[Spliffdaddy]

The environmentalists guide to energy production:


Wind power? kills birds.

Solar power? Toxins created during panel manufacturing.

Nuclear power? omg, we're all gonna glow.

Fossil fuels? Create wars. And pollute our air.


The only good energy source is the hot air from environmentalists,

[El Gato]

Originally Posted by 11011001

Personally, I find it hypocritical that the environmentalists are actually doing more damage to their beloved planet by holding back nuclear energy then they would be by supporting it. More nuclear = less oil = less CO2, less land damage, less oil spills, more global warming, etc..

There isn't land damage at the storage site? These areas will never be inhabitable again.

And "more global warming" is a good thing? I don't think the refugees from small island states would agree.

[El Gato]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Wind power? kills birds.

True, older models of wind turbines had this problem. Modern wind turbines are taller and also spin slower, so there are less bird strikes. Like I've already said, offshore installations help address this issue as well. The problem isn't as great as you make it out to be; the advancements in turbine technology and just plain better siting of wind farms all but takes care of the problem.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Solar power? Toxins created during panel manufacturing.

I'm not too versed in solar, but I'll look into this. Thanks for the info.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Nuclear power? omg, we're all gonna glow.

Fossil fuels? Create wars. And pollute our air.

Would you be more willing to accept a nuclear storage site, oil refinery, or wind farm within 50 miles of your home?

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The only good energy source is the hot air from environmentalists,

Geothermal is very efficient as well

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by memento

Fusion is a nuclear reaction, so I would still consider this as nuclear power. We still have decades before it is possible to sustain a fusion reaction and make it commercially viable. I personally believe that we will eventually get there and use it. I look forward to that day. In the meantime, the nuke plants of today are fission.

There's a big difference between fusion and fission (besides the obvious.) The byproduct to fusion is helium. Also, the accelerated neutrons can be contained using smart materials that don't easily become radioactive. The other major difference is that those items that do become radioactive, there are only a few different isotopes and their half-life is vastly shorter than the crap generated by a fission reaction.

The end result waste of a fusion reaction is MUCH more containable (and doesn't react biochemically, unlike waste from fission) so it's much less hazardous to the environment.

The first commercially viable fusion power plant is being built right now in France. There was a big argument between France and Japan about who would get it. It was developed in France, but Japan put in a bid because they really need it.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The only good energy source is the hot air from environmentalists,

Some of those are legitimate concerns save for the wind powered one, which has already been addressed and several solutions provided. I always thought that one was stupid. How many birds die from getting hit by cars, eaten by domesticated animals, sucked into jet airplanes? Seriously, just stupid.

However, my two favorite alternative energy sources:

1) Fusion, which I already covered.
2) Tidal. This is another favorite. Build a platform at sea with a piston and bobber. Let the tidal forces of the moon move the piston and generate electricity. And since you're at sea and there's a trillions of gallons of water around, use the water to produce hydrogen for fuel cell! It's works great. There's already one being built off of California right now.

It doesn't have to too far out, and direct lines can be run to the main land giving a great source of energy.

The other advantage is that because the platform is used for energy (like an oil platform) it's governed the same way. The surrounding area of the platform becomes a protected zone. Obviously to keep ships from hitting the platform, but it doubles as a sanctuary for the local marine life.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

The first commercially viable fusion power plant is being built right now in France. There was a big argument between France and Japan about who would get it. It was developed in France, but Japan put in a bid because they really need it.

Color me shocked.

Anyone know about any predictions for this plant?

Is it actually thought it will supply more energy than it demands?

As this is almost free energy (compared to what we have now), I'm surprised this isn't getting more play.

Haliburton must be scared.

[El Gato]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

2) Tidal. This is another favorite. Build a platform at sea with a piston and bobber. Let the tidal forces of the moon move the piston and generate electricity. And since you're at sea and there's a trillions of gallons of water around, use the water to produce hydrogen for fuel cell! It's works great. There's already one being built off of California right now.

It doesn't have to too far out, and direct lines can be run to the main land giving a great source of energy.

The other advantage is that because the platform is used for energy (like an oil platform) it's governed the same way. The surrounding area of the platform becomes a protected zone. Obviously to keep ships from hitting the platform, but it doubles as a sanctuary for the local marine life.

Tidal is interesting and I hope that projects like the one in California continue to get funding. However, the cost of energy is much too high and the construction times way too long (something like 7 to 10 years). All of this translates to "too risky for investors" - it's hard for tidal projects to get funding since the payback period is so long and the overall cost of energy is dependent on the discount rate that you choose. From an environmental standpoint, the fact that a MPA is created around the site is nice, but what effect does changing the tidal flows have on the ecosystem?

In spite of this, I still like the idea of tidal but it's not going to be ready for utility-grade use for many years.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego

Is it actually thought it will supply more energy than it demands?

As this is almost free energy (compared to what we have now), I'm surprised this isn't getting more play.

Oops! I had my information wrong. It's not the first commercial fusion plant, but the first full scale, working fusion power plant (prototype?) that will be used as a demonstration for future commercially viable fusion power plants.

I just found this nifty Wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

The power is not unlimited because the energy has to be contained; and at 100 million degrees Celsius, that's been difficult to do. It produces 1 megawatt per second for 500 seconds before it has to be shut down to cool. So 500 megawatts in a little less than 8 1/2 minutes. Not too shabby.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

Nuclear Power != Nuclear weapon

The uranium used in Fission is not the same grade as that used in warheads, and doesn't have the same kind of power (This word used loosely). And for a nation that that's 'super-afraid' they still have ten nuclear power facilities.

Anyone know how many Nuclear Submarines have had 'incidents'?

The source of power for Candu reactors isn't weapon grade material either, your point?

[el chupacabra]

Nuclear power price is only second to solar power, thats why we don't rely on it more, not because of environmentalists. Part due to the cost of building the plant. I've heard uranium can only be reprocessed once...it does run out of energy you see; thats the idea of "half life".

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I just found this nifty Wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Thanks for the link

This paragraph makes me think fusion is not quite ready for prime-time

"ITER is intended to be an experimental step between today's studies of plasma physics and future electricity-producing fusion power plants. It is technically ready to start construction and the first plasma operation is expected in 2016."

Though at least it moves along. This really needs about 10 times the financing it's getting now.


A slight corrective to this paragraph:

"The project has experienced some opposition from environmental bodies such as Greenpeace, who regard the ITER project as 'madness', claiming that 'Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear (fission) power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident. Greenpeace also claim that 'likely, it will lead to a dead end, as the technical barriers to be overcome are enormous'. Greenpeace claim that the US$12 billion spent on ITER could be better used to build 10,000 megawatt offshore windfarms.'"

Here's the actual Greenpeace quote:

"Pursuing nuclear fusion and the ITER project is madness, nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident. Why is Europe backing a bad energy option, with no prospect of operation in the near future, when alternative, environmentally acceptable options for electricity generation exist now? Renewable energy has massive potential, yet the EU continues to plough billions of euros in research and development grants into nuclear fusion."

They're subtly different. The wiki implies it is the "nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident" are the madness Greenpeace is talking about, with the other issues being separated by an "also claim", as if they're not part of the same claim.

From the actual quote, it's clear the "madness" is "Europe backing a bad energy option, with no prospect of operation in the near future, when alternative, environmentally acceptable options for electricity generation exist now".

Despite Greenpeace's ignorance on things in the past, the way they are portrayed in the wiki is too ignorant, even for Greenpeace.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by Athens

The source of power for Candu reactors isn't weapon grade material either, your point?

The previous poster had made a statement: No Nukes, No Nukes, No Nukes. I was simply saying that We shouldn't be talking about Nuclear weapons in the same breath as Nuclear Power.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Nuclear power price is only second to solar power, thats why we don't rely on it more, not because of environmentalists. Part due to the cost of building the plant. I've heard uranium can only be reprocessed once...it does run out of energy you see; thats the idea of "half life".

US and French designs are expensive systems, there are other nuclear designs that are not as expensive.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Nuclear power price is only second to solar power, thats why we don't rely on it more, not because of environmentalists. Part due to the cost of building the plant. I've heard uranium can only be reprocessed once...it does run out of energy you see; thats the idea of "half life".

This just seems off.

I find it hard to believe a nuclear plant isn't a viable business model.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm guessing the "Rainbow Warrior" runs on diesel fuel.

Greenpeace has spoken.

Fossil fuel it is.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by subego

Thanks for the link
From the actual quote, it's clear the "madness" is "Europe backing a bad energy option, with no prospect of operation in the near future, when alternative, environmentally acceptable options for electricity generation exist now".

Despite Greenpeace's ignorance on things in the past, the way they are portrayed in the wiki is too ignorant, even for Greenpeace.

I fixed it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Almost every picture I took in Europe has a nuclear plant cooling tower somewhere in the background.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

I fixed it.

Much better.

Thanks!

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by El Gato

Geothermal is very efficient as well

It's also extremely corrosive and hard to maintain.

[ghporter]

I'm afraid that there are a bunch of people posting in this thread that have their minds made up and facts can't sway them. I've studied nuclear power plants for a very long time, followed the ups and downs of the industry, and seen the brewhaha over what to do about wastes degenerate into political games and name calling. Here's what I've learned:

NEVER go with the "lowest bidder." Ever heard of "Brown and Root?" Yes them. They are the company that the reactor builder in "China Syndrome" was based on because they cheated on so many welds that you couldn't trust the plumbing in some of their plants to hold ANY water, let alone radioactive water. They were prime contractor for the South Texas Nuclear Power plant, a joint venture of a number of power companies here in Texas, and they were successfully sued for basically not having a clue about how to build a safe and secure plant.

Establish where to store and dispose of waste before building. One of the major problems with nuclear power is that frightened, ill informed (and sometimes intentionally misinformed) people have blocked the establishment of a secure, permanent disposal facility (Yuca Mountain) or staging facilities for intermediate storage of wastes. Much false information has been published about the possible problems with transporting reactor wastes either for reprocessing or disposal, so most people think it's like having the Devil himself rolling through their towns. It's neither anywhere near as dangerous as it's been made out to be, nor anywhere near the quantities described for any one shipment. And consider that there are millions of tons of non-radioactive, dangerous materials that travel through the country every single day, without much more than a ripple; I really worry much more about chlorine in railroad tank cars than the possibility of nuclear waste causing a problem.

Make the regulations make sense. Much of the burden on the industry has been regulatory, and much of that has been "feel good" stuff. Notification of an "event" doesn't help anyone if that "event" is trivial or of no consequence. The release of a small quantity of radioactive steam, for example, is no big deal if the amount of radiation is less than or equal to the local background radiation. Why make a fuss? On the other hand, the regulations don't seem to punish anyone for stupidity; the owner of TMI was responsible for cutting operator staffing to the point where the operators were working too much and not getting enough rest, but they did not face public sanctions for that.

Do not let ANYONE who doesn't have a solid basis in the science around the subject make any rules. PERIOD. In my study of U.S. history, it has become exceedingly clear that members of Congress in general are, as Mark Twain described them: the only domestic criminal class. Congress has a long tradition of passing bills without enough logic or utility in them to outweigh a hummingbird, and that's really important when they're considering anything of real import, such as nuclear power.

Counter EVERY incorrect, incomplete or otherwise erroneous report, allegation, analogy, or story with solid, complete, provable facts. There have been perhaps three accidents on U.S. nuclear submarines that were directly related to the reactors. All of those accidents were quite a long time ago, and during the Cold War. There have been NONE related to reactors on surface ships. Russian nuclear submarine accidents have been more frequent, but are still a very small number, and there have been NONE that can be blamed on the reactor or how it was maintained since the end of the Cold War. The point is that many people draw incorrect conclusions from information provided out of context. A complete explanation of what goes on with any fission reactor can be done on the same level as describing how a simple automobile engine runs; there's no need to discuss why the uranium breaks up as it does, so why not just explain what happens in simple basic terms most people can understand?

Let everyone know that a uranium reactor CANNOT "explode" like a bomb. Chernobyl exploded because the graphite in the reactor caught fire and dropped red hot uranium slugs into pools of water, causing a steam explosion that the containment building there was not designed to contain. When fresh air hit the graphite, it burned even hotter. The radioactive debris from that disaster was spread all over the place by BURNING GRAPHITE, which has no part in any modern (post 1945) reactor design. Vessel reactor designs are actually pressure vessels, designed to withstand high steam pressures and contain them, so a typical vessel reactor can't fail the same way the Chernobyl reactor did.

I'd like for a very clean, nearly free power source to be invented TODAY and made commercially feasible within a year. That's not going to happen. Wind powe has a number of issues. Solar is hard to collect and causes people to complain about the collectors "cluttering up the view." Oil has a number of problems that I won't go into. Geothermal only works where it's available. Tide power? How are you going to work that for Nebraska or Saskatchewan? Hydro? Gotta have a good stream nearby for that. Solar power from space is bad because people expect the microwave beams transmitting it to the ground to cook birds in flight (and it could!). Having a fanatic opposition to any form of power is counter productive and unrealistic unless you expect to move into a nice little shack like the Unibomber did. I'm not willing to give up the level of civilization that goes along with a dependence on commercial power, so I am interested in some solution-even a bunch of them.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Also note that uranium is a limited resource like oil. So nuclear power will not solve mankind's energy problem in the long run.

Yes, this is true, but if I'm not mistaken uranium is an abundant element in the earth's crust (I'm really too lazy to look up any information on it right now). I don't think it's as long-term a solution as, say, hydrogen fusion, but I think it's better than fossil fuels.

The biggest problems with nuclear reactors are the disposal of the extremely hazardous waste, and the danger of disaster. Hydroelectric seems like a better option where possible.

[Psychonaut]

A giant laser has cut the lifetime of a speck of radioactive waste from millions of years to just minutes. The feat raises hopes that a solution to nuclear power's biggest drawback - its waste - might one day be possible.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4056

[macaddict0001]

Originally Posted by Athens

fusion dosen't work yet

Yes it does, but it currently uses more energy than it produces.

Originally Posted by f1000

An exploding coal-fired power plant doesn't have the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people; an exploding nuclear reactor does. Engineering cannot guarantee the construction of a fail-safe reactor. At best, good engineering can only minimize the chances of one failing catastrophically.

An exploding coal-fired power plant actually does have the same explosive force as a nuclear power plant, assuming it has the same amount of fuel, the difference is that a nuclear power plant has 20 years of fuel while a coal power plant has a few weeks, at any one time.

Originally Posted by f1000

You dismiss Chernobyl as being a consequence of Soviet incompetence. American technical prowess may have delayed such an accident from occurring here, but it hasn't eliminated the possibility of one. The history of the American nuclear power industry is rife with near catastrophes, and Three-Mile Island was simply the tip of the iceberg.

"foolproof" power plants have existed since the 80's. power plants that have a concrete-potential energy output ratio that even if all the energy of the nuclear fuel were released all at once it couldn't breach the concrete.

Originally Posted by f1000

Moreover, our vaunted engineering couldn't prevent the loss of not one, but two Space Shuttles. It couldn't prevent the flooding of New Orleans. It also couldn't prevent the collapse of The World Trade Center, a complex that held approximately 50,000 people. You might argue that the WTC was not an engineering failure but a human one; nay, you might even say that the WTC was destroyed by a deliberate act of sabotage. The point is that sabotage or no sabotage a failure did occur, with significant casualties. Who's to say that a state-of-the-art nuclear reactor couldn't be disrupted by saboteurs as well?

The WTC problem was blown way out of proportion, only a few thousand people died, the equivalent of less than 5 years of murders in the united states.

Originally Posted by f1000

Our best laid plans can easily go awry. Would we be willing to accept a Chernobyl occurring only a few miles from Philadelphia, Houston, or Manhattan? It isn't without good reason that past generations put a hold on the expansion of the nuclear power industry.

A Chernobyl would not happen again thats like saying we shouldn't build an aircraft carrier because its bigger than the titanic so its automatically dangerous, or to use your argument that we should never again build a building as big as the WTC.

Originally Posted by Volks

Nuclear power and waste is an immense threat to us all. There is no safe way to store, transport, bury or get rid of nuclear waste. All nuclear power plants should be dismantled and banned forever. We don't need this kind of problem.

I can only assume that you are joking, but based on your next post you might not be.

Originally Posted by Volks

So all the evidence of nuclear waste mismanagement along with the well documented disasters that have occured in the past, plus the incredibly dangerous properties of nuclear waste itself (such as lasting thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands, etc.) coupled with the fact that humans are not perfect and will make mistakes that could ruin the environment literally forever -- all these things are no problem, because your aunt and uncle work for DOE, a government agency whose job is to put out propaganda convincing everyone of the benefits of nuclear power (without mentioning the waste or by products) and say it's safe.

Great job. You've really convinced me.

Nuclear waste is not actually very dangerous, since its half life is so long it releases radiation very slowly it is actually reasonably safe to handle with your hands as long as its not for extended periods of time.


The only reason it is dangerous is because it is so concentrated, if it was spread all over the world like the pollution from coal/oil/methane it would be harmless, likewise the pollution from fossil fuels if contained in a small are would suffocate anyone who tried to breathe it far faster than radiation would kill you.

[nredman]

big thumbs up to solar & wind power - growing up in north dakota i swear they could power the whole state with a few windmills - as windy as it always seems to be there

[f1000]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The design of a vessel-type fission reactor is very old and very stable. It is not "vaunted American engineering prowess," it's just simple, basic engineering.

A typical non-Chernobyl (not American) reactor…

Yet, several lethal accidents did occur at such very old and stable vessel-type fission reactors. TMI itself has never been fully brought back online.

Originally Posted by ghporter

There is only the smallest connection to Challenger; the launch crew was overworked and sleep deprived, and should have had fresher people making the launch decision.

One of my neighbors was a manager at a local nuclear power plant. He could have told you a thing or two about catching sleep-deprived operators catnapping on the job. He wouldn't have had to, though, since random government inspections eventually caught the technicians in the act. The scandal made national headlines. The inevitability of operator error is something we must factor into any risk assessment of nuclear power, especially if we are going to be increasing the number of commercial nuclear power plants from ~70 to several hundred or thousand.

Originally Posted by ghporter

This has nothing to do with the fact that foam broke off the external fuel tank of the Columbia and caused catastrophic damage to the leading edge of the wing. New Orleans' levees are a completely different issue. They were designed and built with a completely different set of design parameters than they wound up having to face. Your car is designed to protect you against a head on crash; if it fails do protect you because it gets run over by huge earth moving equipment, is that a design failure? Nope, and again this is a poor arguement against nuclear power in general.

You’re missing the point of my analogies, G.H. The engineers who designed the WTC, Space Shuttles, NO levees, Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Titanic, etc. all believed that they had used an appropriate set of design criteria. History showed that they were wrong.

I think it's prudent to consider the human/economic cost of a "worst-case" scenario occurring at a nuclear power plant, and then compare this to whatever potential benefits increased use of nuclear power might bring.

Originally Posted by ghporter

Further, nuclear power plants are designed with disaster in mind, rather than the way the WTC was designed, with the possibility of localized fires in mind. There's a very interesting video out there on the Internet that shows a fully fueled F-4 fighter being flown into a wall that represents the OUTSIDE wall of a reactor containment building; the airplane disintegrates in an amazing fireball, and the wall gets scorched. That's it. Similar tests have been done with a 707, with similar results. Oh, and the WTC didn't have armed guards to prevent sabotage either, though U.S. nuclear power plants do.

Oh, come on, G.H. Yama and Co. designed the WTC to withstand earthquakes, hurricanes, office fires, AND the impact of a Boeing 707, among other things. The WTC also had armed security guards, something I noticed even in the 80’s when I first visited the towers.


I do support the increased use of civilian nuclear power because I believe that in a few decades, barring breakthroughs in fusion, we'll have no viable alternatives. I won't pooh-pooh the risk aversion of previous generations, though, who once had very high hopes for nuclear power. There is no home run here, just tough choices.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Let everyone know that a uranium reactor CANNOT "explode" like a bomb.

I assume that any professional who actually has the authority to make decisions about nuclear power implementation wouldn't think that a nuclear power plant could explode like an atomic bomb.

Many of the pro-nuke supporters in this thread are basing their arguments solely on current events. They overestimate the threat posed by $3/gallon gas and our wars in the ME and underestimate the threat posed by a ten or hundred-fold increase in the number of operational civilian nuclear reactors. In 1982, researchers at Sandia estimated that a major nuclear reactor accident could kill up to 100,000 in Salem, NJ:

Originally Posted by the Congressional Budget Office

In one study of nuclear reactor cores conducted in the early 1980s for the NRC, Sandia National Laboratories reported on the likelihood of deaths and injuries from accidents at individual reactors across the country. It evaluated an extreme scenario that assumed a full release of nuclear materials, worst-case atmospheric conditions, and no emergency response. For reactors near population centers, the potential losses were quite high, with the most extreme being from a severe release from one of the reactors in Limerick, Pennsylvania, northwest of Philadelphia--more than 75,000 fatalities within a year of the accident, about 700,000 injuries in the same time frame, and about $200 billion in costs (not adjusted for inflation).

Soon after 9/11, many engineers noted that nuclear power plants were not designed to withstand the impact of a fully-loaded Boeing 747 traveling at suicidal speeds, and recent statements to the contrary could be nothing more than disinformation intended to discourage terrorists from attacking unprepared reactors. Note that Airbus has recently built a plane bigger than the Boeing 747...

Originally Posted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Q: What would happen if a large commercial airliner was intentionally crashed into a nuclear power plant?

A:. Nuclear power plants have inherent capability to protect public health and safety through such features as robust containment buildings, redundant safety systems, and highly trained operators. They are among the most hardened structures in the country and are designed to withstand extreme events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. In addition, all NRC licenses with significant radiological material have emergency response plans to enable the mitigation of impacts on the public in the event of a release. However, the NRC did not specifically contemplate attacks by aircraft such as Boeing 757s or 767s and nuclear power plants were not designed to withstand such crashes. Detailed engineering analyses of a large airliner crash have not yet been performed.

-----

I'm not arguing against the increased use of civilian nuclear power; in fact, I'm all for it. I'm arguing against the childish assertions that nuclear power is safe, that the older generation is just a bunch of scaredy-cats, that oil companies are conspiring to suppress the nuclear power industry, etc.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

They are a visual pollution, because they need much area to make sufficient energy. Granted it is the least damaging type of pollution but it is pollution. Dams are even more polluting in this way, because they need a huge area of land submergedin water to function.

Please explain "visual pollution." Do you mean you think they are ugly? An office building is "visual pollution" too, is not?

"There are enough barren places in the world where we can build wind generators, where nobody will ever see them.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

Yes it does, but it currently uses more energy than it produces.

Cut the adolescent oneupsmanship. Fusion is NOT a viable power generating technology, nor will it be for many decades.

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

An exploding coal-fired power plant actually does have the same explosive force as a nuclear power plant, assuming it has the same amount of fuel, the difference is that a nuclear power plant has 20 years of fuel while a coal power plant has a few weeks, at any one time.

The explosive power of nuclear power plants isn't the issue here, macaddict. An exploding coal-fired power plant won't spew toxic radioactive materials that can kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people over many months like a nuclear power plant will.

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

"foolproof" power plants have existed since the 80's. power plants that have a concrete-potential energy output ratio that even if all the energy of the nuclear fuel were released all at once it couldn't breach the concrete.

Those "foolproof" power plants aren't going to look so foolproof if an Airbus A380 barrels into one.

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

The WTC problem was blown way out of proportion, only a few thousand people died, the equivalent of less than 5 years of murders in the united states.

All committed in less than 2 hours.

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

A Chernobyl would not happen again thats like saying we shouldn't build an aircraft carrier because its bigger than the titanic so its automatically dangerous, or to use your argument that we should never again build a building as big as the WTC.

The difference between aircraft carriers and nuclear power plants is that we have no viable alternatives to aircraft carriers; we do have viable alternatives to nuclear power plants.

Moreover, many people have already argued, rather successfully I might add, that the U.S. shouldn't ever build a building as big as the WTC. The Freedom Tower might be taller, but it won't contain as many people as either of the original Twin Towers.

Nuclear waste is not actually very dangerous, since its half life is so long it releases radiation very slowly...

The only reason it is dangerous is because it is so concentrated, if it was spread all over the world like the pollution from coal/oil/methane it would be harmless, likewise the pollution from fossil fuels if contained in a small are would suffocate anyone who tried to breathe it far faster than radiation would kill you.

A speeding bullet isn't actually very dangerous, either. It's only harmful because its kinetic energy is concentrated over a square centimeter.

You're wildly misinformed kid. Isotopes like Sr-90, for example, become concentrated in bone tissue.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co.../radwaste.html

[ghporter]

f1000, I'm not saying that there is no potential problem with nuclear power plants. I'm saying that most problems are in construction and operation. The fairly recent problems in Japan, for example, were caused by bad welds and bad operation; running the steam pressure higher than it should be will cause ANY steam system problems, and it was STEAM that caused the major injuries there. Frankly, steam injuries are pretty horrendous, and the fact that the steam was radioactive is of little consequence to a person who gets killed by that steam.

As to how the WTC was guarded, much of that was because of the banking and telecommunication installations in the towers. The guards were there to prevent any number of bad events, from another truck bomb in the basement to hostage taking or explosives being used against the major telecom hubs in the buildings. Had ANYONE other than the 9/11 terrorists considered using airliners as fuel bombs? Not that anyone can see. On the other hand, the possibility that someone could crash an aircraft into a nuclear power plant intentionally or otherwise HAD been thought of long ago and steps have been taken in the design of those plants to protect them against such possibility.

One more important point here. A basic nuclear power plant like those in most of the Western world is OLD technology. The original designs come from the early 1950s, and they have been refined, not revised. Mechanically they are very simple machines that simply need significantly more care in their construction than a natural gas fired power plant would. They can practically run themselves at whatever set point of output is chosen. When the operators decide to test safety systems is when most operational problems are encountered, and when they are run at higher than normal output levels they are subject to the same sorts of mechanical issues found in any heat to steam system. As long as the builder doesn't cut corners, there's really no danger in the physical plant, and as long as the operator pays attention properly, there's no danger in running it.

[SVass]

The December issue of Scientific American has an article on "Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste". Many current advocates and opponents argue about ancient technology. Industrial proponents want to make money with existing technology. How about examining new technology instead. Quit arguing over whether a Z-80 is faster than a 6502. Remember that current nuclear reactors were designed when digital computers used vacuum tubes. sam

[subego]

Originally Posted by f1000

underestimate the threat posed by a ten or hundred-fold increase in the number of operational civilian nuclear reactors.

Well, since a hundredfold increase in operational civilian nuclear reactors would mean building 10,000 new reactors in the U.S. alone, people don't underestimate this, they don't estimate it at all.

The notion is patently ridiculous.

Likewise with building the 900 or so new plants that would compose a tenfold increase.

We can't even build one new reactor.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4056

[macaddict0001]

Originally Posted by f1000

Cut the adolescent oneupsmanship. Fusion is NOT a viable power generating technology, nor will it be for many decades.

While the time slot you used is arguable that is not the point he said that it did not exist, not that it was not viable

Originally Posted by f1000

The explosive power of nuclear power plants isn't the issue here, macaddict. An exploding coal-fired power plant won't spew toxic radioactive materials that can kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people over many months like a nuclear power plant will.

hundreds of thousands of people wouldn't die though, because these things are not going to be built in the middle of new york, and everyone in the area would be evacuated days, if not weeks before the radiation started raining down. at most a few thousand people would die. and besides the radiation would most likely not be lethal anyway, you seem to underestimate the human body's ability to recover and adapt to different situations.

Originally Posted by f1000

Those "foolproof" power plants aren't going to look so foolproof if an Airbus A380 barrels into one.

If fusion reactors can withstand the internal temperature of 1000000 degrees celsius required to produce fusion in a space that small, it can sure as hell withstand the energy produced by an airplane of just about any size.
[QUOTE=f1000]All committed in less than 2 hours.
I'm not saying it wasn't a tragedy, I'm saying it doesn't warrant the attention of hundreds of millions of people for years, people who didn't even know any of those people.

Originally Posted by f1000

The difference between aircraft carriers and nuclear power plants is that we have no viable alternatives to aircraft carriers; we do have viable alternatives to nuclear power plants.

Some aircraft carriers are powered by diesel, that seems like a viable alternative to me, at least just as viable as having an oil/coal/methane power plant on land, especially since those things have enough space for just about anything. Guess why they aren't popular, damn expensive to fuel, and not only that but tactical advantage, as in OMG big black column of smoke the air force if coming.

Originally Posted by f1000

Moreover, many people have already argued, rather successfully I might add, that the U.S. shouldn't ever build a building as big as the WTC. The Freedom Tower might be taller, but it won't contain as many people as either of the original Twin Towers.

The death of a few thousand people have never stood in the way of progress in the long run(great wall of china, the invention of explosives, Egyptian pyramids. Just to name a few)

Originally Posted by f1000

A speeding bullet isn't actually very dangerous, either. It's only harmful because its kinetic energy is concentrated over a square centimeter.

You're wildly misinformed kid. Isotopes like Sr-90, for example, become concentrated in bone tissue.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co.../radwaste.html

Have you heard of something fairly common called carbon monoxide? You may not know this but it is a byproduct of burnt fossil fuels when their is not enough oxygen for it to be broken down and turned into carbon dioxide. It is far more common than strontium-90, I could make a huge list of toxins that accumulate in the human body, like mercury which has already contaminated some of our water supply, but it is not a serious threat much like Sr-90.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

But all the approaches use vast amounts of energy. At present, the Vulcan laser would have to be fired 1017 times at the original 46-gram block of iodine-129 to transmute all of the atoms. "You would need to build a number of power stations to transmute the waste from another power station," warns Karl Krushelnick, a laser physicist at Imperial College in London and part of the team.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by ghporter

f1000, I'm not saying that there is no potential problem with nuclear power plants. I'm saying that most problems are in construction and operation.

G.H., I'm simply playing Devil's Advocate here. On the balance of it, I'm with you on nuclear power. I am already aware of the pro-arguments that you are making or else I wouldn't be for nuclear power at all. I'm just not convinced that nuclear power won't cost society more in the long run than today's petrol wars/pollution.

Moreover, I don't believe that increased use of nuclear power will significantly diminish the rate of global fossil fuel use. The developing world is using ever increasing amounts of oil (think China), and our use of nuclear power would simply equal cheaper oil for them. For me, the environmental argument for nuclear energy isn't there. I support nuclear energy mainly because I'm worried about disruptions to the West's energy supplies.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

If fusion reactors can withstand the internal temperature of 1000000 degrees celsius required to produce fusion in a space that small, it can sure as hell withstand the energy produced by an airplane of just about any size.

1. Learn the difference between heat and temperature.
2. Learn about magnetic confinement.
3. Let's talk again after you've completed high school science.

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

Have you heard of something fairly common called carbon monoxide?

I'm afraid that I haven't.

[Y3a]

Until "Environmentalists" can actually demonstrate clean power, they are just spouting nonsense. They should be ignored, as all they do is complain. they don't offer any realistic solutions to problems. Environmentalists have the same implied humor about them as other conspiracy types do.

[JoshuaZ]

All this talk of birds is getting to me. Birds are highly over rated.

[Y3a]

Who uses Diesel powered aircraft carriers?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I just had a prof tell me last week that fuel for nuclear fission will be running as low as oil in 100 years.

No idea if he was on crack or not. He spends a lot of time with the weed. I just thought it was interesting, and will now let some zealous MacNNer look this up.

greg

[macaddict0001]

Originally Posted by f1000

1. Learn the difference between heat and temperature.
2. Learn about magnetic confinement.
3. Let's talk again after you've completed high school science.


I'm afraid that I haven't.

1. Heat is a certain wavelength of radiation, temperature is a measure of said radiation. I doubt they will be able to make magnetic confinement energy efficient enough to contain fusion without using more energy than the plant produces for a while. I would think they would construct an alloy, that can only be melted at extremely high temperatures, with adequate helium cooling it wouldn't even have to be 1000000 degrees.

Originally Posted by Y3a

Who uses Diesel powered aircraft carriers?

Older ones have diesel, but I don't know if any are still in service.

[memento]

Originally Posted by El Gato

This is complete BS. It has nothing to do with a desire to live in the dark ages, rather that our resources be used in the most cost efficient and sustainable way possible. Nuclear energy produces nuclear waste that needs to be put someplace - this is not efficient nor sustainable.

Depends on which environmentalist groups you are referring to. I'm referring to the most active and most well known ones such as greenpeace and earth first. that is their position. And you missed my point of reprocessing the fuel. It would take care of your point on "sustainable".

Originally Posted by El Gato

Look at countries like Denmark who receive nearly 20% of their total energy consumption from wind and is planning to hit 50% by 2025. Germany produces over 16,000 MW from wind and Spain's wind market has been growing continuously at rates over 30% for the past 5 years. Look at the success that these countries have had and tell me that renewable sources are not a viable option.

Look at the demographics of countries like Denmark and Germany, then explain how our country can follow suit. Won't happen. Can't happen. 50% wind? be serious. Great for them though.

And Spain's wind market may be growing at 30%, but that is behind the growth of their other fuels like nat gas.

It looks like ghporter has this thread well explained. There's not much more that I can add to his posts, and I usually speak a bunch on nuclearpower when the topic comes up.

There is SO MUCH misinformation in this thread it is rediculous. Listen to ghporter. he speaks the technical truth about nuclear power, whether or not you support it or not. I have a nuclear power background and have studies the nuclear industry for years.

Chernobyl was a terrible design that was not liked - even by Russian nuclear physicists. Without getting into the details, that accident CAN NEVER HAPPEN with US type design. NEVER. The laws of physics will not allow it.

[skipjack]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I just had a prof tell me last week that fuel for nuclear fission will be running as low as oil in 100 years.

No idea if he was on crack or not. He spends a lot of time with the weed. I just thought it was interesting, and will now let some zealous MacNNer look this up.

greg

This is just a reaction to this post without current knowledge or facts to back it up. I am guessing your professor assumes that power production from fission will increase.

My reaction is that this is probably true in the United States. Presdient Carter made the reproceessing of nuclear fuel illegal. Years ago, "breeder" reactors that produced readily fissile isotopes, were being researched for that purpose.

Reprocessing was made illegal due to fears of terrorists getting hold of weapons-grade plutonium.

Originally Posted by f100

G.H., I'm simply playing Devil's Advocate here.

But bringing up the SL-1? TMI the tip of the iceburg? I would think that a complete discussion of TMI and Chernobyl would bring up the reasons behind those accidents, not just the fact that they happened.

"You dismiss Chernobyl as being a consequence of Soviet incompetence. American technical prowess may have delayed such an accident from occurring here, but it hasn't eliminated the possibility of one."

I suspect you know well that technical prowess had little to do with the accident. Surely a discussion of nuclear reactors spewing radioactive isotopes would include designs that tend to shut themselves down when breached as opposed to those that those increase in reactivity.

I would bring up the deterioration of US facilities over the years (recent ultrasonic pipe wall thickness results that have made the news).

Anyway, I'm not good at arguments for arguments' sake, so that's all I have to say.

[memento]

Originally Posted by El Gato

This is complete BS. It has nothing to do with a desire to live in the dark ages, rather that our resources be used in the most cost efficient and sustainable way possible. Nuclear energy produces nuclear waste that needs to be put someplace - this is not efficient nor sustainable.

Depends on which environmentalist groups you are referring to. I'm referring to the most active and most well known ones such as greenpeace and earth first. that is their position. And you missed my point of reprocessing the fuel. It would take care of your point on "sustainable".

Originally Posted by El Gato

Look at countries like Denmark who receive nearly 20% of their total energy consumption from wind and is planning to hit 50% by 2025. Germany produces over 16,000 MW from wind and Spain's wind market has been growing continuously at rates over 30% for the past 5 years. Look at the success that these countries have had and tell me that renewable sources are not a viable option.

Look at the demographics of countries like Denmark and Germany, then explain how our country can follow suit. Won't happen. Can't happen. 50% wind? be serious. Great for them though.

And Spain's wind market may be growing at 30%, but that is behind the growth of their other fuels like nat gas.

It looks like ghporter has this thread well explained. There's not much more that I can add to his posts, and I usually speak a bunch on nuclearpower when the topic comes up.

There is SO MUCH misinformation in this thread it is rediculous. Listen to ghporter. he speaks the technical truth about nuclear power, whether or not you support it or not.

Chernobyl was a terrible design that was not liked - even by Russian nuclear physicists. Without getting into the details, that accident CAN NEVER HAPPEN with US type design. NEVER. The laws of physics will not allow it.

[memento]

<duplicate post>

[memento]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Almost every picture I took in Europe has a nuclear plant cooling tower somewhere in the background.

Cooling towers are used for many many power plants, not just nuclear. EVERY power plant needs to have a method of cooling, and without being on a body of water, a tower is needed for evaporative cooling.

[SVass]

As I suggested earlier, read the December issue of Scientific American. All of the current arguments are about obsolete designs! You might as well be arguing about buying a TRS-80 versus a Commodore 64 for your internet surfing. sam

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by skipjack

This is just a reaction to this post without current knowledge or facts to back it up.

Well, yes. I said that. I had no idea if it was true. A geology professor just mentioned it in class. He's the geologist; I have no idea if he was BSing or not. As I said, someone can feel free to look it up.

Canada is the largest uranium producer in the world, and (I believe) is estimated to have the largest deposits (in Saskatchewan). I'm too busy with finals to look into the issue further.

greg

[macaddict0001]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Well, yes. I said that. I had no idea if it was true. A geology professor just mentioned it in class. He's the geologist; I have no idea if he was BSing or not. As I said, someone can feel free to look it up.

Canada is the largest uranium producer in the world, and (I believe) is estimated to have the largest deposits (in Saskatchewan). I'm too busy with finals to look into the issue further.

greg

yup thats 'cause half our country is covered in potential mining opportunities. Where do you think we get the money to give away healthcare? BTW I live in the same city as you.

[ink]

It's better and cleaner than most power sources, especially coal. There is a lot of well-founded skepticism about our ability to manage nuclear waste, but there is an order of magnitude more needless hysteria.

Sure, put it in my back yard; I'd rather have that than cancer-causing airborn particulates.

[ink]

Originally Posted by memento

Look at the demographics of countries like Denmark and Germany, then explain how our country can follow suit. Won't happen. Can't happen. 50% wind? be serious. Great for them though.

I don't follow your logic there.... A lower-density population (like the USA) should be able to generate more power from wind than a more-dense population (like Germany or Denmark). At least if the prevailing winds are similar (which I assume they are, considering the latitudes involved).

A ton of wind power, coupled with nuclear backup would be a sensible mix. Much better than our current "plan" of converting everything to natural gas.