-   The Lounge (
-   -   nuclear plants (

groar 09-22-2008 09:40 AM

nuclear plants
To not pollute other threads, here is my reply to these threads where nuclear plants invited themselves. I will not talk any more about that subject later.


Originally Posted by ATaylorRacing (Post 62436)
I wish I still had the article (or where I even read it) but all of the US nuclear waste produced to date would only fill up a HS Gym.:thumbup:

In your HS Gym, how many times can you put the wastes that were released by the Chernobyl's reactor ?

For Hiroshima and Nagasaki there were less than 100kg of Uranium in each bomb (I know they are "not the same Uranium", but they are the same consequences !!!). If you look at people who survived the first days, 30% have irradiation sequels.

In France and Germany, around 50kms (30 miles) of each nuclear plant the rate of leukemias is 5 times more important than anywhere else in these countries. This is thousand of children.

Each military bomb encloses a "little" quantity of material in big bombs that are inspected very very very frequently. Civil programs will never have such a paranoia level.


roflwaffle 09-22-2008 10:58 AM

If you want to look at nuclear safety I think you should compare a range of diseases/deaths per kWh produced to other energy production methods. If nuclear power is dangerous because of nuclear weapons I'd hate to see the track record of combustion with all them there guns hanging around... ;)

jamesqf 09-22-2008 01:05 PM

Or consider the fact that, per megawatt generated, there's more radioactive material released into the environment from burning coal than from nuclear plants. Try looking at increased death rates around coal-fired power plants & coal mines.

The plain fact is that nothing in this world is absolutely safe, but by any rational measure, nuclear power is at least an order of magnitude safer than coal - before you start to even consider the effects of global warming.

dcb 09-22-2008 01:54 PM

My nuclear reservations do not stem from comparisons to coal per se, but from what it would take away from truly renewable efforts. Nuclear is a band-aid, and the guarding our used up nuclear poop becomes part of our legacy that we just pass off to the next generations as their problem.

Will 09-22-2008 08:35 PM

Oops. I seem to have woken the nuclear monster a few days ago.

Let me qualify what I was saying. My original point was that nuclear power is a good option for the now time, but that more research, along with applicable processes must be made for clearing of nuclear waist.

The purpose of this is to disconnect, from the public, the erroneous conclusion that nuclear power = nuclear weapons = nuclear war.

This would pave the way, god willing, for the real golden egg. Nuclear Fusion!!

Duffman 09-24-2008 03:05 AM


Originally Posted by dcb (Post 62613)
My nuclear reservations do not stem from comparisons to coal per se, but from what it would take away from truly renewable efforts. Nuclear is a band-aid, and the guarding our used up nuclear poop becomes part of our legacy that we just pass off to the next generations as their problem.

Take away from what?
I am definately for more wind power but what do you do when the wind is not blowing? If you have not noticed the sun doesnt shine at night either and isnt worth crap during the winter either. The grid needs a reliable base load supply and nuclear seems like it will be the best choice in a carbon depleted and climate change future.

wagonman76 09-24-2008 12:47 PM

We used to have a nuclear plant right here on my way to work (Big Rock).

Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In recent years they decommisioned it. In high school my physics class took a trip there. Its amazing the amount of safety checks and precautions need to be performed to do just about anything. It was safe to the absolute extreme. When done properly, I do believe nuclear power is a great way to go. Sure there is nuclear waste to store, but its certainly a lot less than if one were to bottle up all the carcinogens from all the conventional power plants.

Katana 09-24-2008 01:51 PM

Nuclear has a bad rep it doesn't deserve, you talk about radiation but coal plants put more radioactive material into the environment than a nuclear plant does.

The future of nuclear power is very interesting and much cleaner and safer than you can imagine, the new 3rd and 4th generation reactors are impossible to melt down, designed with the laws of physics in mind so they can't, google Pebble Bed Reactor. They'd probably be in service already if it wasn't for envirotards screaming chernobyl and 3 mile island every time nuclear power is mentioned and pushing back progress in the area for decades.

I'm not against solar, wind and other alternatives, but they are alternatives when it comes to large scale power generation, wind and solar aren't efficient or reliable enough yet to replace huge coal/nuclear plants. Though research in these areas and battery tech will reap rewards to make it viable. No country would put it eggs in one alternative basket, you need controllable and reliable energy generation like nuclear when the wind/solar isn't putting out enough to meet demand. I don't include hydroelectric as alternative as that is reliable and can store energy by pumping water back up the dam in non-peak hours.

Hopefully in the next 100 years nuclear fusion or something like it will be available and solve these problems once and for all, though mining for helium-3 on the moon would be interesting to see.

mavinwy 09-24-2008 01:58 PM

The problem with renwable energy generally is not generation....but storage. There is no huge battery that we can put any excess power into for when the sun is not shining/wind not blowing/river not having enough drop etc. If those batteies existed then electric cars would be feasable transportation now.

We use electricity on an as-needed basis. The electricity made (from whatever source) goes into a power grid....when there is not enough, another generator is powered up until they are all on. At that time, if more power is demanded, brownouts happen.

If we had a way to store the energy produced during off peak hours, we would likely not be discussing this now....but we don't at this time.

So, we need do look at the on demand systems. Modern coal plants have about the same number of regulations as a nuclear plant, I would venture that A gas fired one does as well. At least the attempt is being made to be responsible with the byproducts of all of these. One way or another, we are going to have to produce more power someplace or use less someplace as the population increases and more conveniences are desired by that population until someone comes up with a better solution. Nuclear works, lets use it for now and keep looking for the way to build the better mousetrap.


dcb 09-24-2008 02:09 PM

Build a flywheel, pump water back up to the resivoir, compress the air in a salt mine, be creative if storage is the problem, or whatever the problem.

Dont settle for a half-a$$ed solution that will only buy us 50 years but leave a hazard measured in thousands!!!

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright