Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Moderator T

Trump Approves Funding For Revolutionary Nuclear Power Plant

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Rock N' Roll Right Winger
12 hours ago, Bad_Apple said:

Ok just do me a favor don't say rods call it a fuel assembly cause depending on design you can have 200 to 250 rods in 1 assembly.

Also depending on design you can have anywhere from 121 to 193 fuel assembly's in a reactor core and you can have anywhere up to 1000 assemblies in a spent fuel pool don't want you to come off sounding like some Kentucky rube  by saying rods.

Thanks and have safe day 

Do me a favor and stop pretending to be smart when you're just an arrogant jerk and stop twisting my words into things that I never said. My point still stands (and you cannot even address it but instead dodge it and by trying to project your supposed "superior intellect" by touting technical jargon which never addresses the point and flinging personal insults instead).

Edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger
  • Disagree (-1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ASE

We should convert to all thorium reactors - safer and cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
5 minutes ago, ASE said:

We should convert to all thorium reactors - safer and cheaper.

AFAIK Thorium isn't there yet or not proven yet. It is pretty exciting technology though if/when it pans out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki
4 hours ago, zurg said:

Come to think of it, rather amazingly I haven’t read anyone attack that bombing as “they avoided bombing Germans because they didn’t want to kill that many White people because of white privilege” and start a whole new conspiracy from that. 

 

    Truth is Germany was the primary target for the first bombs.  Had the war in Europe gone on it's pretty likely Berlin would have been glowing at night.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ASE
1 hour ago, Moderator T said:

AFAIK Thorium isn't there yet or not proven yet. It is pretty exciting technology though if/when it pans out.  

Well, it's been more than 30 years since I seen plans for thorium reactor plants - thorium is far more common than uranium, is a by product of refining the rare-earth materials, and does not need to be refined and concentrated like Uranium does, and if they actually do lose control of the reaction, you don't have the contamination risk of today's conventional uranium based reactors.  Apparently the reason for uranium vice thorium is that the push for nuclear research during the war was focusing on producing weapons, not a relatively safe source of energy. Uranium reactors can produce plutonium (don't ask how, I don't know the details) which was desired for weapons, but thorium doesn't. So, guess who won out? Also, it seems that with a thorium reactor, it uses almost all the material, so the need to bury it in a remote part of the desert is eliminated. Uranium reactors only use a relatively small part of the fuel, so the rest needs to be disposed of somewhere. 

Edited by ASE
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
7 minutes ago, ASE said:

Well, it's been more than 30 years since I seen plans for thorium reactor plants - thorium is far more common than uranium, is a by product of refining the rare-earth materials, and does not need to be refined and concentrated like Uranium does, and if they actually do lose control of the reaction, you don't have the contamination risk of today's conventional uranium based reactors.  Apparently the reason for uranium vice thorium is that the push for nuclear research during the war was focusing on producing weapons, not a relatively save source of energy. Uranium reactors can produce plutonium (don't ask how, I don't know the details) which was desired for weapons, but thorium doesn't. So, guess who won out? Also, it seems that with a thorium reactor, it uses almost all the material, so the need to bury it in a remote part of the desert is eliminated. Uranium reactors only use a relatively small part of the fuel, so the rest needs to be disposed of somewhere. 

I'm not a scientist, and my information comes from light Googling, but as far as I know there are no active thorium reactors generating power.  There is research being done but no one's bothered to build one anywhere in the world despite the massive benefits it would have.  My guess is that the tech isn't quite there yet and excessive regulation is making such research not look profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple
11 hours ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

Do me a favor and stop pretending to be smart when you're just an arrogant jerk and stop twisting my words into things that I never said. My point still stands (and you cannot even address it but instead dodge it and by trying to project your supposed "superior intellect" by touting technical jargon which never addresses the point and flinging personal insults instead).

You really should switch to decaf coffee.

Have a safe and productive day!

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
2 minutes ago, Bad_Apple said:

You really should switch to decaf coffee.

Have a safe and productive day!

I don't drink coffee.

Maybe you need to stop drinking so early? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple
17 minutes ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

I don't drink coffee.

Maybe you need to stop drinking so early? 

Wow LOL it really does not take much to get  you spun up does it.  My 1st reply to you all I said to you is you were not entirely correct and we could discuss it in IM or email. The reason I spout technical stuff .......well Its is my job you know in the Nuclear industry which is what this topic was about. But you are correct I am a VERY ARROGANT JERK but only when dealing with rubes :)

Now let me get back to that bottle .

Have a safe and productive day.

 

Edited by Bad_Apple
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
32 minutes ago, Bad_Apple said:

Wow LOL it really does not take much to get  you spun up does it.  My 1st reply to you all I said to you is you were not entirely correct and we could discuss it in IM or email. The reason I spout technical stuff .......well Its is my job you know in the Nuclear industry which is what this topic was about. But you are correct I am a VERY ARROGANT JERK but only when dealing with rubes :)

Now let me get back to that bottle .

Have a safe and productive day.

 

Still completely dodged my point, hence why you spouted technical stuff which had not a thing to do with my point or your claim which deflected from my point that stroring spent nuclear fuel long term in populated areas is a dangerous and bad idea which you failed to address or prove because you are wrong and you know it. 

The sheer desperation of a loser.

I had you pegged from the get go.

Consider yourself schooled by a Kentucky rube.

By the way, your screen really name fits you. 

 

Edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple

🧎‍♂️

 

Edited by Bad_Apple
  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple
1 hour ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

Still completely dodged my point, hence why you spouted technical stuff which had not a thing to do with my point or your claim which deflected from my point that stroring spent nuclear fuel long term in populated areas is a dangerous and bad idea which you failed to address or prove because you are wrong and you know it. 

The sheer desperation of a loser.

I had you pegged from the get go.

Consider yourself schooled by a Kentucky rube.

By the way, your screen really name fits you. 

 

OK Rubinstein to your point on long term storage being dangerous:

 So far in the 60 plus years of nuclear power in the US there have been no deaths or accidents because of spent fuel being stored

in the spent fuel pool. But the SFP have become full so sites now have *DRY* cask storage so with no moderator *water* fuel can not go critical in DRY cask containers that is why it sits 5 yrs to cool down before being placed there.

There is always danger but nuclear plants for the most part have been pretty safe also most Nukes are not in the middle of large cities some are close but not all.

I asked you to IM and we could discuss your point you chose not to you needed an audience to show how well versed and smart you are on every subject you reply on which is alot.

I rarely post but I did on this topic because I actually know 1st hand about it and what is done for safety.

Yeah you schooled me good and wow what a fricking master of perception you are to peg me as a loser over a reply on a message board I am impressed.

Now you have a safe and productive day for you have surely destroyed me and my lack of knowledge in an industry I have worked in since the age of 19.

I bow humbly to you🧎‍♂️........ you are not just a rube but the KING of Rubes 

 

Edited by Bad_Apple
  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
53 minutes ago, Bad_Apple said:

OK Rubinstein to your point on long term storage being dangerous:

 So far in the 60 plus years of nuclear power in the US there have been no deaths or accidents because of spent fuel being stored

in the spent fuel pool. But the SFP have become full so sites now have *DRY* cask storage so with no moderator *water* fuel can not go critical in DRY cask containers that is why it sits 5 yrs to cool down before being placed there.

There is always danger but nuclear plants for the most part have been pretty safe also most Nukes are not in the middle of large cities some are close but not all.

I asked you to IM and we could discuss your point you chose not to you needed an audience to show how well versed and smart you are on every subject you reply on which is alot.

I rarely post but I did on this topic because I actually know 1st hand about it and what is done for safety.

Yeah you schooled me good and wow what a fricking master of perception you are to peg me as a loser over a reply on a message board I am impressed.

Now you have a safe and productive day for you have surely destroyed me and my lack of knowledge in an industry I have worked in since the age of 19.

I bow humbly to you🧎‍♂️........ you are not just a rube but the KING of Rubes

 

:no:

Pitiful.

It took how many posts before the lightbulb went on in your head? But it's still dim.

I had no reason nor need to PM you for anything. 

This is a discussion board. 

We discuss and debate in the open here.

There was no playing to an audience. You repeatedly dodged my point over and over again and came off as condescending and arrogant.

Saying that the spent fuel rods or bundles are stored in water tanks, I already mentioned it before you did. Saying that they were kept on site in permanent storage was also mentioned by me too before. 

My point is still spot on. You never put a dent in it until you just now claimed that storing them in concrete casks makes them safe to store in populated areas forever and you still dodged my point once again that constantly adding more and more to the site forever is a bad idea.

You sure aren't any good at this.

I hope to God that you are better at doing your job than debating for the safety of everyone.

I still say that storing spent nuclear fuel on site permanently is a bad and dangerous idea.

You have said nothing to prove otherwise.

You can live with your family down wind of this all that you like. I never will and I feel sorry for those who are unaware of the dangers that this can and does cause.

Building and operating these plants in seismic zones is even more foolish. Japan learned the hard way and what is happening there now with dumping radioactive water will eventually affect all of us and increase cancer deaths and contaminate the oceans and sea life for hundreds of years.

So your statistics don't mean much.

Class dismissed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple
11 minutes ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

 

:no:

Pitiful.

It took how many posts before the lightbulb went on in your head? But it's still dim.

I had no reason nor need to PM you for anything. 

 

This is a discussion board. 

We discuss and debate in the open here.

There was no playing to an audience. You repeatedly dodged my point over and over again and came off as condescending and arrogant.

Saying that the spent fuel rods or bundles are stored in water tanks, I already mentioned it before you did. Saying that they were kept on site in permanent storage was also mentioned by me too before. 

My point is still spot on. You never put a dent in it until you just now claimed that storing them in concrete casks makes them safe to store in populated areas forever and you still dodged my point once again that constantly adding more and more to the site forever is a bad idea.

You sure aren't any good at this.

I hope to God that you are better at doing your job than debating for the safety of everyone.

I still say that storing spent nuclear fuel on site permanently is a bad and dangerous idea.

You have said nothing to prove otherwise.

You can live with your family down wind of this all that you like. I never will and I feel sorry for those who are unaware of the dangers that this can and does cause.

Building and operating these plants in seismic zones is even more foolish. Japan learned the hard way and what is happening there now with dumping radioactive water will eventually affect all of us and increase cancer deaths and contaminate the oceans and sea life for hundreds of years.

So your statistics don't mean much.

Class dismissed.

 

I just have a few  questions for you:

1. Do you froth at the mouth when you reply to post on here.

2. Does the hampster that turns the wheel in your brain ever speed up.

3. Your are an adult right cause I get a feeling you are 12 yrs old.

4. So how many gallons of water are in the pacific and how many gallons of waste from Fukashmia got into pacific. 

 

You do know atomic bombs were tested in the pacific ocean right alot of them.(thats alot of contamination and gee that was 60 yrs ago and life in the pacific is still there)

 

Now I guess you have not read about this but fuel and plants are designed for sesmic activity  it was the tidal wave that took out the Japan plant which was a side effect of the earthquake. The plant survived the actual earthquake likeit was designed to.

Just because you say its dangerous well ok then let just forget about 60yrs of statistics saying other wise in the US.

You are correct I am not good at this all it took to set you off was to stay you were not entirely correct in your 1st post. and to sugest a side conversation to discuss why I said that.

But in your dellusional state of being an expert on every subject you post on just took over and well here we are.

Look I dont care about being schooled or if class is in session or out but obviously you do.

From the wacky conspriacy post I  have seen you post in here over the years I guess I should not be shocked that you consider me the bad guy here and I am ok with that.

I mean you are an expert on pretty much everything.

You do know there is also a good chance the earth will get struck by an asteroid too so I suggest you get a bigger helmut than the 1 you are wearing now maybe some knees pads and a mouth guard.

Now you have a safe and productive day 

 

  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ASE

Are there any other applications you are aware of where the spent fuel could be used rather than having it just sit in the ground slowly decaying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple
14 hours ago, ASE said:

Are there any other applications you are aware of where the spent fuel could be used rather than having it just sit in the ground slowly decaying?

Unfortunately in the US you can not recycle spent fuel Jimmy Carter passed a law against it in1979 I think. The sad part is 95% of spent fuel rods can be recycled also US plants are not liscend for MOX fuel and fuel enrichment can only be 5% in the US. Like I mention earlier if you took all the spent fuel assemblies you could stack them on a football field about 10 yards high. Also they are not in the ground once taken out of spent fuel pools they are now stored in dry cask completely sealed.

Edited by Bad_Apple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian
32 minutes ago, Bad_Apple said:

Unfortunately in the US you can not recycle spent fuel Jimmy Carter passed a law against it in1979 I think. The sad part is 95% of spent fuel rods can be recycled also US plants are not liscend for MOX fuel and fuel enrichment can only be 5% in the US. Like I mention earlier if you took all the spent fuel assemblies you could stack them on a football field about 10 yards high. Also they are not in the ground once taken out of spent fuel pools they are now stored in dry cask completely sealed.

What was the rationale for not reprocessing spent fuel? We have made some boneheaded, political decisions on nuclear. From not reprocessing fuel to not using the repository we spent cubic miles of money to build. I can understand why, in the day, thorium was shoved to the back burner due to the desire to focus on an approach that a dual use tech for weapon production, but sometime since then thorium should have been pushed forwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple
37 minutes ago, Severian said:

What was the rationale for not reprocessing spent fuel? We have made some boneheaded, political decisions on nuclear. From not reprocessing fuel to not using the repository we spent cubic miles of money to build. I can understand why, in the day, thorium was shoved to the back burner due to the desire to focus on an approach that a dual use tech for weapon production, but sometime since then thorium should have been pushed forwards.

I am not 100% positive but when you recycle fuel there is a small amount of higher enrichment and I think plutonium or weapons grade material produced and it is higher than the 5% limit in the US is allowed. France recycles fuel that is what MOX fuel is I  know Europe uses a higher level of enrichment than US and France does most of there recycling I believe. So they can use the recycled fuel where US can't. So Jimmy Carter did not want to create more weaponize material is what I have heard was behind him passing no recycle law. I'm sure there might be more to it but that is what the jest of it was

Now catching my last connection home ☺

Edited by Bad_Apple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...