My Neighborhood news: Earthquake, Nuke plant radiation release

mikea

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name
iWin
Home Airfield
C81
We had one here that registered 4 on the Richter scale. Our earthquakes are bigger than your earthquakes. Neener neener.
 
In 1987 Jim Hard was flying a downwind dash in his Schweizer 1-26 and caught his best thermal of the day from that Nuke Plant. Allowed him to extend his flight to landing at Hinkley, 294 miles. He wrote it up in an article for the 1-26 Association, titled "Nuclear Powered Soaring". He even wrote a thank you note to the guy in charge of the plant.
 
SCCutler said:
A 4 is not even enough to be a weinie-tickler!
Click to expand...


But it gives the bed wetters an excuse to not solve our energy problems with Nuke power. :rolleyes:

But France can do it. :confused:
 
we had a 3 and 3.5 this fall. i think that is just about right. doesn't knock anything off the shelves but you still get the fun of feeling the earth move.
 
tonycondon said:
we had a 3 and 3.5 this fall. i think that is just about right. doesn't knock anything off the shelves but you still get the fun of feeling the earth move.
Click to expand...

Trying to resist...but can't...
what-she-said-zoom.png
 
mikea said:
And JAPAN can do it! :hairraise:
Click to expand...


Nobody is suggesting putting Nuke plants anywhere near a place with seismic activity close to what those areas in Japan have. Get real.

Where have we EVER had a problen with a Nuke plant due to earthquakes in the U.S.? Might want to get some "Depends" on your way home tonight. Hear they're popular in IL. :D
 
Anthony said:
Where have we EVER had a problen with a Nuke plant due to earthquakes in the U.S.? Might want to get some "Depends" on your way home tonight. Hear they're popular in IL. :D
Click to expand...

No, we've managed plenty of problems without earthquakes. And we don't have so much as a plan to deal with the waste.
 
Anthony said:
Nobody is suggesting putting Nuke plants anywhere near a place with seismic activity close to what those areas in Japan have. Get real.
Click to expand...

Where have we EVER had a problen with a Nuke plant due to earthquakes in the U.S.? Might want to get some "Depends" on your way home tonight. Hear they're popular in IL. :D[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#Earthquake_hazard

Hey, I don't mind getting power from our nukes. Now the rest of y'all get our power from our nukes that we pay/paid for. I just don't need the gamma rays.
TEPCO conducted the endoscopy of the Containment Vessel of Reactor 2 to see the inside. TEPCO's spokesman Matsumoto said in the press conference that the white specs in the video is from gamma rays. White streaks across the screen are water droplets.

Click to expand...
 
steingar said:
No, we've managed plenty of problems without earthquakes. And we don't have so much as a plan to deal with the waste.
Click to expand...

True enough.

We also don't have much of a plan to deal with the waste from the other means of generating electricity.
 
Anthony said:
But it gives the bed wetters an excuse to not solve our energy problems with Nuke power. :rolleyes:

But France can do it. :confused:
Click to expand...

France also uses reprocessing. We discard 97% of the fuel. And then some point out that the way we're using Uranium it's only going to last for 50 years. But of course!
 
steingar said:
What do you mean? According to some there is no problem with dumping tons of CO2 into the air.
Click to expand...

as well as the various pollutants.

Don't get me wrong, dealing with the nuke waste is a necessary step to continuing to use nuke energy (nevermind trying to increase its usage).
 
zaitcev said:
France also uses reprocessing. We discard 97% of the fuel.
Click to expand...
Sad but true. We need to be reprocessing spent fuel too. There are so many uses for reprocessed fuel such as the medical industry and others. Fuel rods in US nuclear reactors are burned around 4.5 years before being shuffled out to a spent fuel pool for storage at your local plant. For the past twenty years or so we have been paying a surcharge on our electric bills for the development of a national storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Unfortunately our bud's in Washington have used these funds for other unrelated things and our nuclear plants have yet to be able to send the first spent fuel rod to Yucca Mountain. It really makes me angry they can impose hidden taxes like these surcharges on our electric bill then not deliver on what the money was suppose to be used for.

I know a large portion of our nation are scared of nuclear power but it is one of the most efficient and cleanest ways to generate the vast amounts of electricity demanded by our society today. When electric cars take off it will only drive demand up that much more. I know a lot of people like the wind farms but unfortunately they require too many acres of land per killowatt to supply power in the quantities needed. I personally like the solar cell concept, but at this time they are too inefficient and costly to be a viable option. That cycles us back around to nuclear, good or bad, being the only source capable of meeting our growing demands.

YMMV
 
If I recall correctly, breeder reactors (which do all the spent fuel reprocessing) use liquid sodium, I think as a coolant. Liquid sodium is about as nasty a thing as I can imagine.

That said, the French have been doing this for awhile. The Japanese wanted to, but never did get the plant on line. We of course have no such capacity and not even a plan to begin.
 
Palmpilot said:
4???

WIMPS!
Click to expand...

SCCutler said:
A 4 is not even enough to be a weinie-tickler!
Click to expand...

Takes at least a 5.0 to wake me up. Calibrated with the aftershocks from the Loma Prieta quake (7.1) in 1989. Epicenter 6 miles from our house at the time.

steingar said:
If I recall correctly, breeder reactors (which do all the spent fuel reprocessing) use liquid sodium, I think as a coolant. Liquid sodium is about as nasty a thing as I can imagine.
Click to expand...

The Navy tried a liquid sodium plant in a submarine once. Such a bad plan that they took it out of the boat and replaced it with a pressurized water plant. Buried the liquid sodium plant in Idaho. No argument with you on this point.
 
This is why I keep pushing for DiLithium Crystals. They're mined on other planets so no need for reclamation here, (who cares if we trash Coridan?), plus the waste can be used to formulate plot complications!


:D


Maybe we should outsource the nuke industry to........France? I know, it wouldn't work due to the metric system.
 
Bob Noel said:
...We also don't have much of a plan to deal with the waste from the other means of generating electricity.
Click to expand...

Sure we do. The waste is transmitted 24/7 through air to be processed in the respiratory systems of billions of humans and collected in the plants and animals they eat. And somehow, that's more palatable to most people than accepting the very low chance of a release of trace amounts of radiation from a nuke plant, and storing the waste in geologically stable rock and salt formations.

The emotional undercurrent from WWII "nuclear guilt" makes people irrational on the issue. It's amazing that Japan, of all nations, became one of the leading per capita users of nuclear power.
 
PW_Plack said:
Sure we do. The waste is transmitted 24/7 through air to be processed in the respiratory systems of billions of humans and collected in the plants and animals they eat. And somehow, that's more palatable to most people than accepting the very low chance of a release of trace amounts of radiation from a nuke plant, and storing the waste in geologically stable rock and salt formations.

The emotional undercurrent from WWII "nuclear guilt" makes people irrational on the issue. It's amazing that Japan, of all nations, became one of the leading per capita users of nuclear power.
Click to expand...

More radioactive material dumped into the air from a coal fired plant (think - Carbon 14) than from any nuke. Or so we were taught back in 1975 when I worked on a nuclear shipyard.
 
PW_Plack said:
Sure we do. The waste is transmitted 24/7 through air to be processed in the respiratory systems of billions of humans and collected in the plants and animals they eat. And somehow, that's more palatable to most people than accepting the very low chance of a release of trace amounts of radiation from a nuke plant, and storing the waste in geologically stable rock and salt formations.
Click to expand...

As I said, "not much of a plan"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top