Welcome to Gaia! ::

Agreed, Thorium holds promise. And I find it entertaining to aid power generation with salt.
I definitely think nuclear power can electrify our future, but I think it should be avoided when possible. Even then, the guidelines and requirements for running such facilities should be very well monitored and they should be built to an extremely strict code. All risk factors should be taken into account.
For example, Japan.
By no means do I think that terrible disaster was their fault, but if you ask me, it may not have been the smartest idea to build a huge reactor next to the ocean in an area KNOWN for having earthquakes and therefore, tsunamis. Although, I don't know all of the details. Maybe they had nowhere else to build it. But even if that were the case, some sort of preemptive plan should have been in place. Something, ANYTHING. The thing with nuclear disasters is that when they happen, they aren't a regional problem. They're a GLOBAL problem. Fallout and radiation can travel many thousands of miles. If you're going to build a nuclear plant, take into account all the possible events that could happen and expect the worst. Not just for your sake, but the world's sake too.
Other than that, nuclear power is a very powerful and promising source of energy. I myself live a few miles away from Fermi, a plant south of Detroit that supplies about 1/4 of our power. The other 75% comes from a gigantic oil burning plant. talk2hand
I remember reading that one of the reactors almost failed catastrophically though! Something went wrong, and they tried to control it, but it got out of hand. So, they just turned on the sirens, and evacuated. For some reason though, it just stopped. They didn't want to take chances, so they entombed it in concrete and just built a new reactor. It's these types of events that should be planned for. You NEVER know exactly what could happen.
antifreeze1994
I definitely think nuclear power can electrify our future, but I think it should be avoided when possible. Even then, the guidelines and requirements for running such facilities should be very well monitored and they should be built to an extremely strict code. All risk factors should be taken into account.
For example, Japan.
By no means do I think that terrible disaster was their fault, but if you ask me, it may not have been the smartest idea to build a huge reactor next to the ocean in an area KNOWN for having earthquakes and therefore, tsunamis. Although, I don't know all of the details. Maybe they had nowhere else to build it. But even if that were the case, some sort of preemptive plan should have been in place. Something, ANYTHING. The thing with nuclear disasters is that when they happen, they aren't a regional problem. They're a GLOBAL problem. Fallout and radiation can travel many thousands of miles. If you're going to build a nuclear plant, take into account all the possible events that could happen and expect the worst. Not just for your sake, but the world's sake too.
Other than that, nuclear power is a very powerful and promising source of energy. I myself live a few miles away from Fermi, a plant south of Detroit that supplies about 1/4 of our power. The other 75% comes from a gigantic oil burning plant. talk2hand
I remember reading that one of the reactors almost failed catastrophically though! Something went wrong, and they tried to control it, but it got out of hand. So, they just turned on the sirens, and evacuated. For some reason though, it just stopped. They didn't want to take chances, so they entombed it in concrete and just built a new reactor. It's these types of events that should be planned for. You NEVER know exactly what could happen.
So, a few companies fail to update their reactors based on what we currently know, and you start freaking out and saying they should be avoided?
Realistically, they were safe. Most nuclear plants could take a 9.1 earthquake and a tsunami combination. They failed to update their systems with what we now know to be perfectly safe. Reactors are perfectly safe when done intelligently. You don't get incidents like Fukushima or Chernobyl, and we now know how to prevent incidents like TMI.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Thorium anyways.

We'd only need half a reactor to power the whole U.S., and we already use like tons of it (4 is all that's needed to power the U.S.) to clean up uranium waste every year.


So there in comes cheap stuff.

I mean it's a no brainer.
Skyburn
antifreeze1994
I definitely think nuclear power can electrify our future, but I think it should be avoided when possible. Even then, the guidelines and requirements for running such facilities should be very well monitored and they should be built to an extremely strict code. All risk factors should be taken into account.
For example, Japan.
By no means do I think that terrible disaster was their fault, but if you ask me, it may not have been the smartest idea to build a huge reactor next to the ocean in an area KNOWN for having earthquakes and therefore, tsunamis. Although, I don't know all of the details. Maybe they had nowhere else to build it. But even if that were the case, some sort of preemptive plan should have been in place. Something, ANYTHING. The thing with nuclear disasters is that when they happen, they aren't a regional problem. They're a GLOBAL problem. Fallout and radiation can travel many thousands of miles. If you're going to build a nuclear plant, take into account all the possible events that could happen and expect the worst. Not just for your sake, but the world's sake too.
Other than that, nuclear power is a very powerful and promising source of energy. I myself live a few miles away from Fermi, a plant south of Detroit that supplies about 1/4 of our power. The other 75% comes from a gigantic oil burning plant. talk2hand
I remember reading that one of the reactors almost failed catastrophically though! Something went wrong, and they tried to control it, but it got out of hand. So, they just turned on the sirens, and evacuated. For some reason though, it just stopped. They didn't want to take chances, so they entombed it in concrete and just built a new reactor. It's these types of events that should be planned for. You NEVER know exactly what could happen.
So, a few companies fail to update their reactors based on what we currently know, and you start freaking out and saying they should be avoided?
Realistically, they were safe. Most nuclear plants could take a 9.1 earthquake and a tsunami combination. They failed to update their systems with what we now know to be perfectly safe. Reactors are perfectly safe when done intelligently. You don't get incidents like Fukushima or Chernobyl, and we now know how to prevent incidents like TMI.

I never said they should be avoided because they aren't safe. I trust the nuclear reactor I live only a few miles away from, don't I? I said I think they should be avoided if possible. I.E, if you can build a hydroelectric plant to power the community instead of a nuclear plant, do it.
Also, I know that nuclear plants are built to be VERY sturdy, and can even survive catastrophic quakes.
But, tsunamis are something else; You can avoid tsunamis by simply building then away from the ocean. Why would you even take the risk when you can avoid it all together? Nuclear plants should be built on high ground, or if not high ground, a few miles inland. That's all I'm saying.
I'm also saying that those companies who fail to update their systems PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE RUNNING A NUCLEAR PLANT ANYWAY.
If you can't run a power plant properly, don't run one at all.
antifreeze1994

I never said they should be avoided because they aren't safe. I trust the nuclear reactor I live only a few miles away from, don't I? I said I think they should be avoided if possible. I.E, if you can build a hydroelectric plant to power the community instead of a nuclear plant, do it.
Also, I know that nuclear plants are built to be VERY sturdy, and can even survive catastrophic quakes.
But, tsunamis are something else; You can avoid tsunamis by simply building then away from the ocean. Why would you even take the risk when you can avoid it all together? Nuclear plants should be built on high ground, or if not high ground, a few miles inland. That's all I'm saying.
I'm also saying that those companies who fail to update their systems PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE RUNNING A NUCLEAR PLANT ANYWAY.
If you can't run a power plant properly, don't run one at all.

Realistically, with Fukushima, they didn't see the need to update, and many nuclear engineers would have agreed until it occurred. I myself wouldn't have, but that's because of my training in the subject being far more conservative and safety-oriented than most.
Though, despite that, I myself agree. All older reactors need to have multiple methods of decay heat removal, including at least one powerless method, or sufficient power methods that can't be taken out like Fukushima's.

The ocean is not normally so violent against reactors. They are wonderful for reactors, whenever there isn't a Tsunami. Unlimited tertiary coolant? Awesome! That's why so many reactors are built by rivers and oceans. It's easy. It's cheap.
Solution is simple for any ocean-based reactors - powerless decay heat removal. Risk gone. It requires the reactor to be shutdown for a few months, at least, but it's otherwise a relatively cheap and easy fix.

Hydroelectric? More unsafe than reactors and entirely destroy ecosystems.
Skyburn
antifreeze1994

I never said they should be avoided because they aren't safe. I trust the nuclear reactor I live only a few miles away from, don't I? I said I think they should be avoided if possible. I.E, if you can build a hydroelectric plant to power the community instead of a nuclear plant, do it.
Also, I know that nuclear plants are built to be VERY sturdy, and can even survive catastrophic quakes.
But, tsunamis are something else; You can avoid tsunamis by simply building then away from the ocean. Why would you even take the risk when you can avoid it all together? Nuclear plants should be built on high ground, or if not high ground, a few miles inland. That's all I'm saying.
I'm also saying that those companies who fail to update their systems PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE RUNNING A NUCLEAR PLANT ANYWAY.
If you can't run a power plant properly, don't run one at all.

Realistically, with Fukushima, they didn't see the need to update, and many nuclear engineers would have agreed until it occurred. I myself wouldn't have, but that's because of my training in the subject being far more conservative and safety-oriented than most.
Though, despite that, I myself agree. All older reactors need to have multiple methods of decay heat removal, including at least one powerless method, or sufficient power methods that can't be taken out like Fukushima's.

The ocean is not normally so violent against reactors. They are wonderful for reactors, whenever there isn't a Tsunami. Unlimited tertiary coolant? Awesome! That's why so many reactors are built by rivers and oceans. It's easy. It's cheap.
Solution is simple for any ocean-based reactors - powerless decay heat removal. Risk gone. It requires the reactor to be shutdown for a few months, at least, but it's otherwise a relatively cheap and easy fix.

Hydroelectric? More unsafe than reactors and entirely destroy ecosystems.

If there is an update out there that can make nuclear power safer, then systems should be updated immediately. Period.
As for the ocean as a tertiary coolant, I can see why that would be good idea. I actually just realized that Fermi is also built on the shores of the Detroit river. Know I know why. However, The big difference I see is that it's built on a river, not an ocean. Rivers don't have tsunamis, or even big waves.
Also, newer hydroelectric plants do not have such a huge impact on ecosystems. They have ways of allowing fish and other animals to get around it, and most of them even monitor the ecosystem to make sure it stays intact. Not to mention that hydroelectricity can be MUCH more powerful than nuclear. Currently, the most powerful electrical plant in the world is a hydroelectric dam in China, and produces about 21,000 megawatts of electricity. In fact the top three most powerful electric plants in the world are all hydroelectric.
Like I said though, there are places in which we have to choose between nuclear and fossil fuels. In places like that, I say nuclear all the way!
I just think we need to stay very safe when we use them because if you screw up, you screw up for the world.
antifreeze1994
Skyburn
antifreeze1994

I never said they should be avoided because they aren't safe. I trust the nuclear reactor I live only a few miles away from, don't I? I said I think they should be avoided if possible. I.E, if you can build a hydroelectric plant to power the community instead of a nuclear plant, do it.
Also, I know that nuclear plants are built to be VERY sturdy, and can even survive catastrophic quakes.
But, tsunamis are something else; You can avoid tsunamis by simply building then away from the ocean. Why would you even take the risk when you can avoid it all together? Nuclear plants should be built on high ground, or if not high ground, a few miles inland. That's all I'm saying.
I'm also saying that those companies who fail to update their systems PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE RUNNING A NUCLEAR PLANT ANYWAY.
If you can't run a power plant properly, don't run one at all.

Realistically, with Fukushima, they didn't see the need to update, and many nuclear engineers would have agreed until it occurred. I myself wouldn't have, but that's because of my training in the subject being far more conservative and safety-oriented than most.
Though, despite that, I myself agree. All older reactors need to have multiple methods of decay heat removal, including at least one powerless method, or sufficient power methods that can't be taken out like Fukushima's.

The ocean is not normally so violent against reactors. They are wonderful for reactors, whenever there isn't a Tsunami. Unlimited tertiary coolant? Awesome! That's why so many reactors are built by rivers and oceans. It's easy. It's cheap.
Solution is simple for any ocean-based reactors - powerless decay heat removal. Risk gone. It requires the reactor to be shutdown for a few months, at least, but it's otherwise a relatively cheap and easy fix.

Hydroelectric? More unsafe than reactors and entirely destroy ecosystems.

If there is an update out there that can make nuclear power safer, then systems should be updated immediately. Period.
As for the ocean as a tertiary coolant, I can see why that would be good idea. I actually just realized that Fermi is also built on the shores of the Detroit river. Know I know why. However, The big difference I see is that it's built on a river, not an ocean. Rivers don't have tsunamis, or even big waves.
Also, newer hydroelectric plants do not have such a huge impact on ecosystems. They have ways of allowing fish and other animals to get around it, and most of them even monitor the ecosystem to make sure it stays intact. Not to mention that hydroelectricity can be MUCH more powerful than nuclear. Currently, the most powerful electrical plant in the world is a hydroelectric dam in China, and produces about 21,000 megawatts of electricity. In fact the top three most powerful electric plants in the world are all hydroelectric.
Like I said though, there are places in which we have to choose between nuclear and fossil fuels. In places like that, I say nuclear all the way!
I just think we need to stay very safe when we use them because if you screw up, you screw up for the world.
You don't really screw up the world. That's one of the false assumptions made by people who know nothing about nuclear power.

Hydroelectric dams that have any measure of comparison of power output to Reactors do destroy the environment. Those that allow fish don't generate nearly enough electricity, and only recently have the come up with plans that allow for boats to still traverse the river. That one in China was only possibly by displacing thousands of people and destroying acres upon acres of ecosystem. More damage than TMI, Fukushima, Chernobyl, and SL-1 combined.
The difference is that people decided to do it.

It's not that there is a single update, nor would it work on all reactors. Most PWRs? Yes. But not BWRs, LTRs, et cetera. Many reactors are built rather differently. I trust Fermi has their own method of doing it. Should some old reactors be shutdown regardless? Yes.
My own personal opinion is that we need to have nuclear plants country-wide, and get rid of Coal (horribly unsafe and extremely damaging. Coal generates more radiation than Nuclear, to boot.). Modern reactors are ridiculously safe. If you staff them with Ex-Navy personnel, and even use designs similar to that of what the Navy uses (though it does make them less safe, but astronomically safer and more durable), you increase that further.

People get a false sense of insecurity about Nuclear power. It has to be respected. If you don't respect it, you shouldn't get to operate it. Thing is, once you apply that degree of respect, understand that it CAN BE dangerous, you understand you have to know how to contain it and how to use it properly.
chainmailleman's avatar

Tricky Conversationalist

8,750 Points
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Brandisher 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
Skyburn
Thorium's nice, but Uranium is safe right now, so long as you upgrade all of the older plants.

Thorium is more suited to commercial scenarios, whereas uranium is more controllable, and would be better for use where loads are variable, like ships.


Ummmm.......yeah I'll just say Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuff said.
chainmailleman
Skyburn
Thorium's nice, but Uranium is safe right now, so long as you upgrade all of the older plants.

Thorium is more suited to commercial scenarios, whereas uranium is more controllable, and would be better for use where loads are variable, like ships.


Ummmm.......yeah I'll just say Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuff said.
*Facepalm*

[begrudgingly] I can't blame you for your ignorance. Nuclear power is one of those sciences which is shrouded in mystery and requires extensive study to understand at all. [/begrudgingly]
Anyone who knows anything about nuclear power knows that citing Chernobyl and Fukushima is equivalent to saying Caligula and Hitler are proof that all humans are vile and cruel.

Chernobyl proves only that you actually have to be smarter than a 5th grader to operate a reactor, and Fukushima proves only that 60 year old reactors need to be updated in order to survive once-in-ten-thousand-year-combination-disasters.
chainmailleman's avatar

Tricky Conversationalist

8,750 Points
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Brandisher 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
Skyburn
chainmailleman
Skyburn
Thorium's nice, but Uranium is safe right now, so long as you upgrade all of the older plants.

Thorium is more suited to commercial scenarios, whereas uranium is more controllable, and would be better for use where loads are variable, like ships.


Ummmm.......yeah I'll just say Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuff said.
*Facepalm*

[begrudgingly] I can't blame you for your ignorance. Nuclear power is one of those sciences which is shrouded in mystery and requires extensive study to understand at all. [/begrudgingly]
Anyone who knows anything about nuclear power knows that citing Chernobyl and Fukushima is equivalent to saying Caligula and Hitler are proof that all humans are vile and cruel.

Chernobyl proves only that you actually have to be smarter than a 5th grader to operate a reactor, and Fukushima proves only that 60 year old reactors need to be updated in order to survive once-in-ten-thousand-year-combination-disasters.


Nuclear physics is a black art only you understand right? And you say Uranium is safe.....
chainmailleman
Skyburn
chainmailleman
Skyburn
Thorium's nice, but Uranium is safe right now, so long as you upgrade all of the older plants.

Thorium is more suited to commercial scenarios, whereas uranium is more controllable, and would be better for use where loads are variable, like ships.


Ummmm.......yeah I'll just say Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuff said.
*Facepalm*

[begrudgingly] I can't blame you for your ignorance. Nuclear power is one of those sciences which is shrouded in mystery and requires extensive study to understand at all. [/begrudgingly]
Anyone who knows anything about nuclear power knows that citing Chernobyl and Fukushima is equivalent to saying Caligula and Hitler are proof that all humans are vile and cruel.

Chernobyl proves only that you actually have to be smarter than a 5th grader to operate a reactor, and Fukushima proves only that 60 year old reactors need to be updated in order to survive once-in-ten-thousand-year-combination-disasters.


Nuclear physics is a black art only you understand right? And you say Uranium is safe.....
No. I'm saying uranium can be dangerous and must be respected. I'm saying modern reactors are safe because they are designed inherently with a good helping of respect for that danger of uranium, and reactor operators are trained extensively.

I'm saying the average joe, like yourself, does not understand nuclear power. It's not all specifically about nuclear physics. In six months you can learn the basics of nuclear power, if you feel like shoving the information into your brain with the velocity of a fire-hose.
Due to the extensive knowledge required to safely operate reactors, it is not expected for anyone not in the field to fully understand the mechanics of doing so. In fact, nuclear operators fully expect people to not understand it - and don't care when people shrug the matter off.
We get pissed, however, when people start fearmongering, talking about nuclear power when their knowledge of radiation and contamination still has them thinking about nuclear waste as green ooze and not knowing how a nuclear plant harnesses energy.

Fukushima, for instance.
My entire department was laughing at the talking-heads on TV... until we realized people actually believed them. Then we started just getting pissed.
chainmailleman's avatar

Tricky Conversationalist

8,750 Points
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Brandisher 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
Skyburn
chainmailleman
Skyburn
chainmailleman
Skyburn
Thorium's nice, but Uranium is safe right now, so long as you upgrade all of the older plants.

Thorium is more suited to commercial scenarios, whereas uranium is more controllable, and would be better for use where loads are variable, like ships.


Ummmm.......yeah I'll just say Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuff said.
*Facepalm*

[begrudgingly] I can't blame you for your ignorance. Nuclear power is one of those sciences which is shrouded in mystery and requires extensive study to understand at all. [/begrudgingly]
Anyone who knows anything about nuclear power knows that citing Chernobyl and Fukushima is equivalent to saying Caligula and Hitler are proof that all humans are vile and cruel.

Chernobyl proves only that you actually have to be smarter than a 5th grader to operate a reactor, and Fukushima proves only that 60 year old reactors need to be updated in order to survive once-in-ten-thousand-year-combination-disasters.


Nuclear physics is a black art only you understand right? And you say Uranium is safe.....
No. I'm saying uranium can be dangerous and must be respected. I'm saying modern reactors are safe because they are designed inherently with a good helping of respect for that danger of uranium, and reactor operators are trained extensively.

I'm saying the average joe, like yourself, does not understand nuclear power. It's not all specifically about nuclear physics. In six months you can learn the basics of nuclear power, if you feel like shoving the information into your brain with the velocity of a fire-hose.
Due to the extensive knowledge required to safely operate reactors, it is not expected for anyone not in the field to fully understand the mechanics of doing so. In fact, nuclear operators fully expect people to not understand it - and don't care when people shrug the matter off.
We get pissed, however, when people start fearmongering, talking about nuclear power when their knowledge of radiation and contamination still has them thinking about nuclear waste as green ooze and not knowing how a nuclear plant harnesses energy.

Fukushima, for instance.
My entire department was laughing at the talking-heads on TV... until we realized people actually believed them. Then we started just getting pissed.


Be careful what you spout. I know alot more about radioactive isotopes than you realize. But I have better things to do then to explain the difference between the s**t in your household smoke detector and the MOX fuel your breathing in right now. Enjoy your "knowledge"....lol
chainmailleman


Be careful what you spout. I know alot more about radioactive isotopes than you realize. But I have better things to do then to explain the difference between the s**t in your household smoke detector and the MOX fuel your breathing in right now. Enjoy your "knowledge"....lol
Knowing about isotopes is an entirely different story than knowing about reactors. Isotopes - bravo, you might be able to explain the differences between 234, 235, and 238 to me, you might even be able to tell me about the difference in the ability of 238 percentage in the common nuclear reactor versus a nuclear warhead to yield a fission. Perhaps you'd even be able to tell me about delayed neutrons and why reactors love them so much.
But when it comes to reactors themselves, knowing about isotopes gives you about four days of a six-month Nuclear Reactors course. Knowing about what keeps them stable, what keeps them safe, what materials are used, et cetera, what protective actions are used, decay heat generation and removal, methods of doing so, the vast number of instances where your mind is utterly blown in learning about reactors, i.e. "Wait, how the hell did they engineer... oh that's freaking awesome."
That's a whole different story.

Be careful about what you spout.

And no, we are not breathing it in. Except close to a source producing a vapor form of MOX, I really don't think you'd be able to find a way to breath it at all. Cesium, on the other hand. Oh yes, I breathed in plenty of cesium during the Fukushima incident. Got rid of all of that. Cesium doesn't really stick in your lungs all that well, and within a few weeks my body was noted to being a radiation shield again, just like something made of 70% water should be.
MOX Fuel is incredibly dense, for obvious reasons. Normally, with your claim about isotopes being part of your knowledge, I wouldn't mention that, but you mentioned "breathing it in," which I find rather humorous, considering beyond a few dozen miles from a nuclear accident, you find nothing but cesium. When you get closer, you might find iodine. You don't find fuel anywhere but the core region, unless there was an explosion.

I'm not trying to belittle your knowledge. I'm saying you're trying to play baseball when all you know is that a baseball is white and red stitching. We all have our forte's. You may know more about various combinations of MOX than I do, and may have studied isotopes and atomic decay and what not more recently than I have, since I've only got experience with one kind of nuclear fuel, really. But given the information you've provided (and failed to provide, thought in truth, lack of evidence is not real evidence, but it would be a safe assumption that if you knew more about reactor safety than merely the isotopes themselves, which is a miniscule part of it), I'd say my forte is, in this matter, a bit more specified to the matter.
Since my area of expertise is, in fact, reactor safety.

Enjoy your isotopes.
chainmailleman
Skyburn
Thorium's nice, but Uranium is safe right now, so long as you upgrade all of the older plants.

Thorium is more suited to commercial scenarios, whereas uranium is more controllable, and would be better for use where loads are variable, like ships.


Ummmm.......yeah I'll just say Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuff said.
Chernobyl plant had an RBMK reactor that isn't considered very safe and it was pushed too far, which caused the disaster.
That is a good reason to use better and newer reactor types and to always follow the security protocol, but not a reason to completely write off nuclear power.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games