Are you suggesting that all the ash and CO2 from coal fired plants over 50 years is onsite at the plant and if it blows up it will spread all that across the countryside?
I have no clue personally but that does not sound right to me.
I’m still not talking about designs. I’m talking about reality. Do you contend that the reactor is safe if it is not built to the specifications of the design? And after a failure to perform maintenance and follow procedures, and the worst case scenario does not cause an explosion or release radiation or radioactive material, who cleans up the mess? And who’s carpet is it swept under? I am sure that we know how to make a reasonably safe reactor. But I don’t think we know how to build one and run one properly, or deal with potential failure. If you have solutions to those problems, please let me know.
The well head was not designed to deal with a runaway scenario. Putting aside any technical aspects I’m not aware of the BOP did not have a way of removing the riser pipe cleanly or cutting the pipe internally with a shear ram. The shear ram that is part of the system was hydraulically operated and not capable of cutting a drill joint which makes it useless at a joint or failure of the hydraulic system.
Coal plants spew out shit constantly even when working right. Day and night, week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade. Just because a coal plants waste gets spread to hell and back doesnt mean there is less of an environmental impact.
Nukes only blow the hella fuck up when designed and run by idiots. And those are the old designs. New Inherently Safe designs cant even really do that, even IF built and and run by idiots.
[hijack] Is anyone else giggling at the double meaning of insoluble in the contect of the OP?[/hijack]
Only the chem geeks.
You should take a look at geothermal energy, in use. Sufficient temperatures are found at the same depths as oil wells. The tech to drill exists, but there is more to than that. Steam cooling is not a major problem either. The generators can be located well below ground to deal with part of that problem. One of the main problems is in creating deep reservoirs so that a sufficient supply of water is available to transfer heat. Its easy to concieve of drilling two holes and dropping some explosives to create a reservoir, but you have to get the material out of the ground somehow. There are also practical limitations to the size of a geothermal with established technology. Increasing capacity would mean bigger holes that become less stable and more difficult to drill. Aquifers could also be damaged or polluted by drilling. To get the most wide-spread usage, techniques would have to be developed to isolate the wells from the water supply (but the pollution risk is minimal because the wells only contain water when completed). None of these problems are tough compared to nuclear reactors. I don’t know exactly why, but I have a suspicion that the main obstacle to more development in this area is the difficulty in establishing clear profitability. Without a technological leap to enable giant generators that rival current power plants, it would be difficult to create a utility monopoly that guarantees profits. Any developement in small scale systems would be easily copied making it hard to justify development costs. I don’t claim that we could begin the conversion tomorrow, but I think this is just as feasible, and less dangerous as using nuclear reactors.
Do you want an analogy of how a Inherently safe reactor differs from a normal one? Are you an anti nuke zealot or are you just an average non nuclear educated Joe who just doesnt really understand these things?
IF you are the later, I could probably give you a couple paragraph analogy tommorow. But don’t waste my time. Cause, if you are just going to go buttttt this or that after I explain it I aint interested.
He’s pointing out that geothermal has the potential, if various avenues outside of hot/wet rock energy extraction are developed, to provide a substantial amount of energy without having to use fission at all. Therefore it would be have fewer potential failure paths and so be “safer”.
You’d think so, however:
How Does Geothermal Drilling Trigger Earthquakes?
What are your qualifications? Are you an a chemical engineer? Do you have a degree in physics? Have you studied existing nuclear plants? Have you ever worked at one? Do you own one of the ‘safe’ nuclear plants? I am not an anti-nuke zealot, nor zealot of any kind (although occasionally loud and noisy). I know several eminent physicists, engineers, and nuclear plant operators. And they agree, at various levels, that execution is a major unresolved problem with nuclear energy. I have seen very detailed maintenance plans and regulations for nuclear plants. The technology is not the problem. People are the problem. Shit happens. And when it happens to a nuclear plant it is a big problem, even with your definition of a ‘safe’ reactor. I’ll ask again. Does your ‘safe’ design prevent all problems when built improperly? If it does, prove it, and I will join your cause. If it doesn’t, then you should reconsider your implication of zealotry on my part.
I would also recommend studying all of the alternatives carefully. It is my opinion that if an alternative to nuclear energy is available that has a reasonable expectation of being safer, that would be a better direction to follow.
True, but no one is sneaking a 4.5 Richter earthquake across a border. The failure modes are local, while fission can potential be global.
It has to be understood though that pebble bed reactors are limited by known physics, the influence of geothermal tapping at very deep depths isn’t.
From NASA/Navy Benchmarking
Exchange (NNBE) Volume II Progress Report | July 15, 2003 Naval Reactors and this doesn’t even touch the thousands of trained reactor operators. Sure people can be a problem but that’s typically related to the culture the employee exists within.
Are you suggesting that military control of large scale reactors? That sounds like a reasonable position, that you might be able to justify with evidence (I have not yet read your attachment). I wouldn’t jump right on board, but you could flesh out some of the details. The military doesn’t have an impeccable record for management, and large commercial reactors are different from most military applications of nuclear energy. Still it would be one way to address the fallability issue. Of course there would be political problems too, you know, ‘the commies had their army in charge of nuclear plants’ type of thing.
I’m going to look at your cites. My impression of the blurbs I had seen about this indicated drilling deeper than previous applications, but you’ve made me curious, and I want to find out more. It would seem to me odd that there are no widespread reports of earthquakes from drilling for oil and gas, but that is done in some specific types of geography that may not be prone to the problem. Thanks for the reference.
No, I’m saying that you can have an organization operating fission reactors for over 60 years on various models with thousands of operators and have no failures. There is nothing inherently impossible about it.
I didn’t ever say it was inherently impossible. I do believe it is not possible under current conditions. But you present a reasonable argument that it can be done based on the idea that if it can be accomplished at one scale, it could also be accomplished at a greater scale, and the difference in scale should be readily measureable. I do find the claim that there have been no failures in 60 years something difficult to accept at face value. As I mentioned I haven’t read the report yet, so the evidence may be in there. But I’ll treat a report from the government, about the government, with a healthy degree of cynicism. The military does sometimes bring a higher level of discipline to their work than the rest of the government or private sector does. However the military can also screw things up, and the military does not operate with the consistency of fission reactions. Its behavior in the future is not predictable. Still if the military has found a method to reduce the likelihood of human error, this would be worth studying to see how it could be applied in many circumstances.
why do you assume it can’t be fixed? it will certainly be fixed, by the relief well if nothing else. This kind of thing happens regularly, it is unfortunate that this one happened in America’s side yard where the media can get to the story easily. (and my front yard. 
I could smell the oil in the early days).
Okay smarty pants.
Explain in YOUR own words how an “inherently safe” reactor differs from your “typically safe” average reactor of today.
If you can’t explain the difference, then you don’t understand them.
Are they inherently safe in that nothing remotely bad can ever happen? No, but that goes for every fracking thing that we can use to produce power. But, by the PHYSICS of the design, they CAN"T blow sky high like Chernobyl. Some designs can’t even slightly melt like 3 Mile Island (which was pretty much a radiation release non event) did even if you TRIED to make em do it.
And for that matter, the general concept of inherently safe is a form of engineering design philosophy as much as it is a reliance on the laws of nature.
And how many geothermal bore hole power plants do YOU own and operate? Where is your degree in chemistry, physics, and geology? Are you going to buy my house when my neigborhood gets flooded by brimstone and molten lava?
You do get a deal if you go for the brimstone/lava combo. Lava alone is nice but opt for the pahoehoe flows, the pyroclastics make the locals nervous.