Nuclear Power.
Forums › General Discussion › Nuclear Power.-
How do I get my flux capacitor to use the plutonium and be able to generate 1.21 gigawatts?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjCRUvX2D0E&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
ChickenESupply wrote:
There is no possibility of nuclear fuel reaching critical mass. It has to be incredibly enriched and rammed together by high explosives.A nuclear plant is a sitting bomb.
-
₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
High explosives. If Iran got to a point where it can shoot nukes, they're going to nuclear plants.ChickenESupply wrote:
There is no possibility of nuclear fuel reaching critical mass. It has to be incredibly enriched and rammed together by high explosives.A nuclear plant is a sitting bomb.
-
I have no interest in getting involved in this discussion, but from what I've read, Aladeen seems to know what he's talking about. Two points: 1) Solar power is great for residential use and can greatly help out the power grid, but the storage and transfer of solar power is horribly inefficient. If we put solar panels on every roof in Florida, it could power Florida and Washington state, but we can't get the power to Washington. 2) No matter what sequence of events takes place, a nuclear power plant will NEVER blow up like a nuclear bomb.
-
We will need to find more efficient power supplies soon as coal and oil won't last much longer.
And nuclear power is plentiful. -
Aubergine wrote:
Correct. And do not forget that solar panels use indium tin oxide, which we only have 10 years supply left of, and we all agree that turf wars is a better use of it. (touch screens)I have no interest in getting involved in this discussion, but from what I've read, Aladeen seems to know what he's talking about. Two points: 1) Solar power is great for residential use and can greatly help out the power grid, but the storage and transfer of solar power is horribly inefficient. If we put solar panels on every roof in Florida, it could power Florida and Washington state, but we can't get the power to Washington. 2) No matter what sequence of events takes place, a nuclear power plant will NEVER blow up like a nuclear bomb.
-
Nuclear power plant accidents and incidents
with multiple fatalities and/or more than US$100 million in property damage, 1952-2011Jan 3, 1961 Idaho Falls, Idaho, United States Explosion at SL-1 prototype at the National Reactor Testing Station. All 3 operators were killed when a control rod was removed too far.
Oct 5, 1966 Frenchtown Charter Township, Michigan, United States Partial core meltdown of the Fermi 1 Reactor at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station. No radiation leakage into the environment.
Jan 21, 1969 Lucens reactor, Vaud, Switzerland On January 21, 1969, it suffered a loss-of-coolant accident, leading to a partial core meltdown and massive radioactive contamination of the cavern, which was then sealed.
-
1975 Sosnovyi Bor, Leningrad Oblast, Russia There was reportedly a partial nuclear meltdown in Leningrad nuclear power plant reactor unit 1.
Dec 7, 1975 Greifswald, East Germany Electrical error causes fire in the main trough that destroys control lines and five main coolant pumpsJan 5, 1976 Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia Malfunction during fuel replacement. Fuel rod ejected from reactor into the reactor hall by coolant (CO2).
Feb 22, 1977 Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia Severe corrosion of reactor and release of radioactivity into the plant area, necessitating total decommission
Mar 28, 1979 Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, United States Loss of coolant and partial core meltdown due to operator errors. There is a small release of radioactive gasses. See also Three Mile Island accident health effects.
-
Damnit how do I get my flux capacitor to work?!?! 😡
-
Sep 15, 1984 Athens, Alabama, United States Safety violations, operator error, and design problems force a six year outage at Browns Ferry Unit 2.
Mar 9, 1985 Athens, Alabama, United States Instrumentation systems malfunction during startup, which led to suspension of operations at all three Browns Ferry Units
Apr 11, 1986 Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States Recurring equipment problems force emergency shutdown of Boston Edison’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant
Apr 26, 1986 Chernobyl, Ukrainian SSR Overheating, steam explosion, fire, and meltdown, necessitating the evacuation of 300,000 people from Kiev and dispersing radioactive material across Europe (see Chernobyl disaster effects) 56 direct; 4,000 cancer
-
May 4, 1986 Hamm-Uentrop, Germany Experimental THTR-300 reactor releases small amounts of fission products (0.1 GBq Co-60, Cs-137, Pa-233) to surrounding area
Mar 31, 1987 Delta, Pennsylvania, United States Peach Bottom units 2 and 3 shutdown due to cooling malfunctions and unexplained equipment problems
Dec 19, 1987 Lycoming, New York, United States Malfunctions force Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to shut down Nine Mile Point Unit 1
Mar 17, 1989 Lusby, Maryland, United States Inspections at Calvert Cliff Units 1 and 2 reveal cracks at pressurized heater sleeves, forcing extended shutdowns
Mar 1992 Sosnovyi Bor, Leningrad Oblast, Russia An accident at the Sosnovy Bor nuclear plant leaked radioactive gases and iodine into the air through a ruptured fuel channel.
Feb 20, 1996 Waterford, Connecticut, United States Leaking valve forces shutdown Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2, multiple equipment failures found
-
Reactors can now be designed so that if power is lost, they naturally 'cool' to a safe state (shut down).
-
Sep 2, 1996 Crystal River, Florida, United States Balance-of-plant equipment malfunction forces shutdown and extensive repairs at Crystal River Unit
Sep 30, 1999 Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan Tokaimura nuclear accident killed two workers, and exposed one more to radiation levels above permissible limits.
Feb 16, 2002 Oak Harbor, Ohio, United States Severe corrosion of control rod forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor
Aug 9, 2004 Fukui Prefecture, Japan Steam explosion at Mihama Nuclear Power Plant kills 5 workers and injures 6 more
Mar 11, 2011 Fukushima, Japan A tsunami flooded and damaged the 5 active reactor plants. Loss of backup electrical power led to overheating, meltdowns, and evacuations.
-
Sammy Guns🔫🌊🗻 wrote:
You need to fit a 'Mr Fusion' to it. Duh.Damnit how do I get my flux capacitor to work?!?! 😡
-
Fact is no fail safe is infallible, No report or article regarding nuclear energy is unbiased, and No person can state, without a shadow of a doubt, that nuclear reactors can be labeled simply as "safe". History has shown time and time again that things always inevitably go wrong when people just accept what they are told, and trust the odds blindly.
-
Yes, that is a rather large list, but if you add up the deaths they do not exceed 100, and their is no way of proving the cancers from chernobyl, and studies showed only a minor increase in one type of cancer, which had a higher than usual survival rate.
And only two of those accidents (Fukushima and chernobyl) were at the top of the nuclear disaster scale. Many more have been killed or injured due to incompetence whilst handeling materials (i.e in one case radioactive material from a hospital was sold for scrap)
-
₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
Also, the panels are made from highly toxic chemicals. China does not regulate their disposal, so many of the toxins used to make panels are dumped into rivers.Tonytlj add:TLJ wrote:
Here are the main reasons:Why not use solar power? Put a few panels on every rooftop. Problem solved.
1. It is horribly inneficient, it utilizes only 5% of the energy it recieves. Nuclear uses 70%
2. Solar panels are made with indium tin oxide, we use this in touch screens and only have ten years supply left.
3. It is unreliable, as we do not get sunlight all the time.
-
₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
Okay I am so sick of your sheep ways. NO DEATH SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. You aren't taking long term radiation exposure into account, which causes tens of thousands more dead. You are cherry picking your arguements. And on top of all of that you simply aren't correct if you consider reactors and radiation "safe". You just aren't. There will be more accidents. More people will die. You just aren't right.Yes, that is a rather large list, but if you add up the deaths they do not exceed 100, and their is no way of proving the cancers from chernobyl, and studies showed only a minor increase in one type of cancer, which had a higher than usual survival rate.
And only two of those accidents (Fukushima and chernobyl) were at the top of the nuclear disaster scale. Many more have been killed or injured due to incompetence whilst handeling materials (i.e in one case radioactive material from a hospital was sold for scrap)
-
And how many people have died in coal mines and gas plants etc.
-
I'm not saying there's not dangers with other energy sources. I'm just not understanding why you are pushing your weak agenda this much. You are devaluing human life by stating only 100 people died blah blah. It's kind of pathetic in my eyes to consider people dying from far more dangers and in far greater numbers than you are sharing in your argument, acceptable.
Its obvious you are circumventing the things that don't fit your original conclusion. I mean what exactly is it you stand to gain from convincing people that they should trust in reactors?
-
₲яєєŋϻɑɳÐɪʂɪƞfø wrote:
Shit happens. Accidents happen in all industries, nuclear is one of the safest, have you seen the safety precautions in new reactors?₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
Okay I am so sick of your sheep ways. NO DEATH SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. You aren't taking long term radiation exposure into account, which causes tens of thousands more dead. You are cherry picking your arguements. And on top of all of that you simply aren't correct if you consider reactors and radiation "safe". You just aren't. There will be more accidents. More people will die. You just aren't right.Snip
Snip
And radiation is not that bad from plants. I would happily have a picnic beside fukushima. I wouldnt live there but it is safe to pop in. And think of other sources of power! Coal mines, oil rig fires, gas explosions, if the three gorges dam burst tens of thousands would be killed!
-
Thousands have already died due to bursting dams
-
💀ՏɧʀɪɲʉϮ💀 wrote:
This, greenman what are you trying to sayAnd how many people have died in coal mines and gas plants etc.
-
₲яєєŋϻɑɳÐɪʂɪƞfø wrote:
Relative risk is a concept you should look into. Also you should stop being so naieve if you think talking about the relative risk to human life is 'devalueing' it.I'm not saying there's not dangers with other energy sources. I'm just not understanding why you are pushing your weak agenda this much. You are devaluing human life by stating only 100 people died blah blah. It's kind of pathetic in my eyes to consider people dying from far more dangers and in far greater numbers than you are sharing in your argument, acceptable.
Its obvious you are circumventing the things that don't fit your original conclusion. I mean what exactly is it you stand to gain from convincing people that they should trust in reactors?
-
Z👿 wrote:
Coal miners know the risk.💀ՏɧʀɪɲʉϮ💀 wrote:
This, greenman what are you trying to sayAnd how many people have died in coal mines and gas plants etc.
-
And the fact is we have to power a growing population with diminishing fossil fuels and it has to be affordable.
-
₲яєєŋϻɑɳÐɪʂɪƞfø wrote:
Ya but nuclear power looks safer to me I mean just in my family many people have gotton hurt and on of my family members was even close to death all thanks to oil₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
Okay I am so sick of your sheep ways. NO DEATH SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. You aren't taking long term radiation exposure into account, which causes tens of thousands more dead. You are cherry picking your arguements. And on top of all of that you simply aren't correct if you consider reactors and radiation "safe". You just aren't. There will be more accidents. More people will die. You just aren't right.Yes, that is a rather large list, but if you add up the deaths they do not exceed 100, and their is no way of proving the cancers from chernobyl, and studies showed only a minor increase in one type of cancer, which had a higher than usual survival rate.
-
Z👿 wrote:
I'm trying to say ₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ is terrible at giving a reputable argument once you take a moment to consider his character, and what value he places on his fellow man. Snap out of it. Saying deaths caused by reactors aren't relevant to your views that they are "safe" is irrational, and an obvious trait of someone disconnected from humanity.💀ՏɧʀɪɲʉϮ💀 wrote:
This, greenman what are you trying to sayAnd how many people have died in coal mines and gas plants etc.
-
And that's why I win. Nana nana boo boo. I actually don't fully support any of the posts I've made in this thread. I was just bored lol. 😜 but I did create an unbeatable rebuttle. Any response to the contrary would be weak or irrelevant. You can't actually prove any energy source is safe completely. As with most things in life.
PS that includes my last post.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC