FAQs about nuclear energy

Wirelessly posted (sent from a smartphone. )

Jiro said:
sequoias said:
Yeah, just the basic on how it works. I know there are three types. The one in Russia are hmmm I forgot. :-/ A bunch of them in Russia are running today just like the type that blew up back in '86.
Click to expand...

Chernobyl = BWR with dozens of flawed protocols and :crazy: design
America = PWR
Click to expand...

That makes better sense then
 
Wirelessly posted (sent from a smartphone. )

Jiro said:
sequoias said:
It looks like PWR is safer than BWR because it does not carry out radiation out of the shelded reactor.
Click to expand...

that's why American nuclear plants and our nuclear submarines use PWR. and so does France.
Click to expand...

What about the aircraft carrier ships like USS Lincoln for example? They use nuclear engine drive.
 
Well, what do you want to do? Burn coal? Toss nuclear waste? *shrug* I think that the long term problems with nuclear energy could potentially be solved.

So long as my energy doesn't come from corn.
 
TheOracle said:
Well, what do you want to do? Burn coal? Toss nuclear waste? *shrug* I think that the long term problems with nuclear energy could potentially be solved.

So long as my energy doesn't come from corn.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
TheOracle said:
Well, what do you want to do? Burn coal? Toss nuclear waste? *shrug* I think that the long term problems with nuclear energy could potentially be solved.

So long as my energy doesn't come from corn.
Click to expand...

I am sick and tired of people saying dont want to use corn for energy. COME ON FOLKS!!!! it reeally does not raise prices. It really does not use food stock.

Do YOU know the difference between sweet eating corn and field corn?!

Don't you think it will actually help the farmers?!
 
radioman said:
I am sick and tired of people saying dont want to use corn for energy. COME ON FOLKS!!!! it reeally does not raise prices. It really does not use food stock.

Do YOU know the difference between sweet eating corn and field corn?!

Don't you think it will actually help the farmers?!
Click to expand...

Well, the field corn is for animals....
 
I haven't been called that since my wedding night....
 
radioman said:
I am sick and tired of people saying dont want to use corn for energy. COME ON FOLKS!!!! it reeally does not raise prices. It really does not use food stock.

Do YOU know the difference between sweet eating corn and field corn?!

Don't you think it will actually help the farmers?!
Click to expand...

How do you know what my objections are? :crazy:
 
Majority of Nuclear reactors requires active cooling system at all times regardless of the reactor core is offline, not being used for heat production and the cooling pond with distilled water to store spent fuel for about 5 years prior to disposal or recycling.

Active cooling in generation II, III and III+ reactors in France, Japan and USA must have constant, yet reliable power supply for water circulation pumps for cooling and other backup safely systems. This poses some risks if the power get interruppted due to earthquakes or other 'Acts of God' This had happened in Japan right now. My understanding that generation IV do not require active cooling and safely systems but passive cooling. This method do not require power supply and can last for about a week before overheating can occur and Nuclear engineers and workers can figure out in limited time frame before disaster hits. This is a huge safely leap that should have implemented in earlier designs and this design is still in approval phase with US Nuclear Regulatory Commission before granting an approval to build new reactor in United States.

I support Nuclear as long operators are following heavy safely & regulatory protocols and closely monitored by key stakeholders.
 
deafaussie said:
I support Nuclear as long operators are following heavy safely & regulatory protocols and closely monitored by key stakeholders.
Click to expand...
What concerns me, is that safety depends on so many factors.

Anyone can make claims that they follows heavy safety, regulatory protocols and are closely monitored key stakeholders, like a hi tech country like Japan, and still fail.

What do we do when Angola, Rwanda, Burma or Somalia demands to run "reliable" nuclear plants, like westerns?

Nuclear power as it's now is too much too handle for the humankind. We are simply too stupid. Sure, one can run a perfect plant, but not thousands of plants. It have been proved again and again that we can't.
 
flip said:
What concerns me, is that safety depends on so many factors.

Anyone can make claims that they follows heavy safety, regulatory protocols and are closely monitored key stakeholders, like a hi tech country like Japan, and still fail.
Click to expand...
This is not quiet true as I had found out few days ago.

Japanese government and regulatory agencies did not perform inspections of any kind on nuclear reactor stations in Japan for the past 10 years, I believe. Japanese power company had loosened their own internal safely rules, policies and regulations. It is in the media everywhere and I do not need to document proof here. Google is your friend!
 
Back
Top