Could Nuclear Energy be the Answer?

Establishment said:
Well, then, some chemist needs to figure out a way to break uranium down.
Click to expand...

Or effectively find another use for the Fuel rods after they can no longer generate steam..
Spent fuel rods are not really totally spent. They continue to generate a lot of heat for hundreds of years.
 
Last edited:
Right said:
The reactions are contained, not taking place inside the atmosphere, moron.
Click to expand...

Are you volunteering to store the waste up your ass, numbnuts ?

Reactors are actually inside the atmosphere, incidentally- but I thought I was addressing an adult forum.
 
Right said:
HOW FUCKING IRONIC IS YOUR POST
Click to expand...

Ironic ? It's substantial enough to make yours look stupid.

Did you really think that reactors operated outside of the atmosphere ?


No wait- you thought you saw an opportunity to appear smart but then shot yourself in the ass.
 
As an employee for a major US Nuclear Technology provider, I say yes! :)

Until the country wakes up to the truth about Nuclear energy, we'll just keep supplying it to power our Navy so they can be out at sea for years on end without needing to refuel.
 
DigitalDave said:
As an employee for a major US Nuclear Technology provider, I say yes! :)

Until the country wakes up to the truth about Nuclear energy, we'll just keep supplying it to power our Navy so they can be out at sea for years on end without needing to refuel.
Click to expand...

the only thing that scares me about nuclear is terrorists. In brussels the actual target was the tihange plant.

Lets say that somehow one of them blew up a nuclear plant. Since you are in that field would it be a cherynobl type thing? Or does there need to be special circumstances for that to happen?

Basically im curious how bad it can be.
 
tsuke said:
the only thing that scares me about nuclear is terrorists. In brussels the actual target was the tihange plant.

Lets say that somehow one of them blew up a nuclear plant. Since you are in that field would it be a cherynobl type thing? Or does there need to be special circumstances for that to happen?

Basically im curious how bad it can be.
Click to expand...

There does have to be special circumstances, and any attempt to 'blow it up' would be laughable at best. There are hundreds of controls to prevent a nuclear disaster like Chernobyl. Honestly Chernobyl taught us a ton on what not to do, and the Japanese didn't want to take our companies advice to move inland when they built the plant at Fukashima.

We also had plans to provide a much smaller power plant, and it was funded by the government, but they bailed on it. Look up mPower

http://www.bwxt.com/nuclear-energy/utility-solutions/smr/bwxt-mpower
 
moon2012 said:
Ironic ? It's substantial enough to make yours look stupid.

Did you really think that reactors operated outside of the atmosphere ?


No wait- you thought you saw an opportunity to appear smart but then shot yourself in the ass.
Click to expand...

The reactions take place inside a sealed system. In just about everywhere except in the former Utopia of USSR, that system is inside what is basically a massive concrete bunker.

So for you to claim that nukes are in the atmosphere is laughable. HAHAHAHA
 
DigitalDave said:
There does have to be special circumstances, and any attempt to 'blow it up' would be laughable at best. ]
Click to expand...
Correct me if wrong, but as I recall, the containment vessels constructed in the US were simulation-tested with a 911 type attack, a fully loaded 747 impacting it straight-on at terminal velocity. And the vessel remained completely intact.
 
DigitalDave said:
There does have to be special circumstances, and any attempt to 'blow it up' would be laughable at best. There are hundreds of controls to prevent a nuclear disaster like Chernobyl. Honestly Chernobyl taught us a ton on what not to do, and the Japanese didn't want to take our companies advice to move inland when they built the plant at Fukashima.

We also had plans to provide a much smaller power plant, and it was funded by the government, but they bailed on it. Look up mPower

http://www.bwxt.com/nuclear-energy/utility-solutions/smr/bwxt-mpower
Click to expand...

ok so im not going to argue that they can blow it up. Because they can and they will. But basically what your saying is even if it does blow up it would be just like if a mall or something had blown up and nothing extra damaging would occur because it is a nuclear plant?
 
Right said:
Correct me if wrong, but as I recall, the containment vessels constructed in the US were simulation-tested with a 911 type attack, a fully loaded 747 impacting it straight-on at terminal velocity. And the vessel remained completely intact.
Click to expand...

No correction is needed there. You are correct.
 
tsuke said:
ok so im not going to argue that they can blow it up. Because they can and they will. But basically what your saying is even if it does blow up it would be just like if a mall or something had blown up and nothing extra damaging would occur because it is a nuclear plant?
Click to expand...

Well, a bit more costly in dollars than a mall, but just as equal in environmental impact. There are at least 3 different barriers ranging in thickness and it can be completely controlled. Backup systems are in place for backup systems, and backup systems are in place for those. The anticipation for something so disastrous has been engineered into the system, and most of the cost of building a plant is not the actual functional plant itself, it's all the systems that have to be put in place to make sure we never have another Chernobyl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top