Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nuclear energy - safe?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    I apologize in advance if I am repeating anyhting already touched on, but I just wanted to say it while I had the thought of responding to the topic right off the bat. . .

    This has to do with Japans crisis. WTF, the suffered a cataclysmic 9.0 earthquake, and a HUGE tsunami, and people wanna think a nuclear power plant is indestructible???

    Nuclear power has it's place, and benefits. Point blank, it beats out coal(even "clean burning", lasts longer, and has a higher output.

    It really grinds my gears that people wanna put up a stink NOW, after destruction of "Biblical" proportions, to try and say Nuclear is bad, blah blah blah. . .

    Ya know what, ANYTHING can go bad, especially when circumstances beyond anyones control goes against it.

    More people die per year building wind farms then in building/running/maintaining/operating Nuc. Power plants.

    Granted, if/when something goes wrong with NP, the potential for something seriously effed up can be severe, but realistically, how often does that happen?

    Japan caught the unfortunate series of the perfect storm, and has responded admirably, continues to be proactive, and is doing what they can with what they have. I feel for the circumstances, but I also think it is by NO means the example of what NP should be judged by. Japan got their asses kicked! This is NOT the norm!

    My thoughts and positive energy goes out to Japan and all of it's citizens. I am highly moved by their calmness, call to duty, civility, and the recognition that there are things to be done for the greater good despite personal well being. It is really honorable, and I get teary eyed just thinking of that sense of community/country and just functioning as a union.
    flickr

    An email from God:
    To: People of Earth
    From: God
    Date: 9/04/2007
    Subject: stop

    knock it off, all of you

    seriously, what the hell


    --
    God

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

      San Onofre is conveniently located between San Diego & LA and near an earthquake fault. Probably nothing will happen. But if it does, a 50 mile exclusion zone like that now around the Fukushima plant would displace (I am estimating here) about 4-5 million people and neutralize the value of countless billions of dollars worth of real estate which banks would have to write off at incredible expense to the American economy. Several plants are located in the center of the country near the New Madrid fault, which produced a series of 8 range quakes at the start of the 19th century. How would the loss of St. Louis effect the country? So play it safe. Phase it out. We know New Madrid will crack again, we know a quake near San Onofre or Diablo Canyon will happen. It Will Happen. Whats going on in Japan is a monumental total tragedy, it is the clearest possible warning there could ever be. Find alternatives. We have talked about some.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

        I don't disagree with anything you said TAT. But the problem is there were known deficiencies and verbalized safety concerns by the engineers at the Fukushima plant. These concerns were ignored. That is where I have a problem with nuclear power.

        The same holds true for the Diablo Canyon plant on the central coast of California. There are known safety concerns right from the beginning and continue today. The plant was built one mile from a known active earthquake fault, the Hosgri Fault. And it is built about 40 miles from the San Andreas Fault, which is VERY active.

        Building nuclear power plants is one thing. Building them with known safety issues is yet another. If the Diablo Canyon plant suffers the kind of catastrophe as Fukushima, it will affect everyone across the US because of the prevailing westerlies.

        It is time to re-think electric production strategies not only in the US, but around the world. A primary source of electricity for my California fale comes from windmills. It works for me!
        Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

        People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

          Originally posted by TATTRAT View Post
          Nuclear power has it's place, and benefits. Point blank, it beats out coal(even "clean burning", lasts longer, and has a higher output.

          It really grinds my gears that people wanna put up a stink NOW, after destruction of "Biblical" proportions, to try and say Nuclear is bad, blah blah blah. Ya know what, ANYTHING can go bad, especially when circumstances beyond anyones control goes against it. More people die per year building wind farms then in building/running/maintaining/operating Nuc. Power plants.

          Granted, if/when something goes wrong with NP, the potential for something seriously effed up can be severe, but realistically, how often does that happen? This is NOT the norm!
          I recall the old adage - Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.
          We need to be way more responsible with those things we don't fully know about and are unable to control. Coal is crap, but it's a short term mess in a concentrated are. Nukes are terminal, for centuries at a minimum and there is no containing the spread, wiping out everything we need.

          There is nothing happening in Japan that could have been unexpected. They've known forever they sit on highly tenuous fault grounds but put a nuke plant there any way. Japan even exists because of a great tsunami that saved them from the Chinese. Way worse conditions than this can and will happen, this is just a test, of which they are failing dispite the valiant efforts after the case. They blew it with the placement of that plant, along with pathetic backups, and are now exposed as such, plus having been short on 'beyond' emergency tactics and procedures for the inevitable disasters. They are now at a complete loss as to solve the problem, and it's still at low/manageble levels, but it may go truly nuts soon.
          We get suckered into thinking there is no problem with nukes because it waits silently, like the best killers do.

          I'll bet if it gets worse the Japanese will be saying, once is more than enuf.
          Yet, many Americans will watch and deny we have a similar monster waiting to rise and destroy.
          Last edited by Ron Whitfield; March 17, 2011, 10:37 AM.
          https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

            Originally posted by Ron Whitfield View Post
            ...Japan even exists because of a great tsunami that saved them from the Chinese.....
            Actually it would be the Mongols as the Asian continent at the time more or less belonged to the Mongol Empire. And it was a typhoon.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

              Well then..., let's go nukes!
              https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

                Nuclear Energy is an instant gratification choice. In terms of dollars/kwh ROI over the long haul, it's an obvious no brainer. But it is NOT the solution. It comes with a disastrous side effect. Really.

                The solution is what I have coined "Point Source Generation". All power needs of everybody will be created within a few miles of where you are at using wind, solar, magnetics, etc. etc. Each house or business will have panels, turbines, or some of the more modern power generation devices that are currently in the news. (Steorn, magnetics, etc.) Some use the term 'distibuted power systems'.

                If you favor nuclear power perhaps you should open you mind to other solutions.

                PS - The "GRID" will die a slow death in my lifetime. Point source generation will become the norm.

                Satellite TV + Cellular Telephone + Solar Power = No More GRID
                FutureNewsNetwork.com
                Energy answers are already here.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

                  Wind power and solar energy by themselves are too variable to be a reliable source of energy. A storage system is needed to smooth out the variations and that is a problem in itself. Batteries are not up to the job yet and the ones that have promise are an environmental horror.

                  I think nuclear power will eventually become the most common source for power. If you look at the history of steam power you will see many boiler explosions that killed a lot of people. It took a while to learn how to tame that one. We are still in the learning phase of nuclear power, and this tragedy in Japan is one big lesson.

                  I am surprised that all the nuclear plants in Japan are within feet of the ocean. This in a country that is hit by tsunamis more than any other region. In the words of Jay Leno “What did you think would happen?”

                  I also notice nuclear plants in earthquake zones being touted as designed to withstand a 7.5 earthquake. So what happens when an 8.0 earthquake happens?

                  Looks like we need to design these things better.

                  I would like to know more about what caused the backup cooling system to fail at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
                  "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."
                  Ayn Rand

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

                    Originally posted by 68-eldo View Post
                    I also notice nuclear plants in earthquake zones being touted as designed to withstand a 7.5 earthquake. So what happens when an 8.0 earthquake happens?

                    Looks like we need to design these things better.
                    Posted in agreement with 68.

                    All these safety precautions to worry about. It's like buying a car capable of withstanding a 60mph collision into a wall, only to be hit head-on by a 75mph semi truck. The moment we build according to a maximum predicted disaster, something unexpected occurs.
                    Last edited by bjd392; March 21, 2011, 03:35 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

                      Originally posted by 68-eldo View Post
                      I am surprised that all the nuclear plants in Japan are within feet of the ocean..
                      As well as many of them in the US, especially on the West Coast. That is the cheap place to build them because of the proximity to ocean water to cool the reactor. Nevermind the environmental impact on the ocean habitat nearby because of an increase in the water temperature at the outlet point.

                      It is easy to dismiss the environmental damage caused by a nuclear meltdown because "it is not in backyard, why should I care, I just want to heat my swimming pool at the lowest possible cost." The reality is that a reactor meltdown on the West Coast will cause a deadzone for hundreds, maybe a thousand miles downwind because of the Westerlies.

                      It was recently discovered that the emergency shutdown system at Diablo Canyon was turned off through human error during scheduled maintenance. It remained off for 18 months before anyone discovered the error. This incident was within the last two years. It wouldn't have taken a 7.5 scale to cause a meltdown. Even a minor quake could have caused a significant nuclear incident.

                      But fine, those of you who are staunch supporters of nuclear power at any cost.......let's build the next one in your backyard.
                      Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

                      People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

                        I voted with the current majority in the poll: the risks are worth it. But actually, that assumes we've mitigated the risks as best we can. Nuclear power and air travel share the difficulty that overall risks are low and accidents infrequent, but when something bad happens, it can be really bad. The fact that accidents are infrequent leads managers to be complacent about plant safety, and we really can't depend on private companies to handle this well. If your memories stretch back to Three Mile Island, you'll recall that journalists started digging around after the event to find that federal inspectors had been reporting many, many safety violations at nuclear plants which went year after year without being corrected.
                        Greg

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

                          'really bad' in common terms would encompass things like the aforementioned boiler explosions that kill, and then are over.
                          Really bad in nukology means, we have a major problem immediately, then possibly millions die over the years and the huge surrounding region is inhabitable for centuries as is the food/water/etc., and we economically wither in total. It's what we're seeing happen in Japan with this small example. Add to that the widespread PANIC that would occure in less composed/civilized nations, like the US, and you can see how just one nuke mishap and it's repercussions could easily kill a country. But hey, it was so unexpected...

                          Building a nuke facility to withstand merely a 7.5 quake anywhere is a con game, doing it in quake country is criminal, as is hiding beneficial technology that could have infinitely bettered this country, and that's been going on for at least 100 years.
                          https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

                            I'll admit this is a shameless plug......but here goes.

                            Check out FutureNewsNetwork.com to learn about 100 years of suppressed technology. We are talking about power generation technology that folks have been killed over.

                            If you honestly think Nuclear Energy is the answer, then it clearly shows you do not have all the facts. Stirling, Steorn, and a host of magnetic technologies are here to stay. And in the last 10 years or so, nobody has been killed over these revolutions to the status quo of power supply, so perhaps the government has finally given up on suppression.

                            All we need now is for consumers to stop acting like sheep.
                            FutureNewsNetwork.com
                            Energy answers are already here.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

                              Check out FutureNewsNetwork.com to learn about 100 years of suppressed technology.
                              Wow that page is way too busy for my computer. Took too long to load and scrolling the page was next to impossible.

                              So I checked Wikipedia for those things you mentioned.

                              So as not to sidetrack this thread I won’t go into detail, but those technologies don’t seem to be ready yet. They need much more development; maybe new discoveries will make them work.

                              Back to nuclear plants, if I was designing a plant I would seriously consider underground installations. Much better containment and cooling water could be feed by gravity in emergencies.

                              Just a thought.
                              "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."
                              Ayn Rand

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

                                Although I've voted in the poll, I have been decidedly quiet in this conversation. But Tim's post prompted me to voice my opinion. I want to say first and foremost that just because I believe we shouldn't allow this accident to dismiss nuclear energy all together, that doesn't mean we should ignore all the other forms of alternate energy. Dismissing nuclear energy is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Ignoring other forms of energy production is just as stupid. Wind energy is an excellent alternative energy source - when you live in an area that has sustained winds for most of the time. Solar energy is an excellent form of alternative energy - when you live in an area that has predominately sunny weather. Geothermal energy is an excellent form of alternative energy - when you live in an area that has a large geothermal reserve. All of these methods are excellent - under the right conditions.

                                My opinion on nuclear energy is not something I take lightly. Back in the day (BC - before college) I was staunchly opposed to nuclear anything. I fell for the media blitz that took over after Three-Mile Island. In its typical "the sky is falling" mentality, the media instilled a deep-seated fear of simply the word NUCLEAR. But I also became curious – what exactly was “radiation”? How did it work? Was all radiation bad? So I decided to find out.

                                I became so engrossed in the subject that I almost concentrated on this area in grad school. Turns out that nuclear processes are so well understood from a physics perspective (not to be confused with engineering) that it is, in fact, a “dead” subject. We know far more about nuclear reactions than we do about sound.

                                One of the biggest problems with nuclear processes is the lack of education amongst the public. Fearing nuclear energy is like fearing the ocean. Yes, if you are not careful, you could die from it. However, if you approach it with a keen understanding, it can provide valuable services.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X