Go Back   AFA Forums > Atheism > Ask an atheist

Ask an atheist Want to know atheists' viewpoints on things? Want to better understand the atheist worldview?
Here's the place.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 29th October 2010, 08:24 PM
Sieveboy's Avatar
Sieveboy Sieveboy is offline
Being a bigot makes me sick.
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Not in bible land, Perth
Posts: 5,602
Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

[quote=robertkd;139189]Well reading the article it sure seems that way, design issues, construction and materials used in it's construction. Lack of training lack of following operational procedures over riding automatic protection and safety systems. The remarkable point that got my attention was this bit of the analysis,.. the bit in bold at the end.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

The reactor had a dangerously large positive void coefficient. The void coefficient is a measurement of how a reactor responds to increased steam formation in the water coolant. Most other reactor designs have a negative coefficient, i.e. they attempt to decrease heat output when the vapor phase in the reactor increases, because if the coolant contains steam bubbles, fewer neutrons are slowed down. Faster neutrons are less likely to split uranium atoms, so the reactor produces less power (a negative feed-back). Chernobyl's RBMK reactor, however, used solid graphite as a neutron moderator to slow down the neutrons, and the water in it, on the contrary, acts like a harmful neutron absorber. Thus neutrons are slowed down even if steam bubbles form in the water. Furthermore, because steam absorbs neutrons much less readily than water, increasing the intensity of vaporization means that more neutrons are able to split uranium atoms, increasing the reactor's power output. This makes the RBMK design very unstable at low power levels, and prone to suddenly increasing energy production to a dangerous level. This behavior is counter-intuitive, and this property of the reactor was unknown to the crew.[/qoute]
We may be derailing this thread, RK, but you are on the money with cherynobl's flaws. I feel so sorry for the poor bastards that were running reactor 4 and the first fire fighters to attend the scene, that got fucked over by technology, poor design, materials, training, circumstance and working shifts.
__________________
I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 29th October 2010, 08:55 PM
robertkd's Avatar
robertkd robertkd is offline
Socialists ARE NOT Communists
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rockhampton
Posts: 4,760
Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

Quote:
Sieveboy said View Post
We may be derailing this thread, RK, but you are on the money with cherynobl's flaws. I feel so sorry for the poor bastards that were running reactor 4 and the first fire fighters to attend the scene, that got fucked over by technology, poor design, materials, training, circumstance and working shifts.
Not sure but I think it's relevant subject matter.

Yes it was tragic,it's also quite an eye opener reading about the effects of the people that live tin the affected area the social impact is enormous.

But reading that article there are aspects that you have to ask questions on and I know sod all other then what I read in that and a couple of other articles.

The most obvious why run the "test" out of controlled conditions.

And shouldn't they have considered the coolant system requirements, the aim of the test was to see if the work around in providing enough power for the coolant system using the turbine rundown time to bridge the delay in generator(s) start time.
__________________
An atheist hears a voice in their head, they're delusional.
A theist hears a voice in their head and it's providence.
mmm go figure

http://www.betterhuman.org
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 29th October 2010, 09:15 PM
Sieveboy's Avatar
Sieveboy Sieveboy is offline
Being a bigot makes me sick.
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Not in bible land, Perth
Posts: 5,602
Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

It is tough RK, I would gladly pick up some easier arguments .

Unfortunately you can't talk nuclear without talking about fuck ups. e.g. Cherynobl. It is the nature of this beast.

No one of course talks about the French, 79% nuclear powered and not one serious reported accident. (sorry, sourced from wikipedia).
__________________
I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 29th October 2010, 09:26 PM
Xeno's Avatar
Xeno Xeno is offline
Extant
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Altitude 700 m
Posts: 8,551
Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

Where is Minerva?
__________________
There are no good arguments for gods.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 29th October 2010, 09:40 PM
robertkd's Avatar
robertkd robertkd is offline
Socialists ARE NOT Communists
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rockhampton
Posts: 4,760
Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

Well they wouldn't there French

Sure I understand there are always risks, but as noted there are systems that work reliably well I'd still be happy to have a well designed and properly ran and managed nuclear power plant in my town.
__________________
An atheist hears a voice in their head, they're delusional.
A theist hears a voice in their head and it's providence.
mmm go figure

http://www.betterhuman.org
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 29th October 2010, 09:41 PM
eccles's Avatar
eccles eccles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 484
Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

I'm for it provided we can throw into the reactor George Cardinal "Go To Hell" Pell and that other arsehole Denis Hart whom I do not recognize as an Archbishop. And they are for starters. There are a lot more Arsehole Clergy in the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church.
__________________

em hotep

Rev. Robert Tobin (First Church of Atheism)
Thank "god" I am Atheist
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 29th October 2010, 09:48 PM
robertkd's Avatar
robertkd robertkd is offline
Socialists ARE NOT Communists
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rockhampton
Posts: 4,760
Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

Quote:
eccles said View Post
I'm for it provided we can throw into the reactor George Cardinal "Go To Hell" Pell and that other arsehole Denis Hart whom I do not recognize as an Archbishop. And they are for starters. There are a lot more Arsehole Clergy in the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church.
Ooooh I see, I think you'll be wanting fusion reactors for that, I know you just want to see how many nanoseconds they last at 30,million degrees c with a couple of gigawatts up their fundamental as it were,.. marshmellows anyone
__________________
An atheist hears a voice in their head, they're delusional.
A theist hears a voice in their head and it's providence.
mmm go figure

http://www.betterhuman.org
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 30th October 2010, 12:16 AM
DanDare's Avatar
DanDare DanDare is offline
Religion or Reality, choose...
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,453
Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

Probably not sensible to ask "what do atheists think about it", we are not a group known to agree with one another. I'm sure a lot of members of Greenpeace are atheists.

I don't like nuclear. 3 mile island and chernobyl demonstrated that humans can fuck up and that the resulting bad effects can be large and severe. Processing uranium is pretty bad. Waste is still an unsolved problem, one the French export.

I'd rather follow fusion, better solar, more use of wind and tide and geothermal. I'd even prefer mining he3 from the moon.
__________________
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
-Thomas Jefferson

Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 30th October 2010, 12:33 AM
robertkd's Avatar
robertkd robertkd is offline
Socialists ARE NOT Communists
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rockhampton
Posts: 4,760
Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

Sure but the effects of global warming will also be long lasting perhapes permanent even. I'm not convienced we're anywhere near fusion reactors as a viable alternative, also think if a fusion reactor goes south we'd be in deep doodoo's

The quadrennium isn't an easy or pleasant nut to crack and relates back to energy per person verses number of people and free from the sun is a euphemism.
__________________
An atheist hears a voice in their head, they're delusional.
A theist hears a voice in their head and it's providence.
mmm go figure

http://www.betterhuman.org
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 30th October 2010, 03:40 PM
cyclist's Avatar
cyclist cyclist is offline
And if I can reach the pedals, I'll be sweet
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,075
Default Re: Nuclear power for Australia.

Quote:
DanDare said View Post
Probably not sensible to ask "what do atheists think about it", we are not a group known to agree with one another. I'm sure a lot of members of Greenpeace are atheists.

I don't like nuclear. 3 mile island and chernobyl demonstrated that humans can fuck up and that the resulting bad effects can be large and severe. Processing uranium is pretty bad. Waste is still an unsolved problem, one the French export.

I'd rather follow fusion, better solar, more use of wind and tide and geothermal. I'd even prefer mining he3 from the moon.
Chernobyl is always thrown out there in relation to why we shouldn't have nuclear power, but as per the posts above, it was using a bad technology. Modern plants don't use graphite any more, and are a different system.

I am still aware that things can go wrong, but they are a lot safer these days.

James
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 +11. The time now is 10:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.