Quantcast
Nuclear Power. What's Your Opinion?

Forums - General Discussion - Nuclear Power. What's Your Opinion?

thorium is the way of the future. They are building a prototype in india as we speak i think



Around the Network
Joelcool7 said:
totalwar23 said:
 

Uh, well you need power to run the pumps. The earthquake/tsunami knocked out the diesel generators. No power, no...well, nothing. That brings up the fact that the pumps are there to circulate water through the fuel cell assemblies, which is enclosed in a shield tank. It's going to be pretty hard to move the reactor vessel and submerged it into the tank which I can't comprehend how that would work as you need to circulate the water through the vessel for effective heat transfer removal. Fuel matrix temperature can go up to 2000 F (and even higher than that). Plus, you would also let fission products into that pool (that's assuming you exposed the core to the water, and that's going to be a lot of radiation released).

Yes, the plant was to be shut down but closing plants don't happen overnight. You have to balance everything, including electricity demand, safety, storage, other logistics, etc...


Well their should be backup generators then. From the news reports I saw it said that both the main pump and the back up pump had been damaged and were not working. This is the first I have heard that the generators were all that wen't down. If that were the case wouldn't the pumps be able to cool the reactor as soon as they were turned back on?

The situation has to be very serious considering the staff were evacuated, some returned for a so called suicide mission. But if the plants workers are leaving and helicopters are beeing called in to dump water on the reactors and fire trucks are doing likewise. It really doesn't sound like the situation is under control or as bad as the american situation.

Also sure you can't close plants over night, but the Japanese Government knew that this plant was to old. Newer plants were built to sustain earthquakes. The Government knowing this facility was out of date and a threat to the public should have closed it. Sure electricity might have been more scarse but look at the situation now, was it really worth this possible meltdown?

Personally I am for Nuclear power, as long as their are enough fail safes and safety measures in place to protect the populous. In the case of Japan, their were not enough fail safes and the facility was known to be too old. If I were in Japan or any other country with a known plant that isn't up to date and code. Yes I'd be against Nuclear Power in those cases.

The Diesel Generators are backup. That's their primary purpose, is to serve as backup. If your backup is gone, it's gone. There's no point in saying if only we had another set of backup because it'll just go on and on. Some pumps may be flooded with seawater but they definitely have other sets of pumps to pump water through the core. The main problem was restoring power. They have some power and are circulating it through the reactor. All of the reactors are shut down. However, the reactors are continuously giving off decay heat which has to be continuously cooled. It's not a matter of pumping water through it once and then it'll be cooled. The firefighters are spraying water into the spent fuel pool to shield radiation from it. Of course, the situation is very serious but it can be definitely be contained. As I said, if it's like Three Mile Island, the results won't be as bad as you think.

In terms of it being closed sooner, you saying this with the power of hindsight. They were planning on shutting down the plant but there are schedules with these types of things. The plant may have being old, but it wasn't a threat to public safety. Being old and not being up to code are 2 different things. Let's say they decided to shut this plant down 4 years ago, and the schedule for the shut down spans over 5 years. How would you honestly know that a 9.0 earthquake would strike in the 4th year? Sure, you can take precautions for natural disasters, but that's just a vague idea somewhere in the future that you really can't forsee. It would be a shot in the dark.



OMG, I cant stop laughing from looking on your sig.

 

OT: No nuclear power - no anything



I'm good with it in exchange for closing down all the coal and other electric plants.

While there is an obvious chance for an issue, I think we've come to the time where we can secure it enough to not due widespread damage. Plus, this has only been an issue with the most severe of disasters and frankly, how often does this happen?

Part of the plan should be to try to keep them away from fault lines, and prepare for the worst should it happen.

But, their use is far less devastating on a daily basis than the other electric production types and unfortunately solar production just isn't at the point where it can replace nuclear yet.

In 10 years, then there is another story where solar panels throughput might be at the point where its highly feesible to build massive arrays to replace nuclear.

I think if anything the fact that this is such a low part of the overall disaster, in reality, it proves nuclear isn't really that scary. Media and politicians are freaking out when all the scientific community is saying the opposite.



okr said:

My opinion is the same as it was before and after Chernobyl, before and after Fukushima:  No, thanks.

Chernobyl and Fukushima were/are not "small issues" as Conegamer thinks and I'm afraid that - even in the unlikely case that another nuclear power plant catastrophe won't ever happen again - the thousands of tons of radioactive waste which are buried around the world will cause more problems in the future than anyone can imagine now.


I don't know why anyone keeps comparing Chernobyl to what's happening in Japan. They are not even close.

Chernobyl was an old and simply unsafe reactor that due to its really poor design created a major disaster that has had ramifications for decades.

Japan's issue is more like 3 mile island in US. Its a FAR better design that has numerous safety precautions and like the 3mi island issue, it won't have long term effects beyond the cost of rebuilding replacements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

It had no major health issues and withing a relatively short period of time clean up was completed.

Japan's reactors are more advanced than that and will be contained with no major human health issues.



Around the Network

i think nuclear power is the way to go. i find it stupid that because of the natural disaster in japan, that other international countries are reviewing or halting plans for nuclear power. It's not the nuclear power station thats killed thousands in Japan (i hope and wish that that great country and fantastic people can get back on thier feet soon, which i think they will) it's the earthquake and tsunam that has done the killing. With me living in the UK at the moment it's plainly obvious this country needs nuclear power, it relies too much on other countries to get their feul to power the country, soon this has to stop. Its too exspensive, it's just not practical and it's not very eco-friendly. Building nuclear power stations they will no longer need to rely on other countries, it will create jobs for its people, and its cleaner.



PSN ID: Stokesy 

Add me if you want but let me know youre from this website

superchunk said:
okr said:

My opinion is the same as it was before and after Chernobyl, before and after Fukushima:  No, thanks.

Chernobyl and Fukushima were/are not "small issues" as Conegamer thinks and I'm afraid that - even in the unlikely case that another nuclear power plant catastrophe won't ever happen again - the thousands of tons of radioactive waste which are buried around the world will cause more problems in the future than anyone can imagine now.


I don't know why anyone keeps comparing Chernobyl to what's happening in Japan. They are not even close.

Chernobyl was an old and simply unsafe reactor that due to its really poor design created a major disaster that has had ramifications for decades.

Japan's issue is more like 3 mile island in US. Its a FAR better design that has numerous safety precautions and like the 3mi island issue, it won't have long term effects beyond the cost of rebuilding replacements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

It had no major health issues and withing a relatively short period of time clean up was completed.

Japan's reactors are more advanced than that and will be contained with no major human health issues.

I'm against nuclear power. I'm convinced that radioactive waste will cause severe problems in the future. My opinion on this matter won't change as long as i live. At the same time I'm absolutely aware that my opinion on this matter won't change anything. Nuclear power plants existed before I was born, they will exist when I'm not around anymore. Radioactive waste will contninue to be buried around the world. I'm not interested in any links which should show me that nuclear event x was not as severe as event y and should be compared to event z instead. No discussion needed.



Well I think it is time to find an alternative;.. Technology comes and goes..  It may be safe but their never will be 100% security, it could destroy a whole region or country and after 9/11 anything can happen..



 

okr said:
superchunk said:
okr said:

My opinion is the same as it was before and after Chernobyl, before and after Fukushima:  No, thanks.

Chernobyl and Fukushima were/are not "small issues" as Conegamer thinks and I'm afraid that - even in the unlikely case that another nuclear power plant catastrophe won't ever happen again - the thousands of tons of radioactive waste which are buried around the world will cause more problems in the future than anyone can imagine now.


I don't know why anyone keeps comparing Chernobyl to what's happening in Japan. They are not even close.

Chernobyl was an old and simply unsafe reactor that due to its really poor design created a major disaster that has had ramifications for decades.

Japan's issue is more like 3 mile island in US. Its a FAR better design that has numerous safety precautions and like the 3mi island issue, it won't have long term effects beyond the cost of rebuilding replacements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

It had no major health issues and withing a relatively short period of time clean up was completed.

Japan's reactors are more advanced than that and will be contained with no major human health issues.

I'm against nuclear power. I'm convinced that radioactive waste will cause severe problems in the future. My opinion on this matter won't change as long as i live. At the same time I'm absolutely aware that my opinion on this matter won't change anything. Nuclear power plants existed before I was born, they will exist when I'm not around anymore. Radioactive waste will contninue to be buried around the world. I'm not interested in any links which should show me that nuclear event x was not as severe as event y and should be compared to event z instead. No discussion needed.

What are your thoughts on thorium reactors, which only has about 100 grams of waste for every ton of thorium they burn; and this waste only exists for a couple hundred years?



okr said:

My opinion is the same as it was before and after Chernobyl, before and after Fukushima:  No, thanks.

Chernobyl and Fukushima were/are not "small issues" as Conegamer thinks and I'm afraid that - even in the unlikely case that another nuclear power plant catastrophe won't ever happen again - the thousands of tons of radioactive waste which are buried around the world will cause more problems in the future than anyone can imagine now.

You should read into the Chernobyl incedent as to why it occurred. Furthermore, comparison of Chernobyl to Fukushima is one of the craziest, most insane statements made by the media or anyone. Comparison between the two would be like arguing World War 2 and the Bosnian War were on the same scale because they involved most of the same countries.

Nuclear disasters that are caused by random accidents like Fukushima are so unbelievably rare, to argue against Nuclear Power because of them is pure insanity. Chernobyl was not an accident. I suggest you read up on the causes of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#The_attempted_experiment

Given the immense power that they produce, and the benefit to humanity they offer, they are a massive net benefit. Yes, they have drawbacks, but nothing advantageous for humanity has ever been a perfectly optimal scenario. Everything comes at a cost, and Nuclear power has that incredibly small chance something catastrophic will happen at a very rare time, but we cannot point to it and say "oh, this is why it shouldn't exist!". If we did that, then we should ban cars, airplanes, and oil for the damage they've caused societies and families at one time or another.

 

As to the OP. I like Nuclear. Its more expensive than other sources of power, but its clean, plentiful, and has a lot of future upside unlike other clean sources. I hope America gets off of its fossil fuel horse and starts riding Thorium and Nukes until we can't anymore.

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.