• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Modern nuke plants

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of Cherobyl, a graphite reactor is now understood to be a accident waiting to happen, human lesson learned, a mistake unlikely to happen again.
I never understood why ANYONE would want to use a moderator that burns. It is just as stupid as the Soviets building sodium reactors for their naval vessels...sodium and water have a very hot relationship, to put it mildly.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
I never understood why ANYONE would want to use a moderator that burns. It is just as stupid as the Soviets building sodium reactors for their naval vessels...sodium and water have a very hot relationship, to put it mildly.
It's very easy to understand. The USSR was an authoritarian government with an entrenched and powerful bureaucracy which was controlled by people who had the ultimate faith in themselves and ultimate decision making power. The USSR and China are infamous for making decisions bases on the wishes of government officials in power. Their hubris demanded they be right and so it was.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,719
3,528
126
Well there's nothing like rational discussion and there's not much of that here.

Maybe the scientists and researchers and people who have original ideas backed by scientific principles should be figuring these things out for implementation.

Na, lets just argue based on political concerns because that's what we do best. Science and reasoned application thereof? Not so good there.
I think you look to the wrong kind of science. I was always deeply interested in nuclear power and saw it as the answer to unlimited power needs but I also became interested in human nature, or pig nature, if you will. I have personally sided with irrational and paranoid enormously conservative Mothers. They are irrationally obsessed with not having their kids grow up around nuclear power. They feel this in their genes. There can be no doubt at all to them, and to all feeling people, that nuclear power is insane. I go with feeling. Nuclear power is for men and men's ego. Women do not play with fire. Men like to manipulate the forces of nature to show command, but women love their children. Women are more intuitive and more nurturing. Nuclear power and toxins that kill for thousands of years are insane. What is intuitively wrong for half the population is wrong for the human race. Nuclear power is a violation of our genetic code.

There are different kinds of science and reason, I believe.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
It's very easy to understand. The USSR was an authoritarian government with an entrenched and powerful bureaucracy which was controlled by people who had the ultimate faith in themselves and ultimate decision making power. The USSR and China are infamous for making decisions bases on the wishes of government officials in power. Their hubris demanded they be right and so it was.
This is no different then the lies of the NRC/IAEA. It is in nature of the beast, if they were honest about nuke power no one would tolerate it.

What was more foolish? Combustible graphite rods to cut corners in Chernobyl's reactor or knowingly selling flawed reactors with big salad strainer holes in the bottom to make a quick buck to our allies like Japan?

Both are suicidal, the difference is the USSR could be shamed into cleaning up their mess by the world community during the cold war (and evacuating children who are very sensitive to Iodine 131) forcing them to take responsibility, Japan and US are willing to still irradiate their children and workers to keep up the secrecy of a corrupt bureaucratic system.

So yeah, once again Fuku breaks new records, we have outdone even the USSR in nuke power cronyism.

Go USA! (and GE/TEPCO)

Tests find thyroid radiation in Japanese children
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Tests_find_thyroid_radiation_in_Japanese_children_999.html


Of the valid test results collected for 1,080 children, 482 or 44.6 percent were confirmed to have some level of radioactive contamination in their thyroid glands, the government official told AFP.

I-131 eats childrens thyroids for breakfast. A child has very little natural iodine built up over their lifetimes so 131 soaks up like a sponge since the human body sees it as the purest of the pure Iodine (our immune system needs a 'lil iodine stash in the thyroid to sterilize pesky bugs) Having nuke power waste in your neck as a kid will earn you the "Chernobyl smile" (they cut your throat to pull your thyroid gland out -google it to give you a boost to your monday)



Safe, Reliable -the Smart Choice for America's Future! Nuclear Power! (and some cesium goodness)
Wake up folks, once again shit too good to be true is just that, pure bullshit.

I am not even a parent, some of you are. You should learn more about this, kids deserve it.

Besides, TEPCO KNEW that seawall was far too low, and BSed about it, they knew the generators almost at sea level was asinine. Sure, the earthquake was big, but they half assed and lied to the public, thus Fuku was a MAN MADE disaster brought on by negligence. Don't believe the hype, they are half assing here too, I would bet the bank on it.
 
Last edited:

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
First find one private company or corporation that is willing to underwrite a new nuclear power generation plant....
I see no one addressed this...


That's because it would be unlikely for private insurance to be able to cover all the costs in the worst cases.

Should private insurance companies choose to insure a nuclear plant their liability is limited to several hundred million
for acts involving human malice.

If a natural disaster is involved it goes up to some 12-13 billion dollars.

Considering the cost estimates of Fukushima it's easy to see how even 13 billion dollars can be inadequate in the worst case scenario. A worst case scenario would require emergency funds provided by the Government.
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
You're not doing the debate any favors by ranting about liberals. For once, I don't think it's a left vs right issue, as shocking as that may be. And trying to make it a left/right argument alienates a lot of people who support the idea of nuclear power. Not everything needs to be us vs them political...
Rant is such an ugly word, but not as ugly as a rabid partisan shill that won't admit it.
 

chris9641

Member
Dec 8, 2006
156
0
0
Well there's nothing like rational discussion and there's not much of that here.

Maybe the scientists and researchers and people who have original ideas backed by scientific principles should be figuring these things out for implementation.

Na, lets just argue based on political concerns because that's what we do best. Science and reasoned application thereof? Not so good there.
I don't understand, so are you saying we should all be indifferent because we're all ignorant on the subject?
There's more to the implementation of these plants then just pure science, blankslate brings up the economical perspective, Moonbeam a more sociological perspective. How are we going to pay to rebuild and create new nuclear plants? We are still a democracy, what if the majority of Americans are against nuclear plants being built?

How do explain to the opposition that nuclear is the way to go when Germany is taking the complete opposite path in terms of fulfilling their energy demands and succeeding?

Also do you know if scientists across the board have a general consensus one way or the other? I would imagine there is debate amongst that community as well.
 

Newbian

Lifer
Aug 24, 2008
24,641
670
126
The waste issue is political, not technical in nature. Using breeder reactors and/or storing the waste in a central location like Yucca Mountain are both reasonable solutions to the problem which are far superior to storing waste onsite at the plants like we do today.
The big issue with storing them in places like that is simply transporting them there.

No one wants it to be transported near them for obvious reasons plus only 100 miles away from Vegas seems to not be the smartest thing especially as they have no nuclear plants in Nevada and they hate being forced to store other states waste like that.

Not to mention how active earthquakes are in that state and how many happen close to that site, hell a fault line is right below it.

I am not saying some kind of storage is not needed for the time being but I am sure there are better places and there is still a huge technical issue with storing them and making sure they are safe for the many years it takes for them to be safe.
 
Last edited:

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,886
201
106
No. Just, no.

Nobody wants a huge powerplant in their backyard else it ruin the view, kill birds, store radioactive waste, lower property values, etc. etc. The problem is NIMBY. It isn't any more common to liberals as it is conservatives.
:hmm: maybe we should outsource our nuke plants.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,017
1
76
I see no one addressed this...


That's because it would be unlikely for private insurance to be able to cover all the costs in the worst cases.

Should private insurance companies choose to insure a nuclear plant their liability is limited to several hundred million
for acts involving human malice.

If a natural disaster is involved it goes up to some 12-13 billion dollars.

Considering the cost estimates of Fukushima it's easy to see how even 13 billion dollars can be inadequate in the worst case scenario. A worst case scenario would require emergency funds provided by the Government.
There are already companies building or planning to build new reactors in the US. Nuclear insurance is covered by all of the power companies in a joint fund. Claims exceeding $10 billion are insured by the federal government, via the Price Anderson act.

Did the industry solve the elephant in the room being nuclear waste? Until that problem is solved, how is responsible to develop these power plants?
The entire "problem" of nuclear waste is 100% caused by the government banning reprocessing.
 

Franz316

Senior member
Sep 12, 2000
876
215
116
The entire "problem" of nuclear waste is 100% caused by the government banning reprocessing.
That may be case for reprocessing, and NIMBY for a place like Yucca so it remains that we have no long term solution. Until a consensus is reached on a long term storage site or reprocessing is allowed, we'll have fuel stacking up at power plants which is undesirable. I'd like to find a solution to the problem before creating more of one. If we can come to a viable solution for waste that doesn't take 50 years and 100 billion dollars to implement I'd be all for nuclear power.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,951
9,614
136
The entire "problem" of nuclear waste is 100% caused by the government banning reprocessing.
The DOE has been flirting with the PRISM reactor over the last few years and it looks like the Brits are going to get one at Sellafield to burn up excess plutonium. Presumably any DOE/military program to deal with their waste could be expanded to handle the civilian stockpile if it's deemed successful. Has far less political problems than a geological repository.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,017
1
76
That may be case for reprocessing, and NIMBY for a place like Yucca so it remains that we have no long term solution. Until a consensus is reached on a long term storage site or reprocessing is allowed, we'll have fuel stacking up at power plants which is undesirable. I'd like to find a solution to the problem before creating more of one. If we can come to a viable solution for waste that doesn't take 50 years and 100 billion dollars to implement I'd be all for nuclear power.
The reason why we have no long term solution is because the federal government has said "you can't have a long term solution". Long term storage isn't required for spent fuel - it can be reprocessed and burned in fast reactors. Fast reactors don't exist today but they certainly could in a couple decades. Hence no need for long-term thousand-year storage.
 

kyp275

Member
Jul 21, 2003
75
0
0
I think you look to the wrong kind of science. I was always deeply interested in nuclear power and saw it as the answer to unlimited power needs but I also became interested in human nature, or pig nature, if you will. I have personally sided with irrational and paranoid enormously conservative Mothers. They are irrationally obsessed with not having their kids grow up around nuclear power. They feel this in their genes. There can be no doubt at all to them, and to all feeling people, that nuclear power is insane. I go with feeling. Nuclear power is for men and men's ego. Women do not play with fire. Men like to manipulate the forces of nature to show command, but women love their children. Women are more intuitive and more nurturing. Nuclear power and toxins that kill for thousands of years are insane. What is intuitively wrong for half the population is wrong for the human race. Nuclear power is a violation of our genetic code.

There are different kinds of science and reason, I believe.
there are so many kinds of nuts and crazies in this post I don't know where to begin.

I hope for your sake it was an attempt at sarcasm gone horribly wrong.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
there are so many kinds of nuts and crazies in this post I don't know where to begin.

I hope for your sake it was an attempt at sarcasm gone horribly wrong.
Why? "Genetic suicide of the human race" sums up nuke power pretty well. Although moonie can be a bit wordy with his descriptions.

And no, I do not fear Quantum Shill, he knows little of nuke power, he speaks like a know it all guy who runs the taco truck in the parking lot of a nuke power plant.

All they have is "this is too complicated for the average serf!" Yet they only know industry talking points. It's sad how little debate we have.
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
What is so safe or so clean about nuclear power?

I have some radioactive tuna for sale.

How do you get rid of spent Nuclear Fuel Rods?

Answer: You cant get rid of them!

Well maybe if you had one of those breeder reactors, maybe you could reprocess the rods. But we dont have one. Maybe we can send all the spent fuel rods to antartica (Not the ice shelf). Another option might be that big trench in ocean. Maybe we can just launch them out in space or send it to the moon. That could be a real reason for space research. Space Dump 5,000.
 
Last edited:

kyp275

Member
Jul 21, 2003
75
0
0
Why? "Genetic suicide of the human race" sums up nuke power pretty well. Although moonie can be a bit wordy with his descriptions.

And no, I do not fear Quantum Shill, he knows little of nuke power, he speaks like a know it all guy who runs the taco truck in the parking lot of a nuke power plant.

All they have is "this is too complicated for the average serf!" Yet they only know industry talking points. It's sad how little debate we have.
not that you're looking for any actual debates anyway. you say the proponents only know industry talking points, yet I've seen nothing but anti-nuke activist talking points from you either, so on that front I'd say you guys are even.

threads like these are pointless, you have people who argue on nothing other than pure technical capability while ignoring real world implications after corporation and politics set in, and then you have people who argue with nothing other than doomsday scenarios while ignoring any flaws in alternatives that they support.

basically, your typical internet argument.


also, if you can't see why what moon was saying was crazy, then you're lost as well. It's one thing to be anti-nuclear for logical reasons with merits, it's another to be anti-nuke because all women are loving and sweet and apparently are all genetically prescient, which apparently also tells them that nuclear power will destroy mankind thus making all women anti nuclear.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY