• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Nuclear power

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Nuclear power

    BBC News - Japan to scrap stricken nuclear reactors

    Nick Clegg: Britain's proposed nuclear plants may not be built - Telegraph


    Okay lets think about this. Those power stations were fine before a quake and a tsunami.

    So, don't build the reactors near a fault line (when was the last time Britain had a major earth quake).

    How to combat a tsunami. Build the reactors on top of a cliff. Most tsunamis are a few meters high. The houses in Japan close to the sea but on a hill were fine.


    Sorted.

    Now I'll wait 5 years for some govt funded report to come to the same conclusion.

    #2
    And reactors heavily depend on water, pumping it up a cliff isn't a good idea.

    My idea is to have the reactor floating in the sea, but I think the Russian's have already nicked my idea.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by stek View Post
      And reactors heavily depend on water, pumping it up a cliff isn't a good idea.

      My idea is to have the reactor floating in the sea, but I think the Russian's have already nicked my idea.
      Like K-19?
      Knock first as I might be balancing my chakras.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by suityou01 View Post
        Like K-19?
        And this!

        Russian floating nuclear power station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Comment


          #5
          Only needs to be about 5 metres above sea level to avoid the tsunami. Not exactly a problem.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
            Only needs to be about 5 metres above sea level to avoid the tsunami. Not exactly a problem.
            Tsunami was 10m high.
            Knock first as I might be balancing my chakras.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by zeitghost
              Rather interestingly, so were the Tsunami protection walls around much of the coast.

              Unfortunately the coast dropped by about a metre, which didn't help a lot.
              cant they put something under the coast, like gravel or pylons, to stop it dropping like



              (\__/)
              (>'.'<)
              ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
                BBC News - Japan to scrap stricken nuclear reactors

                Nick Clegg: Britain's proposed nuclear plants may not be built - Telegraph


                Okay lets think about this. Those power stations were fine before a quake and a tsunami.

                So, don't build the reactors near a fault line (when was the last time Britain had a major earth quake).

                How to combat a tsunami. Build the reactors on top of a cliff. Most tsunamis are a few meters high. The houses in Japan close to the sea but on a hill were fine.


                Sorted.

                Now I'll wait 5 years for some govt funded report to come to the same conclusion.

                Those power stations were fine before a quake and a tsunami.
                Not really. They were old and they were storing hundreds of thousands of spent fuel rods on site (much more than is in the reactors), which would have had to have been dealt with (expensively) at some point. Some of these ponds are thought to be sizzling away, with a risk of criticality. This may impact on the cost and practises involved in the handling and stockpiling spent fuel rods everywhere, and also raise questions on whether private companies should be allowed to operate nuclear plants where profit and long term clean-up costs compete. It's looking as if the TEPCO is going to be nationalised and the clean-up costs borne by the tax payer, not to mentioned the damage to the economy.

                Fukushima has shown how easy it is for nuclear reactors to get out of control and people might question whether it's worth risking contaminating 100s of square kilometres of land for decades.

                I say everyone get together and take a look at thorium reactors. The uranium cycle is looking antiquated, short-sighted and messy.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Fusion. We should spend gazillions on it in a sort of Manhattan project just get it done kind of way instead of fannying about with windmills.
                  While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by zeitghost
                    Are you mad?

                    You can't make pits out of thorium.

                    Er.

                    Actually you can:

                    http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publica...df/9_1kang.pdf

                    It's just that no one has bothered to yet.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X