Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > Survival & Preparedness Forum > Manmade and Natural Disasters
Articles Chat Room Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files



Notices

Manmade and Natural Disasters Drought, Diseases, Earthquakes, Riots, Wars

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
nuclear power plants KnightOfthewaste Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Survival 23 01-12-2015 12:40 AM
Nuclear Power Plants 13ella Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 86 08-07-2013 05:31 PM
Nuclear power plants near my b.o.l Tbeemer Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 16 07-29-2013 11:40 AM
Nuclear power plants.. Renegade Ziggy Manmade and Natural Disasters 16 07-21-2013 09:33 PM
map of all nuclear power plants? bobbydeadup Manmade and Natural Disasters 7 01-03-2012 09:33 PM
If Cascadian fault causes an earthquake?? Washington State Nuclear Power Plant? Deo Gratias! Manmade and Natural Disasters 39 07-25-2011 06:49 PM
EMP and Nuclear Power plants?? RockinGLock Manmade and Natural Disasters 3 04-03-2011 08:18 PM
Nuclear power plants and EMP...... kahn Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 16 01-04-2011 07:59 AM
Nuclear Power Plants bubbles99 Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 22 10-29-2010 03:10 PM
What about nuclear power plants. jbm555 Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Survival 3 01-23-2009 01:40 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-14-2011, 06:10 AM
usmountains's Avatar
usmountains usmountains is offline
Gitter Done!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 1,941
Thanks: 571
Thanked 2,504 Times in 946 Posts
Cool Nuclear Power plants in the New Madrid Fault



Advertise Here

Here is something that is a wake up call. Scientists are highly worried about the New Madrid fault and in fact there has been the constant FEMA vans and semi's along with troops staging exercises along the New Madrid Fault in the event such an earthquake would happen. Problem, there is a lot more nuclear power plants along the New Madrid fault than what is in Japan.

Check this link out and see what you think. Makes you want to head to Alaska and build a bomb shelter there.

http://www.bsoscblog.com/forum/viewt...e6662df1#p2081

Oh, it has Europe on there as well. It wouldn't be much better for Europe if they had an Earthquake, they have a ton of Nuclear power plants.

Time to change to solar and wind power, I think we can cover half of texas with solar panels and half of Kansas with wind turbines instead of risking our butts over Nuclear power.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to usmountains For This Useful Post:
Old 03-14-2011, 06:45 AM
Robot's Avatar
Robot Robot is offline
"Non-Human Neanderthal"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Twilight Zone
Posts: 8,685
Thanks: 26,307
Thanked 13,404 Times in 4,947 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by usmountains View Post
risking our butts over Nuclear power.
Risk is part of life, manage it with the best information available.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Robot For This Useful Post:
Old 03-14-2011, 07:22 AM
aramchek's Avatar
aramchek aramchek is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 11,999
Thanks: 1,169
Thanked 13,204 Times in 6,158 Posts
Default

And it turns out that the concept of nuclear power is more than half a century obsolete. Practical geothermal, solar (not just panels) or hydrogen weren't available options in the 1940's. They are now.

There's no reason at all to build nuclear plants anywhere near the Pacific rim, on their side or on ours. There's a virtually unlimited source of heat just a couple miles straight down. Some engineering challenges, but very little risk at all.

But I would say there's a risk with nuclear far worse than earthquakes and other natural disasters. Namely, political and economic disaster. Our government can't seem to run anything properly. Everything descends into inefficient cronyism, corruption, mismanagement, failure and bailout. It's astounding that they haven't let the reactors go into the sort of disrepair that they let banking regulations, the economy, endless wars, the New Orleans sea barriers, the highway 35 bridge here in Minnesota, etc. descend into. It comes down not just to a naive trust in technology, that most people eventually learn to approach with caution as they get older. But it comes down to a matter of human/administrative trust, and I'd say that they're not up to task to babysit, let alone manage nuclear policy, store waste, etc.

They're little more than a rubber-stamp over the largely-foreign nuke companies that have multi-billion dollar projects they want to sell. They're not interested in alternative or more modern sources because they can't make as much money on them. No billion-dollar solar farms, no massive government subsidies or insurance scams. Nuclear is the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae of energy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot View Post
Risk is part of life, manage it with the best information available.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aramchek For This Useful Post:
Old 03-14-2011, 07:28 AM
Alligatorgars's Avatar
Alligatorgars Alligatorgars is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 2,825
Thanks: 2,084
Thanked 2,551 Times in 1,184 Posts
Default

Im ok with Minnesota, wisconsin new york state california building new Nuclear Plants. I may even hold a sign to get my picture taken for fox news to make a point.
Just dont build any more in my neighborhood. Mostly Westerly winds make reactors in Texas and Mexico bad for me.
Old 03-14-2011, 07:28 AM
Robot's Avatar
Robot Robot is offline
"Non-Human Neanderthal"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Twilight Zone
Posts: 8,685
Thanks: 26,307
Thanked 13,404 Times in 4,947 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aramchek View Post
And it turns out that the concept of nuclear power is more than half a century obsolete. Practical geothermal, solar (not just panels) or hydrogen weren't available options in the 1940's. They are now.

There's no reason at all to build nuclear plants anywhere near the Pacific rim, on their side or on ours. There's a virtually unlimited source of heat just a couple miles straight down. Some engineering challenges, but very little risk at all.
I guess I am thoroughly confused by your comments, perhaps I missed something..............

As far as I am aware, there is no practical (currently available) alternative, at least when speaking of amount of power generated. Solar is woefully weak in power generation, where and how do we get the hydrogen? from a solar furnace? Geothermal 2 miles down? I think untested, unproven, unable to meet the power generated from a nuclear facility.

Perhaps I am unaware of new technologies, but I think nothing "other than fossil fuel" can touch the energy output,(from sheer Energy Density), of Japan's Nuclear facilities.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Robot For This Useful Post:
Old 03-14-2011, 07:29 AM
Alligatorgars's Avatar
Alligatorgars Alligatorgars is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 2,825
Thanks: 2,084
Thanked 2,551 Times in 1,184 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aramchek View Post
And it turns out that the concept of nuclear power is more than half a century obsolete. Practical geothermal, solar (not just panels) or hydrogen weren't available options in the 1940's. They are now.

There's no reason at all to build nuclear plants anywhere near the Pacific rim, on their side or on ours. There's a virtually unlimited source of heat just a couple miles straight down. Some engineering challenges, but very little risk at all.

But I would say there's a risk with nuclear far worse than earthquakes and other natural disasters. Namely, political and economic disaster. Our government can't seem to run anything properly. Everything descends into inefficient cronyism, corruption, mismanagement, failure and bailout. It's astounding that they haven't let the reactors go into the sort of disrepair that they let banking regulations, the economy, endless wars, the New Orleans sea barriers, the highway 35 bridge here in Minnesota, etc. descend into. It comes down not just to a naive trust in technology, that most people eventually learn to approach with caution as they get older. But it comes down to a matter of human/administrative trust, and I'd say that they're not up to task to babysit, let alone manage nuclear policy, store waste, etc.

They're little more than a rubber-stamp over the largely-foreign nuke companies that have multi-billion dollar projects they want to sell. They're not interested in alternative or more modern sources because they can't make as much money on them. No billion-dollar solar farms, no massive government subsidies or insurance scams.
I have to agree with you on this one. Hook these new plants up to the frozen methane bubbles found in the gulf of mexico.
Old 03-14-2011, 07:32 AM
lildrestl3's Avatar
lildrestl3 lildrestl3 is offline
Getting There !!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Age: 44
Posts: 1,852
Thanks: 3,461
Thanked 1,244 Times in 695 Posts
Default

Theres 4 power plants??
Old 03-14-2011, 07:45 AM
Grevlin's Avatar
Grevlin Grevlin is online now
"Fly birdies! fly!"

 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: "Not all who wander are lost."
Posts: 13,759
Thanks: 16,618
Thanked 35,440 Times in 9,545 Posts
Default

What I find more interesting from those maps is that it seems the exact area of predicted damage has no reactors...

...on purpose?
Old 03-14-2011, 07:57 AM
tgoodman44's Avatar
tgoodman44 tgoodman44 is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North St. Louis County
Age: 58
Posts: 1,034
Thanks: 6,767
Thanked 1,155 Times in 490 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lildrestl3 View Post
Theres 4 power plants??
Only one at callaway. About 50 miles out of St. Louis.
Old 03-14-2011, 08:00 AM
stephpd's Avatar
stephpd stephpd is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Delaware
Age: 56
Posts: 5,346
Thanks: 8,236
Thanked 10,382 Times in 3,618 Posts
Default

Of all the nuke plants the one at San Onofre, CA is the one I'd be watching. It's fairly close to two fault lines. That one always bothered me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ono...rating_Station
http://articles.ocregister.com/2010-...ofre-magnitude
http://articles.ocregister.com/2011-...ant-san-onofre
Old 03-14-2011, 08:02 AM
Hick Industries's Avatar
Hick Industries Hick Industries is online now
Live Secret, Live Happy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Star Killer Hollow
Posts: 8,922
Thanks: 8,246
Thanked 15,067 Times in 5,246 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot View Post
I guess I am thoroughly confused by your comments, perhaps I missed something..............

As far as I am aware, there is no practical (currently available) alternative, at least when speaking of amount of power generated. Solar is woefully weak in power generation, where and how do we get the hydrogen? from a solar furnace? Geothermal 2 miles down? I think untested, unproven, unable to meet the power generated from a nuclear facility.

Perhaps I am unaware of new technologies, but I think nothing "other than fossil fuel" can touch the energy output,(from sheer Energy Density), of Japan's Nuclear facilities.
Geothermal power plants work quite well. The US Navy has one about 20 miles north of my place that produces around 300 MW.

The existing geothermal plants are located on natural sources of steam. Typically hydrothermal vents with ground water used as the primary working fluid.

What remains would be to install heat exchangers underground and circulate DI water as a working fluid.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hick Industries For This Useful Post:
Old 03-14-2011, 08:11 AM
Robot's Avatar
Robot Robot is offline
"Non-Human Neanderthal"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Twilight Zone
Posts: 8,685
Thanks: 26,307
Thanked 13,404 Times in 4,947 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hick Industries View Post
Geothermal power plants work quite well. The US Navy has one about 20 miles north of my place that produces around 300 MW.

The existing geothermal plants are located on natural sources of steam. Typically hydrothermal vents with ground water used as the primary working fluid.

What remains would be to install heat exchangers underground and circulate DI water as a working fluid.
I dont disagree with the plants working well, I think it is highly "location dependant", you cant just put them anywhere and expect high output.

I believe Iceland uses them extensively to convert bauxite to aluminum, this relatively "free energy" makes it worth the cost to ship bauxite long distances for the conversion.
Old 03-14-2011, 10:23 AM
m47dragon's Avatar
m47dragon m47dragon is offline
Wire Guided
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northern Michigan
Age: 42
Posts: 911
Thanks: 2,475
Thanked 833 Times in 435 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grevlin View Post
What I find more interesting from those maps is that it seems the exact area of predicted damage has no reactors...

...on purpose?

The map also lists plenty of decomissioned, and decomissioning, reactors: different animals entirely from operating fission reactors.
Old 03-14-2011, 10:40 AM
WSierra's Avatar
WSierra WSierra is offline
RESET CONGRESS!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 9,464
Thanks: 13,489
Thanked 12,457 Times in 4,752 Posts
Default

Clean coal fired plants! But coal is another victim of politicians and politics. And, the oil industry.
Old 03-14-2011, 01:45 PM
Illini Warrior's Avatar
Illini Warrior Illini Warrior is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 7,230
Thanks: 24
Thanked 9,363 Times in 3,905 Posts
Default

Northern Illinois is included in the potential earthquake damage area ...... in fact Chicago has predicted something like 50% building damage & collapse with something like a 4.0 earthquake ......

Three nuc plants in the area plus a rod disposal facility ......
Old 03-14-2011, 05:02 PM
RageMachine's Avatar
RageMachine RageMachine is offline
Study becomes insight
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 239
Thanks: 121
Thanked 183 Times in 92 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Illini Warrior View Post
Northern Illinois is included in the potential earthquake damage area ...... in fact Chicago has predicted something like 50% building damage & collapse with something like a 4.0 earthquake ......

Three nuc plants in the area plus a rod disposal facility ......

Hi there - I'm in the west burbs. Do you know where these plants are located?

I've only seen one.
Old 03-14-2011, 05:10 PM
Xelera's Avatar
Xelera Xelera is offline
Senior Reactor Operator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,079
Thanks: 1,903
Thanked 1,955 Times in 675 Posts
Default

I like how people claim geothermal as "virtually unlimited"... They probably thought the same thing 100 years ago about oil and coal.

What happens when geothermal energy "runs out"? Oh yeah, no more molten core, weak or non-existant magnetic fields, and then the big reactor in the sky fries us... It's not science fiction, it's what happened to Mars - it's smaller size resulted in it's core cooling down and the solar wind blasted it's atmosphere and liquid oceans into space.

Not that I think it will be that extreme, but just saying, people and governments have a very "here and now" mentallity with any venture and considering the worst case scenario with geothermal (like everyone anti-nuke does with nuclear power) it's not a place we really want to go.
The Following User Says Thank You to Xelera For This Useful Post:
Old 03-14-2011, 09:14 PM
Hick Industries's Avatar
Hick Industries Hick Industries is online now
Live Secret, Live Happy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Star Killer Hollow
Posts: 8,922
Thanks: 8,246
Thanked 15,067 Times in 5,246 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by usmountains View Post
Here is something that is a wake up call. Scientists are highly worried about the New Madrid fault and in fact there has been the constant FEMA vans and semi's along with troops staging exercises along the New Madrid Fault in the event such an earthquake would happen. Problem, there is a lot more nuclear power plants along the New Madrid fault than what is in Japan.

Check this link out and see what you think. Makes you want to head to Alaska and build a bomb shelter there.

http://www.bsoscblog.com/forum/viewt...e6662df1#p2081

Oh, it has Europe on there as well. It wouldn't be much better for Europe if they had an Earthquake, they have a ton of Nuclear power plants.

Time to change to solar and wind power, I think we can cover half of texas with solar panels and half of Kansas with wind turbines instead of risking our butts over Nuclear power.
Are you actually comparing the seismic risk of the new Madrid area with a Pacific subduction zone? Are you nuts?

You live in Washington state for gods sake, you should freaking know better. The Pacific rim of fire has accounted for all of the mag +9.0 mega quakes in the last 60 years. The area of the US at risk of the next mag 9 quake is your own back yard. The Cascadia fault lying 60 miles off shore Vancouver island.

Why don't you look at the Hanford site and the Columbia river site. Wasn't that last one they called woops???
Old 03-14-2011, 10:26 PM
twowong4words's Avatar
twowong4words twowong4words is offline
Mentally lost....
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: i can't recall...
Posts: 809
Thanks: 2,286
Thanked 1,088 Times in 425 Posts
Default

According the California public records, all but two Nuclear power plants in California have been shut down and the majority of them have been dismantled and have had their fuel rods removed from the sites.

San Onofre & Diablo Canyon are the only two remaining sources of Nuclear power in the state of California.. I didn't check how many of those are inactive in other states. Be interested to see how current data in the OPs link was.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WSierra View Post
Clean coal fired plants! But coal is another victim of politicians and politics. And, the oil industry.
From what i understand clean coal means they burn coal, capture the gas and pipe it into cavities in the ground. From what ive read about it, the only plant that actually is set up to do it is in Florida and they don't do it because Florida wont allow it.

In addition this poses a threat in an earthquake situation too. If the cavity/containment is breached, large concentrations of Co2 can escape and suffocate people, wildlife etc.

That was the last i heard of clean burning coal. But as is coal in general is something like 54-55% US power. I was kinda surprised at that..
Old 03-14-2011, 10:33 PM
Hick Industries's Avatar
Hick Industries Hick Industries is online now
Live Secret, Live Happy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Star Killer Hollow
Posts: 8,922
Thanks: 8,246
Thanked 15,067 Times in 5,246 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twowong4words View Post
From what i understand clean coal means they burn coal, capture the gas and pipe it into cavities in the ground. From what ive read about it, the only plant that actually is set up to do it is in Florida and they don't do it because Florida wont allow it.

In addition this poses a threat in an earthquake situation too. If the cavity/containment is breached, large concentrations of Co2 can escape and suffocate people, wildlife etc.

That was the last i heard of clean burning coal. But as is coal in general is something like 54-55% US power. I was kinda surprised at that..
The only working method to clean up coal is to chemically remove the sulfur, lead, zinc, etc from the coal before burning it. You are describing carbon sequestration which is a useless solution to a non existant problem.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hick Industries For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net