56 replies to this topic

[eds]

Besoeker, on 07 May 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

But still a lot more than renewables.

You sure know how to make Friends.

The single biggest expenses of the nuclear power industry could eventually be the storage of nuclear waste.
. . . Currently there are several ways in which nuclear waste is stored. Most of these methods are temporary.
. . . In most cases a viable long-term solution for waste storage has yet to be found.
. . . This is because the time period for storage is so incredibly long, on the order of thousands of years.

It takes about 16 years and Billions, and Billions of dollars, to build one here,
. . . Coal shipments are decreasing and almost no new coal power stations are being built,
. . . Oil (Gasoline) shipment have been going down as well
. . . yet Solar farms go up at a remarkable rate.

What's it like in England?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 07 May 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

I suppose I sometimes post facts that maybe don't sit well with your opinions.
And I make no apology for that.

If you find anything I have posted that that you can show to be factually incorrect I will withdraw it and offer an apology.

Seem fair?

We all have our opinions. A discussion forum would be barren space without it. Carry on, and don't worry about it.
Facts are different.
But as long as you're posting links from sites that you believe are telling the truth, or factual, that's all any
of us can do. (I've posted my share of links that were not 100% accurate-it happens)

You're not bad, just contrary.................sometimes................a lot.
Peace out.

[Besoeker]

eds, on 07 May 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

What's it like in England?

Why ask me? I'm not English............:)

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 07 May 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

You're not bad, just contrary.................sometimes................a lot.
Peace out.

Contrary in what way?
Because I don't agree with what you state as opinion?

I have posted facts and calculations.
I don't mind if you dispute any or all of that.

If you do, giving your basis for doing so would be appreciated.
That might be a tad more objective and be better at promoting constructive dialogue than posting your subjective opinion of me.

I don't have a problem either way. I'm far too old to let slings and arrows bother me.

You may be familiar with Willie Wiggledagger:

Quote

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them?

[E3 wise]

Here is just a little example of why nuclear can go bad really fast.  This story is just one example.
Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Shut Down After Water Leaks Into Lake Michigan.
Last summer, a leaky tank led to the shutdown of the Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan. So plant owner Entergy patched up the leak, fired back up the reactor, and hoped for the best.
Unfortunately, the best did not materialize.
The tank began leaking again. But no worries, thought the Einsteins at Entergy, it was only leaking a gallon a day. That was OK, they figured, because the NRC had allowed it to leak up to 38 gallons a day. As of Friday, they were still doing that whole “hoping for the best” thing.
But on Saturday the leaky drip turned into a gush, and all the hoping in the world couldn’t hold back the tide of spilling radioactive water. Nearly 80 gallons of water containing small amounts of radioactive tritium and possibly trace amounts of cobalt and cesium spewed into Lake Michigan, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told the Associated Press.
http://grist.org/new...-lake-michigan/
Now here is a second example
Crystal River Nuclear Plant, Owned By Duke Energy, Closing Due To Botched Repairs
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The largest U.S. electricity company said Tuesday it will permanently close a Florida nuclear power plant after botched repairs and use $835 million from an insurance settlement to refund consumers forced to pay for higher-cost replacement power.
But Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy also said it will seek to recoup from customers its $1.65 billion investment in the Crystal River Nuclear Plant, about 70 miles north of Tampa. The company said it is starting a closing process that may take 60 years before the nuclear site is decontaminated and dismantled and considering whether to build a new, natural-gas-fueled power plant to replace the power lost.
The nuclear plant operated by Duke Energy subsidiary Progress Energy Florida has been shut down since 2009, when its concrete containment building cracked during a maintenance and upgrade project. A 2011 repair attempt resulted in new cracks in other parts of the containment structure. Estimates put repair costs at between $1.3 billion and $3.4 billion.
http://www.huffingto..._n_2622576.html
From E3 Wise
Ok engineers what is the rule of mechanical operations, things wear out and fail, problem is when something fails in a nuclear power plant, it could be radiation all over.
That never happens with alternative energy, why no radiation.  Seems obvious right, lets see who wants to argue this one.

[Besoeker]

E3 wise, on 08 May 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

Here is just a little example of why nuclear can go bad really fast.  This story is just one example.
Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Shut Down After Water Leaks Into Lake Michigan.

You can't argue from the particular to the general. There are plenty of pictures and videos of wind turbines failing dramatically. That, in no way, means that all will go that way.

E3 wise, on 08 May 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

Ok engineers what is the rule of mechanical operations, things wear out and fail,

Yes, they do. That's why most plants, and every one i've been to has scheduled preventive maintenance. Some attend to that more assiduously than others. As I understand it, the Fukushima problem resulted from the failure of a backup cooling system and I think there was some question over when it was last checked for operation.

E3 wise, on 08 May 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

problem is when something fails in a nuclear power plant, it could be radiation all over.

Or 500,000 people being exposed to methyl isocyanate gas and other chemicals in a chemical plant failure. Or a textiles factory collapses killing hundreds. I've already given statistics for fatalities by energy production type. Nuclear is bottom of that list by some margin.

E3 wise, on 08 May 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

That never happens with alternative energy, why no radiation.  Seems obvious right, lets see who wants to argue this one.

Look at the stats.

[eds]

"E3 wise" argues AGAINST Nuclear,
"Besoeker" isn't arguing FOR Nuclear, he's "Debating."

Remember, "England is NOT Britain, and Britain is NOT England."
The United States is NOT America, and America is NOT the United States.

[E3 wise]

If a nuclear plant fails, three mile island, Chernobal, Fukashemia, radiation is released, people are forced from their homes, land and water and air are fouled with radiation and become a no mans land for decades.  Tell me how renewable energy can do that.  Yes if a turbine falls its an accident but the bigger point is it has no long term ecological or human consequences on environment or health.

There for I dismiss your response and interject reality, cause well you just don't get it, nuclear has the potential to destroy life, renewables may fail but will never destroy human life.

[Besoeker]

E3 wise, on 09 May 2013 - 03:31 AM, said:

There for I dismiss your response and interject reality, cause well you just don't get it, nuclear has the potential to destroy life, renewables may fail but will never destroy human life.

That sums it up. Has the potential to do so, maybe.
But hasn't destroyed human life on the scale that other sources have.

[Besoeker]

eds, on 09 May 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

"E3 wise" argues AGAINST Nuclear,
"Besoeker" isn't arguing FOR Nuclear, he's "Debating."

I try to present facts. Sometimes these don't go over too well it would seem.

[GlewEngineering]

Here is another prospective on Nuclear Energy. The portion regarding the next generation of nuclear reactors and the safety systems being developed is interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/luodbdg

[Shortpoet-GTD]

See our discussion here too.
http://www.altenergy...ligion-sort-of/

[still learning]

GlewEngineering, on 31 May 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

Here is another prospective on Nuclear Energy. The portion regarding the next generation of nuclear reactors and the safety systems being developed is interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/luodbdg

I recommend some other website.
Too many questionable statements at the GLEW site.
Some are:
"Uranium constantly undergoes spontaneous fission at a very slow rate, hence why the element constantly emits radiation."  Most of the radiation from uranium is alpha decay, not spontaneous fission http://en.wikipedia....ission��(unless you mean in a bomb or a reactor, then the fission isn't spontaneous)
"a single Uranium-235 atom (the most common isotope)"  No.  U238 is far more common.  Easy to google.
"has many worried that it will never be suitable for vehicle applications"  Don't think it's ever been thought of as suitable for vehicles.  Ships/submarines, sure.
"venture to the dark side of the planet"  Dark side of Mars?  Mars rotates just a little slower than the Earth.

Maybe I'm too nitpicky, but I'd look at other sites.

[ralfy]

Too dangerous, not sustainable, and doesn't provide petrochemicals. But we will be forced to use it as conventional oil production can no longer meet energy demands.

[DeeNeely]

All bad, no. Are there significant issues? Yes. The inherent dangers of leakage, disaster and waste containment are certainly very real. It also isn't as environmentally friendly as its proponents would like it to seem. Building the plants is environmentally damaging. The sheer amount of concrete required is responsible for an increase in CO2. In addition, there is the environmental damage required to retrieve uranium and other radioactive elements. You can't simply dig it up, do some quick processing and put it right to work. I also noticed that no one mentioned the immense amounts of water needed for each and every reactor which is why reactors are always close to rivers, lakes and oceans.

However, the big invisible rabbit in the room is the availability of uranium for reactors. The supplies are already incapable of meeting demand and more demand is simply going to make that worse. There is a lot of uranium in the earth, but it's not easily extractable and natural mineral occurences aren't common. If we were to suppose meeting the worlds energy requirements with nuclear energy it would be a foolish supposition. Of course, the pro-nuclear groups want everyone to think its viable as an alternative, but they (like the fossil fuel industry) tend to fudge on the numbers to make their case.

[eds]

Water has been mentioned in this video on the Blog

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Old thread; granted
but new leaks detected at Fukushima.
http://rt.com/news/2...w-leak-nuclear/