Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Nuclear reactors


Trigger Mike

Recommended Posts

ABC News showed 3 US reactors tonight, one in NY on top of a fault line, one in Chicago and one in San Diego RIGHT on the beach. Why is it so close to the ocean? There appears too little margin for erosion or Tsunamis etc.

 

Also how come I never heard of a Tsunami when I was young?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Water Supply

 

 

Back when you were young tsunamis hadn't been invented!! :unsure::rolleyes::lol:

 

 

Back when we were kids they were called tidal waves. Tsunami is a Japaneese word which gained popularity in the last decade or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Water Supply

 

 

Back when you were young tsunamis hadn't been invented!! :unsure::rolleyes::lol:

 

 

Back when we were kids they were called tidal waves. Tsunami is a Japaneese word which gained popularity in the last decade or so.

 

 

I know they need water and to be close but it seems unwise to be that close to me, but I am not an engineer.

 

I do remember tidal waves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear plants are basically big steam engines that use atomic reaction instead of coal for heat, The steam drives the turbines to produce electricity. They use tons and tons of water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all are on the coast, but right now the ones on the coast will bring the biggest scare. Here is the URNRC Map of Power Reactors .

 

As mentioned above, on the coast they can use de-salinized sea water for cooling and steam generation. Also, there are no residences or businesses to seaward of them, so fewer people around if something goes wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, the French have a bunch of them; Frenchmen run from their own shadows (except for French SASS members of course). What's the problem??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the sand and bury the puppy idea.. lol..

 

The truth is I do NOT understand all of this and I admit to that. On one hand I want nuclear power, on the other hand, I want the waste and safety issues addressed before we go full bore. But mostly because I do not understand the subject I look to those who do to explain this too me.. The problem is some don't want to be honest about stuff.

 

When I was a child I knew I could ask my dad, at one time I knew if you questioned stuff you got a good answer.. now... I do not know who to turn to... ??????????? Live is like that now.. we have people who will miss lead you... and since I expect honesty I do plan on it.. suddenly I am led down the wrong road ... Having someone smart enough to naviagate life is something I miss from my past.. at least Dad had the answers... He may not have known all the detaisl, but he was smart enough to take me by the hand and guide me. Now days I have the press.. lol.. yeah we all know you can count on them.. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody I know wants "nuclear power." They just want "power." When they throw a switch they want a light to come on (or the computer to boot up or the microwave to zap something or whatever). Only a tiny minority care where it comes from.

 

The best generator of power ever invented for large scale use is the steam turbine generator. You can put one almost anywhere. You can make steam with coal, oil, gas, or nuclear. Another great source are hydoelectric dams. The TVA system is an excellent example of such a system of dams.

 

Some folks want "green power" and that's cool as long as they recognize that the "alternatives" are vastly more expensive than steam or hydro. The TVA is running a "Green Power Switch" program that buys "alternative" power for a fixed price which is actually above the market value of the power produced. Again, that's nice but not "sustainable." The TN Valley is a poor place for either wind or solar power due to our weather conditions. The TVA program is a fine example of "PC" in the energy business.

 

Japan really "rolled the dice" putting a string of reactors on a shoreline known for earthquakes and tsunamis. Japan is the most seismiclly active nation on Earth. But from their perspective they had to take the risk. They don't have reserves of fossil fuels to power their economy. They either went nuclear or went agrarian. So they built the plants and did the best they could with backup and safety systems. We still don't know how well they did as we still have not contained and resolved the problems caused by a 1000 year incident. The govt. is putting out calming messages and the anti-nuclear crowd is screaming "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!" I suspect neither side is being totally honest.

 

I live within 15 miles of at least three reactors and within 30 miles of at least six hydroelectric dams. There are also at least three coal fired plants nearby (including one who's ash containment pond failed recently, causing a Billion Dollar cleanup effort).

 

If you want that switch to work when you throw it you're going to have to take some risk. :)

 

SQQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We who live in the "flyover states" understand why all of the power plants are along the coasts. According to the intelligensia, the only people of any significance are along the coasts and even there only in restricted areas. LA, New York, Washington. All else in the US is wasted space as far as they are concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear power is an excellent source of power. Tired of all the ridiculous media these days about stopping nuclear energy programs. Sure, it never hurts to re-assess the plants, but moratoriums?? Lame!

 

The result of Chernobyl and 3-mile was a man made error. The event in Japan, caused by nature, just proves how vain humans are to think that 'We' will destroy the Earth. Nature's power will trump mankind everytime! If the Earth needs to fix herself she will do it. If anything we will destroy ourselves, not the planet.

 

I just giggle and shake my head when I see those 'Save the planet' stickers and hear folks say 'We are destroying the Earth' - hogwash..

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Onofre is a popular beach and bin surfin' thare fer years. B)

 

San Onefre Beach an ....

 

My mom got them to change their presentation a bit. We went to the visitor center there in the early 70s and the docent did his little talk, including saying that the water that was used for cooling was discharged into the ocean and the waste heat was radiated away. After his talk she went to him and said that in this context "radiated" was not the best way to say it, maybe they should use "dissipated." When I went there a year later on a school field trip they had made that change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Onofre is a popular beach and bin surfin' thare fer years. B)

 

San Onefre Beach an ....

 

 

Me too! the best place to long board ~ you ride forever :D ..add a little toes on the nose and it's like flying over the water.

 

and we call the San Onofre plant the 'nuclear b$$bs"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Onofre is a popular beach and bin surfin' thare fer years. B)

 

San Onefre Beach an ....

Bobb.... is that why yer picture is sorta green! :rolleyes::P Jest josh'n ya.....I SCUBA..ed off San Onofre quite a bit when we lived in Oceanside for about 20 years. The exhaust side was a good 20 degrees warmer than the intake.... 300 yards off the beach. There was lots of lobster, abs, and plenty of scallops on the warm side. The power plant off Carlsbad was oil fired.... nothing grew on the bottom, and there was no sea life at all...NADA! :angry: The bottom there was a crusty, barren wasteland ...also for a copula miles to the south where the currents headed toward San Diego. Always wondered why. Lots of great diving in Southern Ca.......some of the best for bugs and abs.........brings back good thoughts of great times!! :wub:B) Y'all take care!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ABC News showed 3 US reactors tonight, one in NY on top of a fault line, one in Chicago and one in San Diego RIGHT on the beach. Why is it so close to the ocean? There appears too little margin for erosion or Tsunamis etc.

 

Also how come I never heard of a Tsunami when I was young?

 

Never heard of Mombai when you were young either didya?

 

And when I was young, Muslims were Moslems.

 

Go figger. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a nuke power plant 2 hours to da north of me... got nother nuke power plant 30 mins to da south.

 

 

I can't understand why it's called "Spent Fuel Rods" when without water they will caught fire and melt , making a posion cloud.

 

Aint they still "hot" nukes ?? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay fine we have a night shoot next weekend.. and the one thing WE CALIFORNIA people have is we now glow in the dark .. so we will not need lights.. lol.. Okay I admit it I stole that from my BFF... but I loved it, so I had to use it.. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have 104 reactors producing 1/5 of the power in the US.

 

We have never had a major accident with them. More people have died in the last year in coal mine accidents than in all of our reactor facilities since day one. Three Mile Island was NOT the catastrophe the press wanted. It's safe, inexpensive, reliable, low polution, etc..

 

I don't want to give up 1/5 of my power, so which of you will surrender over 1/5 of yours to make up the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have 104 reactors producing 1/5 of the power in the US.

 

We have never had a major accident with them. More people have died in the last year in coal mine accidents than in all of our reactor facilities since day one. Three Mile Island was NOT the catastrophe the press wanted. It's safe, inexpensive, reliable, low polution, etc..

 

I don't want to give up 1/5 of my power, so which of you will surrender over 1/5 of yours to make up the difference?

 

Ditto.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to get rid of them at all, matter of fact I wrote a paer in high school on why we need nuclear power plants. I just wonder if it is wise to have them right on the beach when there are tidal waves, beach erosian, typhoons etc. I know they need lots of water but I would think prudence dictates giving yourself a few extra feet just in case. I also wonder why they build on top of fault lines like the one in New York or Japan. Why Did not Japan put them on the other side of the island. Further from the fault line, and less chance of a tidal wave on the other side of the island. just a thought, naturally the engineers are all smarter than me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the nuclear waste generated by the US nuclear power program will fit in the infield of Wrigley Stadium. The coal fired plants in the US generate enough to cover the entire field daily.

 

Your call.

 

 

EDIT: My information was out of date. I stand corrected.

 

Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. The nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year.

 

Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 62,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep.

 

High-level radioactive waste is the byproduct of recycling used nuclear fuel, which in its final form will be disposed of in a permanent disposal facility. NEI supports the recycling of used nuclear fuel as part of its integrated fuel management strategy, which includes 1) interim storage 2) research, development and demonstration to recycle nuclear fuel, and 3) development of a permanent disposal facility suitable for the final waste form.

 

SOURCE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have 104 reactors producing 1/5 of the power in the US.

 

We have never had a major accident with them. More people have died in the last year in coal mine accidents than in all of our reactor facilities since day one. Three Mile Island was NOT the catastrophe the press wanted. It's safe, inexpensive, reliable, low polution, etc..

 

I don't want to give up 1/5 of my power, so which of you will surrender over 1/5 of yours to make up the difference?

 

Agreed. We need more reactors nationwide. Think about it: If 100% of our energy was nuclear, solar, wind, or other renewable energy we wouldn't be dependent upon OPEC nations for anything. Wars would decrease and the economy would boom. Electric cars would become a viable option (think about it: If you plug in an electric car today you're charging it with power generated by burning coal...so even though the car is electric it's still contributing to pollution), and pollution would be all but eliminated.

 

Go nuke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the original question, every steam power plant needs a heat sink to maintain condenser vacuum. (Cool the steam back to water :) ) Ocean has lots of cooling and it's cheap! Inland plants have lakes, rivers, or cooling ponds nearby. Our plant is based 85' above sea level. A tsunami that takes us out will take out SF/LA/SD too. Baddog N.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.