billvon 3,131 #26 June 22, 2005 >Same as Windscale... Which is? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #27 June 22, 2005 >doesn't hydrogen blow up easily? Yes, very easily. It is also hard to transport and store, since it's the lightest (i.e. least dense) gas out there. And it leaks through everything, since it's the smallest gas molecule known to man. >I've heard hybrids have a nasty habit of cutting out (i.e., dying) at >certain speeds (< 50mph). Leaves the driver struggling for control. That was a software bug on one early version of the Prius, which caused the gas engine to stop operating at highway speeds. You still had the electric motor and steering/brakes to stop with. It's since been fixed (and the Priuses that had the problem got a SW upgrade.) >Also, not sure if they come with 4-wheel drive, so could be a >problem in snow bound areas. The Toyota Highlander comes in a 4WD version. Electric motors drive the rear wheels when needed. >What's the order-of-magnitude cost to put a solar installation on a >2500 square foot house? With state incentives it's about $3/watt. Without it's about $6/watt. >How many hours a day of sun do you need for it to be cost effective? The more the better. Phoenix has payback times of around 6 years with state incentives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #28 June 22, 2005 QuoteYes, but 3 mile Island was almost a disaster due to lackluster performance, not design. Well, the indicator lights on a couple of those stuck valves were wired to the switch, not the valves themselves. Switch it to closed, the light indicates closed, the valve is still open - yay! That's a bad design. Always directly measure what you are measuring. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #29 June 22, 2005 >Switch it to closed, the light indicates closed, the valve is still open - > yay! That's a bad design. Always directly measure what you are >measuring. Well, to be fair, that was backed up by a temp gauge in the output pipe for just that reason - to give an actual indication of valve function. If it's reading 600F, there's steam coming out. Not as good as a position indicator, but a backup nonetheless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #30 June 22, 2005 I'm an ex-navy nuke. nucular panner plants are good if engineered well and manned by highly trained people with steady simple processes and old/proven technology (don't get fancy). I think that civilians may be able to do it well enough, with a little coaching. Ron said it really well - ignorance makes us accept a lot of bad in conventional energy sources. It also makes 'some' unreasonable opposed to nuke. Education won't help these people, they are looking for a cause. Proliferation of commercially and market driven plants would be regulated right up to the point where they are too expensive to build. Good idea, but good luck on the implementation ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #31 June 22, 2005 Quote>Same as Windscale... Which is? The predecessor to TMI and Chernobyl. Wigner release in a graphite moderated reactor leading to a fire.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #32 June 22, 2005 Quote>doesn't hydrogen blow up easily? Yes, very easily. It is also hard to transport and store, since it's the lightest (i.e. least dense) gas out there. And it leaks through everything, since it's the smallest gas molecule known to man. . Which also means it can be readily absorbed in certain materials (such as palladium)- a potential storage scenario that doesn't need high pressure or low temperature.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #33 June 23, 2005 this reply is not aimed at anyone in particular, but I think it's worth pointing out that nuclear accidents have not been confined to reactor cores, there's dozens of accidents that have occurred in processing and storage facilities as well. this report makes a fascinating read, if you've got a few hours to pour into it. even though it's complex and freakish when it goes wrong, imo nuclear power still has a lot offer nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #34 June 23, 2005 Yes! -Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #35 June 23, 2005 I hope the 90% of people in favour agree that the waste should be disposed of on your own peice of dirt. The idea of boats shipping it around to where you plan to dump it makes me nervous. Ahh. 3 Mile Island. Why does that ring a bell? tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #36 June 23, 2005 I have not voted as I am not in the US but I wanted to throw something into the fray. As I write this nearly everyone has voted for yes and with various reasons - more efficient, less reliance on fossil fuels, enviromental benefits etc. etc. Why then do these reasons not apply for somewhere like Iran? They want to be able to build Nuclear power plants for the very reasons that America do that are quoted above, but this is vetoed by the international communty. Obviously there is a worry they will develop nuclear weapons if they have the technology which only us powerful reliable nations can have in order to keep control, but other than that why shouldn't these other countries also be allowed to share the upside of this technology - I mean, it's great if America doesn't use as much fossil fuel as they are the largest economy in the world but if every country other than the few we 'allow' these plants do then the damage is still done... CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #37 June 23, 2005 QuoteWhat's the order-of-magnitude cost to put a solar installation on a 2500 square foot house? How many hours a day of sun do you need for it to be cost effective? Thats a BillV question.....I live in a trailer on a DZ"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #38 June 23, 2005 QuoteWhy then do these reasons not apply for somewhere like Iran? They want to be able to build Nuclear power plants for the very reasons that America do that are quoted above, but this is vetoed by the international communty. Obviously there is a worry they will develop nuclear weapons if they have the technology which only us powerful reliable nations can have in order to keep control, but other than that why shouldn't these other countries also be allowed to share the upside of this technology Well even big ass countries like the Us have problems handling the processing storage and waste produced by a nuclear plant. Even in the US the storage plans suck ass. And there is enough nuclear material floating around the world (The majority in the former USSR) to make 40,000 bombs! Chornobal killed 170,000 people. It was an accident due to lack of attention to detail. People who were working at Chornobal didn't have training, the plant was not maintained, saftey devices were ignored or broken.....Basicly they didn't take the potential accidents seriously.... Three Mile Island, same things almost casued a major death toll in the US...And the US is supposed to be a leader in nuclear energy? A country like Iran there is much more potential for the fuel or waste to be "lost". Also the quality of the programs and safety of them is unknown, but not thought to be high. The risk is great. And a major issue is the fact that they need nuclear materials...And those same materials can be made into bombs... I *Think* a CANDU reactor's fuel is not able to be made into a high yield weapon.... But thats a question for Kallend and both Bill's."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #39 June 23, 2005 >I hope the 90% of people in favour agree that the waste should >be disposed of on your own peice of dirt. Sure. Give me my chunk of used fuel i.e. the amount of spent fuel that went to provide me with power for the first 35 years of my life. Vitrify it in glass. It will be about the size of a hockey puck. I'll bury it 20 feet deep in my back yard, and not worry about it. >Ahh. 3 Mile Island. Why does that ring a bell? Worst disaster in the history of US nuclear power. No deaths or injuries. There are two coal fired power plants in Massachusetts that, together, kill 160 people a year from their smoke. They release tons of mercury, uranium, thorium, cadmium and arsenic into the air every year. Which one would you rather live next to, one of those power plants or Three Mile Island? I'd much rather be near TMI. I'll live a lot longer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #40 June 23, 2005 Absolutely. Nuclear energy has taken a beating in our culture ever since the comic strips and movies about mutant monsters in the 1950's. The general public just doesn't seem to understand how safe and clean it is. As much as I'd like to see us improve our nuclear energy production capability, I don't believe I will anytime soon. It may make for decent press for Bush to say he'd like to increase our production, but it doesn't ring all that true in my ears. For an example of why, the sodium was just recently drained at FFTF. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #41 June 23, 2005 QuoteWhat's funny about the nuclear debate is how differently it's perceived. People will talk endlessly about TMI and how it was almost a disaster. But in 2000, a gas line to a natural gas power plant exploded and killed 11 campers, including 5 children, who were out in the middle of nowhere minding their own business. And it barely makes the news. There are whole towns that have been evacuated because coal mines have led to fires that eat out the towns from beneath. And that's never made the national news to my knowledge. Coal dust explosions regularly kill miners and power plant workers, and something like 30,000 americans are killed every year from particulate pollution from coal fired power plants. It's odd that we hold nuclear power plants to the incredibly high standards we do, and odder still that so many people think they are unsafe when they meet those standards, given the alternative. Funny in an odd sort of way, not a ha-ha sort of way. People seem to get so bent out of shape about the possible environmental effects of nuclear power without stopping to consider the un-sustainability or the very real environmental effects of natural gas and coal-fired utilities. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
