1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Nuclear Power

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by Old Cowboy, Mar 26, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Old Cowboy

    Old Cowboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,988
    So, opinions on nuclear power??

    Seems at first blush to be a win/win deal......OTOH, when these nuclear power plants go to hell they sure make a mess! After Chernobel it was easy enuf' to say well them Ruskies built 'em pretty crude and didn't build in adequate safeguards but nobody's suggesting that Japan was technologically underdeveloped? Maybe we should assume that Murphy's law always eventually takes effect and not build any new plants & shut down the ones currently operating. Then all we'd have to worry about is what to do with all the nuclear waste currently in storage.

    John C. Saubak
     
  2. hmb

    hmb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,429
    Depends on whether you like electric power 24 hours a day 365 days a year. HMB
     
  3. fly

    fly Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,060
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Suddenly Wind Power isn't all that bad.
     
  4. jbbor

    jbbor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,036
    Nuclear Power is the only hope, in the short run, that you will be able to afford to fuel your car and heat your home. There is a drive by a group here to build one near Amarillo. I hope they prevail. Jimmy Borum
     
  5. Steve W

    Steve W Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,115
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    So far, based on today's technology, nuclear power is the most cost effective and "cleanest" way to generate electricities.

    In reality, stop using nuclear power is more difficult than asking people stop driving full size pick up and SUVs.
     
  6. Wyoharris

    Wyoharris TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    49
    I am a bit biased cuz I make a living mining the stuff...But coal aint that bad! A large part of your electricity comes from it now. We have many lifetimes of it in reserve. And its not dirty if done right!
     
  7. quartering

    quartering Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,440
    the reactor survived the earthquake just fine. but the tsunami submerged the back up generators. that's the crux of the problem. nuclear is a fine energy source. good luck with it
     
  8. TOOLMAKER 251

    TOOLMAKER 251 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,398
    There is a nuclear generating plant 12 miles from my home, we need several more in northeastern US. It would cut back a substantial amount of imported crude, there is alot of gas drilling in the Marcellus shale deposit, but it takes time to build the distribution pipe lines. I would bet because of what happened in Japan that it kills any future interest in nuclear power.
     
  9. husker

    husker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    69
    I recently GOOGLED "THORIUM/PHYSICS" and found it very interesting. Too much to post here.

    Roger Hudson
     
  10. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    Food for thought if the Ragheads had dropped those planes on Nuclear power plants instead of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Where would we be now?????

    Bob Lawless
     
  11. porky

    porky TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,267
    Those Japanese turbine generators are some of the largest in the world, built by GE. If you know anything about steam turbines, the low pressure turbines have turbine wheels that are about 6 feet in diameter and the turbine buckets that slip into the dovetails of the wheel are about 15 feet long. There are these blades on each side of the low pressure turbine and there are 3 low pressure turbines on each turbine driving a huge generator. That isn't saying anything about the size of the high pressure turbine, which are larger yet. The nuclear plant creates the steam that provides the energy to turn the steam turbine. Needless to say that the turbines, both high pressure and low pressure are contaminated a bit by now. Oh, remember Three Mile Island, those were GE turbines also. GE was looking forward to reviving the nuclear business. Kiss that side of the business goodbye and I think it is a good thing for the world because humans cannot handle/contain nuclear power yet.
     
  12. Bob Hawkes

    Bob Hawkes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,910
    Bob, If I remember correctly, supposedly Seabrook was supposed to be able to withstand that. I could be wrong, that's some time ago. But that is an incredible shell over it. Hope we don't to find out. Bob
     
  13. burtona

    burtona Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    172
    Had we continued research and development of nucler energy in the 30 odd years after the Three Mile and Chernoble incidents as we should have, the modern power plants would probably be much safer than now and waste issues mitigated.
    Dave
     
  14. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,645
    Mr. Saubak:

    Our opinions about nuclear power are totally irrelevant. The so called 'nuclear renaissance' occasionally mentioned in the news is bullsh!t. That was true before the recent nuke problems in Japan and is a virtual certainty now. The likelihood of a conventional private sector power company successfully building a nuke plant in the U.S. anytime in the foreseeable future is nil.

    Here's a brief history and explanation...

    Construction of every nuke plant operating in the United States dates back to 1974 or earlier. That's a 35 or 36 year dry spell. The closest thing to an exception is one new plant currently under construction. It is tentatively scheduled for completion and operation in a year or two. I'm highly skeptical it will EVER be completed or EVER operate but we'll see.

    The economics of power generating stations works like this…

    Nuke plants have an astoundingly expensive front end capital cost. Under the very best of circumstances, they are ferociously expensive to build. However, the cost of uranium fuel is dirt cheap so on-going operating costs are low.

    Relatively speaking, the coal plants Wyoharris favors are dirt cheap to build. It’s the cost of coal for fuel that's inordinantely expensive. That means the operating costs for coal plants is the expensive part.

    The problem with building a nuke plant is the unlimited legal and regulatory challenges available to anti-nuke activists. There's literally no limit.

    The antis have a proven strategy that is simple but extremely effective. They throw up one procedural road block after another in a sequential manner. The goal is to delay construction progress and drive up costs. It's as simple as throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.

    Merit isn't required. Any legal or regulatory challenge gets a hearing and must be resolved. Understand the antis don't need to win even one of their challenges. The goal is to drag the hearing process out as long as possible before they lose. Then they throw up the next sequential road block and the delay process starts again.

    Judges, inspectors and bureaucratic regulators have no financial skin in the game. They're guaranteed a steady job as long as the process drags on. So the antis stall and delay until building and operating a nuke plant is so expensive and involves such financial and regulatory uncertainty that nobody in their right freaking mind will take the risk. It worked for decades and killed the nuke industry. It will work again now.

    So in over simplified terms, that's why the nuclear renaissance is bullsh!t and you aint gonna see any new ones.

    sissy

    PS to fly: Wind plants are a great option if one's goal is to generate a trivial amount of marginally reliable electricity.
     
  15. School Teacher

    School Teacher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,052
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    Given the huge amount of coal reserves in the USA and the improved technologies for reducing emissions, clean coal is the way to go.

    Natural gas, depending on supplies, is IMO also a very logical fuel choice.

    Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, etc. are in my understanding not cost efficient and require a traditional backup generating capacity in case the wind does not blow or if the sun does not shine.

    I am OK with nuclear IF the plant is properly constructed, IF the plant is properly operated, IF some terrorist does not cause an incident and if some freak of nature like a 10.0 earthquake does not shake it apart.

    Please tell me how, in 10-20 years from now when a high percentage of our vehicles require an overnight charge, how we are going to have enough electrical generating capacity?

    Ed Ward
     
  16. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,645
    Mr. Ward:

    Natural gas generators are nothing more than modified jet engines. Power output per unit is quite small but construction is remarkably easy. Total time from ground breaking to completion is six months or less. Permitting is a snap and emissions are CO2 and water vapor. Gas turbines are ok for peaking units but natural gas is far to valuable to squander on base load plants where the real output comes from.

    Obummer and his socialist buddies in Congress are hostile to anything fossil fired and coal in particular. Remember Cap and Tax? Nuke isn't an option for reasons I explained above.

    As for the future, here's the lib's plan: Obummer and other politbureau members drive SUVs as usual. The rest of us walk or peddle bicycles. In other words we suck the hindmost udder.

    sissy
     
  17. OVBILL

    OVBILL TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    81
    this CEO and WANO rep talks about the issue,


    http://www.youtube.com/user/BrucePower4You

    Regards

    Bill Cameron
    Procurement Eng.
    Bruce Power
     
  18. pyrdek

    pyrdek Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,296
    Just to put a historical perspective on the matter of nuclear power, remember that one of the early developers of electrical lighting, Thomas Edison thought that alternating electrical power was to dangerous to use. George Westinghouse and Nikola Tesla thought AC was the way to go and it could be safely distributed. Edison's DC required a generator every few miles. Westinghouse and Tesla's AC allowed the generators to be many miles away from the user.

    Well since a number of fires have started because of AC electricity, maybe we ought to ban electricity. Just think, no more fires caused b y electricity! Of course the whale oil that was used for lamps might start a fire but at least it is not electricity!

    OR, we could adopt a policy that yes there are dangers but the benefits that could be gained make managing the risks more worthwhile than banning the "risky" technology.

    If we didn't have electricity we could eliminate computers, radio, television, air conditioning, and so much more. Are you ready to ban electricity or are you willing to acknowledge there is a risk but the benefits make managing the risk worthwhile?
     
  19. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,645
    pyrdek:

    You are attempting to apply logic where logic doen't apply.

    Obummer campaigned on taxing coal out of existence. Guess which United Mine Workers union enthusiastically supported him anyway?

    Existing nukes supply a tad less than 20% of U.S. electricity. However, they have a finite life span. Most are already 'old'. Obummer will simply run out the clock on them.

    Anwar is out of the question and off shore oil drilling is good for Brazil but bad for the U.S. Then we're down to solar, wind, tidal, etc.

    Air conditioners? That's hilarious. You'll find air conditioners at Al Gore's energy hog Tennesee mansion and at the homes of his politbureau friends. You OTOH, need to get used to the idea of a hot house in summer, a cold house in winter and cold showers all year.

    sissy

    PS: The next moron that says there's no difference between GOP conservatives and the lib dems may get thumped.
     
  20. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    pyrdek interesting observations. I do have a question or two How many electrical fires will it take to produce the same death toll as the two bombs dropped in Japan in 1945????

    Up river from New York City there is a Nuclear Power Plant if the Ragheads had flown those planes into it. The same evacuation distance given to New York that has been given to Americans Military in Japan 50 Miles would effect tens of Millions of people.

    I personally don't think the risks are worth the power do you really? JMO

    Bob Lawless
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.