• World’s largest solar power plant planned for Chernobyl nuclear wasteland
    112 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Snowmew;50820100]Every time someone makes this idiotically misinformed argument, I shed a single tear and turn slowly towards the camera.[/QUOTE] So if two first world countries went at war with eachother and they both had 3 or 4 brand new nuclear power plants that werestrategically bombed you are saying there would be no radiation leaked?
[QUOTE=Faunze;50820148]So if two first world countries went at war with eachother and they both had 3 or 4 brand new nuclear power plants that werestrategically bombed you are saying there would be no radiation leaked?[/QUOTE] If two first world countries are at war and bombing one another you have much bigger issues than radiation contamination
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50820154]If two first world countries are at war and bombing one another you have much bigger issues than radiation contamination[/QUOTE] That's a bad argument.
It would be even worse if an offshore oil rig was bombed since the oil would pollute the surrounding waters and destroy the ecosystem. This would have the effect of starving people and industries dependent on the ocean
[QUOTE=Snowmew;50820100]Every time someone makes this idiotically misinformed argument, I shed a single tear and turn slowly towards the camera.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but at least you can rest easier knowing that the next 10 posters will reply with a link to your original statement
[QUOTE=Dr.C;50820221]It would be even worse if an offshore oil rig was bombed since the oil would pollute the surrounding waters and destroy the ecosystem. This would have the effect of starving people and industries dependent on the ocean[/QUOTE] Alternatively you could bomb the transmission limes and cut off power to 800,000 homes powered by the nuclear plant. The transmission lines arent even guarded by the 5ft of concrete like the reactor is.
[QUOTE=Faunze;50817903]My issue with nuclear power is that if it becomes widely used the likelihood of a catastrophic event increases hugely. It only takes one massive event and unfavorable weather and millions of people are initially affected, not only this their children for generations, possibly forever will remain changed. Radiation isn't fun.[/QUOTE] Those "massive events" like what happened in chernobyl and fukushima aren't possible with new Gen III+ reactors like the AP-1000 we are building. Chernobyl was an inferior design and happened because you had electrical engineers trying to run a test with no understanding of the way that reactor worked. First off, coolant in a reactor core doesn't just keep the core from overheating, it actually absorbs neutrons, which regulates the amount of reactions in the core and it's output in the process. While it doesn't absorb as much as the control rods, it does slow down the reaction. Their coolant pumps were powered mainly by electricity from the steam turbines, with generator backups. Because the steam turbines have inertia, they keep spinning when you cut off the steam. They wanted to see how long the coolant pumps could run just on the turbine's inertia after steam supply had been cut off. That was their experiment. The mistakes: 1) They disabled backup systems for the experiment. 2) As the turbines spun down, coolant flow decreased, creating steam voids in the core. Because of the design of the RBMK reactor, steam voids reduced the ability for the coolant to absorb neutrons, which increased the reactor's power output. 3) At some point the EPS-5 button was pushed, which inserts all of the control rods into the core (takes 18 to 20 seconds). We don't know if it was due to the rapid power increase because of the steam voids or being used to shut down the reactor. This would have been fine, except the control rods were graphite tipped to handle the heat, and graphite actually helps the reaction. So as the rods were inserted and coolant was being displaced by the graphite tips of the control rods, the output increased instead of decreased. This caused a steam explosion which fractured some of the fuel rods, causing the control rods to get stuck at 1/3 insertion, which is believed to have caused the core to runaway critically causing the second explosion (but there are different theories. US now mandates several of the fixes, including a containment vessel around the core to contain everything, and that coolant pumps be ran from an outside energy source (like the electrical grid or generators), not by the power produced by the turbines. Fukushima was a BWR (whereas the vast majority of reactors today are PWRs), meaning the water boiled in the core to create steam which was passed through turbines then condensed and sent back. There is a heat exchanger in that loop to cool/condense the steam into water, but everything was on the same loop. It's an old design and not as safe as modern PWRs, in which the water used to cool the core never leaves the core, but instead transfers it's heat to another loop which turns the turbines, which is cooled by yet another separate cooling loop. Fukushima was also not constructed properly to resist this type of event. For two of their reactors, the steam pressure built up in the core as the coolant stopped being cooled and blew the roofs off. For the third, the steam reacted with the zirconium in the fuel rods to create hydrogen, which exploded. These are all results of not only bad decisions, but of reactor designs that are now outdated and unsafe. [QUOTE=Faunze;50820148]So if two first world countries went at war with eachother and they both had 3 or 4 brand new nuclear power plants that werestrategically bombed you are saying there would be no radiation leaked?[/QUOTE] If two first world countries went to war with each other, nuclear power plants would be a low value target in the grand scheme of things. If you are worried about wars between first world countries, then you're digging at the very bottom of the barrel to be scared of nuclear power. Secondly, they would be some of the most heavily guarded areas in the country. You wouldn't get anywhere near it. Third, neither country would want to attack a nuclear power plant anyways because it's a stupid decision. First off, any successful attack on a nuclear power plant that releases radiation basically means that that plant and the area around it will not be able to be used for a long time, so if you planned on taking over that country, then you've just made it worthless by destroying them. If you're just trying to ensure that the enemy's power goes out without killing civilians, knocking out the transmission lines or substations is easier, and will lead to less civilian casualties. If you're actively trying to kill civilians, not only will atomic weapons be more efficient in big cities compared to taking out a nuclear power plant, but you will also have to deal with basically the rest of the first world countries joining forces together to rip you a new one. It's a stupid idea all around as far as attacks go, and that's why your fear is irrational.
The main problem with wind and sun is that they are not really reliable and constant sources of energy. Sometimes it's just not windy and sometimes it can be cloudy for days. If there's a sudden increase in load on the grid you need to be able to adjust your power output, and nuclear energy is great for that. Certainly better than coal. I still support wind power, it can be very useful to supply local communities with energy, but it's not something you can support a national grid with. Long term storage is the main issue with nuclear power. I watched the documentary "into eternity" about the Finnish Onkalo spent fuel storage facility. It raised a few interesting points about securing the site for the thousands of years it takes for the capsules inside to be safe. Like how to mark the site for future generations that may not speak any modern language in a way they understand there's nothing valuable to dig for down there.
Well to the massive ass educational post above me. Thanks, that makes alot of sense, I retract my statement. Regardless, green is the way to go. Nuclear power seems dated already in the grand scheme of scientific progress. Within the next twenty years I'm hoping we have an extremely efficient way of harnessing the natural forces around us and in space where energy is no longer an issue for people. Not that I'm saying don't go nuclear but to switch everything to it seems like an odd thing to do. And as destructive as windmills and solar panels can be it's definitely worth the sacrifice in R&D in comparison to the last thousand years of fossil consumption.
Honestly, I'd prefer we go geo-thermal but it's just too impractical for anything not a deep sea base (like in SOMA and Bioshock) and it's really expensive since the pipes you shove underground are always going to have to be replaced because of the shifting of the crust. [editline]3rd August 2016[/editline] Also if an orbiting solar station was built and it transferred the power down to Earth with a high powered laser, would it affect the atmosphere, fuck peoples' eyesight, and dissipate in the atmosphere?
[QUOTE=Faunze;50821732]Within the next twenty years I'm hoping we have an extremely efficient way of harnessing the natural forces around us and in space where energy is no longer an issue for people.[/QUOTE] So, gen IV nuclear?
[QUOTE=Falkok15;50819138]With properly trained workers, excellent reactors, and proper safety protocol, those problems become extremely unlikely.[/QUOTE] I'm pro-nuclear, but those are all pretty big if's. Never underestimate the pervasive ability to be a dumb fuck that all humans possess.
[QUOTE=Faunze;50817903]My issue with nuclear power is that if it becomes widely used the likelihood of a catastrophic event increases hugely. It only takes one massive event and unfavorable weather and millions of people are initially affected, not only this their children for generations, possibly forever will remain changed. Radiation isn't fun.[/QUOTE] 75% of France's energy network is nuclear, they're the most energy independent country, lowest energy costs, and have one of the lowest carbon dioxide emissions per capita in Europe. They've had 12 incidents with nuclear powerplants in 50 years, none of which led to deaths. France is the poster boy for nuclear energy, and all countries would do good to follow in their footsteps.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50821447]Chernobyl was an inferior design and happened because you had electrical engineers trying to run a test with no understanding of the way that reactor worked. First off, coolant in a reactor core doesn't just keep the core from overheating, it actually absorbs neutrons, which regulates the amount of reactions in the core and it's output in the process. While it doesn't absorb as much as the control rods, it does slow down the reaction. Their coolant pumps were powered mainly by electricity from the steam turbines, with generator backups. Because the steam turbines have inertia, they keep spinning when you cut off the steam. They wanted to see how long the coolant pumps could run just on the turbine's inertia after steam supply had been cut off. That was their experiment. The mistakes:[/QUOTE] I was under the impression that the Chernobyl NPP went up because A. they used a graphite matrix for the moderator (aka. the materiel that slows down the neutrons enough for fission to occur), and B. the control rods were tipped with more graphite for some reason. Way I heard it, the explosion happened because the coolant had drained out, but the graphite moderator was left in place to keep the reaction going. The graphite tips on the control rods also caused a momentary surge as they were being inserted, which didn't help matters. I could be wrong though.
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50839477]I'm pro-nuclear, but those are all pretty big if's. Never underestimate the pervasive ability to be a dumb fuck that all humans possess.[/QUOTE] Those are all pretty much true today. It's why we've only had two major nuclear disasters in history.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50841508]I was under the impression that the Chernobyl NPP went up because A. they used a graphite matrix for the moderator (aka. the materiel that slows down the neutrons enough for fission to occur), and B. the control rods were tipped with more graphite for some reason. Way I heard it, the explosion happened because the coolant had drained out, but the graphite moderator was left in place to keep the reaction going. The graphite tips on the control rods also caused a momentary surge as they were being inserted, which didn't help matters. I could be wrong though.[/QUOTE] I was giving a more simplified version. The control rods were tipped with graphite because it can withstand tremendous heat. It also works as a better moderator than the coolant. So when the rods were inserted, wherever the graphite tips were, there would be MORE reactions and a surge of energy. Basically, the steam voids weren't slowing the neutrons down enough for a good reaction, but the fuel rods being inserted displaced this steam with graphite. There was some coolant in the core, but not enough to actually cool it. When the rods were inserted and got stuck, they created a hot spot with a runaway reaction sending itself critical.
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50839477]I'm pro-nuclear, but those are all pretty big if's. Never underestimate the pervasive ability to be a dumb fuck that all humans possess.[/QUOTE] Well, we've had commercial nuclear energy for 60 years now. Even in the wild west days of it, we didn't come anywhere near the number of deaths from other energy sources of the time. I mean, the technology has existed for this long, I think we've figured it out...
[QUOTE=Faunze;50821732]Well to the massive ass educational post above me. Thanks, that makes alot of sense, I retract my statement. Regardless, green is the way to go. Nuclear power seems dated already in the grand scheme of scientific progress. Within the next twenty years I'm hoping we have an extremely efficient way of harnessing the natural forces around us and in space where energy is no longer an issue for people. Not that I'm saying don't go nuclear but to switch everything to it seems like an odd thing to do. And as destructive as windmills and solar panels can be it's definitely worth the sacrifice in R&D in comparison to the last thousand years of fossil consumption.[/QUOTE] Fission is pretty close to the top of the universal energy generation tier list. The next step up is Fusion, and, well... [t] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/U.S._historical_fusion_budget_vs._1976_ERDA_plan.png [/t]
[QUOTE=Snowmew;50828789]So, gen IV nuclear?[/QUOTE] A carbon-hydrogen fusion reactor? If that ever happens energy might as well be free for everyone because it would be virtually unlimited.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.