nuclear power

[BlueMage]

There is a safe and clean solution to our energy crisis, gasoline prices, and global warming. It's the latest generation nuclear reactor.

I appreciate the thrust of your argument mate (and I fully agree with it, and I am what you might call an environmentalist) but nuclear power won't solve rising petrol prices. In order to combat that, it needs to be demonstrated to the chief oil-producing nations that their product isn't worth the amount they charge, which necessarily requires people to drive less. So, little chance of that happening, no?

 

[Sayvara]

And sayvara... don't be so nitpicky, I was being dramatic about TMI just to emphasis how bad it was and still nothing happened.

We don't need exaggerations and padding the truth for dramatic effect. That's what the idiots over at Greenpeace does. The truth is good enough... we don't need anyone opening the door to rebuttals about dishonest arguing being used.

The british REACTOR did burn down, even though the containment building did not. and pumping large amounts of air over graphite that is several hundred degrees is the definition of how to light it on fire, they should have known better.

No it is not... that's just plain silly arguing from your end. Read up on the accident to see what really happened and stop this nonsense arguing. I say again: graphite doesn't ignote just like that.

and the fact is... that chernobyl WAS brand new, including the design. and the operators WERE the cream of the soviet crop. And they WERE following their instruction manual to the letter.

The reactor was new... but the technology was not. The RBMK deactor design was based on military plutonium production reactors of which the first was started in 1954. The design was not new. You are contradicting facts.

The staff was not the "crop". The night shift was not the best, not even by Soviet standards. Their lack of knowledge about the reactor design was a direct contributing factor fo the accident. And I say again: being the "cream of the crop" in the Soviet Union had very little to do with how technically competent you were. It was all politics.

And no, they were not following the manual to the letter. They didn't even file for a required permission by the Soviet regulatory authorties before doing the experiment.

At the day in question, things started to go wrong when they accidentally brought the reactor effect too low, because the operator messed up, for the experiment and Xenon-poisoning set in. In order to try to get the effect up again they did an override of the safety systems to pull out more control rods than was allowed. That was not according to the manual.... it was a gross safety breach.

Another safety breach was when they started the experiment by running extra water pumps that increased the flow of water through the reactor. The flow was taken above that which was allowed. Then the test itself was triggered and the water flowed slowed, the great contrast in flow, leading to a rapid increase in steam production, meant that the reactor was doomed.

because it was the flagship of its new reactor line, the party appointed its "best" based on political merit not technical merit. (the cream of a different crop than you were thinking)

That's what I said! Are you even reading my posts?!

/S

 

[Kiesel]

just because a technology is old doesn't mean you cant make new designs. a modern turbojet engine runs on the exact same technology as a turbojet engine made 40 years ago. Its still a turbojet and it still shares the exact same benefits and drawbacks, even though it may be superior in every aspect.
The same can be said of almost every single established technology. Microwave ovens, refridgerators, toilets, etc. The underlying principles do not change.
The chernobyl was a brand new reactor with a brand new design... based on an obsolete method of creating nuclear fission.
the equivalent in a jet engine would be to design a new centrifugal flow compressor engine instead of a axial compressor turbojet or turbofan. (just because the new design was even MORE dangerous than the earlier versions doesnt change the fact that it is still NEW.)

I don't give a damm what your definition of "burnt down is" either, the reactor lit on fire, and the structural elements of the reactor collapsed. every single piece of a building doesn't have to burn for it to be considered burnt down. and graphite ONCE IGNITED and with continuous ADDITIONAL heat applied from within by the increasingly exposed uranium elements, is extremely difficult to extinguish. the way they eventually put it out was with water and that could have caused a devastating hydrogen explosion if they had screwed up.

and finally... We dont need Jackassery on your part constantly repeating the same strawman attack on my intentionally dramatized portrayal of the events. The historical afterevents would not have been changed significantly if every speck of graphite had been burnt, and they would not have changed if TMI reactor had melted totally instead of halfway.
And the fact is... Even if Chernobyl had been run by the best of the ENTIRE WORLD'S nuclear operators, IT STILL would have EXPLODED due to it's MAJOR DESIGN DEFECTS. The reactor was DOOMED the MOMENT they decided to test the backup cooling, day, night, or run by hyperintelligent fairys from Uranus. If the turbines powering the the coolant pumps had preformed the way that the designers had told the operators they would, chernobyl would not have happened. everything the operator's did after the turbines did not preform, was straight out of their training manual, even the most brilliant technician will fail if given false information. Soviet design garbage IN Radioactive disaster OUT...
(and your "another safety breach" about running the water faster would have actually bought the reactor a couple more seconds before its primary cooling turbines ran out of momentum. which i would wager is why they did it.)

I am saying now that your WHOLE ARGUMENT with me is a POINTLESS battle of semantics, I am reading your posts but NONE of the facts you are arguing about have ANYTHING to do with the overall topics of MY POSTS. Their sole purpose was to emphasize the role that design plays in the safety of nuclear power and counter comments made that expressed concern over operator ability. If you are going to nitpick my every claim for accuracy, you could at least acknowledge that the general direction of my argument was correct.
Please just let it stop here let someone else have the last word. I don't want to talk to you anymore.

 

[Altorin]

whether or not chernobyl was manned by man or monkey is a moot point

the point is, it's been 22 years, I think we're ready for another go at it.

 

[Kiesel]

Here are some concrete reasons why I consider nuclear power to be the best choice to replace our fossil fuel burning powerplants.

A. Wind and Solar energy are not an option because they cannot produce what is known as "baseline power generation". They cannot operate on a constant basis for more than a few days in the case of wind, or hours in the case of solar. This means that unless you want brownouts every morning and afternoon, Solar and Wind are NOT an option to replace coal. They have their place, but as a supplement, not as a majority.

B. Hydro and Geothermal are tied closely to specific natural formations. that means that you cannot replace coal with either in an area that does not have rivers or volcanic activity.
Due to the practicalities of sending electricity long distances, you cannot just build a few Huge plants in dispersed locations and expect them to supply electricity.

C.Nuclear Fusion is still 30 years or more away possibly 50 before operational powerplants can be built in numbers. It is better than nuclear fission in most respects, because it is completely harmless and produced mostly inert helium as waste. But once again it is currently out of reach.

D. Other fossil fuels just don't measure up. Oil is even worse than coal, and natural gas no better than the cleaner modern coal plants.
.
.
.
So the real question people is what do YOU want...

Do you want to just leave our power system the way it is? with 60%+ coming from 40 year old dirty fossil fuel plants that have repeatedly failed to meet federal requirements for emissions.

Do you want to go halfway and overhaul our existing fossil fuel buring plants so that they have proper filters and only produce CO2 as pollution. Which will help solve our acid rain and smog problems. BUT will do absolutely nothing to slow the advance of global warming.

Or do you want to go the distance and replace our existing fossil fuel plants with nuclear ones. To do so it would require tripling our current numbers of reactors. But on the upside, the new reactors would be even more safe than the 130 or so that are in place already, as well as being more efficient and producing less radioactive waste. Depending on which of the 12 designs currently on the market we build these new reactors would also be able to run on the spent nuclear waste from earlier reactors.

THERE ARE ONLY THESE 3 OPTIONS.
wait and HOPE that some miracle technology comes along to cure us from our ills (fusion is still a long way off and NIMB ignorance will probably prevent it from becoming widespread immediatly)
^it is the cheapest option by far but your children will be paying the intrest for the rest fo time.

Make a compromise based on an irrational fear of a safe and proven technology. Because you grew up being told blatant lies about how dangerous it was, and now you can't get over your childhood prejudices.
^significantly larger down payment but your children still have to pay some interest

Or make an educated descision to sacrifice your feelings of security and a hefty sum of cash, for sake of your children's futures.
^one time cash deposit

 

[Kiesel]

and for the record... the companies that are mostly likely to be supplying the reactor designs and materials are not some giant mutinational arms dealing supercorporations. and neither are nuclear reactors considered "megaprojects" Hydroelectric dams are mega projects and require thousands of workers pouring concrete... Nuclear reactors don't require many more people than to build than your average medium office building, its quality not quantity.

and here are some of the names on the list of companies with nuclear reactor designs up for certification. you might recognize some of them from your home appliances.
westinghouse
general electric
toshiba
mitsubishi
of course Im sure they are completely understating the dangers of their home electronics, the way those "evil megacorporations" like general electric are (you can tell its evil military industrial complex because it has the word "general" in its name), I wouldn't be suprised if the GE hairdryers were designed to launch themselves into the bath and electrocute you. And we all know that mitsubishi is well known for making terror weapons, just look at world war 2, Im sure that the new 2008 lancer is just filled chock full of explosives so that you can kamikaze pedestrians. And who could forget the dreaded Toshiba VCR clock which is the most dreaded weapon of mass frustration in your home entertainment system


westinghouse and general electric are the most likely candidates, since they already have certified reactor designs.
.
.
.
I would really compare NOT investing in nuclear power to be like wishing for santa to bring you clean energy for christmans, and to reverse global warming while he's at it.
No nuclear fission isn't perfect, but its still the BEST WE HAVE.
Its the safest, cheapest to maintain, and least polluting. If you want to talk about waste products that could endanger people of the future, look no further than fossil fuels. At least the nuclear waste will be safe in 10,000 years and its in a nice sturdy box, the CO2 and other polluting gasses are going to last untill the earth is incinerated by the sun 5 billion years from now, AND THEY ARE AREADY POLLUTING THE ATMOSPHERE.

and star trek technology is complete bullshit, you can tell its bullshit with the knowledge supplied to you in a highschool physics book assuming you pay attention in class. This is real life here people, comparing nuclear reactors to television stereotypes is one of the things that got us into this mess.