Is Nuclear Power On The Verge Of A Big Comeback?

[kaz]

All we need is for something to go wrong and it's a disaster....
And if nothing goes wrong what do we do with the spent fuel rods?
Bury them somewhere and hope we picked a good place....
They will be fine after a few hundred thousand years...

Kind of what we're doing with the coal we're burning...putting it out into the atmosphere and letting it pollute the air and hope we're not inhaling it.

We're not "hoping" anything. The amount of pollution any single person inhales from coal plants is almost indistinguishable from zero.

They also have clean things like GE's H class clean coal turbines and combined cycle gas plants who generate a lot of power with very low emissions

 

[there4eyeM]

(in reference to post #115)
I'll bet no one knows.
That's just it.

 

[bripat9643]

No one knows how many have been how damaged by how much radiation. There can be no comparison. What is known is that shutting off other type of machines ends their danger immediately. It is far from the end with nukes.
The threat that keeps on threatening.

Here's news for you: Uranium gives off radiation whether it's still in the ground unmined or in a nuclear power plant. The "threat" is there whether we build nuclear power plants or not. Radiation is all around you. A person living in Denver gets more radiation in one day from cosmic rays than the total dose received by any resident of Three Mile Island. Your belief that you can eliminate radiation from the environment is pure idiocy.

 

[bripat9643]

What is timid about investing our fortune and our future in real alternatives that only require some work to resolve and have only positive consequences?
What is a mystery is the profound militancy, and I admit this does not apply to 'corn, in support of nukes.

You're profoundly naive if you believe wind and solar require only "some work to resolve."

 

[there4eyeM]

referring to #123

'Your' who? Who said that?

 

[bripat9643]

Your reasoning would be much more sound there4eyeM if you reasoned better. Your opposition seems to be that the energy supply--nuclear energy--is dangerous and we shouldn't try to harness the power of the atom because of the danger present.

I believe that is a valid point.

Danger exists in burning wood. If you don't tend to the fire, the fire can spread.
Danger exists in mining coal. Ask anyone who has black lung disease.
Danger exists in drilling for oil. Ask those who work on the docks.

This is the price you pay as a society if you want your society to expand.

Your position is that nuclear energy, unlike coal and oil, is much more dangerous. It may be. However, do you not feel that there were persons just like yourself who were happy with steam power for ships, with the corner pot belly stove for heat, and reliance upon landlines because the microwaves are a possible danger?

Given the choice to go back to chopping wood or watching ESPN or Lifetime TV, I think most people would prefer watching ESPN. I believe most prefer the advances of electric travel on rail as opposed to the smelly and less reliable coal burning locomotives. You really do not see many giving up on rail after the tragic accident last month.

Again, the US Navy has proven it has the ability to professionally manage the nuclear reactors. I think we should build 2-300 of them and let the navy manage every one of them. However, for whatever reason, in this nation, we do not seem to do the logical thing so having the exact same rulebook for private industry is likely the best I can hope for.

It isn't that you don't make a good case. It's just not all that compelling. Mankind has lived through disaster in every age of it's existence. They did so in spite of the timid; not because of them.

Given that a nuclear powered aircraft carrier costs over $5 billion, I don't think letting the Navy do it would economical. If cost was no object, then it might be something to consider.

 

[bripat9643]

One could say we should thank God the 9-11 guys crashed into towers and building other than nukes. That could have done real damage.
Next time?
They might wise up.

Actually, no, it wouldn't. An airliner hitting a nuclear plant will cause only cosmetic damage...they are built to withstand it. (Though I'm sure it would shut down.)

So were the Twin Towers.

No, actually, they weren't.

 

[bripat9643]

One could say we should thank God the 9-11 guys crashed into towers and building other than nukes. That could have done real damage.
Next time?
They might wise up.

Actually, no, it wouldn't. An airliner hitting a nuclear plant will cause only cosmetic damage...they are built to withstand it. (Though I'm sure it would shut down.)

You're correct.

Aircraftcrashbreach - Nuclear Energy Institute

The containment structure around a nuclear reactor is made of reinforced concrete over 6 feet thick. I don't any modern airliner could penetrate that.

Containment building - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

The containment building itself is typically an airtight steel structure enclosing the reactor normally sealed off from the outside atmosphere. The steel is either free-standing or attached to the concrete missile shield. In the United States, the design and thickness of the containment and the missile shield are governed by federal regulations (10 CFR 50.55a), and must be strong enough to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger airliner without rupture.[3]​

 

[bripat9643]

How many have died from radioactive poisoning related to accidents and uranium mining?

One:

Let s not forget the hidden costs of uranium mining High Country News

In 2003, a time of cheap oil, there were only 321 uranium miners working in the West, producing 779 tons of uranium that year. In 2008, there were over 1,500, who produced about 1,500 tons. In 2006, the Pandora mine south of Moab, where I live, reopened with just 10 employees. This year, it has 57. Recently, however, it lost one. Hunter Diehl, a 28-year-old Moab man, died in the mine this May, crushed by rock falling from the mine's ceiling. It was the first uranium mining death in the country since 1998, and the first since uranium's fickle resurgence.​

 

[kaz]

referring to #123

'Your' who? Who said that?

Do you know how the Curie's died?

 

[kaz]

One could say we should thank God the 9-11 guys crashed into towers and building other than nukes. That could have done real damage.
Next time?
They might wise up.

Actually, no, it wouldn't. An airliner hitting a nuclear plant will cause only cosmetic damage...they are built to withstand it. (Though I'm sure it would shut down.)

You're correct.

Aircraftcrashbreach - Nuclear Energy Institute

The containment structure around a nuclear reactor is made of reinforced concrete over 6 feet thick. I don't any modern airliner could penetrate that.

Containment building - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

The containment building itself is typically an airtight steel structure enclosing the reactor normally sealed off from the outside atmosphere. The steel is either free-standing or attached to the concrete missile shield. In the United States, the design and thickness of the containment and the missile shield are governed by federal regulations (10 CFR 50.55a), and must be strong enough to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger airliner without rupture.[3]​

I spent a lot of time in the Energy Industry, including I was manager of GE Nuclear's global applications. I am not an engineer, but a lot of them worked for me.

What they told me was that nuclear power plants were designed to withstand air accidents, such as say a plane is losing altitude and unintentionally lands into a nuclear power plant.

They are not designed to withstand an intentional 9/11 style attack where the plane goes into the plant full throttle. However, it's a lot harder to hit the reactor than it was the twin towers.

Also, even in that case, nuclear power plants are designed in a meltdown to drop their contents into a pure water tank, and below that tank is a larger one. So the plane would have to basically at full speed go into the ground under the reactor and kick up nuclear material like a club hitting a golf ball and shooting up a tuft of grass.

 

[Jarlaxle]

One could say we should thank God the 9-11 guys crashed into towers and building other than nukes. That could have done real damage.
Next time?
They might wise up.

Actually, no, it wouldn't. An airliner hitting a nuclear plant will cause only cosmetic damage...they are built to withstand it. (Though I'm sure it would shut down.)

You're correct.

Aircraftcrashbreach - Nuclear Energy Institute

The containment structure around a nuclear reactor is made of reinforced concrete over 6 feet thick. I don't any modern airliner could penetrate that.

Containment building - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

The containment building itself is typically an airtight steel structure enclosing the reactor normally sealed off from the outside atmosphere. The steel is either free-standing or attached to the concrete missile shield. In the United States, the design and thickness of the containment and the missile shield are governed by federal regulations (10 CFR 50.55a), and must be strong enough to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger airliner without rupture.[3]​

My friend worked construction for a while...he was on the crew that overhauled Unit 2 at Millstone. It is designed to withstand a hit from a round from a battleship without failing! An airliner-or even something like a B-52 or a C-5) would do only cosmetic damage.

 

[rdean]

Ted Cruz wants to increase H-1B visas from 65 000 to 325 000 annually. So a lot of Republicans will have bosses named Jose and Rajen.

More leftist bigotry. Why do you give a shit what race someone you work for is?

Then why give a shit if talented immigrants come to this country when Republicans are too stupid, lazy and are unqualified for the jobs they feel they are protecting?

 

[rdean]

No one knows how many have been how damaged by how much radiation. There can be no comparison. What is known is that shutting off other type of machines ends their danger immediately. It is far from the end with nukes.
The threat that keeps on threatening.

Here's news for you: Uranium gives off radiation whether it's still in the ground unmined or in a nuclear power plant. The "threat" is there whether we build nuclear power plants or not. Radiation is all around you. A person living in Denver gets more radiation in one day from cosmic rays than the total dose received by any resident of Three Mile Island. Your belief that you can eliminate radiation from the environment is pure idiocy.

Prove it.

 

[rdean]

One could say we should thank God the 9-11 guys crashed into towers and building other than nukes. That could have done real damage.
Next time?
They might wise up.

Actually, no, it wouldn't. An airliner hitting a nuclear plant will cause only cosmetic damage...they are built to withstand it. (Though I'm sure it would shut down.)

So were the Twin Towers.

No, actually, they weren't.

Actually, they were. The mistake made by the designers was they assumed if hit by a plane, it would be coming from overseas and the fuel tanks would be relatively empty. Those planes came from here fully loaded. There was a special on TV a couple of years ago and they went into the design in detail. I'm sure it wasn't shown on Fox. Fox doesn't promote science, facts or engineering. It's a threat to the stupidity of their viewers.

 

[hipeter924]

Nuclear power is good news if it is done safely, but issues still remain over researching and building safer reactors; and then the pressing issue of storing vast amounts of waste till reactors exist that can re-use fuel.

 

[hipeter924]

One could say we should thank God the 9-11 guys crashed into towers and building other than nukes. That could have done real damage.
Next time?
They might wise up.

Actually, no, it wouldn't. An airliner hitting a nuclear plant will cause only cosmetic damage...they are built to withstand it. (Though I'm sure it would shut down.)

So were the Twin Towers.

No, actually, they weren't.

Actually, they were. The mistake made by the designers was they assumed if hit by a plane, it would be coming from overseas and the fuel tanks would be relatively empty. Those planes came from here fully loaded. There was a special on TV a couple of years ago and they went into the design in detail. I'm sure it wasn't shown on Fox. Fox doesn't promote science, facts or engineering. It's a threat to the stupidity of their viewers.

Yep. The Twin Towers were designed to take a plane hit, which isn't surprising since the Empire State building was hit in an accident (or hit by a bomber to be precise) in the 1940s, bringing home that necessity.

That was why no one believed that the Twin Towers would come down (including those on site with knowledge of the buildings), as it was designed to survive a plane hit, what they didn't plan for was a deliberate hit by a terrorist organization using an airliner full of jet fuel to hit the towers.

 

[bripat9643]

Nuclear power is good news if it is done safely, but issues still remain over researching and building safer reactors; and then the pressing issue of storing vast amounts of waste till reactors exist that can re-use fuel.

There are no remaining issues. There are only radical environmentalist who will never stop attacking nuclear power.

 

[there4eyeM]

Radical nukers continue to push for continuation of the lies about their technology. What makes them so adamant? It is as if they were being paid.
Hopefully, the successful campaign to halt nukes will continue.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is more than the containment vessel to a nuke plant. It isn't necessary to destroy that in order to cause a major problem.