St Louis Car 09 Posted March 15, 2011 Share #1 Posted March 15, 2011 Ok so its no secret that the meltdowns At Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear facility is getting alot of attention and questions the use of nuclear energy.The U.S has many plants and President Obama is spearheading the support of nuclear energy in the U.S to fight off our heavy demand for oil.What are some of your views on nuclear power and what can be done to prevent future meltdowns? The Indian Point Nuclear facility is located in Buchanan N.Y and powers 30% of NYC And westchester county's electricity.It works on pressurized reactors rather than Fukushima's Boiling water reactors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Julio Posted March 15, 2011 Share #2 Posted March 15, 2011 The issue they are currently having has nothing to do with problems with nuclear power. It was caused by the earthquake and tsunami. So don't start bashing nuclear power which is one of the cleanest means to create power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTK246 Posted March 15, 2011 Share #3 Posted March 15, 2011 The issue they are currently having has nothing to do with problems with nuclear power. It was caused by the earthquake and tsunami. So don't start bashing nuclear power which is one of the cleanest means to create power. What about the Chernobyl Incident? I'm kinda sure it was system/human error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Julio Posted March 15, 2011 Share #4 Posted March 15, 2011 What about the Chernobyl Incident? I'm kinda sure it was system/human error. I'm not talking about Chernobyl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTARegional Bus Posted March 15, 2011 Share #5 Posted March 15, 2011 I'm not talking about Chernobyl. Chernobyl was a different situation,control rods failed to control the fission chain reaction leading to blasts which blew the reactor apart releasing radiation. Nuclear energy has it dangers but if control right it is cleaner energy then oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted March 15, 2011 Share #6 Posted March 15, 2011 What about the Chernobyl Incident? I'm kinda sure it was system/human error. No, that was Soviet incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted March 15, 2011 Share #7 Posted March 15, 2011 Nuclear power is promising but the downsides come at a very steep price, like... spent nuclear fuel/radioactive waste? Where will it all go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted March 15, 2011 Share #8 Posted March 15, 2011 Build one in my back yard, it doesn't contribute to global warming. We have 2 big facilities here in the eastern part of PA, one at 3 mile island, and one at limerick, PA. I am 100% fine with both of them, and i hope this coal operated plant in NJ not too far away is eventually converted to nuclear. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted March 15, 2011 Share #9 Posted March 15, 2011 Chernobyl, yea lots of people who are afraid of nuclear power plants like to cite chernobyl, but what they don't mention is that there was no containment vessel, and the incident happened when they had shut off the backup cooling systems during an experiment. The cover of the reactor blew off, directly exposing the core to the atmosphere. Every facility in the US, UK, JP, FR, etc etc etc has a steel and concrete containment vessel, most of them also have an outer housing. The situation in japan has nothing to do with nuclear power safety, and if you wanted to try and make that case, it would be a positive one, because it was the closest to a 9.0 quake and a 33 foot tsunami, in a region completely devastated by the tsunami. No phone lines, nothing, they are using fire trucks to pump in seawater to the reactor core in order to cool them below boiling. These reactors (the ones having the problems in japan) operate at ~500 degrees and if temporarily cut off from cooling sources can exceed 2200 degrees very quickly. Imagine the temperature being around 1200 degrees, trying to cool that to below boiling, that's what they are trying to do now. GE has designed a new type of reactor, using passive systems, no pumps required, this is what would be used in all future US nuclear reactors. In simulations at test reactor stations the reactor is self regulating for 3 days with no operator input, but this is a worst case scenario, which the control rods automatically insert bringing the core offline at 30 hours of no input. There would also be a coolant reservoir containing 3 times the amount needed to cool the core from maximum operating temperature to below boiling. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted March 15, 2011 Share #10 Posted March 15, 2011 Chernobyl, yea lots of people who are afraid of nuclear power plants like to cite chernobyl, but what they don't mention is that there was no containment vessel, and the incident happened when they had shut off the backup cooling systems during an experiment. The cover of the reactor blew off, directly exposing the core to the atmosphere. Every facility in the US, UK, JP, FR, etc etc etc has a steel and concrete containment vessel, most of them also have an outer housing. The situation in japan has nothing to do with nuclear power safety, and if you wanted to try and make that case, it would be a positive one, because it was the closest to a 9.0 quake and a 33 foot tsunami, in a region completely devastated by the tsunami. No phone lines, nothing, they are using fire trucks to pump in seawater to the reactor core in order to cool them below boiling. These reactors (the ones having the problems in japan) operate at ~500 degrees and if temporarily cut off from cooling sources can exceed 2200 degrees very quickly. Imagine the temperature being around 1200 degrees, trying to cool that to below boiling, that's what they are trying to do now. GE has designed a new type of reactor, using passive systems, no pumps required, this is what would be used in all future US nuclear reactors. In simulations at test reactor stations the reactor is self regulating for 3 days with no operator input, but this is a worst case scenario, which the control rods automatically insert bringing the core offline at 30 hours of no input. There would also be a coolant reservoir containing 3 times the amount needed to cool the core from maximum operating temperature to below boiling. - A While the positves outweigh the negatives, guys you missing the point. It's going to be very hard for any new nucelar plant to be bulit anywhere at least in next several years. The hardest of course is here in the US especially in a nation filled w/ NIMBY's, after seeing those video clips from the Fukushima planet. Fukushima is the new name or symbol unfairly or not in 21st Century that '3' Mile Island or Chernobyl was in the last decades of the 20th Century for Nuclear Power Nightmare.We all know this nightmare was not man made of course but the public will not forget this. That why this is a huge blow for the nuclear power industry worldwide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova RTS 9147 Posted March 15, 2011 Share #11 Posted March 15, 2011 The issue they are currently having has nothing to do with problems with nuclear power. It was caused by the earthquake and tsunami. So don't start bashing nuclear power which is one of the cleanest means to create power. Even with the peril I still prefer it over oil, coal and natural gas hands down. What about the Chernobyl Incident? I'm kinda sure it was system/human error. Thats what happens when substandard materials and under trained lackeys run a nuclear power plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Louis Car 09 Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share #12 Posted March 15, 2011 The issue they are currently having has nothing to do with problems with nuclear power. It was caused by the earthquake and tsunami. So don't start bashing nuclear power which is one of the cleanest means to create power. Hey im not bashing Nuclear Energy.Im a firm supporter of it despite its dangerous properties.Earthquake or human error,this can happen at anytime and I just want to hear some input about how its handled and future use.Believe it or not German chancellor Merkel has ordered all of Germany's 17 nuke plants to be shut down for 3 months to be evaluated.Now all countries powered by nuclear energy are shaking in their boots.The U.S has 455 nuke plants alone including Con Ed's Indian point plant and Three Mile Island in PA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68 Subway Car Posted March 16, 2011 Share #13 Posted March 16, 2011 What happened in Japan was tragic, but that does not take away from the fact that nuclear power is safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted March 16, 2011 Share #14 Posted March 16, 2011 Nuclear power is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infamous85 Posted March 16, 2011 Share #15 Posted March 16, 2011 What happened in Japan was tragic, but that does not take away from the fact that nuclear power is safe. O_O I wouldn't say Nuclear Power is safe, it's highly efficient and "green" (for the most part) but safe? I'd say it's highly dangerous. Fukushima wasn't built to withstand an 9.0 Earthquake, that's why it's in the condition that it's in right now. If Nuclear power was "safe" it wouldn't be this big ordeal, a damaged power plant of some other sort wouldn't be world news. Nuclear Power is great, it's the somewhat outdated plants that aren't. I believe Indian Point is much stronger than Fukushima and we're not even in a super earthquake prone region. Nuclear plants in such volatile areas (ideally everywhere) should be totally everything proof as opposed to being a sitting duck. The Pacific Ring Of Fire is notorious for super powerful earthquakes such as this one, Fukushima couldn't have been retrofitted as technology progressed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Up Front Posted March 16, 2011 Share #16 Posted March 16, 2011 Seriously, what do you do with the waste? It doesn't disappear immediately and God forbid any of it leaks out. That's the one question I haven't seen answered here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted March 16, 2011 Share #17 Posted March 16, 2011 O_O I wouldn't say Nuclear Power is safe, it's highly efficient and "green" (for the most part) but safe? I'd say it's highly dangerous. Fukushima wasn't built to withstand an 9.0 Earthquake, that's why it's in the condition that it's in right now. If Nuclear power was "safe" it wouldn't be this big ordeal, a damaged power plant of some other sort wouldn't be world news. Nuclear Power is great, it's the somewhat outdated plants that aren't. I believe Indian Point is much stronger than Fukushima and we're not even in a super earthquake prone region. Nuclear plants in such volatile areas (ideally everywhere) should be totally everything proof as opposed to being a sitting duck. The Pacific Ring Of Fire is notorious for super powerful earthquakes such as this one, Fukushima couldn't have been retrofitted as technology progressed? Again, it wasn't the earthquake, it was the tsunami. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted March 16, 2011 Share #18 Posted March 16, 2011 Seriously, what do you do with the waste? It doesn't disappear immediately and God forbid any of it leaks out. That's the one question I haven't seen answered here. That's the one thing that bothers me besides the event of a nuclear meltdown... How long could one keep something like that going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted March 16, 2011 Share #19 Posted March 16, 2011 The used fuel is put in pools where the neutrons are absorbed by water till the fuel decays enough to not be a safety risk. This takes a long time, but it is effective. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3348 Posted March 19, 2011 Share #20 Posted March 19, 2011 Nuclear energy is actually a very feasible source of energy. People always get turned down because of the seemingly horrific drawbacks but those can be avoided with the proper engineering (see problems w/ Chernobyl, etc. in the posts above). Some other people think "ohh no nuclear energy but that will somehow lead to nuclear holocaust!!" because there is obviously an inexplicable link to nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. That's not true either... Nuclear power is promising but the downsides come at a very steep price, like... spent nuclear fuel/radioactive waste? Where will it all go? Seriously, what do you do with the waste? It doesn't disappear immediately and God forbid any of it leaks out. That's the one question I haven't seen answered here. I remember reading in my Chemistry textbook last year that nuclear waste can be reprocessed for reuse. Reprocessing is done on a wide scale in Europe and in Russia and it cuts the nuclear waste to a mere 1/5 of what it normally would be. Reprocessed fuel is also much less harmful to the environment in case something goes wrong. The US should probably get on that... http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html (for more information on reprocessing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.