[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Nuclear Power (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/21/2011 10:20:05 AM EDT
| How do you feel about the construction of new nuclear plants in the USA? |
|
I'm for it. But, in reality - they're done. We'll keep the ones we have, but they're won't be any more....at least not in the US. I've always wondered if it would be possible to build the reactor portion of the plant underwater. That way, if there were a problem you just open a valve and let it fill. No pumps to worry about, just gravity. |
|
Quoted:
I'm for it. But, in reality - they're done. We'll keep the ones we have, but they're won't be any more....at least not in the US. I've always wondered if it would be possible to build the reactor portion of the plant underwater. That way, if there were a problem you just open a valve and let it fill. No pumps to worry about, just gravity. What if gravity ceases during, oh I don't know, an EARTHQUAKE? |
|
Quoted:
I'm for it. But, in reality - they're done. We'll keep the ones we have, but they're won't be any more....at least not in the US. I've always wondered if it would be possible to build the reactor portion of the plant underwater. That way, if there were a problem you just open a valve and let it fill. No pumps to worry about, just gravity. The NRC just gave the environmental clearance for the VC Summer nuclear plant expansion in SC. The southern company is well into their new construction of 2 new units in GA. Tennessee Valley Authority is finishing a plant ATM that they started in the 80's. As for gravity fed safety systems, look into Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design ( which most plants are using for new builds) 
We will always need a baseload power source ie coal,gas,nuke. |
|
Check out this thread OP, there were some great discussions in it http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1173075 I am a strong supporter of building more nuclear power plants. I would even pay more per kw/h to help offset the cost of construction provided my power came from the nuclear plant. |
|
Quoted:
I am a strong supporter of building more nuclear power plants. I would even pay more per kw/h to help offset the cost of construction provided my power came from the nuclear plant. Also, this. I wanted to call my electricity provider and see if they offered a plan that was power by nuclear energy. I'm willing to bite a bullet for this one. Nuclear technology has so many possibilities that we'll never realize until we get over our collective fear of the words nuclear and radiation. |
|
Quoted: It depresses me to see that we're pretty much at the end of the Nuclear age for now.  I watched a show recently that suggested California would remove its 37+ year ban on building more nuclear power plants should the federal government sanction/develop/pay for a nuclear waste disposal site. Why hasn't the .gov done anything on this matter? Why haven't California's people done anything to overturn this antiquated law? (Shrug) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm for it. But, in reality - they're done. We'll keep the ones we have, but they're won't be any more....at least not in the US. I've always wondered if it would be possible to build the reactor portion of the plant underwater. That way, if there were a problem you just open a valve and let it fill. No pumps to worry about, just gravity. What if gravity ceases during, oh I don't know, an EARTHQUAKE? An earthquake stops gravity? Wow - that's some earthquake. I wonder why all of the Japanese didn't fly off into space. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It depresses me to see that we're pretty much at the end of the Nuclear age for now. I watched a show recently that suggested California would remove its 37+ year ban on building more nuclear power plants should the federal government sanction/develop/pay for a nuclear waste disposal site. Why hasn't the .gov done anything on this matter? Why haven't California's people done anything to overturn this antiquated law? (Shrug) It's Cali-fucking-fornia |
|
Quoted:
I'm for it. But, in reality - they're done. We'll keep the ones we have, but they're won't be any more....at least not in the US. I've always wondered if it would be possible to build the reactor portion of the plant underwater. That way, if there were a problem you just open a valve and let it fill. No pumps to worry about, just gravity. I was just watching a documentary last night which showed that Westinghouse has almost done that. They have essentially a pre-fabricated nuclear power plant, fuly modular, that can be built in far less than previous plants (which were ALL designed from scratch!). The pile has a huge vat of cooling water sitting on top of it! The vat has 3 days worth of coolant in it. eta Also, this. I wanted to call my electricity provider and see if they offered a plan that was power by nuclear energy. I'm willing to bite a bullet for this one.
The energy grid is so interconnected that it is impossible to separate the sources of electrical power. The best any plant can do is to help hold up one section of the grid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am a strong supporter of building more nuclear power plants. I would even pay more per kw/h to help offset the cost of construction provided my power came from the nuclear plant. Also, this. I wanted to call my electricity provider and see if they offered a plan that was power by nuclear energy. I'm willing to bite a bullet for this one. Nuclear technology has so many possibilities that we'll never realize until we get over our collective fear of the words nuclear and radiation. What part of TX? Depending on where at you may be getting power from a nuke. Wish there was more people like you in the country! BTW I do not beileve it's the end of the nuclear age. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm for it. But, in reality - they're done. We'll keep the ones we have, but they're won't be any more....at least not in the US. I've always wondered if it would be possible to build the reactor portion of the plant underwater. That way, if there were a problem you just open a valve and let it fill. No pumps to worry about, just gravity. What if gravity ceases during, oh I don't know, an EARTHQUAKE? An earthquake stops gravity? Wow - that's some earthquake. I wonder why all of the Japanese didn't fly off into space. I facepalmed so hard I hurt my hand. Angelshare yous trollin? One issue with your plan is that upon letting in water you A kill the plant for good and B run the risk of contaminating all of the water you mentioned plus the ground, ground water, and so forth. I don't believe with our current technology it's practical however hopefully an engineer will poke his head in here and tell us why I'm right/likely wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am a strong supporter of building more nuclear power plants. I would even pay more per kw/h to help offset the cost of construction provided my power came from the nuclear plant. Also, this. I wanted to call my electricity provider and see if they offered a plan that was power by nuclear energy. I'm willing to bite a bullet for this one. Nuclear technology has so many possibilities that we'll never realize until we get over our collective fear of the words nuclear and radiation. What part of TX? Depending on where at you may be getting power from a nuke. Wish there was more people like you in the country! BTW I do not beileve it's the end of the nuclear age. Good to see some optimism. I'm from the mid-cities in DFW and I have StarTex electricity. I just thought of this yesterday but I haven't had a chance to check with them yet. |
|
Quoted:
Those that voted no to more nukes need to have their electricity rates increased to $15 per KW/hour. Assuming its not just people ironically voting no, I'm pretty curious to know why they voted no (currently only 2 of them). So if you're reading this. Why do you hate nuclear energy nay-sayers? |
|
I work in Nuclear Medicine and this is a must for health care.
All but about 10% of our nuclear medicine is imported from just a few plants in Canada, S. Africa, Belgium, Netherlands, and Australia If you have ever had a nuclear scan this is where the medicine comes from. The last couple of years there have been shortages do to one or more of these plants shutting down. There have been weeks where we were not able to perform tests due to the shortages. All of these plants are relatively old and need frequent maintenance. The U.S uses 1/2 of the worlds nuclear isotopes for health care. This would help slash the cost and be a valuable export. I forget the name of the Bill but this is under review in Congress. After Japans mess it is highly unlikely that it will pass I am for it for this reason |
|
What we should do as a nation, is pick a spot nobody wants or can live in anymore and concentrate efforts there. Great example, the Nevada National Security Site (Nevada Test Site, Nevada Proving Grounds) where all the nuke testing was done. Uninhabitable, remote and insanely secure not only by human technology but natural barriers. Pump in the water over redundant lines from the Colorado and Pacific Ocean. A concerted national effort to do this could secure power for the nation and keep the potentially deadly effects of disaster relatively contained and remote. Keep this shit away from population centers and coastal areas. Combine that with Yucca Mountain down the way for storage and reprocessing of fuel, and we are part of the way to being set. This shouldn't be so damn difficult. |
|
Quoted: While it's a solution, it also poses an issue. Once the power is produced, you have to transmit it to X. This is an expensive, time consuming process which given the distances involved also encompasses quite a bit of wasteful transmission loss.What we should do as a nation, is pick a spot nobody wants or can live in anymore and concentrate efforts there. Great example, the Nevada National Security Site (Nevada Test Site, Nevada Proving Grounds) where all the nuke testing was done. Uninhabitable, remote and insanely secure not only by human technology but natural barriers. Pump in the water over redundant lines from the Colorado and Pacific Ocean. A concerted national effort to do this could secure power for the nation and keep the potentially deadly effects of disaster relatively contained and remote. Keep this shit away from population centers and coastal areas. Combine that with Yucca Mountain down the way for storage and reprocessing of fuel, and we are part of the way to being set. This shouldn't be so damn difficult. |
|
Quoted:
What we should do as a nation, is pick a spot nobody wants or can live in anymore and concentrate efforts there. Great example, the Nevada National Security Site (Nevada Test Site, Nevada Proving Grounds) where all the nuke testing was done. Uninhabitable, remote and insanely secure not only by human technology but natural barriers. Pump in the water over redundant lines from the Colorado and Pacific Ocean. A concerted national effort to do this could secure power for the nation and keep the potentially deadly effects of disaster relatively contained and remote. Keep this shit away from population centers and coastal areas. Combine that with Yucca Mountain down the way for storage and reprocessing of fuel, and we are part of the way to being set. This shouldn't be so damn difficult. Your plan has a couple flaws but mainly I just want to say that I don't think pulling water from the Colorado river will go over very well, especially when people are already worried about the river being unable to sustain the population that already gets it's drinking water from it. Apparently, there's not a lot of water in the desert (go figure). Also, the plant in the middle of nowhere. Who's going to work there? Nuclear energy is not overly dangerous so there's no real reason to isolate it that much. The worst disaster on US soil, at Three Mile Island, was HARDLY a disaster. It resulted in no deaths, and despite what people who try and bend the fact will say, cancer rates didn't increase by any significant margin. Not to mention, the plants we can build now at way better than the ones we had in 1979. As far as disposal goes, I'm fairly certain we currently have facilities to dispose of the waste in remote parts of the desert. I'm no expert on any of this, so if a real expert wants to chime in and correct me please feel free. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: While it's a solution, it also poses an issue. Once the power is produced, you have to transmit it to X. This is an expensive, time consuming process which given the distances involved also encompasses quite a bit of wasteful transmission loss.What we should do as a nation, is pick a spot nobody wants or can live in anymore and concentrate efforts there. Great example, the Nevada National Security Site (Nevada Test Site, Nevada Proving Grounds) where all the nuke testing was done. Uninhabitable, remote and insanely secure not only by human technology but natural barriers. Pump in the water over redundant lines from the Colorado and Pacific Ocean. A concerted national effort to do this could secure power for the nation and keep the potentially deadly effects of disaster relatively contained and remote. Keep this shit away from population centers and coastal areas. Combine that with Yucca Mountain down the way for storage and reprocessing of fuel, and we are part of the way to being set. This shouldn't be so damn difficult. Then we better give up. |
|
Yep.
Recycle fuel rods too (and give the finger to Carter in the process). Turn the Mojave into a humongous solar power array. Burn coal. Burn ethanol (where it's a viable option) or what the fuck ever you can burn to make things go. I figure we could render the lard out of Michael Moore and power Las Vegas for a couple of weeks. And drill the hell out of our own territory. Make more refineries too. Oh yeah, also research the "next big thing" while you're at it. Plenty of freeloaders and frauds you can cut off the teat to pay for it and still come out ahead. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm for it. But, in reality - they're done. We'll keep the ones we have, but they're won't be any more....at least not in the US. I've always wondered if it would be possible to build the reactor portion of the plant underwater. That way, if there were a problem you just open a valve and let it fill. No pumps to worry about, just gravity. I was just watching a documentary last night which showed that Westinghouse has almost done that. They have essentially a pre-fabricated nuclear power plant, fuly modular, that can be built in far less than previous plants (which were ALL designed from scratch!). The pile has a huge vat of cooling water sitting on top of it! The vat has 3 days worth of coolant in it. eta Also, this. I wanted to call my electricity provider and see if they offered a plan that was power by nuclear energy. I'm willing to bite a bullet for this one.
The energy grid is so interconnected that it is impossible to separate the sources of electrical power. The best any plant can do is to help hold up one section of the grid. That is the Westinghouse AP 1000 your talking about, construction of the first two reactors started in Feb 2008, another two were started in July 2008, they should go online in 2013-15. A total of 100 units are planned to be completed by 2020. Oh, that's China, 14 are planned for the USA. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Those that voted no to more nukes need to have their electricity rates increased to $15 per KW/hour. Assuming its not just people ironically voting no, I'm pretty curious to know why they voted no (currently only 2 of them). So if you're reading this. Why do you hate nuclear energy nay-sayers? Saying no to nuclear engery is saying no to cheap engery. |
|
Quoted:
It depresses me to see that we're pretty much at the end of the Nuclear age for now. Ditto. Three Mile Island put the nuke plant development in the US on "pause" for a couple of decades. Sure, there was Chernobyl, but that was an antiquated design - so we really weren't concerned about that. Japan though?...I think we're back in the doghouse with nuclear energy. Hopefully, we'll start developing our offshore drilling and going after our natural gas deposits. Otherwise, it's just coal, coal, coal. |
|
Quoted:
An earthquake stops gravity?
Wow - that's some earthquake. I wonder why all of the Japanese didn't fly off into space. The typical Japanese is much smaller physically than Americans. This is why they need less gravity to keep them in place. Sonofagun. Arfcom does really know everything. 
|
|
You know, the big dangerous aspect of the whole Fukushima plant disaster was that they had a bunch of spent rods stored on site.
Well guess what we do at ALL of our plants? You guessed it. We store the spent fuel on site. Not because the utilities don't want to get rid of it... but because the Federal government won't LET them. Nuclear power isn't nearly as dangerous as the government that (mis)regulates it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Those that voted no to more nukes need to have their electricity rates increased to $15 per KW/hour. Assuming its not just people ironically voting no, I'm pretty curious to know why they voted no (currently only 2 of them). So if you're reading this. Why do you hate nuclear energy nay-sayers? Saying no to nuclear engery is saying no to cheap engery. It's not, though. Gas and coal are cheaper up front. Quoted:
You know, the big dangerous aspect of the whole Fukushima plant disaster was that they had a bunch of spent rods stored on site. Well guess what we do at ALL of our plants? You guessed it. We store the spent fuel on site. Not because the utilities don't want to get rid of it... but because the Federal government won't LET them. Nuclear power isn't nearly as dangerous as the government that (mis)regulates it. The exploding containment building and the meltdown of the reactor were little teeny tiny issues, too. You can't blame the Federal government for the way the Japanese store their nuclear waste. They don't know what to do with the stuff, either. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Those that voted no to more nukes need to have their electricity rates increased to $15 per KW/hour. Assuming its not just people ironically voting no, I'm pretty curious to know why they voted no (currently only 2 of them). So if you're reading this. Why do you hate nuclear energy nay-sayers? Saying no to nuclear engery is saying no to cheap engery. It's not, though. Gas and coal are cheaper up front. Quoted:
You know, the big dangerous aspect of the whole Fukushima plant disaster was that they had a bunch of spent rods stored on site. Well guess what we do at ALL of our plants? You guessed it. We store the spent fuel on site. Not because the utilities don't want to get rid of it... but because the Federal government won't LET them. Nuclear power isn't nearly as dangerous as the government that (mis)regulates it. The exploding containment building and the meltdown of the reactor were little teeny tiny issues, too. You can't blame the Federal government for the way the Japanese store their nuclear waste. They don't know what to do with the stuff, either. Japan doesn't have a stable, dead mountain surrounded by a thousand miles of desert to store their waste under like we do. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Pump in the water over redundant lines from the Colorado and Pacific Ocean. Your plan has a couple flaws but mainly I just want to say that I don't think pulling water from the Colorado river will go over very well, especially when people are already worried about the river being unable to sustain the population that already gets it's drinking water from it. Apparently, there's not a lot of water in the desert (go figure). this. the colorado used to be one of the major rivers of north america. now it doesn't even reach the sea. nor is it "colorado" anymore, since dams block the silt transport, which is what gave the river its name. |