Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[miker]

Pebble bead technology has been around for a long time...Something is holding it back.  Small subcritical reactors incapable of "china syndrome" sound like a feasible if not just temporoay unitl hydrogen generation can be performed efficiently ....Too bad...

[RedDevil]

I always feel very efficient (and quite pleased) when having received a Hummer.  What, it's different for some ?

Well yeah...there always is that hummer.    And who cares if they are efficient or not?? 

   

[miker]

I like them more than pork rinds!

[Twolanerider]

I like them more than pork rinds!

If you're really lucky you can get both at the same time; and watch the game .

[RedDevil]

If you're really lucky you can get both at the same time; and watch the game .

And have a place to set your beer on.   

   

[SPIDERMAN]

What I find funny about these people is that they say "not is my backyard" but then they live in Navy cities like San Diego, Seattle... where there is countless reactors starting-up and operating everday....

America is always the last one to get on board with anything, Japan is mostly supported by Nuclear power, France as well, a majority of the EU gets a considerable portion of their power needs from it, but we still burn coal, and heavy oil for our energy needs... but hey we are a world power, advanced as much as the next guy.....

I feel safer living next door to the USS Regan than I do 60 miles from San Onofre. And I don't worry too much about San Onofre either. I am, always have been and always will be a HUGE fan of nuke power.

The USA has never had a reactor incident aboard a USN nuke powered vessel. Why ? Because of the specs regarding the installation and operation of said reactors. 

IF ,  the US Government were to demand that private industry follow those same specs in public nuke power plants, we could build about 50 of them and never again want for power or be at the mercy of fossil fuel driven generation.

Waste byproducts ?  I'm sorry, but I see no reason why dedicating a couple of square miles of nothingness in Nevada and digging a mine into the earth and creating a nuclear waste dump 3 miles below the surface, in solid bedrock, flooded with water when each section was full  is any harm to anyone.

We have the technology, we have the industrial capability, we have the machinery needed.

 What we lack is the public will to do so. Gutless politicians who kow tow to the NIMBY crowd.

B B

[Hoist!]

I feel safer living next door to the USS Regan than I do 60 miles from San Onofre. And I don't worry too much about San Onofre either. I am, always have been and always will be a HUGE fan of nuke power.

The USA has never had a reactor incident aboard a USN nuke powered vessel. Why ? Because of the specs regarding the installation and operation of said reactors. 

IF ,  the US Government were to demand that private industry follow those same specs in public nuke power plants, we could build about 50 of them and never again want for power or be at the mercy of fossil fuel driven generation.

Waste byproducts ?  I'm sorry, but I see no reason why dedicating a couple of square miles of nothingness in Nevada and digging a mine into the earth and creating a nuclear waste dump 3 miles below the surface, in solid bedrock, flooded with water when each section was full  is any harm to anyone.

We have the technology, we have the industrial capability, we have the machinery needed.

 What we lack is the public will to do so. Gutless politicians who kow tow to the NIMBY crowd.

B B

Ready gang.......

I fully and whole-heartedly agree with everything B B just said here. EVERYTHING!!!

Great post Brian!

Hoist!

[RedDevil]

I feel safer living next door to the USS Regan than I do 60 miles from San Onofre. And I don't worry too much about San Onofre either. I am, always have been and always will be a HUGE fan of nuke power.

The USA has never had a reactor incident aboard a USN nuke powered vessel. Why ? Because of the specs regarding the installation and operation of said reactors. 

IF ,  the US Government were to demand that private industry follow those same specs in public nuke power plants, we could build about 50 of them and never again want for power or be at the mercy of fossil fuel driven generation.

Waste byproducts ?  I'm sorry, but I see no reason why dedicating a couple of square miles of nothingness in Nevada and digging a mine into the earth and creating a nuclear waste dump 3 miles below the surface, in solid bedrock, flooded with water when each section was full  is any harm to anyone.

We have the technology, we have the industrial capability, we have the machinery needed.

 What we lack is the public will to do so. Gutless politicians who kow tow to the NIMBY crowd.

B B

Great post Brian and you are 100% dead-on in your comments. 

     

[Steve_G]

  Federal regulations require ALL radioactive byproducts of nuclear power plants to be disposed of in a nuclear waste repository.  As a result, more than 98% of what will go into Yucca Mountain is either natural uranium or useful material.  (A spent fuel rod is 95% U-238.  -the same material you can find in a shovel full of dirt in your own back yard)  Of the remaining 5%, most is useful, but small amounts should probably be placed in a repository.  The useful parts (uranium-235 and plutonium -a manmade element produced from U-238) can be recycled as fuel.  
  This is bullcrap needless hassle which makes it virtually impossible to pursue using nuclear energy.  
  The reason for the hassle?  Because in 1977 president Carter decided to OUTLAW nuclear recycling!  -Scared that other countries would steal our plutonium to make their own nuclear bombs.  (India has just purloined plutonium from a Canadian-built reactor to make its bomb.)
  Canada, Britain, France and Russia are all recycling their nuclear fuel.  France has produced 80% of its electricity with nuclear power for the last 25 years.  It stores all its high-level "nuclear waste" in a single room at Le Havre.
  The information I have given is from William Tucker.  You can read more interesting things regarding this by visiting www.hillsdale.edu and reading the Feb '08 Volume 37, number 2 publication of Imprimis.  
  

[BigR55]

Pebble bead technology has been around for a long time...Something is holding it back. Small subcritical reactors incapable of "china syndrome" sound like a feasible if not just temporary until hydrogen generation can be performed efficiently ....Too bad...

Hydrogen fuel cells hold a lot of promise. Especially if the hydrogen is produced with electricity generated by nuclear power. Did anyone see Mythbusters run the car on hydrogen? They stuck a rubber hose in the intake and it ran for a minute, then............BOOM! 

Any knowledge concerning a problem with hydrogen consuming to much of the oxygen. Never thought of it before but once the oxygen combines with hydrogen and makes water,  it remains water. Isn't methane used to produce hydrogen. A lot of knowlegable members on the site, any comments?

[NukeIT]

I feel safer living next door to the USS Regan than I do 60 miles from San Onofre. And I don't worry too much about San Onofre either. I am, always have been and always will be a HUGE fan of nuke power.

The USA has never had a reactor incident aboard a USN nuke powered vessel. Why ? Because of the specs regarding the installation and operation of said reactors. 

IF ,  the US Government were to demand that private industry follow those same specs in public nuke power plants, we could build about 50 of them and never again want for power or be at the mercy of fossil fuel driven generation.

Waste byproducts ?  I'm sorry, but I see no reason why dedicating a couple of square miles of nothingness in Nevada and digging a mine into the earth and creating a nuclear waste dump 3 miles below the surface, in solid bedrock, flooded with water when each section was full  is any harm to anyone.

We have the technology, we have the industrial capability, we have the machinery needed.

 What we lack is the public will to do so. Gutless politicians who kow tow to the NIMBY crowd.

B B

I agree with you B B

the reason Naval program work is because it was set up by a Mad Geniuses aka Adm. Rickover, but that is what it took to get such a controversol program off the ground... and your right about Nevada we have got to start looking at what is good for the "Nation as One" not at the individual parts.

Big R you are right it would only cost pennies to fill your hydrogen car if the h20 was split using energy from a nuke plant

[NukeIT]

oh I did forget to mention that the army did have a Nuclear incident back in the 50's. It was called SL-1. The NRC suspended the operations for 50 years if I remember right, they should be coming up for reinstatement..... scarey thought these guys don't deserve to look at a reactor..... 

[grc]

There are risks involved with pretty much anything.  Ask the relatives of the folks killed in the Texas refinery explosion a few years back about the risks of our current energy sources.  And may we all hope that there is never a major failure of the safety systems on a LNG tanker pulling in to port somewhere.  If there is anyone who has witnessed the effects of an air-fuel bomb, figure similar results but on a much larger scale.

My point is that this country has allowed fear mongering special interests to strangle the nuclear industry in this country, and the industry proponents just threw up their hands and gave up the fight.  There is no reason why we as a country (I wouldn't trust individual companies acting alone) could not come up with a standard design and standard construction and operating methods for nuclear plants, and then build them all the same and strictly enforce the rules.  Part of the problems the industry faced previously in this country were caused by the nonstandard methods and designs.  Each power plant was a custom, one off design.  That's not how our Navy does it, and that's not how France does it.

Jerry

[Twolanerider]

oh I did forget to mention that the army did have a Nuclear incident back in the 50's. It was called SL-1. The NRC suspended the operations for 50 years if I remember right, they should be coming up for reinstatement..... scarey thought these guys don't deserve to look at a reactor..... 

NRC wasn't created until '74.  Prior it was the old Atomic Energy Commission.  But they didn't shut the Army down after Idaho.  Army was fielding another mobile test reactor in 1963 called (I think this is right) MLP1.  Especially then I'm not even sure the civilian agency would have had oversight over a military program.  Can only imagine how random trajectory ballistic Rickover would have gone at such an idea and meddling.

[NukeIT]

NRC wasn't created until '74.  Prior it was the old Atomic Energy Commission.  But they didn't shut the Army down after Idaho.  Army was fielding another mobile test reactor in 1963 called (I think this is right) MLP1.  Especially then I'm not even sure the civilian agency would have had oversight over a military program.  Can only imagine how random trajectory ballistic Rickover would have gone at such an idea and meddling.

you do have a point about Rickover going ballistic, he is the man that drank primary coolant to make a point in front of a congressional panel to make a point about safety.