Nuclear Power

JTP

JTP

New Member
What's your take?
I'm torn between seeing the necessity for it, and knowing that a Chernobyl could very well happen here.
Even with the best crews running a plant, there's always seismic activity, other natural disasters, and terrorism.
Then there is that waste. At least you can see the coal dust and particles. Takes a geiger counter, etc, to detect rads.
People are NOT going to return to a simpler way of life- not en masse, forget it, cousin, so we need energy. Nuclear is set to go, just needs public approval.
What do you all think about it?
 
JTP said:
What's your take?
I'm torn between seeing the necessity for it, and knowing that a Chernobyl could very well happen here.
Even with the best crews running a plant, there's always seismic activity, other natural disasters, and terrorism.
Then there is that waste. At least you can see the coal dust and particles. Takes a geiger counter, etc, to detect rads.
People are NOT going to return to a simpler way of life- not en masse, forget it, cousin, so we need energy. Nuclear is set to go, just needs public approval.
What do you all think about it?
Click to expand...

Chernobyl can not happen here. The reason is we use a very different design. The Soviet Union used graphite pile reactors. The graphite is what allowed the neutrons to fly around and smash atoms. To keep it from getting out of hand, they used cesium to soak up the excess neutrons. If you forget the cesium, you have Chernobyl.

The Americans use heavy water to propagate the neutrons. If it starts to run away, the heavy water boils off and the reaction stops. A built in fail safe.

As for natural disasters, you have to be smart about where you build. Not every place has earth quakes.

As for the waste, we store it under ground here in New Mexico. They are very careful and I am not worried. You just need to keep it contained while it decays. Somebody will probably find out that the waste can be used again for more energy and then we will be complaining that we don't have enough. :trout:
 
Frodo said:
Chernobyl can not happen here. The reason is we use a very different design. The Soviet Union used graphite pile reactors. The graphite is what allowed the neutrons to fly around and smash atoms. To keep it from getting out of hand, they used cesium to soak up the excess neutrons. If you forget the cesium, you have Chernobyl.

The Americans use heavy water to propagate the neutrons. If it starts to run away, the heavy water boils off and the reaction stops. A built in fail safe.

As for natural disasters, you have to be smart about where you build. Not every place has earth quakes.

As for the waste, we store it under ground here in New Mexico. They are very careful and I am not worried. You just need to keep it contained while it decays. Somebody will probably find out that the waste can be used again for more energy and then we will be complaining that we don't have enough. :trout:
Click to expand...
I meant a Chernobyl-scale disaster in a general sense, from whatever cause, but thanks for the info. You're probably right that the waste could be used further.
 
JTP said:
I meant a Chernobyl-scale disaster in a general sense, from whatever cause, but thanks for the info. You're probably right that the waste could be used further.
Click to expand...

Actually it's still wildly unlikely. Chernobyl was a "perfect storm" of bad design, antiquated equipment and incompetence both leading up to and after the incident. Compared to other ways of generating electricity nuclear is safe and efficient (not, however, necessarily cheap). Unfortunately it's also the poster child for the environmental lobby. The biggest concern with nuclear generated electricity is the waste, a problem that has been addressed by Yucca Mountain. Should have been opened a decade ago but between bad management and various government and private "watchdog" groups throwing up spurious road blocks it's delayed yet again.

In fact, nuclear is the answer and the real question is why is it taking so long.
 
...because it's nuclear!

I'm all for nuclear energy. Frankly, all coal and oil-fired power-plants should've been shut down decades ago in favour of nuclear.
 
That's a more recent discovery... clean-burning coal, that is.
The other thing that you have to worry about when it comes to coal-fired plants...is the impact of coal mines and strip-mining on local environment.
 
chcr said:
Actually it's still wildly unlikely. Chernobyl was a "perfect storm" of bad design, antiquated equipment and incompetence both leading up to and after the incident. Compared to other ways of generating electricity nuclear is safe and efficient (not, however, necessarily cheap). Unfortunately it's also the poster child for the environmental lobby. The biggest concern with nuclear generated electricity is the waste, a problem that has been addressed by Yucca Mountain. Should have been opened a decade ago but between bad management and various government and private "watchdog" groups throwing up spurious road blocks it's delayed yet again.

In fact, nuclear is the answer and the real question is why is it taking so long.
Click to expand...


Not so much Chernobyl(esque) disaster keeping Nuclear power from American Grid ,but the Memory that it could/has happened in the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident .That pretty much mothballed a lot of the Nuke power Generation and kept it from being more popular.
 
However, there are no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community which can be attributed to the accident. Public reaction to the event was probably influenced by at least three factors: first, the release (a few weeks before the accident) of a popular movie called The China Syndrome, concerning an accident at a nuclear reactor; secondly, what was felt to be a lack of official information in the initial phases of the accident; and lastly, many of the statements made by political and social activists long opposed to nuclear power.
Click to expand...

In other words, the system worked. While you are substantially correct about the spin surrounding TMI, it was in fact not the disaster it was made out to be and nothing at all like Chernobyl. Note that without the public outcry the tower that had the problem probably would have been back online within a few months.
 
MrBishop said:
That's a more recent discovery... clean-burning coal, that is.
The other thing that you have to worry about when it comes to coal-fired plants...is the impact of coal mines and strip-mining on local environment.
Click to expand...

IMO it's a good thing, the mining, IF it's don't right.
If any of that coal down there ever ignites, it can burn many years.
 
I'm about a half-hour's drive from the last new nuclear plant to open in the US and I'm not worried.
 
i think the only folks against it are the freaks in greenpeace and their secret funding source within the oil industry.
 
It's a fairly safe form of power, the only downside is that is soemthing goes wrong it REALLY goes wrong.
 
This is kind of OT, but I've got a National Geographic from the early 60's around here somewhere in which some high-level government engineer type was seriously proposing creating a second Panama Canal using a series of H-bombs! Talk about moving some earth.
Despite my misgivings about the dangers and radioactive waste, I think we have little choice but to use nuclear power, along with the other alternatives.
 
JTP said:
Despite my misgivings about the dangers and radioactive waste,
Click to expand...

The area around Chernobyl is doing far better than anyone expected. The turn around is just like nature. Take our fears & show us we know nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top