Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Russia Unveils Detailed Plans To Build 21 New Nuclear Power Units By 2030 [View all]FBaggins
(28,678 posts)23. Hillarious that you find such errors to be "fun"
TEPCO used to use MOX in 4 and, I believe, that 2 and 3 were still using.
Entirely untrue. Unit 3 was the only MOX unit and it had just received it's first load (1/3 of a core) in the previous refeuling outage. Thus there isn't even any spent MOX in the spent fuel pool (though there would be a handful of unused assemblies).
And MOX is hardly an "unpopular fuel"... it's used in lots of reactors... and planned for many more. The fake hype about MOX at Fukushima was just so that people could fit the word "plutonium" into their articles (nonsense of course... since all spent fuel has plutonium in it)
Oh, if the Hoover Dam fails then several thousand people will die or be harmed at the time but rescue efforts will be able to start immediately and within a year people will be moving back. The effect will not last for years and decades with an ongoing death toll and damage to the world at large.
You're not seriously trying to compare an imagined failure of Hoover Dam to Fukushima and pretend that the Dam would be less damaging... are you?
It wouldn't be "several thousand"... it would be tens of thousands. Lake Mohave and the Davis dam would fail as well... then Lake Havasu and the Parker dam would go. A few little towns (like... say... Las Vegas) would have no water supply and 3GWs of their power generation would be destroyed. No water... no power... no irrigation for crops - in the middle of a desert. That's a heck of a lot more "uninhabbitable" than a radiation level that might cause a few hundred deaths from cancer if you stayed instead of evacuated.
If you think that the population of the area would return a year later... you're nuts.
But we weren't talking about how much damage it would do if it failed... we were talking about the ability to design substantial steel and concrete structures to last for many decades. It's most certainly possible to design reactors that could (with appropriate maintenance) last a century.
Entirely untrue. Unit 3 was the only MOX unit and it had just received it's first load (1/3 of a core) in the previous refeuling outage. Thus there isn't even any spent MOX in the spent fuel pool (though there would be a handful of unused assemblies).
And MOX is hardly an "unpopular fuel"... it's used in lots of reactors... and planned for many more. The fake hype about MOX at Fukushima was just so that people could fit the word "plutonium" into their articles (nonsense of course... since all spent fuel has plutonium in it)
Oh, if the Hoover Dam fails then several thousand people will die or be harmed at the time but rescue efforts will be able to start immediately and within a year people will be moving back. The effect will not last for years and decades with an ongoing death toll and damage to the world at large.
You're not seriously trying to compare an imagined failure of Hoover Dam to Fukushima and pretend that the Dam would be less damaging... are you?
It wouldn't be "several thousand"... it would be tens of thousands. Lake Mohave and the Davis dam would fail as well... then Lake Havasu and the Parker dam would go. A few little towns (like... say... Las Vegas) would have no water supply and 3GWs of their power generation would be destroyed. No water... no power... no irrigation for crops - in the middle of a desert. That's a heck of a lot more "uninhabbitable" than a radiation level that might cause a few hundred deaths from cancer if you stayed instead of evacuated.
If you think that the population of the area would return a year later... you're nuts.
But we weren't talking about how much damage it would do if it failed... we were talking about the ability to design substantial steel and concrete structures to last for many decades. It's most certainly possible to design reactors that could (with appropriate maintenance) last a century.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
105 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Russia Unveils Detailed Plans To Build 21 New Nuclear Power Units By 2030 [View all]
FBaggins
Nov 2013
OP
Do they have any detailed plans about how they are going to dismantle them in 20 -50 years?
intaglio
Nov 2013
#2
So you are saying that long lived radio-isotopes are not present in nuclear waste.
intaglio
Nov 2013
#16
Nope... I'm not saying that. Nor most of the rest of your imagined statements.
FBaggins
Nov 2013
#20
And how does the fluid in the primary cooling circuit move through that circuit?
intaglio
Nov 2013
#62