Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll ask the same questions I did at the beginning of this thread which absolutely no-one has answered:
France has 78% of their power generated from nuclear plants yet we don't see any abnormalities in their cancer statistics, why is that?
Their first reactor went online in 1964, almost 50 years of non-stop operations and nobody has gotten sick, explanation?
There are over 2.8 million people living within a 50 mile radius of 3 mile island nuclear plant, no sicknesses no increase in cancer rates since 1974... Explain?
Indian Point nuclear reactor on the Hudson river up from NYC, no sicknesses or cancer reported because of it since 1962, explanation?
plwhit, regardless of explanations, all it takes is one big earthquake, one terrorist, etc...and it will devastate everything in a 100 mile radius if not more.
Besides that that, what about all the highly radioactive fuel rods that are changed on a frequent basis? Its ok to pollute the earth with radiological garbage that will remain highly contaminated for hundreds of years? Our future generation will have to be the ones trying to figure out how to clean up our mess.
I am sure your facts are accurate but you need to look at the what ifs and where will they store the radiological waste. The negative aspects of the what ifs far outweigh any benefit of nuclear power in my opinion.
plwhit, regardless of explanations, all it takes is one big earthquake, one terrorist, etc...and it will devastate everything in a 100 mile radius if not more.
Besides that that, what about all the highly radioactive fuel rods that are changed on a frequent basis? Its ok to pollute the earth with radiological garbage that will remain highly contaminated for hundreds of years? Our future generation will have to be the ones trying to figure out how to clean up our mess.
I am sure your facts are accurate but you need to look at the what ifs and where will they store the radiological waste. The negative aspects of the what ifs far outweigh any benefit of nuclear power in my opinion.
This is exactly the scare mongering I have talked about in this thread. Using the same logic what should us humans do because millions will die at some point in time in earthquakes, tsunami's, meteor strikes..... Evacuate the Earth?
Maybe automobiles should never have been invented because they will kill and maim millions? Guns? Swords? Electricity?
As far a storage of nuclear waste? Put in on a rocket and send it into the Sun, crap, just shoot the rocket into space....
The chances of dying in a nuclear accident are so minute that the National Safety Council doesn't even chart them:
Heart disease: 1 in 6
Cancer: 1 in 7
Stroke: 1 in 28
Accidental poisoning by toxic substances: 1 in 130
Falls: 1 in 171
Car accident: 1 in 303
Assault by firearms: 1 in 306
Motorcycle accident: 1 in 770
Accidental drowning: 1 in 1,123
Exposure to smoke/fire: 1 in 1,177
Cycling: 1 in 4,717
Firearms discharge: 1 in 6,309
Air and space transport accidents: 1 in 7,032
Exposure to electric current, radiation, temperature or pressure: 1 in 9,943
Exposure to excessive natural heat: 1 in 12,517
Cataclysmic storm: 1 in 46,044
Contact with hornets, wasps and bees: 1 in 71,623
Lightning: 1 in 84,079
Bitten/attacked by dog: 1 in 120,864
Earthquake: 1 in 148,756
Flood: 1 in 175,803
Fireworks discharge: 1 in 386,766
I'll go off into LA-LA land here, what I'd like to see is all the countries in the world stop all the BS, combine technical resources and develop a means of tapping the geothermal energy of Earths core.
At the University of Chicago run EBR-II reactor, it is well known the White House shut it down as a feel good measure. Costs were not an issue at the time.
Today, unless the project involves waste clean up, government funding is again impossible.
Good. Good. That is a Good Thing. Cleaning up the mess would be a Very Good Thing. Yunno, that is the only portion of the Nuke industry I have even considered working in. Maybe 10 years out or so, after I have done the more useful things I want to do. My only downside is that if one did find a good way to clean up the mess (none exists, now, btw), it may only be used as some future justification to create more mess.
Quote:
There was some hope to fund a high temperature reactor that produces hydrogen, but today, that would not, again, feel good to the current White House dwellers and supporters.
Or anyone with a clue. Studied that down here (Texas) and found it was not generally practical to make H2 even with free electricity from existing surplus Coal and Nuke plants. Just so they could something during the long low-demand night. Was not feasible, as there is/was no demand for the H2.
But you think that a whole new plant for some billions to make H2, when there is no demand, makes good sense?
Quote:
I'm completely supportive of capitalistic endeavors, but since the government licenses plants, drawing up another research reactor is next to impossible if not done in house.
Nukes are hardly Capitalist. They are total freeloader unmerited risk takers. They can only be built on .gov welfare (No Capitalist is stupid enough to sink their own money in one), and they can only exist because they are granted waivers from liability if they did blow up and kill some unknown number of people.
Summary -- Nukes are a really dumb idea whose time has passed.
With EBR-II, the concept design was proven, yes, but research at the nations flagship sodium cooled reactor was ongoing. Scientists at UofC's Argonne-West (now Idaho National Lab) are particularly driven by engineering development. Contrast that to nuclear physicists searching for fundamentals. IMHO, best bang for government dollar, no pun intended plutonium petes
Mustang, only a hot reactor breach spills out contamination in the form of highly biologically uptaken radioactive iodine gas. Iodine is also very short lived and its hazard is almost completely mitigated by saturating yourself with non-radioactive iodine protecting the only organ that soaks that element up. Spent fuel (laymen:nuclear waste) is air safe after a few years under water to cool, but is not like a pressure vessel waiting to pop. An Indian Reservation in Utah wanted to lay concrete on their sovereign to house some of these dry casks, as reactor plants really don't like to constantly make space for vertical school bus sized structures. Alas, the governor of Utah, Huntsmen, stopped it by dismantling the railroad that would have made life so much easier for both parties (the Native Americans for $ and the Energy Companies for their lost $).
H2 from a high temperature reactor skips electrolysis and goes for the sodium-iodine chemical splitting of water. If we had an Apollo mission mentality, it would be develop unheard of materials that withstand extreme temperature swings, radiation damage, and could be economical. Holy grail of petroleum product replacement here, as cheap H2 can liquify coal with tremendously less CO2 emissions than without.
Yes, get in nukes, people, good people needed, open minds appreciated. Very little opportunity of where you choose to live, though. West coast you have the Western Washington Naval nuke dismantlement program. Eastern Washington you have ex-cold war plutonium reactors and waste that need dealing with (glowing green ooze). And Eastern Idaho you have early energy projects that were not so careful when you have a 100 mile radius from civilization to work in (not anymore).
nick, I worked at the Nuke plant in Salem NJ for awhile, so I saw the process first hand. We went though training as well so I am not assuming, this is what we were told. Im not talking spillage I am talking of the yearly scheduled shutdowns to change out the spent fuel rods. These fuel rods are highly contaminated for generations to come. They need a place to be stored...so what I am saying is why do we want to pollute the earth with radiolical waste that that has an unknown effect at the time. Nuke plants may be cleaner and more efficient, however its the after effects that cause greater harm. Its bad enough we bury our household trash all over now we want to bury radiological waste? No thanks.
H2 from a high temperature reactor skips electrolysis and goes for the sodium-iodine chemical splitting of water. If we had an Apollo mission mentality, it would be develop unheard of materials that withstand extreme temperature swings, radiation damage, and could be economical. Holy grail of petroleum product replacement here, as cheap H2 can liquify coal with tremendously less CO2 emissions than without.
Don't need all those 100(s) of extra steps to make surplus H2, when there is already no demand for the product, and not likely to be. Even when the free surplus electricity is coming from Wind.
I follow you are trying to find some -- just some -- use for the silly Nukes. But here is the real deal. No one else wants them, no one else needs them. And we do not want to all have to pay for your playtoys, nor clean up your mess.
Truly the wrong product for the wrong time.
There is and never was an "energy crisis." Just a liquid fuels -- that feed Internal Combustion Engines -- shortage. (aka, Peak Oil, as it were). First that hit US in the 1970s, now the world. Get rid of the ICE and even that problem goes away.
We already have vast surplus of Electricity Generation -- [from the Old Skool] Coal, the old Legacy Nukes, Natural Gas. Many set idle most of the time. And [New Skool] Renewables -- Hydro, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, on and on -- all ready piling up and running into Surplus.
No one needs or wants more of the Old Skool. Nukes are Dinosaurs.
Quote:
Yes, get in nukes, people, good people needed, open minds appreciated. Very little opportunity of where you choose to live, though. West coast you have the Western Washington Naval nuke dismantlement program. Eastern Washington you have ex-cold war plutonium reactors and waste that need dealing with (glowing green ooze). And Eastern Idaho you have early energy projects that were not so careful when you have a 100 mile radius from civilization to work in (not anymore).
Sure. Another EE I work with just finished off a project at Hanford. Sounds like as big a mess as ever.
But really all this is trying to find (less dumb) ways to clean up old (more dumb) messes.
For my part, that can wait until I do not have something better to do.
But for now -- maybe everyone can agree? Let's Stop Making More Messes. No New Nukes.
Why is it not one of the anti-nuclear gaggle here can answer these simple questions?
France has 78% of their power generated from nuclear plants yet we don't see any abnormalities in their cancer statistics, why is that?
Their first reactor went online in 1964, almost 50 years of non-stop operations and nobody has gotten sick, explanation?
There are over 2.8 million people living within a 50 mile radius of 3 mile island nuclear plant, no sicknesses no increase in cancer rates since 1974... Explain?
Indian Point nuclear reactor on the Hudson river up from NYC, no sicknesses or cancer reported because of it since 1962, explanation?
Why is it not one of the anti-nuclear gaggle here can answer these simple questions?
France has 78% of their power generated from nuclear plants yet we don't see any abnormalities in their cancer statistics, why is that?
Their first reactor went online in 1964, almost 50 years of non-stop operations and nobody has gotten sick, explanation?
There are over 2.8 million people living within a 50 mile radius of 3 mile island nuclear plant, no sicknesses no increase in cancer rates since 1974... Explain?
Indian Point nuclear reactor on the Hudson river up from NYC, no sicknesses or cancer reported because of it since 1962, explanation?
This would be what is called a strawman. There are other reasons to not want a big push on nuclear than some concern about public exposure to ionizing radiation. The most significant concern I have is that one can't be built without consumers writing a blank check for the capital cost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
