RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


kittinSol -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 5:16:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

McCain has changed from his previous voting record in support of Yucca Mountain.  He now wants to send the nuclear waste over seas.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/19310899.html


To Iran [>:] ?




Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 5:33:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

McCain has changed from his previous voting record in support of Yucca Mountain.  He now wants to send the nuclear waste over seas.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/19310899.html


To Iran [>:] ?

I wanted to say that!!!!!!!




Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 5:36:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight
You make a good point about fusion reactors.  They also produce a great deal more power if I remember correctly what I read. 


At present all methods of creating a sustained fusion reaction require more input energy than is produced.

An energy source is required to excite the hydrogen isotopes into a plasma state so the fusion can occur and a high intensity magnetic field is required to keep the highly energetic particles safely in one place so the reaction can continue.


I had to reread some stuff because on fusion reactors.  The correct statement should have been that they have the potential to create more energy.  Kudos on that catch.  I still like the theory of them though. 




DomKen -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 8:19:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight
You make a good point about fusion reactors.  They also produce a great deal more power if I remember correctly what I read. 


At present all methods of creating a sustained fusion reaction require more input energy than is produced.

An energy source is required to excite the hydrogen isotopes into a plasma state so the fusion can occur and a high intensity magnetic field is required to keep the highly energetic particles safely in one place so the reaction can continue.


I had to reread some stuff because on fusion reactors.  The correct statement should have been that they have the potential to create more energy.  Kudos on that catch.  I still like the theory of them though. 

The reality is that barring a major theoretical leap forward, room temperature superconducters or a way to locally manipulate gravity, its not ever going to be a practical energy source. Ultimately there are a lot of other power generation techniques that are more feasible, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal and fission to name a few. The dream of clean, cheap and abundant power coming from one giant temple to our technological prowess may have to be replaced with a dream of clean, cheap and abundant power coming from a multitude of sources on a much smaller scale.




darkpassenger434 -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 8:27:16 AM)

I'll have to come back with the research, but I recently read in a reputable science publication that the green movement was having serious problems because one of the original contributors to the gaia hypothesis has openly stated that nuclear is the way to go. According to this article, its really the only viable choice at the moment to replace current power production methods and is much safer than given credit. Apparently the green uber alles crowd haven't stopped to think that coating the earth in enough solar panels and wind turbines to make the current technology viable on a large scale would be a massive ecological disruption. We need technology that is proven.
-R




Vendaval -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 2:14:32 PM)

This is direction I think energy production is already going and will continue to do so.  Different geographical areas are better choices for different technologies, say geothermal or solar or wind.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Ultimately there are a lot of other power generation techniques that are more feasible, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal and fission to name a few. The dream of clean, cheap and abundant power coming from one giant temple to our technological prowess may have to be replaced with a dream of clean, cheap and abundant power coming from a multitude of sources on a much smaller scale.




DomKen -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 2:22:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkpassenger434

I'll have to come back with the research, but I recently read in a reputable science publication that the green movement was having serious problems because one of the original contributors to the gaia hypothesis has openly stated that nuclear is the way to go. According to this article, its really the only viable choice at the moment to replace current power production methods and is much safer than given credit. Apparently the green uber alles crowd haven't stopped to think that coating the earth in enough solar panels and wind turbines to make the current technology viable on a large scale would be a massive ecological disruption. We need technology that is proven.
-R

Realistically giant solar and wind farms aren't the solution. Most every roof in the US could have some sort of solar panels on them. It wouldn't generate all the power those buildings need but it would make a sizable dent. Wind farms where the conditions are right. Sensible use of hydro, see TVA. Nuclear to fill in the usual load and probably some modern natural gas plants for peak needs. That's an energy policy I could get behind. The fact that it would create or revitalize at least three different industries which would inevitably mean good jobs for americans is just icing on the cake.




Vendaval -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 4:00:12 PM)

I live in a small place that has skylights.  They provide plenty of lighting during the day.  Most likely these were installed by some of the local college kids back in the 70's. [sm=hippie.gif]




bipolarber -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 4:45:46 PM)

"...these things aren't built of paper, you know!"

Yeah, yeah, yeah... where have I heard this crap before?

"The Titanic is garuanteed to be totally unsinkable!"

"Gentlemen, the Three Mile Island Reactor conforms to every NRC regulation in regaurds to saftey."

"Comrades, if we thought the Chernobl plant were in any way unstable, we wouldn't be building new communities so close to it, now would we?"

"Here she comes, drifting down slowly, a beautiful sight! Certainly Germany must be proud of their technological achievement in the Hindenburg as we see her coming over the New York skyline, approaching her docking here in New Jersey..."

"Honestly, Ma'am, this new drug, thalomide, is the newest thing to relieve stress, and we all know how stressful a woman in your delicate condition can be, so if you don't mind we'll start you out on a regular dose of the medication..."

"Ready to buy your first new home, Kids? That's great! We'll close on Monday. Yes, the homes here in the new Love Canal development certainly are beautiful, aren't they?

We've all heard the "nukes are as safe as sleeping in your own bed" argument way too many times. Let's ask the folks out at 3 Mile Island, or Chernobl how they feel about it...

And now McCain wants to fast track 45 of them across the country. Really fast track them... so many that the construction saftey inspectors will be overwhelmed...

So, we want lots of nuke plants...
We want them fast...
We want to build them as cheaply as possible
And we want them as close to densely populated areas as we can manage...
and nothing can go wrong...
go wrong...
go wrong...
wrong...
wrong...
wrong...




Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 9:24:48 PM)

bipolar, how many people were killed at 3 mile island?  As for chernobyl, design differences and fuel differences make it impossible for an american reactor to do what that one did.  Our commercial fuel sources are not capable of running that hot a reaction.  Its designed to be that way  to prevent exactly that kind of accident.  A little real research into the differences in our program and russia's would have told you that. 
You are holding onto a bias based on a lie someone told you.




Griswold -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 9:38:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

Hummm... let's phrase it another way... "McCain Wishes To Build 45 New Potential Terrorist Targets That Could Obliterate Large Sections of the US With Radioactive Steam From Core Meltdowns."

... somehow, it's not as cheery a message, when you put it that way...


Well to phrase it that way would be dumb.  We already have 104 commercial nuclear power plants operating.  We get 20% of our power from nuclear energy, and we are the world's largest commercial supplier of nuclear power.

American power plants are specifically designed to contain meltdowns.  The worst thing a terrorist could do would be to get into the control room (past all the heavily armed guards.) and shut down the coolant source.  I am not an expert, but that's not an easy thing to do from what I read.  You can't cause a meltdown with a truck bomb or by crashing an airplane into a plant. 

If you want to worry about terrorists causing industrial accidents; than the best place to look is a chemical plant, a refinery, or a city's water supply.  Nuclear power is safe, clean, and efficient. 


Okay....that's fine, and I respect your obvious knowledge on the subject....but....what if...let's just suppose....

They got past all the guards.

They got past every single (multiple, I'm sure) security system and device in the entire quadrant.

Dogs....lasers....locked doors....men with guns....men with lots of guns....more dogs....more lasers....

And then....

Then.....

They came in....fully munitioned....armed to the teeth....ready to pull the trigger.....and....


And......

Were wearing anti Republican badges????????????

WHAT THEN ?????????




NumberSix -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 9:53:03 PM)

Then they would say, why is there so much ado about nothing, your nuclear plant, nor your nuclear waste will drive my car...

Or were you expecting something less causal? 




Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 10:00:18 PM)

Having seen the control room of one of this country's plants, they would probably say, "What the fuck button do I need to hit?  or is it a switch?  A dial??????"  My guess would be that by the time they got into the control room, the vital parts of the process would be locked down tight.  The control processes do take time to shut down.  The invaders would most likely throw their lives away without causing any kind of a radiological incident.
Of course, you can keep asking what if all day and all night.  Anyone with UMs knows that.




NumberSix -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 10:09:56 PM)

well, rudely speaking this is Asimov/Pellegrenos first law.


these beings believe they know what they are doing.

but you talking heads begin anew,  and flesh the shit out for me (don't swivel your ass out of the chair, or feet out of the waste basket...........)


LOL




DomKen -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 11:10:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

Having seen the control room of one of this country's plants, they would probably say, "What the fuck button do I need to hit?  or is it a switch?  A dial??????"  My guess would be that by the time they got into the control room, the vital parts of the process would be locked down tight.  The control processes do take time to shut down.  The invaders would most likely throw their lives away without causing any kind of a radiological incident.
Of course, you can keep asking what if all day and all night.  Anyone with UMs knows that.

That's not entirely true. If they know what they're doing they can go for either the primary coolant system or the core itself, they are presumably suicide attackers, both of which can certainly cause some serious havoc. Primary coolant is radioactive live steam when the plant is operating and for a while after shutdown. A nice big brick of plastique on the right pump or pipe and you'll certainly have a major radiological event.

While it isn't discussed a whole lot there has to be a way to physically get into the core for refueling and removal of spent rods. getting that door open might be beyond any sort of realistic assault force but once again a couple of kilos of C4 placed in/on the door and frame could perhaps break containment.

Realisticaly there are lots of easier ways to cause trouble but Al Qaeda has shown a propensity for the big flashy attack so you never know.




DomAviator -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/21/2008 4:48:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

That's not entirely true. If they know what they're doing they can go for either the primary coolant system or the core itself, they are presumably suicide attackers, both of which can certainly cause some serious havoc. Primary coolant is radioactive live steam when the plant is operating and for a while after shutdown. A nice big brick of plastique on the right pump or pipe and you'll certainly have a major radiological event.

While it isn't discussed a whole lot there has to be a way to physically get into the core for refueling and removal of spent rods. getting that door open might be beyond any sort of realistic assault force but once again a couple of kilos of C4 placed in/on the door and frame could perhaps break containment.

Realisticaly there are lots of easier ways to cause trouble but Al Qaeda has shown a propensity for the big flashy attack so you never know.


The primary cooling loop and heat exchangers in western plants are located inside the containment building. Even if there was a loss of coolant accident, the resulting spillage and steam would be contained inside the containment building.

As far as getting into the core, they would need weeks. My dad did a commercial diving job during a refueling cycle at a plant on Lake Ontario. (They contract divers to assist in the refueling process and to rerack spent fuel.) First they take the reactor subcritical, then after weeks of cooling they remove the head from the core which requires teams of divers, working in short intervals under the supervision of a health physicist, to undo hundreds of bolts so that the top can be lifted off and the core exposed using a crane... Its really a major construction job that goes on three shifts a day 7 days a week for months.

Its not valid to compare a modern reactor to something like SL-1 or a Soviet design. SL-1 for those who dont know was a rather ugly "accident" (actually it generally considered a murder / suicide) at a research reactor back in 1961. To make a long story short, a technician was pissed off that the other guy was fucking his girlfried, and he yanked out a control rod sending the reactor supercritical and causing a steam explosion. (In the interest of fairness, there are some other theories about yanking on a stuck rod, improperly stroking the rod in and out to smooth it etc but the generally accepted theory is the love triangle murder suicide - why else would someone stand on top of a nuclear fucking reactor and yank out a control rod? Anyway, SL-1 was back in the days of the nuclear cowboys, when it was all so experimental that people really didnt know what they were fucking with and didnt use containment etc.

As for Russian reactors. All I can say is the russians shouldnt have microwave ovens much less nuclear reactors! Chernobyl was one of a long line of soviet accidents, the entire north atlantic is littered with the remains of soviet subs that went down following reactor disasters -K-8 (twice),  K-19 (twice), Icebreaker Lenin, K-27, K-140, K-123, K-219, the Kursk, Chernobyl just to name a few... Soviet designs are simply fucked up because they are built to become more reactive as they get hotter whereas US civilian plants lose reactivity as they heat up. US engineers are taught to design for anything - from a toaster oven to a nuclear powerplant to "fail safe" whereas the soviets just "make it work".

But if an Al Queada team wanted to invade a nuclear power plant, with a team of commercial divers, crane operators, reactor technicians, and to hold that plant for several weeks while they got into the core - they could do damage. Of course my bet is that the control room operators and/or automated systems would SCRAM the reactor as the gunbattle was raging outside and long before anyone entered containment. I would also bet that the DOE security police, who are a rather unpleasant bunch, as well as any necessary militrary forces (SEALs / Delta) would be brought in to retake the plant before the divers could even suit up and get the first bolt out.

Al Queda really isnt that flashy or hi tech... Basically their whole MO is "running into shit" - ie the USS Cole was a suicide bomber ramming the ship with a boat load of explosives, the embassy bombings were truck bombs run into them, 9-11 was flying jets into buildings... The most sophisticated technological resource they employed in any of their attacks were goons with boxcutters slicing up defenseless female flight attendants. Thats a far cry from them being able to fight their way into a nuclear plant, to seize control of that plant, and to defeat multiple redundant fail safes... Assuming they could - for what purpose? Chernobyl which could never happen in a US design, only killed 57 people total over the last 20 years. They could get more bang for their buck walking into a McDonalds with an AK-47 and to do so wouldnt require a team of suicidal engineers and a substantial ground force.

I myself have baccaleurate and masters degrees in engineering, was trained to handle, render safe, and destroy if neccessary the nuclear weapons deployable on my aircraft, and am pretty damned good with mastering highly complex systems. (Like all three stations in the cockpit of a 747). Ok, so Im definitely not some cave dwelling Beduin goat herder who doesnt know how to work a flush toilet like the cretens they recruit. However, despite my background, if you put me in a nuclear power plant, handed me the actual blueprints for it, and told me I could have unlimited personell and equipment resources to have once chance to fuck it up in any way I saw fit - it would take me weeks to figure out how to do it in a way that would defeat the fail safes and multiple redundancies. Im not even sure if I could! Chances are I would fuck up the sabotage attempt, it would automatically cut over to a backup sysyem so the net results of my efforts would be to spill a little water, and in three days it would be cleaned up, the valve replaced and they would be back online. I really doubt we would allow these neaderthals weeks fumbling around in there, with multiple restart cycles, till they got it right....  

I am a lot more afraid of seeing an arab man getting on a Metro bus, or watching one handing out slurpees than I am of them getting into the South Texas Project. Germs are relatively easy to grow, and pretty easy to toss into the slurpee machine... One of many reasons I wont do business with them. If I want any type of food or drink I can buy it from an American, Hispanic, or Asian.




Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/21/2008 7:38:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

That's not entirely true. If they know what they're doing they can go for either the primary coolant system or the core itself, they are presumably suicide attackers, both of which can certainly cause some serious havoc. Primary coolant is radioactive live steam when the plant is operating and for a while after shutdown. A nice big brick of plastique on the right pump or pipe and you'll certainly have a major radiological event.

While it isn't discussed a whole lot there has to be a way to physically get into the core for refueling and removal of spent rods. getting that door open might be beyond any sort of realistic assault force but once again a couple of kilos of C4 placed in/on the door and frame could perhaps break containment.

Realisticaly there are lots of easier ways to cause trouble but Al Qaeda has shown a propensity for the big flashy attack so you never know.

At the plant I worked in, they would have had to getin past all the security and get through more doors to get to the pumps which were all under ground.  When I patrolled those areas it took 30 minutes to make my way down there and I had access.  To get to them, you had to go through the building.  The coolant pipes also were protected by a number of concrete walls.  In the control room, things weren't labeled the way any normal person would label them.  They wouldn't be able to look around and go "Oh.  That button shuts off the pumps for the primary coolant."  Unless they had prior knowledge, they would probably go. "What the fuck is X10-A?  What is R57V3?"  The only button I was sure of was the frakkin light switch on the wall.   Our buildings could be shut tight enough to contain steam leaks.  Everyone inside would probably die but their would still be no release of radiological material. 
As for you supposition about a door to the reactor to replace spent fuel rods, you have no clue what you are talking about.  I was working at the plant during a refueling outage.   During refueling, the plant shuts down for two to three months.  They get to the rods by taking off bolts with heads bigger than your own head and removing the top os the reactor.  There is no door frame.  Just several feet of solid steel and a huge concrete cap that fits protectively over it.  A bomb the size of the OK City bomb would barely get through the cap if that. 
To get at the active rods, they would have to go through several walls and another steel wall.  They would have to know precisely which walls and it would still leave them open to fire from security forces.  Then, the very act of removing them without the proper equipment would kill them.  To carry the proper equipment, they would have to ditch some of their explosives they would need to get through the walls.  During shutdowns, they actually tear down walls to get to things and then rebuild them. 
All of that would take well over an hour and our plant could be locked down and non operating in that time.  They prefer to run it down in about 8 hours but can shut it down in 1.  The security measures will easily hold any small force for more than one hour. 
I am impressed with your theoretical knowledge of how these things work.  I have practical knowledge.  It was part of my job to prepare for exactly what you guys are trying to imagine.  I walked that plant 5 to 6 days a week for over a year.  Its not that easy to create a radiological incident.




DomKen -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/21/2008 8:36:41 AM)

Actually my experience is practical as well. I served on the USS Long Beach and trained on the basics of how the plant operated and where stuff was as part of DC party training..




DomAviator -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/21/2008 9:13:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Actually my experience is practical as well. I served on the USS Long Beach and trained on the basics of how the plant operated and where stuff was as part of DC party training..


Im calling bullshit on this. Unless you were one of the glow worms, you never set foot in a Naval reactor space. Period, you never got past the yellow door and didnt see shit. As a matter of fact, there was a big stink aboard the Reagan when a bunch of sailors went to mast over a music video that included a shot of the yellow door. http://origin.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293716,00.html

Your training on "where stuff was" consisted of being told that your ass does not enter that area and that anything that happens beyond that yellow hatch is the glow worms business and not yours. By the way, Navy reactors arent even close to civilian reactors - for one thing they use highly enriched (read weapons grade) fuel. I did an entire WESTPAC aboard the "Mobile Chernobyl" and never even saw the door to the reactor area much less entered it or was shown anything of or about the plant. The Navy is practically mental with its security about all things nuclear... You know Ken, its yet another example of how "your Navy" seems entirely different from MY Navy... How do you explain those amazing discrepencies??? So odd.... You were in the United States Navy right???




Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/21/2008 1:08:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Actually my experience is practical as well. I served on the USS Long Beach and trained on the basics of how the plant operated and where stuff was as part of DC party training..

Sorry.  Learning the basics of how a shipboard reactor does not qualify as practical experience on a commercial power plant.  They are different animals.  That would be like me trying to train a camel to joust. I know the basics about camels but have no actual practical experience. Horse training might be similar but its not the same.
For a commercial reactor, the only practical experience is working in a commercial reactor.  Shipboard reactors are limited in ways that commercial are not, ie the inability to put up a small city's worth of concrete and the need to minimize space.  Commercial reactors are limited in that they are not designed to nor allowed to use weapons grade fissionable material.  Ships don't have the ability to bury entire subsystems.  Commercial plants do and they did. 






Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875