Energy...

Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by Zenze, Jul 8, 2010.

  1. Zenze

    Zenze Well-Known Member
    38

    Apr 17, 2010
    210
    10
    38

    Advertisement

  2. papichulo69r

    papichulo69r Well-Known Member
    36

    Mar 3, 2010
    72
    9
    36
    What troubles me about nuclear power is that there is no national guideline for preventative maintenance at these plants.
     
  3. chrlswltrs

    chrlswltrs Well-Known Member
    333

    Nov 12, 2009
    6,728
    1,790
    333
    Male
    Private Security
    Seattle
    I worked as a nuclear chemist and mechanic for 7 years. I can say for a fact that nuclear power is safe. There are so many misconceptions and people in the media, etc have no idea what they are talking about but they still talk about it and people believe them.

    Trust me there is plenty of regulations on nuclear power, so just because you don't know about the regulations doesn't mean there isn't any. You wouldn't believe all the regulations for maintenance, radioactive material, etc. It is really really strict and a lot of overkill. All of the government regulations made the job very difficult and why I never want to work in that industry again.

    But rest assured, it is very clean and safe and this is coming from someone who knows first hand!
     
    ElasticNinja and RAND0M1ZER like this.
  4. wiretap

    wiretap Well-Known Member
    43

    Apr 27, 2010
    304
    37
    43
    Nuclear Power
    Michigan
    ahaha... hahahah.. ever hear of 10 CFR, appendix B, and a UFSAR? ;) Here's a good place to start. There's hundreds of pages of good quality reading. NRC: NRC Regulations - Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations

    Been working in nuclear power for 6 years now. I can tell you there's definitely a guideline for everything. There's even resident NRC inspectors and QA inspectors at every plant. If you so much as have a u-bolt that holds something in place that is not properly double nutted, you go into a LCO and are forced to shut down.
     
    RAND0M1ZER likes this.
  5. papichulo69r

    papichulo69r Well-Known Member
    36

    Mar 3, 2010
    72
    9
    36
    Necroposting FTW!

    chrlswltrs & wiretap,

    I browsed that website and could not find any specific preventative maintenance requirements. Can I get a more specific link? Thanks.
     
  6. Vihzel

    Vihzel Destroying Balls Everyday
    VIP Member
    333

    Apr 8, 2010
    5,364
    1,055
    333
    NYU Student & Real Estate Agent
    Manhattan, NY
    Lies! All lies! :p
     
  7. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member
    183

    Aug 29, 2010
    4,488
    472
    183
    Student
    Cork City, IMF, EU
    lol?
     
  8. Martimus

    Martimus One bite at a time...
    VIP Member
    5,843

    Jul 9, 2010
    19,535
    4,045
    5,843
    Male
    Engineer
    'neath a cactus
    Following the post-Tsunami issues with the nuclear reactors in Japan I suspect we'll see renewed paranoia regarding nuclear power. Sadly... even the best reactor design is going to be taxed following a magnitude 8.9 earthquake and a major tsunami...
     
  9. JimmyRayBob

    JimmyRayBob Well-Known Member
    53

    Nov 23, 2009
    315
    52
    53
    I agree. Can you imagine if an 8.9 earthquake and tsunami hit a big dam? I wouldn't want to be down-river of that.

    Until we find an affordable source of "clean" energy, we need nuclear power.
     
    ElasticNinja likes this.
  10. RiverOfIce

    313

    Mar 30, 2010
    1,715
    1,254
    313
    In exile
    Well if you build a generator on the ocean in the middle of an area that is one of the most active earthquake zones, then maybe you should plan for the reactor not to be taxed?

    Just saying that nuclear power is not something you want to under plan for? Why where the backup generators knocked out by tsunami? They know, from the 2004/5 quake that tsunami's could happen in the same place? Why did they not proof them then?

    Maybe they did? But then what don't they do for normal unseen problems.

    If I build a nuclear reactor in California, it will be able to take a tsunami, earthquake, flood, and even terrorist attack.

    It just does not make sense. Personally I would place the generators on top of a hill and used buried cables to transmit the power to the plant. Or just place the backup generators in a water proof, bomb proof, container.

    As for the dam comment, come on, a damn fails, it acts like a tsunami. When a nuclear reactor fails, it kills everything in it path.

    Lets review, dam breaking
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0udToKp6COY
    No one died.

    Over 50 people died at Chernobyl, but the effects on the environment can still be seen today. Google chernobyl children.

    You can not compare the worst damn failure to the best operating nuclear reactor.

    Because the best operating nuclear reactor still produces radioactive waste.
     
  11. wiretap

    wiretap Well-Known Member
    43

    Apr 27, 2010
    304
    37
    43
    Nuclear Power
    Michigan
    1. No it does not. If the reactor and primary containment and secondary containment all fail, then if radiation escapes, you must be exposed to a certain amount of radiation for a certain period of time to even begin thinking about death.

    2. The nuclear 'waste' can be reprocessed and reused. Currently hardly anyone is doing this because they like to hold the political high hand above the public and industry to get them to dance how they want them to.
     
  12. RiverOfIce

    313

    Mar 30, 2010
    1,715
    1,254
    313
    In exile
    Just have to ask. No deaths have ever happen because of a nuclear power plant suffering a accident? Just wondering? Did you even google Chernobyl children.

    Second thing. We are not reprocessing nuclear waste, we are storing it.

    It seems like most of the responses to honest questions and concerns are met with would have, could haves, and should haves.
     
  13. wiretap

    wiretap Well-Known Member
    43

    Apr 27, 2010
    304
    37
    43
    Nuclear Power
    Michigan
    1. I'm well versed in the Chernobyl episode. I had to study it at work. Most of those people stayed in the area because their communist government did not warn them or have them evacuate right away, especially the people down-wind. But having a graphite-moderated positive void co-efficient reactor with no containment building had a lot to do with their accident, not to mention the cause of the entire accident was their government having them turn off all their safety systems to undergo power testing for nuclear weapon's development.. none of them actually being reactor operators.

    2. No shit, that's what I said.
     
  14. chrlswltrs

    chrlswltrs Well-Known Member
    333

    Nov 12, 2009
    6,728
    1,790
    333
    Male
    Private Security
    Seattle
    Plus the fact that the other indications such as the pressure and temperature gauges that indicated there were problems were just ignored. I also studied the incident. There were so many factors that made this an avoidable incident that were just screwed up!!!

    The media a soooo off when it comes to anything related to nuclear power that I find it funny. It is so hard for anyone outside of the nuclear field to find correct information that they just believe what the media says.

    Oh and for those wondering... radiation doesn't glow :) you can't actually see it at all :cool:
     
  15. wiretap

    wiretap Well-Known Member
    43

    Apr 27, 2010
    304
    37
    43
    Nuclear Power
    Michigan
    Besides for directly around fuel bundles after they've been in the core. They put off Cherenkov radiation, which is actually more of a visible electromagnetic radiation. Example of the nice blue-ish color glow:

    [​IMG]

    But as far as your standard alpha/beta/gamma/neutron which you normally get in a nuclear plant.. no, you don't see them.
     
  16. RiverOfIce

    313

    Mar 30, 2010
    1,715
    1,254
    313
    In exile
    Not to be all about that, but radiation does glow.
    Radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    you guys are the ones that want to be really precise about this.

    I honestly don't think nuclear energy is worth the long term cost.

    Never said it was dangerous or we should not do it, but I really dont think it is a long term solution. And no we should not produce more nuclear plants, but take the time to produce from renewable sources.
     
  17. wiretap

    wiretap Well-Known Member
    43

    Apr 27, 2010
    304
    37
    43
    Nuclear Power
    Michigan
    Too bad you need base load grid suppliers. What are your suggestion for those? Every "renewable" energy resource we have today besides nuclear isn't efficient enough. As far as cost, nuclear is the cheapest per kilowatt hour. If we reprocessed the fuel, it would be feasible.
     
    chrlswltrs likes this.
  18. chrlswltrs

    chrlswltrs Well-Known Member
    333

    Nov 12, 2009
    6,728
    1,790
    333
    Male
    Private Security
    Seattle
    Until cold fusion is possible the safest, cleanest, most cost effective energy we have is nuclear fission reactors.
     
    Mac_Leod likes this.
  19. cipher6

    cipher6 Well-Known Member
    78

    Dec 8, 2010
    700
    80
    78
    GIS Admin
    South Texas
    Are you serious?

    The only mention of "glowing" is THERMAL radiation.



    And, this leak, so far, is less than Three Mile Island...

    .
    Three Mile Island accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    You do know your currently being exposed to radiation sitting in front of your monitor, or TV, microwave, or when you walk out into the sun light? I've read flight attendants and pilots get exposed to more radiation than nuclear plant workers because their so high up.
     
  20. chrlswltrs

    chrlswltrs Well-Known Member
    333

    Nov 12, 2009
    6,728
    1,790
    333
    Male
    Private Security
    Seattle
    This is exactly correct. The average person receives about 300 mrem of radiation exposure every year from the sun, lights, electronics, and naturally occurring elements.

    If you are worried about it, better go get your radiation suit, lol :D
     
  21. bigbadwulff

    bigbadwulff Well-Known Member
    143

    Jun 15, 2010
    2,442
    200
    143
    Drill, drill, drill, drill, drill!!
     
  22. bigbadwulff

    bigbadwulff Well-Known Member
    143

    Jun 15, 2010
    2,442
    200
    143
    Say what? Where do you get this stuff? Nuke plants are so regulated it is beyond belief!
     
  23. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member
    183

    Aug 29, 2010
    4,488
    472
    183
    Student
    Cork City, IMF, EU
    no
     
  24. cipher6

    cipher6 Well-Known Member
    78

    Dec 8, 2010
    700
    80
    78
    GIS Admin
    South Texas
    Why not? We need energy, but don't want nuclear, and don't want foreign sources, whats left? If wind/solar was a viable option we would have it already.

    Oil and natural gas.


    AS far as electricity production, oil doesn't do much... but natural gas COULD do a lot. The cleanest burning fossil fuel, more stable than coal, easier to ship around the country, current coal fired planets can easily be switched over, and we have abundant supply here at home.

    So, yeah, drill drill drill, for natural gas at least.
     
  25. Homan13PSU

    Homan13PSU Well-Known Member
    78

    May 27, 2010
    507
    84
    78
    Umm, no offense. But the testing at reactor 4 was NOT for the nuclear weapons program. The testing was to bridge a known, safety gap in the SCRAM of the reactor and the backup generators coming online. When the RBMK reactor was first built, in the event of a SCRAM it took the diesel backups 15 seconds to spin up; furthermore, it took the generators an additional 30-45 seconds to spin up to full speed allowing water to be pumped with enough pressure to flow into the reactor chamber itself. For those paying attention, that is 45 - 60 seconds where the reactor is without water flow, which, in a reactor design that the RBMK used was not even close to acceptable standards. They were trying to see if they could use the momentum of the steam turbine as it spun down to drive the water pumps and bridge the gap.

    The government actually had no clue what was going on before the test took place. The plant manager was the one who approved the test WITHOUT approval from the Soviet Nuclear Regulator.

    Staff on hand for the test were ALL regular engineers for the plant. The problem at hand was, the test was to be run during the day shift; however, part of the Kiev power grid went off line during the day and a hold was put on reactor 4 lowering its power levels any further to make up for peak usage that night on the grid. By the time the evening shift was wrapping up, the all clear was given to proceed with the test with the night shift, who had VERY little knowledge of what was going on.

    I realize you work in the industry; but the bolded comments on Chernobyl couldn't be anymore wrong.
     

Share This Page

Loading...