Nuclear Power and Chernobyl

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Oldasco
Utilities don't want to build costly plants that can't be used...utilities can learn from the Crystal River plant.


That's precisely why nuke is dead in the short term with today's design.

 

[default]

You wont see "LFTR" breeder reactors here because fueling them is practically free, thorium is a waste product in rare earth mining. Uranium OTOH is very expensive, the current system is not unlike disposable razor blades, the reactor is cheap, running it is not. Of course, the French or more likely, the Chinese will develop thorium breeder reactors, working off the information we came up with on them in the 60s and 70s, and we will end up paying whatever price they ask to license the new reactors.

 

[Mystic]

But thank you sleddriver for proving my point. I would kind of like to know why you are so superior to Oldasco and me. In college I had a duel major including Geology and five years of college. I don't bring that up too often. I do know that in debate you are supposed to attack another persons points, not personally attack that person.

I would have no problem with nuclear power IF they could solve the waste problem and IF the people who design, build, and operate nuclear power plants could demonstrate that they somehow could get past sloppy design, sloppy construction, and sloppy operation. I have had quite enough of sloppy, defective welds in pipes, poor concrete construction, and site location-putting a nuclear plant AND THE CRITICAL BACKUP GENERATORS right on the coastline where there are not merely major storms but the extremely strong probability of a major tsunami. You do know what a tsunami is-correct?

But who would think that there could be such a massive earthquake? Guess what-Japan has a history of major earthquakes. And a history of major tsunamis after many earthquakes. So maybe somebody somewhere should have done a little more thinking outside of the box.

Until they at least solve the waste problem (and maybe until some in the nuclear field can GROW UP) I would much prefer natural gas, wind turbine, hydroelectric, or coal fuel power plants near me. The USA has proven reserves of trillions of short tons of coal. And a lot of natural gas. In my immediate location there are large coal burning power plants that work just fine.

How about you provide a polite reply to Oldasco, who seems to have some bad experience with nuclear power in his area? Think you can do that?

 

[Cutehumor]

Off topic, does Chernobyl mean wormwood in English?

 

[Rick in PA]

Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
Off topic, does Chernobyl mean wormwood in English?


I thought so, so I checked, from Wikipedia:
"The city name is the same as a local Ukrainian name for Artemisia vulgaris (mugwort or common wormwood), which is also; "chornobyl".[2] An alternative etymology holds that it is a combination of the words chornyi and byllia (grass blades or stalks), hence it would literally mean black grass or black stalks."

(unfortunately, this site doesn't support the Cyrillic character set, which I had to delete from the Wikipedia quote)

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
But thank you sleddriver for proving my point. I would kind of like to know why you are so superior to Oldasco and me. In college I had a duel major including Geology and five years of college. I don't bring that up too often. I do know that in debate you are supposed to attack another persons points, not personally attack that person.

I would have no problem with nuclear power IF they could solve the waste problem and IF the people who design, build, and operate nuclear power plants could demonstrate that they somehow could get past sloppy design, sloppy construction, and sloppy operation. I have had quite enough of sloppy, defective welds in pipes, poor concrete construction, and site location-putting a nuclear plant AND THE CRITICAL BACKUP GENERATORS right on the coastline where there are not merely major storms but the extremely strong probability of a major tsunami. You do know what a tsunami is-correct?

But who would think that there could be such a massive earthquake? Guess what-Japan has a history of major earthquakes. And a history of major tsunamis after many earthquakes. So maybe somebody somewhere should have done a little more thinking outside of the box.

Until they at least solve the waste problem (and maybe until some in the nuclear field can GROW UP) I would much prefer natural gas, wind turbine, hydroelectric, or coal fuel power plants near me. The USA has proven reserves of trillions of short tons of coal. And a lot of natural gas. In my immediate location there are large coal burning power plants that work just fine.

How about you provide a polite reply to Oldasco, who seems to have some bad experience with nuclear power in his area? Think you can do that?


Again: there is no waste problem! The only problem was President Peanuthead's ban on reprocessing spent fuel. This cuts waste by about 70%! The problems with nuclear power are easily 95% due to the NIMBY and BANANA crowd.

 

[sleddriver]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Personal attack after personal attack after personal attack. Why is this allowed here? Can be have a debate, a discussion, without attacking the other person?

Since anybody who dares to say anything negative about nuclear power plants is dumb I guess we might as well start building a bunch of them. Let's build some more in Japan right near the sea coast and preferably with the back up generators right near the dock. That is great design. That way we can unload the fuel for the back up generators right there and not have to truck it to higher ground.

Those leaking tanks holding nuclear waste at the nuclear facilities in Washington-that is ancient history. Besides, as long as the stainless steel tanks and containers don't leak in my lifetime it is okay. The grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to take care of themselves.

And whatever you do-don't consult with the geologists about any nearby fault lines, volcanic activity, or the dead certain probability that there will be a massive tsunami at some future time on this coast (Washington and Oregon coastline).

Exactly how likely is a magnitude 9 earthquake anyway? You see what I mean!


You started out wanting 'perfection' before any nuclear facility should be allowed to be built. I commented that doesn't exist. Period. Physical things are built in a physical world. Things break. Mistakes happen. Cars are much improved than before, but people still die in them. Everyday. There's been no 30+ year ban on cars.

Is challenging your statements a personal attack?

Since this is a car forum, I can draw a parallel to car design from 30+ years ago to nuclear plant design. A lot has changed since then...but because of the rantings of the paranoid and fear-based crowd, nuclear power plant building was effectively shut-down, stopped, closed 30+ years ago.

How'd you like to be whizzing down the highway in a vehicle that hasn't 'progressed' since the 70's? No seatbelt, no airbag, no crumple zones, no electronic fuel injection, no headrests, etc. None of that.

You want to talk about mistakes?, human error?, shoddy construction?, poor worksmanship? lousy performance?, handling?, safety standards? I could go on and on about 70's cars and Detroit in particular. So have many others in this forum.

While you are entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

Life is full of risks. Hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, shifting ground, droughts, floods...you're a geologist yet you have a hard time accepting that Mother Nature is full of change and that disasters occur whether man-made or natural.

"The only constant condition is change". It's why so many calculus expressions have 'dt' in the denominator.

 

[SteveSRT8]

As mentioned above, the only reason nukes are dead here is the wildly politicized environmental folks.

In case no one noticed there are HUGE special interests that do not want nukes. This makes it tough to ever get them through an approval process fraught with legal hurdles literally designed by opposing lobbyists.

Crystal River is less than 100 miles from me. It is a giant pile of money built with taxpayers dollars. A classic example of waste and fraud as the construction was faulty as well as the inspection processes. Not a good investment no matter whose side you're on!

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
In college I had a duel major including Geology and five years of college. I don't bring that up too often. I do know that in debate you are supposed to attack another persons points, not personally attack that person.

How about you provide a polite reply to Oldasco, who seems to have some bad experience with nuclear power in his area? Think you can do that?
.

I saw no ad hominem attack by sled driver, but, wait, I see....a duel major...that would explain why your posts on this are so....combative..

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^hahahaha, almost fell of my chair!

 

[sleddriver]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
But thank you sleddriver for proving my point. I would kind of like to know why you are so superior to Oldasco and me. In college I had a duel major including Geology and five years of college. I don't bring that up too often. I do know that in debate you are supposed to attack another persons points, not personally attack that person.

I would have no problem with nuclear power IF they could solve the waste problem and IF the people who design, build, and operate nuclear power plants could demonstrate that they somehow could get past sloppy design, sloppy construction, and sloppy operation. I have had quite enough of sloppy, defective welds in pipes, poor concrete construction, and site location-putting a nuclear plant AND THE CRITICAL BACKUP GENERATORS right on the coastline where there are not merely major storms but the extremely strong probability of a major tsunami. You do know what a tsunami is-correct?

But who would think that there could be such a massive earthquake? Guess what-Japan has a history of major earthquakes. And a history of major tsunamis after many earthquakes. So maybe somebody somewhere should have done a little more thinking outside of the box.

Until they at least solve the waste problem (and maybe until some in the nuclear field can GROW UP) I would much prefer natural gas, wind turbine, hydroelectric, or coal fuel power plants near me. The USA has proven reserves of trillions of short tons of coal. And a lot of natural gas. In my immediate location there are large coal burning power plants that work just fine.

How about you provide a polite reply to Oldasco, who seems to have some bad experience with nuclear power in his area? Think you can do that?


Astro is right...you are combative.

The waste problem was solved...decades ago. Blame Carter and the fear-propagating mob, from the same time, for slamming the door on it. Yet you refuse to accept it, much less the consequences of their actions. That's the reason THERE IS A WASTE PROBLEM. This is what happens when short-sighted people make short-sighted decisions, without a thought to the unintended long-term consequences.

They threw the boom-a-rang and you're complaining about getting hit in the back-of-the-head with it thirty years later. Connect - the - dots.

More "IF's" and "Sloppies". More "perfect world". Who would think Mother Nature would dare change without letting us know first, eh? They are a very repetitive theme throughout your posts. So is your continued ranting & raving, which is very tiresome.

Mother Nature is in control. Not us.

As the old sailor said in Master & Commander "You'd better HOLD FAST".

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Mystic
In college I had a duel major including Geology and five years of college. I don't bring that up too often. I do know that in debate you are supposed to attack another persons points, not personally attack that person.

How about you provide a polite reply to Oldasco, who seems to have some bad experience with nuclear power in his area? Think you can do that?
.

I saw no ad hominem attack by sled driver, but, wait, I see....a duel major...that would explain why your posts on this are so....combative..
Five (5) years of "college" and he can't spell "DUAL". "20 years a schoolin' and they put you on the DAY shift".....Zimmerman

 

[GMFan]

For those who are interested ...











Some of the scientists who stayed behind for the cleanup are heroes IMHO.

 

[Mystic]

Yes I do occasionally misspell a word. But I bet you would not have been able to spell 'tsunami' without looking it up in a dictionary.

And I stand by what I have said. It is not very bright to place backup generators for nuclear powers plants right on a coastline in an earthquake prone location where a tsunami can occur. It seems to me that any capable engineer should be able to understand that. In fact, that does not require an engineering degree. All it requires is a little common sense.

Judging from some of the things that have occurred in the nuclear power field common sense is not a common characteristic.

And I did not use a dictionary to spell any of these words. And if any are misspelled I don't really care.

 

[Mystic]

I wonder how much money is being lost with the indefinite loss of all of that land and an entire city. And there could be a structural collapse. And to think it all could have been prevented.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Yes I do occasionally misspell a word. But I bet you would not have been able to spell 'tsunami' without looking it up in a dictionary.

And I stand by what I have said. It is not very bright to place backup generators for nuclear powers plants right on a coastline in an earthquake prone location where a tsunami can occur. It seems to me that any capable engineer should be able to understand that. In fact, that does not require an engineering degree. All it requires is a little common sense.

Judging from some of the things that have occurred in the nuclear power field common sense is not a common characteristic.

And I did not use a dictionary to spell any of these words. And if any are misspelled I don't really care.
Is there a college course in mind reading which can be used to discover what words other people can spell?

 

[Mystic]

Is there a high school class to instruct people how to stay on subject and debate and discuss the points brought up by the other person instead of engaging in personal attacks? The post was about nuclear power and Chernobyl. There are too many people who engage in personal attacks on another person because they are unable to address the points brought up by that person. From my point of point if you are unable to debate the points brought up by the other person and have to engage in personal attacks you have failed.

And did you happen to check out the videos? How would you like that kind of a mess where you live? A little bit of common sense probably could have prevented the entire disaster in Chernobyl.

In Japan there is discussion going on about ending the entire nuclear power program in Japan. I don't think the Japanese would be talking about something like that if the nuclear disaster there had not been as severe as it was. There was partial meltdown of the core in at least one of the reactors. People risked their lives to prevent a worse disaster and many of those people will probably have cancer later in their lives.

I think we have a right to expect quality design, quality construction, and quality operation at a nuclear facility. Or is that too much to expect? I think we have a right to expect people to have enough common sense as to at least be able to figure out that you do not build a nuclear power plant on a coastline where it is certain there will someday be a massive earthquake and a tsunami. Or is that too much to expect?

So we will see if you can address the points I have brought up instead of coming up with some other silly personal attack. If you do attack me personally and not address the points I have brought up I will have to conclude that you are unable to bring up counter arguments to what I am saying. But I will not engage in personal attacks back and forth with you. You can operate at that level if you wish.

 

[andyd]

How many eastern nuclear power plants are on the coast ? There is a doomsday scenario about a volcanic land slip in the Azores, triggering a tsunami in the North Atlantic. Should this ever happen,it will be a mess. What sort of countermeasures do you take for something that may happen? I just hope that lessons were learned from Japan's disaster and measures taken.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
There are too many people who engage in personal attacks on another person because they are unable to address the points brought up by that person.


It seems, Mystic, as though you have brought resolution to your own question: When your "adversary" in a debate where you and they have opposing viewpoints begins to use personal attacks instead of specific, coherent arguments, they are no longer able to participate in the discussion or debate productively. Since very, very few people have the strength of character to allow for themselves to be wrong from time to time or to admit that they have learned something, then all you are left with are retorts filled with acrimony and vitriol. When someone, then, begins with the insults you must note to yourself that the debate will no longer be productive and your "opponent" has run out of "ammo".

Please do not think that a third party who might be reading an exchange that follows like this:

Mystic: I believe that A + B = C.
uc50ic4more: Of course you do, you're a buffoon.

... Would ever think "Wow, that uc50ic4more sure makes a good point. I am really beginning to doubt Mystic's assertion that A + B = C". People read personal attacks and think less of the attacker and less of what assertions or points the attacker would have made prior in the discussion. I think people post these attacks because 1) they've run out of real points to make and 2) they're angry that they "lost" (as though they have attached their sense of self to a particular argument, and you have to the opposing viewpoint; and therefore the debate is a "fight" between two selves, not a critical comparison of ideas). We all tend to attach ourselves to our opinions and take it quite personally when those opinions are challenged; and even more personally when those opinions begin to show themselves as having obvious flaw!

It is clear that no good ever comes from posting personal, divisive or inflammatory material either in real life or on an internet forum, and it is clear that someone posting such material has not thought that out: Again, you need to simply note to yourself that when someone responds to a point you've made with personal attacks, that you may not need to engage with that person any longer if their character is such that they do these unproductive things without thinking them through. Your time and your peace of mind are more valuable than that.

 

[Mystic]

Thanks, I agree with that uc50ic4more. I don't really have anything against nuclear power. It is another form of energy. We need to develop alternative energy sources because eventually we will run out of fossil fuels. Although we will not run out of fossil fuels as soon as some people think. In the USA at least there are proven reserves of trillions of short tons of coal and natural gas and even crude oil is being found. I suppose it is best just to ignore people who engage in personal attacks.

The problems I have with nuclear power are the waste problem and issues involved in the design, construction, operation, and site location of nuclear power plants.

Maybe the waste issue could be solved or at least greatly reduced by the use of breeder reactors. But at this time there are some serious nuclear waste issues in the USA. Several tanks holding nuclear waste are already leaking in Washington state at nuclear facilities located there. I have heard of serious problems starting to develop at the test grounds in Nevada where nuclear weapons were tested.

Now chemical pollution can be very serious but usually chemical pollution can be corrected in various ways and may not last extremely long periods of time. There is nuclear waste that can remain dangerous for thousands of years. They think that people will not be able to live in the immediate Chernobyl area for some 100,000 years. So the nuclear waste issue concerns me.

Another thing that really disturbs me is the sloppy design, construction, and operation that can often be found at nuclear facilities. It is simply beyond my understanding how any engineer would want to locate a nuclear plant and backup generators at sea level in an earthquake area where there can be a powerful tsunami. And designing, building, and operating a nuclear facility cannot be looked at as some sort of a 'sweet heart' deal. A deal some construction company might be able to get repairing a certain section of highway over and over again. There is too much at risk for sloppy work.

I will try to ignore the people who engage in personal attacks. Sometimes that is difficult however.