Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
Joined: 7/22/2007
Msg: 176
Your thoughts on nuclear power...Page 8 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
Where to begin...... Co-generation is one of the true forms of energy conservation in effect today. This clean, safe and ridiculously stable form of energy is, at it's worst fantastic. It's unfortunate that it has gotten a bad rap from some industry leaders in the energy constituent. The fact that the rod's never actually come in contact with the BFW (boiler feed H2o) means even more environmental protection. The only problem, as stated earlier, is the disposal of spent rods. Even as we speak, scientists are developing new and ground breaking techniques to stabilize and safely dispose of these things that produce such a clean and plentiful supply of, what I like to call, the cities life blood. Converting the energy produced to a useful transportation fuel on the other hand (with the exception of electrically powered vehicles) is just about useless. The heat and potential energy created from the fission process is far to much for the average JOE to try and troubleshoot (not that the process is all that complicated, but it should be left to professional operators). Our military has caught on to this and is currently using nuclear fuel for our most important of goals, preserving the freedom necessary to further study the capabilities of this wonderful element.
An oilman.
Platform Gail, Santa Barbara Channel.
Joined: 3/3/2007
Msg: 177
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 8/18/2007 6:47:19 AM
Nothing wrong with nuclear power. It is quite safe actually. Course I will be working on a nuclear reactor in a naval vessel here soon.
Joined: 2/21/2004
Msg: 179
view profile
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 9/24/2007 5:08:09 PM
Alberta is looking at a bigger Candu in part to help with oilsands development. And I've seen one anti-nuke from Saskatoon who thinks she successfully tossed an application to install a SLOWPOKE Energy System there a few years ago, who is gearing up to fight this Candu which has got to be a 12 hour drive from where she lives. The watershed of the river this Candu would be on, isn't even remotely close to where she lives either.

Engineers aren't infallible, we occasionally make mistakes (which we are still liable for). We do try to analyze things from independent points of view so as to minimize the chance of mistakes. With respect to Candu performance in Canada (which is mostly in Ontario), I think that most of the problems they see are due to Ontario Hydro re-engineering stuff that had already been engineered by AECL. However, since there are few counter examples it is hard to say for sure.

In the large, we have done a fair job of engineering safe systems. Some problems have occurred, which I think in part are due to this idea that we always accept the lowest cost bidder. There are places for this kind of behavior, but there are all kinds of civil infrastructure type projects where it doesn't make sense. Environmentalists and other anti-nuclear people have brought up all kinds of arguments which sound like science, or are based on science. Rightfully, engineers are trying to address these concerns on a scientific basis. The complaints never seem to go away, in part due to a lack of trust I suspect. I think the anti-nuclear crowd in part doesn't trust engineers to do the job properly after problems are pointed out.

However, I think a far larger part of the situation is that they just don't like nuclear, for any reason. This is a political problem, and I wish they would quit trying to dress it up like a technical problem. Technical problems have been presented, thought about and studied. They will continue to be. But people who make up a problem which sounds technical, and then refuse to argue the problem in a logical and scientific manner, are just engaging in politics. Take that back to where it belongs, the political arena.
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 180
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 9/25/2007 9:41:30 AM
NRG Seeks First US Nuclear Plant Permit in Decades, hopefully we can break the logjam and get some modern facilities made.
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 182
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 9/28/2007 12:02:40 AM
We launch enough crap into space. Why don't we just blast nuclear waste onto the moon.. nah... I don't want it to get too heavy. Well pick a nice spot here on earth for it already! Just don't disturb the earth's core.
Joined: 11/20/2004
Msg: 183
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 9/28/2007 1:34:12 AM
I am in favor of nuclear power myself. I'd drive a nuclear powered car if given the chance. I am against putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, out planet already makes enough of them to block out the sun with a powerful enough volcano (which according to research has happened at least once before). I would live next door to a nuclear reactor with how safe they are today. The waste isn't as bad a problem as media makes it out to be, there are already several very good storage locations for nuclear waste that never see the camera's of media, good stories just aren't as interesting to the masses as a scare story. Would you rather have an area of the Earth which you can never go near again, or the entire planet struggling to survive when the atmosphere gets thick enough to prevent crops from sprouting, starts the next ice age, so on so forth.

There are better generators though. One has been in existence since the 80's, but guess what, it's used to simulate nuclear bombs. There also isn't much a chance of the schematics being released anytime soon.

Even if you want to keep using fossil fuels for stuff like cars, generators, and the like. There are much much more efficient ways to use it. Like a feed of 93% hydrogen and 7% gasoline, is just as good as running straight gasoline in your vehicle, the 7% gasoline is somewhat required to prevent embrittling the engine block. Could you imagine how long fossil fuel would last, and how very little of it would be used every year like that. In a hydrogen explosion you'll lose body hair, get some very light burns, but not even close to a fraction of the damage gasoline explosions cause.

But there are two reasons truly good ideas are almost never used. Greed and media, it's not a conspiracy, it's conditioning, whether intentional or not. Coal plants themselves, which are still widely used, have killed more than 5 times the amount of people as nuclear reactors.
Joined: 3/22/2007
Msg: 184
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 10/1/2007 11:21:06 AM
Nuclear Power is brought to you by the same people the brought you the oil ecconomy, fiat dollars, and the War on Terror.

That should shed some light on how *they* feel about your safety and well being.
 Mr H2O
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 186
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 10/7/2007 1:48:52 AM
The Cook nuclear plant is located in Bridgman on the Lake Michigan shoreline.
It is owned and operated by American Electric Power.

According to an August 2006 NRC report a 37 ton block
was dropped during the last refueling on March 27, 2006
The dropped load landed immediately next to one of its reactor cores
risking severe damage to the steel vessel that contains the chain reaction and highly radioactive materials.

On Oct 4th, 2007 they had another crane related accident where an
individual was struck when a rigging clevis (a piece used to connect a crane with something to be lifted)
dropped from an elevated position.

In recent years there was also an accident at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station just outside of Toledo, Ohio.
The power plant was operating and a corrosive event ate through 6 3/4 inches of carbon steel
in the reactor vessel head, narrowly missing an accident worse than Three Mile Island .

Three Mile Island, even by the NRC's account, released 10 million curies of radiation into the environment.
The University of North Carolina did do a study on the Three Mile Island event.
It was their conclusion, through their epidemiological study, that there were
statistically significant cancer clusters as a result of that accident.

There have been contaminated water releases, various venting of gases,
numerous small accidents over the years.

There are currently 103 operating nuclear plants in 31 U.S. states.
I'm not thrilled with nuclear reactors so close to the Fresh Water Great Lakes of Michigan.

There are too many possibilities for accidents within nuclear power plants.
We should really look at viable alternatives to having to store spent fuel rods.
 Mr H2O
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 188
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 10/7/2007 8:49:58 PM
There were 10 incidents at U.S. nuclear plants last year that merited ratings of 2
—"significant spread of contamination / overexposure of a worker"
and "incidents with significant failures in safety provisions,"
as the INES handbook puts it.

"Two reactor events and eight nonreactor events."

Among the eight nonreactor events was a spill at the Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
, fuel production plant in Erwin, Tenn., in March 2006.
More than eight gallons (31 liters) of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranyl nitrate,
the liquid form of transportable uranium, nearly pooled in a sufficient quantity
to achieve the conditions necessary for a spontaneous chain reaction
—uncontrolled fission, otherwise known as a criticality.

"Nothing did happen in terms of a criticality event," says NRC commissioner Gregory Jaczko.
"That would have been the kind of event that would have been a potential."
Because such fission was avoided, the incident was reported to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by the NRC as a level 2 event on the INES scale.
Subsequently, the plant was closed for seven months and a major reorganization has been undertaken by Nuclear Fuel Services,
according to notes from a meeting with NRC commissioners.

Accidents are happening, they are being reported .
Scientific American News - July 25, 2007

It appears that NRC took control from OSHA for safety issues at nuclear power plants around the country,
but it appears that NRC did not replace OSHA regulations with an equal or stronger regulatory control.
It appears NRC ignores everything that can, by any stretch of reason,
be considered a non-nuclear accident at the plant..i.e crane mishaps.

All this nuclear waste has to be moved many times, by someone using a crane.
This accident and all lifting accidents at the plant should be considered
indicative of the licensee's nuclear-fuel-handling capabilities.
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 189
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 10/8/2007 6:43:08 PM
>> Moon solar power for Earth

I've heard this brought up numerous times in the past, but can't see it happening.

Sure, you have a lot of area to work with on the Moon... but is there *really* any place at the poles that is continually sunlit? The Moon DOES wobble a bit in its' orbit...

Also, there's the question of receiving the energy. You can't set up a fixed spot on the Earth to receive the power - you'd have to ring the Earth with receiving stations. Aiming becomes quite complicated...

If we're going to explore the option of using space-based solar power, let's give some thought to SATELLITE-based solar generators. A satellite placed in geostationary orbit can focus its' transmitter on a fixed point on the Earth, to feed power into the grid from there. You only lose the beam for a short time, and only occasionally, when the plane of the orbit puts the satellite in eclipse. (And, if you use solar-thermal generators instead of photovoltaics, it won't matter at all...)

My opinion of nuclear...? It's a LOT better than some of the other technologies we currently use. Lots of people fret about the 'hazardous waste' it produces - but choose to ignore the millions of tons of CO2, SO2, etc., that get dumped into the atmosphere annually by coal and oil installations, or the dozens of square miles of land that get flooded by hydroelectric dams...
 Mr H2O
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 191
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 10/9/2007 2:40:34 AM
Did I drop something ? Did I fail to properly reference something ?
Apparently those crane operators are the ones dropping stuff !
You can't make the accidents go away, they exist, they are documented.

People even took the time to put them in Wikipedia......they exist !

The scale runs from a zero event with no safety significance to 7 for a "major accident" such as Chernobyl.
Three Mile Island rated 5, as an "accident with off-site risks"
though no harm to anyone, and a level 4 "accident mainly in installation"
occurred in France in 1980, with little drama.
Another accident rated at level 4 occurred in a fuel processing plant in Japan in September 1999.

** Other accidents have been in military plants** (these don't count....right ?? )

Until I see highly, highly trained, rigorously tested, repetitively drilled ,
precision crack teams building and running things at the reactors all hours
of the day and night, I'm apprehensive.

I see the mistakes made daily in logistics - wrong weights, wrong quantities,
wrong destination, lost trucks, lost railroad cars, lost loads of material, mis-counts, wrong part numbers, etc. etc. etc.
The only catch with those mistakes, the consequences aren't that bad.

I would almost like to see a day when an entirely automated nuclear plant
with sensors and robotic arms that just plain shuts itself down
when it's supposed to- unable to be over ridden at a moments notice.
We are sooo power starved and greedy for profit that it will never happen.

For the ""most"" part it's pretty safe...but we have to remain vigilant.
No one gets a free pass, no one cheats on materials, timelines, procedures, etc. :-)
 Mr H2O
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 192
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 10/11/2007 5:38:14 PM
Guess what - A list of accidents at all those Non-Civilian nuclear reactors

Perhaps all that rigorous Chain-of-command, constant drilling, training,
disciplined , military precision isn't worth a damn either.

Yep, yes-sir, absolutely 100 % safe to have in your backyard or kitchen
and let your kids play in the dirt along the fence and ride their bikes around.

Take that fishing boat real, real close because the fish just love that warm water
discharged from the cooling towers too....yummmy !

February 2003: Oak Ridge, Tennessee Y-12 facility.
During the final testing of a new saltless uranium processing method,
there was a small explosion followed by a fire.
The explosion occurred in an unvented vessel containing unreacted calcium,
water and depleted uranium.
An exothermic reaction among these articles generated enough steam to burst the container.
This small explosion breached its glovebox,
allowing air to enter and ignite some loose uranium powder.
Three employees were contaminated.

Keep in mind there have been approximately 20 Mishaps
That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War

On 30 September 2007 --439 nuclear power plant units
were in operation world-wide.

Still worth the risk......?? .....your family......your neighborhood......???
 Mr H2O
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 193
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 10/11/2007 9:17:35 PM
How did everyone GLOSS over message 41 ??????????????
A simple wave of the hand , like an illusionist made it all go away ?

""when I show someone just how asinine their claims about nuclear are""

NO One explained how they suddenly bacame """goof proof"""" !!!

 Mr H2O
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 195
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 10/18/2007 12:37:22 AM
Education involves history - no fear on my part - just the facts as they occurred in time.

I agree plenty can get messed up in the environment without using nuclear plants.
All you have to do is look at emerging industrial countries like China .

Who takes apart all the old nuclear power plants and updates them for the
latter part of the 21 st century in 20 years from now ?
Joined: 2/21/2004
Msg: 196
view profile
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 10/18/2007 5:29:55 AM
Re: Moon solar power

The idea that I have seen proposed is not to generate all of the power from regions of (nearly) permanent sunshine, but rather to generate most of the power from more equatorial places (which has a 2 week day and a 2 week night from Earth's point of view), and then transfer that power to Earth. The transfer could happen via satellites circling the Moon, or from polar transmitters. At Earth, it is likely there would need to be satellites in orbit, to transfer power to "farside" as well as nearside.

The thing that is nice about the lunar plan, is that we don't need to haul materials to the moon to make the solar cells. They would be made from lunar soil, in situ. Well, except for the small amounts of dopants needed to make N and P regions. Space based power needs us to haul everything up from somewhere. If we had manufacturing on the Moon, it would be cheaper to haul it up from the Moon than from here. But, that means getting manufacturing stuff to the Moon, or at least getting enough there to bootstrap manufacturing.

Reception isn't a problem, if you use the right wavelength. If you pick a wavelength that isn't strongly absorbed by anything except specially designed antenna, focus and tracking isn't important. The amount of power you are sending back isn't large compared to incoming sunlight.

Geosynchronous satellites are fine if you live near the equator, become a problem as you get closer to the poles.
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 197
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 10/18/2007 1:17:55 PM

Geosynchronous satellites are fine if you live near the equator, become a problem as you get closer to the poles.

But won't your relay satellites be in geostationary orbit as well...? From the lunar surface, beam spread over distance becomes a problem.

The whole idea adds an entirely new layer of infrastructure, as well. Generators and transmitters on the Moon, then receivers and re-transmitters in orbit, and finally receivers on the ground. Why not just cut out the one stage, build the generators in orbit, and not worry about relay satellites?

As to raw materials - it would be less costly to snag a Near-Earth asteroid (lots of high-quality metals in those...), bring it to a high-orbit mining/refining/manufacturing facility, and go from there. Since we're assuming easy and regular access to orbit, this would be easier than hauling stuff up from even the Lunar gravity well.

Why would reception from GSO be a problem at the poles...? If you can receive satellite-TV in Alaska, you can receive a power beam. True, the beam will tend to spread a bit more - you just have to make your receiver a little bigger. (And don't forget - this would be a problem with a satellite-relay system as well...)
Joined: 2/21/2004
Msg: 198
view profile
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 10/19/2007 8:01:18 AM
Just short: don't want to hijack thread.

If we aren't sending highly focused beams, we don't really need to track things. For a power transmitter on the Moon, what we want are "bending satellites" that are stationary from the point of view of the Moon. I am not a celestial mechanics person, but I don't think that orbit is geostationary.
Joined: 8/31/2007
Msg: 199
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 10/19/2007 10:08:08 AM
My concerns are not great. The benefits would be huge. Why? Look at our Atlantic and Pacific carrier battle groups. Their only limitations on patrol or deployement envolve the well being and feeding of the crew. For a quarter century or so at least.
Joined: 2/21/2004
Msg: 201
view profile
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 10/23/2007 6:49:13 AM
That the US has a power plant or two in a bad location, determined before or after the fact, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Japan almost has no choice but to build power plants in bad locations. The question is, how do you build a power plant safely in a bad location?

If you look at places like Mexico City, if they have a big earthquake, the ground starts to behave like a liquid. If the structure is less dense than the fluid, it floats. If it is more dense, it sinks. Having a power plant float is probably preferable to having one which sinks. Where is the center of gravity of this "boat"? You want the power plant to stay in near the same orientation, whether it is being supported by the ground, or is floating during a seismic event. You can't rely on the transmission system to stay connected, so you do want to shutdown as quickly as is possible. Not having control rods jam would be important. During the shutdown, is coolant available enough?

Seismic events in rocky places would be different than in places like Mexico City. But there are likely still a bunch of things which can be done, to produce a safe power plant.

And I am not assuming nuclear in any of the above. Any kind of power plant is sensitive to being situated in the wrong place. Sure, it is nice to be able to not build them in those kinds of places, but some regions of the world need power and having nothing but bad places to build. It is just a matter of how bad, and can you design around it.
Joined: 11/24/2008
Msg: 202
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 5/27/2009 9:15:49 PM
I think it's a good idea. Nuke power all the way. I feel like the risks are very small. Nuclear power has a very good safety record.
Joined: 5/7/2009
Msg: 203
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 5/27/2009 11:00:40 PM
Hey PSUgrad,

Go Lions!

My biggest concern is the same as Neils Bohr, Albert Einstein, Teller, etc. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Belarus, Kazakhstan... who's next? Adolf Madoff?

What is a Nittany, anyway?

Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 204
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 5/28/2009 6:07:18 AM

If we aren't sending highly focused beams, we don't really need to track things. For a power transmitter on the Moon, what we want are "bending satellites" that are stationary from the point of view of the Moon. I am not a celestial mechanics person, but I don't think that orbit is geostationary.

If you're not sending tightly-focused beams, then you need an IMMENSE collector area... roughly the entire surface of the planet. Hardly a practical idea there...
Joined: 5/22/2009
Msg: 205
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 5/28/2009 8:57:28 AM
I think its one of the best sources of energy we will know because of the power it holds, but I dont belive that we have found the way to fully use its power to its potential. maybe before I die, but not right now.
Joined: 10/22/2007
Msg: 206
Your thoughts on nuclear power...
Posted: 5/28/2009 8:35:48 PM
hi.. I think that I prefer a garden, with a couple of fruit trees and a babe like Adam for a mate.... the tree of knowledge of good and evil, " do not touch it, do not even go near it".... some things were best left alone, I believe nuclear power is one of those things... warmly Mona
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 207
Reprocessing and ADM Rickover, 2 solutions to nuclear power
Posted: 5/29/2009 1:54:16 PM
Nuclear power is only a viable option for this country if we do 2 things to ensure safety and minimize waste. The basics of the plan are allowing reprocessing and copying the US Navy's methodology as established by ADM Hyman G. Rickover.

1: We need to repeal Gerald Ford's 1976 ban on the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. I understand why the ban was put in place as there were major concerns in the 1970s about nuclear proliferation and reprocessing obviously produced a plutonium that could be further refined to weapons grade or even supergrade material. It was a fair concern in the 1970, but modern technology allows us to reprocess spent uranium in a way that produces fuel grade plutonium, but not weapons grade plutonium. We have plenty of spent uranium sitting in storage and hundreds of nuclear facilities while politicians debate what to do with it. With the Yucca Mountain plan falling through, this is a wise course of action. It both provides power and reduces our supply of uranium that is just sitting around in facilities with poor security.

2: We need another Hyman Rickover to set forth strict standards for the DoE and NRC. Since the USS Nautilus first went "underway on nuclear power" in 1954, over 200 cruisers, aircraft carriers, and submarines have been put to sea by the US Navy. The nuclear navy has operated for a total of over 5,000 combined years without a single nuclear incident. There is a reason for that. Rickover demanded excellence all the time. He set up ORSE teams that regularly drilled crews and inspected reactor spaces to insure that crews could deal with anything that could possibly happen and that safety was the primary concern. In fact, the one complaint leveled against Rickover by modern sub commanders is that he had them focus too much on safety and not enough on tactical readiness. This of course is not a concern with civilian nuclear power. After the Three Mile Island incident, Rickover even commented that such an accident could not occur on his submarines because one of his men always stood watch, not looking over the reactor, but looking over the men operating the reactors. Any idle conversation was disallowed in Rickover's reactor rooms. Any discussion must have been pertinent to the operation of the reactor.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >