What really stinks is that the more the price of fossil fuels go up, the more we go back to nuclear energy.
OK, I have hi-jacked this thread enough.
Over and out.
OK, I have hi-jacked this thread enough.
Over and out.
"Lock in" those natral gas rates now!
- Thread starter gyrafoam
- Start date
Help Support :
Toggleswitch: Know of TVA-Their "pumpted" energy storage" has been around for awhile-This is the neat thing about large "syncronous machines" it can be used as a motor or a generator.I don't want to be a stinker-but I BELEIVE in "Nuke" power-it is becoming MORE essential as time goes on-we HAVE LOTS of ore to run these plants-and yes--we should reconsider the "breeder reactor"These can recharge the fuel from the conventional fission plants and be generating electricity at the same time!!The French have been doing it and guess who supplied their breeder reactors and equipment---GE. Back to TVA-they also run nuclear plants and fossil fuel plants-they even build the generating plants near their fuel sources-its better to "ship" the electricity than the fuel!I can remember living in the DC metro area in the 70's and 80'--VEPCO was buildiung a new nuclear plant and people were protesting--than the "protests" disappeared after VEPCO customers electric bills went DOWN!!I stongly feel "nuke" power has its place-and with the proper safeguards--is actually SAFER than conventional fuels.The "mistakes" that happened in the operation of TMI and Cherynobel occurred from HUMAN errors rather than the equipment.
whirlcool
Well-known member
The Cost Continues...
In Texas back in the 80's they built this thing called the South Texas Nuclear Generating Plant, which was susposed to "save us money" and almost everyone didn't want it. Well, after years of problems building the damn thing with all its start up problems they finally got it working. Did our bills go down as promised?
Heck no, Reliant Energy (Houstons Electric Company) then told us that we would have to pay a "surcharge" becuase in 2030 or somewhere thereabouts the fuel will have to be changed and they need to save money for the replacement fuel and the disposal of the current fuel starting now. What have we seen in savings?
Nada.....
In Texas back in the 80's they built this thing called the South Texas Nuclear Generating Plant, which was susposed to "save us money" and almost everyone didn't want it. Well, after years of problems building the damn thing with all its start up problems they finally got it working. Did our bills go down as promised?
Heck no, Reliant Energy (Houstons Electric Company) then told us that we would have to pay a "surcharge" becuase in 2030 or somewhere thereabouts the fuel will have to be changed and they need to save money for the replacement fuel and the disposal of the current fuel starting now. What have we seen in savings?
Nada.....
aka STP
LOL, my brother-in-law has worked there for years, in various capacities, including as a reactor operator. I don't know what is his title/job currently.
LOL, my brother-in-law has worked there for years, in various capacities, including as a reactor operator. I don't know what is his title/job currently.
well if we MUST do nuclear, IMHO the French have the right idea.
At least use the same exact model everywhere so that engineers can walk in to any reactor and know exactly what valve and what switch does what. No guessing. Less room for human errors.
At least use the same exact model everywhere so that engineers can walk in to any reactor and know exactly what valve and what switch does what. No guessing. Less room for human errors.
But a better option might be economize.
The biggest thing that pisses me off is when you get on a commuter train (electric) and the heat is on at your feet and the overhead A/C is also on. New ones IMHO shoulld be wired with a double-throw switch with three positions HEAT-OFF-COOL. Physically impossible to do both simultaneously.
Ever walk into a Burger King or Micky-D's-- pay attention to the double-doored air-lock vesitbule. Many times both the A/C and the heaters are on there too.
In my own office the A/C is on and the laides have their electric heaters going. AND ARE IN HALTERS WITH ABDOMEN EXPOSED and are in sandals. Think sweater and shoes.
*SIGH*
Can't say squat though.
The biggest thing that pisses me off is when you get on a commuter train (electric) and the heat is on at your feet and the overhead A/C is also on. New ones IMHO shoulld be wired with a double-throw switch with three positions HEAT-OFF-COOL. Physically impossible to do both simultaneously.
Ever walk into a Burger King or Micky-D's-- pay attention to the double-doored air-lock vesitbule. Many times both the A/C and the heaters are on there too.
In my own office the A/C is on and the laides have their electric heaters going. AND ARE IN HALTERS WITH ABDOMEN EXPOSED and are in sandals. Think sweater and shoes.
*SIGH*
Can't say squat though.
Public transit vehicles-I always hate it when I board a Metro Bus in Wash DC area in the summer-early in the morning-warm and humid outside-and the driver has the HEAT on-what is that??shouldn't we run the AC?I opened my window.
On the nukes-the equipment in question is automatic-but can be defeated by the operator-Automatic cooling systems in case of reactor overload or overheating-these were disabled by the operators in both incidents-In fact it was said the operators at Cherynobel were "experimenting" with the reactor when the fault happened.In b oth cases-for safety-the reactors should have beened "scrammed" shutdown.also the Russian reactors don't have the containment building that is required on USA reactors under safety codes.Its to protect from objects getting into the reactor room-and in case of reactor faults-to contain the radiation.The containment building is locked up to keep people out-the operators don't go in it while the plant is operating.
On the nukes-the equipment in question is automatic-but can be defeated by the operator-Automatic cooling systems in case of reactor overload or overheating-these were disabled by the operators in both incidents-In fact it was said the operators at Cherynobel were "experimenting" with the reactor when the fault happened.In b oth cases-for safety-the reactors should have beened "scrammed" shutdown.also the Russian reactors don't have the containment building that is required on USA reactors under safety codes.Its to protect from objects getting into the reactor room-and in case of reactor faults-to contain the radiation.The containment building is locked up to keep people out-the operators don't go in it while the plant is operating.
