a reminder of that nuclear energy is no harmless affair

Raptor1 · 07-09-08, 09:54 AM

But what kind of Uranium?

joegrundman · 07-09-08, 10:09 AM

it's unenriched

Raptor1 · 07-09-08, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joegrundman

it's unenriched

Thought so

How dangerous is U-238 anyway?, all I ever hear about is the 235...

Frame57 · 07-09-08, 10:16 AM

Didn't Rickover drink reactor coolant? Do not see a problem, just depend on who builds and runs them.

SUBMAN1 · 07-09-08, 10:25 AM

Still its the safest form of energy in the world. What are the real alternatives? Only one thing in the world can produce more power than a nuke reactor - Grand Coulee dam. And its not much more , and the trade off is the killing of the salmon runs, etc. Take your pick.

I'd say someones in trouble though.

The real problem is, people want their cake and eat it to. Can't have no electric generating plants and still have a computer, or even a phone!

-S

Raptor1 · 07-09-08, 10:36 AM

I doubt there's too much danger, sure U-238 is toxic, but It's not nearly as dangerous as U-235 because Alpha radiation is rather harmless (Considering your not actively in touch with the source or something)

Anti-Nuclear Energy fanatics are obviously using this as an excuse to further their goals

Or...I might not know what I'm talking about

SUBMAN1 · 07-09-08, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1

I doubt there's too much danger, sure U-238 is toxic, but It's not nearly as dangerous as U-235 because Alpha radiation is rather harmless (Considering your not actively in touch with the source or something)

Anti-Nuclear Energy fanatics are obviously using this as an excuse to further their goals

Or...I might not know what I'm talking about

The river will dilute it into a harmless substance too.

Uranium is heavy, so I am kind of curious as to why it would be found in an overflow situation anyway? It should sink to the bottom of the tank, and theoretically wouldn't overflow with the liquid unless that liquid was in constant motion.

-S

07-09-08, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Alpha radiation is rather harmless

I thought Alpha radiation was very potent if you manage to take it into your body, but was blocked by most things? Wasn't that how they killed the spy who died in london a while back?

Sailor Steve · 07-09-08, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Still its the safest form of energy in the world. What are the real alternatives? Only one thing in the world can produce more power than a nuke reactor - Grand Coulee dam. And its not much more , and the trade off is the killing of the salmon runs, etc. Take your pick.

I'd say someones in trouble though.

The real problem is, people want their cake and eat it to. Can't have no electric generating plants and still have a computer, or even a phone!

-S

No, that's not right. There's coal...no, wait - that pollutes too much. We still use it here in Utah. I know: oil! No, wait - we're running out. Wind farms? Not enough space for all the mills it would take to power a city. Solar? Maybe, but the space problem still exists. We have plenty of room for both here in the desert, but we're not a truly major city, and no one is going to allow that kind of uglification.

Gee, Subman, looks like we agree on this one.

SUBMAN1 · 07-09-08, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No, that's not right. There's coal...no, wait - that pollutes too much. We still use it here in Utah. I know: oil! No, wait - we're running out. Wind farms? Not enough space for all the mills it would take to power a city. Solar? Maybe, but the space problem still exists. We have plenty of room for both here in the desert, but we're not a truly major city, and no one is going to allow that kind of uglification.

Gee, Subman, looks like we agree on this one.

We probably agree on much more than you realize!

-S

moose1am · 07-10-08, 01:49 AM

The Colorado River barely has any water left when it reaches the Coast. There are no salmon running up the Colorado River anymore

Nuclear Energy is not safe and never will be. You forget about the waste byproduct my friend. You can't just ignore the spent fuel and dismiss it like you have.

Nuclear energy is not safe a all. It's very dangerous and has a lethal potential.

Of course the Big Dams will fail sometime in the future and create one of the largest floods of all time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Still its the safest form of energy in the world. What are the real alternatives? Only one thing in the world can produce more power than a nuke reactor - Grand Coulee dam. And its not much more , and the trade off is the killing of the salmon runs, etc. Take your pick.

I'd say someones in trouble though.

The real problem is, people want their cake and eat it to. Can't have no electric generating plants and still have a computer, or even a phone!

-S

Skybird · 07-10-08, 03:59 AM

Nukeclear power is persuasive these days, and maybe one must even argue that the climate bgoals some nations have formulated cannot be acchieved without it. On the othe rhand, reneable energy's potential constantly get underestimated. their major problem is that they will need more time to be installed then we have left - at least having left bwhen listening to the ngermkan government's plans to have significantly reduced CO2 emission at this or that point of time. Some days ago they announced their intention to build 30 offshore windparks in Germany. hat will costs not only much, very much money, but also will not be completed before 2030. But climate goals they have announced for years much earlier, so - the timetable is seriously messed up. And that timer table is just ink on paper anyway. If nature gives us so much time before becoming really angry with us, remains to be seen.

I am undecided on the nuclear energy thing. I was in favour of Germany's decision to leave it behind and shut of nuclear powerplants alltogether. But I meanwhile had to realise that it probably will not work well without these in the forseeable future, and that one nation leaving nuclear energy all alone will make no difference for the world. Nuclear accidents do not stop at borders, and their are reactors in France as well, Britain, and Sitzerland plans to build one right at the border to Germany.

I think the best option is to make as much reduced use of nuclear energy as possible, shut down old plants, and build as few new ones as possible - and for these only using the most safest conctruction principles and technologies known on the market. And the truth is, even if that hurts some patriot's feelings, that not all nations build reactors of comparable security standards.

But we must be aware, that every technology never will be fail-safe, and that even perfect maintenance does not mean at all that some critical thing will not break. A major mess like Chernobyl - but in the middle of europe, in central Germany for example, could change life in the old world forever, and would cut economic wounds from which Europe in today's global and sharp competition would not recover in the forseeable decades.

It makes zero sense to tame this statement by saying the probability is like this or that - when it is takign place, the probability has turned into a solid 100%, and probability calcvulations have the same problem like classic test theory in statistics - they base on the assumption that there is an unlimited or at least very very high number of trials on which these calcualtions base. But there isn't, and even a probabilty of 0.00001 does not mean that you could not have one reactor blowing up per year for the next 10 years. Probability calculations get massively absued these days, and often are used to boost a wanted agenda. It is stupid to take consolation from such calculations.

So let'S make critical use of it, but as limited as possible, and do this exercise as careful as possible. That includes to leave control of safety not to the industry or it'S lobbyists in politics, of course. Independant, unannounced, constant control is absolutely indispensable. Things like the lying policy of the Swedish company after their series of very serious problems lately are unacceptable and should rank as most major crimes like slaughter for example. responsible managers must go to jail - and not just for a shamefully small number for years, but so long that it really hurts badly. the unconditonal cooprtation with the controlling authority must be enforced - with all means. the consequences of a major accident are simply to costly and too bad as if we should accept anything less. Company interests are absolutely and always of just secondary importance here.

In other words - I would not trust any politician talking about responsible use of safe nuclear energy, and security measures.

Which leaves me in a dilemma, of course.

Stealth Hunter · 07-10-08, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Still its the safest form of energy in the world. What are the real alternatives? Only one thing in the world can produce more power than a nuke reactor - Grand Coulee dam. And its not much more , and the trade off is the killing of the salmon runs, etc. Take your pick.

I'd say someones in trouble though.

The real problem is, people want their cake and eat it to. Can't have no electric generating plants and still have a computer, or even a phone!

-S

Well, not really. Solar energy and wind energy can both be classified as the safest forms. With them, you don't have to worry about catastrophic and potentially damning meltdowns or the possibility of everything within a 20 mile zone either being vaporized in an instant/radiated to the point of death.

Also, you've got to dispose of the nuclear waste once you accumulate it, which is a tricky and dangerous process.

UnderseaLcpl · 07-10-08, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Well, not really. Solar energy and wind energy can both be classified as the safest forms. With them, you don't have to worry about catastrophic and potentially damning meltdowns or the possibility of everything within a 20 mile zone either being vaporized in an instant/radiated to the point of death.

Also, you've got to dispose of the nuclear waste once you accumulate it, which is a tricky and dangerous process.

Where is the possibility of everything in a 20-mile radius being vaporized coming from? Did someone drop a nuclear warhed on the reactor?
Nuclear energy is a lot safer than most people realize. Unfortunately, there is so much unfounded fear that the cost of building and maintaining reactors has skyrocketed ever since that dumb "China Syndrome" movie, primarily because of insurance costs and stupidly redundant numbers of back-up systems.

As far as "disastrous consequences" go let's look at the worst nuclear accident in history, namely "Chernobyl". The initial deleterious effects of this disaster are not cause for lasting concern today, as the contaminated area is relatively small and people even live in the abandoned zone.
This is especially impressive when you consider that it was a Soviet reactor and the Soviets seemed to be unable to do much of anything without suffering a nuclear mishap.
Another common misconception is the likelyhood of a meltdown. You would be surprised how many people think that means the reactor blows up like a nuclear bomb. Not only is this not possible, but a meltdown even in the correct sense of the word is nearly impossible. You would really have to put some effort into making it happen. The fuel rods have to become host to an uncontrolled reaction, which means the control rods, and the emergency control rods, and the manual control rods would all have to fail, which is tricky when you consider that if they lose power or connection with the plant's systems they all go right into the reactor core. Then, the reaction has to be uncontrolled by any means until the rods become hot enough to actually melt through the containment vessel and the ground below it until they reach the water table.
Although technically possible, it is essentially a non-concern.

The greatest danger comes from the reactor core and its containment vessel being breached, or from improper handling of waste. Either of these scenarios is likely to cause only local contamination, and though expensive to clean up, serves as a powerful motivator for companies to prevent that from happening in the first place.

Our main problem is where to put all the nuclear waste. Considering how much waste goes into landfills and the like, when coupled with the very small amount of waste that reactors produce, this is not so much a problem of space as it is of NIMBY. Solution; just store it where nobody lives. Yes, they tried this with the Yucca mountain facility and met with stiff resistance but that sentiment was fueled by irrational fear and an inexplicable love of some obscure desert region's largely useless fauna.

Finally, nuclear power is very economical when compared to "clean" sources. The only potential rival would be hydroelectric power from a dam, and even that requires a tremendous initial investment. Solar and wind power can't even be classified as competitors because of their ridiculous construction and maintenance costs. In addition, all of the above require specific locations and or environmental characteristics, denying them the flexibility of nukes.

moose1am · 07-10-08, 01:45 AM

SO?

Reactor Coolant is not in contact with the U235 enriched material. It's not comtamianted by radiation. It's the same as drinking tap water or bottled water.

He's not drinking water that's been in DIRECT contact with the Uranium

If you leak U235 atoms into that collant water and Ricter Drank that water he would have died long before he died from old age.

Enriched U235 is only 3% and that's enough to make a bomb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frame57

Didn't Rickover drink reactor coolant? Do not see a problem, just depend on who builds and runs them.

07-09-08, 09:54 AM	#1
Raptor1 Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Stavka Posts: 8,211 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	But what kind of Uranium? __________________ Current Eastern Front status: Probable Victory

07-09-08, 10:09 AM	#2
joegrundman Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,689 Downloads: 34 Uploads: 0	it's unenriched __________________ "Enemy submarines are to be called U-Boats. The term submarine is to be reserved for Allied under water vessels. U-Boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs." Winston Churchill

07-09-08, 10:25 AM	#5
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Still its the safest form of energy in the world. What are the real alternatives? Only one thing in the world can produce more power than a nuke reactor - Grand Coulee dam. And its not much more , and the trade off is the killing of the salmon runs, etc. Take your pick. I'd say someones in trouble though. The real problem is, people want their cake and eat it to. Can't have no electric generating plants and still have a computer, or even a phone! -S __________________

07-09-08, 10:36 AM	#6
Raptor1 Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Stavka Posts: 8,211 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	I doubt there's too much danger, sure U-238 is toxic, but It's not nearly as dangerous as U-235 because Alpha radiation is rather harmless (Considering your not actively in touch with the source or something) Anti-Nuclear Energy fanatics are obviously using this as an excuse to further their goals Or...I might not know what I'm talking about __________________ Current Eastern Front status: Probable Victory

07-10-08, 03:59 AM	#12
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,657 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Nukeclear power is persuasive these days, and maybe one must even argue that the climate bgoals some nations have formulated cannot be acchieved without it. On the othe rhand, reneable energy's potential constantly get underestimated. their major problem is that they will need more time to be installed then we have left - at least having left bwhen listening to the ngermkan government's plans to have significantly reduced CO2 emission at this or that point of time. Some days ago they announced their intention to build 30 offshore windparks in Germany. hat will costs not only much, very much money, but also will not be completed before 2030. But climate goals they have announced for years much earlier, so - the timetable is seriously messed up. And that timer table is just ink on paper anyway. If nature gives us so much time before becoming really angry with us, remains to be seen. I am undecided on the nuclear energy thing. I was in favour of Germany's decision to leave it behind and shut of nuclear powerplants alltogether. But I meanwhile had to realise that it probably will not work well without these in the forseeable future, and that one nation leaving nuclear energy all alone will make no difference for the world. Nuclear accidents do not stop at borders, and their are reactors in France as well, Britain, and Sitzerland plans to build one right at the border to Germany. I think the best option is to make as much reduced use of nuclear energy as possible, shut down old plants, and build as few new ones as possible - and for these only using the most safest conctruction principles and technologies known on the market. And the truth is, even if that hurts some patriot's feelings, that not all nations build reactors of comparable security standards. But we must be aware, that every technology never will be fail-safe, and that even perfect maintenance does not mean at all that some critical thing will not break. A major mess like Chernobyl - but in the middle of europe, in central Germany for example, could change life in the old world forever, and would cut economic wounds from which Europe in today's global and sharp competition would not recover in the forseeable decades. It makes zero sense to tame this statement by saying the probability is like this or that - when it is takign place, the probability has turned into a solid 100%, and probability calcvulations have the same problem like classic test theory in statistics - they base on the assumption that there is an unlimited or at least very very high number of trials on which these calcualtions base. But there isn't, and even a probabilty of 0.00001 does not mean that you could not have one reactor blowing up per year for the next 10 years. Probability calculations get massively absued these days, and often are used to boost a wanted agenda. It is stupid to take consolation from such calculations. So let'S make critical use of it, but as limited as possible, and do this exercise as careful as possible. That includes to leave control of safety not to the industry or it'S lobbyists in politics, of course. Independant, unannounced, constant control is absolutely indispensable. Things like the lying policy of the Swedish company after their series of very serious problems lately are unacceptable and should rank as most major crimes like slaughter for example. responsible managers must go to jail - and not just for a shamefully small number for years, but so long that it really hurts badly. the unconditonal cooprtation with the controlling authority must be enforced - with all means. the consequences of a major accident are simply to costly and too bad as if we should accept anything less. Company interests are absolutely and always of just secondary importance here. In other words - I would not trust any politician talking about responsible use of safe nuclear energy, and security measures. Which leaves me in a dilemma, of course. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

07-09-08, 10:16 AM	#4
Frame57 Sea Lord Join Date: May 2008 Location: 1300 feet on the crapper Posts: 1,860 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Didn't Rickover drink reactor coolant? Do not see a problem, just depend on who builds and runs them.