Nuclear power still isn't safe
The closed heating loop is the same for both technologies. The waste heat generated is a function of the turbine efficiency. Without cooling, the closed loop will overheat, or to look at it another way, there will be no heat differential to generate electricity. (9 hrs ago | post #191)
Nuclear power still isn't safe
As long as the same environmental considerations apply to cooling water for geothermal, the same evaporative calculations apply also. You can just change "Nuclear " to "Geothermal " in your analysis. There's no miraculous 100% efficient turbine. (Wednesday Sep 3 | post #174)
That's "machinery " of course. (Curse you Topix, why no preview?!!!) (Wednesday Sep 3 | post #30)
Nice PR job, and I really have nothing against geothermal power generation, but as usual there are risks and implications. The major consideration here is that the water that's heated down below will inevitably dissolve some of the minerals below (and possibly carry up radon, which of course is radioactive). The minerals, which can include sulfur and arsenic, which will precipitate out in the michainery or be liberated to the air. Every few years you'll need a new set of boreholes and new heat exchangers. So - there are complications (no surprise) and hazards (ditto). But it's still worth doing more of. (Wednesday Sep 3 | post #29)
Coalition pushes safety for relicensing
I'm not quite clear where Howard Shaffer fits in this picture - is he part of the NEC organisation or some other random opinion? Anyway, he appears to be at least a supporter of the NEC's position on this particular pointThis seems to be to be an argument that runs counter to the request of the NEC, since it emphasizes that continuous monitoring and shut-down power is still in the hands of the NRC even after granting a license extension to VY. (Tuesday Sep 2 | post #1)
New Dutch nuclear power plants 'unavoidable'
Or you could look at S. Korea, Japan - and draw the opposite conclusion. (Tuesday Sep 2 | post #2)
McCain says he'd push Congress on energy - but he missed votes ...
I've had other conversations on the same topic, and we come down to a balance of two duties - a duty of non-cooperation with the enemy, and a duty to return to combat. If the offer was parole, or required any cooperation from McCain, the code says he should refuse. If the release offer was unconditional, it looks like he should have accepted. Anyway, not an easy decision to make, and I withdraw the "stupid" tag from McCain (although I'd probably leave it on the code itself). My understanding is that there is significant disapproval and possible penalties for accepting anything from your captors; so neither option would look attractive. (Monday Aug 25 | post #9)
NRC: Terrorist attack on VY plant unlikely
Here's an old thread about the VY crane incident this year: http://www.topix.c om/forum/tech/nucl ear-energy/TD6ESL3 M4TATA78AI For interest only.... ... I'm trusting you guys NOT to post to it. ;-) (My training is that it was at most an "incident ", not an "accident ", because there were no injuries.) (Wednesday Aug 20 | post #80)
Reactor will create tons of toxins
QUOTE who="larry g"] why[/QUOTE] Two reasons: 1. To show respect for the effort that went into answering your post 2. To convince forum participants that you actually read and thought about the arguments presented. (Wednesday Aug 20 | post #125)
Did Phelps 'really' win his 7th gold medal?
Underwater shot is clear: http://sportsillus trated.cnn.com/mul timedia/photo_gall ery/0808/oly.phelp s.sequence/content .5.html Phelps (on the left) wins. (Wednesday Aug 20 | post #28)
Reactor will create tons of toxins
How about posting more than one-liners, larry? (Wednesday Aug 20 | post #122)
Reactor will create tons of toxins
In other words, Larry G has his fingers in his ears and is saying "Nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you!" (Wednesday Aug 20 | post #121)
Reactor will create tons of toxins
Consider this: if you, as a terrorist, had a sufficient big bomb to damage a nuclear waste cask, you would also have the organization, manpower and resources to do far more damage (and cause far more terror) elsewhere. So a waste cask is not a particularly good target. If, to take it one step further, you as a terrorist actually had the resources, capability and technology to open the cask and use the contents without killing the people who knew what they are doing, you would be operating from fixed technological bases and have a significant revenue stream. You would in fact be running a country or large corporation. This is a relatively easy target for a government such as that in Washington to strike at and eliminate. Again your resources would allow far more lethal and terrible actions than messing about with a waste cask. So, overall, waste casks are not terrorist targets, ever. However much those who oppose nuclear power would wish them to be. (Tuesday Aug 19 | post #116)
What about nuclear waste disposal?
You (accidentally?) make a good point, though - there are far more dangerous substances under virtually no oversight that are routinely left over from industrial processes. And exporting the problem is not solving the problem. Nuclear waste handling is a model of care and discipline, both relative to other industries and absolutely in avoiding all harm. (Tuesday Aug 19 | post #27)
Reactor shut down after fire at Calif. nuke plant; no radiation...
This is a non-story... a transformer is a standard piece of equipment on a power generation site. This kind of fire has happened to every form of electricity generation. The worst case is actually wind power, because then the fire happens at the top of a fricking great pole, and typically destroys the whole generator. (Tuesday Aug 19 | post #4)
Like what you see?
Create your own Topix Profile
