This is really BAD in the hands of a toddler.

That doesn't mean it's always a bad thing. It's a simple, safe and effective tool in the right hands.

Same applies to radiation. It requires care and skill to be handled properly but these things are not unknown. Nuclear power can be accomplished safely with technology that is decades old. The only reason you don't see it already in daily use is onerous regulatory hurdles that effectively prohibit further development.

(off topic)
Why is it when I have a hammer everything looks like a nail?
(back on topic)

Good point as there are so many things which are bad in the wrong hands. What happened at Chernobyl was just about the perfect storm fueled by incompetence. Once they had a handle on what was happening they were well past the point of no return. Hard to believe 30 years have gone by since that happened.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan was a good demonstration of things going right. When power was lost the diesel generators came online just the way they should have. What nobody ever bargained for was the 30 foot tall wall of sea water and mud coming that far inland. The reactors scramed and went into shutdown as soon as the quake struck. The technology was I think about 1975 which is what most US reactors used for commercial power generation are. It worked. Once they lost the diesel power then they were in real trouble. Had it not been for the tidal wave making it that far inland everything would have been fine.

The main problem with making nuclear power today is cost.

Ron

 

fueled by incompetence.

What can you expect out of folks who think the most important part of operator training is WalMart?!?!

 

Do you know what sunlight is?!?! And radiation is used in medical care every day. Ever had an Xray? An MRI? It was radiation that was used to kill my cancer and that is much better than GOOD!!!

Same here for me personally regarding radiation and cancer. Saying "There is no (GOOD)!..... Radiation = BAD!!!" is simply stupid and ignorant.

 

Interesting article about the rise of "Dark Tourism":

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/dark-tourism-chernobyl/index.html

"I think it is very inappropriate to sit in a restaurant in Auschwitz and eat during my lunch break. But other people have less constraints with that."
The passage of time is also a factor to consider. Pompeii, for example, may feel like a more "acceptable" dark tourism site, because the disaster occurred so long ago.
"Memory is critical," says Johnston. "We will act a certain way around the gladiator outside the Colosseum in Rome, we might stand and pose for a photograph. But this is somebody who represents someone who was employed to quite brutally kill people, but because it was 2000 years ago, and it's distant in the past, it seems temporally acceptable."

 

I've just watched the series final chapter. From what I understood, the culprit of the explosion (other than the whole bunch of idiotic mistakes ordered by their chief engineering) was that the control rod's tips were made of graphite. And graphite is a resonant material that intensifies the chain nuclear reaction. So these guys were relying way too much on an emergency button called "Z5" whose function was to push all of the rods all the way in... but the conditions for a "perfect storm" were in place already, and a catastrophe ensued.

The main character said that the tips of the rods were made of graphite because they were cheaper. Fair enough, that I understand. My question is, why did they have to be made of a different material, at all?

 

And BTW ... here's a very interesting article related to this discussion:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/28/...loating-nuclear-power-station-intl/index.html

But the concept of a nuclear reactor stationed in the Arctic Sea has drawn criticism from environmentalists. The Lomonosov platform was dubbed "Chernobyl on Ice" or "floating Chernobyl" by Greenpeace even before the public's revived interest in the 1986 catastrophe thanks in large part to the HBO TV series of the same name.

 

And BTW ... here's a very interesting article related to this discussion:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/28/...loating-nuclear-power-station-intl/index.html

I wonder if greenpeace would prefer coal? The way things are going where I live, people are back to using wood stoves as electricity and gas prices are going up.

 

using wood stoves

We used woodchip fired boilers to produce 600PSI plant process steam plus co-generated 3.5 MW of electricity with it. Sold excess co-gen electricity to GA Power and got hammered by both the EPA and State for particulate and gas flue emissions and buried in required flue stack/scrubber emission testing and the required reporting paperwork and fines for emission standards excursions. Had to recover, cart and bury the ash in a certified waste disposal site. Damn good thing home fireplaces don't have to abide by the EPA and State emission and disposal standards that we did. Not to mention all the yard and land clearing waste fires.

 

And BTW ... here's a very interesting article related to this discussion:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/28/...loating-nuclear-power-station-intl/index.html

That was an interesting read, a floating nuclear fueled power station. I have to agree with some of what the article mentions especially when the involved technology comes into play. Chernoble was a screw up which never should have happened People who do not understand nuclear power generation should refrain from critique of the process.

As I mentioned earlier every current US Aircraft Carrier is powered by two nuclear reactors. Every US Submarine is nuclear powered. The last 25 years of my career was with the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program with a focus on the CRDM (Control Rod Drive Mechanism) or as I liked to tell people was simply the gas pedal. The CRDM is the only moving part in the core of a nuclear reactor.

One challenge faced with a sea going CRDM is that ships tend to rock and roll so the system needs to afford control at assorted angles as a ship list or rolls. The SCRAM process also needs to be definite purpose. Putting the Axe to the ‘Scram’ Myth is a nice read on the term SCRAM as it applies to reactors. I likely used the term tens of thousands of times over my career and always wondered about it's origins.

Ron

 

We used woodchip fired boilers to produce 600PSI plant process steam plus co-generated 3.5 MW of electricity with it. Sold excess co-gen electricity to GA Power and got hammered by both the EPA and State for particulate and gas flue emissions and buried in required flue stack/scrubber emission testing and the required reporting paperwork and fines for emission standards excursions. Had to recover, cart and bury the ash in a certified waste disposal site. Damn good thing home fireplaces don't have to abide by the EPA and State emission and disposal standards that we did. Not to mention all the yard and land clearing waste fires.

I am actually worried about where the current hysteria is going in some areas. As heating costs are rising, peopke are turning back to wood stoves and I think these will be banned sooner or later...

 

I am actually worried about where the current hysteria is going in some areas. As heating costs are rising, peopke are turning back to wood stoves and I think these will be banned sooner or later...

Wood is clean, ever been to West Virginia? Had a friend who lived in Webster Springs a small town in a valley. Driving down into the area off Miller Mountain on a cold winter morning you drove through a layer of burning coal smoke. They have plenty of coal and several tons could be had for a few bucks.

On the other hand we have California, take a look at their laws regarding wood burning stoves and fireplaces.

Ron

 

During college one of my jobs was as an analytical chemist for a Lime Plant in Alabama which is also a coal producing state. One of the jobs was testing the coal used for firing the kilns used to burn the limestone into quicklime for the coal's sulfur and ash content. We had flue gas scrubbers and our coal contract was for low sulfur/ash anthracite coal to cut down on emissions that we were regulated for and had to meet. Several gallon paint cans a shift reduced to a milligrams sample per can and then the coal dumped out in the trash. So I got an empty lime bag and started dumping the coal sample separator residue into the 80lb bag and taking it home to heat with in a small pot-bellied stove. Loved that stuff. Shake the grate, stoke the stove and it burned all night to be repeated first thing in the morning and again after classes and before leaving for work. High sulfur bituminous coal smoke stinks pretty badly and has lots of clinkers/ash but not anthracite. Coal smoke smog got so bad in London that burning coal in the city was outlawed in the early 1800s? Why am I surprised California regulates fireplaces. It had to happen there first.

 

Wood is clean, ever been to West Virginia? Had a friend who lived in Webster Springs a small town in a valley. Driving down into the area off Miller Mountain on a cold winter morning you drove through a layer of burning coal smoke. They have plenty of coal and several tons could be had for a few bucks.

On the other hand we have California, take a look at their laws regarding wood burning stoves and fireplaces.

Ron

Since I live in Northern British Columbia, i seriously fear we will fall prey to similar forces that created those regulations in California. The problem is that it is much colder where we are...

 

Actually wood is a terrible fuel. The BTU yield is horrible. It takes a lot of air/oxygen to fuel it's combustion. In the old days with poorly if at all insulated homes and the idea of sealing around doors and windows basically non-existent there was plenty of air supply. In today's homes, there needs to be an outside air intake built into the firebox to eliminate cold air intrusion from open drafts and most homes do not have them. Wood needs to be properly stored and dried for several months before use and is basically a luxury item now instead of an actual energy expense. A relative of mine from Boston has for many years been financing small hydroelectric conversions of all the old watermill sites in New England. The electric companies are required to buy the power generated and very favorable rates for the producers plus all kinds of tax exemptions and construction grants available to the developers. He has gotten quite wealthy providing capital venture investment funds to developers. The basic infrastructure and land were available cheap and development was very profitable all around. Wind, on the other hand, is horribly expensive to get started and maintain. Not sure as to profitability and sustainability. I kinda grew up in the Tennessee River Valley and even to this day, TVA leaves a bad taste in a lot of the people there. Mostly due to the uprooting of families and flooding of prime farm and cattle lands now under their reservoirs. But without TVA there would be no Oak Ridge National Lab, Tennessee Eastman, Alcoa, glass manufacturing, or rural electrification and all the small industries supporting them.

 

Since I live in Northern British Columbia, i seriously fear we will fall prey to similar forces that created those regulations in California. The problem is that it is much colder where we are...

For what it's worth... common sense usually wins the day...

 

Actually wood is a terrible fuel. The BTU yield is horrible. It takes a lot of air/oxygen to fuel it's combustion. In the old days with poorly if at all insulated homes and the idea of sealing around doors and windows basically non-existent there was plenty of air supply. In today's homes, there needs to be an outside air intake built into the firebox to eliminate cold air intrusion from open drafts and most homes do not have them. Wood needs to be properly stored and dried for several months before use and is basically a luxury item now instead of an actual energy expense. A relative of mine from Boston has for many years been financing small hydroelectric conversions of all the old watermill sites in New England. The electric companies are required to buy the power generated and very favorable rates for the producers plus all kinds of tax exemptions and construction grants available to the developers. He has gotten quite wealthy providing capital venture investment funds to developers. The basic infrastructure and land were available cheap and development was very profitable all around. Wind, on the other hand, is horribly expensive to get started and maintain. Not sure as to profitability and sustainability. I kinda grew up in the Tennessee River Valley and even to this day, TVA leaves a bad taste in a lot of the people there. Mostly due to the uprooting of families and flooding of prime farm and cattle lands now under their reservoirs. But without TVA there would be no Oak Ridge National Lab, Tennessee Eastman, Alcoa, glass manufacturing, or rural electrification and all the small industries supporting them.

Yeah, my neighbor behind me heats his house with wood. Electricity is his backup when it gets real cold. During the summers he fills his wood cribs and come fall that log splitter runs for days. That house is always cold during the winters. During the winters there is the wafting aroma of David burning wood. Me? Natural gas.

There is a development in Cleveland's western suburbs and when built the power company lobbied for all electric homes, maybe 60 years ago. Now 60 years later despite "lifetime" promised discounted rates for power they are trying to screw the residents with twice or more the promised rates. Since the development was built "all electric" there is no natural gas service. This mess is still in the courts and likely will be for years.

Ron

 

It all depends on rates. Where I live is semi rural even though on the coast and I literally have the Atlantic Ocean for my back yard albeit 5 miles of marshland and small islands between me and the beach. Not a single traffic light in this county and no gas service except LPG tanks so I'm all electric now. I prefer gas stovetops but not enough to install a tank for it. Gas was very popular when I lived in the Birmingham AL area and many others. Gas is the typical fuel now for most of Florida's electrical production now instead of coal as are most places without nuclear or hydro. When I lived in Maine most home heating was fuel oil furnaces and seems popular in a lot of New England. Fuel rates change over the decades and preferred fuels for home heat, hot water, and cooking change with it. Electric is still king for AC and heat pumps dominate that market even though groundwater heat exchanger making some inroads. Much more efficient using 70°F water for heat exchange rather than 90+°F air but a real downside to the plumbing issues that come with it.

 

It all depends on rates. Where I live is semi rural even though on the coast and I literally have the Atlantic Ocean for my back yard albeit 5 miles of marshland and small islands between me and the beach. Not a single traffic light in this county and no gas service except LPG tanks so I'm all electric now. I prefer gas stovetops but not enough to install a tank for it. Gas was very popular when I lived in the Birmingham AL area and many others. Gas is the typical fuel now for most of Florida's electrical production now instead of coal as are most places without nuclear or hydro. When I lived in Maine most home heating was fuel oil furnaces and seems popular in a lot of New England. Fuel rates change over the decades and preferred fuels for home heat, hot water, and cooking change with it. Electric is still king for AC and heat pumps dominate that market even though groundwater heat exchanger making some inroads. Much more efficient using 70°F water for heat exchange rather than 90+°F air but a real downside to the plumbing issues that come with it.

Seems like what is here. My house is all electric. I would love to have a gas stove, but it is not worse the upfront conversion costs. My house had a wood stove a long time ago (it is over 100 years old) but it was taken out at some point. In BC, the costs of gas vary widely depending in the region. Electricity (BC hydro) is set to keep rising every year because of multiple mismanagement issues and lies, many many lies... Meanwhile winters are getting colder for many

 

I found this in a news article and am somewhat baffled by it.

"Cement, in particular, and natural resources extraction and processing in general, contribute massively to CO2 emissions. A recent report found that the majority of carbon emissions are created by such processes, even before any fuel is burned."

Now I know it takes a lot of fuel to sublimate limestone into quicklime for cement manufacturing but the "even before any fuel is burned" part I just don't get???