The problem with nukes

[Old Rocks]

Nuclear Power Whistleblowers Charge Federal Regulators With Favoring Secrecy Over Safety

The Oconee Nuclear Station in South Carolina. (Union of Concerned Scientists)


Richard H. Perkins and Larry Criscione are precise and formal men with more than 20 years of combined government and military service. Perkins held posts at the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration before joining the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Division of Risk Analysis in 2008. Criscione landed at the agency a year later, after five years aboard the USS Georgia as a submarine warfare officer.

Now both men are also reluctant whistleblowers, stepping out publicly to accuse the NRC of being both disconcertingly sluggish and inappropriately secretive about severe -- and in one case, potentially catastrophic -- flood risks at nuclear plants that sit downstream from large dams.

Nuclear power is part of the equation for carbon emission free energy. However, one must realize that the present reactors pose a significant threat is thing go badly wrong. Fukashima taught us that. And an evaluation of the effect of a major upstream dam failure on the Missoure River is not at all encouraging.

 

[westwall]

Nuclear Power Whistleblowers Charge Federal Regulators With Favoring Secrecy Over Safety

The Oconee Nuclear Station in South Carolina. (Union of Concerned Scientists)


Richard H. Perkins and Larry Criscione are precise and formal men with more than 20 years of combined government and military service. Perkins held posts at the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration before joining the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Division of Risk Analysis in 2008. Criscione landed at the agency a year later, after five years aboard the USS Georgia as a submarine warfare officer.

Now both men are also reluctant whistleblowers, stepping out publicly to accuse the NRC of being both disconcertingly sluggish and inappropriately secretive about severe -- and in one case, potentially catastrophic -- flood risks at nuclear plants that sit downstream from large dams.

Nuclear power is part of the equation for carbon emission free energy. However, one must realize that the present reactors pose a significant threat is thing go badly wrong. Fukashima taught us that. And an evaluation of the effect of a major upstream dam failure on the Missoure River is not at all encouraging.

Umm hmm. How many people did TMI kill? Fukushima? Everything is "dangerous" with you idiots. Nothing is safe enough for you other than no power generation at all.

I love it. You guys are marginalizing yourselves faster than we ever could.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're talking about threats to power plants that were designed and sited over 40 years ago !!!!

Last time I checked, nuclear reactors on our submarines spend most of their lives SUBMERGED.

So what kind of limited thinking takes the time to celebrate cranky "whistle-blowers" who are nit-picking about plants that should be scheduled for replacement after 4 or more decades of useful and SAFE life? The people who SOLVE these problems are focused on what COULD BE done.

Or would you like me to berate the uselessness of early solar farms built with 10% efficient PV technology? Let's waste a lot more time looking backwards --- shall we?

 

[IanC]

what would nuclear power plants look like today if they had been able to go through generations of development like, say, cars?

I dont really know that much about NRs but the idea of modular thorium power plants seems like a pretty productive direction to investigate.

 

[skookerasbil]

I agree........clean coal and gas over nuclear, which is the way its going to go anyway......at least for the next 25 years.

 

[flacaltenn]

what would nuclear power plants look like today if they had been able to go through generations of development like, say, cars?

I dont really know that much about NRs but the idea of modular thorium power plants seems like a pretty productive direction to investigate.

There are several companies developing self-contained compact nuclear power modules that can be buried without ventilation or water. Enough to run a couple subdivisions for 15 years or so and then be recycled. When any of them go public -- I'm buying in BIG time.

 

[Old Rocks]

I was able to read in the '50's when they were selling nuclear power to the public. It was going to be so cheap that there would be no need to meter it. And it was 'Failsafe'. Turned out to be neither. Three Mile Island had the potential to be, and nearly was, a huge disaster.

Nuclear accident at Three Mile Island — History.com This Day in History — 3/28/1979

Finally, at about 8 p.m., plant operators realized they needed to get water moving through the core again and restarted the pumps. The temperature began to drop, and pressure in the reactor was reduced. The reactor had come within less than an hour of a complete meltdown. More than half the core was destroyed or molten, but it had not broken its protective shell, and no radiation was escaping. The crisis was apparently over.

Fukashima is not over by any means. What is in that cooling pond could become a disaster at any time.

 

[emptystep]

There is a simple fact of systems. They break. When you're playing with the material of the sun that's one hell of a fact.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is a simple fact of systems. They break. When you're playing with the material of the sun that's one hell of a fact.

Tell that to the US Navy which has been nuclear powered for 40 yrs. Think folks would take a "RISKY" power system into battle conditions?

The sun is actually fusion not fission. And hydrogen is the primary fuel.

 

[emptystep]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQE64HENUY0&feature=player_detailpage]Space Shuttle Challenger Blows Up - YouTube[/ame]

 

[flacaltenn]

Cute -- but ineffective. All those folks riding the shuttle understand that they are boarding a controlled explosion. Has NOTHING to do with engineering a power plant.

Do you know the diff between a nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant?

 

[emptystep]

Cute -- but ineffective. All those folks riding the shuttle understand that they are boarding a controlled explosion. Has NOTHING to do with engineering a power plant.

Do you know the diff between a nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant?

Everyone who walks in a steam funnel know they are walking into a meltdown too. How does it not relate.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for nuclear power. Just the way you put it is flawed.

 

[skookerasbil]

Cute -- but ineffective. All those folks riding the shuttle understand that they are boarding a controlled explosion. Has NOTHING to do with engineering a power plant.

Do you know the diff between a nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant?

LOL......apparently not.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cute -- but ineffective. All those folks riding the shuttle understand that they are boarding a controlled explosion. Has NOTHING to do with engineering a power plant.

Do you know the diff between a nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant?

Yep. Rate of fission.

 

[KissMy]

Nuclear Power Whistleblowers Charge Federal Regulators With Favoring Secrecy Over Safety

The Oconee Nuclear Station in South Carolina. (Union of Concerned Scientists)


Richard H. Perkins and Larry Criscione are precise and formal men with more than 20 years of combined government and military service. Perkins held posts at the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration before joining the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Division of Risk Analysis in 2008. Criscione landed at the agency a year later, after five years aboard the USS Georgia as a submarine warfare officer.

Now both men are also reluctant whistleblowers, stepping out publicly to accuse the NRC of being both disconcertingly sluggish and inappropriately secretive about severe -- and in one case, potentially catastrophic -- flood risks at nuclear plants that sit downstream from large dams.

Nuclear power is part of the equation for carbon emission free energy. However, one must realize that the present reactors pose a significant threat is thing go badly wrong. Fukashima taught us that. And an evaluation of the effect of a major upstream dam failure on the Missoure River is not at all encouraging.

A flooded nuclear power plant from a bursted dam is not a problem. The power grid will still be in working order nearby to power the cooling pumps. Unlike Fukashima that had extensive wide spread destruction & no access to power. Their engineers in the control room made a huge mistake believing they had an exposed core when in-fact they had exposed fuel rods in a nearby storage tank. Their engineers were to scared to go out & have a look, so they assumed wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

Cute -- but ineffective. All those folks riding the shuttle understand that they are boarding a controlled explosion. Has NOTHING to do with engineering a power plant.

Do you know the diff between a nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant?

Yep. Rate of fission.

Ever hear of critical mass? A bomb has a trigger to cause an instantaneous and catatrosphic rate of fission that is identified by positive feedback. Fuel rods in a reactor are contained and dampened and DESIGNED not to acheive the fission rate of bomb.

Melt downs? Yeh.. Explosions??? Not from the radioactive material....

Hope you knew this... Because your cute answer was designed to imply that either was a bomb.