What Do You Think About Nuclear Power?

[chainmailleman]

Darth Vector

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.

Any nuclear reactor isn't safe. The reason is how they work. They are steam boilers. They use the heat from the reaction to boil water and push the blades on the turbines. Just like in the 19th century with all of those steam boiler failures.....Fukushima and Chernobyl were no different. It was a big release of built up pressure.

Thorium is "Safer" than Uranium only in the fact that Thorium does not sustain it's own reaction. It requires an outside source of Neutrons. Therefore not requiring control rods to absorb stray neutrons. Thats it. Don't believe me? Google this s**t. Every reactor is built on the same principles. San Onofre just lost it's cooling radiators a few months ago releasing a fairly large portion of radiation into the pacific. It's not safe.

[chainmailleman]

Skyburn

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 about to bust your balls.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/radioactive-iodine-in-europe-111116.html (you might want to go back to high school chemistry and learn about "half life" wink

I'm ignoring you from now on. Your retarded.

[Darth Vector]

chainmailleman

Darth Vector

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.

Any nuclear reactor isn't safe. The reason is how they work. They are steam boilers. They use the heat from the reaction to boil water and push the blades on the turbines. Just like in the 19th century with all of those steam boiler failures.....Fukushima and Chernobyl were no different. It was a big release of built up pressure.

Thorium is "Safer" than Uranium only in the fact that Thorium does not sustain it's own reaction. It requires an outside source of Neutrons. Therefore not requiring control rods to absorb stray neutrons. Thats it. Don't believe me? Google this s**t. Every reactor is built on the same principles. San Onofre just lost it's cooling radiators a few months ago releasing a fairly large portion of radiation into the pacific. It's not safe.

The question is not whether it was released pressure, the question is what caused it.
In case of Chernobyl, it was a fault in reactor design combined with operators not knowing the reactor as well as they should have.

[chainmailleman]

Darth Vector

chainmailleman

Darth Vector

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.

Any nuclear reactor isn't safe. The reason is how they work. They are steam boilers. They use the heat from the reaction to boil water and push the blades on the turbines. Just like in the 19th century with all of those steam boiler failures.....Fukushima and Chernobyl were no different. It was a big release of built up pressure.

Thorium is "Safer" than Uranium only in the fact that Thorium does not sustain it's own reaction. It requires an outside source of Neutrons. Therefore not requiring control rods to absorb stray neutrons. Thats it. Don't believe me? Google this s**t. Every reactor is built on the same principles. San Onofre just lost it's cooling radiators a few months ago releasing a fairly large portion of radiation into the pacific. It's not safe.

The question is not whether it was released pressure, the question is what caused it.
In case of Chernobyl, it was a fault in reactor design combined with operators not knowing the reactor as well as they should have.

No argument from me on the Soviets not knowing what they were doing. Thankfully they were only playing with about 180 tons of radioactive fuel...Fukushima is playing with thousands of tons....lol

[Skyburn]

chainmailleman

Skyburn

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 about to bust your balls.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/radioactive-iodine-in-europe-111116.html (you might want to go back to high school chemistry and learn about "half life" wink

I'm ignoring you from now on. Your retarded.

Says the person using Chernobyl and Fukushima in an argument against reactors.

Oh, bravo, I was wrong about iodine, but you're wrong about reactors.

[Skyburn]

chainmailleman

Darth Vector

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.

Any nuclear reactor isn't safe. The reason is how they work. They are steam boilers. They use the heat from the reaction to boil water and push the blades on the turbines. Just like in the 19th century with all of those steam boiler failures.....Fukushima and Chernobyl were no different. It was a big release of built up pressure.

Thorium is "Safer" than Uranium only in the fact that Thorium does not sustain it's own reaction. It requires an outside source of Neutrons. Therefore not requiring control rods to absorb stray neutrons. Thats it. Don't believe me? Google this s**t. Every reactor is built on the same principles. San Onofre just lost it's cooling radiators a few months ago releasing a fairly large portion of radiation into the pacific. It's not safe.

I don't have to Google it. I work on them. I've laid hands on the circuit cards, and the redundant circuit cards, and the double-redundant circuit cards that provide redundant protective actions. I've done the radiological surveys in Japan.
I've read through volumes of books that are only equalled in size by the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Good Lord, stop acting like you know everything.
Reactors can be dangerous. However, if you know what the hell you are doing when ou are designing them, you can curb that. Personnally, if you told me my reactors I work on could melt down, I'd very much like to know the actual method you went about doing so, because that would very much perplex me.
Especially considering the design factors put into them. I mean, when they are specifically designed to operate under all worst-case-scenarios without doing so...
I can think of a few overly extravagant ways that literally cannot happen without undertakings that are closer to building the pyramids, in magnitude.

Oh, boo hoo, I didn't know about iodine. You know nothing more dealing with reactors. You know about isotopes.
That'll really help you in telling me how dangerous reactors are. rolleyes You know nothing about the process of an actual meltdown, what leads to it, methods of combating them, or anything google can't tell you. Google is rather lacking on the matter.
You know nothing, really.
You probably don't even know anything about the temperature or pressure transients going on in reactors. You don't know specifics about operations, you don't know design parameters, safety margins, et cetera.
Guess who does?

I tried to be nice in my previous posts. You had to go an call me a "retard."
You're arguing that you know more than I do. Dude, your knowledge encompasses roughly a week, maybe two, of the last three years of training I've received.

[MAGNUM777]

Just throwing my 2 cents in

Nuclear energy is NOT as efficient at current fossil fuel plants ATM. FF plants tend to be about 45% efficient, and current gen plants beign around 30+%. However, next gen plants are supposed to be nearly 50% efficient, pretty damn close to that theoretical Carnot Cycle max of 60%

Also, Thorium. It has it's advantages but it's not some miracle fuel. Some of its fissioned byproductss are actually MORE dangerous and has a longer half-life than the stuff that comes out of uranium. Granted, the quantity of this stuff isn't as high as the stuff coming out of uranium.

[bluespinach]

Has a ton of potential when managed correctly and will be our non-coal source of energy in the future. Let's be real here, other clean energy forms are going to take like a century to be really efficient and nuclear energy is already there. Sure, there's some waste clean up issues but coal is nasty. Anyway, hopefully we get smart enough to switch over to thorium rather than just uranium.

[Skyburn]

Uranium isn't exactly dumb, so long as you upgrade anything earlier than the 70's, for the most part. Everyone just assumes it is.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

MAGNUM777

Just throwing my 2 cents in

Nuclear energy is NOT as efficient at current fossil fuel plants ATM. FF plants tend to be about 45% efficient, and current gen plants beign around 30+%. However, next gen plants are supposed to be nearly 50% efficient, pretty damn close to that theoretical Carnot Cycle max of 60%

Also, Thorium. It has it's advantages but it's not some miracle fuel. Some of its fissioned byproductss are actually MORE dangerous and has a longer half-life than the stuff that comes out of uranium. Granted, the quantity of this stuff isn't as high as the stuff coming out of uranium.

But it's 200-300 times more efficient per kilo than uranium even as of now, so we'd only need like half a reactor.

That practically eliminates waste right there- we've got enough thorium lying around annually which we use to clean up nuclear waste (which we don't really need to do, sense it's stored in proper facilities) that we could redirect for use in thorium reactors no problem.


Sure it needs to be irradiated, but there is no shortage of nuclear waste, I'll guarantee you that.

With proper lead lining and reabsorption there really shouldn't be any radiation contamination issues, and even if so, we only need like one reactor (I propose 3 thorium reactors in strategic locations throughout the U.S. but) so finding places away form society should be a breeze! blaugh

[bluespinach]

Skyburn

Uranium isn't exactly dumb, so long as you upgrade anything earlier than the 70's, for the most part. Everyone just assumes it is.

Uranium supplies aren't exactly infinite either and soon the cost and such will be an issue.

[Skyburn]

bluespinach

Skyburn

Uranium isn't exactly dumb, so long as you upgrade anything earlier than the 70's, for the most part. Everyone just assumes it is.

Uranium supplies aren't exactly infinite either and soon the cost and such will be an issue.

Nothing is infinite, but in all reality we can still rely on uranium for the foreseeable future.
That, and nuclear power plants are one of, if not the cheapest (last figure I saw had them tied, per kilowatt hour, with Solar, except solar had that nasty little asterisk beside it, which signified as only being that cheap with massive helpings of tax dollars added into it to assist them in running the plants.)

[Disconsented]

As long as it is adequately protected I see no reason not to.

[Exoth XIII]

chainmailleman

Any nuclear reactor isn't safe. The reason is how they work. They are steam boilers. They use the heat from the reaction to boil water and push the blades on the turbines. Just like in the 19th century with all of those steam boiler failures.....

No. The reason for frequent boiler failure in the 1800's, was the fact that they didn't know how to build an adequate feedback control system. The boilers didn't adjust themselves. As such, people had to keep a constant eye on them, with the result that most boiler failures were due to user error, either people were running them too high, or they weren't being adequately attended.

If you look at the data, nuclear power is actually the second safest method of power generation (only hydroelectric is safer, with the fewest deaths per kilowatt hour.)

Quote:

Fukushima and Chernobyl were no different. It was a big release of built up pressure.

Fukushima wasn't designed adequately to withstand local hazards (IE tidal waves.) Chernobyl was built out of mud and spit.

Quote:

Thorium is "Safer" than Uranium only in the fact that Thorium does not sustain it's own reaction. It requires an outside source of Neutrons. Therefore not requiring control rods to absorb stray neutrons. Thats it. Don't believe me? Google this s**t. Every reactor is built on the same principles. San Onofre just lost it's cooling radiators a few months ago releasing a fairly large portion of radiation into the pacific.

If you're going to use google, try and fact check.
Yes, they discovered a minor radioactive steam leak. It was at a rate of six hundredths of a gallon per minute, and was automatically detected, and vented into an auxiliary building. NO radiation was released into the pacific.

See, this is what modern engineering gets us. The problem was found immediately, and stopped before anyone could get hurt.

Compare this with oil, where it seems once a year, we have a major spill, explosions, malfunctions, etc.
Ironically, because people are so worried about nuclear, nuclear plants have to be MUCH safer than oil plants.

[Skyburn]

Exoth XIII

chainmailleman

Any nuclear reactor isn't safe. The reason is how they work. They are steam boilers. They use the heat from the reaction to boil water and push the blades on the turbines. Just like in the 19th century with all of those steam boiler failures.....

No. The reason for frequent boiler failure in the 1800's, was the fact that they didn't know how to build an adequate feedback control system. The boilers didn't adjust themselves. As such, people had to keep a constant eye on them, with the result that most boiler failures were due to user error, either people were running them too high, or they weren't being adequately attended.

If you look at the data, nuclear power is actually the second safest method of power generation (only hydroelectric is safer, with the fewest deaths per kilowatt hour.)

Quote:

Fukushima and Chernobyl were no different. It was a big release of built up pressure.

Fukushima wasn't designed adequately to withstand local hazards (IE tidal waves.) Chernobyl was built out of mud and spit.

Quote:

Thorium is "Safer" than Uranium only in the fact that Thorium does not sustain it's own reaction. It requires an outside source of Neutrons. Therefore not requiring control rods to absorb stray neutrons. Thats it. Don't believe me? Google this s**t. Every reactor is built on the same principles. San Onofre just lost it's cooling radiators a few months ago releasing a fairly large portion of radiation into the pacific.

If you're going to use google, try and fact check.
Yes, they discovered a minor radioactive steam leak. It was at a rate of six hundredths of a gallon per minute, and was automatically detected, and vented into an auxiliary building. NO radiation was released into the pacific.

See, this is what modern engineering gets us. The problem was found immediately, and stopped before anyone could get hurt.

Compare this with oil, where it seems once a year, we have a major spill, explosions, malfunctions, etc.
Ironically, because people are so worried about nuclear, nuclear plants have to be MUCH safer than oil plants.

Two corrections (though one is debatable):
1) Nuclear is safer than Hydroelectric, based on the figures I've seen. Though, when you're talking about numbers you can count on one hand, it really doesn't make a definitive difference. Though, figures I saw did have the oolies of "plants operating under X and Y agreements from time period A to B."
2) Fukushima wasn't able to withstand multiple extreme disasters. Tsunami? Pfft. Earthquake? Pfft. Both? Nope. And we aren't even talking normal disasters; we are talking extreme disasters.
And it's still an ancient plant.

Other than that, you're spot on. Impressive if you're only using Google, which I typically consider inadequate and infuriating for people to use, because it often leads them astray.
And yeah, I did hear about San Onofre.
I believe I know guys that work there. For Nuclear Operators, it's a big deal.
For anyone who actually bothers to think about it? Pfft. Whatever.
And I believe it was more of a "potentially radioactive steam leak," vice "radioactive."
Difference? To Nuclear Operators, there is none. To anyone else? Still practically none, but for a different reason - because even if it is radioactive, you won't notice a great increase of background counts anywhere but in the immediate vicinity, and unless there is a fuel-element-rupture, no danger at all to anything.
Except the steam leak itself. High pressure invisible gasses can cut you like a hot knife through butter.