Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Nuclear Energy
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

don522(at)webtv.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: Nuclear Energy

From:    D. McCallister 

              don522(at)webtv.net (don522(at)webtv.net)                          

                                                                     On a recent list, it was mentioned "Go Nuclear".   In 1987 I was invited to the Westinghouse Hanford Company at the Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory in Richland, Washington.   During the tour, we were given a small card which had a Simulated Fast Breeder

Fuel Pellet attached.  This pellet was approx. 3/16" Diam by 1/4" long.   A pellet of this size will produce essentially the same amount of energy as:

   3 tons of coal, or

   12 barrels of oil, or

   500 gallons of gasoline, or

   75,000 cu. ft. of natural gas.

Now, why have we waited so long for using this technology to produce power for autos and aircraft?

Do not archive

Don

      [quote][b]

seipel(at)seznam.cz
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject: Nuclear Energy

We don't use it for cars or aircraft because it doesn't work on that 

scale yet.  You can't extract the energy from 1 pellet.  You need enough 

pellets to create a critical mass in order to sustain a chain reaction, 

along with water, graphite, or some other exotic material to moderate 

the reaction and prevent a nuclear explosion.  You also need some method 

of turning the heat created by the reaction into some form of power, 

i.e. a steam generator, plus some kind of shielding to keep the 

radiation inside where you want it.



While the calculations are correct that one pellet produces that much 

energy, it only works when you have hundreds or thousands of the 

pellets.  The smallest reactor I've seen is roughly the size of a large 

room (college nuclear physics lab), and most are much larger.  Great 

technology for for power plants, ships, subs, and such but at our 

current level of technology, not very efficient for small vehicles like 

cars, or where weight is an issue like aircraft.  Maybe someday.



PJ Seipel

do not archive



Don McCallister wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   From:    D. McCallister

               don522(at)webtv.net 

 <mailto:don522(at)webtv.net>                         

                                                                      

 On a recent list, it was mentioned "Go Nuclear".   In 1987 I was 

 invited to the Westinghouse Hanford Company at the Hanford Engineering 

 Development Laboratory in Richland, Washington.   During the tour, we 

 were given a small card which had a Simulated Fast Breeder

 Fuel Pellet attached.  This pellet was approx. 3/16" Diam by 1/4" 

 long.   A pellet of this size will produce essentially the same amount 

 of energy as:

    3 tons of coal, or

    12 barrels of oil, or

    500 gallons of gasoline, or

    75,000 cu. ft. of natural gas.

 Now, why have we waited so long for using this technology to produce 

 power for autos and aircraft?

 Do not archive

 Don

 *

 *

btemplin(at)templinelectr
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject: Nuclear Energy

You're not the first this think of this.  It's been looked into before:



http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=Space,History



Brad



--

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: Nuclear Energy

Don McCallister wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   From:    D. McCallister

               don522(at)webtv.net 

 <mailto:don522(at)webtv.net>                         

                                                                      

 On a recent list, it was mentioned "Go Nuclear".   In 1987 I was 

 invited to the Westinghouse Hanford Company at the Hanford Engineering 

 Development Laboratory in Richland, Washington.   During the tour, we 

 were given a small card which had a Simulated Fast Breeder

 Fuel Pellet attached.  This pellet was approx. 3/16" Diam by 1/4" 

 long.   A pellet of this size will produce essentially the same amount 

 of energy as:

    3 tons of coal, or

    12 barrels of oil, or

    500 gallons of gasoline, or

    75,000 cu. ft. of natural gas.

 Now, why have we waited so long for using this technology to produce 

 power for autos and aircraft?

 Do not archive

 Don

Others answered about the micro scale; I'll answer about power plants.
	




I believe that the simple answer is this: The nuclear industry & our 

government were far less than open and pragmatic about danger & risk. 

After Chernobyl, the US party line was that 'nothing like that could 

ever happen here'. Then 3Mile Island happened.



I realize that no one died at 3 Mile Island, but the circumstances 

surrounding the incident made it 'one more case' of government 

deception. If they implied that nothing at all bad could happen & then 

something did, maybe something much worse could happen next time.



Understand, I'm not talking about the real risks; I'm talking about 

average citizens not being able to trust their government to tell them 

the truth. Obviously. the same principle applies when the government is 

'crying wolf', as we may soon see.



Charlie

3edcft6(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: Nuclear Energy

Charlie England wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Others answered about the micro scale; I'll answer about power plants.



 I believe that the simple answer is this: The nuclear industry & our 

 government were far less than open and pragmatic about danger & risk. 

 After Chernobyl, the US party line was that 'nothing like that could 

 ever happen here'. Then 3Mile Island happened.


	


I'm not sure if it was unintentional or not, but you implied that 3 Mile 

Island happened "after" Chernobyl, when in fact it happened long before 

Chernobyl.  I don't have to rely on what the government or nuclear 

industry say.  When I lived in Syracuse, NY, a friend of mine was an 

engineer at the nuclear plant they were building on lake Ontario North 

west of Syracuse.  After Chernobyl happened he told my that it is 

amazing how superior the plant he was working on was to the one in 

Ukraine.  And what happened there could in reality NEVER happen here.  

The Russians didn't care much about safety, they just wanted it built 

fast and cheap.  The design of the reactor was flawed from the 

beginning.  I don't remember the details to prove that, I just remember 

it had something to do with a dry vs a wet reactor.  At the plant my 

friend was working on if a melt down were to happen, it was amazing the 

number of levels of safeties that would either stop it or at the very 

least contain it.  If I had to have a power plant in my back yard I 

would take a nuclear one over any other type in a heart beat.  That is a 

US nuclear plant.  As for the Russians, there is evidence that the 

pathetically sub standard job of containing Chernobyl, may in fact 

eventually prove to be more dangerous than it was the first time.

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 I realize that no one died at 3 Mile Island, but the circumstances 

 surrounding the incident made it 'one more case' of government 

 deception. If they implied that nothing at all bad could happen & then 

 something did, maybe something much worse could happen next time.

Well you have to be an idiot if you believe some one that tells you 
	


"nothing bad could happen".  Something bad can always happen, but how 

likely is it?  Given the number of nuclear plants around the world 

operating 24/7 and only two significant incidents, I would say they are 

pretty safe.



 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Understand, I'm not talking about the real risks; I'm talking about 

 average citizens not being able to trust their government to tell them 

 the truth. Obviously. the same principle applies when the government 

 is 'crying wolf', as we may soon see.

I have to agree with you here, you just can't trust the government on 
	


anything.  You have to always take an "I'll believe it when I see it" 

attitude, even then it may not be believable:)

do not archive



-- 

Chris W

KE5GIX



"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM, 

learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"



Ham Radio Repeater Database.

http://hrrdb.com

n343fd(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:06 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy

Mike Divan

N64GH - RV6,flying 

SLOW 7 Builder 

EAA - 577486

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!



Others  answered  about  the  micro  scale;  I'll  answer  about  power  plants.



 	  Quote: 	
		  I  believe  that  the  simple  answer  is  this:  The  nuclear  industry  &  our 

government  were  far  less  than  open  and  pragmatic  about  danger  &  risk. 

After  Chernobyl,  the  US  party  line  was  that  'nothing  like  that  could 

ever  happen  here'.  Then  3Mile  Island  happened.


	


 >not  being  able  to  trust  their  government  to  tell  them 

[quote]the  truth.  Obviously.  the  same  principle  applies  when  the  government  is 

'crying  wolf',  as  we  may  soon              -  The  RV-List  Email  Forum  Use  the  Matronics  List  Features  Navigator  to  the  many  List  utilities  such  as  List  Archive  Search  &  Download,  7-Day  Browse,  Chat,  Photoshare,  and  much  much    -->                      -  MATRONICS  WEB  FORUMS  Same  great  content  also  available  via  the  Web    -->                   -  List  Contribution  Web  Site  Thank  you  for  your  generous                                            -Matt  Dralle,  List    -->  [quote][b]

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy

Actually, there was a "nuclear powered airplane", or at least the design and initial engineering for one.  They ran into so design problems, namely exhaust and hundreds of free chest x-rays per hour for the crew.  To run at high enough temps to generate the heat to create thrust, the temp of known materials were exceeded and the contamination plume existing each engine would have contaminated half the State they flew over.  



Equally daunting was personnel shielding.  A reactor at power (critical) needs a biological to stop the gamma radiation.  In a power reactor or submarine, this is not a problem as the several inches of steel and surrounding containment knocks the radiation down to near background levels.  However, having 6 inches of lead shielding around the nuclear engine in an airplane creates some W&B problems that even a non-aeronautical engineer can appreciate.  Absent heavy shielding, the crew would have been 'crispy critters' after a couple flights.



Ultimately, it was an interesting intellectual exercise but one of the dumber things tried.  With all that said, nuclear power, used in the proper application, is an excellent source or power.  Cradle to grave, nuclear power is environmental friendly.  Low-level radioactive waste can be buried in landfills and will decay to insignificance in a few decades and to background in 300 years.  A chemical landfill is a far greater hazard.  Even disposal of spent fuel is more a political problem then a technical one.  As we become more and more strangled by our addiction to oil, some of the political resistance may fall away as well.



As gmcjetpilot says (quoting gmc makes me short of breath and flush), there is no one solution; all of the tools need to be applied.   I concur.  Nuclear, as good as it is, and recently has become cheaper per KW than oil, natural gas or coal, is not a solution in itself, but companioned with all the other alternatives can make a big dent in our oil problem.   In the mean time, the low cost/no cost solution is conserve, conserve, conserve.  I know I'm going to do my part.  I'm going to run my IO-540 at 65% power at cruise instead of 70%.  



Chuck Jensen



--

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:02 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy

Charlie...



Comparing Chernobyl and Three Mile Island is totally apples and oranges.  One was a disaster and the other an accident.  Each resulted in nearly worst case outcoome for thier respective design.  Chernobyl killed hundreds and contaminated hundreds of square mile, some still not inhabitable.  The difference is design.  Chernobyl had positive reactive coeefficient--in other words the faster and hotter it got, the faster and hotter it went.  Chenobyl was simply a horrible design.  Further, Chernobyl had no containment, or at least the containment they used was the equivalent of a galvanized machine shed.  When the badly designed reactor blew (a steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion), there was nothing to contain it.



By comparison, U.S. and European reactors all have negative coefficients.  As they get hotter, left to their own devices, the reaction slows down and the reactor cools down, the exact opposite of the Russian design.  In the case of TMI, the reactor became starved for water because of operator error, some of which was compounded by inadequate/inaccurate instrumentation.  Subsequently, the nuclear industry by put through a painful refitting/retraining of both man and machine over the next 10 years, to ensure that TMI did not happen again--and it hasn't.  In the nearly 25 years since, while running 100+ reactors, there has never been another event even close to TMI.



Often, things that the public are not familiar or comfortable with make headlines far out of proportion to that actual threat.  TMI resulted in no injuries, no significant airborne releases and no epidemiologically measurable long-term impact on the local population.  Yes, shareholders took a hit in the pocket book, but that's it.  That's the facts, there is no government cover up.



The commercial nuclear power generating industry's record still stands...no one has ever been killed from nuclear power.  Yes, injuries and deaths have occurred over the years from the non-nuclear parts of the plant, such as steam pipes bursting, but steam pipes are required to produce electricity, irrespective of the heat source.



If nuclear power killed as many people as coal mining, nearly 50 last year, I have no doubt nuclear power would be shutdown immediately, yet the public seems unconcerned about 50 deaths per year in coal mining, save for the occassional explosion and trapped miners.  So lets keep in perspective what constitutes a true threat as we evaluate technologies.



Chuck Jensen



Do NOt Archive



--

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy

We live downstream of Hanford.  I think everyone praising Nuclear needs

to sign on first to placing their "Perfect" energy source waste in their

Front Yard or Back Yard and leave the Western US alone.  Even Nevada

residents are smart enough that no amount of money makes the waste worth

it.  Case Closed.

John

--

tracy(at)rotaryaviation.c
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy

Sorry, can't stop myself this time.  I'm convinced that it does affect my future RV flying.

  

 I think it's a crime that we spent billions studying and building the best possible site for storage (with Nevada's approval) only to have uninformed panic driven sentiment shut it down.

  

 And yes, if the care and study that went into that site went into the storage in my backyard, I'd take it.  And so will most all Americans.  But unfortunately it will take $6.00 a gallon gas prices to have their attitudes adjusted.

   

 Tracy Crook

 N84TC , N109TC  

 On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM, John W. Cox <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com)> wrote:

 [quote]--> RV-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com)>

 

We live downstream of Hanford.  I think everyone praising Nuclear needs

to sign on first to placing their "Perfect" energy source waste in their

Front Yard or Back Yard and leave the Western US alone.  Even Nevada

 residents are smart enough that no amount of money makes the waste worth

it.  Case Closed.

John

--

prtrotter

Joined: 19 Jan 2007
Posts: 14

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:53 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy

Good post Chuck E

  6nbsp;

 I live about 3 miles from a nuclear power plant and I 7m not bothered about it at all E 6nbsp; The only thing I 7m worried about is if some government idiot decides to put a TFR around it and screws up flying around here E

  6nbsp;

 Paul Trotter

  6nbsp;

 

 6gt; 

 6gt; Comparing Chernobyl and Three Mile Island is totally apples and 

 6gt; oranges E One was a disaster and the other an accident E Each 

 6gt; resulted in nearly worst case outcoome for thier respective 

 6gt; design E Chernobyl killed hundreds and contaminated hundreds of 

 6gt; square mile C some still not inhabitable E The difference is 

 6gt; design E Chernobyl had positive reactive coeefficient--in other 

 6gt; words the faster and hotter it got C the faster and hotter it 

 6gt; went E Chenobyl was simply a horrible design E Further C 

 6gt; Chernobyl had no containment C or at least the containment they 

 6gt; used was the equivalent of a galvanized machine shed E When the 

 6gt; badly designed reactor blew (a steam explosion C not a nuclear 

 6gt; explosion) C there was nothing to contain it E

 6gt; 

 6gt; By comparison C U ES E and European reactors all have negative 

 6gt; coefficients E As they get hotter C left to their own devices C 

 6gt; the reaction slows down and the reactor cools down C the exact 

 6gt; opposite of the Russian design E In the case of TMI C the reactor 

 6gt; became starved for water because of operator error C some of 

 6gt; which was compounded by inadequate/inaccurate instrumentation E 

 6gt; Subsequently C the nuclear industry by put through a painful 

 6gt; refitting/retraining of both man and machine over the next 10 

 6gt; years C to ensure that TMI did not happen again--and it hasn 7t E 

 6gt; In the nearly 25 years since C while running 100+ reactors C there 

 6gt; has never been another event even close to TMI E

 6gt; 

 6gt; Often C things that the public are not familiar or comfortable 

 6gt; with make headlines far out of proportion to that actual threat E 

 6gt; TMI resulted in no injuries C no significant airborne releases 

 6gt; and no epidemiologically measurable long-term impact on the 

 6gt; local population E Yes C shareholders took a hit in the pocket 

 6gt; book C but that 7s it E That 7s the facts C there is no government 

 6gt; cover up E

 6gt; 

 6gt; The commercial nuclear power generating industry 7s record still 

 6gt; stands E E Eno one has ever been killed from nuclear power E Yes C 

 6gt; injuries and deaths have occurred over the years from the non-

 6gt; nuclear parts of the plant C such as steam pipes bursting C but 

 6gt; steam pipes are required to produce electricity C irrespective of 

 6gt; the heat source E

 6gt; 

 6gt; If nuclear power killed as many people as coal mining C nearly 50 

 6gt; last year C I have no doubt nuclear power would be shutdown 

 6gt; immediately C yet the public seems unconcerned about 50 deaths 

 6gt; per year in coal mining C save for the occassional explosion and 

 6gt; trapped miners E So lets keep in perspective what constitutes a 

 6gt; true threat as we evaluate technologies E

 6gt; 

 6gt; Chuck Jensen

 6gt; 

Do Not Archive

sreynard13(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy

I don't know Tracy, but it seems to me most anything the government does results in billions wasted.



Are you really surprised?  If three people in the entire state protest, it will be reported as controversial.  Considering the state of education in the US, the goal seems to be institutionalized ignorance.

 

John, I'm probably not as smart as the average Nevada resident, but only a small fraction of that "no amount of money" would be sufficient to build it in my back yard.  Actually, give me a few hundred acres and enough to satisfy my modest needs, and I'll move right next door. . . .  

 



Steve

DO NOT ARCHIVE

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Tracy Crook <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com (tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com)> wrote:

[quote] Sorry, can't stop myself this time.  I'm convinced that it does affect my future RV flying.

  

 I think it's a crime that we spent billions studying and building the best possible site for storage (with Nevada's approval) only to have uninformed panic driven sentiment shut it down.

  

 And yes, if the care and study that went into that site went into the storage in my backyard, I'd take it.  And so will most all Americans.  But unfortunately it will take $6.00 a gallon gas prices to have their attitudes adjusted.

    

 Tracy Crook

 N84TC , N109TC  



[b]

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy

reordered to make chronological (& logical) sense

[quote]

 --

tracy(at)rotaryaviation.c
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: Nuclear Energy

PLEASE don't take what I said as an expression of confidence in government Steve <g>

  

 It's just that we are stuck with it until the point comes when we have to revolt and start the whole process over.  I'm not quite ready to man the barricades.  We spent Billions on a study that should have cost only millions,  that's just the cost we accept for the benefits of government.  I expect to only get a nickle return on a dollar invested there, I just hate it when I'm cheated out of my nickle.  

   

 I'd get more outraged at government but we (as a country) get the government we deserve.

  

 Tracy

  

 do not archive

 On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Steven Reynard <sreynard13(at)gmail.com (sreynard13(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

 [quote]I don't know Tracy, but it seems to me most anything the government does results in billions wasted.

 

Are you really surprised?  If three people in the entire state protest, it will be reported as controversial.  Considering the state of education in the US, the goal seems to be institutionalized ignorance.



John, I'm probably not as smart as the average Nevada resident, but only a small fraction of that "no amount of money" would be sufficient to build it in my back yard.  Actually, give me a few hundred acres and enough to satisfy my modest needs, and I'll move right next door. . . .  

 



Steve

DO NOT ARCHIVE  

 On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Tracy Crook <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com (tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   Sorry, can't stop myself this time.  I'm convinced that it does affect my future RV flying.

  

 I think it's a crime that we spent billions studying and building the best possible site for storage (with Nevada's approval) only to have uninformed panic driven sentiment shut it down.

  

 And yes, if the care and study that went into that site went into the storage in my backyard, I'd take it.  And so will most all Americans.  But unfortunately it will take $6.00 a gallon gas prices to have their attitudes adjusted.

   

 Tracy Crook

 N84TC , N109TC  





	
[b]

jlisler(at)alltel.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: Nuclear Energy

This is a compilation of comments to several  replies.

  

 Because of the un-informed hysteria about  storage of spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, we are now forced  store our spent fuel outside on the plant grounds. They are loaded  into steel canisters that are welded shut. These canisters are then put  inside concrete casks that are placed on a concrete storage pad  OUTSIDE! You talk about crazy. The do-gooders prevent putting the old spent  fuel inside a geologically stable mountain because it is unsafe. Instead they  are willing to live with the stuff sitting outside in the open at virtually  all nuclear power plants around the country. Which do you think makes sense?  Have it scattered everywhere or put it all in one place? Not to  mention billions of dollars in fees were collected by the government from the  utilities to finance the storage facility. So far there is nothing to show for  it.

  

 Why waste useable nuclear fuel anyway? Only a  fraction of the fissile material is used up when a fuel assembly is removed from  the reactor. We are currently willing to bury this fuel instead of reprocessing  it.  President Carter killed the fuel reprocessing in the US years  ago.  

  

 As far as living downstream of the Hanford  facility, Mr. Cox is having to live with the results of our  governments nuclear weapons program. I don't believe this facility has ever  produced electric power commercially. I can promise you that no commercial  nuclear plant can pollute the environment like the government has at Savannah  River or Hanford. They don't have to answer to anyone like we do. I do think  these facilities have started to clean up their act these days  though.

  

 Chuck Jensen is right on the money with his  comments. The graphite pile reactor at Chernobyl shares no  design features with a US reactor. Where our  pressurized water reactors are housed in containment buildings, the Soviet  designed reactor was housed in a metal Butler type building. The containment  building at our plant can with stand 54 PSIG of internal pressure with no  damage. The Soviet building just blew up. By the way it was not a nuclear  explosion that caused the damage, I believe it was a steam explosion. No matter  though, it still scattered the reactor core around the plant site.

  

 My annual simulator exam with my crew is  tomorrow. My performance on this exam directly affects my livelihood. Every  action I take, every word I say, and the implementation every  procedure I use is critiqued. This is pressure when you  realize your job and the fate of an entire industry depends on you to get  it right the first time.

  

 Jerry Isler

 Nuclear Shift Supervisor

 NRC Licensed Senior Reactor Operator

 Farley Nuclear Plant 

 Do Not Archive    

  

 [quote]   ---

aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:32 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy

A couple quick points- first, as I understand it, there is now and has been

for some time tritium in the Columbia river.  This is apparently from the

Navy's ship borne reactor graveyard.  Not a direct correlation to the civil

power industry, but an example of a permanent, highly toxic waste leak that

wasn't supposed to happen, and won't get better by itself.  Second,

according to a friend who gave up nuclear power for professional aviation

(okay;  so his judgement isn't always so hot....) the biggest single real

issue with nuclear power is the hydrogen embrittlement of the basic

structure and plumbing of the equipment.  It will all have to be replaced

sooner or later, and what do you do with the scrap?



I'm all for reasonable green and self sufficiency, but what does that mean?



As ever, do not archive this drivel. 



glen matejcek

aerobubba(at)earthlink.net

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:09 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy

Hi, Glen,



As Jerry Isler pointed out...don't confuse commercial nuclear power with Government weapons programs.  The weapons programs (DOE/DOD) have been a mess and environmental-pig virtually since day one, though they are doing much better recently.



In contrast, the Commercial Nuclear program is run to an altogether different standard.  Though every industrial process is subject to environmental mishaps, they are few and far between for the commercial nuclear industry.  Nuclear power plants, particularly pressurized water reactors (PWR) all produce tritium (hydrogen atom with extra proton) that you mentioned.  However, to call tritium permanent and highly toxic is mistaken on all accounts.  With a half-life of 12 years, tritium decays away rapidly which is the reason the Government keeps wanting to replenish its supply for warheads.



As to it being highly toxic, this is simply not so.  The beta radiation given off by tritium will not penetrate a piece of paper or your skin.  It is only of interest when ingested.  Even then, being water based, it is rapidly excreted from the body...especially if you help it along with a six-pack.



As far as hydrogen embrittlement, it was thought to be a problem but turned out to be only a "theoretical" problem.  A plant in the U.S. and two in Wales (Trawsfynydd) were shut down and the reactor vessel side walls in the vicinity of the highest flux area of the reactor, was cored and the stainless steel tested.  There was no embrittlement, at least none that affected the integrity of reactor vessel.  The piping in a nuclear plant will not become embrittled from neutron bombardment because there are no neutrons anywhere but in the reactor vessel.  



So, reactor embrittlement, like tritium, sound pretty ominous, but neither are of consequence to the safety of the plant or public.  Now, if you would like to discuss the environmental safety of the DOE sites (Oak Ridge, Hanford, Savannah River, et al), that's an altogether different animal, but has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power used to produce electricity, so please don't confuse the two.



If given the choice to live 10 miles down wind of a coal fired plant or a nuclear plant, the nuclear plant is the choice by a landslide.  The coal fired plant actually emits more radiation than a nuclear plant because of the natural radioisotopes in coal that are continuously emitted into the air, along with sulfur, particulates and a potpourri of other chemicals.  Nuclear is represented to be clean for a reason!



Chuck Jensen

--

lsbrv7a(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject: Nuclear Energy

John,

  Are you aware that the White House budget proposal cuts DOE clean-up funds, including Hanford.

   

  I have seen some good work cleaning up the DOE mess during the last 8 years, but all the failures that can happen from cost-plus or fixed fee contracts occur.  The contractors are for-profit companies, with executive bonuses at stake, oversight can be gotcha excessive or non-existent, and all the Dilbert office dynamics.  I embarrassed some shiny shoe townie engineers, and had to move on.  However, the vast majority of the people working in the DOE system are trying to do the right thing and do a good job.  And each election can drasticly change the mission.

   

  I worked at Yucca Mtn in 2003, and predict it will never open.  Documents that should take 40 pages took one 2" ring binder an 2- 1" adendenums.  Personally, it makes more sense to me to see fuel  reprocessing, and 'burn' it in a reactor, than bury it. 



"John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> wrote:

   	  Quote: 	
		    --> RV-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" 



We live downstream of Hanford. I think everyone praising Nuclear needs

to sign on first to placing their "Perfect" energy source waste in their

Front Yard or Back Yard and leave the Western US alone. Even Nevada

residents are smart enough that no amount of money makes the waste worth

it. Case Closed.

   

   

  Do Not archive

	




Sherman Butler

RV-7a Wings

N497GS reserved

Carlsbad, NM

  [quote][b]

Bubblehead

Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 48
Location: N. Richland Hills, TX

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:46 am Post subject: Re: Nuclear Energy

Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and off this forum. I get enough conflict and argument in my day job! Neither of your opinions is going to change as a result of the discussion, and I subscribe to this forum to learn about and read about RVs!



This is the RV list, not the nuclear power list.



Thanks,



John



former USN "Nuke"

_________________
John
Keller, TX
RV-8 N247TD

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:33 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy

Bubblehead wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and off this forum.



PLEASE NOT YET!!!  I'm learning a lot here!  My knowledge is really 
	


dated and this data dump is kinda reinforcing my position on nuke power.



 	  Quote: 	
		   I get enough conflict and argument in my day job!



Ah, but I haven't seen any argument ...... just a difference of opinion 
	


.....



 	  Quote: 	
		   Neither of your opinions is going to change as a result of the discussion,



Maybe yes, maybe no, but if factual data gets floated we all benefit 
	


from the education.



 	  Quote: 	
		   and I subscribe to this forum to learn about and read about RVs!



Yeah, me too.  However, the nuke thread can be dealt with with by the 
	


delete key, as any other thread.



 	  Quote: 	
		  This is the RV list, not the nuclear power list.



I agree, but in addition to the nuclear power list info has been 
	


presented that belongs on the 'alternative engine' list, and 

'environmental disaster list' ....... etc. ..... and I don't belong to 

those.  My primary interest is in aviation ...... and at present I decry 

the increasingly high cost of energy ..... that could be offset by nuke 

power, thereby allowing me to transfer money from my 'energy account' to 

my 'avgas account'.



 	  Quote: 	
		  Thanks,



John



former USN "Nuke"



Ah, so you already know all about the subject of this thread.  No wonder 
	


you'd like to see it disappear.  Well, it will, sooner or later.  Until 

then, if you decide not to add knowledge to the thread ..... whap that 

delete key.



This isn't meant to flame John, nor encourage off-topic threads, but as 

long as it's here, I'll put up with it.



Some suggestions though ..... filters do work, and so do 'reply to all' 

in an off list discussion.

Linn ..... always looking to be educated ..... 



 	  Quote: 	
		  

--------

John Dalman

Elburn, IL

RV-8 N247TD





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169777#169777

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum