Device Under Test

A "must-read".....

Recommended Posts

*cough* Only those nationals in countries with nuclear plants need to read this IMHO. <_<

I'm pro nuclear power as long as goverments make no discounts on safety!

Also, I'm proud that my home union, the EU, is sponsor to one of the most coveted international scientific projects right now: the ITER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
safety is never garanteed.....

Wrong. Google on modern nuclear plant designs and you'll be convinced.

Only downside they are expensive to build and run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
safety is never garanteed.....

Wrong. Google on modern nuclear plant designs and you'll be convinced.

Only downside they are expensive to build and run.

No way Prof.....Remember the U.S. had nukes in the forties. They invented it and where the only one to have them. And now??? "North" Korea, Israel, Pakistan to name those who should not have any. Soon some Arab countries will have them too and then what?????

In theory it is nice, but in reality it is not. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly, why you mess "nukes" with "modern nuclear plants"?

I wasn't talking about rogue states (or so to speak) having plants, I think nuclear power can make us independent from fossil fuel. We should all follow France on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelivable! Thanks for sharing it here - very thought provoking too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the surface, it seems counter-intuitive. Ontario's electricity system is in trouble because past governments fell in love with nuclear power and yet the solution being proposed is to have the government expand its nuclear capacity.

John Manley understands that this sounds a bit stupid. In fact, that's what he was thinking when Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan asked him to poke around at ailing Ontario Power Generation and determine what should be done about three idled units at the Pickering A nuclear station.

"You should be very skeptical on Pickering; we were very skeptical on Pickering," Mr. Manley said yesterday in an interview after the release of his review of OPG's operations. "I can tell you that when I first sat down with the minister and said 'You know, I don't know anything about this yet, but I'll just give my gut reaction: Don't throw good money after bad.' "

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...ment/Columnists

Ontario wants to close all coal electric plants by 2007. That means bringing more Nuclear power online to pick up the slack....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chernobyl accident was entirely preventable.

It was a known bad design the day it was built. Why? The Russians were being cheap.

It is very simple to design a reactor that shuts down when it overheats. Chernobyl was a POS that never should have been built. It is far below the rest of the worlds standards. It might even be below the North Koreans' standards.

Control rod material selection and fuel mixture gives you two choices. You can design a system that turns off if the control rods are inserted or turns off when they are inserted. What is the correct design? There is only one correct choice, hint it isn't Chernobyl's choice.

If you said that the system should be off with the control rods removed you were correct. Uses a system that is off then the rode are not inserted allows for two eventualities. The first is the control rod burning. If it burns is will mostly likely quit functioning. Second if the control rod turns the system on, they can be inserted from the bottom. This lets you design the control rods system to have a piece melt if the temp gets to high. This would shut the plant down without human intervention if there were a problem.

I have also been told by Nuclear Engineers that it is believed Chernobyl exploded during experiments attempting to get more power from the system. If Chernobyl was in the Western world, people over that project would be rotting in prison.

If you think that Global warming might be an issue, there is only one real solution to the worlds power needs. Done correctly, it is probably the safest and most environmentally friendly power source that can supply the planet.

Your argument is very reminiscent of the Hindenburg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think that Global warming might be an issue, there is only one real solution to the worlds power needs.  Done correctly, it is probably the safest and most environmentally friendly power source that can supply the planet.

What Kenny said. :)

I don't remember the issue of Scientific American which had a very nice article about alternative power plant designs. Safe and effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with nuclear reactors seems to be the waste they produce. If not for that I'd be 100% in favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, the wasted rests are put in barrels and dumped into the sea. After a few years you eventually get leaks, but who cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, the wasted rests are put in barrels and dumped into the sea. After a few years you eventually get leaks, but who cares.

HMTK is right. You are simplistic. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/electric/r...onal_notice.htm

Waste per MegaWatt hour... Nuclear=.0074lbs... Fossil fuels= 2120.2lbs /Megawatt hour...

Granted the Nuclear waste is a little more toxic than the Nitro-oxides, Carbon monoxides and sulfer that fossil fuels generate, but there is a LOT less of it, and its not a greenhouse gas...

So for all those poeple who think that 'global warming' is a problem, must support nuclear power as it adds virtually nothing to greenhouse gasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just freeze to death :)

The problem with nuclear waste is that it takes a very long time to decay nd storage facilities may start to leak. If someone finds a safe way to get rid of nuclear waste safely I'd be quite happy to see all coal, oil and gas burners shut down.

I wonder whether it's possible to put a number of satellites in orbit to capture solar energy and beam it to earth somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's just freeze to death :)

The problem with nuclear waste is that it takes a very long time to decay nd storage facilities may start to leak.  If someone finds a safe way to get rid of nuclear waste safely I'd be quite happy to see all coal, oil and gas burners shut down.

I wonder whether it's possible to put a number of satellites in orbit to capture solar energy and beam it to earth somehow.

"The problem with nuclear waste is that it takes a very long time to decay nd storage facilities may start to leak"

hehe King, you are simplistic too :D

Maybe we should dump those barrels on the moon......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible, you just beam it the way we beam it up there. Various microwave or laser implentations can be used, it's just not to economical at the moment.

Well thats what I remember a couple of years back anyway.

Of course you can put Tidal/Solar/Wind farms in the sea, and on land.

You can fit Solar panels to the top of every street light, signal etc...* and tell the power companies to figure out how to cope with the large energy swing from day to night.

Hey link the coutries up to spread the power around the word could solve that.

To get rid of nuclear waste, just send it into space away from our orbit :D

*course if they did this in the UK we'd all nick 'em to put on our houses and blame it on the students...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe we should dump those barrels on the moon......

Nah, we might want to put people on the moon. Send it to the sun, it's not like it will adversely affect it's inhabitants :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's requisite to better understand what and how things went wrong, a simple act of "a push of the button", as occurs in the movies is insufficient. And the motives of this article, although well-intended, seem unclear to me. Am I to commiserate the results of acts which I know little of and know little in preventing? Additionally, the professions whom can best rationalize the imprudent actions leading to this incident, must in hindsight, exercise ethics and develop practices towards maintaining a nuclear-power plant salubrious to the encompassing environment. This article does not bestow upon us the practices that led to this disaster. If one were to know the details, then one could have a better feel of what practices to institute. And from this article, I can only garner a sensible measure to take from a similar occasion, as closely monitoring physical conditions in a nuclear-power plant to assess and correct errors in the future. However, the information provided from the article does not empower one to rationally prevent a flipping of a switch or mashing a button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the "motives of the article" were simply that of a photo journal. I found it interesting, but there is no "moral of the story" type conclusion to be had IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now