Nuclear Power is safe. Fuck you if you disagree.

Question: Is it a problem that nuclear generating stations in the United States don't have a central location to dispose of their spent fuel rods? Would it be safer to build a storage facility deep underground, away from towns (desert in between CA/NV/AZ?) where all the nuclear generating stations around the US would dispose of said fuel rods?

The problem is (as always) people hear the word nuclear and freak the fuck out.

Back a number of years there was this awesome invention called synroc. As the name suggests, it's like synthetic rock, you can encapsulate all your nuclear waste in it, and it basically makes a solid rather than a liquid, so you can store it with minimal risk of it polluting water streams or anything like that. With synroc, you can dump a whole lot of nuclear waste in an old mine, and not worry as much about earthquakes breaking open your barrels.

People will stick freak the fuck out at the idea of having nuclear waste anywhere near them.
 


I just don't understand why these things aren't built a few hundred feet underground?, I mean sure you have to have outlets for ventilation, steam, entrences etc but in cases like these just get everyone out and blast them shut.
 
I'm not letting this one slide - your hard-on for FOX just earned you a nice bitch slap: The article is from the (overly liberal) Associated Press
As stated elsewhere many times on this forum; I'm not a liberal.

Bad press is bad press. -And so far I haven't seen any good press except for maybe the BBC and a few temporary exceptions.
 
You are actually arguing that the dangers of oil and nuclear materials are comparable. I think that's my cue to get back to teh internet monies.
You're right. There is no comparison between modern Nuclear and modern oil/coal at all... We lose hundreds or even thousands of lives every year, even here in the US, to coal dust inhalation, oil plant accidents, mining accidents, fraking, pollution when using, and other problems with the black stuff. -Not to mention the Billions of dollars worth of environmental & economical damage that Deepwater Horizon and Valdez caused.

Compared to that, modern Nuclear power is completely safe. No contest at all.
 
I found this article pretty helpful..

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/03...actor-meltdown

Combine the word “nuclear” with the word “meltdown,” and you get something which sounds really scary to the average person. But all those scientists on cable news talking about what’s happening in Japan aren’t always clear about what a nuclear meltdown is, and isn’t. Is it an explosion? Will it burn a hole to the center of the earth? Does it spray radioactive stuff into the air, poisoning the surrounding landscape?

The answers: No, it’s not an explosion, though there can be some explosive side effects. We’ve seen that already in Japan, where a couple of reactor buildings have blown up. No, it would not burn a hole to the center of the earth. The movie “The China Syndrome,” which popularized that notion, was fiction. And whether a meltdown is an environmental disaster depends on a number of factors, including how extensive it is, and how well the nuclear power plant's safety features can contain it.

Japan earthquake and tsunami aftermath: narrow escapes

First, let’s consider what a nuclear reactor is: a giant, glowing red-hot coal. That’s a simplistic way of describing it, anyway. Nuclear reactors, just like fossil fuel-burning power plants, make electricity by heating up water so it turns into steam and drives a turbine, which powers a generator.

To use another analogy, the nuclear fission which creates this heat is a bit like the chaos you’d get if you toppled a giant pyramid of canned tomatoes. First, one can would fall, and then it would bounce off several more cans, knocking those over, and then they’d all bounce downhill, creating an ever-expanding chain reaction. And each time a can hit another can, it would produce a spark of heat.

In Japan, this chain reaction stopped at the time of the earthquake, when the reactors shut down as a safety response. But nuclear fission produces such enormous amounts of heat that it takes a long time for the reactor core to cool. Plus, the fissile material keeps giving off what’s called “decay heat” as it continues to emit radiation. Right after shutdown, a nuclear reactor is still producing large amounts of heat, so you’ve got a pretty big job keeping the whole thing cool.

Normally that’s done by circulating water around the core. But in Japan, the earthquake knocked out all means of moving this coolant. Once that happens, the water can turn to steam, laced with hydrogen and other explosive elements. This increases pressure in the containment building. That’s what caused the building explosions we’ve seen so far.

Japanese nuclear officials are desperately pumping sea water into the reactor buildings to try and cool things off. But the pressure from the steam and continued heat makes that much more difficult to do than it sounds. It appears that nuclear fuel rods, which contain the fissile stuff, have been exposed to air for some unknown period of time in several of the reactors. At that point, without cooling water surrounding them, the rods (which are zirconium, in case you were wondering) start to blister and buckle.

As they deform, the rods release radioactive fuel byproducts that normally they’d be able to contain. The open spaces between them – through which water normally would be able to flow – get blocked up, making it even harder for them to dissipate heat. They melt. Hence the term – “meltdown.”

At that point you’ve got a big radioactive mess. A partial meltdown means that some of the rods melted prior to coolant being restored. A total meltdown means, well, a total meltdown. It explains itself.

But “a meltdown does not necessarily mean that there will be a large release of radioactivity. This will depend on the integrity of the primary and secondary containments,” notes a helpful Union of Concerned Scientists factsheet (pdf).

“Primary containment,” in this case, refers to the steel casing which surrounds the reactor core. It’s more than five inches thick, and it’s designed to contain radiation in case of failure. The Chernobyl reactor did not have this crucial feature, which is one of the big reasons why it was such an environmental disaster.

It’s possible that this casing won’t melt through if the fuel rods have a meltdown. At Three Mile Island, which experienced a partial meltdown of its core, the casing held. On the other hand, it's possible that the casing will melt through. The building itself is a secondary containment system – it’s designed to have negative air pressure, as if a big fan was pulling air inside, so that radioactive gas does not just flow out. But, as noted above, at least two of the buildings at Japan's nuclear power plant have been heavily damaged by explosions.

----

This could potentially be GREAT news: They are potentially getting power back to restore cooling systems...


http://www.ajc.com/business/new-powe...ay-873783.html

FUKUSHIMA, Japan — A nearly completed new power line could restore cooling systems in Japan's tsunami-crippled nuclear power plant, its operator said Thursday, raising some hope of easing the crisis that has threatened a meltdown and already spawned dangerous radiation surges.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. spokesman Naoki Tsunoda said the new power line to the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant is almost finished and that officials plan to try it "as soon as possible," but he could not say exactly when.

The new line would revive electric-powered pumps, allowing the company to maintain a steady water supply to troubled reactors and spent fuel storage ponds, keeping them cool. The company is also trying to repair its existing disabled power line.
 
You're right. There is no comparison between modern Nuclear and modern oil/coal at all... We lose hundreds or even thousands of lives every year, even here in the US, to coal dust inhalation, oil plant accidents, mining accidents, fraking, pollution when using, and other problems with the black stuff. -Not to mention the Billions of dollars worth of environmental & economical damage that Deepwater Horizon and Valdez caused.

Compared to that, modern Nuclear power is completely safe. No contest at all.

I was going to write sometime similar but you beat me to it.
 
AFP: New fire deepens disaster-hit Japan's nuke crisis

"Amano reiterated that unlike Chernobyl, the Fukushima reactors have primary containment vessels, and had also shut down automatically when the earthquake hit, so there was no chain reaction going on."

here's the basic design of fukushima:

BWR_Mark_I_Containment%2C_cutaway.jpg

I agree with you Papa.
These Japanese plants are quite old.
With the third generation of nuclear reactors even an airplane attack is useless with their 4 level of security redundancy.

2ive9sh.jpg


b680ic.jpg
 
Why do I have the feeling you aren't the expert that you think you are?

I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I know nuclear physics, have my degree in physics, graduate studies in physics at a top 10 nuclear physics program. I know how these plants work (on a physics level and general level) and what their safety features are.
 
jeez that fracking shit definitely needs stopping
but hey this nuclear shit, I`lll run with that...media scaremongering a sign of all our times

the real issue and focus is the people really effected by the tsunami
 
why is the best news found on places like dailymail.co.uk ? the US press sanitizes and spins everything...
 
I'm pro-nuclear and have been lurking here. Good stuff. But guess what - there ain't gonna be no 'next generation' at this point.

Cue more dependence on foreign oil in 3..2..1..

Pebble bed reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia FTW

"The reactor is cooled by an inert, fireproof gas, so it cannot have a steam explosion as a light-water reactor can. The coolant has no phase transitions—it starts as a gas and remains a gas. Similarly, the moderator is solid carbon; it does not act as a coolant, move, or have phase transitions (i.e., between liquid and gas) as the light water in conventional reactors does."

"A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail, and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It simply goes up to a designed "idle" temperature, and stays there."

"These safety features were tested (and filmed) with the German AVR reactor.[6]. All the control rods were removed, and the coolant flow was halted. Afterward, the fuel balls were sampled and examined for damage and there was none."
 
As stated elsewhere many times on this forum; I'm not a liberal.

Bad press is bad press. -And so far I haven't seen any good press except for maybe the BBC and a few temporary exceptions.
Meh, BBC today was pretty crappy - fearmongering, making it seem like it's gonna be Chernobyl - plus, want an interview with someone who knows what they're talking about?

Nah, just interview some random Japanese person in their house about how they don't trust the government. Always the best way to get an objective analysis... *rolleyes*

why is the best news found on places like dailymail.co.uk ? the US press sanitizes and spins everything...
LOL. I'd rely on Fox News any day over the Daily Mail.