[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Nuclear Fun, Nuclear Cookies (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 9/11/2011 7:54:04 AM EDT
|
I was over at the TSA thread, and there was some serious issues brought forth regarding nuclear power. Considering that 20% of the nation uses nuclear energy and there 104 active reactors in the US, I think that people outside of the nuclear field just don't get how much nuclear energy powers their life. Nuclear power is safe. Also, people just don't get how hampered the US is in regards to doing nuclear anything ourselves. We are not allowed to refine new fuel, and we are not allowed to reprocess our own old fuel for reactors, and yet, we still are able to produce nuclear power for about 5 dollars per killawatt hour. The next closest competitor is everyone's favorite, coal. Coal comes in at 15 dollars per killawatt hour. We produce no byproduct other than steam. We are safe, reliable and cheap, so why all the butthurt regarding nuclear power?
So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? |
|
Quoted: I was over at the TSA thread, and there was some serious issues brought forth regarding nuclear power. Considering that 20% of the nation uses nuclear energy and there 104 active reactors in the US, I think that people outside of the nuclear field just don't get how much nuclear energy powers their life. Nuclear power is safe. Also, people just don't get how hampered the US is in regards to doing nuclear anything ourselves. We are not allowed to refine new fuel, and we are not allowed to reprocess our own old fuel for reactors, and yet, we still are able to produce nuclear power for about 5 dollars per killawatt hour. The next closest competitor is everyone's favorite, coal. Coal comes in at 15 dollars per killawatt hour. We produce no byproduct other than steam. We are safe, reliable and cheap, so why all the butthurt regarding nuclear power? So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? Are you sure about that?  I'm only paying about 9 or 10 cents a killowatt hour. Hippies and other morons who are against nuclear power need to pay $15 per KW/h. Have fun charging your iThing and Prius. 
|
|
Quoted:
The butt hurt is, we use a very piss poor inefficient form of nuclear power generation, but even different types of nuclear power generation that could use the tremendous amount of "spent" fuel is labeled as BAD even if it is safer than current technology. The tech is sound and most reactors are still GTG, But I definitly agree that we need to reevaluate the spet fuel problem. We only burn approxiamtely (burn is used to denot consume, to make unable to start fission) 3% of the fuel, and the rest we put in to a cask and hold onto it (Thanks again Obama for shutting down Yucca). Now if the subsidies were there for US businesses for them to build reprocessing facilities, we could re-use the fuel again and again. the spent waste is far more radioactive, but the half life burns with each reprocessing. But who wants to build a multi billion dollar reprocessing facility that can't be used? Oh, and I love the Moltan Salt Reactors. they use thorium that actually burns 99% of the fuel when in the reactor. Thorium is very difficualt to weaponize and the fission process is limited to the core and that is it. Those reactors only put out about 50 megawatts per facility but you could have them in every town for a hundredth the cost of one nuclear facility. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was over at the TSA thread, and there was some serious issues brought forth regarding nuclear power. Considering that 20% of the nation uses nuclear energy and there 104 active reactors in the US, I think that people outside of the nuclear field just don't get how much nuclear energy powers their life. Nuclear power is safe. Also, people just don't get how hampered the US is in regards to doing nuclear anything ourselves. We are not allowed to refine new fuel, and we are not allowed to reprocess our own old fuel for reactors, and yet, we still are able to produce nuclear power for about 5 dollars per killawatt hour. The next closest competitor is everyone's favorite, coal. Coal comes in at 15 dollars per killawatt hour. We produce no byproduct other than steam. We are safe, reliable and cheap, so why all the butthurt regarding nuclear power? So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? Are you sure about that? I'm only paying about 9 or 10 cents a killowatt hour.
Hippies and other morons who are against nuclear power need to pay $15 per KW/h. Have fun charging your iThing and Prius. Mea culpa. That would be megawatts. My brain is not functioning without a sip of fuel pool water. |
|
Quoted:
Now if the subsidies were there for US businesses for them to build reprocessing facilities, we could re-use the fuel again and again. You had me up until you mentioned the S-word. Why would the industry need subsidies? It's either efficient enough for the private sector to do it on its own without the government throwing tax dollars at it, or it's a waste of everyone's money. The only thing the government should do is get out of the way (and fuck Jimmy Carter, even though he is no longer our worst president). |
|
Throwing this out there, in case the OP or anyone else hasn't seen it.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1227001_Liquid_Fluoride_Thorium_Reactor.html 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now if the subsidies were there for US businesses for them to build reprocessing facilities, we could re-use the fuel again and again. You had me up until you mentioned the S-word. Why would the industry need subsidies? It's either efficient enough for the private sector to do it on its own without the government throwing tax dollars at it, or it's a waste of everyone's money. The only thing the government should do is get out of the way (and fuck Jimmy Carter, even though he is no longer our worst president). Since e .gov has been sitting on about three million dollars per nuclear facility (yucca was being built with the funds extorted from nuclear facilities at the sum of 3 million dollars per facility per year) and they have killed the Yucca fiasco, it should be paid back to the companies in the form of a big fat check or the right to build the facilities and get cracking making me new fuel. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? you would be surprised at what the hippies and anti's say here at VT Yankee. Being originally from SC, you might want to reconsider that statment about being a yankee. But hippies are everywhere |
|
I don't anything about nuclear power. I just know it's nuclear. And therefore dangerous. And it can make a continent uninhabitable for 69,000 years.
Don't try to spin it to me any differently, either. You can't be trusted as you work for BIG NUCLEAR. 
There. I summed up the average American attitude about it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? you would be surprised at what the hippies and anti's say here at VT Yankee. Being originally from SC, you might want to reconsider that statment about being a yankee. But hippies are everywhere VT Yankee is referring to a nuke plant. not being a yankee from the north.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? you would be surprised at what the hippies and anti's say here at VT Yankee. Being originally from SC, you might want to reconsider that statment about being a yankee. But hippies are everywhere VT Yankee is referring to a nuke plant. not being a yankee from the north. LOL. |
|
Quoted:
Throwing this out there, in case the OP or anyone else hasn't seen it. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1227001_Liquid_Fluoride_Thorium_Reactor.html One of the best parts of that video, is when Kirk Sorensen states if coal power plants were regulated by the nuclear industry, they would be shut down for the amount of released radiation. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste |
|
Quoted:
I think that people outside of the nuclear field just don't get how much nuclear energy powers their life. Nuclear power is safe. We understand how much its depended on; that doesn't mean that we have to like it. Its only "safe" until the first major US accident blows some city off the US map and contaminates 3 states. THEN what will the pro-nuke people say? Even if no accident ever happens, that nuke site can never be remediated. It will always be a hazardous waste site for the foreseeable future. How can that be considered "safe"? |
|
Quoted:
My biggest fear about nuclear power would be having a facility within 25 miles of my home.  I'm a BIMBY - Build In My Back Yard. OK, not literally in my back yard ... it's kind of small. But I'd have no problem with one upwind from my house. Also no problem with a hypothetical personal size nuke generator in the basement or backyard. I majored in Environmental Science and they made a huge mistake when they let me out - Everyone else was a damn hippie by graduation, even if they weren't at the beginning. The indoctrination didn't take with me. If I answered some of those tests honestly I'd never have passed a class. But I gave them what they wanted and learned more on my own than I did from the professors. I don't know of another kind of power plant that I'd want that close to my family. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? you would be surprised at what the hippies and anti's say here at VT (comma) Yankee. Being originally from SC, you might want to reconsider that statment about being a yankee. But hippies are everywhere VT Yankee is referring to a nuke plant. not being a yankee from the north. LOL. fixed it for you.. 
ETA - this is Vermont Yankee 
|
|
Quoted:
I was over at the TSA thread, and there was some serious issues brought forth regarding nuclear power. Considering that 20% of the nation uses nuclear energy and there 104 active reactors in the US, I think that people outside of the nuclear field just don't get how much nuclear energy powers their life. Nuclear power is safe. Also, people just don't get how hampered the US is in regards to doing nuclear anything ourselves. We are not allowed to refine new fuel, and we are not allowed to reprocess our own old fuel for reactors, and yet, we still are able to produce nuclear power for about 5 dollars per killawatt hour. The next closest competitor is everyone's favorite, coal. Coal comes in at 15 dollars per killawatt hour. We produce no byproduct other than steam. We are safe, reliable and cheap, so why all the butthurt regarding nuclear power? So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? The biggest fear and the biggest myth are the same thing. People say "OMG Fukushima earthquake and tsunami accident! That could happen here!" They don't even stop to think for a second that the Fukushima situation was basically a worst case scenario, and it wasn't that bad at all. That disaster should serve as proof of just how safe even old ass nuclear technology is, not as some kind of rally point for all the fearmongering anti-nuke idiots. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was over at the TSA thread, and there was some serious issues brought forth regarding nuclear power. Considering that 20% of the nation uses nuclear energy and there 104 active reactors in the US, I think that people outside of the nuclear field just don't get how much nuclear energy powers their life. Nuclear power is safe. Also, people just don't get how hampered the US is in regards to doing nuclear anything ourselves. We are not allowed to refine new fuel, and we are not allowed to reprocess our own old fuel for reactors, and yet, we still are able to produce nuclear power for about 5 dollars per killawatt hour. The next closest competitor is everyone's favorite, coal. Coal comes in at 15 dollars per killawatt hour. We produce no byproduct other than steam. We are safe, reliable and cheap, so why all the butthurt regarding nuclear power? So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? The biggest fear and the biggest myth are the same thing. People say "OMG Fukushima earthquake and tsunami accident! That could happen here!" They don't even stop to think for a second that the Fukushima situation was basically a worst case scenario, and it wasn't that bad at all. That disaster should serve as proof of just how safe even old ass nuclear technology is, not as some kind of rally point for all the fearmongering anti-nuke idiots. Those reactors are 40 years old. They withstood earthquakes, a tsunami, and hydrogen explosions. If there was ever a chance for a plant to "blow up and wipe a city off the map" that was it. As far as I know, the death toll is still a whopping zero. Think of all the technological advances in the last 40 years. A reactor designed today would make those things look like a university science experiment. Also, molten salt reactors would be even safer. I think that's where research should be focused. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was over at the TSA thread, and there was some serious issues brought forth regarding nuclear power. Considering that 20% of the nation uses nuclear energy and there 104 active reactors in the US, I think that people outside of the nuclear field just don't get how much nuclear energy powers their life. Nuclear power is safe. Also, people just don't get how hampered the US is in regards to doing nuclear anything ourselves. We are not allowed to refine new fuel, and we are not allowed to reprocess our own old fuel for reactors, and yet, we still are able to produce nuclear power for about 5 dollars per killawatt hour. The next closest competitor is everyone's favorite, coal. Coal comes in at 15 dollars per killawatt hour. We produce no byproduct other than steam. We are safe, reliable and cheap, so why all the butthurt regarding nuclear power? So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? The biggest fear and the biggest myth are the same thing. People say "OMG Fukushima earthquake and tsunami accident! That could happen here!" They don't even stop to think for a second that the Fukushima situation was basically a worst case scenario, and it wasn't that bad at all. That disaster should serve as proof of just how safe even old ass nuclear technology is, not as some kind of rally point for all the fearmongering anti-nuke idiots. Those reactors are 40 years old. They withstood earthquakes, a tsunami, and hydrogen explosions. If there was ever a chance for a plant to "blow up and wipe a city off the map" that was it. As far as I know, the death toll is still a whopping zero. Think of all the technological advances in the last 40 years. A reactor designed today would make those things look like a university science experiment. Also, molten salt reactors would be even safer. I think that's where research should be focused. Agree with everything you've said. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The butt hurt is, we use a very piss poor inefficient form of nuclear power generation, but even different types of nuclear power generation that could use the tremendous amount of "spent" fuel is labeled as BAD even if it is safer than current technology. The tech is sound and most reactors are still GTG, But I definitly agree that we need to reevaluate the spet fuel problem. We only burn approxiamtely (burn is used to denot consume, to make unable to start fission) 3% of the fuel, and the rest we put in to a cask and hold onto it (Thanks again Obama for shutting down Yucca). Now if the subsidies were there for US businesses for them to build reprocessing facilities, we could re-use the fuel again and again. the spent waste is far more radioactive, but the half life burns with each reprocessing. But who wants to build a multi billion dollar reprocessing facility that can't be used? Oh, and I love the Moltan Salt Reactors. they use thorium that actually burns 99% of the fuel when in the reactor. Thorium is very difficualt to weaponize and the fission process is limited to the core and that is it. Those reactors only put out about 50 megawatts per facility but you could have them in every town for a hundredth the cost of one nuclear facility. A couple of things to point out: We burn through much more than 3% of the fissile material in a standard PWR/BWR core design, but, yes, there is a significant energy source available for reprocessing. U233 is a breeding product in a thorium reactor, at least the ones of which I'm aware. U233 makes for a very effective fission weapon, but the processing makes it all but impossible for non-state actors. I'm also not understanding this 99% fuel utilization factor. That seems impossibly high. That said, thorium is neat stuff. Any long-term power generation plan, 100+ years, needs to make use of a thorium cycle. It's not without it's challenges, but it's the closest thing to "free energy" as we're going to get. |
|
Quoted:
I have heard / read over and over that LFTRs can scale really well.
Oh, and I love the Moltan Salt Reactors. they use thorium that actually burns 99% of the fuel when in the reactor. Thorium is very difficualt to weaponize and the fission process is limited to the core and that is it. Those reactors only put out about 50 megawatts per facility but you could have them in every town for a hundredth the cost of one nuclear facility. |
|
Quoted:
I was over at the TSA thread, and there was some serious issues brought forth regarding nuclear power. Considering that 20% of the nation uses nuclear energy and there 104 active reactors in the US, I think that people outside of the nuclear field just don't get how much nuclear energy powers their life. Nuclear power is safe. Also, people just don't get how hampered the US is in regards to doing nuclear anything ourselves. We are not allowed to refine new fuel, and we are not allowed to reprocess our own old fuel for reactors, and yet, we still are able to produce nuclear power for about 5 dollars per killawatt hour. The next closest competitor is everyone's favorite, coal. Coal comes in at 15 dollars per killawatt hour. We produce no byproduct other than steam. We are safe, reliable and cheap, so why all the butthurt regarding nuclear power? So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? Most of my electricity comes from .gov subsidized wind farms, with those evil, dirty natural gas powerplants as backup for when the wind takes a day off. Very little of my electricity comes from nuclear power, and I'm not happy about that. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: My biggest fear about nuclear power would be having a facility within 25 miles of my home. Why, you could have one in your backyard and it would be perfectly safe. As stated above the newe Thorium reactors are "walk away" safe. No muss no fuss. Thorium reactors are still theoretical at this point. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The butt hurt is, we use a very piss poor inefficient form of nuclear power generation, but even different types of nuclear power generation that could use the tremendous amount of "spent" fuel is labeled as BAD even if it is safer than current technology. The tech is sound and most reactors are still GTG, But I definitly agree that we need to reevaluate the spet fuel problem. We only burn approxiamtely (burn is used to denot consume, to make unable to start fission) 3% of the fuel, and the rest we put in to a cask and hold onto it (Thanks again Obama for shutting down Yucca). Now if the subsidies were there for US businesses for them to build reprocessing facilities, we could re-use the fuel again and again. the spent waste is far more radioactive, but the half life burns with each reprocessing. But who wants to build a multi billion dollar reprocessing facility that can't be used? Oh, and I love the Moltan Salt Reactors. they use thorium that actually burns 99% of the fuel when in the reactor. Thorium is very difficualt to weaponize and the fission process is limited to the core and that is it. Those reactors only put out about 50 megawatts per facility but you could have them in every town for a hundredth the cost of one nuclear facility. A couple of things to point out: We burn through much more than 3% of the fissile material in a standard PWR/BWR core design, but, yes, there is a significant energy source available for reprocessing. U233 is a breeding product in a thorium reactor, at least the ones of which I'm aware. U233 makes for a very effective fission weapon, but the processing makes it all but impossible for non-state actors. I'm also not understanding this 99% fuel utilization factor. That seems impossibly high. That said, thorium is neat stuff. Any long-term power generation plan, 100+ years, needs to make use of a thorium cycle. It's not without it's challenges, but it's the closest thing to "free energy" as we're going to get. According to the NRC, we aren't allowed to burn more of the fuel (that is consume it during fission) because of the issue of it becoming very radioactive and unsafe to remove from the core and store in the fuel pools. As for the Thorium, Popular Science ran a bit this last month on Thorium Reactors. I got my numbers from them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that people outside of the nuclear field just don't get how much nuclear energy powers their life. Nuclear power is safe. We understand how much its depended on; that doesn't mean that we have to like it. Its only "safe" until the first major US accident blows some city off the US map and contaminates 3 states. THEN what will the pro-nuke people say? Even if no accident ever happens, that nuke site can never be remediated. It will always be a hazardous waste site for the foreseeable future. How can that be considered "safe"? So we meet again... Friend. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? you would be surprised at what the hippies and anti's say here at VT (comma) Yankee. Being originally from SC, you might want to reconsider that statment about being a yankee. But hippies are everywhere VT Yankee is referring to a nuke plant. not being a yankee from the north. LOL. fixed it for you..
ETA - this is Vermont Yankee http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/2DB9BAEE-AD82-D9E0-A5DEAA1F55D47B2A_1.jpg Damn, that looks like my plant. |
|
Quoted:
Not a fan of having to babysit spent fuel in dry cask storage for.... 25,000 years.  This is why I am a NIMBY.  Don't worry, we'll build a nice, big wall between you and the nuclear power plants. You know what kind of wall I'm talking about. And yes, this thread is now turning into a "support EXPcustom's psychotherapist" thread. |
|
Quoted:
This is probably a good thread to ask which one of you guys I got this picture from on October 24, 2009. It is Beaver Valley IIRC (and it was identified correctly) http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/CarbineDad/cherenkovradiation.jpg wow, i hope this didn't come from someones personal camera. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? you would be surprised at what the hippies and anti's say here at VT Yankee. Being originally from SC, you might want to reconsider that statment about being a yankee. But hippies are everywhere VT Yankee is referring to a nuke plant. not being a yankee from the north. This alone makes me wonder what sort of troll "NuclearCookies" is. Even *I* got that on the first glance, and I've never lived up there. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
My biggest fear about nuclear power would be having a facility within 25 miles of my home. Why, you could have one in your backyard and it would be perfectly safe. As stated above the newe Thorium reactors are "walk away" safe. No muss no fuss. Yup, Palo Verde Nuke Plant is just West of Phoenix. Been there since 1988 making power. However it is stuff like this that scares people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My biggest fear about nuclear power would be having a facility within 25 miles of my home. Why, you could have one in your backyard and it would be perfectly safe. As stated above the newe Thorium reactors are "walk away" safe. No muss no fuss. Yup, Palo Verde Nuke Plant is just West of Phoenix. Been there since 1988 making power. However it is stuff like this that scares people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Chernobyl will never happen at an American plant. ever. that particular design is one of the major factors that made the mess it did. and that design is not allowed in the US. 3 Mile is not as bad as many think. it still operates. no one got harmed. people still live there. and the environment did not get damaged. |
|
Quoted:
I was over at the TSA thread, and there was some serious issues brought forth regarding nuclear power. Considering that 20% of the nation uses nuclear energy and there 104 active reactors in the US, I think that people outside of the nuclear field just don't get how much nuclear energy powers their life. Nuclear power is safe. Also, people just don't get how hampered the US is in regards to doing nuclear anything ourselves. We are not allowed to refine new fuel, and we are not allowed to reprocess our own old fuel for reactors, and yet, we still are able to produce nuclear power for about 5 dollars per killawatt hour. The next closest competitor is everyone's favorite, coal. Coal comes in at 15 dollars per killawatt hour. We produce no byproduct other than steam. We are safe, reliable and cheap, so why all the butthurt regarding nuclear power? So what is the biggest fear or myth about nuclear power you have or know? I live 18 miles from a new uranium enrichment facility. It wasn't even complete before plans to double the size of the facility were implemented because of current and future demand. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My biggest fear about nuclear power would be having a facility within 25 miles of my home. Why, you could have one in your backyard and it would be perfectly safe. As stated above the newe Thorium reactors are "walk away" safe. No muss no fuss. Yup, Palo Verde Nuke Plant is just West of Phoenix. Been there since 1988 making power. However it is stuff like this that scares people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Chernobyl will never happen at an American plant. ever. that particular design is one of the major factors that made the mess it did. and that design is not allowed in the US. 3 Mile is not as bad as many think. it still operates. no one got harmed. people still live there. and the environment did not get damaged. I agree, I was just pointing out that no matter what happens there are retards that hear this and scream no more nukes. |
|
Quoted: By what mechanism can a Nuclear power plant explode to take out a city? Quoted: I think that people outside of the nuclear field just don't get how much nuclear energy powers their life. Nuclear power is safe. We understand how much its depended on; that doesn't mean that we have to like it. Its only "safe" until the first major US accident blows some city off the US map and contaminates 3 states. THEN what will the pro-nuke people say? Even if no accident ever happens, that nuke site can never be remediated. It will always be a hazardous waste site for the foreseeable future. How can that be considered "safe"? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My biggest fear about nuclear power would be having a facility within 25 miles of my home. Why, you could have one in your backyard and it would be perfectly safe. As stated above the newe Thorium reactors are "walk away" safe. No muss no fuss. Yup, Palo Verde Nuke Plant is just West of Phoenix. Been there since 1988 making power. However it is stuff like this that scares people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Chernobyl will never happen at an American plant. ever. that particular design is one of the major factors that made the mess it did. and that design is not allowed in the US. 3 Mile is not as bad as many think. it still operates. no one got harmed. people still live there. and the environment did not get damaged. I agree, I was just pointing out that no matter what happens there are retards that hear this and scream no more nukes. i hear it all the time too. especially around here. the plant i work at is fighting the state of VT to continue operating since the NRC already gave it a thumbs up. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that people outside of the nuclear field just don't get how much nuclear energy powers their life. Nuclear power is safe. We understand how much its depended on; that doesn't mean that we have to like it. Its only "safe" until the first major US accident blows some city off the US map and contaminates 3 states. THEN what will the pro-nuke people say? Even if no accident ever happens, that nuke site can never be remediated. It will always be a hazardous waste site for the foreseeable future. How can that be considered "safe"? This is hyperbole, right? |