Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

In Search of a National Energy Strategy - Article - Page 2

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Vaughn on July 4, 2004, 12:29 am
 


     TMI did NOT blow up completly; in fact, it did not blow up at all, read the
facts here:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html .
Chernobyl is a whole different deal, and something that can not happen in the
US.  Why?  Because it happened first in 1957 at a place in the UK then called
Windscale and we learned not to use graphite-moderated reactors for power
production.  Instead, we use pressurized water reactors.  I respectfully suggest
that you Google "Wigner reaction Windscale", read, and come back smarter.


     Yes, I agree that we should not build graphite-moderated power producing
nuclear reactors (the Chernobyl type).  Also, no nuclear reactors should be
built without containment buildings (like Chernobyl).  By the way, this is
pretty much the way we have always done it in the United States.

Vaughn





Posted by Fred B. McGalliard on July 6, 2004, 3:26 pm
 

...

This is, I think, a statement of faith, not fact. Just how much risk is
there really. The risk of doing without nuclear are pretty large.



Posted by Vaughn on July 6, 2004, 10:28 pm
 

     Exactly; it is a statistical fact that air pollution kills just as surely
as radiation, but no significant radiation escapes a nuclear power plant while
we tolerate plumes of pollution from "safe" fossil plants.   And then there are
those wars in the middle east over oil...

    Everyone seems to forget that the US Navy has been operating hundreds of
nuclear reactors for decades under far more severe conditions than any
stationary commercial power plant.  Problems?  None.   In the process, they have
spent millions of your tax $ training nuclear operators to an extremely high
standard.  Needless to say, most of this talent goes to waste in the civilian
world due to public opinion.

Vaughn  (an ex-Navy nuclear reactor operator)





Posted by pseudonym on July 4, 2004, 2:54 am
 
Most waste right now is stored close to the reactor, becuase no one
has figured out what to do with it.  Waste has to be contained
basically for eternity, so you're foisting a debt upon humanity that
can never be repaid, so that you can watch silly programs on the TV
for a few years.

Whatever the volume, engineering for eternity is expensive; just look
up 'yucca mountain'.  Throughout the ages, all this waste will have to
be guarded against both leakage and theft for blackmail or terrorism.

There is a lot of waste even now; to use nuclear power to replace coal
and provide power to growing nations would make the problem much
worse.

Posted by Vaughn on July 4, 2004, 2:30 pm
 

     Wrong.  Most waste is stored close the reactor because it is safer that
way.  Radioactive decay of used nuclear fuel occurs at an exponentially
decreasing rate.  That means that the bulk of the radiation is gone after a very
few years and then moving it to a permanent storage site becomes much safer.
Theft of recently used nuclear fuel is less of a problem because safely handling
it represents a big problem, and it is much more easily detectible than older
used fuel.

     The scientific/engineering community HAS figured out what to do with
nuclear waste, nuclear waste storage is now mostly a political problem because
of the misinformation and scare mongers.

Vaughn



This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread