Why do people fear nuclear power?

If a plane hit the reactor, all you would have left is a bunch of radioactive balls to pick up. Uranium is not good for making dirty bombs you want something like radium, cesium or plutonium. Also making dirty bombs out of the uranium trapped inside each ball is going to be a bitch better to steal it as a purified rod out of an old type reactor.

We think that nuclear accidents are far less dangers then most histarical anti-nuclear people beleive, as coal for example has release far more radioactive matterial and has kill far more people by raw pollution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't see massive wind turbine construction as usually desired. Perhaps in places where the wind is extremely high and complete control of how much is tapped would warrant such a design. In general though, I see wind as highly distributive. Just like sails can catch more wind when they cover greater area, I see wind energy harvesting as most conducive to many small units rather than a few big or even monstrous designs. If suspended with pulleys, they could be automated to be lowered into small shelters duting times of high wind. They could also be built and serviced locally which would make for lots of worthwhile jobs, productive employment for the masses.

It is easier to place, maintain and move small units but it might not be conducive to sustaining a monopoly on energy sources and could lead to the demise of many big corporations, fossil fuel and nuclear for example. I suppose if these megalithic transnationals want to continue funneling money into the hands of a few at the expense of all then they actually might fund the creation of anti-wind propaganda and obfuscation as well as pro nuclear and fossil fuel use propaganda. The creation of more policing is often indicative of oligarchies dictating policies. There are those who believe in national as well as corporate allegiance which is really quite divisive. There are those who believe all of us humans are in this boat togethor and that we are all on the same side. I don't think the scenario on Earth is all that complicated. United we stand, divided we fall, perhaps?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WellCooked, what if the intention of those who blew up the reactor was to start the graphite on fire? If they were successful do you think the pebbles would withstand the conflagration? Any one got the specifications on those balls and what kind of heat might be involved if the graphite was ignited?

I guess you meant the word "hysterical" rather than histarical which I first interpreted as the closer word "historical?" A few other grammar errors there too but then that is not important except that maybe, since you have shown very decent command of the English language at times, it is indicative of some haste on your part. Might there be some other reason other than science as to why you appear to skip some caution from communicating? Is the cause more important than communicating information? Does seem you are attacking the character of any one who does not share your opinion which is not all that indicative of seeking understanding but rather, attempting to instill some flame war which might help avoid and cogent discussion and could serve those who have ardent beliefs rather than knowledge based opinion. Would not surprise me as public forums often have individuals exhibit such behavior.

Is any one here advocating coal burning?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The graphite is covered in a silicon carbide coating it can't start on fire, it needs temps of 2000C degrees to burn off the outer coating.

Ya I run my entries though spell checking on Word really fast, sometime is choose the wrong word and I don’t notice.

No I’m not attacking your character, now your being just paranoid.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm just wondering why people aren’t getting even more angry over coal, the subject is why do people fear nuclear power, it just boggles my mind when other things like coal is causing even more harm and yet people don't give it even near as much notice and ranting as nuclear power.

 

Well Cooked, bigger and more complicated things have been made. Well, you start erecting the pylon that is nothing out of this world. It would have about 2000 cubic meters of concrete. At about $20 per cubic meter it means $40.000. Then you install the big horizontal bearing (diameter = 10 meters) for allowing the assembly to swivel. I’d say that bearing would cost about $10.000 dollars. (Remember we are talking about scale production here, so many units lower the costs). The rest is assembling the unit on top like a Meccano. The 10 MW generator wouldn’t weigh more than 10 tons, so installing it with cranes is a cinch. Then you install the fan and its reduction gearbox. Then you install the venturi, preassembled on the ground, and finally you start building the outer nacelle, piece by piece. (Don’t’ forget your crazy glue now).

The venturi shouldn’t weigh more than 5 tons (we can make it with duralumin instead of heavy 6 mm iron sheet, or even with light reinforced epoxy resin, as the outer cover). The upper assembly on top of the big horizontal roller bearing shouldn’t weigh more than 30 tons.

Before mounting the turbine, you must wait about 28 days for the concrete to harden and reach its maximum strength. In my sketch I forgot to draw the “tail” (or wind vane) of the assembly, that makes the turbine always face the direction of the incoming wind. Piece of cake. No rocket science in here. Good old civil and mechanical engineering.

I don’t know the price of the 10 MW generator, that would be the most expensive part of the unit. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the total price of the wind turbine is around $500.000. Compared to the $2 million for a 2.0 MW Danish turbine from Wind Systems it looks like a bargain. Even if its price was $2 million, the energy output is 5 times greater, and its functioning time much more extended than conventional propeller turbines. The conventional ones starting speed is 19 kmph, and the closing speed is about 90 kmph. The funnel type would start at 10 kmph and can work with no upper limit wind speeds.

Wanna buy one?

I am beginning to think that I could make a small prototype for installing in my house in the open country (on top of a small hill I have 300 behind my house, where the wind blows nicely). Unfortunately, we have seasons of low winds as autumn, but spring and summer have nice steady winds. I think a 10 KW alternator would be enough to supply power to my house most of the time, but I would have to switch to the public grid about 30% of the time. Anyhow, a 70% saving in my electricity bill would be welcomed.

Mr. Chips, I will answer your post tomorrow, as now I am going to bed.

 

What does graphite burn at? http://phycomp.technion.ac.il/~david/thesis/node3.html perhaps 4000 to 5000 degrees kelvin or 3000 to 4000 degrees celsius? So if it were possible, an attack could be something like a bomb that delivered a lot of oxygen fast designed to break balls open and ignite the graphite which would further destroy its own protective cover and perhaps those of other balls creating a fire that can take off and fuel itself? If the main vessel were breached by such an attack, apparently the current designs are for air to be the emergency coolant which means more oxygen will be available than the initial ignition amount. Helium goes up fast. Are they considering a different way to cool the reactor in case of a Helium loss for the South Africa test reactor?

I'm just wondering because it sounds like you are claiming that this largely untested scheme is fool proof, something I believe was also predicted for a ship called the titanic.

 

Mr. Chips: “You also mention Fast Breeder Reactors as acceptable which produces bomb grade material, Pu239, with normal operation.”

Actually, fast bred reactors consume plutonium – they burn it all, and no weapon grade material is left.

Mr. Chips: “Looks like you don't accept the idea of potential nuclear weapon proliferation as a reason to adhere to only low enriched fuel designs (if any)?”

I would say that the advanced technology as fast breeders would be used by those countries that have shown some common sense in the development of nuclear energy for generating electricity, as the US and all western countries. The Atom Bomb neurosis started back during the cold war days and was extended later to the peaceful use of the nuclear technologies, with no scientific reason. I think the neurosis has been detrimental to progress and the development of poorer nations.

Now the neurosis has switched to terrorism. I think terrorists have not a chance of sabotaging a nuclear plant. Their security personnel perform regularly drills to prevent such a thing, and in the case of the US, the security has been tightened a lot. I would like to hear from a plane that has crashed near a nuclear plant and how near the plant it got. Back in the sixties, I remember Israeli bombers demolished a nuclear plant in Irak, and no radiation escaped. There are antinuke pages that provide information on the matter of an airplane crashing, the force the plane exerts to different thickness of concrete walls according to the speed and mass of the plane, etc. Actually, the only real heavy and strong parts of an airliner are the engines, and there is not a chance for a 747 engine to perforate a 1.5 meter thick of concrete. The rest of the plane is pure duralumin that is crushed against the containment building as a cigarette on an ashtray.

The reason for a lack of containment building for the PBMR is the design concept. The core cannot melt, if the chain reaction goes up and heat start to build up, the heat interferes with the reaction and stops it, or brings it back to normal levels. It is like a thermostat. It opens when it is hot and closes when it return to colder conditions. Now the lack of containment seems to be a problem because of terrorism. That has nothing to do with the technology involved in the PBMRs and shouldn’t be of concern. What do you have armed forces and security systems in the US? Just use them.

Or better still, release the colonial grip on the World colonies and let them progress, stop invading them for “national security” reasons (or corporations interests, may I say?), and let people live in peace and work their own development and progress by themselves. That way you will stop people all over the world hating the US and being sympathetic with any crazy political leader that dares to fight back.

It is not a case of Democrats or Republicans in office. They both have behaved the same way; both are managed behind the scene by corporations. And we in the third world are paying the bill. You see, being myself a moderate person quite in the center of all political philosophies, I am called communist by the fascists, and called fascist by the left. No matter what, I get the beating from both sides. I am getting bored and tired of this enormous stupidity that is ruling the world right now.

Please, stop the world, I want to get out!

I will resume your questions tomorrow.

 

Mr. Chips, it seems you don't want me to go to bed. Any how this is my last post for tonight.

You said "Just like sails can catch more wind when they cover greater area, I see wind energy harvesting as most conducive to many small units rather than a few big or even monstrous designs."

The problem with wind or solar power is that wind and solar energies are diffuse. You have to concentrate it to make it useful. Oil is solar energy concentrated. It has a lot of BTU per unit of mass, as coal and uranium. The “funnel wind turbine” concentrates the wind in the venturi. It might not be as elegant as the conventional turbines, but it is sturdy, much lower in profile, and when you want to chop wood you don’t use a jackknife. You go for the axe. I would exchange hundredfold efficiency and power output for elegance and beauty.

Mr. Chips: “So if it were possible, an attack could be something like a bomb that delivered a lot of oxygen fast designed to break balls open and ignite the graphite which would further destroy its own protective cover and perhaps those of other balls creating a fire that can take off and fuel itself? If the main vessel were breached by such an attack,”

There are too many “if, perhaps, may, could” that makes the real thing quite unlikely. The terrorist would have to be the owners of a very advanced technology for making such a piercing bomb that would carry lots of oxygen, preventing it from burning before it reached the graphite bed, cracking ALL the graphite balls’ outer shell, and just then, at the exact moment, inject or release the oxygen. Quite a technological feat! The Abrams tank wouldn't stand a chance!

If they had such an advanced technology, they would rather shoot a much cheaper missile or bomb on the White House, the Bundestag, the Elysee, or Westminster Palace. Let us no walk the paranoid track, please.

 

Let's not forget the world is mostly water, I could only WONDER how much energy comes from the ocean??? Instead of wasting our minds on something that will eventually come to an end, lets use our minds to come up with a way to use water as an efficient & reliable energy source.
It just might help prevent that so called drastic flood from the melting polar ice caps, just a thought!
I've seen stranger things.

 

I can understandf how american energy policy can be stupid , but I have one quesion though - how well nuclear power does in other countries? -Especially Europe ,while I understand that 85% of population are retarded morons regardless of race/color/nation I kinda think some countires could have smart people in power from time to time . -Nuclear power could be a very nice way to have energy independence for a lot of technically adavanced countries who lack natural resources to burn (such as german, belgium , france ,spain) .In fact it seem to me that with fuel cell technology they can have 100% energetical independence if they build a powerfull grid energy grid of nuclear station.

Chinia is advaned enough to have its own nuclear power ,yet they are still mostly
oil/coal burners (and one obsolete and dangerous hydroelectric dams)

Is there any progress in this direction in any country?

 

A hell of a lot more than we have here in the US. Both France and Japan get 80% of their utility power from nuclear fission. Hell, Japan is a breeding ground for advanced technology reactor implementation because they're not encumbered by stupid legislation and a hostile NRC like our industry here has been for years.

Aspersions aside, I'd put a majority of the European continent on a pedestal as an example of how awesome nuclear energy is. Yeah they're a bunch of asshats when it comes to some other environmentally related sciences but they've thankfully conquered their irrational fear of our friend the atom better than some of our countrymen have here.

 

"why do people fear nuclear power"
you can see the pollution let of by coal, you can see what happens in a car crash, but radiation is invisible, and that freaks people out

 

The primary function of graphite stacks in nuclear reactors is neutron reflection and moderation. In order to accomplish this, the graphite must meet exacting requirements for purity. You cannot coat it in silicon carbide insofar as I am aware, without destroying the function of the stack. Given this, the highest temp ratings graphite gets are 700 degrees celsius, with normal operating temperatures about half that. The trouble is, when the graphite reaches critical temperatures, it does not simply melt, it combusts.

 

graphite, or any pure form of carbon as far as I know, sublimates, it doesn't melt. It goes straight to a gas form, probably one of the reasons it burns so hot.

 

Just to add to this, all US plants are built to withstand airplane crashes. Hell, TMI's two units are a few miles from the end of the Harrisburg airport's main runways and jets overfly them on takeoff all the time. When an airplane hits a plant, it's going to have to drill through a containment dome of reinforced concrete nearly three meters thick, and THEN breach a steel pressure vessel built to contain either steam or pressurized water at 2250 psi. It wouldn't make it. Think of a bug on a windshield.

Not sure about plants in other countries, but American designs are and always have been impervious to air crashes.

 

"...are and always have been impervious to air crashes. "

I wouldn't go quite so far. The containment building design was tested against horizontal impacts from unloaded, remotely controlled F4 fighter jets at 500 mph. Thats a far cry from a fuel-laden jumbo jet striking the apex (where the concrete is about a quarter the depth you quote) at 600 mph from a top-down angle..

 

I understand from a recent analysis concerning terrorist threats that only a couple of US nuclear power plants, close to airports and under flight paths, are built to withstand jet or even just airplane crashes. Please cite your data source Stokes, thanks. I posted the URL somewhere on this forum concerning the "unreadiness" of US nuclear power plants to withstand an impacting airplane. I could go find it if you'd like. Perhaps it is just misinformation so if you could substantiate your claims, I could weigh the validity for my own opinion formulation.

 

Oh, I ran accross this site that appears to substantiate your claim Stokes, http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/security/crash_analysis.htm though it doesn't present much detail as well as no ready discernible date for the research. They list a PDF of the original report http://www.nei.org/documents/eprinuclearplantstructuralstudy200212.pdf dated December 2002 with a cutaway view of a boiling water reactor that appears to show a top thicker than the sides. Still since the study used a representative model rather than list the data that led to that model (which sounds like better science to me) as well as a probability model of the type of aircraft that did not include all possible I find the Conclusion to represent an extreme postulate from limited analysis, that is "The study determined that the structures that house reactor fuel are robust and protect the fuel from impacts of large commercial aircraft." They make a claim that covers all though their data was drawn only from "representative samples" that it does not detail. The base data is not there to discern the validity for oneself. I don't like that. It means it is just more specious claims. It states "security considerations" as the reason why "detailed results" are not presented.

Check out this statement in the third paragraph, the last under the heading "Purpose of the Study"

Quote: "Nonetheless, the nuclear power industry is confident that nuclear plant structures that house reactor fuel can withstand aircraft impacts, even though they were not specifically designed for such impacts. This confidence is predicated on the fact that nuclear plant structures have thick concrete walls with heavy reinforcing steel and are designed to withstand large earthquakes, extreme overpressures and hurricane force winds. The purpose of this study is to validate that confidence." unquote

Whew, they state a bias right off! I'm afraid they have not validated my confidence mainly due to not disclosing the data they used to formulate their extreme finding.

Who is EPRI? Check out their web site at www.epri.com The last company they list as a part of their "family" of companies is Primen. Jesus Christo, It is a propaganda manufacturing agency !

quote: "Primen
Legal form of entity—taxable corporation, wholly owned by EPRIsolutions
Status—active operating company
Charter—provide information-based products and services to clients involved in the retail energy market and related industries. Create value for clients by synthesizing knowledge about customers, markets, technologies, and regulatory issues into information and data products that are easy to access and use, and can be customized to address specific business challenges.
Operating model-majority of services provided by in-house staff, with some contracting.
unquote

Holy Toledo Batman ! Guess I got kind of carried away and didn't post the URL to the claim I made about most nuclear power plants not being ready for aircraft impact. Looks like I didn't cite an URL to it earlier though it seems to be amongst those in a google search. Whoa, so this NMC is also a front organization for disinformation for hire? Ever hear of "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap?"

SO. I see evidence of paid for manufacture of biased information. Will wonders never cease? Vigilance is in order.

Perhaps there is something better than this consortium of information for hire?

 

The airliners that hit the Twin Towers crashed against glass windows, interior plaster panels and some steel beams. They didn’t go through. They were stopped by simple walls and not too strong steel beams.

Another thing: airliners are hollow pieces of aluminum that get crumpled and squashed against hard surfaces. The only real heavy pieces in a Jumbo are the engines, and their volume and weight are not enough for piercing 2 meters of reinforced concrete. But let us suppose they can crack the containment building. How much force remains for the engine to pierce the steel structure containing the core? I would bet almost nil.

My opinion is, if it were possible to cause that damage to a nuclear reactor, they would have done it a long time ago. Al Qaeda could have done it before 9-11, when US security was not in the state of warning it is now. They are not as stupid as many people think they are. They surely are crazy, but they are not idiots, and they will go after much easier targets, with more political gains – as the White House or the US Congress.

Oh boy, am I glad of living in the southernmost tip of the world! We’ll go later and pick up the remains of the Northern hemisphere…

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

locked