User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 11:22:17 AM EDT
[#1]
+1. Build 'em! LOTS of them! Enough to power all those battery-powered cars we all wish we could use. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 11:25:23 AM EDT
[#2]
It seems I am in need of the other side's opinion.
My last semester in college, we spent a good deal of time talking about nuclear energy. I have a few questions for those who voted "Yes": 1) Is it not true that radiation emitted by the abnormal concentration of nuclear fuel/waste weakens the concrete structures which house the reactors and sensitive components of the plants? Over time, wouldn't this be costly to repair? Would it implicate tearing down the old reactor and building a new one in its place? Would this place a damper on our energy needs if this is the case? 2) Launching fuel into space requires a vehicle. Space-borne vehicles are uber expensive. Would this solution to waste disposal be economically sensible? 3) If launching uranium into space is not a plausible solution, where do the unusable byproducts go? We COULD make a lot of uranium bullets, but what about the concern of making warzones uninhabitable? Lead does a lot of damage to environments, and the military is currently pursuing alt. compositions for bullets; don't you think uranium would exacerbate the problem? Those are just a few that come to mind. Please give me the other side of the story. Like I said, I learned all this in a college class, so maybe I am not hearing it all. My prof. was not a lib; he was interested in the U.S. becoming less dependent upon fossil fuels and coming more into the nuclear age, but he too was concerned with the waste problem. Personally, I think that if there was a practical way to perform fusion, that would be the end of our troubles with oil, for a good part. But as it appears, no one seems to hold that key. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 11:31:29 AM EDT
[#3]
I'll field the first one.
ETA: Also, the comprehensive American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code, Section III, Division 2: 2004 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III: Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Division 2: Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 11:33:37 AM EDT
[#4]
Yes we should have more reactors.
Chernobyl wont happen. Like people said they arent built that way anymore. Chernobyl had a melt down which is what happens when the rods get too hot and need to be taken out of the reaction. New methods are much better and there are many interlocks in place to prevent any such thing from happening. With that said, there is no reason to have one in every backyard. We can scatter them throughout the desert and easily supply enough power to the states. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 11:34:54 AM EDT
[#5]
No, there are safer alternatives.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 11:41:16 AM EDT
[#6]
this is pretty much just opinion but to me it seems the benefit of getting rid of the spent fuel and waste TOTALLY, without having to store it for the next 100,000 years is worth just about any cost. christ, we spent millions and millions of dollars so we could polish a frigging mirror, after all!  and come to think about it, it might be cheaper in the long run when you think about the maintenance of those storage facilities, paying security personnel, constantly having to monitor and upgrade the fac and it's contents, millions upon millions in legal fees from suits brought by the lawyers of the tree huggers and mothers with two-headed babies... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 11:46:17 AM EDT
[#7]
Just to clarify, they were NEVER built like that here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 11:48:49 AM EDT
[#8]
2 words:
Maine Yankee De-commissioned in 97 because it was no longer fiscally viable. linky Snipped from website for those whose click fu is challenged: Maine Yankee’s decommissioning began in August 1997 when the plant was no longer economically viable. Maine Yankee began operating in 1972. During 25 years of operation the plant safely produced about 119 billion kilowatt hours of electricity for its New England customers. Why build MORE when the ones we have are not producing??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 11:50:02 AM EDT
[#9]
Name one please. Solar and wind aren't even worth it when you consider how effecient they are. Hydoelectric may be nice, but you have to have a LOT of moving water for that to work. Coal does more damage to the environment than nukes ever will. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 11:51:40 AM EDT
[#10]
Yes, I have been living next door to one for the last 20 years, Oyster Creek, NJ
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 11:56:50 AM EDT
[#11]
Maine Yankee was built in 1972. It operated for 25 years. Go turn your car on and let it run for the next three or four years with out turning it off. Come back then and tell me if you want to keep that car or get a new one. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 12:52:03 PM EDT
[#12]
Anybody hear anything about wave generators that would be installed in the ocean to harness wave energy? We talked about this in class, and as I recall it was being looked into. IIRC this would be a very plentiful and cheap energy source.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 12:56:18 PM EDT
[#13]
There is one planned 6 miles from me.
Better than the natty gas plant that was planned 1.5 miles from me with pipes running across my land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 12:57:14 PM EDT
[#14]
If you can make it work and be cost effective, more power to you. Sounds like a wonderful theory if it can be done in a cost effective manner. The problem is that a lot of great theories aren't cost effective when it comes time to actually build a working model. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:02:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Absolutely.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:04:40 PM EDT
[#16]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:07:19 PM EDT
[#17]
check out popular mechanics archive issue from October 2004. discusses many actual types of nuclear power that are great. "mining on the moon" for he4. this kind of helium found little here but plenty on the moon can be turned directly into electrons to put on the power grid, unlike the massive waste generated now by nuclear plants to heat water, and thus steam turning turbines. great article. check it out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:14:58 PM EDT
[#18]
Shit gets old?! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:17:41 PM EDT
[#19]
They listened to that famed nuclear physicist, Jane Fonda (China Syndrome). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:19:12 PM EDT
[#20]
Comparing the design of the Chernobyl reactor as well as the method of operation to the design and operation of reactors in the West shows a total lack of understanding on this subject. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:19:17 PM EDT
[#21]
There are energy technologies that you dont know about that I may. I actually have a proposal with NASA to develop/research it. I know that 99% sure the Military already has it (read a book awhile ago that talked about it), and if not they will. Perfectly environenmentally friendly, doesnt need to be fueled, and can last forever. Might not produce a bajillion MW's of power like a nuclear reactor may be able to, but it can produce a good enough amount. Might need 10-20X more power plants but I think it would be worth it. And im sure there are even mor advanced energy technologies that arent known. Anything is better then what we use now though. I would rather have solar panels then get my power from a coal plant or nuclear reactor. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:27:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Haven't read the whole thread, but I recently spent several years living within 200 feet of an operating reactor run by sailors with an average age of about 24. I would have a reactor in my basement and not give a shit.
Build more Nuke plants, upgrade the power grid, and develop competitive electic cars and shove the whole thing up OPEC's ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:29:15 PM EDT
[#23]
OOOOOHHHHHH, he knows something we don't. Of course, he gives no specifics. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:31:39 PM EDT
[#24]
Given that the sun could consume the entire planet without so much as a hiccup, I really don't think it would present a problem. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:31:39 PM EDT
[#25]
Why isn't there a "FUCK YES!" option on the poll?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:38:35 PM EDT
[#26]
There's one right about 2 miles from where I am right now. And I'm not scared or worried at all about it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:38:47 PM EDT
[#27]
I voted yes, mainly because I want cheap power, I want depleted Uranium ammunition, and I think more weapons grade nuclear material is a good thing, I think we will be burning through them in N Korea, China, and the ME reasonably quick....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:51:51 PM EDT
[#28]
In a word, YES.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 1:57:53 PM EDT
[#29]
I don't think civilians will get much access to DU ammo. Gun ranges do enough to clear their grounds of lead, I don't think it'd be wise to make them clean out irradiated facilities. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 2:09:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Depleted Uranium releases so low level a radiation I have a hard time seeing it as much of an issue, lol. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 2:09:55 PM EDT
[#31]
tag for when I'm not already late coming home from work.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 2:25:28 PM EDT
[#32]
Maybe in one round, or one sample of it. I wouldn't, however, trust that a firing range riddled with potentially millions of these over time would be safe by any means. DU as I recall can produce 200 millirems per hour of radiation. Maximum safe dosage for someone is 100 millirems extra per year. Might not be too much of a hazard for the individual shooter, but it would certainly poison the grounds upon which you are firing. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 2:49:47 PM EDT
[#33]
Maximum dosage allowed is 5 REM per year for government employees. The Navy's dose limit is 125 Millirem per year for standard radiation workers (I was one). 5 rem per year is a bit excessive, but nowhere near life threatening in the short term. Long term effects would probably include a higher risk for cancer, but not any higher than the risk of lingcancer to a smoker. ETA: DU ammo would probably be pretty expensive. I doubt there would ever be "millions" of rounds fired at ranges. Even if we could buy it, I don't think it would be much of an issue, except for the chickenhawks. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 2:49:59 PM EDT
[#34]
IIRC the Sabot rounds the M1A1 Abrams fires is a DU projectile, and there have been LOTS of those fired in the last decade. I just pulles that launch it into the sun theory out of my ass
I wasn't all that serios about it. I have heard a lot of green party mis-information around, sometimes I wonder what their goal really is, a return to the stone age?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 2:53:23 PM EDT
[#35]
I would support firing nuke waste into the sun, but the chances of the rocket blowing up before reaching orbit, although small, make it a bad idea.
A few tons of nuclear waste + a few tons of rocket fuel + KABOOM = huge dirty bomb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 3:00:06 PM EDT
[#36]
In regards to depleted uranium, it has been my impression that the real threat lies in the particulate matter it leaves behind after striking a target and the possibility it gets inhaled by somone checking out the destruction later on.
As far as launching the waste into the sun...I actually had someone tell me that they thought it was a bad idea as they were concerned it might do some harm to the sun. I could not believe my ears. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 3:02:11 PM EDT
[#37]
Yes one in every state everyone gets one if your state don`t want one freeze in the fuckin dark
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 3:09:01 PM EDT
[#38]
Wrong. Deplete Uranium is created during the enriching process. Natural Uranium is made up of several isotopes. The vast majority is U-238. U-235 is used in reactors. The Uranium is preccessed to remove much of this U-238, leaving a higher percentage of U-235. The left over crap is DU. The spent fuel from a reactor is probably the most radioactive stuff on earth. That shit will kill you if you even get near it without proper shielding. No way is anyone gonna try to use it to make ammo. Normal reactor power grade is pretty low, about 10% U-235. Weapons grade stuff is greater than 95% U-235. Military reactors are somewhere between the two. Reprocessing: Even spent fuel has a significant amount of unused fuel. The problem is that it no longer has the required distribution and density in the fuel material. Reprocessing simply extracts the unused fuel and uses it in new fuel elements. There is still a bunch of other crap left over that may be able to be processed for something else, btu I think it's mostly waste. The problem with N. Korea is that their plants are designed to create Plutonium as a waste product. Use the reactor, remove spent fuel, extract plutonium during reprocessing. Plutonium is also used to make weapons. For further reading: www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 3:11:29 PM EDT
[#39]
+1 on re-enriching spent rods.
+1 on chucking it into space, its perfectly feasible; just fire them from a atol or something. OR find a way to use the spent rods for neutron bombs  Look, mandate every structure built after 200X have enough solar panels for 50%-100% (pick your percentage) and make up the rest with nuclear power. Conserve oil for vehicle use. For some vehicles if nuclear power was to become much more common you could even use nukes on shipping...trains? Down the road that is. Or we can use the idea of a giant solar power plant in orbit that beams down energy to the surface. It can double as a weapon if we re-target it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 3:26:51 PM EDT
[#40]
Reprocessing is indeed the way to go. I still don't want to chuck it into space. Just one loaded rocket blowing up on the launchpad would create a contamination nightmare. Better to just bury the stuff deep under a mountain. There already is a place for it in Nevada called Yucca Mountain. If the NIMBY crowd would just STFU. I will never support a gov't mandate on solar power. When the technology becomes feasible, which is actually very soon, the market will solve the problem. It is now cost effective to power the average house with solar power if you do it over at least a 20 year period. The initial investment is the problem, but will pay for itself over the long run. Maintenance costs are also kinda high for replacement of panels and batteries. Most electrical utilities will buy power from homeowners thta produce more than they consume. Nuclear trains are a waste of time, and would get absolutely no public support. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 3:30:29 PM EDT
[#41]
To the 10th power. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 4:00:19 PM EDT
[#42]
I won't even ask, because I'm sure you wont tell us. Although from you description, it sounds kind of like dilithium crystal! Did the book you're talking about have "Star Trek" anywhere in the title? What I will say, though, is that if you think that solar would work with today's technology on a scale necessary to power any substantial portion of the United States, then you have no credibility in this argument anyway. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 4:09:00 PM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 4:17:02 PM EDT
[#44]
Zero Point Energy anyone? |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 4:21:45 PM EDT
[#45]
I wondered how long it would be before someone brought this up. That was a non-event. If anything, it proved that safety sytems in place could even prevent and UNCOVERED CORE from becoming a harm to the public. This is directly from the article you just linked. Health Effects Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the accident have been conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the State of Pennsylvania. Several independent studies have also been conducted. Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem. In the months following the accident, although questions were raised about possible adverse effects from radiation on human, animal, and plant life in the TMI area, none could be directly correlated to the accident. Thousands of environmental samples of air, water, milk, vegetation, soil, and foodstuffs were collected by various groups monitoring the area. Very low levels of radionuclides could be attributed to releases from the accident. However, comprehensive investigations and assessments by several well-respected organizations have concluded that in spite of serious damage to the reactor, most of the radiation was contained and that the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment. Another item to put this in context, in my time in the Navy, my occupational exposure was a little under 500 mrem. One reactor compartment visit would give me an easy ten or twenty in half an hour. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 4:22:37 PM EDT
[#46]
Yeah, it wasn't Star Trek, it was Stargate SG-1!! |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 4:44:32 PM EDT
[#47]
Already read it, no need to post it again. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 5:18:27 PM EDT
[#48]
Does that count putting your nuts on the IX?
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 5:26:41 PM EDT
[#49]
YES, AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTELY
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 5:41:06 PM EDT
[#50]
This, more than just about anything, is what convinces me that in order to become an enviroweenie/liberal/Dim, one must first have the brain's logic center lobotomized. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
