New Nuclear Plant Designs - All Comments

re: Simplicity Rules!

Nworker — Thu, 31 May 2007 19:50:38 GMT

UraniumHotspot why are you so angry and just spew out nonsense like you are some authority on the subject? All I see in your posts is this “big” nuclear conspiracy theory from the government and how “everybody” is against nuclear power. You are sadly mistaken and we all feel sorry for you.

re: Simplicity Rules!

UraniumHotspot — Tue, 29 May 2007 03:02:59 GMT

All reactors are different, but the NRC has a one size fits all license renewal application process...don't you find that funny. Curious here...are you one of those that supports forcing communities to play host to aging degradated reactors in the name of a Nuclear Renaissance? Do you condone forcing communities to host reactors, even if they DO NOT WANT THEM? Sort of the OK in someone else's back yard approach to modern day convenience. Care to discuss the 2.5 billion gallons of iradiated and heated (105 degrees) water that each individual reactor dumps back into our waterways on a daily basis, and what effect that has on global warming?

re: Simplicity Rules!

PBC — Thu, 10 May 2007 03:44:23 GMT

well, i have to be honest. i believe your opening comment of "simplicity rules" is a correct one. i know that now and days, we are developing all sorts of new technologies to make the production of nuclear energy more efficient and cost effective, however i for one favor the more simple systems of yesteryear. my opinion is based on the idea that the more complex a system becomes, the higher the chance of malfunction on either the equipment OR operator (mostly operator)side. by keeping systems simple, costs for plant construction, maintenance and operations will be kept low. also, being that the plant is easier to understand and operate, the corporate investments of both money and time are minimized in the realm of personnel training and qualification. i do, however, think that the ideas of new, light-induced fusion reactors or traditional fission reactors using various gasses to cool them (as opposed to water or liquid sodium) are really interesting and ways to make the current and future plants more efficient should be persued, but let's not make the plant so advanced that 1986 repeats itself all over again. that's a prime example of what happens when operators begin to rely soley on plant technology. i also believe that steam is out-dated and may indeed be replaced with electro-chemical potential-type energies derived from nuclear reactions. however, given today's current reactor sizes, this doesn't look too feasible.