Latest posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
27,638
Posts
542,781
Members
28,582
Latest Member
Joannafit
What's New?

Greta Thunberg?...

NavyChief

NavyChief

VIP Member
Sep 26, 2013
706
592
NC, why is there acid rain?...And do u think it can effect the earth in an negative way?...Just asking, my bro....Not wanting to start an pissing match...


.
Absolutely my friend. When sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides mix with water and oxygen it creates sulfuric and nitric acids. Yes this falls as acid rain.
Yep, I know what you're going to say next, electric generators cause some of this and yes I agree this is true. But so do volcanos and many other things.

So, back to my original plan..... NUCLEAR POWER hooyah. Safer than most will ever know. Now what I am saying doesnt have to be just nuclear fission as I beleive that during my lifetime, hopefully the next 20 urs, we will achieve a nuclear fusion capability (we can do it now but it takes ore power to do than we get back from it) and bring in a new era of renewable energy
 
matthewk04

matthewk04

VIP Member
Jul 21, 2013
731
283
I can get significant tax credits for installing solar panels on my home. If solar was such a good deal, why would the gov't need to create incentives to do it. The gov't gives out all sorts of incentives for green energy R&D.

I've always heard that oil companies get massive subsidies. They may, but it's never been clear to me how that works, and how it's not any different from any other corporate welfare. I don't approve of it for fossil fuel, or anything else, especially Elon Musk.

fossil fuels are not entirely clean. Obviously coal combustion is not clean, but natural gas combustion is very clean, and is energy dense, and relatively easily portable. I'm not against green energy, but it needs to compete on fair footing with everything else.

In my town, the city bus fleet, and other fleet vehicles run on natural gas. So I know that's not exotic technology. I wonder why auto manufacturers and the gov't hasn't pushed for LNG infrastructure, and natural gas vehicles. Would reduce smog, we have tons of it, and it's cheap. I'd rather give money to US fracking workers that towel heads over in the Middle East.

Between America and the EU we give direct cash (not counting infrastructure) subsidies to the fossil fuel industry of about 100 billion dollars a year.
 
tommyguns2

tommyguns2

Senior Moderators
Staff Member
Dec 25, 2010
6,337
5,061
Navy Chief, what I've read about hydroelectric power using the tides is that the collection technology is relatively straightforward, but the environment is extremely tough on the equipment. Salt water is highly corrosive, and sea animals have a tendency of chewing on lines, and the tides buffet the equipment. So when you consider total cost of ownership, not just the cost of power generation, it's still challenging.
 
BackAtIt

BackAtIt

MuscleHead
Oct 3, 2016
2,185
668
Absolutely my friend. When sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides mix with water and oxygen it creates sulfuric and nitric acids. Yes this falls as acid rain.
Yep, I know what you're going to say next, electric generators cause some of this and yes I agree this is true. But so do volcanos and many other things.

10-4

So, back to my original plan..... NUCLEAR POWER hooyah. Safer than most will ever know. Now what I am saying doesnt have to be just nuclear fission as I beleive that during my lifetime, hopefully the next 20 urs, we will achieve a nuclear fusion capability (we can do it now but it takes ore power to do than we get back from it) and bring in a new era of renewable energy

Son of a bisquet eater!....NUCLEAR alone scares me...NC, were u on a nuclear sub?...I knew a lawyer that was...He showed me a pic of it on his desk along with a couple of college chicks that he was dating at same time, lol...

I've got to ask, why are u so confident in the NUCLEAR technology?...Isn't there still a lot of unknown's as far as the safe use of it?...I do like it tho, lol...


.
 
NavyChief

NavyChief

VIP Member
Sep 26, 2013
706
592
Navy Chief, what I've read about hydroelectric power using the tides is that the collection technology is relatively straightforward, but the environment is extremely tough on the equipment. Salt water is highly corrosive, and sea animals have a tendency of chewing on lines, and the tides buffet the equipment. So when you consider total cost of ownership, not just the cost of power generation, it's still challenging.
I am glad to see that I am not the only one that has researched this. I agree and have read many of those arguments as well. Issue is we have many other things that we have and use in the ocean in various ways that challenge these arguments. For instance a powder coated aluminum chainmail over the cables. better yet, stainless steel is the salt water standard and if powder coated, would last 10 times as long.

Im still all for nuclear as being the answer for power, but thats because I am biased of course.
 
matthewk04

matthewk04

VIP Member
Jul 21, 2013
731
283
10-4



Son of a bisquet eater!....NUCLEAR alone scares me...NC, were u on a nuclear sub?...I knew a lawyer that was...He showed me a pic of it on his desk along with a couple of college chicks that he was dating at same time, lol...

I've got to ask, why are u so confident in the NUCLEAR technology?...Isn't there still a lot of unknown's as far as the safe use of it?...I do like it tho, lol...


.

I’ve honestly never seen any conclusive research done on its modern viability. That bothers me I want studies and data. Lack of good information drives me crazy. The plant near me that is being decommissioned was built in 1968. A close friend of mine is one of engineers in charge there and it’s like the wild Wild West getting rid of a lot of this stuff. They were going to just give this oil away that they used and he’s like this stuff is super valuable in the marine/boating industry and they just let him have a bunch.
 
NavyChief

NavyChief

VIP Member
Sep 26, 2013
706
592
10-4



Son of a bisquet eater!....NUCLEAR alone scares me...NC, were u on a nuclear sub?...

.

Yes sir, I started my career out on Nuclear subs. Los Angeles class subs. After working with nuclear power and understanding it, the fear went away. Like most things, the more we learn about something, the less we fear it. Doesnt mean we dont respect it because its also one of those things that the more you know, the more you respect it as well.

The world fears it because of the weaponization of nukes and the accidents of our planet like Chernobyl disaster and Fukushima.
3 mile island was a partial meltdown. It was a minor spill that wouldnt fill a 5 gallon bucket but you would have thought we nuked the entire country. (need to clarify comment; the amount f radioactive waste that was released and a danger to the public was minor and would not fill the 5 gallon bucket with the chem wipes that were used to clean up the radioactive water that was leaked from the primary coolant system

The accidents that took place in Russia and Japan actually could not happen in America just because of reactor design. A simple example: Russia control rods had to be hydraulically pushed into the reactor to shut this down. The heat and pressure was to much and it was to late to get them into the mix and shut the fission reaction down.
Our reactors have control rods above the reactor and are held there by electro-hydraulics. In the event of a loss of power, their fail safe is to just fall immediately and thus prevents a reactor from over heating. Control rods are made from things like cadmium, silver, boron or indium. These things are capable of absorbing neutrons without creating fission themselves and thus create a cool reactor.
 
Last edited:
BackAtIt

BackAtIt

MuscleHead
Oct 3, 2016
2,185
668
hopefully the next 20 urs, we will achieve a nuclear fusion capability (we can do it now but it takes ore power to do than we get back from it) and bring in a new era of renewable energy

Do u remember the stink with the two chemist who claimed they were able to produce "cold fusion" in an lab?...I can't remember their names at the moment...What ever happened to that idea?...


.
 
NavyChief

NavyChief

VIP Member
Sep 26, 2013
706
592
he accident began about 4 a.m. on Wednesday, March 28, 1979, when the plant experienced a failure in the secondary, non-nuclear section of the plant (one of two reactors on the site). Either a mechanical or electrical failure prevented the main feedwater pumps—component (1) in the animated diagram)—from sending water to the steam generators (2) that remove heat from the reactor core (3). This caused the plant's turbine-generator (4) and then the reactor itself to automatically shut down. Immediately, the pressure in the primary system (the nuclear piping portion of the plant shown in orange) began to increase. In order to control that pressure, the pilot-operated relief valve (5) opened. It was located at the top of the pressurizer (6). The valve should have closed when the pressure fell to proper levels, but it became stuck open. Instruments in the control room, however, indicated to the plant staff that the valve was closed. As a result, the plant staff was unaware that cooling water in the form of steam was pouring out of the stuck-open valve. As alarms rang and warning lights flashed, the operators did not realize that the plant was experiencing a loss-of-coolant accident.
Other instruments available to plant staff provided inadequate or misleading information. During normal operations, the large pressure vessel (7) that held the reactor core was always filled to the top with water. So there was no need for a water-level instrument to show whether water in the vessel covered the core. As a result, plant staff assumed that as long instruments showed that the pressurizer water level was high enough, the core was properly covered with water too. That wasn't the case.
Unaware of the stuck-open relief valve and unable to tell if the core was covered with cooling water, the staff took a series of actions that uncovered the core. The stuck valve reduced primary system pressure so much that the reactor coolant pumps (8) started to vibrate and were turned off. The emergency cooling water being pumped into the primary system threatened to fill up the pressurizer completely—an undesirable condition—and they cut back on the flow of water. Without the reactor coolant pumps circulating water and with the primary system starved of emergency cooling water, the water level in the pressure vessel dropped and the core overheated.
 
NavyChief

NavyChief

VIP Member
Sep 26, 2013
706
592
Do u remember the stink with the two chemist who claimed they were able to produce "cold fusion" in an lab?...I can't remember their names at the moment...What ever happened to that idea?...


.
I do not know and barely remember this being said, but I dont remember hearing anything else about it ever afterward.
 
tommyguns2

tommyguns2

Senior Moderators
Staff Member
Dec 25, 2010
6,337
5,061
I believe it was Dr. Stanley Pons. The only reason I know is that I'm a good friend of his niece. There have been some awkward conversations, LOL
 
BackAtIt

BackAtIt

MuscleHead
Oct 3, 2016
2,185
668
I believe it was Dr. Stanley Pons. The only reason I know is that I'm a good friend of his niece. There have been some awkward conversations, LOL

Yes, that is one of them...Is he the older one?...

.
 
Who is viewing this thread?

There are currently 0 members watching this topic

Top