(04-20-2010 12:55 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-20-2010 11:57 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  OK GTS, what is a safer & more cost-effective power source?

Safer? Damn near everything.

More cost effective? If you factor in the cost of long term storage of nuclear waste, coal is cheaper. Quite a few renewables are cheaper in niche markets (solar-thermal in the desert, hydroelectric along rivers, wind in the great plains, geothermal in places like Yellowstone and Iceland, etc). More over, over the long term as uranium becomes increasingly scarce (it is a finite resource, you know) nuclear will begin to climb a hockey stick curve of cost as supply and demand maintain equilibrium.

The solution to our power problems will come in the form of cold fusion or super cheap and highly efficient photovoltaics.

Neither of those are gonna happen. They don't exist.

You keep citing Chernobyl as a data point for what could happen...yet the design and events from that site are nothing that will be reproduced anywhere else.

It's an illegitimate comparison.

Nuke plants are safer than cars. Planes. Bathtubs. Food. Hospitals. Work. Your own heart. Everyone is going to die. Virtually none of those deaths will be caused by nuclear power.

(04-20-2010 12:55 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-20-2010 11:57 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  OK GTS, what is a safer & more cost-effective power source?

Safer? Damn near everything.

How do you figure?

GTS, your fears of nuclear power plants are unfounded. Look at the French. 80%. HUGE Number. Would you characterize Nuclear Medicine the same as unsafe. No it's managed, we could not do without it. It is not a good comparison to compare todays plants to Chernobyl. The plants are not the problem. Now if you want to talk nuclear storage. OK there is a big problem. If you want to talk nuclear proliferation, OK Big problem. If you want to talk Nuclear War, OK It's a big problem. If you want to talk about closing the nuclear cycle, OK Big problems exist. Plant safety is the least of the problems. Pinning your hopes to the niche energy markets is not gonna make it.

(04-20-2010 02:01 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Nuke plants are safer than cars. Planes. Bathtubs. Food. Hospitals. Work. Your own heart. Everyone is going to die. Virtually none of those deaths will be caused by nuclear power.

If you crash your car it doesn't lay waste to 100's of square miles for centuries. Same with planes. Bathtubs. Etc.

Comparing the worst that could happen with a car to the worst that could happen in a nuclear power plant is insanity.

(04-20-2010 02:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  GTS, your fears of nuclear power plants are unfounded. Look at the French. 80%. HUGE Number. Would you characterize Nuclear Medicine the same as unsafe. No it's managed, we could not do without it. It is not a good comparison to compare todays plants to Chernobyl. The plants are not the problem. Now if you want to talk nuclear storage. OK there is a big problem. If you want to talk nuclear proliferation, OK Big problem. If you want to talk Nuclear War, OK It's a big problem. If you want to talk about closing the nuclear cycle, OK Big problems exist. Plant safety is the least of the problems. Pinning your hopes to the niche energy markets is not gonna make it.

Invalid analogy. You want to compare the radioactive exposure of nuclear medicine, which deals with isotopes having a half life measured in half hours, to the inside of a nuclear reactor, where the radioactive half lifes are measured in 10,000 years? Ludicrous.

Noooo nooooooo just a bunch of idiot Soviets. Could never ever happen here. Except that it has. Twice.

You've probably heard of Three Mile Island


You probably haven't heard of the Simi Valley Sodium Reactor Experiment, releasing radioactive isotypes just 30 miles from greater Los Angeles

(04-20-2010 02:15 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-20-2010 02:01 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Nuke plants are safer than cars. Planes. Bathtubs. Food. Hospitals. Work. Your own heart. Everyone is going to die. Virtually none of those deaths will be caused by nuclear power.

If you crash your car it doesn't lay waste to 100's of square miles for centuries. Same with planes. Bathtubs. Etc.

Comparing the worst that could happen with a car to the worst that could happen in a nuclear power plant is insanity.

Comparing the virtually nil to everyday occurrences is insanity.

Millions die every year from lack of water. Food. Negligence. Nuclear power plants, zip, nada, zilch.

(04-20-2010 02:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Noooo nooooooo just a bunch of idiot Soviets. Could never ever happen here.

Really? Hundreds of square miles lay desolate from radioactivity?

Where?

Or, are you saying that 2x incidents occurred and the safety measures in place contained them?

(04-20-2010 02:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Comparing the virtually nil to everyday occurrences is insanity.

Millions die every year from lack of water. Food. Negligence. Nuclear power plants, zip, nada, zilch.

Military Nuclear Accidents, Worldwide: 65+
Civilian Nuclear Accidents, Wordwide: 20+

United States civilian area alone ......

October 5, 1966 — Monroe, Michigan, United States - Partial meltdown
A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial meltdown at the Enrico Fermi demonstration nuclear breeder reactor (Enrico Fermi-1 fast breeder reactor). The accident was attributed to a zirconium fragment that obstructed a flow-guide in the sodium cooling system. Two of the 105 fuel assemblies melted during the incident, but no contamination was recorded outside the containment vessel.

March 28, 1979 — INES Level 5 - Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States - Partial meltdown
Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station 15 km (9 miles) southeast of Harrisburg. While the reactor was extensively damaged on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (less than annual exposure due to natural sources). Area residents received a smaller exposure of 1 millirem (10 µSv), or about 1/3 the dose from eating a banana per day for one year. There were no fatalities. Follow up radiological studies predict between zero and one long-term cancer fatality.

November 2005 — Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak
Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon's Braidwood station. Groundwater off site remains within safe drinking standards though the NRC is requiring the plant to correct any problems related to the release.

March 6, 2006 — Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak
Thirty-five liters of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown. A required public hearing on the licensing of the plant was not held due to the absence of public notification.

All you need to be is wrong once, and entire states become ghost towns.

(04-20-2010 02:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Noooo nooooooo just a bunch of idiot Soviets. Could never ever happen here. Except that it has. Twice.

You've probably heard of Three Mile Island


You probably haven't heard of the Simi Valley Sodium Reactor Experiment, releasing radioactive isotypes just 30 miles from greater Los Angeles

Three Mile Island. Zero deaths.

Simi Valley. 1959. Really? From your video:

Quote:This reactor was built in a era of nuclear cowboys. The Atomic Energy Commission came out of the Manhattan Project. There was a culture of secrecy. There was a sense of excitement about pushing the limit on these reactors.

Experimental. Sodium. No safety. There was no concrete containment. It bared no resemblance to a nuclear reactor.

(04-20-2010 03:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-20-2010 02:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Comparing the virtually nil to everyday occurrences is insanity.

Millions die every year from lack of water. Food. Negligence. Nuclear power plants, zip, nada, zilch.

Military Nuclear Accidents, Worldwide: 65+
Civilian Nuclear Accidents, Wordwide: 20+

United States civilian area alone ......

October 5, 1966 — Monroe, Michigan, United States - Partial meltdown
A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial meltdown at the Enrico Fermi demonstration nuclear breeder reactor (Enrico Fermi-1 fast breeder reactor). The accident was attributed to a zirconium fragment that obstructed a flow-guide in the sodium cooling system. Two of the 105 fuel assemblies melted during the incident, but no contamination was recorded outside the containment vessel.

March 28, 1979 — INES Level 5 - Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States - Partial meltdown
Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station 15 km (9 miles) southeast of Harrisburg. While the reactor was extensively damaged on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (less than annual exposure due to natural sources). Area residents received a smaller exposure of 1 millirem (10 µSv), or about 1/3 the dose from eating a banana per day for one year. There were no fatalities. Follow up radiological studies predict between zero and one long-term cancer fatality.

November 2005 — Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak
Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon's Braidwood station. Groundwater off site remains within safe drinking standards though the NRC is requiring the plant to correct any problems related to the release.

March 6, 2006 — Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak
Thirty-five liters of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown. A required public hearing on the licensing of the plant was not held due to the absence of public notification.

All you need to be is wrong once, and entire states become ghost towns.

Now your confusing me posting how safe they are.

Because I'm honest. There's been a shitload of accidents. Most haven't released radiation outside of a containment unit. But quite a few have. You only need to be wrong ONCE to have another Chernobyl is my point. And the idea that nuclear accidents don't happen that often is false. It's just that backup systems keep them from getting out of hand. But again ... you just need the backup system to be wrong once (or the operators controlling it for that matter) and you get utter devastation.

(04-20-2010 03:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Because I'm honest. There's been a shitload of accidents. Most haven't released radiation outside of a containment unit. But quite a few have. You only need to be wrong ONCE to have another Chernobyl is my point. And the idea that nuclear accidents don't happen that often is false. It's just that backup systems keep them from getting out of hand. But again ... you just need the backup system to be wrong once (or the operators controlling it for that matter) and you get utter devastation.

I want NC to have a couple more. Put the plant around the sound.

(04-20-2010 03:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  you just need the backup system to be wrong once (or the operators controlling it for that matter) and you get utter devastation.

Bhopal chemical leak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

(04-20-2010 03:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  you just need the backup system to be wrong once (or the operators controlling it for that matter) and you get utter devastation.

Mining disasters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident

(04-20-2010 03:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  you just need the backup system to be wrong once (or the operators controlling it for that matter) and you get utter devastation.

Fly Ash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fo...urry_spill

(04-20-2010 03:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  you just need the backup system to be wrong once (or the operators controlling it for that matter) and you get utter devastation.

MOLASSES! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Molasses_Disaster

Each one of the above has killed people. Yet you heartlessly still use chemicals, benefit from mined materials, use energy from coal plants, and put syrup on your pancakes.

(04-20-2010 02:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-20-2010 02:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  GTS, your fears of nuclear power plants are unfounded. Look at the French. 80%. HUGE Number. Would you characterize Nuclear Medicine the same as unsafe. No it's managed, we could not do without it. It is not a good comparison to compare todays plants to Chernobyl. The plants are not the problem. Now if you want to talk nuclear storage. OK there is a big problem. If you want to talk nuclear proliferation, OK Big problem. If you want to talk Nuclear War, OK It's a big problem. If you want to talk about closing the nuclear cycle, OK Big problems exist. Plant safety is the least of the problems. Pinning your hopes to the niche energy markets is not gonna make it.

Invalid analogy. You want to compare the radioactive exposure of nuclear medicine, which deals with isotopes having a half life measured in half hours, to the inside of a nuclear reactor, where the radioactive half lifes are measured in 10,000 years? Ludicrous.

How do you think they get the isotopes for medical research. You are the one with the ludicrous ideas about nuclear power plants.

(04-20-2010 04:05 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-20-2010 02:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-20-2010 02:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  GTS, your fears of nuclear power plants are unfounded. Look at the French. 80%. HUGE Number. Would you characterize Nuclear Medicine the same as unsafe. No it's managed, we could not do without it. It is not a good comparison to compare todays plants to Chernobyl. The plants are not the problem. Now if you want to talk nuclear storage. OK there is a big problem. If you want to talk nuclear proliferation, OK Big problem. If you want to talk Nuclear War, OK It's a big problem. If you want to talk about closing the nuclear cycle, OK Big problems exist. Plant safety is the least of the problems. Pinning your hopes to the niche energy markets is not gonna make it.

Invalid analogy. You want to compare the radioactive exposure of nuclear medicine, which deals with isotopes having a half life measured in half hours, to the inside of a nuclear reactor, where the radioactive half lifes are measured in 10,000 years? Ludicrous.

How do you think they get the isotopes for medical research. You are the one with the ludicrous ideas about nuclear power plants.

They usually expose the material in question in a carefully controlled condition to radioactive cesium, stored in a vault with several foot thick lead walls. Much like they do for radioactive sterilization of food product. The food runs on conveyor belt into a room -- again lined with thick lead walls -- containing radioactive cesium.

Nah we just g'won send that thar medicinal thingy intuh the heart of a nuclear powa reactuh. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAWWW!!
/facepalm

(04-20-2010 03:51 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-20-2010 03:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  you just need the backup system to be wrong once (or the operators controlling it for that matter) and you get utter devastation.

Bhopal chemical leak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

(04-20-2010 03:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  you just need the backup system to be wrong once (or the operators controlling it for that matter) and you get utter devastation.

Mining disasters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident

(04-20-2010 03:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  you just need the backup system to be wrong once (or the operators controlling it for that matter) and you get utter devastation.

Fly Ash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fo...urry_spill

(04-20-2010 03:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  you just need the backup system to be wrong once (or the operators controlling it for that matter) and you get utter devastation.

MOLASSES! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Molasses_Disaster

Each one of the above has killed people. Yet you heartlessly still use chemicals, benefit from mined materials, use energy from coal plants, and put syrup on your pancakes.

All of which were bad -- particularly Bhopal. But none of them wiped a state / small country off the map for centuries did they? Mmmmmmkay.

(04-20-2010 04:35 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  All of which were bad -- particularly Bhopal. But none of them wiped a state / small country off the map for centuries did they? Mmmmmmkay.

We all eagerly await your example of a state / small country that was wiped off the map by a nuclear accident.

Or perhaps you could outline in detail a scenario where either a small state, say Delaware, or a small country, say Switzerland, is vaporized by a modern, state run nuclear facility accident. No more examples from 1956 or Russian examples from the mid 1980's.

The Spin has been over all this with you before. I for one had shown you that most realistic forms of energy production are more dangerous than nuclear.....

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=41...pid5056674

In fact, the vast majority of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_alienation are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity.

Just 20 years after the worst nuclear accident in human history and things are considered safe. And this safety is without any sort of large scale, Westernized clean-up.

While rare to say on the intertubes, your concerns have been answered. Nuclear power is safe, reliable and an important next step to energy independence. You should completely re-think your position on nuclear power.

Your denial of nuclear power is on par with those who believe dinosaurs shared the earth with Humans.

GTS' nuclear fear =



Really, I just wanted to post a picture of that book and I needed some segue to get it in.... I don't really believe you are a middle-aged, white Aztec emperor riding a brontosaurus.

(04-20-2010 04:34 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-20-2010 04:05 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-20-2010 02:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-20-2010 02:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  GTS, your fears of nuclear power plants are unfounded. Look at the French. 80%. HUGE Number. Would you characterize Nuclear Medicine the same as unsafe. No it's managed, we could not do without it. It is not a good comparison to compare todays plants to Chernobyl. The plants are not the problem. Now if you want to talk nuclear storage. OK there is a big problem. If you want to talk nuclear proliferation, OK Big problem. If you want to talk Nuclear War, OK It's a big problem. If you want to talk about closing the nuclear cycle, OK Big problems exist. Plant safety is the least of the problems. Pinning your hopes to the niche energy markets is not gonna make it.

Invalid analogy. You want to compare the radioactive exposure of nuclear medicine, which deals with isotopes having a half life measured in half hours, to the inside of a nuclear reactor, where the radioactive half lifes are measured in 10,000 years? Ludicrous.

How do you think they get the isotopes for medical research. You are the one with the ludicrous ideas about nuclear power plants.

They usually expose the material in question in a carefully controlled condition to radioactive cesium, stored in a vault with several foot thick lead walls. Much like they do for radioactive sterilization of food product. The food runs on conveyor belt into a room -- again lined with thick lead walls -- containing radioactive cesium.

Nah we just g'won send that thar medicinal thingy intuh the heart of a nuclear powa reactuh. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAWWW!!
/facepalm

Kind of like the way power plants have a buttload of safety features.