24 replies to this topic

[Spatula]

monsoon, on Jun 6 2007, 07:04 AM, said:

You want to give us a better explanation?  Chernoybl has been responsible for the direct and premature deaths of thousands and required the evacuation of a city and a sizable portion of a very productive part of that country.   It will remain uninhabitable for hundreds of years.   And as state above, the byproducts of this industry, even when operating in a safe manner, are some of the most dangerous materials known to science and can be used to make WmDS.    

Seems to me you might be understating the danger.

Fascinating how you can take a technology that's had widespread use over the past 50 years, and reduce it to just Chernobyl, as if that were the grand representative of the pinnacle of nuclear innovation. Nobody uses RBMK plants anymore. There are only a few left, and they all have systems put in to control their core reactions better, preventing the Chernobyl-style 'positive feedback' loop that led to the disaster.

Most reactors are PWR or LWR, relying on the water coolant to catalyse the reaction. Loss of coolant will slow or stop the reaction, And there's a containment vessel built around them to keep them from releasing radiation if something goes wrong. The funny thing is that it's an antiquated technology; we have much safer, more efficient third and fourth generation reactor designs that we could be using. We might've developed them more if nuclear alarmists hadn't imposed moratoriums or discontinuations of the use of the technology in several countries.

I guess they prefer fossil fuels. Because y'know, nothing screams green like the refreshing smell of soot.

Coal kills people all the time. Mining and power plant accidents easily trump nuclear accidents by orders of magnitude, despite coal being in far more widespread use, and being a much more mature technology. How many people have been injured or killed in a nuclear accident, outside of Chernobyl?

Edited by Spatula, 06 June 2007 - 03:05 PM.

[Alabadrock]

Spatula, on Jun 6 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

Coal kills people all the time. Mining and power plant accidents easily trump nuclear accidents by orders of magnitude, despite coal being in far more widespread use, and being a much more mature technology. How many people have been injured or killed in a nuclear accident, outside of Chernobyl?

I agree.  In the timespan that nuclear energy has been in large use, including the Chernobyl disaster, many more coal workers have died because of their job.  Yes, there are many many more jobs devoted to coal, and many less to nuclear, so, how can I use that argument?  Because a higher percentage of deaths have occured because of coal's contibutions to pollution.

You also have to look at the technology that Chernobyl was using.  It was delapidated, malfunctioning, and WAY out of date.  Also, you have to look at the disasters previous to the one we all know.  There was one in 82', which was fixed and running in months.  That is very dangerous.  That shows a lot of ignorance on the Russian governments part.  

Finally the big one came.  The main reason that this disaster was so bad was because the Russians kept on with their test.  They knew something was going wrong, but, they kept on with what they were doing.  I'm sure that's something that would never have in the U.S.  Not that it couldn't, but, I highly doubt anyone would be that stupid.  

Also, when they finally realized that something really bad was happening, they put in the automatic control rods, and then the manual.  The manual rods had been misshandled, so, that also messed things up.  Because these rods were inserted slowly, the automatic rods had a reverse effect and the reactions sped up.  This increase in reactions led to a power spike, which, in turn, cause the control rods to fracture.  Because of these fractures, the rods were only able to be inserted about a third of the full way.  So, because of that, there was nothing to stop the reaction.  Soon, the increased reactions cause an enormous buildup of heat, which then caused the fuel rods to melt.  Hence the melt-down.  

After all this, the heat from the reactions cause the coolant pipes to explode and they blew a hole in the roof.  Then a fire erupted, which increased the contamination of the area.


WOW, that's a lot of individual ways to REALLY mess up.  The insufficient, and defective systems that they used back then are long gone.  Engineers have long since improved the control systems and monitoring systems.

Personally, I like hydro-electric for the energy of the future.  But, seeing as I'm surrounded by nuclear power, and my own house out in the country receives its power from a nuclear reactor, I trust them.  

Yes, the nuclear waste can be used to make WMD, but, since these disposal sights are HEAVILY gaurded, and the method of transit is so closely watch, I feel 99.9% safe.  

I feel I'm a good judge of which energy sources are best, because, I live around nearly all of them.  Within a 100 mile radius of my house, there are nuclear plants, wind turbines, hydroelectric dams, coal burning plants, etc...  Not to mention that the coal plant's emissions have been reduced by 75% in the past 10 years, and that Browns Ferry Nuclear has been rated as one of the safest and most energy efficient plants in the world.  

I think TVA has a good idea of what they're doing.

[Hankster]

I totally agree with all you have said.  It is high time we build nuclear energy plants, and we need to start building them quickly.  Compared to fossil fuel burning plants, nuclear energy is the best alternative for cheap power that is green and does not pollute.  It takes years to get each one on line, and the demand for electricity is about to skyrocket, so it's high time we start in earnest.  I predict a new era in transportation just a few years, and will need abundant electricity  The will be the era of plug-in hybrid vehicles.  These vehicles promise the deliver up to the equivalent of 160 miles per gallon of fuel, and the cost of the electricity in terms of fuel costs will be the equivalent of about $.80 / gallon.  This new technology promises to rid us from our dependence on imported oil from places like the Middle East, and dramatically reduce the cost of transportation.  Couple this with nuclear energy and we also dramatically cut green house emissions.  This, I predict, is a picture of the future ahead for us, and it's not a bad picture either.

I fully support the efforts of TVA and other power companies to get nuclear power construction back on track, and I predict that there will be a day when nearly everyone will be glad they did.

[ohioaninSC]

Nuclear power is definitely the way to go.  It's very safe, and is cheap and clean.  Heck, I believe 80/90% of France is powered by Nuclear Power.  Not everyone lives on a river that can be damned up to provide Hydroelectric power, nor do many people live in areas that have strong prevailing winds to provide Wind Power.  Coal is not clean.  Geothermal is a way to go if you live in a geothermal active area (not many do).  Nuclear can be provided to most anyone.

[Alabadrock]

ohioaninSC, on Mar 26 2008, 02:16 PM, said:

Nuclear power is definitely the way to go.  It's very safe, and is cheap and clean.  Heck, I believe 80/90% of France is powered by Nuclear Power.  Not everyone lives on a river that can be damned up to provide Hydroelectric power, nor do many people live in areas that have strong prevailing winds to provide Wind Power.  Coal is not clean.  Geothermal is a way to go if you live in a geothermal active area (not many do).  Nuclear can be provided to most anyone.

Well, it can be provided to anyone that lives near a body of water.  Nuclear does require A LOT of water to cool the cores in the reactor.  No access to water=meltdown.