Obama States no Danger from Fukushima, and Then Flys to Brazil with GE and Westinghouse CEOs

originally posted by: stock
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How do you know the radiation didn't mutate the virus?

How do you know the radiation didn't mutate viruses on the phyto-plankton that is causing the UMEs in the pacific?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that could be the case? Because just saying its a possibility isn't good enough for me to consider these two things related.

a reply to: musicismagic

Ya 10 years of jail time is pretty good incentive for the "professionals" to cover up fukushima, via the Japan state secrets act

originally posted by: stock
a reply to: neo96

SMRs do not have working models, combining heat, pressure, salt, ferrous metals, and winger effect from neutron bombardment is about one of the stupidest things our three pound insane monkey brain could come up with.

In your opinion.

Conversely they have been used for over 60 years powering aircraft carriers,submarines, and ships.

SMR's have the greatest potential to keep up with energy demands of today, and tomorrow, and can keep pace with population growth.

Unlike 'Alternative'.

a reply to: Krazysh0t well lets see now....2011 to now: Fukushima releases.

2011 to now, progression of the death of the pacific, naw....just a coincidence, can't consider it, too busy keeping up with the kardashians.....nothing to see here, move along.

a reply to: neo96 Acknowledged, I was referring to the "new nuclear" that keeps getting promised that "it will be safe this time" in particular Molten Salt Reactors.

a reply to: stock

Why are you deflecting? I asked you if there is any provable connection between fukushima and it mutating the Zika virus. Because if you did, THAT would be something to discuss, because of its real world impacts. Now you are just getting frustrated that I won't go along with your opinion and accuse me of sticking my head in the sand.

a reply to: stock

I wouldn't go so far to ever call nuclear power 'safe'.

But this is the 21 century with different technology, and building materials. Smr's can be completely build inhouse, and shipped to where ever.

Not to mention.

Safety features[edit] Since there are several different ideas for SMRs, there are many different safety features that can be involved. Coolant systems can use natural circulation – convection – so there are no pumps, no moving parts that could break down, and they keep removing decay heat after the reactor shuts down, so that the core doesn’t overheat and melt. Negative temperature coefficients in the moderators and the fuels keep the fission reactions under control, causing the fission reactions to slow down as temperature increases.[18]

Waste reduction[edit] Many SMRs are fast reactors that are designed to have higher fuel burnup rates, reducing the amount of waste produced. At higher neutron energy more fission products can be usually tolerated. As mentioned before, some SMRs are also breeder reactors, which not only "burn" fuels like 235 U, but will also convert fissionable materials like 238 U (which occurs naturally at a much higher concentration than 235 U) into usable fuels.[12] Some reactors are designed to run on alternative thorium fuel cycle, which offers significantly reduced long-term waste radiotoxicity compared to uranium cycle.[20] There has been some interest in the concept of a traveling wave reactor, a new type of breeder reactor that uses the fuel it breeds. The idea would eliminate the need to remove the spent fuel and "clean" it before reusing any newly bred fuel.[21]

en.wikipedia.org...

They would be better than what is currently being used, and at a significant cost savings.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
So what's the fukushima death toll up to now?
Has it hit 2 yet?

I wish you could be around in a hundred, a thousand and ten thousand years to make informed, quanitative guesses about how the amount of death to human and sea creatures that Fukushima has caused.

Radiation is not like a bullet, a one-shot, all or nothing thing. It is a man-made death machine that keeps on giving.

a reply to: neo96


Concerning small modular reactors, you're right that they are cheaper themselves than traditional large reactors.

This is provided that the areas energy needs are within the scope of a smaller reactor. When you put the costs to scale, larger reactors are most cost effective right now. Although I suppose if fast reacting SMRs were to be mass produced, then some of the cost would be offset.

Just to be clear on the subject. To my knowledge, an SMR only produces about a quarter the power that a traditional large reactor does, so for an area which can utilize that smaller amount, it would be more cost effective. Not for a larger area which requires say 1k megawatt.

a reply to: spinalremain

Cost effective eh?

Fukishima,Cherynobol, and 3 mile Island say other wise.

Now on the other hand the smaller reactors that are used on ships haven't had a mishap yet have they?

a reply to: neo96



A mishap? I don't understand what you mean.

I'm not speaking about safety at all. I was talking about cost because you stated it was a "significant cost saving".

a reply to: spinalremain

Yeah considering they cost less, and they produce less waste.

Isn't that what people want ?

A decentralized powered grid, and 'greener' energy ?

Some of the material I have read on SMR say some designs can run on nuclear waste itself.

a reply to: neo96


They can. I'm not disagreeing with you. Just trying to clarify that when you look at the capacity factor, the larger traditional reactors are more cost effective.

In the future if SMRs are in demand and they're massed produced, that may change. We just aren't there yet.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
So what's the fukushima death toll up to now?
Has it hit 2 yet?

When Godzilla-like monsters start emerging from the depths & invading Japan I'm gonna come back to this thread & say I told you so.

a reply to: spinalremain

Basically the same premise as alternative energy with people selling power back to the 'grid'.

Capacity really isn't a factor when it comes to parellel power generation like generators are current doing.

More than one generator producing power needs, and as more power is needed other generators are brought online to handle the load.

The only hurdle here is peoples slobbering love affair with alternative.

Now if someone would get off their buts and invent and mass produce a fusion reactor.

This country re starting it space program to go mine HE3, or invent a process to make mass quantities of it.

I say they need to go for it.

For immediate needs smr's can fill that bill.

a reply to: neo96

Saying green and nuclear in the same sentence is a lie out of the gate

a reply to: stock

Fusion power is green.

FIssion not so much.

So not really a 'lie'.

originally posted by: stock
a reply to: neo96

Saying green and nuclear in the same sentence is a lie out of the gate

Nuclear power is the greenest option, say top scientists

a reply to: xuenchen

That's funny too!

Alternative energy depends on the weather to work.

Nuclear power works 24/7 regardless.

Some designs like from MIT use nuclear waste to generate their power.

And yet they don't want nothing to do with it.

They think power should only come when the sun shines, and the wind blows.

a reply to: neo96


Of course the capacity matters. That's step 1 when deducing a given area's power needs. How large of a powerhouse donwe build?

SMRs are only capable of producing a fraction of the power that a traditional reactor can. Hence their name. They're small. In size and output.

If an area, say the size of a large county in California needed a new means of power and you did the math, the old reactor would be cheaper due to it's ability to cover the output needed.