This is the single most important issue in the history of the world

reply to post by BrianC


pic.'s...

Op this is a scary thought...I am thinking about what you have said, and it makes sense. What is the Government doing about this problem? Do they even realize that it is a problem?
How do these nuke plants work anyway? Can they be shut down, and the fuel rods sealed in lead or something?
This is really scary!!!! Yes some questions need to be asked about this, but who do we ask?

you are 100% correct. we should be freaking out and trying to get all the reactors shut down. (i think germany is)

now, to twist this idea into a skunk works type thing,

if 99.9 % of irradiated people died, there would be quite a few people left, who would be immune to radiation. (survival of the fittest) these "super mutant" humans would then be able to live in the world, and eventully be able to travel to outer space without fear of radiation. (sorry, i've been playing a lot of fallout lately)

or maybe they are gene splicing (through vaccines) the gene that makes cockroaches basically immune to radiation, into the populous so that we survive.

in all actuality, we are all fecked

So you believe that this threat is valid enough that we should shut down all nuclear plants immediately. Have you given this some serious thought as to the repercussions of that.

I'm not sure how much nuclear contributes to our power percentage but I know it's a decent chunk so with winter fast approaching you feel validated in cutting off tens of millions of people with no power which would certainly cause hundreds if not thousands of deaths as well as bringing our economy to a halt and further devastating this country.

If you were in charge and had to make this decision do you believe that there is enough evidence to justify this. You could honestly say that it's important enough even if all those people will die.

Originally posted by Visiting ESB
Of course, those nuclear plants are connected to that grid and they will be without power

The nuclear power plants are not reliant on the grid to have an electricity supply.
They ARE the electricity supply.


Edit - having throught (and read) about this some more, ignore the above for being a simplistic answer that doesnt cover all bases.

reply to post by kro32


at some point we will get hit with a solar flare big enough to do this type of damage.

it may not be for 1000 years, but it could be tomorrow

we need to shield the grid to protect it

we should/would have some warning, so they would be able to shut it down to protect it

reply to post by alfa1


Haha very good and obvious point.

I believe you just blew up this thread.

FYI nuclear reactors have a primary cooling system that pumps water which is driven by turbines that use steam from the reactor to turn - eg self sufficient (which is why Fukushima has more to it than meets the eye)

in event of solar maximum the reactors (which are usually over-over-engineered) would not be affected in such a way as to cause meltdown

stuxnet is a different story

some research that may help you includes
en.wikipedia.org...


number of reactors:
In 2007, the IAEA reported there were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world,[3] operating in 31 countries.[4] Also, more than 150 naval vessels using nuclear propulsion have been built


en.wikipedia.org...

Cooling A nuclear reactor coolant — usually water but sometimes a gas or a liquid metal or molten salt — is circulated past the reactor core to absorb the heat that it generates. The heat is carried away from the reactor and is then used to generate steam. Most reactor systems employ a cooling system that is physically separated from the water that will be boiled to produce pressurized steam for the turbines, like the pressurized water reactor. But in some reactors the water for the steam turbines is boiled directly by the reactor core, for example the boiling water reactor.[5]

enjoy - its a blast

reply to post by BadBoYeed


But the op is saying to shut them down immediately which would have a devastating impact not only in America but across the world. If this doesn't happen for 1000 years than alot of people will have died for nothing.

Perhaps it would be wiser to study the problem and find a more reasonable approach to the problem.

reply to post by Visiting ESB


Holy Fear Monger Batman!

Yes, a nuclear power plant without electricity to cool it's rods is bad, really bad.

Yes, a really bad CME has the potential to 'fry the grid'

Yes, there is such a thing as a power generator that runs off fuel. I'm sure anyone who's ever built a nuke plant has never thought of that.

As dude said, pics or it didn't happen!
Do you have an references of plants not being backed up? I'm more inclined to think the people smart enough to construct these, are smart enough to think of backup plans for if the grid goes down. Do you have any evidence to show otherwise? Or, is my hunch correct, and your just putting diarrhea on the web to scare the [snip] out of people?

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Visiting ESB
Of course, those nuclear plants are connected to that grid and they will be without power

The nuclear power plants are not reliant on the grid to have an electricity supply.
They ARE the electricity supply.

Completely untrue. If the plant in Japan had been self-sustaining we wouldn't have known it even existed.

Originally posted by Lighterside
reply to post by Visiting ESB

 

Holy Fear Monger Batman!

Yes, a nuclear power plant without electricity to cool it's rods is bad, really bad.

Yes, a really bad CME has the potential to 'fry the grid'

Yes, there is such a thing as a power generator that runs off fuel. I'm sure anyone who's ever built a nuke plant has never thought of that.

As dude said, pics or it didn't happen!
Do you have an references of plants not being backed up? I'm more inclined to think the people smart enough to construct these, are smart enough to think of backup plans for if the grid goes down. Do you have any evidence to show otherwise? Or, is my hunch correct, and your just putting diarrhea on the web to scare the [snip] out of people?

google Fukushima. You'll have all the pics you want. And that serves as your example, too. No, the people "smart" enough to build them were/are clods that don't think very far into the future. They're arrogant, just like the geniuses that built the Titanic. Remember, that was supposed to be unsinkable.

As for your hunch, maybe you should do some independent thinkng. You know, the kind of thinking that's not spoon-fed to you by TV?

Originally posted by Visiting ESB

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Visiting ESB
Of course, those nuclear plants are connected to that grid and they will be without power

The nuclear power plants are not reliant on the grid to have an electricity supply.
They ARE the electricity supply.

Completely untrue. If the plant in Japan had been self-sustaining we wouldn't have known it even existed.

You may need to research that a bit before making that argument :-)

reactors make steam......

reply to post by Visiting ESB


Titanic?

there's another conspiracy - They say it wasnt the Titanic at all, but the re-badged sister ship, an insurance job, and all manner of sneaky stuff

I am pretty sure Titanic was not nuclear tho'

reply to post by kro32


no doubt, an immediate shutdown is impossible. but, to be safe, they should be phased out ASAP. a major earthquake / tsunami event on either coast of the US could precipitate several fukushima style disasters. that is way more likely than solar flare trouble IMO.

we've been flying fast and loose with this cheap "green" power. Unfortunately, there is too much money to be made, so they may be here for a while.

Originally posted by Highlander64
FYI nuclear reactors have a primary cooling system that pumps water which is driven by turbines that use steam from the reactor to turn - eg self sufficient (which is why Fukushima has more to it than meets the eye)

in event of solar maximum the reactors (which are usually over-over-engineered) would not be affected in such a way as to cause meltdown

stuxnet is a different story

some research that may help you includes
en.wikipedia.org...


number of reactors:
In 2007, the IAEA reported there were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world,[3] operating in 31 countries.[4] Also, more than 150 naval vessels using nuclear propulsion have been built


en.wikipedia.org...

Cooling A nuclear reactor coolant — usually water but sometimes a gas or a liquid metal or molten salt — is circulated past the reactor core to absorb the heat that it generates. The heat is carried away from the reactor and is then used to generate steam. Most reactor systems employ a cooling system that is physically separated from the water that will be boiled to produce pressurized steam for the turbines, like the pressurized water reactor. But in some reactors the water for the steam turbines is boiled directly by the reactor core, for example the boiling water reactor.[5]

enjoy - its a blast

No, this is all incorrect. Nuclear power plants use water as a coolant, but, for example, when Fukushima could not access electricity, that was when it began to turn for the worse:

Nuclear power plants are not isolated electrically. They are tied into the power grid and are also dependent upon it. There is a postulated accident for nuclear power stations called “Station Blackout,” where all off-site power is lost. Every nuclear power plant must prove to the NRC that they have the ability to withstand this event without core damage. Every US nuclear power plant has emergency diesel generators just for this purpose. These are designed to start automatically in the event of the loss of off-site power. This kind of event has actually happened before in the USA, and the systems responded as designed, and off-site power was restored within a reasonable period of time.

www.survivalblog.com...

Originally posted by Highlander64
reply to post by Visiting ESB

 

Titanic?

there's another conspiracy - They say it wasnt the Titanic at all, but the re-badged sister ship, an insurance job, and all manner of sneaky stuff

I am pretty sure Titanic was not nuclear tho'

edit on 12-8-2011 by Highlander64 because: (no reason given)

Never said it was nuclear. Just read my post. It refers to engineers who arrogantly proclaimed their creation was unsinkable. Same with nuclear plants. Their creators and builders have always pushed how safe they are. They've recently been proven wrong.

Originally posted by Visiting ESB
[
No, this is all incorrect. Nuclear power plants use water as a coolant, but, for example, when Fukushima could not access electricity, that was when it began to turn for the worse:

you need to read up on it

if you dont like wiki try this link as it may be more to your liking
www.jimstonefreelance.com...

its a decent article

Maybe there is something mysteriously truthful about the global consciousness.
I was researching this very topic.

How many operational nuclear reactors there are or have been?
How much plutonium has each created?
How much plutonium and other radioactive elements would it take to 'infect' the earth?

Plutonium is the most deadly single element known to us, and we create it to heat water?
Fail.

Originally posted by Highlander64

Originally posted by Visiting ESB

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Visiting ESB
Of course, those nuclear plants are connected to that grid and they will be without power

The nuclear power plants are not reliant on the grid to have an electricity supply.
They ARE the electricity supply.

Completely untrue. If the plant in Japan had been self-sustaining we wouldn't have known it even existed.

You may need to research that a bit before making that argument :-)

reactors make steam......

They still need electricity for monitoring and regulation:

To circulate cooling water when the reactor is shut down and not producing electricity, cooling pumps can be powered by other units on-site, by other units off-site through the grid, or by diesel generators.[55][57] In addition, boiling water reactors have steam-turbine driven emergency core cooling systems that can be directly operated by steam still being produced after a reactor shutdown, which can inject water directly into the reactor.[58] Steam turbines results in less dependence on emergency generators, but steam turbines only operate so long as the reactor is producing steam. Some electrical power, provided by batteries, is needed to operate the valves and monitoring systems.

en.wikipedia.org...

Question: Would a strong enough Solar Magnetic Storm destroy the components of a fuel powered generator?

Question: If this storm would have happened where there were millions of metal tanks full of gasoline, and metallic objects that could pick up a charge, would cities just literally explode?

Question: Do you believe that the military has developed the technology to 'feed' off a magnetic storm like this, in order to sustain their nwo operations? lawl :]