OT: Build new U.S. Nuclear Power Plants? Y/N and why

Status
Not open for further replies.

ICTechs.com

Member
Join Date
Feb 2006
Location
New Orleans
Posts
24
I'm a I&C Tech who works in Nuclear Power Plants as well as Pharmaceutical and Bio-Pharm. The winds are finally here in the U.S. to build more Nuclear Power Plants. This is great news for people like us in the I&C, automation field. I want to gauge how the automation community feels about this issue. I dont care if your a Republican or Democrat, so please dont ruin the thread by posting politcal BS! This will be great for all of us. What do you think,and why?
 
personally, I prefer hydro generation above all else...I'm a closet hippie/tree hugger/enviromental, or maybe my roots don't want to see this land end up like Europe & Asia.
 
Nuclear Nevada.
1 state, does all of the nuclear generation for all of the US.
Shoot the waste up into space as it's made.

Quick, clean, and done with.
 
With a total of 50 deaths from the Churnobyl accident, and the probability of only a few more over the next few years, I think we have seen the worst this can do. Compare this to coal mining, oil and gas and it appears that even 50's Soviet tech is quite safe in comparison.
Go ahead and do it.
Just don't shoot the waste into space, it is expensive and has a good chance of spreading it around the globe (Space shuttle goes bang). Bury it properly, this is the proven method. After all, that naturally formed reactor they found in South Africa appears to have had its waste buried safely for the last few million years. Nature knows best!
 
stasis said:
personally, I prefer hydro generation above all else...I'm a closet hippie/tree hugger/enviromental, or maybe my roots don't want to see this land end up like Europe & Asia.

That's funny. The hippie/tree hugger/environmentalist types have shut down almost all of the hydro plants in Maine during the last 20 years. It's a thing of the past although we have many rivers that are perfect for it.

I say go for nuclear energy. There just isn't anything else that can compete in the long run. But, I would only do it if we replaced (by mandate) oil and gas for home heating at the same time.
 
Doug_Adam said:
With a total of 50 deaths from the Churnobyl accident, and the probability of only a few more over the next few years, I think we have seen the worst this can do. Compare this to coal mining, oil and gas and it appears that even 50's Soviet tech is quite safe in comparison.
Go ahead and do it.
Just don't shoot the waste into space, it is expensive and has a good chance of spreading it around the globe (Space shuttle goes bang). Bury it properly, this is the proven method. After all, that naturally formed reactor they found in South Africa appears to have had its waste buried safely for the last few million years. Nature knows best!

That's not quite the case....
although there are many opinions as to the exact number

The minimal estimate for how many have died directly (not even taking into account long term effects) ranges between 50 and 8000. The 8000 estimate is provided by the WHO, so I consider this the more reputable figure (the 50 figure is provided by the international atomic energy agency). Either way, I don't think you could by any stretch call that 50's soviet tech especially safe.
 
I don't think this is a republican or democratic issue.

I am an ex RCO ( reactor controls officer ) of a nuclear submarine. I think nuclear power can be generated safely. However, I don't think private utilities can. They seem to be incompetent. The three mile island accident and the premature shutdown of the Trojan nuclear plant are examples of incompentent operation.

A navy nuke would have never have made the mistakes that occured at three mile island or the chemistry errors at Trojan that caused the steam generator leaks to occur. However, our training was continous and extensive and 12 hour days were the norm. A civilian would not put up with this and a utility would not pay for the constant training.

I don't think we are in that much need of nuclear power yet where we are willing to pay to costs that will keep us safe.

Finally, there is still a problem with where the spent fuel rod will be kept.
 
Nuclear Power is safe

We are talking about the U.S., not Soviet tech. If you think U.S. power plants are run the way the soviets ran there plants your mis-informed. I would not believe anything Greenpeace said about anything. They have a radical agenda to push. In fact alot of the so called "Greens" are now embracing Nuclear Power. Great feedback either way!
 
ICTechs.com said:
We are talking about the U.S., not Soviet tech. If you think U.S. power plants are run the way the soviets ran there plants your mis-informed. I would not believe anything Greenpeace said about anything. They have a radical agenda to push. In fact alot of the so called "Greens" are now embracing Nuclear Power. Great feedback either way!

Three mile island was a US plant, and it blew up 25 years ago, so you are mistaken if you think just being in the US is a guarantee of no problems.

That said, I am not totally against nuclear power on safety groups, but there have to be proper safeguards and a totally transparent public process to audit and control their operation. It will be interesting to see some proposals of how public safety can be guaranteed for new nuclear plants. Environmentally, if we could manage nuclear waste safely then I would be a lot happier about seeing more plants built.
 
I work in nuke plants

There safe. As far as 3 mile island..That was human error, not a control issue. The operators didnt believe there instruments. I guess you would have work in one to know there safe. I have no agenda to push..I live on the same plant as we all do. Nuclear power is a good thing. I agree with you in saying we have to make sure there safe, and I understand your concerns. Maybe you will have a chance one day to work in one and see for yourself.

Thanks for the post
 
Binaural said:
That's not quite the case....
although there are many opinions as to the exact number

The minimal estimate for how many have died directly (not even taking into account long term effects) ranges between 50 and 8000. The 8000 estimate is provided by the WHO, so I consider this the more reputable figure (the 50 figure is provided by the international atomic energy agency). Either way, I don't think you could by any stretch call that 50's soviet tech especially safe.

I stand corrected, the number is 56.
(Which is between 50 and 8000)

As for Greenpeace, I continually find they don't bother with the truth, even when it supports their agenda.
 
Peter Nachtwey said:
I am an ex RCO ( reactor controls officer ) of a nuclear submarine. I think nuclear power can be generated safely. However, I don't think private utilities can. They seem to be incompetent. The three mile island accident and the premature shutdown of the Trojan nuclear plant are examples of incompentent operation.

A navy nuke would have never have made the mistakes that occured at three mile island or the chemistry errors at Trojan that caused the steam generator leaks to occur. However, our training was continous and extensive and 12 hour days were the norm. A civilian would not put up with this and a utility would not pay for the constant training.

I don't think we are in that much need of nuclear power yet where we are willing to pay to costs that will keep us safe.

Finally, there is still a problem with where the spent fuel rod will be kept.

With all due respect, you dont what your talking about. Most SRO's and RO in nuclear plants are Ex-Navy Nukes. So they are well trained. We do need nuclear power. I dont see how you can say that, but we each have an opinion, and I respect yours
 
I am a firm believer in nukes...the more, the better.

Building more plants right now will help many industrial sectors that are coasting along and need new work to get moving...many of our members work in these industries.

BUT while we are building these new nukes, we also need to continue to develop other "Green" power / energy sources. {Unabashed plug}The project I am working on is one that we feel has great potential to benefit mid to large scale farmers offset their energy costs while creating high quality fertilizer for their fields.{end of plug}
So get on with the new nukes...I welcome them.

David
 
I believe nuclear power will and must work but how do you fix the people problem?

ICTechs.com said:
That was human error, not a control issue. The operators didnt believe there instruments.

There lies the problem. The weak link is the people, not the technology. I believe we can make safe nuclear plants. I believe three mile island was safe, it just wasn't safe from the operators.
How do you solve that problem?
 
Peter Nachtwey said:
There lies the problem. The weak link is the people, not the technology. I believe we can make safe nuclear plants. I believe three mile island was safe, it just wasn't safe from the operators.
How do you solve that problem?

CANDU
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

I'm looking for some clarification if anyone here is familiar with UL698a panels. Panel is out of zone/class'd area. with thermocouples extending...
Replies
0
Views
81
Hey guys, last week I posted part 1 of a series of OPC UA articles in Node-RED. That article covered some important concepts of OPC UA and how...
Replies
8
Views
3,851
Hey everyone I have an 1756-CNBR/E CONTROLNET goes faulty sometimes and now it's still faulty until I restart the main racks It shows this message...
Replies
0
Views
859
Good afternoon all I'm having some troubles trying to go online with a twincat3 project that has been developed with another laptop (I will call...
Replies
1
Views
1,557
I am writing a program using Unity, it is going into a 140 CPU 652 60. I have connected to the controller before and set the ip and put a program...
Replies
1
Views
1,064
Back
Top Bottom