DocM Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Updated my post, but thorium salt reactors are coming like them or not. If you truly want lower carbon emissions they are the only way to do it soon. Also, The incidents have been in older designs, not modern ones. As I said, many cannot melt down. In the case of liquid salt reactors the core is already molten, and if it overheats plugs at the bottom melt draining the core into tanks. These now subcritical masses then solidify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Lol at the hate for 'soviet power plants' 3 mile island anyone? I'll freely admit 2 wrongs don't make a right, but if you're going to bring up chernobyl and fukushima, then 3 mile needs to be added to the list too. It's worth noting that in the case of Three Mile Island, all of the safety procedures and safeguards that were supposed to kick in at the time of the accident did. Ironically, Three Mile Island seems to be an example of how even in the event of an accident the safety protocols kick in and avoid disasters. Chernobyl was essentially a primitive, poorly maintained, poorly run plant. Fukushima had more to do with the natural disaster, and, to my understanding, incompetence on the part of regulaters & Tepco. Anti-nuclear seems to me to be motivated entirely by fear, not legitimate concern about safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctebah Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 A great many green groups have changed their tune after the recent incident in Japan. The main problem with nuclear is that you can have 99.99% of plans working safe their whole life but all it takes is one plant to fail and the fallout is immense. Nice way to ignore that the majority of incidents records have come from the US, where safety is supposed to be top notch. Many of those "new designs" are nowhere near being implemented. Nothing but speculation there: They are coming the same way that fusion is coming, in many, many years and designs have continuously been pushed back. Clearly it's not the short time frame that you have given. China, in the last 3 years, has pushed their "test design" date several times. I'd gladly take Thorium, it's much safer than anything nuclear we have now, but the potential for nuclear disasters is always there. Another major flaw is the very nature and planet that we build these things on. Natural disasters can happen everywhere on earth and it's why nuclear power plants are a huge danger to our way of living. Anti-nuclear seems to me to be motivated entirely by fear, not legitimate concern about safety. It's motivated by examples of what happens when things fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I want to know why they kept referring to the birds as avian - by calling them something besides the common name does that infer some sort of deflection in the public's eye ? So people wont get as upset about animals getting killed ?Or is this Kevin Smith guy one of those douches who always wants to sound smarter than everyone ? Nail on the head!!!!! I hate that crap. On topic, I passed one of these on the way to Vegas from LA. Astounding thing to see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siah1214 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Lol at the hate for 'soviet power plants' 3 mile island anyone? I'll freely admit 2 wrongs don't make a right, but if you're going to bring up chernobyl and fukushima, then 3 mile needs to be added to the list too. 3 Mile Island, where there was almost no environmental impact? A few people got a chest X-ray and that's it. I'd rather take those odds than the crap that coal and gas plants put out every day. The only arguments against nuclear power stem from fear and ignorance. Mostly the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiranui Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The need to carpet the world's deserts with these things. Efficiency needs to be improved, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiranui Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 All that space and it only does 110 megawatts? Doesn't look very efficient. Indeed. You'd expect at least 1.21 JIGGAWATTS. remixedcat 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctebah Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The only arguments against nuclear power stem from fear and ignorance. Mostly the latter. Tell that to the people that used to live around Fukushima or Chernobyl. Gas and coal powered plants are horrible, but you could slam them with tsunamis or basically any other natural disaster and the damage would only be local. There is no single place on this earth that is completely protected from natural disasters and yet nuclear power plants are supposed to be safe? Yeah, I get the whole safety record of the industry, but the "IF's" are too big of a risk when it comes to Nuclear Power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity. Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky. Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctebah Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ Way to loose all credibility. Coal ash is not "more radioactive than nuclear waste." Read the editor's note to the Scientific American article that you linked. It is comparing extremely low levels of radioactivity associated with coal power PLANTS to near zero radioactivity emitted by FULLY SHIELDED nuclear power PLANTS. It is not a comparison of coal ash to nuclear waste, which is millions of times more radioactive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Just pointing out the real world isn't The Simpson's, and Gen III+ & Gen IV reactor designs aren't TMI, Chernobyl or Fukushima. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiranui Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Thorium is the future (until fusion is perfected) neo1911 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Yes, it is. The problem is the Luddites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctebah Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Just pointing out the real world isn't The Simpson's, and Gen IV reactor designs aren't TMI, Chernobyl or Fukushima. By quoting an article that had to be edited by the guy that wrote it due to complaints over it's inaccuracy? Year, very credible. But the real question is what's the point? Nobody that's against Nuclear Power is saying that plants release radioactivity while they are working in their safe conditions. As a matter of fact, they are very safe, while the conditions are optimal. The debate centers on what happens when the unsafe conditions occur? As I've already stated, accidents in nuclear industry can have long lasting effects on people all over the world. Try not to link to bogus articles to further your agenda next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctebah Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Thorium is the future (until fusion is perfected) Absolutely. Too bad only a few countries are interested in this at the moment and not enough money is being spent on research. ITER is a perfect example of how multiple nations can work together to tackle power for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Chernobyl: Generation I boiling water reactor. Should have been shut down years before it blew. The Soviets were way too complacent. Fukushima: Generation II pressurised water. Its safety systems largely worked, but then the external and aux power failed due to a faulty layout, the cooling system stopped and H2 gas started being generated. Downhill from there. TMI: the Unit 2 safety systems worked. The failed core was removed and Unit 1 is still working, fully licensed until 2029. An example of how it should work. Gen III+ and Gen IV are much safer, and several types are passively safe so long as no one repeals the laws of thermodynamics or nuclear physics. Some could be buried and run unattended for 80+ years. Bottom line: your nuclear paranoia should be targeting replacing the remaining Gen I & Gen II reactors, not stopping Gen III+ and Gen IV expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I'm finding that these alternative energies are injuring animals that the energies were meant to protect. take windmill farms for generating electricity. They are killing bald Eagles, my nations symbol. but companies are now getting exemptions for the deaths of these fine beautiful birds. I just did a simple search and found an article about how companies are getting exemptions http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Latest-News-Wires/2013/1206/Eagle-deaths-US-to-let-wind-energy-kill-eagles In the bigger sense, this solar tower thing is basically kiling birds too and I don't think its just regular birds but includes birds of prey. sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 it should be noted, thatvdespite fukushima being and old terrible design that should have been retired long before. the impact of the "disaster" was minimal. The Evil Overlord 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 it should be noted, thatvdespite fukushima being and old terrible design that should have been retired long before. the impact of the "disaster" was minimal. Agreed. It did well given the rare plane-hit-a-train-&-both-hit-a-bus event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 if we could harness, in theory, power from H20, we might always find whatever we design harms the environment or animals in some way. is it possible to extract the hydrogen from water to use for powering our homes? I understand however, that hydrogen is explosive in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 its possible, but... you use electricity to do it, making it beyond pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Hydrogen power has a large problem in that the hydrogen atom is so small it infiltrates into many materials and weakens them, a process known as hydrogen embrittlement. Not good for pipelines or valves, and mitigating this is not cheap. It's far easier to transport the hydrogen bound into a cheap, stable molecule - methane (CH4, from.natural gas) - then either extract and use the hydrogen (again, expensive local mitigation) or use the methane directly (much better) and capture the resulting CO2 in a scrubber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 My kitchen window has killed two birds in the past year so on average its probably a bigger killer than this solar power tower. Dick Montage 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 My kitchen window has killed two birds in the past year so on average its probably a bigger killer than this solar power tower. Ban all windows!!!! DConnell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Overlord Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I only added 3 mile as another event as a meltdown, I'm impressed that the disaster could have been much, MUCH worse, and was contained, and I commend any team that can handle fission reactor disaters, especially when they were mostly averted, hell for all I know Selafield could be heading that way too. My only nitpick is nuclear power may be the most efficient, but it has had over 60 years of research, development and improvements throw at them. Solar and wind haven't. Yes, they're large, ugly, inefficient, whatever, so was nuclear at one point in time. Alternative or renewable energy generators will never succeed if no one is prepared to let them mature, hell, I've seen a prototype wind generator that can be attatched to a flat roof, or the side of a uilding, and that was no larger than a 40 cm pedestal fan, and it could supply power for up to 6 houses when the generator is running at full capacity. I don't have a problem with being called ignorant, but comparing something relatively new, to something that has had 6 decades + of support isn't fair neither. R&D is needed, maybe, just maybe they might impress more people, ok they'll still have haters, but nuclear reactors have haters too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts