsunami. They ran on battery power for a while, but that ran out. Might be a dumb question, but.... they're already running steam turbines for power generation, right? Why not have a tap off that for their own cooling pumps?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gainer 0 #13 March 14, 2011 QuoteDon't see how it can be made "safer". It isn't called "The Devil's Fuel" for nothing. And no matter what happens, we'll leave a great steaming pile of nuclear waste for future generations to deal with. This is both shortsighted and utterly foolish. No thanks. Stop now, I say. It's simply that the establishment do not want anyone to have their own independent sources of energy, e.g., biofuels. That's why all the impediments are in place. Power has to be concentrated in the hands of the few, the wealthy, the wise. Once all the oil runs out, the establishment will surely find another means of keeping all the chips to themselves. Nukes are the ultimate expression of this: power, control, and concentration in the hands of the wealthy few, and to hell with everyone else. mh . Nuclear power is one of the only methods whereby other countries such as the African countries and small countries can have power and be semi-independent of other countries. I say semi-independent cause you still need the fuel. The main difference between between nuclear and oil is oil is concentrated in certain regions like the middle east. Uranium is very widely available and cheap, the new fuel thorium even more. A great example is China, they have no natural Uranium but plenty of Thoriun. And Thorium is cleaner and you cannot make a bomb with Thorium's product U-233. As to make it safer, I am currently studying High temperature reactors and these cannot explode like Japan's reactors nor can the core melt. It is a long explanation but shortly all decay heat is removed by natural means, eg the outside temperature and the design of the reactor itself. As for the piles of nuclear waste if we take all of the US's nuclear waste we will fill a rugby pitch 3m high. now lets exaggerate and say the world has 3 times as much, that is still only 9 m, and this is without reprocessing. Cut that by an average of 10% and I am still being conservative that is under 1m. 10% is the fission products the rest is depleted, useless uranium, for now. The major fears for nuclear in very wrong, kinda like peoples perception of skydiving, they all perceive skydiving as highly dangerous and we are all on some sort of suicide mission but we are not. Two last things, from 1969 to 2000 there has been 1119 incidents where more than 5 people have died in the fuel cycle in a coal fired plant, nuclear only has 1, Chernobyl, nobody died in Three mile island and no radiation came out. In Japan so far only 2 people have died that we know of so for nuclear to present day it is still 1. secondly as for alternative means of electricity generation, Wind is twice as expensive as nuclear and solar is upwards of 19 times more expensive for baseload power, oh and we cannot guarantee that you will have power. Now tell a politician that should be in his campaign. As for Japan, the reactors are still standing after a direct hit from the Tsunami, what caused the explosions, no idea, but the fact that that they have contained if for so long already with no power, I think they deserve a round of applause. And if anybody want the facts that I have mentioned above drop me a mail and i will send them to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #14 March 14, 2011 QuoteChernobyl, nobody died in It was a good post until I got to that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disasterPlease don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #15 March 14, 2011 You missed the comma. He said nobady died at Three Mile Island. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gainer 0 #16 March 14, 2011 correct, nobody died in TMI, about 50 people died in Chernobyl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #17 March 14, 2011 Quotecorrect, nobody died in TMI, about 50 people died in Chernobyl Unfortunately, that's not the whole story ... Now many folks died BECAUSE of the Chernobyl incident (probably impossible to tell) (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #18 March 14, 2011 Depends on who you ask. Not including defects in children and cancers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vanair 0 #19 March 14, 2011 one of which was a very brave chopper pilot. keep flying and dumping load after load of cement on it, to encase it. Knowing that this will kill him. And id did within days. I'm sure he can be googled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #20 March 14, 2011 QuoteYou missed the comma. He said nobady died at Three Mile Island. Correct. my bad.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hokierower 0 #21 March 14, 2011 Quote Quote Don't see how it can be made "safer". It isn't called "The Devil's Fuel" for nothing. And no matter what happens, we'll leave a great steaming pile of nuclear waste for future generations to deal with. If you believe this then you have done little to no research. The amount of waste is greatly exaggerated by NIMBY and Tree-Hugger asshats who want to live in the 21st century but don't want to use any of the technology to do it. The majority of spent nuclear fuel can be used in designs which will recycle it This is both shortsighted and utterly foolish. No thanks. Stop now, I say. And using oil is even more so. It says you're from the UAE, you should know that oil resources are not unlimited and it is shortsighted to rely on it for the future. Should we stop using it? It's simply that the establishment do not want anyone to have their own independent sources of energy, e.g., biofuels. That's why all the impediments are in place. Power has to be concentrated in the hands of the few, the wealthy, the wise. Yep, always the man's fault. Once all the oil runs out, the establishment will surely find another means of keeping all the chips to themselves. Nukes are the ultimate expression of this: power, control, and concentration in the hands of the wealthy few, and to hell with everyone else. Please do research before you type. Pulling shit out of your a$$ and hoping it turns into a rabbit only works until someone calls you out on it (see below) Nuclear power is one of the only methods whereby other countries such as the African countries and small countries can have power and be semi-independent of other countries. I say semi-independent cause you still need the fuel. The main difference between between nuclear and oil is oil is concentrated in certain regions like the middle east. Uranium is very widely available and cheap, the new fuel thorium even more. A great example is China, they have no natural Uranium but plenty of Thoriun. And Thorium is cleaner and you cannot make a bomb with Thorium's product U-233. True. And if we ever get to the stage where small units can be created and then sealed and transported it would be a great source of power for developing nations. As to make it safer, I am currently studying High temperature reactors and these cannot explode like Japan's reactors nor can the core melt. It is a long explanation but shortly all decay heat is removed by natural means, eg the outside temperature and the design of the reactor itself. As for the piles of nuclear waste if we take all of the US's nuclear waste we will fill a rugby pitch 3m high. now lets exaggerate and say the world has 3 times as much, that is still only 9 m, and this is without reprocessing. Cut that by an average of 10% and I am still being conservative that is under 1m. 10% is the fission products the rest is depleted, useless uranium, for now. NO WAY!!! You cut that out right now. No hard numbers are allowed in this discussion! If you really want to talk waste we can . Look at the Dec 22, 2008 coal ash spill at the TVA Kingston plant. 1 billion tons of material spilled out covering about 300 acres with toxic waste. I guess we should tear down all the coal plants now . The major fears for nuclear in very wrong, kinda like peoples perception of skydiving, they all perceive skydiving as highly dangerous and we are all on some sort of suicide mission but we are not. Two last things, from 1969 to 2000 there has been 1119 incidents where more than 5 people have died in the fuel cycle in a coal fired plant, nuclear only has 1, Chernobyl, nobody died in Three mile island and no radiation came out. In Japan so far only 2 people have died that we know of so for nuclear to present day it is still 1. secondly as for alternative means of electricity generation, Wind is twice as expensive as nuclear and solar is upwards of 19 times more expensive for baseload power, oh and we cannot guarantee that you will have power. Now tell a politician that should be in his campaign. But, but, but, what if...you know, yea, that thing happened? Then we'd really be up shit creek. As far as generation cost, subsidize it all baby!!! Who cares if it's less efficient? As for Japan, the reactors are still standing after a direct hit from the Tsunami, what caused the explosions, no idea, but the fact that that they have contained if for so long already with no power, I think they deserve a round of applause. Golf clap And if anybody want the facts that I have mentioned above drop me a mail and i will send them to you. Thank you. A very well thought out response to a fear mongering and ignorant OP. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #22 March 14, 2011 Quote Quote FUSION is the power source of the future. Always will be. Does that mean you think fusion will always be just beyond our grasp? What do you think solar is? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hokierower 0 #23 March 14, 2011 Quote Quote Quote FUSION is the power source of the future. Always will be. Does that mean you think fusion will always be just beyond our grasp? What do you think solar is? Commercially it is a waste of money. Instead of installing panels in massive quantities to provide power for the grid thereby further loading it, the subsidies should be cut from the commercial side and made available to homeowners in an effort to reduce the load on the grid. While some places won't be able to do this because of the weather, you probably won't find a solar farm there anyways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #24 March 14, 2011 Quotethe subsidies should be cut from the commercial side and made available to homeowners in an effort to reduce the load on the grid. the hell with subsidies - delete them altogether force the solar panel companies to improve the technology so they can fairly compete in the market with product affordable without robbing Peter to assist Paul in purchasing these things this just delays the introduction of affordable solar panels - why make them cheaper when the government can artificially jack up the price? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #25 March 14, 2011 Quote Quote Quote FUSION is the power source of the future. Always will be. Does that mean you think fusion will always be just beyond our grasp? What do you think solar is? I think omnidirectional light radiation is a very inefficient way to deliver the power of a fusion reaction. I suppose it does have some benefit considering the power plant is about 93 million miles away and a copper connection to it would simply be impractical. Further, it's difficult to monetize since it's delivered for free. I mean, how the hell will corporate governments keep their people in line if power is just given away? This was the central issue preventing Tesla's concept of power distribution from ever gaining traction. Also, I think solar is pretty dangerous. It keeps giving me cancer. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
