• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

Sword_Of_Truth said:
The worlds largest solar plant in Gujarat India covers 58 square miles and has a peak capacity of 3,000 MW.

North Americas reactor facility in Bruce County Ontario covers 5 or 6 square miles and has a capacity of 6,000 MW.

On a sunny day in India, Gujarat will produce 24,000 megawatt hours of electricity.

On a cloudy winters day in Canada, Bruce will crank out 144,000 MW.

Six times the energy on one tenth the land area. You will never make up that difference.
Click to expand...
and wheere exactly did i say solar panels will replace nuclear?
 
DC said:
where is that link you were talking about?
Click to expand...

This link.

Scroll down to:

Japan Earthquake Update (15 March 2011, 11:25 UTC)
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Update
Click to expand...

It details radiation levels at the plant, and confirms that the 400mSv reading was a brief peak which quickly subsided to a much, much lower level.

You didn't respond to the poster who originally posted this IAEA update, but when someone else drew attention to it, you responded as follows:

DC said:
:rolleyes: yeah i know the only ones knowing what is going on are the bigmouthed JREF phonies........ this is so laughable, the whole world is wrong, only the JREFers know what really is going on, impressive lol.
Click to expand...

You have continually argued as if what posters are saying here is their own blind opinion, despite repeated links to reputable expert sources that not only confirm what they are saying, but in most cases are informing what they're saying.

Let me alter your post for accuracy and see if you still stand by it:

:rolleyes: yeah i know the only ones knowing what is going on are the International Atomic Energy Agency........ this is so laughable, the whole world media is wrong, only the IAEA know what really is going on, impressive lol.
Click to expand...

Are you still willing to reject the opinion of the world body responsible for monitoring atomic energy? Yes or no?
 
gumboot said:
This link.

Scroll down to:



It details radiation levels at the plant, and confirms that the 400mSv reading was a brief peak which quickly subsided to a much, much lower level.

You didn't respond to the poster who originally posted this IAEA update, but when someone else drew attention to it, you responded as follows:



You have continually argued as if what posters are saying here is their own blind opinion, despite repeated links to reputable expert sources that not only confirm what they are saying, but in most cases are informing what they're saying.

Let me alter your post for accuracy and see if you still stand by it:



Are you still willing to reject the opinion of the world body responsible for monitoring atomic energy? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

wow nice spinn there.

i was told a story that they did not vent the buildings to prevent fearmongering and so risked an explosion. i didnt buy that story and have nowhere seen anything confirming that story.

i never doubted radiation levels. nor do i doubt any of the IAEA newsreleases.........

so again, where is the link that confirms that they did not vent the buildings to prefent panic / fearmongering......
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
"Alternatives" simply do not have the density and capacity to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear.
Click to expand...

Yes. I have always believed this to be the fundamental problem we face.

We need a fuel with a high energy-density in order to reduce the resources we need to consume, and high energy-density fuels are *always* going to be dangerous - no way around it.

Personally, I'd be more than happy to have a nuclear reactor in my back yard. Now I just need to convince my neighbours :P
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
There are no future developments which will do away with renewables crippling limitations. "Alternatives" simply do not have the density and capacity to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear. You cannot make the sun stay in the sky, nor can you make it shine harder on a given peice of earth. You cannot make the wind blow faster and more consistently either.
Click to expand...

Yes you can do both that:















Blow a nuke for bright light and a lot of wind!




What? :boxedin:
 


This is a disaster, the French nuclear agency is rating it a 6. It's not a Chernobyl, but a six is only one below a seven.

It's not as bad a disaster as the tsunami and quake, but what happened here should have been preventable, and after the tsunami, there must have been better ways to manage it.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/ten...lear-catastrophe/story-fn84naht-1226022634686

JAPAN will seek US military help to cope with the Fukushima nuclear disaster, its spokesman said, after the plant was evacuated of all emergency workers today.
Click to expand...

They should have done this on day one. They learned from Kobe that they need outside help sometimes, but the nuclear industry didn't seem to hear.
 
Last edited:
DC said:
considering the output of coalplants, yes we could say coal is nuclear.
but coal is sure not an alternative to anything.

Impact from solarpanel production can be minimized with proper laws.

and its not like nuclear energy doesnt need huge mining efforts and other materials. that also leave behind waste.
Click to expand...

Which brings us right back to my first post, if it wasn't for the dumb laws and actions that have been passed based on the lobbying of the anti-nuke groups, that waste wouldn't need to be there.

"Spent" rods are mostly still high grade fuel and could be re-processed if it wasn't for the groups that fought it and had it outlawed in many countries. Why did they fight it and force people to store the waste? Here's the answer right from the horse's mouth...

http://www.greens.org/s-r/35/35-08.html

The regulators of the nuclear industry may also want to postpone as long as possible the vitrification of spent fuel. So long as it is not vitrified, it is available for reprocessing. If reprocessed, the spent fuel could become the new fuel for a new generation of nuclear power plants. This is exactly why those of us who are opposed to the continuation of nuclear power should want immediate vitrification.
Click to expand...

Reprocessed materials can be added to mining tailings and turned into a type of synthetic-rock, then have it restored to the original mining pits to be restored, but "environmental" lobbies get in the way of such things because doing this would reduce the waste to nearly nothing and that would lessen their arguments against Nuclear Power. The environmental groups deliberately created the waste problem so they could use it to oppose the continuation of nuclear power.

Travelling Wave Reactors were created as a concept in 1958, but until a few years ago couldn't get the funding to develop them. These could burn all the "waste" easily. High Temperature Fast Breeder reactors are not a new thing, but most have been shutdown because of the inability to explore them as serious commercial reactors due to the lack of political will against the anti-nuke groups, several were even shutdown precisely because of their ability to reprocess the fuel inside them.

Nuclear power can be extremely efficient and clean, the major issues with it as it stands today are all created by its opponents so that they can have something to oppose about it.
 
gumboot said:
This link.

Scroll down to:



It details radiation levels at the plant, and confirms that the 400mSv reading was a brief peak which quickly subsided to a much, much lower level.

You didn't respond to the poster who originally posted this IAEA update, but when someone else drew attention to it, you responded as follows:



You have continually argued as if what posters are saying here is their own blind opinion, despite repeated links to reputable expert sources that not only confirm what they are saying, but in most cases are informing what they're saying.

Let me alter your post for accuracy and see if you still stand by it:



Are you still willing to reject the opinion of the world body responsible for monitoring atomic energy? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Christian Klippel said:
It's really quite simple, and i'm surprised that you fail to understand that.

Not releasing the pressure would mean that sooner or later the pressure vessel will explode. So they did release the pressure.

However, the resulting vapor and gases are slightly radioactive, albeit with a very, very short half-life period. So they did not vent it directly into the atmosphere to avoid even more fear mongering ("Look! The levels are rising! We are all going to die!"), but "into the building" instead, so they could wait a little time and then vent it to the outside.

And that's where the explosion then happened. It happened in an area that is pretty useless anyways, when it comes to the safety of the core in this situation. It just blew the roof away. A roof that is there to keep stuff from coming in, like rain and birds. It was never ever designed to keep things inside anyways.

So they did a minor mistake by nor venting it to the outside directly to prevent more fear-mongering coming up. That strategy failed, but the result of such an explosion is of pretty much no consequence.

If they had vented directly, people would have gone nuts instantly, due to the radiation levels that would have been elevated for a very brief period of time.

In fact, they were fully aware that the explosion can happen, and not surprised at all that it did in fact happen.

Is this really so hard to understand? What would you have done instead? And if you say "vented directly", would have you been stayed silent with regards to the increased radiation levels that would result for a short period? Or would you have jumped onto that instead and made a mountain out of a molehill as well?

Greetings,

Chris
Click to expand...


to that fantastic story i wanted a source. never got one because it was a made up story.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Which brings us right back to my first post, if it wasn't for the dumb laws and actions that have been passed based on the lobbying of the anti-nuke groups, that waste wouldn't need to be there.

"Spent" rods are mostly still high grade fuel and could be re-processed if it wasn't for the groups that fought it and had it outlawed in many countries. Why did they fight it and force people to store the waste? Here's the answer right from the horse's mouth...



Reprocessed materials can be added to mining tailings and turned into a type of synthetic-rock, then have it restored to the original mining pits to be restored, but "environmental" lobbies get in the way of such things because doing this would reduce the waste to nearly nothing and that would lessen their arguments against Nuclear Power. The environmental groups deliberately created the waste problem so they could use it to oppose the continuation of nuclear power.

Travelling Wave Reactors were created as a concept in 1958, but until a few years ago couldn't get the funding to develop them. These could burn all the "waste" easily. High Temperature Fast Breeder reactors are not a new thing, but most have been shutdown because of the inability to explore them as serious commercial reactors due to the lack of political will against the anti-nuke groups, several were even shutdown precisely because of their ability to reprocess the fuel inside them.

Nuclear power can be extremely efficient and clean, the major issues with it as it stands today are all created by its opponents so that they can have something to oppose about it.
Click to expand...

evidence of that alleged anti nuclear lobbieng?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom