Rank: Super forum user 
|
Yes...I remember the nuclear flasks as being exceedingly robust. So robust that they set one on a railway line and drove a diesel locomotive into it to prove it was robust. It got wrecked. So they did it again but angled it so the loco hit it at 45 degrees. It survived. Then publicised the survivor. Except I'm in engineering. The REAL reason we are building nuclear again is MONEY, as in loads of it. Boatloads of it. New-nuclear is about a tenner a MGW/Hr more expensive than onshore wind....and the cost of a new generation station is currently 7 billion, up from 4.5 billion......and we will pay for its construction, and operation. And recovery of entombed flasks is neat. But what if things go wrong...oh well, we could have a nice new underground nuclear furnace....maybe we could run pipes down to it and use it for geothermal ? http://uk.reuters.com/ar...df-idUKBRE8470XC20120508
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JohnMurray wrote:
New-nuclear is about a tenner a MGW/Hr more expensive than onshore wind....and the cost of a new generation station is currently 7 billion, up from 4.5 billion......and we will pay for its construction, and operation.
7 billion what? Pounds, dollars, shekels, dinars, smarties?
A rather incoherent and difficult to understand posting - mentioning relevant issues but in a very misjointed way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Forgot to add to my last post
And what happens when the wind doesn't blow enough.
There will be riots on the streets if Coronation Street goes off the tv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Could you give us some details as to the failed flask?
To my knowledge only one was tested and it was placed at the worst possible angle, on it's corner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Oh and your comment about a 'nuclear furnace' shows a complete lack of understanding of how you get nuclear material to go critical. It wouldn't happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There has been at least one case of a naturally occuring nuclear reaction / fission taking place in geological history. http://en.wikipedia.org/..._nuclear_fission_reactorHowever it was 2billion years ago!! One of the main conclusions though, was even since that time radoactive material has only moved a few centimetres since then. So provided the right geological conditions can be replicated, then leaching of radioactive materials seems unlikely - especially as a human designed repository would be so designed that fission from the waste materials would be even more unlikely. Keeping uranium adequately separated and certainly not in a spherical geometric shape!! would be a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: IOSH staff
|
Just a quick note to any users signed on as Guests, from the Web Team here at IOSH - unfortunately Guests cannot post, only read messages. We have had some contributors logged in as Guests trying to post on this stream by sending their responses through as 'Concerned messages'. Unfortunately these do not appear on the stream but come to us in the Web Team office. If you want to post a reply on the stream, rather than report a concern with the forum, please register with the site and you will be able to post in the normal way.
Kind regards,
Web Team
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.