The Lousiana oil rig failure...

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

No No No.... you guys have not been properly reprogrammed.... uh indoctrinated... uhm brainwashed....no, educated? - yea thats it- educated!

Hey, if you say so friend.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

We all need to start doing away will those horrible things of technology and return to a simpler life,

If it's simpler but better for us all and the place we inhabit in the long run, then I'm totally for it.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

where people compost their own waste, ride their bikes to work, and go to sleep when its dark.

Ok... what exactly is bad about doing this kind of stuff? I mean, composting is a good way to recycle organic/biological materials, getting more people to ride bikes would eventually lead to better general health amongst the population and reduce somewhat the number of overweight people outright, and well... going to sleep when it's dark is kind of rhetorical.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

This is how we will save mother earth from our excessive gluttony.

It's certainly a good start.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If you try - you can already feel the love Mother Earth has for us all when we do things like this.

Well if you want to be spiritual about it yeah. Or you could just stand back and look at it all falling into place, with the knowledge and satisfaction that the species is no longer overpopulating and polluting the only place in this entire universe we CAN inhabit right now...

Originally Posted by iambecomelife

It never ceases to amaze me how people are comfortable with thousands of deaths per year due to coal mining, oil transport accidents, and the like -

Actually there's only about 50-70 deaths on average per year in the coal mining industry related to accidents, not thousands as it was well over a hundred years ago.

http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT2.HTM

And as far as oil transport accidents go, there are far less killed than the coal mining statistic.

http://www.offshore-environment.com/accidents.html

Originally Posted by Platapus

I would like to hear from the anti-nuke people how nuclear power is not safe for the environment. Seems to me that we have had more environmental disasters with non-nuclear industries than we have had with nuclear industries.

Originally Posted by iambecomelife

but mention nuclear power and they start to rage.

Really there's a better alternative to both nuclear power and non-renewable energy resources (coal, oil, natural gas, etc.): sustainable energy. Investing in synthetic, biological, natural/renewable fuels (i.e. biological matter, solar energy, wind energy, hydro energy, geothermal energy).

While you can gain more energy from nuclear fission methods, the waste they produce is very difficult to dispose of properly, and the facilities themselves are far more dangerous. This is atomic energy you are toying with here. Radioactive elements, massive explosions, nuclear fallout, etc.

Originally Posted by Platapus

The US nuclear reactor safety record is pretty good.

Somewhat true, but the more facilities you build, the greater the risk something will go wrong in one of them. The United States really doesn't have the most nuclear reactors in the world compared to contemporary Western nations. The thing about nuclear energy is that, anytime you have a problem, it's serious. It's a race against the clock until something melts down, And when the problem elevates to disaster- it's huge. It's ALWAYS global. With Chernobyl, radioactive materials were spread all over the world, nevermind the surrounding blast area. It's really not any different with an atomic weapon explosion: the nasty stuff is spread everywhere.

http://users.owt.com/smsrpm/Chernobyl/glbrad.html

Messing with atomic physics like this is dangerous. There's no need to increase the number of reactors from what we already have. Move to sustainable energy, maintain the current number of nuclear reactors, invest in nuclear fusion energy-generating methods.

Originally Posted by Platapus

We really need to build more nuclear reactors that are smaller, more efficient, and safer than the current old reactors we have today.

That's obvious. People have been saying this for decades now. The problem is that it's not that simple. Again, nuclear physics is a very dangerous and complicated field- not even touching upon research that has to be done into the elements to be used for fuel, the particle studies, etc.

Originally Posted by iambecomelife

Three Mile Island didn't kill anyone,

There were actually quite a few cancer deaths later on, not considering the environmental effects of 13 million curies of radioactive gases being leaked into the atmosphere and radioisotopes.

Originally Posted by iambecomelife

and Chernobyl only happened b/c of a bad reactor design that IIRC has never been used in the US.

Actually Chernobyl's reactor melted down because the operators failed to carry through with an inexcusable number of rules and regulations in place to prevent exactly this kind of disaster from occurring and because the ECCS was shut off (the coolant system reactors use)- which led to an increase in steam formation and therefore temperature, slowing down the effectiveness of the control rods. With that said, exactly such a disaster is a possibility, of a higher quantity with the more reactors you construct, not only with human error being a possibility but also mechanical failure in the reactor itself. Chernobyl alone caused over 4,000 deaths in a remote area of Russia; imagine how many would have died if it had been in an urban area- nevermind Russia but what it would be like in the United States. And the environmental effects are still being felt today.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yo...hernobyl2.html

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Pardon the noise as I bring out my soapbox.

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

While you can gain more energy from nuclear fission methods, the waste they produce is very difficult to dispose of properly, and the facilities themselves are far more dangerous. This is atomic energy you are toying with here. Radioactive elements, massive explosions, nuclear fallout, etc.

Poppycock.... Pure unadulterated poppycock. Go back and learn something and forget all that trash that Greenpeace spouts.

Massive explosions? Nuclear fallout????? How may I ask? Please, back it up. How many megatons are you going to get out of a PWR plant? How about a BWR? Come on, give me a guess. Describe the situation that would result in an uncontrolled chain reaction that creates a nuclear detonation. How about during a loss of coolant accident? How about in a prompt critical situation? Stuck rod? How about a dropped rod? A cold water accident? Do you even know the difference between a controlled nuclear reaction vs a prompt critical one?

You comment on the amount of waste gererated by an atoic power plant.. The fact is, the amout of waste generated from nuclear energy is FAR FAR lower then the comparable amount of waste generated by a comparably sized fossil plant. A nuclear reactor will generate several tons over its lifetime. Fossil fuels will generate several tons of waste yearly. The toxins released by coal are bio hazards. Just look at all the ash, CO2, and other waste products that are produced

Current technology in renewable energy can not generate anywhere NEAR the amount of power to compare. I am a HUGE supported of renewable energy, but currently the tech is not there to replace more conventional means. That WILL change in the future, but how far in the future?

The thing about nuclear energy is that, anytime you have a problem, it's serious. It's a race against the clock until something melts down, And when the problem elevates to disaster- it's huge. It's ALWAYS global. With Chernobyl, radioactive materials were spread all over the world, never mind the surrounding blast area. It's really not any different with an atomic weapon explosion: the nasty stuff is spread everywhere.

Not true. Granted, Chernobyl was supreme stupidity. We had to study it. When I studied it it was still being investigated. We did not talk about it in terms of what happened. We did it in equations.

We were walking into a situation and walked step by step into the operation of a BWR. Then they turned off the pump with a subsequent failure to insert enough negative reactivity into the core during a scram. In fact, instead of negative reactivity, they initially inserted POSITIVE reactivity. Our eyes absolutely BOGGLED at what we were seeing in the math. To us it was just a equation to solve. Then then wrote the name of the place on the blackboard. We were stunned. We realized that that the problem we worked was not hypothetical, but real. We were stunned because they failed in EVERY tennent of reactor operations that we were learning. Fankly, they deserved what they got. Nobody questioned what was going on.

With that being said, there has to be multiple failures of both human and machinery to cause a serious failure. People have to ignore alarms, override safety features, and have to be basically stupid to really screw things up.

That's obvious. People have been saying this for decades now. The problem is that it's not that simple. Again, nuclear physics is a very dangerous and complicated field- not even touching upon research that has to be done into the elements to be used for fuel, the particle studies, etc.

:haha :

Oh man.. you KILL me.

A reactor is SIMPLE physics. We are talking HIGH SCHOOL stuff here. There is no mystery in how it works. They are incredibly predicable, they will do the same thing EVERY time. But they do it VERY fast. It is that SPEED at which things change that can make them dangerous.

Now the research into particles, that is some mind bending stuff. Research reactors?? They are the same as a power reactor, they are just using the neutron flux to create radioactive isotopes.

[Platapus]

As far as I have been able to find out, the United States death toll from Nuclear power reactors is 3 in 1961 (SL-1 Incident)

Our worst nuclear reactor accident was Three Mile Island and that resulted in zero deaths. More people have been killed in the construction and operation of hydro-electric dams than have been killed in nuclear power plants in the United States.

Nuclear power has the potential of being dangerous, but that danger can be mitigated. What is more scary is that we have some very old nuclear reactors operating in the US. When one of them fails due to old age/old technology, the anti-Nuke people will proudly claim "see, we told you"

We need to shut down the older reactors and build many smaller, safer, more efficient nuclear reactors.

Nuclear power is not easy. It takes careful planning, and regulation. But it can be a safe and controllable source of power.

Fission is not the ultimate answer. But it will serve us well until we can develop other means of obtaining power.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Originally Posted by Platapus

As far as I have been able to find out, the United States death toll from Nuclear power reactors is 3 in 1961 (SL-1 Incident)

Our worst nuclear reactor accident was Three Mile Island and that resulted in zero deaths. More people have been killed in the construction and operation of hydro-electric dams than have been killed in nuclear power plants in the United States.

Nuclear power has the potential of being dangerous, but that danger can be mitigated. What is more scary is that we have some very old nuclear reactors operating in the US. When one of them fails due to old age/old technology, the anti-Nuke people will proudly claim "see, we told you"

We need to shut down the older reactors and build many smaller, safer, more efficient nuclear reactors.

Nuclear power is not easy. It takes careful planning, and regulation. But it can be a safe and controllable source of power.

Fission is not the ultimate answer. But it will serve us well until we can develop other means of obtaining power.

A learned one.. I applaud you for learning. SL-1 was bad. It was needed to teach us the dangers. That is what started the whole "EVERYONE has to know what they are doing, not just those in supervisory positions' attititude.

The old reactors NEED to go away. Just like the cars, planes, trains, and such of yesteryear, they have served their purpose and need to make way for more efficient technology. Granted, something needs to be said for the robust over engineering they have in them.

We need to make a standardized design with common training and procedures. You can then standardize the training, testing, and certification. Currently, you are certified for ONE plant. Not one facility, but ONE plant. The one on the other side of the parking lot is off limits if you are not certified on it.

You are correct on the many small plants. It allows for more controlled maintenance and repairs. If need 1 gigawatt, you put 3 or more 500 megawatt plants on site. You can then shut down one without overstraining the grid. If you need extra power, you can bring more power on-line. If you have a problem with one you shut it down without crippling the grid.

More important, if something bad DOES happen, you can bring in BUS LOADS of trained qualified people who can help immediately without have to undergo familiarization.

[Seth8530]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Hey, if you say so friend.





Messing with atomic physics like this is dangerous. There's no need to increase the number of reactors from what we already have. Move to sustainable energy, maintain the current number of nuclear reactors, invest in nuclear fusion energy-generating methods.



That's obvious. People have been saying this for decades now. The problem is that it's not that simple. Again, nuclear physics is a very dangerous and complicated field- not even touching upon research that has to be done into the elements to be used for fuel, the particle studies, etc.



There were actually quite a few cancer deaths later on, not considering the environmental effects of 13 million curies of radioactive gases being leaked into the atmosphere and radioisotopes.



Actually Chernobyl's reactor melted down because the operators failed to carry through with an inexcusable number of rules and regulations in place to prevent exactly this kind of disaster from occurring and because the ECCS was shut off (the coolant system reactors use)- which led to an increase in steam formation and therefore temperature, slowing down the effectiveness of the control rods. With that said, exactly such a disaster is a possibility, of a higher quantity with the more reactors you construct, not only with human error being a possibility but also mechanical failure in the reactor itself. Chernobyl alone caused over 4,000 deaths in a remote area of Russia; imagine how many would have died if it had been in an urban area- nevermind Russia but what it would be like in the United States. And the environmental effects are still being felt today.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yo...hernobyl2.html

Dude, that is straight up green propaganda. Do you even know what kind of explosion took place at chernobyl?? Promise you it wasnt nuclear.
Second, the reactor at chernobyl... do you have any idea what kind of containment vessel it was sitting in? Think about a giant thick metal cooking vessel. sitting inside of what was practically a warehouse.



[IMG]file:///C:/Users/seth/Downloads/02-1-156x.jpg[/IMG]

This image here is what we use today. i highly doubt any gas or steam explosion is going to rip through all of this.
Third, a nuclear explosion inside of a nuclear reactor is IMPOSSIBLE. The physics are N O T there. In the unfortunate worst case scenario event, the reactor goes out of control. The control rods dont come down... The hot rock gets hotter, Nuetrons are flying around out of control, and guess what... the rock melts. it turns into a pile of slag sitting at the bottom of the containment vessel. Not very useful is it? That is THE END of the story, no radiation leakage.