Turbine and Reactor Transport over the Great Lakes is given the OK - Polidicks

So a few months back I posted something about Bruce Power awaiting a green lgiht to move contaminated components from their power station they are refurbishing to a yard in Sweden which can handle radioactive materials and people were crawling out of the woodwork to try and stop it. Well..... [quote]Canada's nuclear regulator approved a controversial plan Friday for 16 decommissioned nuclear reactors to be shipped across the Great Lakes for recycling. The long-awaited decision by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was given the OK despite building international protest about the shipment, which essentially will see 1,600 tonnes of radioactive waste be transported across the lakes for the first time. In a statement, the commission said it was satisfied that Bruce Power, the country's only private nuclear operator, will meet national and international safety standards for transporting nuclear substances. "The Commission is satisfied that Bruce Power is qualified to carry out the activities to be permitted under the licence and certificate, and that Bruce Power will make adequate provisions to protect the environment, the health and safety of persons, and to maintain national security and measures required to implement Canada's international obligations," it said. A transport license will expire on Feb. 12, 2012. Bruce Power had said it does not plan to ship the reactors until the spring due to wintry weather conditions. Earlier this year, the commission held public hearings into the proposed plans and heard from approximately 80 groups opposed to the transport. The groups ranged from representatives of cities through which the reactors will travel by land and air, to aboriginal associations and environmental groups. Some of those opposed were from as far away as Sweden, where the reactors eventually will be delivered. The groups decried the safety risks the reactors, which are welded shut, may cause to the environment and drinking water if they leak radioactive waste. Bruce Power plans to transport the generators, which each weigh more than 100 tonnes, through the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence Seaway and across the Atlantic Ocean to Studsvik's recycling plant near Nykoping, Sweden, which has the capacity to safely break down 90 per cent of the metals. Currently, the generators are stored at Bruce Power's headquarters in Tiverton, Ont., 250 kilometres northwest of Toronto. The commission's decision can only be appealed to the Federal Court of Canada. [/quote] [url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Nuclear+regulator+says+Bruce+Power+transport+reactors+across+Great/4227775/story.html]**SOURCE**[/url] HA! Fuck you ya hippies. Fuuuuuck youuuuuuuu. [IMG]http://24.media.tumblr.com/avatar_37d8284eb876_128.png[/IMG] Sorry. Always been a big fan of nuclear energy.

uhhh what exactly was the problem with shipping them anyway

One of the transports sink for whatever reason, Canada is fucked.

[QUOTE=MIPS;27865824] Sorry. Always been a big fan of nuclear energy.[/QUOTE] Glad to see you're the most vocal about it in a thread that demonstrates the one real problem associated with nuclear power

Nuclear energy is great if the right safety procedures and the most experienced crew. It can be dangerous, but the odds are very low.

[QUOTE=claythepro;27866047]Nuclear energy is great if the right safety procedures and the most experienced crew. It can be dangerous, but the odds are very low.[/QUOTE] Nuclear power itself is safe as all hell, it's just the byproducts of it. It can be safely contained but it's the transportation of it beforehand (like this article) that poses the largest danger

I'm getting so sick of all the hipster trash and environmentalist groups who start whining every single time they transport radioactive waste. If you're not educated on how nuclear waste is transported, then shut the fuck up. Radioactive waste is stored inside very robust containers which have been tested to withstand conditions even in the worst event of accidents, such as fire, impacts, moisture, water pressure, and extreme temperatures. If the containers were at any significant risk in the event of an accident they would not be able to transport it to begin with. I see no problem with this. A little fucking knowledge goes a long way.

[QUOTE=Dark-Energy;27866216]If you're not educated on how nuclear waste is transported, then shut the fuck up. Radioactive waste is stored inside very robust containers which have been tested to withstand conditions even in the worst event of accidents, such as fire, impacts, moisture, water pressure, and extreme temperatures. If the containers were at any significant risk in the event of an accident they would not be able to transport it to begin with. I see no problem with this.[/QUOTE] Anything that has ever unintentionally blown up or broke in history was "manufactured to the highest specifications of safety" and so forth That's what makes accidents "accidents"

Did anyone ever show the environmentalists the kind of shit they ship nuclear waste in? It isn't these: [img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSwNNJC0Og17yO83WdFgKtdJIakCXDxSJWlnt17ijDfwmXowCT6[/img] It's [b]THESE[/b] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4[/media] 50 tons of solid steel, and from what I am aware of, can withstand a nuclear blast.

No, they use cardboard boxes. :downs:

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;27867315]It's [b]THESE[/b] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4[/url][/QUOTE] Cool, I didn't know that.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27866947]Anything that has ever unintentionally blown up or broke in history was "manufactured to the highest specifications of safety" and so forth That's what makes accidents "accidents"[/QUOTE] We are talking about something that has been made to withstand a nuclear blast. And not everything is made to be practically indestructible because they can't. For instance cars are made with high safety standards but if they were able to resist a nuclear blast they wouldn't really work.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27866947]Anything that has ever unintentionally blown up or broke in history was "manufactured to the highest specifications of safety" and so forth That's what makes accidents "accidents"[/QUOTE]Have you seen the tests they put nuclear waste containers through? They can withstand impacts from trains going 100mph very easily. They're made to much much much stricter specifications than practically anything else in existence. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4[/media]

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;27868232]Have you seen the tests they put nuclear waste containers through? They can withstand impacts from trains going 100mph very easily. They're made to much much much stricter specifications than practically anything else in existence. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4[/media][/QUOTE] late by 4 posts

*snip* I didn't read, environmentalists are always over exaggerating things

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;27868232]Have you seen the tests they put nuclear waste containers through? They can withstand impacts from trains going 100mph very easily. They're made to much much much stricter specifications than practically anything else in existence. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4[/media][/QUOTE] Yeah but rare faults in the manufacturing process can occur, anything made out of metal is fickle For the record I really don't have a problem with them transporting these in this manner because it's 99.9% likely that nothing will happen - I'm just saying

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27866947]Anything that has ever unintentionally blown up or broke in history was "manufactured to the highest specifications of safety" and so forth That's what makes accidents "accidents"[/QUOTE] They test these containers by ramming rocket propelled trains into them, they're basically unbreakable.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27868642]Yeah but rare faults in the manufacturing process can occur, anything made out of metal is fickle For the record I really don't have a problem with them transporting these in this manner because it's 99.9% likely that nothing will happen - I'm just saying[/QUOTE] I'd take a .1% of failure over all the pollution produced by coal power plants any day.

While the accident rate is fairly low (.7 to 3 accidents per million), - rate me dumb snip- The parts that are being shipped, are however, relatively safe as they don't contain fuel, only residual radioactivity.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;27880045]While the accident rate is fairly low (.7 to 3 accidents per million), the real issue is not flask failure, but the very likely possibility of in an accident, the spent fuel going critical. You see, that several feet of concrete and steel bounces around neutrons like you wouldn't believe, and any drop at the correct moment would cause the fuel to detonate, contaminating (and potentially destroying) a large area. What comes even worse, there have been no full scale tests on the containment vessels, all of the films in that video are pretty much propaganda, as none of them were testing worst case or general safety of the vessels. [URL]http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/trans/trfact03.htm[/URL] The parts that are being shipped, are however, relatively safe as they don't contain fuel, only residual radioactivity.[/QUOTE] An impact from even the most severe accident would not incite a reaction such as the fuel going critical. That simply isn't a concern. Your source is incredibly biased. Of course Nevada would try to make the shipments appear unsafe; they don't want their state being used as the dumping ground for nuclear waste despite the ideal location.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;27880045]any drop at the correct moment would cause the fuel to detonate, contaminating (and potentially destroying) a large area.[/QUOTE] Uhu.. no. Forget what you see in the movies or hear from green campaigners, Nuclear fuel isn't just going to "explode". You are quite correct that, should it somehow escape from the cask, spent nuclear fuel could contaminate a large area, but it would not destroy it, and it would not be because the spent fuel exploded.

[QUOTE=MIPS;27865824]HA! Fuck you ya hippies. Fuuuuuck youuuuuuuu. [img_thumb]http://24.media.tumblr.com/avatar_37d8284eb876_128.png[/img_thumb] Sorry. Always been a big fan of nuclear energy.[/QUOTE] Nuclear energy will soon be completely obsolete because of the expotentially increasing costs.

[QUOTE=ChristopherB;27882257]An impact from even the most severe accident would not incite a reaction such as the fuel going critical. That simply isn't a concern. Your source is incredibly biased. Of course Nevada would try to make the shipments appear unsafe; they don't want their state being used as the dumping ground for nuclear waste despite the ideal location.[/QUOTE] As for it being biased, I was in a rush, and had quickly chose a source, bothering to not fully read it. As for it reaching criticality, it is possible, but an extremely slim chance of it. As the fuels would need to be at the correct mixtures to reach sufficient potential for such an event. [QUOTE=Neolithic v7;27882522]Nuclear energy will soon be completely obsolete because of the expotentially increasing costs.[/QUOTE] Nuclear energy production is far cheaper than any current method of producing energy. Including solar and wind.

[QUOTE=RBM11;27879231]I'd take a .1% of failure over all the pollution produced by coal power plants any day.[/QUOTE] Yeah, of course.

The only problem I have with this.. Is that its over our Great Lakes, doesn't the government realize that all our water comes from them? I mean, yea sure the containers are amazing will with stand everything.. But what [b]if[/b] something went wrong?

What [b]if[/b] the atmosphere did ignite when they tested the first atomic bomb? What [b]if[/b] we were engulfed in a black hole when they first activated the LHC? What [b]if[/b] 2012 is actually the end of the world?

[QUOTE=Detective P;27883362]What [b]if[/b] the atmosphere did ignite when they tested the first atomic bomb? What [b]if[/b] we were engulfed in a black hole when they first activated the LHC? What [b]if[/b] 2012 is actually the end of the world?[/QUOTE] Well, stupid theories and the fact that something can legitimately fuck up are pretty different. A fault in manufacture could happen, as low as the chance of it happening is. But honestly, nuclear energy should be more common, people just flip when they hear anything about "Nuclear".

[QUOTE=Mr. N;27883459]Well, stupid theories and the fact that something can legitimately fuck up are pretty different. A fault in manufacture could happen, as low as the chance of it happening is. But honestly, nuclear energy should be more common, people just flip when they hear anything about "Nuclear".[/QUOTE] Actually the first was a legitimate theory, the second was a minuscule concern such as your concern, and the last is totally impossible, but widely believed, like that this is dangerous. They all fit well.

[QUOTE=claythepro;27866047]Nuclear energy is great if the right safety procedures and the most experienced crew. It can be dangerous, but the odds are very low.[/QUOTE]Says the guy with a Atomic sign for a avatar... :frown:

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;27882596]As for it being biased, I was in a rush, and had quickly chose a source, bothering to not fully read it. As for it reaching criticality, it is possible, but an extremely slim chance of it. As the fuels would need to be at the correct mixtures to reach sufficient potential for such an event.[/QUOTE]No. It is simply not possible for nuclear reactor fuel to go supercritical. Hell, it's difficult enough getting nuclear weapons to go supercritical. You will [i]never[/i] see nuclear fuel explode in a nuclear reaction in the same way as a nuclear bomb. At worst, it'll heat up and release a little more radiation.