Nuclear Power - if you are against it tell me why
- Thread starter josphII
- Start date
Hamburgerpimp
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2000
- 7,464
- 1
- 76
Many Nuclear Power Plants take more power to BUILD and DECOMISSION than the power they produce in their lifetime. Fact is stranger than fiction.
Knowledge is power. Arm yourselves.
Knowledge is power. Arm yourselves.
But is that "power" referring to the electric power?
Energy comes in different forms. Unless I've been badly misinformed, nuclear power plants are worth it, imo.
Energy comes in different forms. Unless I've been badly misinformed, nuclear power plants are worth it, imo.
I live next door to one, and i don't like 'em. You wouldn't believe how hard it is to type with 18 fingers. The third eye is cool though.
Nuclear power takes about 30 years just to pay for the fossil fuel emissions burnt during its construction. But, you gotta think long-term.
I oppose them myself. Why? Because if we build a nuclear power plants, that would cause someone else to build a nuclear power plant, and then someone would build a nuclear power plant on them. AAAAAAHHHHHHH RUN FOR YOU LIVES!!!!!!
Oh, wait a minute, that is using a nuclear bomb. Nevermind.
I oppose them myself. Why? Because if we build a nuclear power plants, that would cause someone else to build a nuclear power plant, and then someone would build a nuclear power plant on them. AAAAAAHHHHHHH RUN FOR YOU LIVES!!!!!!
Oh, wait a minute, that is using a nuclear bomb. Nevermind.
Regardless of what the nuclear power advocates say, there is no such thing as a 100% failsafe nuclear plant, and there is no safe place on the planet to store them that is big enough to hold the forseeable waste from the plants that are on line, now, let alone any new ones.
Along with the benefits, there are risks associated with many technologies. Unfortunately, the stash of residual products keeps growing, and it keep glowing for thousands of years, and the down side of OOPS! could be measured in millions of lives and areas the size of a large state (or more) becoming permanently uninhabitable.
Regardless of the potential benefit, the risks are simply too high. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are not the only major nuke disasters that have occured. They are still trying to figure out what to do with the leftovers from Hanford Wa., and other nuke facilities from WW II. In Russia, there is an area they simply removed from the map to cover up a disaster, and there are more.
N8Magic -- << Nuclear power is the way of the future. >>
Only if you are very short sighted or have a very brief projected lifespan. :Q
Along with the benefits, there are risks associated with many technologies. Unfortunately, the stash of residual products keeps growing, and it keep glowing for thousands of years, and the down side of OOPS! could be measured in millions of lives and areas the size of a large state (or more) becoming permanently uninhabitable.
Regardless of the potential benefit, the risks are simply too high. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are not the only major nuke disasters that have occured. They are still trying to figure out what to do with the leftovers from Hanford Wa., and other nuke facilities from WW II. In Russia, there is an area they simply removed from the map to cover up a disaster, and there are more.
N8Magic -- << Nuclear power is the way of the future. >>
Only if you are very short sighted or have a very brief projected lifespan. :Q
<< Not realy, I´m just against how we handle the waste. >>
elaborate.
currently power plants store waste on site and there has been no problems. in the future the waste will be moved to remote sites. whats wrong with that? do you disagree with the way european countries handle their spent fuel?
<< Many Nuclear Power Plants take more power to BUILD and DECOMISSION than the power they produce in their lifetime. Fact is stranger than fiction. >>
that is absolute crap. in fact nuclear plants are the most cost effective power producers in the world. some could argue that gas plants are more cost effective but thats crap imo. in fact, during the 1980's after Diablo Canyon went online, for every $1.2 PGE saw in profits $1 was from the Diable Canyon nuclear power plant
<< Regardless of what the nuclear power advocates say, there is no such thing as a 100% failsafe nuclear plant, and there is no safe place on the planet to store them that is big enough to hold the forseeable waste from the plants that are on line, now, let alone any new ones.
Along with the benefits, there are risks associated with many technologies. Unfortunately, the stash of residual products keeps growing, and it keep glowing for thousands of years, and the down side of OOPS! could be measured in millions of lives and areas the size of a large state (or more) becoming permanently uninhabitable.
Regardless of the potential benefit, the risks are simply too high. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are not the only major nuke disasters that have occured. They are still trying to figure out what to do with the leftovers from Hanford Wa., and other nuke facilities from WW II. In Russia, there is an area they simply removed from the map to cover up a disaster, and there are more. >>
you seem to be quite misinformed. the safety record of nuclear power plants is BY FAR the best on any other type of power plants. In fact its not even close, not by a long shot. As far as waste is concerned, well its simply not a problem. Currently spent fuel is stored on site and there have been ZERO problems as a results. Now what in the world is wrong with burrying this waste in some remote desert or mountain?
As far as "OOPS" as you put it, well thats just absurd. Contrary to what you may believe nuclear plants are NOT nuclear bombs. It is physically impossible for the fuel to explode. IMPOSSIBLE. the worst case scenario DID HAPPEN at three mile island. but you know what? there was ZERO radiation leak to the public and ZERO lives lost. Chernobyl type accidents are not possible this day in age because those type of power plants simple do not exist! worst case scenario is not a nuclear explosion, worst case scenario is the fuel melting through the foundation and comming to rest in the ground soil. The end result of the three mile island incedent was that half of the fuel melted, THATS IT! the fuel was ruined, nothing else. In fact the fuel meling occurs over such a large period of time that complete melting of the fuel is damn near impossible. And even if it does, so what!!
<< << Not realy, I´m just against how we handle the waste. >>
elaborate.
currently power plants store waste on site and there has been no problems. in the future the waste will be moved to remote sites. whats wrong with that? do you disagree with the way european countries handle their spent fuel? >>
Waste has to go somewhere so they are sent to recycle facilities, there most of the pollution is nullified, but not all. Currently there is a recycling plant in Sellafield, England. This plant is polluting the entire north sea and making all the fish there unfit for consumption. The north atlantic is one of the biggest fishing area in the world and just this single plant is damaging all of it.
Norway is extremely pissed at the UK for not closing it though they among other countries that fish there have been demanding it to be shut down a few times each year since it was first put into use. The pollution from it has already started to affect fish near Norway and it will travel north untill it reaches the North Pole ice, then it will travel down, past Iceland, past Greenland and then all the way down the Atlantic towards equator where it rises up because the water gets heated there and then it travels past Mexico bay, past the US, towards Europe and again it will pass the UK. Not sure how long of the way the pollution will effect life but it is known it will at least pollute the north atlantic.
N8Magic
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2000
- 11,624
- 1
- 81
I'm afraid I have to disagree. I've been doing some reading on this subject.
The Chernobyl incident can be blamed on the poor design of the Russian reactors at the time. This design has been dropped by the Russians, and they have since switched to a "western-style" reactor that is much more safe. This design was considered faulty for the following reasons:
- In the older style Russian reactors, if the water temperature got too high and some of the water turned to steam, the reaction accelerated. In western style reactors (CANDU, etc.) should the reaction get too hot, it will stop.
- Another key point is that the Chernobyl style reactors did not have a containment shell, which would have prevented the nuclear material from being spread across the immediate area.
As for Three Mile Island, that accident destroyed the reactor, but the core itself remained intact. Only radioactive gas was emitted, which has not been shown to have a detrimental effect to the public.
As for fossil fuels and their safety, coal miner fatalities happen on average of 1 per week. At the end of 1998, there had been 9012 power-plant years of nuclear power operation, and Chernobyl has been the only event that has harmed the public. That in itself is a pretty good track record, don't you think?
The Chernobyl incident can be blamed on the poor design of the Russian reactors at the time. This design has been dropped by the Russians, and they have since switched to a "western-style" reactor that is much more safe. This design was considered faulty for the following reasons:
- In the older style Russian reactors, if the water temperature got too high and some of the water turned to steam, the reaction accelerated. In western style reactors (CANDU, etc.) should the reaction get too hot, it will stop.
- Another key point is that the Chernobyl style reactors did not have a containment shell, which would have prevented the nuclear material from being spread across the immediate area.
As for Three Mile Island, that accident destroyed the reactor, but the core itself remained intact. Only radioactive gas was emitted, which has not been shown to have a detrimental effect to the public.
As for fossil fuels and their safety, coal miner fatalities happen on average of 1 per week. At the end of 1998, there had been 9012 power-plant years of nuclear power operation, and Chernobyl has been the only event that has harmed the public. That in itself is a pretty good track record, don't you think?
I am concerned with the nuclear waste, and also, The risk of accidents. Althought the chances for risk is not big, even remote possibilites scares me
Someone will have an objection to any type of energy out there, no question about it. I believe that nuclear power is undoubtly the cleanest. In the US alone, fossil-fuel burning plants spew out 600 million tons of CO2 gases per year, not to mention sufuric acids and other toxins. Imagine how much 600 million tons of gaseous CO2 is.
Nuclear power plants generally consume these 1 1/2 ton uranium fuel assemblies in a span of 1 to 2 years, depending on the size of the plant. The waste product is exactly the same weight, which consists mainly of Plutonium, which can be used for other things, and other radioactive elements and gases. Coal-burning plants can consume over a hundred train cars of coal per day.
If you're concerned about living near a nuclear power plant, I wouldn't worry about it. Smokers do have to worry. Chances are, smokers will get ten times the amount of radiation exposure from cigarettes than from anything else.
Nuclear power plants generally consume these 1 1/2 ton uranium fuel assemblies in a span of 1 to 2 years, depending on the size of the plant. The waste product is exactly the same weight, which consists mainly of Plutonium, which can be used for other things, and other radioactive elements and gases. Coal-burning plants can consume over a hundred train cars of coal per day.
If you're concerned about living near a nuclear power plant, I wouldn't worry about it. Smokers do have to worry. Chances are, smokers will get ten times the amount of radiation exposure from cigarettes than from anything else.
<< I'm afraid I have to disagree. I've been doing some reading on this subject.The Chernobyl incident can be blamed on the poor design of the Russian reactors at the time. >>
Very true. Chernobyl was a cheap plant that had 4 reactors (correct?) that had their heavy water (water that is heated during reaction) supplies tied together to the same lines. If one went, they all did. The reactors didn't even have containment vessels, only poured concrete around the reactor housings.
I live about 30 miles down wind of Diablo Nuclear Power Plant....doesn't bother me in the lease 
My odds driving to school each day bother me more
My odds driving to school each day bother me more 25 simple ways terrorists could destroy San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station and make SoCal uninhabitable for many millennia:
============================================================
1) Hijack a commercial jetliner ala WTC/Pentagon/PA disasters. If one
isn't enough, hijack two. If two isn't enough, hijack ten and be sure.
2) Rent, or even buy, a corporate jet so no pesky passengers can take back
the cockpit like what happened in PA. It would do plenty of damage, if not
quite as much as a jumbo jet. If one isn't enough, rent two...
3) A boat-bomb or depth-charge-carrying boat could be maneuvered over the
outflow tubes from the plant, which are each over a mile long and are
marked on navigation charts so that people don't drop their anchors on
them. Destroying them would destroy San Onofre's ability to cool
itself. (These tunnels may also be vulnerable to collapse when the waters
recede just prior to the arrival of a tsunami (as they always do), an
effect the NRC did not ever investigate despite professional advice that
they should.)
4) Steal a tank (as a depressed ex-soldier did in San Diego a few years
back) and ram it through the gate at San Onofre.
5) 50-caliber machine gun bullets would penetrate the coolant pumps, the
pipes, the control-room, etc. You can bicycle up to the plant with a
machine gun in a kiddie trailer, or simply stop your truck on the highway
(I-5) which runs past the plant, and blaze away. You could get thousands
of rounds in before anyone could stop you. Sure, you might not start a
sequence which results in a catastrophic meltdown if you just start
shooting without knowing your target well. But then again, the large
front-page aerial photo of the plant which was published yesterday in the
North County Times should give you more than enough information to aim at
the most vulnerable sections.
6) Until just recently the NRC published the GPS locations of the plants to
6 decimal places. (That web page has been taken down since September 11th,
2001.) Terrorists could target a cruise-missile against the plant, or a
ballistic missile, using these values. A well-aimed ballistic missile
wouldn't even need a warhead. It's kinetic energy would be enough to
destroy the plant. And removing the locations from the web site is
window-dressing at best, since the plants are kind of hard to hide in the
real world. Just ride by on your bike and get the necessary coordinates
with your portable GPS.
7) Throw a short-circuiting-bomblet or grenade at the switchyard and other
electrical areas of the plant. This would render it useless and could
cause a meltdown as well. (A "short-circuiting-bomblet or grenade" is a
small device that contains not shrapnel but long wires which criss-cross
the target's electrical cables and short everything out. NPPs need
constant, reliable off-site power to run, or they must use their emergency
backup diesel generators (which often don't start properly when they are
tested, and can also be shorted out along with the rest of the
station). Yes, these bombs exist and we used them in Kosovo.)
8) Replace various pages of the control-room operating manuals with ones
that contain misinformation so the operators do the wrong thing sooner or
later. (Requires one inside person; could be done years before the
accident occurs. It could already have been done at numerous NPPs and we
just don't know it.)
9) Get an insider to do something. Insiders have access to many vital
areas of the plant. There are thousands of workers at each plant. Some
are always disgruntled about one thing or another. And some might
accidentally say things at a party or somewhere, which others can use.
10) Derail a high-speed train off its tracks, which go by only about 100
to 200 feet away from the plant. With a little care and a bit of luck, the
train could actually be driven towards the plant by weakening the rail on
the plant side so the train falls towards that side.
11) Derail or blow up a chemical train on the tracks nearby. Such an
accident would probably kill everyone at the plant, which would probably
lead to a meltdown.
12) Mortars can be lofted into the plant from miles away, including a
nearby highway rest area, a state park, or from the Interstate itself. One
might call these a "drive-by war."
13) Crop-duster planes can be filled with gasoline instead of pesticides,
then the pilot simply turns on the vents in the final second or two before
impacting the plant. The fireball would be tremendous.
14) Rent a piece of construction equipment such as a Caterpillar, and
simply aim it for the control room and let it roll. Even if they kill the
driver they probably can't stop the vehicle.
15) Rent a truck and fill it with explosives (as Timothy McVeigh did in
Oklahoma City). There are not nearly enough perimeter controls to prevent
this. Although the gates appear to be guarded, there do not appear to be
nearly enough physical barriers, especially for a delivery truck which has
already made it past the perimeter on false pretences. (Even the plant's
soda machines need someone to come in with enough materiel (in cans, which
cannot be x-rayed) to blow the place to smithereens.)
16) Use two vehicles -- one to draw away the limited number of guards at
the plant, the other, which arrives a few seconds later from a different
direction, actually does the damage. A motor home at the state beach
nearby could be filled with terrorists who could take over the control room.
17) Steal some of the military training equipment on the base at Camp
Pendleton. This writer rode his bike over 20 miles on that military base
four months ago without being questioned or stopped, along with an ex-Navy
Seal. We did not realize the significance of our sojourn at the time.
18) Get an insider in the U.S. military to attack the plant with an A-10
Warthog or Apache helicopter. This isn't as far-fetched as it may
sound. A few years ago a distraught A-10 Warthog pilot suddenly veered off
course from his training mission, and flew 800 miles before running out of
gas and crashing into the side of a mountain. He carried four 500-lb bombs
at the time as well as machine-gun ammunition.
19) Since there is not a no-fly zone around the plant, any plane that
attacks it gets a free ride all the way in. No one can challenge a plane
which has not sent an "I have been hijacked" signal and which is flying in
legal airspace. The nearest civilian airport is about 10 miles away, or
about 5 minutes away for even the slowest airplanes. Our military could
not possibly react in time.
20) Besides dropping depth-charges on the outflow tunnels (see item #3,
"boat-bombs"), you could maneuver a boat very close to the plant, which is
located at the ocean's edge, and shell the plant from the boat. There are
numerous civilian harbors, beaches, etc. near the plant.
21) Multiple small planes can attack the plant at one time, overwhelming
even a sophisticated air defense system.
22) ASL -- Air, Sea, Land. Terrorists can utilize all three at once to
overwhelm the defenders.
23) NBC -- Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. Terrorists can attack the plant
with BC to kill the operators and the security forces, and then calmly walk
in and take over the plant.
24) (Censored -- the terrorists might not have thought of this one.)
25) The terrorists can simply wait for a meltdown to occur due to a natural
disaster such as a tsunami, earthquake, or tornado, or due to a
manufacturing defect, or operator error. The bottom line is, we have
terrorists in Southern California. Their name is Southern California Edison.
Station and make SoCal uninhabitable for many millennia:
============================================================
1) Hijack a commercial jetliner ala WTC/Pentagon/PA disasters. If one
isn't enough, hijack two. If two isn't enough, hijack ten and be sure.
2) Rent, or even buy, a corporate jet so no pesky passengers can take back
the cockpit like what happened in PA. It would do plenty of damage, if not
quite as much as a jumbo jet. If one isn't enough, rent two...
3) A boat-bomb or depth-charge-carrying boat could be maneuvered over the
outflow tubes from the plant, which are each over a mile long and are
marked on navigation charts so that people don't drop their anchors on
them. Destroying them would destroy San Onofre's ability to cool
itself. (These tunnels may also be vulnerable to collapse when the waters
recede just prior to the arrival of a tsunami (as they always do), an
effect the NRC did not ever investigate despite professional advice that
they should.)
4) Steal a tank (as a depressed ex-soldier did in San Diego a few years
back) and ram it through the gate at San Onofre.
5) 50-caliber machine gun bullets would penetrate the coolant pumps, the
pipes, the control-room, etc. You can bicycle up to the plant with a
machine gun in a kiddie trailer, or simply stop your truck on the highway
(I-5) which runs past the plant, and blaze away. You could get thousands
of rounds in before anyone could stop you. Sure, you might not start a
sequence which results in a catastrophic meltdown if you just start
shooting without knowing your target well. But then again, the large
front-page aerial photo of the plant which was published yesterday in the
North County Times should give you more than enough information to aim at
the most vulnerable sections.
6) Until just recently the NRC published the GPS locations of the plants to
6 decimal places. (That web page has been taken down since September 11th,
2001.) Terrorists could target a cruise-missile against the plant, or a
ballistic missile, using these values. A well-aimed ballistic missile
wouldn't even need a warhead. It's kinetic energy would be enough to
destroy the plant. And removing the locations from the web site is
window-dressing at best, since the plants are kind of hard to hide in the
real world. Just ride by on your bike and get the necessary coordinates
with your portable GPS.
7) Throw a short-circuiting-bomblet or grenade at the switchyard and other
electrical areas of the plant. This would render it useless and could
cause a meltdown as well. (A "short-circuiting-bomblet or grenade" is a
small device that contains not shrapnel but long wires which criss-cross
the target's electrical cables and short everything out. NPPs need
constant, reliable off-site power to run, or they must use their emergency
backup diesel generators (which often don't start properly when they are
tested, and can also be shorted out along with the rest of the
station). Yes, these bombs exist and we used them in Kosovo.)
8) Replace various pages of the control-room operating manuals with ones
that contain misinformation so the operators do the wrong thing sooner or
later. (Requires one inside person; could be done years before the
accident occurs. It could already have been done at numerous NPPs and we
just don't know it.)
9) Get an insider to do something. Insiders have access to many vital
areas of the plant. There are thousands of workers at each plant. Some
are always disgruntled about one thing or another. And some might
accidentally say things at a party or somewhere, which others can use.
10) Derail a high-speed train off its tracks, which go by only about 100
to 200 feet away from the plant. With a little care and a bit of luck, the
train could actually be driven towards the plant by weakening the rail on
the plant side so the train falls towards that side.
11) Derail or blow up a chemical train on the tracks nearby. Such an
accident would probably kill everyone at the plant, which would probably
lead to a meltdown.
12) Mortars can be lofted into the plant from miles away, including a
nearby highway rest area, a state park, or from the Interstate itself. One
might call these a "drive-by war."
13) Crop-duster planes can be filled with gasoline instead of pesticides,
then the pilot simply turns on the vents in the final second or two before
impacting the plant. The fireball would be tremendous.
14) Rent a piece of construction equipment such as a Caterpillar, and
simply aim it for the control room and let it roll. Even if they kill the
driver they probably can't stop the vehicle.
15) Rent a truck and fill it with explosives (as Timothy McVeigh did in
Oklahoma City). There are not nearly enough perimeter controls to prevent
this. Although the gates appear to be guarded, there do not appear to be
nearly enough physical barriers, especially for a delivery truck which has
already made it past the perimeter on false pretences. (Even the plant's
soda machines need someone to come in with enough materiel (in cans, which
cannot be x-rayed) to blow the place to smithereens.)
16) Use two vehicles -- one to draw away the limited number of guards at
the plant, the other, which arrives a few seconds later from a different
direction, actually does the damage. A motor home at the state beach
nearby could be filled with terrorists who could take over the control room.
17) Steal some of the military training equipment on the base at Camp
Pendleton. This writer rode his bike over 20 miles on that military base
four months ago without being questioned or stopped, along with an ex-Navy
Seal. We did not realize the significance of our sojourn at the time.
18) Get an insider in the U.S. military to attack the plant with an A-10
Warthog or Apache helicopter. This isn't as far-fetched as it may
sound. A few years ago a distraught A-10 Warthog pilot suddenly veered off
course from his training mission, and flew 800 miles before running out of
gas and crashing into the side of a mountain. He carried four 500-lb bombs
at the time as well as machine-gun ammunition.
19) Since there is not a no-fly zone around the plant, any plane that
attacks it gets a free ride all the way in. No one can challenge a plane
which has not sent an "I have been hijacked" signal and which is flying in
legal airspace. The nearest civilian airport is about 10 miles away, or
about 5 minutes away for even the slowest airplanes. Our military could
not possibly react in time.
20) Besides dropping depth-charges on the outflow tunnels (see item #3,
"boat-bombs"), you could maneuver a boat very close to the plant, which is
located at the ocean's edge, and shell the plant from the boat. There are
numerous civilian harbors, beaches, etc. near the plant.
21) Multiple small planes can attack the plant at one time, overwhelming
even a sophisticated air defense system.
22) ASL -- Air, Sea, Land. Terrorists can utilize all three at once to
overwhelm the defenders.
23) NBC -- Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. Terrorists can attack the plant
with BC to kill the operators and the security forces, and then calmly walk
in and take over the plant.
24) (Censored -- the terrorists might not have thought of this one.)
25) The terrorists can simply wait for a meltdown to occur due to a natural
disaster such as a tsunami, earthquake, or tornado, or due to a
manufacturing defect, or operator error. The bottom line is, we have
terrorists in Southern California. Their name is Southern California Edison.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter