Quote (T3Ldb1J @ May 21 2012 09:59pm)

What's the better technology? The Gen III and III+ reactors with the paper fast fission reactors (traveling wave for example) are amazingly safe and efficient.
I don't understand the weapons aspect you're saying. If you want to make weapons grade U-235 or Pu-239, you wouldn't be producing a lot of power since the reactor would be constantly starting up and shutting down. (protip: this is an easy thing to notice if you're using a commercial reactor)

Chernobyl could have been easily avoided but Russians got a little cocky. The RMBK was a faulty design for the test they were doing with their backup generators since it had a positive fuel coefficient. The test and its flaws is pretty easy to understand if you know anything about reactors. Three Mile Island was a mechanical failure that did cause a problem but it was solved.

Fukushima was hit by strongest forces of natures and its 1960s BWR design was able to prevent itself from a meltdown with passive systems. The article you posted is absurd and the numbers posted are stated in a poor way. After read this thread, its clear that most people just see big numbers and think big things.
"Reactor #4 contains 1,535 spent fuel rods which remain highly radioactive" -> Congrats, fuel rods are ~1cm diameter and only contain 2-4% U-235 in commercial reactors.

I don't think most people in this thread understand the subject from what I've read and my apologies if any tone of aggression is assumed in my response. And yes, I'm very biased for nuclear since it's my field of education.

Quote (doomchaser @ May 22 2012 10:08am)

you count on no mistakes from humans ...something that could put all life on earth at risk...lets light up the world at risk too all life.. even if no mistakes look at the waist we make...nuclear power is the bigest joke we try to control..one day people will wake up and say why would we have even considered this as a legit power source...

Quote (doomchaser @ May 22 2012 11:08am)

you count on no mistakes from humans ...something that could put all life on earth at risk...lets light up the world at risk too all life.. even if no mistakes look at the waist we make...nuclear power is the bigest joke we try to control..one day people will wake up and say why would we have even considered this as a legit power source...

Quote (undertow85 @ May 22 2012 07:00am)

am i one of those people?

Quote (T3Ldb1J @ May 23 2012 03:08pm)

I don't even understand what you're trying to say. Controlling it is a very complicated process that we have made of ease with materials (rods, chemicals, etc), not to mention the ideas of self-containing, nonproliferation, minimal waste fast fission reactors that requires very littler interaction from an operator down the road.
I'm curious to hear about your legit power sources that can sustain a constant power that will be around for awhile and can be placed almost anywhere.


no bby, ur my qt pi.

Quote (T3Ldb1J @ May 23 2012 01:08pm)

I don't even understand what you're trying to say. Controlling it is a very complicated process that we have made of ease with materials (rods, chemicals, etc), not to mention the ideas of self-containing, nonproliferation, minimal waste fast fission reactors that requires very littler interaction from an operator down the road.
I'm curious to hear about your legit power sources that can sustain a constant power that will be around for awhile and can be placed almost anywhere.


no bby, ur my qt pi.

Quote (T3Ldb1J @ May 22 2012 04:59am)

What's the better technology? The Gen III and III+ reactors with the paper fast fission reactors (traveling wave for example) are amazingly safe and efficient.
I don't understand the weapons aspect you're saying. If you want to make weapons grade U-235 or Pu-239, you wouldn't be producing a lot of power since the reactor would be constantly starting up and shutting down. (protip: this is an easy thing to notice if you're using a commercial reactor)

Chernobyl could have been easily avoided but Russians got a little cocky. The RMBK was a faulty design for the test they were doing with their backup generators since it had a positive fuel coefficient. The test and its flaws is pretty easy to understand if you know anything about reactors. Three Mile Island was a mechanical failure that did cause a problem but it was solved.

Fukushima was hit by strongest forces of natures and its 1960s BWR design was able to prevent itself from a meltdown with passive systems. The article you posted is absurd and the numbers posted are stated in a poor way. After read this thread, its clear that most people just see big numbers and think big things.
"Reactor #4 contains 1,535 spent fuel rods which remain highly radioactive" -> Congrats, fuel rods are ~1cm diameter and only contain 2-4% U-235 in commercial reactors.

I don't think most people in this thread understand the subject from what I've read and my apologies if any tone of aggression is assumed in my response. And yes, I'm very biased for nuclear since it's my field of education.

Quote (Noobalator @ May 24 2012 12:11am)

Doomchaser reminds me of those silly magazines you come across at the grocery store, waiting to check out. I've always wondered how they could actually sell such BS and people believe in it.

Then I met one of Doomchasers posts one day, and it all became clear.

Quote (doomchaser @ May 24 2012 10:46am)

you such a fool one day you wake up ...the waste we make last 300 thousand years,,how long before we have no room for it 1 thousand years 100 years?

we already killed al life on earth with the plants we have now maybe and you would build more? omg this world is insane and they call me crazy

Quote (T3Ldb1J @ May 21 2012 09:59pm)

What's the better technology? The Gen III and III+ reactors with the paper fast fission reactors (traveling wave for example) are amazingly safe and efficient.
I don't understand the weapons aspect you're saying. If you want to make weapons grade U-235 or Pu-239, you wouldn't be producing a lot of power since the reactor would be constantly starting up and shutting down. (protip: this is an easy thing to notice if you're using a commercial reactor)

Chernobyl could have been easily avoided but Russians got a little cocky. The RMBK was a faulty design for the test they were doing with their backup generators since it had a positive fuel coefficient. The test and its flaws is pretty easy to understand if you know anything about reactors. Three Mile Island was a mechanical failure that did cause a problem but it was solved.

Fukushima was hit by strongest forces of natures and its 1960s BWR design was able to prevent itself from a meltdown with passive systems. The article you posted is absurd and the numbers posted are stated in a poor way. After read this thread, its clear that most people just see big numbers and think big things.
"Reactor #4 contains 1,535 spent fuel rods which remain highly radioactive" -> Congrats, fuel rods are ~1cm diameter and only contain 2-4% U-235 in commercial reactors.

I don't think most people in this thread understand the subject from what I've read and my apologies if any tone of aggression is assumed in my response. And yes, I'm very biased for nuclear since it's my field of education.