Nuclear Power Plants: Are Ye for it?

[The_Doctor]

Originally Posted by Moksha

Read a very interesting article on nuclear power plants today in the City Weekly. Got me thinking about the benefits of electricity produced from nuclear fuel rather than fossil fuel. However, there are some problems with what to do with the nuclear waste materials.

Fascinating idea though. What are your thoughts about nuclear power plants?




Nuclear Utah

I'm not a big fan of fossil fuels, but at its worst a coal plant isn't going to blow up and turning the surrounding area into a nuclear wasteland.

[Loudmouth_Mormon]

Originally Posted by Dazed-and-confused

does three mile island strike a bell?

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

I'm not a big fan of fossil fuels, but at its worst a coal plant isn't going to blow up and turning the surrounding area into a nuclear wasteland.

Cool - two in one thread!

Dazed was challenged and never came back, might as well challenge The_Doctor:

Hey The_Doctor - I assume you're thinking that "blowing up and turning the surrounding area into a nuclear wasteland" is something a properly designed, built, and maintained nuclear power plant would do. Perhaps you can share with us why you believe that? Got sources we can look at?

And maybe while you're at it, you can share your sources with France - they don't seem to be aware of the danger.

Yeesh.

LM

[cleanvisit]

I've read that although nuclear power plants used to be highly volatile, nowadays they are extremely efficient and safe. It is always hard to know which information you can trust and which is biased though. In my opinion, I think that we definitely need to look for alternative sources of fuel, besides fossil fuels. Is nuclear power the way to go? That is a question I have still not come to ends with

[anatess]

Originally Posted by cleanvisit

I've read that although nuclear power plants used to be highly volatile, nowadays they are extremely efficient and safe. It is always hard to know which information you can trust and which is biased though. In my opinion, I think that we definitely need to look for alternative sources of fuel, besides fossil fuels. Is nuclear power the way to go? That is a question I have still not come to ends with

We've been using nuclear submarines since the late 50's. Nuclear submarines are powered by nuclear reactors - gives a submarine the ability to stay underwater without oxygen for as long as needed - nuclear subs only surface to change crews or get supplies like food and such, not because it needs to refuel - other fuel sources require oxygen which requires a submarine to have to resurface often, and batteries cannot last for more than a few hours. There's probably over 300 nuclear subs built since then (I'm guesstimating - there are over 200 nuclear subs built in Russia during the cold war so this number might be on the low side). Out of all of them, only 1 - K19 (they made a movie out of it - Widowmaker or something like that) - had a reactor meltdown. And that was way back in 1961!

So yeah, the impression that causes most people to be fearful of nuclear power is probably all rooted in Chernobyl and the threat of nuclear warfare. Technology has really come a long way since then and America is lagging behind.

[Tarnished]

Originally Posted by anatess

We've been using nuclear submarines since the late 50's. Nuclear submarines are powered by nuclear reactors - gives a submarine the ability to stay underwater without oxygen for as long as needed - nuclear subs only surface to change crews or get supplies like food and such, not because it needs to refuel - other fuel sources require oxygen which requires a submarine to have to resurface often, and batteries cannot last for more than a few hours. There's probably over 300 nuclear subs built since then (I'm guesstimating - there are over 200 nuclear subs built in Russia during the cold war so this number might be on the low side). Out of all of them, only 1 - K19 (they made a movie out of it - Widowmaker or something like that) - had a reactor meltdown. And that was way back in 1961!

So yeah, the impression that causes most people to be fearful of nuclear power is probably all rooted in Chernobyl and the threat of nuclear warfare. Technology has really come a long way since then and America is lagging behind.

My dad was on a nuclear sub when I was a kid. He and my mom were unable to have children during that time, resulting in a 5 year gap between me and my next sibling. I don't know if it had to do with the radiation or with the fact that he was gone for 3 to 6 months at a time. I do know that he had to wear something to measure the amount of radiation that he was absorbing.

[The_Doctor]

Originally Posted by Loudmouth_Mormon

Cool - two in one thread!
Hey The_Doctor - I assume you're thinking that "blowing up and turning the surrounding area into a nuclear wasteland" is something a properly designed, built, and maintained nuclear power plant would do. Perhaps you can share with us why you believe that? Got sources we can look at?

I don't believe that a properly designed, built, and maintained plant would do that. But if the poo hit the fan, a possible outcome is another Chernobyl or a reactor leak. I'm aware Chernobyl is what happens when you don't maintain the plant and don't pay attention to the readings. I'm not saying ban the plants, I'm just not a big fan.

[john doe]

Chernobyl was a disastrous design which had been roundly criticized for years before it failed. Modern nuclear facilities are not designed in such an unsafe manner. Even the French figured out how to do nuclear safely, and we can do the same here.

[Dravin]

Originally Posted by john doe

Chernobyl was a disastrous design which had been roundly criticized for years before it failed. Modern nuclear facilities are not designed in such an unsafe manner. Even the French figured out how to do nuclear safely, and we can do the same here.

My understanding is not only was the plant flawed, they knew about it, the problem came when the... watch officer? (can't think of a better term) decided to ignore the manual (which was written so that the flaw wouldn't go boom) and operate some things beyond what they were rated.

Of course this is History Channel Knowledge (tm), so it could be horribly wrong as it isn't about Hitler.

[havejoy]

I was a nuclear reactor operator for 25 years. I officially retired this June.
The problem with Chernoble wasn't just a bad desing. The biggest problem was the Shift Supervisor was overruled when he wanted to shut the experiment down by the security guard. That's right. The KGB officer was allowed to overriule the Shift Supervisor because there were going to be people coming in from other countries to observe the experiments and the government didn't want things to look bad.
I atill find that amazing after all these years.

[havejoy]

About TMI. There was a fuel meltdown. That's really the worst thing that can happen along with a breach in the containment building. Even though there was a tiny breach there was almost no radiation leaked. What did escape disapated before it reached the plant boundaries.