No, it doesn't blow up. Modern nuclear reactors are designed so that increasing the temperature beyond normal operational parameters decreases the efficiency of the reaction so that it absorbs power instead of producing power. It's also designed to lose more heat through its surface than it can generate in its core (instead of a large pile, they often use small graphite-encased pebbles.) It's passively safe, so that everyone could walk away from the reactor and it would simply die out on its own.
No, it doesn't blow up. Modern nuclear reactors are designed so that increasing the temperature beyond normal operational parameters decreases the efficiency of the reaction so that it absorbs power instead of producing power. It's also designed to lose more heat through its surface than it can generate in its core (instead of a large pile, they often use small graphite-encased pebbles.) It's passively safe, so that everyone could walk away from the reactor and it would simply die out on its own.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
whatever, they could care less as long as they get cash, corporations can't ever keep things working right.
if the thing goes sky high they would blame it on something else. when does the "market" ever take responsibility for anything they can get away with?
never, it's big buisness in this country to not take responsibility and anything the government is involved with doubly so.
I am sure you have lots of interesting factoid of why this one wont blow up. :roll:
I am sure they swear it with all kinds of fancy terms but it still comes down to the same thing.
if the thing goes sky high they would blame it on something else. when does the "market" ever take responsibility for anything they can get away with?
never, it's big buisness in this country to not take responsibility and anything the government is involved with doubly so.
I am sure you have lots of interesting factoid of why this one wont blow up. :roll:
I am sure they swear it with all kinds of fancy terms but it still comes down to the same thing.
Whatever? That is all you can say?
So the next time this subject comes up do you think you could manage to not fear monger about the end of the world and admit Nuclear is our best energy source?
And I am sure if he explained it to you that you wouldnt understand 95% of it and continue on your ignorant ways.
Agreed, but this is also the area that will have to change before any new reactors are built in this country. Bush is looking to give the plant designer/operator a limitation of liability. Without it I don't see any new plants. It is scary that a large number of reactors that we have running are already past their original service life, they just keep tacking on the years.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
sure, you keep trusting them, the ceo's of these corporations wouldn't take a minute to piss on you if you were on fire from their plant as long as they get the big money.
quit being so naive....
Then you want to use nuclear power, because of Americans living next to environmental regulations compliant coal plants and nuclear plants, the ones experiencing the larger radiation exposure are those living by the coal plants due to trace amounts of radioactive elements in coal and the fact that you have to use so much more coal than uranium to produce the same amount of power.
J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco. "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants", December 8, 1978, Science.
I trust the knowledge of my own PhD in nuclear and particle physics and that of my colleagues that I can verify.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
I took a course at school on thermal systems design and we got into the knitty gritty of all the different energy sources, and the feasibility of implementing each of the technologies.
There was an interesting point brought up by the prof, he explained that there is research going on in europe (more so than NA) with respect to following energy consumption.
ie. The amount of energy you save by producing energy at home rather than having line losses with centralized production and the like. Tracking the energy losses and improvements throughout development and use.
Anyway, one of the points he brought up was that there are some instances where turbines (high precision mechanical devices) and to a lesser extent solar panels cost more in energy to produce them than they would ever generate in their entire lifespan.
Food for thought, although I am sure with rising fuel costs and turbine cost reductions, this will become far less of an issue.
Personal information. Washington Constructors purchased the heavy contracting division of Raytheon which was in the process of completely construction of a couple of nuclear reactors and basically lied about how over budget and how complete the projects were. Washington Group ended up declaring bankrupcy (losing their ability to bond on a project we were teamed with them on) and a result and sued Raytheon to take the projects back.
The engine in your car could explode or the tire fall off. Does that mean you think cars shouldnt be produced?
We have had 1 incident that caused a major issue in this country in what, 60 years of nuclear power? And that incident was a showcase in the safety mechanisms of our designs. But what does the rabid left,enviro groups, and people like you do? Spread crap about 3mile island and cause a complete stoppage of new nuclear reactors in this country.
Now we are stuck burning gas and coal and polluting the hell out of our atmosphere. Good job!
All power has environmental impacts. The question is making the right tradeoffs to balance risks and generate a sustainable amount of power. Unfortunately, human intuition is an unsound guide to evaluating risks: rare but newsworthy risks like airline crashes are intuitively more dangerous than common, less splashy risks like car crashes, despite the fact that you're more likely to be killed in a car crash than an airplane crash.
Even though hydroelectic plants don't blow up, dams do break and they're destroying the fish populations (especially some species of salmon--you should watch a sea lion at a fish ladder.)
Wind turbines remove energy from the air and change local weather patterns, though we haven't deployed them on a wide enough scale to experience anything really bad yet.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,767
- 46,573
- 136
Then I hereby demand that you reduce your total electrical consumption by 20% including you usage of electrically powered mass transit immediately or STFU.
You spew the exact same vague anti-business/government drivel in every one of these threads while irrationally championing a solution that only large firms like GE could even hope to meet with government backing.
The fact is that the currently operating plants are inherently more dangerous than the new designs and are growing moreso as the plants age. Yet, you oppose new construction/replacement on the basis that nuclear power is unsafe.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
dams can be replanned, wind turines can be properly placed, nuke plants ruin the earth for a long long time.
not worth it, and very irresponsible to trust corporations with our childrens childrens childrens etc etc etc future becasue you trust some greedy ceo.
want more energy? get of your ass and get a bicycle and ride it, use the oil for energy until we get fusion or something.
put the nuke plants on the damn moon, I dont care but dont put them on the surface where we live, it's plain dumb no matter how much kool-aid you read from the people trying to make cash.
not worth it, and very irresponsible to trust corporations with our childrens childrens childrens etc etc etc future becasue you trust some greedy ceo.
want more energy? get of your ass and get a bicycle and ride it, use the oil for energy until we get fusion or something.
put the nuke plants on the damn moon, I dont care but dont put them on the surface where we live, it's plain dumb no matter how much kool-aid you read from the people trying to make cash.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
don't be an idiot. we both know what happens in a bad scenerio. granted unlikley but the consequenes are imeasureable.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
get a grip you people are gambling with very long term effects and taking big buisnesses word for safety...dumb.
I am done with this thread I know the soviets screwed up and so did we with three mile,
go ahead and stick your head in the sand and follow bush...trusting the same peoople who would pollute this planet for eons if it made a quick buck....and you all nod..uh huh..sounds safe...lets do it....famous last words.
I am done with this thread I know the soviets screwed up and so did we with three mile,
go ahead and stick your head in the sand and follow bush...trusting the same peoople who would pollute this planet for eons if it made a quick buck....and you all nod..uh huh..sounds safe...lets do it....famous last words.
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I am curious how they ruin it. Why dont you teach us how they ruin the earth.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
I agree. And also increase the level of federal funding of plasma focus fusion research a thousand fold (current funding is less than $100,000 a year).
Plasma focus fusion, which uses hydrogen and boron, produces only .1% of its energy in the form of high-energy neutrons and absolutely no long-lived radioactive byproducts. Thus focus fusion is considerably safer than tokamak (the "standard" approach to nuclear fusion).
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
yeah, the government does a great job...look at iraqi war, look at your local government. yeah right.
Well yeah I was hoping he would come up with something like that. My point is does a coal or gas plant ruin the earth "any less"?
I mean how many times have coal and gas plants been shutdown and the land reclaimed for any kind of use? Chances are the land is so filthy from the polution created by the plant it is not habitable anyways and wont be for hundreds of years to come.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter