If not Nuclear Power, then WHAT??

lsuacner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,659
The power failures on Koeberg are not isolated, it's happened far too many times. Both on unit 1 and unit 2. Better luck next time donkey.
k so nuclear power does not work all the time. Whats your point? A rugby match in France did not have power and in RSA it fails all the time. It doesn't mean it isn't safe, it does however mean its more reliable than wind power.
 

Gnome

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
6,011
Don't those reactors shut down because they are overdrawn? Because any other power station does exactly the same thing... If they didn't the turbine would get damaged.
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,359
Anyway you two just keep battling it out, your both on opposite ends so obviously none will convince the other, but it's very entertaining to watch, everytime I press F5 a new post has popped up :D
LOL. We're down to ad hominems at this stage! :D

But I see my erstwhile enemy the Baron has returned to add weight to our side!
:)
 

Baron Hohenzollern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
186
k so nuclear power does not work all the time. Whats your point?
That's my point, Genius.

A rugby match in France did not have power and in RSA it fails all the time. It doesn't mean it isn't safe, it does however mean its more reliable than wind power
And you speak of primitive minds, you think Wind is the only alternative?:rolleyes:
 

lsuacner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,659
That's my point, Genius.
And you speak of primitive minds, you think Wind is the only alternative?:rolleyes:
So your point is you have a non-nuclear power generator, which does not cause any waste, but is completely reliable?

*sells stocks*

*buys hippie bull*****
 

Highflyer_GP

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
10,123
In all honesty hydro-electric power is probably the best compromise for both sides. Huge power generating capacities, environmentally safe and virtually idiot-proof. The only problem is the initial costs of construction.
 

jab2

Active Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
66
I am amazed at our species. The less we know about a subject, the more we feel ourselves an expert to comment on said subject. :mad: I would like to point out a few things that are never mentioned or wrongly used when talking about nuclear power and the danger of radiation.

The acronym SCRAM is used by non-nuclear people to mean that something has gone wrong in a reactor and that some danger is immanent and conclusive. The word comes from “Safety Control Rod Axe Man” and refers to earlier test piles where a guy with an axe had to cut the rope holding the control rods. Cutting the rope drop the control rods into the pile to bring the nuclear reaction to a speedy stop and was a safety precaution. It is like doing emergency braking with your car. There was a danger, but you CONTROLLED it by braking.

People comment on radiation as if nuclear power stations and weapons are the only source. Nobody talk about NORM (Normally Occurring Radioactive Material) or objects and human actions, which deliberately expose us to radiation. We had watches which radioactive phosphor dials, we frequently get X-rays and never worry about it, we fly jet aircraft high up in the sky where radiation is higher than down on earth. Why do we not worry about these things? Because the risk is so small that it is not worth worrying.

Lets look at some NORMs where human activity is increasing the radiation risk. Mineral sands that is mined for Titanium and Zircon often contain the mineral Monazite, a rare earth mineral, which contain Thorium, and this is subject to gravity concentration, to such an extend that radioactivity to the extent of 4000Bk/Kg is sometimes measured. On mining this sand a lot of dust containing this Thorium is released in the air, yet nobody complain, because it is not common knowledge.

Phosphate rock used for fertilizers contains some Uranium and Thorium. In Superphosphate sold in the USA, the concentration can go up to 3000 Bk/Kg.

Granite, on which we live and used for dimension stone in buildings, contain on average 3 ppm Uranium and 17 ppm Thorium. The radioactivity of granite can approach the same levels as low grade tailings in Uranium mines. People living in Paarl, under the shadow of Paarl rock, receive a much higher radiation dose than the people from Bloubergstrand receive from Koeberg. In fact they do not receive any from the Koeberg Power Plant.

One of the decay products of Uranium 238 is Radium 226. This decay to Radon 222, which is a gas with a half live of 4 days and accumulate in building basements were such buildings were erected on uranium rich soil/rock. The EPA in the USA has a max level of 55 Bq/m3 and an action level of 150 Bq/m3. Levels of up to 100 000 Bq/m3 has been measured in some homes.

And now my favorite closet skeleton; Coal. Most coal contains Uranium and Thorium, as well as Potassium-40, Lead-210, and Radium-226. This does not burn and most emerge from the power station in the light fly ash, which is fused and chemically stable. Some 99% of fly ash is typically retained in a modern power station (90% is some older ones), and this is buried in an ash dam or in SA a huge pile.
The amounts of radioactive species are huge. In Victoria, Australia, 65 million tonnes of brown coal is burned annually for electricity production. This contains about 1.6 ppm Uranium and 3.0-3.5 ppm Thorium, hence about 100 tonnes of Uranium and 200 tonnes of Thorium is buried in landfill each year in the Latrobe Valley. Australia exports 235 Mt/yr of coal with 1 to 2 ppm Uranium and about 3.5 ppm Thorium in it, hence up to 400 tonnes of Uranium and about 800 tonnes of Thorium could conceivably be added to published export figures.
Although the actual radioactive levels are not high compared to other NORMs, there is enough uranium in fly ash that the China National Nuclear Corp commissioned Sparton Resources of Canada with the Beijing No.5 Testing Institute to develop an extraction method by way of leaching.

The energy locked in the Uranium (via nuclear reaction) contained in coal is actually higher than the energy one get by burning the coal, and this will come at a cost of 0 CO2 produced, not taking emissions by running axillaries in account as both plants will have these.

Now if 90-99% of the ash is retained, where does the rest go? Up in the air, for you and me to breath, and radionuclides in the lungs is much more dangerous than on the skin. People living near coal power stations are actually exposed to higher radiation doses than ones living near a nuclear plant, if such plants are operated to government regulations by about a factor of 100.

I am not ashamed to say I am an advocate of nuclear power, but also do not say that other technologies should not share the burden of providing energy. What I however would like to see is a healthy debate where the opponents of nuclear power do not use lies to shoot it down. So please when arguing this, make sure of your facts and look at the big picture, including the design, manufacture, operation and decommissioning of a power technology, not only the operation of it.

Oh and please do not use the Greenpeace website as your only reference. They have shown their one-sidedness and willingness to distort the facts on more than once already.;)
 

Baron Hohenzollern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
186
In all honesty hydro-electric power is probably the best compromise for both sides.
Yes it is.
Huge power generating capacities, environmentally safe and virtually idiot-proof. The only problem is the initial costs of construction.
Initial costs of construction should bare no relevance when looking at the long term effects of such an installation. It's not a short term investment, it is a long term investment and as such it should be evaluated in retrospect to a long term situation. The initial costs over due corse would be significantly low in comparison to the returns over the duration.
 

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,475
In all honesty hydro-electric power is probably the best compromise for both sides. Huge power generating capacities, environmentally safe and virtually idiot-proof. The only problem is the initial costs of construction.
You're not including hydro-electric power from dams are you? Because dams damage ecosystems and are not always safe.
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,359
I am amazed at our species. The less we know about a subject, the more we feel ourselves an expert to comment on said subject.
And you're the expert are you?

The acronym SCRAM is used by non-nuclear people to mean that something has gone wrong in a reactor and that some danger is immanent and conclusive. The word comes from “Safety Control Rod Axe Man” and refers to earlier test piles where a guy with an axe had to cut the rope holding the control rods. Cutting the rope drop the control rods into the pile to bring the nuclear reaction to a speedy stop and was a safety precaution. It is like doing emergency braking with your car. There was a danger, but you CONTROLLED it by braking.
It is in frequent use by nuclear people ( if you want to call them that ) - just go looky-look at the NRC reports. Sometimes them control rods get a bit stuck too LOL! ****, at Windscale they were trying to push the FUEL rods out with SCAFFOLDING poles found next door!

Nobody talk about NORM (Normally Occurring Radioactive Material) or objects and human actions, which deliberately expose us to radiation. We had watches which radioactive phosphor dials, we frequently get X-rays and never worry about it, we fly jet aircraft high up in the sky where radiation is higher than down on earth. Why do we not worry about these things? Because the risk is so small that it is not worth worrying.
Yes well that stuff doesn't go klik-BOOM like Chernobyl! Personally I avoid X-rays. Humans trying to control nuclear chain reactions DO worry me. It's like standing on a tiger's tail.


What I however would like to see is a healthy debate where the opponents of nuclear power do not use lies to shoot it down. So please when arguing this, make sure of your facts and look at the big picture, including the design, manufacture, operation and decommissioning of a power technology, not only the operation of it.

Oh and please do not use the Greenpeace website as your only reference. They have shown their one-sidedness and willingness to distort the facts on more than once already.
I'll use who I want. And who is telling the lies, poephol? The condemnation of the Windscale scientists after "the event" was wholly based on lies, and has caused a deep mistrust of politicians by scientists that persists to this day. What about the lies covering up TMI, Chernobyl? The "nuclear fraternity" are hardly friends of truth. How else are we getting saddled with this expensive untested pebble-magooftah?

:p
 
Top