OT: Please send this link to everyone one your mailing list

Page 10 of 12  
Larry W wrote:

> Personally I'd much rather have a nuclear reactor in my back yard

Same here.
I lived for years around 8 miles from a nuke plant. I didn't move, they decommissioned the plant.
The radioactive materials that exist in coal, and are released into the atmosphere when the coal is burned, seem to get often ignored.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You see, Barry...or should I call you BARRY??.<G>... there are plenty well-run safe nuclear power stations. It's when private industry starts shaving off a buck here or there, that's when you get problems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Yeah, that private industry debacle at Chernobyl, Soviet Union was really a wake-up call for what happens when you let corporations shave costs and cut corners. Too bad it wasn't the Soviet government running that plant, then all safety procedures would have been properly followed, there would have been multiple checks and double-checks before anybody tried doing anything stupid, and no problems would have occurred. Live and learn I guess.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup, as competent as the Morton Thiokol engineering department. (O- ring division).
The accident at Chernobyl was a spin-down station-service test that wasn't thought through very well. Incompetence, human error, call it what you will, but to draw parallels between how we do things here and how they were done there, is absurd. A nuclear power station comes with a lot of responsibility. You just don't hand one over to just anybody. But if you want to put your government's conscientiousness at par with the Soviets, go for it, I know that the regulatory systems in place here in Canada are far more sophisticated than that. A test like that would never have been approved here. But, I am wasting my typing skills here. You're anti-government now because this new guy isn't bouncing around on his pogo stick yelling: "drill, baby, drill!!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

IRCC the test at Chernobly was turned down also but the EXPERTS went ahead and did it anyway. Also the reactor was not housed in a containment facility. It was constructed inside an ordinary, albeit large, power plant building.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David G. Nagel wrote:

A whole chain of things happened at Chernobyl.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Right!
And ours have containment buildings and everything!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
B A R R Y wrote:

And don't use graphite modulators (except possibly for Hanford which is/was not used for power gen an may not even be in use anymore) that can catch fire and spread radioactive contaminated smoke into the air.
The most severe "event" in a U.S. power gen site was Three Mile Island that had *zero* human radiation-related casualites or deaths. This was confirmed later when a court threw out some wildeyed claims to the contrary.
The lack of nuke power in this country is a tribute to the lousy science "education" of the educational madrassas on the one hand and the effectiveness of the environmentalist lunacy on the other. There is a predictable health consequence to the outgassing of coal fired plants that appears to be OK with the Sheeple, but a clean, contained nuke plant scares them. We have met the enemy and he is us...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:21:55 -0500, B A R R Y cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

Ummmmmm... and the difference in degree is... what?
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Trust me, it is spot on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:06:03 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

I'm sorry but I cannot trust you on this point. Nuclear waste is a dramatic problem that far outweighs the issues we deal with today, in coal and oil burning. I believe you are looking at one small aspect of the problem and ignoring the overwhelming aspects of your proposed solutions.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
But then, you yanks can't do what the French do ... ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The fossil barons are doing a good job keeping people scared. The bastards.

In large quantities it certainly is. Today's technology has improved Protection & Control immensely. The waste issue is a relative one. CANDU reactors are very safe, but a bit pricey. Pretty cool though..and beautiful to look at.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

Or you could burn sodium in a pure chlorine environment and produce table salt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wouldn't have to salt the roads then, drive and deice, nice.
basilisk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That would make for interesting filling stations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David G. Nagel wrote:

Researchers are looking into the possibility of burning salt water. See:
http://www.californiagreensolutions.com/cgi-bin/gt/tpl.h,content 7
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nova wrote:

Well, actually what they're talking about is a novel form of electrolysis using RF rather than direct electrical contact. You still have to put more energy in than you get out, and don't end up with storable fuel in the interim, so it's really more of a laboratory curiosity than anything suitable for powering vehicles or power plants.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If only the second law of thermodynamics could be repealed, this might actually be useful.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

I'll grant that. Should have said perfect combustion of carbon-based fuels. Nuclear reactions are even more perfect, producing only steam.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.