Nuclear energy is the safest

skeptic

Rookie
Feb 22, 2011
417
23
0
OK, I am convinced. And the safest form of nuclear energy is thorium reactors.

Since energy and a national energy policy is obviously the second most critical fulcrum that can tip our nation toward or away from prosperity we as a nation should shit and get off the pot and start building thorium reactors.

So this discussion covers two aspects: is nuclear power the safest energy platform? And is Thorium the safest and most practical nuclear platform?

Pebble bed has promise, but for cost and availability of fuel as well as tolerable radioisotope waste I can't see pebble bed being as safe as a thorium reactor.

Plus thorium reactors can actually consume existing nuclear waste that we have as of yet no plan to dispose of, safely or otherwise.

Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course I am no nuclear physicist either....
 
Granny don't believe `em - she say dis nuclear Sue Nami gonna make the crust o' the earth go spinnin' into outer space like an orange peel...
:eek:
Atomic official says Japan situation 'serious' but stable
17 Mar.`11 — A senior official of the U.N. nuclear agency says the situation in and around the tsunami-stricken Japanese nuclear plant remains "very serious" but relatively stable.
Graham Andrew says "there has been no significant worsening" over the past 24 hours at the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant. Graham is a senior aide to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano. He spoke to reporters Thursday shortly after Amano flew to Tokyo to assess efforts to fight the nuclear crisis unleashed by the massive earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan's northeastern coast Friday. "It hasn't gotten worse, which is positive, But it is still possible that it could get worse," he said. "We could say it's reasonably stable at the moment compared to yesterday."

Andrew spoke shortly after Amano flew to Tokyo to assess efforts to fight the nuclear havoc unleashed by the massive earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan's northeastern coast Friday. It was unclear what Amano hoped to accomplish during his one-day trip; he has said he plans to stay in Tokyo and meet with government officials but he had no agenda or scheduled meetings before takeoff from Vienna international airport. "We don't have a fixed schedule and don't have all the information so we will be thinking on our feet," Amano told reporters assembled in the departure hall.

Still, he suggested his trip was symbolically important as his home country wrestles with its worst nuclear crisis since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 66 years ago. "Japan is not alone, the international community is standing by Japan," Amano declared. "We have lots of offers of assistance to Japan and I would like to convey this message to them." In Japan, military helicopters dumped loads of sea water onto the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant Thursday as they tried to cool overheated uranium fuel that may be on the verge of spewing out more radiation.

MORE

See also:

Poll: Fears of nuclear disaster in U.S. rise after Japan quake
17 Mar.`11 WASHINGTON — Americans' support for nuclear power has fallen, as 70% of those surveyed in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say they've grown more concerned about the industry's safety based on the crisis unfolding at reactors in Japan.
Americans oppose building more nuclear plants by 47%-44%, the poll finds. Support for using nuclear energy was at 57% when Gallup asked a similar question about a week before Friday's earthquake and tsunami left Japan struggling to avert catastrophic meltdowns and fires at three damaged nuclear plants.

The new poll shows that worries about a similar disaster in the USA have climbed amid the crisis in Japan: 39% of those surveyed say they've grown "a lot more concerned," and 31% say they've become "a little more concerned." The poll of 1,004 adults has a margin of error of +/—4 percentage points. Those concerns were reflected Wednesday in Congress as members of both parties quizzed federal officials about the likelihood that similar problems could occur at U.S. nuclear power plants.

Americans "should have full confidence" in the safety of the 104 nuclear power reactors across the USA, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in response to questions from lawmakers at a hearing on President Obama's proposed energy budget for 2012. Nevertheless, he said, the administration will be "gathering whatever lessons that can be learned (from the events in Japan) … and will apply them to all the nuclear facilities we have in the United States."

Chu noted that the Energy Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have sent a few dozen staff members to Japan to offer technical assistance "and also, for our own sake, to know what's happening directly."

MORE
 
Nuclear power still needs subsidies as does Exxon/Mobil apparently.
Articles & Commentary
What does it mean when the nation's biggest booster of nuclear power starts talking up the virtues of natural gas?

That's the question that kept coming to mind before talking earlier this month with Exelon CEO John Rowe. Exelon is one of the nation's top electric companies, servicing the Chicago and Philadelphia metro areas. It's also the nation's biggest nuclear power generator, the owner/operator of 17 reactors.
 
Nuclear power still needs subsidies as does Exxon/Mobil apparently.
Articles & Commentary
What does it mean when the nation's biggest booster of nuclear power starts talking up the virtues of natural gas?

That's the question that kept coming to mind before talking earlier this month with Exelon CEO John Rowe. Exelon is one of the nation's top electric companies, servicing the Chicago and Philadelphia metro areas. It's also the nation's biggest nuclear power generator, the owner/operator of 17 reactors.

So does Solar and wind.

The only power you rarely hear about when it comes to subsidies is hydro, and that is limited to finding a good source of flowing water, plus the environmental groups really dont like it either.
 
OK, I am convinced. And the safest form of nuclear energy is thorium reactors.

Since energy and a national energy policy is obviously the second most critical fulcrum that can tip our nation toward or away from prosperity we as a nation should shit and get off the pot and start building thorium reactors.

So this discussion covers two aspects: is nuclear power the safest energy platform? And is Thorium the safest and most practical nuclear platform?

Pebble bed has promise, but for cost and availability of fuel as well as tolerable radioisotope waste I can't see pebble bed being as safe as a thorium reactor.

Plus thorium reactors can actually consume existing nuclear waste that we have as of yet no plan to dispose of, safely or otherwise.

Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course I am no nuclear physicist either....

the safest form of energy is no energy at all. Every one has its own risks, trade-offs and downsides.

The biggest downside of nuclear power is the worst case scenario accident is often far far worse than any other sort of power, with hydro actually being second (dam bursts are bad). The problem is compounded by the fact that the surest way to learn about a safety issue is to experience it first hand. It is this process that has allowed the commerical airline industry to improve its safety and provide one of the safest forms of transportation ever invented.

The same process holds true to nuclear power, and power generation in general. You learn from each screw up, and implement controls so it doesnt happen again. Unfortunately, as a said, with fission power any major incident has massive repercussions.

To combat this you have to be proactive with your safety planning, and try to anticipate all likely scenarios, and the counter them. Economics also come into play as the counters have to be viable to the net energy generation of the facility, or the whole operation becomes meaningless.

Our current situation is a result of a magnitiude 9.0 earthquake, followed by a massive tsunami. In viewing the resulting efforts it is becoming a concern that, as in TMI, the operators may have been doing some things wrong in the response. That being said the reactors survived the inital earthquake and the tsunami, but ancillary systems were effected. One will not know exactly what happened until the report comes out, but what is apparent is the safety net did hold initially, but looks to have experienced failures as time went on.

I do not think we can rid ourselves of fossil fuel power plants without the use of nuclear to provide base load capacity. One could theoretically use wind/solar as base load, but you would need an energy storing system to allow them to function in off times. A concept such as large storage tanks for water, where you use part of the operating load to pump water to a higher elevations, and then let if low down to a lower one when the main system isnt running would help this, but would be land intensive.

Sorry for the thread hijack.
 
Well said. Nuclear needs to be a part of our package to replace fossil fuels. It is time to work on the thorium reactors. Also time to take a hard look at reactors such as the Diablo Canyon one, which has no earthquake plan in spite of the presence of an major offshore fault only a mile from the plant.
 
Nuclear power still needs subsidies as does Exxon/Mobil apparently.
Articles & Commentary
What does it mean when the nation's biggest booster of nuclear power starts talking up the virtues of natural gas?

That's the question that kept coming to mind before talking earlier this month with Exelon CEO John Rowe. Exelon is one of the nation's top electric companies, servicing the Chicago and Philadelphia metro areas. It's also the nation's biggest nuclear power generator, the owner/operator of 17 reactors.

So does Solar and wind.

The only power you rarely hear about when it comes to subsidies is hydro, and that is limited to finding a good source of flowing water, plus the environmental groups really dont like it either.
Easy. It's already flowing........out of the US by your masters like CocaCola and Pepsi.
 
So far the radiation leaks are no worse, actually less than what is in almost any basement with poor ventilation, because of Radon Gas accumulation. Where is it and what is "safe" when an 8.9R earthquake hits?
No matter how many seat-belts You wear, not even the inside of a parked car is "safe" under such circumstances.
Thank God not everybody lives in constant "Angst" else there would have never been any Expeditions to the Poles, a moon landing, probably we would to date not even have aviation + many other things.
What exactly has an earth quake to do with a nuclear power plant, say in Pinawa Manitoba, which are built on what is probably one of the most stable bed rock layers on this planet. And yes even there we might get hit by one of these Hollywood disaster movie comets.
With these Power Plants in Japan it was not even the reactor core that leaked.
It was the storage basin, where fuel rods have been stored. In November last year large new shipments arrived for these plants and an unusually high number of fuel rods happened to be on these sites when the quake hit...that was the problem.
That was in Reuters, on the BBC and all kinds of other major news outlets...including Tokyo TV.
It was in these basins where the cooling failed, too much water evaporated, rods overheated and Hydrogen was generated which then ignited and exploded....NOT THE REACTORS!
Had these extra shipments not been there and these ponds been over stretched in their capacity You would not have seen any of these dooms- day Newspaper headlines.
It was almost always a series of freak coincidences, same freak bad luck combined with pilot error which brings airliners down, that otherwise had a perfect safety record..in many 5 of more errors that standard procedure should have eliminated lined up perfectly to result in calamity.
Murray`s law..! Humans are the weak link, not the machinery and the same is true with nuclear power
Seeing in all 3 Plants also in Chernobyl it was the Hydrogen gas that exploded how safe would these "Al Gore" hydrogen powered cars be?
Hydrogen gas tanks in city traffic with how many rear end accidents per year?
Imagine a truck,,,how much hydrogen would it take to substitute for 200+ gallons of diesel fuel?....
That`s way more hydrogen than put together that blew up in any of these Nuclear Power Plants, Chernobyl included!

I thought I`d never see this either:

OldRocks
Well said. Nuclear needs to be a part of our package to replace fossil fuels. It is time to work on the thorium reactors. Also time to take a hard look at reactors such as the Diablo Canyon one, which has no earthquake plan in spite of the presence of an major offshore fault only a mile from the plant.
Reply With Quote
I`m speechless and will actually click on "reload" and mark my + Thank You under the user "OldRocks"
 
Last edited:
Nuclear power is the safest until something goes wrong.

It's like flying; the safest way to travel until a plane crashes.
 
Well said. Nuclear needs to be a part of our package to replace fossil fuels. It is time to work on the thorium reactors. Also time to take a hard look at reactors such as the Diablo Canyon one, which has no earthquake plan in spite of the presence of an major offshore fault only a mile from the plant.

I'm sure they have a contingency plan that covers earthquakes, its just not called an "earthquake plan." You look in a binder and there are several plans for emergency procedures. When you go to "earthquake" in the binder it directs you to a SCRAM and a hard shutdown, (Called Plan ZZ-57-Q or something like that) which is also the plan for several other types of emergency.

As for thorium reactors one has to remember that they are untried technologies in full scale, and will likely have the same growing pains as others. We have 40 years of experience with PWR's and even though we havent built any new ones recently, the designs have been upgraded repeatedly, and would incorporate far more responsive safety protocols than the older ones.
 
Fucking dumb, BiPolar, fucking dumb.

70% of the rods damaged in #1. 33% in #2

Water in the spent rod pool may cover the rods, again, may not. And a lot of steam coming off that part of the plant. Enough that one gets a years worth of exposure in an hour. Temps rising slightly at #5 and #6. Cooling pumps running, no explanation for the rise.

But everything is just peachy keen, nothing to worry about.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42122996/page/2/
 
OK, I am convinced. And the safest form of nuclear energy is thorium reactors.

Since energy and a national energy policy is obviously the second most critical fulcrum that can tip our nation toward or away from prosperity we as a nation should shit and get off the pot and start building thorium reactors.

So this discussion covers two aspects: is nuclear power the safest energy platform? And is Thorium the safest and most practical nuclear platform?

Pebble bed has promise, but for cost and availability of fuel as well as tolerable radioisotope waste I can't see pebble bed being as safe as a thorium reactor.

Plus thorium reactors can actually consume existing nuclear waste that we have as of yet no plan to dispose of, safely or otherwise.

Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course I am no nuclear physicist either....

Why do people always focus on untested ideas as the solutions to our problems? If thorium turns out to be a pipe dream because of some unforeseen problem what are we supposed to do? Why not build Generation III reactors now, and continue research on other ideas?
 
Well said. Nuclear needs to be a part of our package to replace fossil fuels. It is time to work on the thorium reactors. Also time to take a hard look at reactors such as the Diablo Canyon one, which has no earthquake plan in spite of the presence of an major offshore fault only a mile from the plant.

No earthquake plan?

Guess what, even HuffPo, where you probably got that sound bite from, knows better than that.

Officials at Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the utility that operates Diablo Canyon, did not respond to calls seeking comment before the story was published. After publication, a spokesman for the company said the plant does have an earthquake procedure that had been implemented during a 2003 earthquake near the facility, and that staff are trained to respond. The company did not provide further details upon request.

At California Nuclear Plant, Earthquake Response Plan Not Required

The actual truth is that they were not required to make their plan public as a contingency to get a license to build the plant. That does not mean they do not have one.
 
OK, I am convinced. And the safest form of nuclear energy is thorium reactors.

Since energy and a national energy policy is obviously the second most critical fulcrum that can tip our nation toward or away from prosperity we as a nation should shit and get off the pot and start building thorium reactors.

So this discussion covers two aspects: is nuclear power the safest energy platform? And is Thorium the safest and most practical nuclear platform?

Pebble bed has promise, but for cost and availability of fuel as well as tolerable radioisotope waste I can't see pebble bed being as safe as a thorium reactor.

Plus thorium reactors can actually consume existing nuclear waste that we have as of yet no plan to dispose of, safely or otherwise.

Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course I am no nuclear physicist either....

Why do people always focus on untested ideas as the solutions to our problems? If thorium turns out to be a pipe dream because of some unforeseen problem what are we supposed to do? Why not build Generation III reactors now, and continue research on other ideas?

This is the common problem, and is rooted in the fact that many ardent proponents are alternative energy technologies will only accept thier flavor of the moment as the solution to all of our energy woes.

Take, for example opposition to drilling for oil in areas such as the gulf, and ANWR. While the accident in the gulf and arguments over impact on wildlife are the methods used to argue against further drilling, the main reason for opposing it is they see it as counter to thier plan for energy production. Basically they see any increase of fossil fuel use as an impedement to implentation of cleaner technologies, and will do anything possible to prevent it, and make thier chosen technology the one to choose.

The fact that we are using the oil anyway, and it would be far better to keep that $$ in our own country does not override thier desire to see the use of fossils go away.
 
OK, I am convinced. And the safest form of nuclear energy is thorium reactors.

Since energy and a national energy policy is obviously the second most critical fulcrum that can tip our nation toward or away from prosperity we as a nation should shit and get off the pot and start building thorium reactors.

So this discussion covers two aspects: is nuclear power the safest energy platform? And is Thorium the safest and most practical nuclear platform?

Pebble bed has promise, but for cost and availability of fuel as well as tolerable radioisotope waste I can't see pebble bed being as safe as a thorium reactor.

Plus thorium reactors can actually consume existing nuclear waste that we have as of yet no plan to dispose of, safely or otherwise.

Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course I am no nuclear physicist either....

Why do people always focus on untested ideas as the solutions to our problems? If thorium turns out to be a pipe dream because of some unforeseen problem what are we supposed to do? Why not build Generation III reactors now, and continue research on other ideas?

This is the common problem, and is rooted in the fact that many ardent proponents are alternative energy technologies will only accept thier flavor of the moment as the solution to all of our energy woes.

Take, for example opposition to drilling for oil in areas such as the gulf, and ANWR. While the accident in the gulf and arguments over impact on wildlife are the methods used to argue against further drilling, the main reason for opposing it is they see it as counter to thier plan for energy production. Basically they see any increase of fossil fuel use as an impedement to implentation of cleaner technologies, and will do anything possible to prevent it, and make thier chosen technology the one to choose.

The fact that we are using the oil anyway, and it would be far better to keep that $$ in our own country does not override thier desire to see the use of fossils go away.

I want to see the use of fossil fuels decline myself. I just understand that we need energy, and that it actually takes energy to develop alternative forms of energy. I see no reason to cut off my nose to spite my face.
 
Fucking dumb, BiPolar, fucking dumb.

70% of the rods damaged in #1. 33% in #2

Water in the spent rod pool may cover the rods, again, may not. And a lot of steam coming off that part of the plant. Enough that one gets a years worth of exposure in an hour. Temps rising slightly at #5 and #6. Cooling pumps running, no explanation for the rise.

But everything is just peachy keen, nothing to worry about.

News Headlines

Well You are true to Your form...totally mis-informed as ever..
Too bad Your family has forbidden You to study German.,
AKW Fukushima: Stabil am Abgrund - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wissenschaft
18.03.2011
Stabil am Abgrund

Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) hat erklärt, dass von Fukushima derzeit keine unmittelbar gesundheitsschädliche Strahlenbelastung für das weitere Umland ausgeht

image-193266-thumbflex-quxr.jpg



Ich kann bestätigen, dass dort noch Wasser im Pool ist", sagte eine Sprecherin der japanischen Atomaufsicht.

Nach einer Übersicht des Bundesumweltministeriums befinden sich in dem Abklingbecken bis zu 1279 Brennelemente.
Am Samstag könnte die Stromversorgung am Reaktor 4 wieder hergestellt werden, sagt die Betreiberfirma Tepco. Die Japanische Atomsicherheitsbehörde hatte zuvor bereits in Aussicht gestellt, dass zu diesem Zeitpunkt auch die Blöcke 1 und 2 wieder versorgt werden könnten.

Sorry to disapoint You, must be as disappointing to assholes like You, when the BP well got capped.
But Japan announced today, that reactor #4 will go back online on Saturday and by then block #1 and 2 will also be operational again.

The main problem were the extra 1279 fuel rods which had been delivered and were in the cooling basins at these sites...I did write that, but You said:
Fucking dumb, BiPolar, fucking dumb.

The W.H.Organisation has also confirmed that till now there was no radiation hazards with the low level radiation released so far...
I wrote that too...and added for comparism the "radiation doses" You get in any airliner at normal cruising altitude, ~ 50 times higher than what the sites in Japan released...
and You said:
Fucking dumb, BiPolar, fucking dumb.

And about the 1279 fuel rods which were the problem, it has been visually confirmed today, that there is again cooling water in these cooling basins and the cool down has commenced...

and You say:
Fucking dumb, BiPolar, fucking dumb.

Standard total retard "opinion"....
And You claim You are a millwright?
All I have to do when I want to amuse myself is look into this forum and at what you are writing here.
Can You construct a sentence that has more than 3 words in it..or understand one that is longer than 3 words?
I know You can`t, because You`ve been posting URL`s allover the place in the climate threads to "substantiate" your idiotic utterings and have not been able to comprehend the text which came after the 3 word long headings in each case...
and which in almost all cases was the exact opposite of what your pee brain read into the short head-line.
Fucking dumb alright!... isn`t it?
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top