Get all cars off the road because some leak oil

[tripp]

No engine oil at all to reduce wear and tear on parts?

You'd probably use grease for that not oil. That's me guess anyways.

[bac]

Originally Posted by carz89

As an expert in nuclear power and one who tests and certifies submarine nuclear powerplant components, I can assure you that this is analogous to saying automobiles are not safe to the population or environment because a very small percentage of them occasionally leak a few drops of oil.

I am NOT an expert on nuclear (I can pronounce it though!) power, but logic tells me that a engine oil leak does not equate to a nuclear power leak.

Call me silly if you must.

... Brad

[Dave_PH]

To environazis a single drop of oil is equivelent to Chernobyl. It could harm an entire ant colony!!!

[carz89]

Originally Posted by bac

I am NOT an expert on nuclear (I can pronounce it though!) power, but logic tells me that a engine oil leak does not equate to a nuclear power leak.

Call me silly if you must.

... Brad

I am an expert in both nuclear power and environmental engineering, holding a PE and masters degrees in each. I can tell you with certainty, without divulging sensitive information, that the particular leak on the USS Houston, emitted fewer curies (spread out over thousands of cubic miles) than are contained in a typical bag of garden fertilizer. Bet you didn't know fertilizer was radioactive! Actually, most things around us are radioactive. In fact, most submariners receive less exposure while underway than do average land-bound humans, even though they spend all of their time less than 200 feet from an operational nuclear reactor. This is an extremely well-documented fact, proven with the use of radiation monitors that must be worn at all times by Navy submariners. While underway, submariners are shielded (under hundreds of feet of water) from most natural radiation sources that result in each of us land-lubbers receiving an average dose of 1 mrem per day.

Some people think that I'm comparing apples to oranges (radioactive water leak versus common automotive oil leaks). Well, I am. But there are certain properties of apples and oranges that you can compare: calories, nutrient content, etc). Likewise, you can scientifically compare the environmental damage (including the effect of exposure on humans and other animals) caused by a radioactive water leak of known magnitude versus common automotive oil leaks.

So, contrary to a very ignorant and lazy statement by "Dave_PH", it is not *^#&$@ stupid to compare the two. In fact, a comparison is the only thing that gets the point across to most people. Nothing wrong with people not understanding nuclear energy, just those that refuse to accept other's educated analysis.

[Dave_PH]

Originally Posted by carz89

I am an expert in both nuclear power and environmental engineering, holding a PE and masters degrees in each. I can tell you with certainty, without divulging sensitive information, that the particular leak on the USS Houston

Of course you are. And I bet you're also a former Navy Seal stationed aboard that submarine.

[tripp]

carz39, it seems like breeder reactors might be a good path to follow, from what little I know. They can use thorium, no? If I recall, it's considerably more abundant than Uranium. What's the end result of using thorium? Can it be weponized in the same way uranium can when used in this type of reactor?

The other concern I have with nuclear is water. In a lot of places it seems that nuke plants consume a tremendous amount of water as part of their operation. To what extend can that be mitigated?

[Bob47]

Originally Posted by hyo silver

Even a small amount of oil can contaminate surprising volumes of soil and water. Engine leaks are definitely a problem, and more concern isn't such a bad idea.

As for nuclear, yes, there are irrational fears about it, but it really can't be considered 'clean' in the same way that sustainable forms of energy can.

Not sure I agree with the final paragraph. People seem to think that wind and solar are without environmental impact simply because they are considered renewable forms of energy. Both; however, require large areas of land to be cleared and, particularly in the case of solar, that land can not be used for agriculture or natural vegetation that contributes to scrubbing of the atmosphere. This can also have long-term implications in terms of storm water runoff from changing ground cover types and will certainly have an impact on habitat quality and quantity. Likewise both wind and solar are subject to damage from natural occurrences (tornadoes, hail storms, hurricanes, severe micro-bursts from thundershowers, lightning, etc.). Finally both require extensive connections to the grid, spread out over very large areas. These connections demand land as well as generate electromagnetic fields that "may" be harmful to humans and animals.

I understand that folks tend to become excited over the half life of nuclear waste being in the thousands of years; however, I recently read that all of the waste generated by all of the nuclear power plants in the world to date would not fill up a small warehouse. I wonder how significant this problem really is once the emotion is removed and the science analyzed.

[carz89]

Originally Posted by tripp

carz39, it seems like breeder reactors might be a good path to follow, from what little I know. They can use thorium, no? If I recall, it's considerably more abundant than Uranium. What's the end result of using thorium? Can it be weponized in the same way uranium can when used in this type of reactor?

The other concern I have with nuclear is water. In a lot of places it seems that nuke plants consume a tremendous amount of water as part of their operation. To what extend can that be mitigated?

I am not an expert on nuclear weapons, so I can't help you there.

Regarding the water usage of a nuclear reactor, the systems of concern are pretty well closed systems. Water that becomes radioactive gets reprocessed through filtration and ion exchange. Very little water is wasted or "consumed". Most of the water that is "used" is simply to provide a heat sink for secondary cooling on the steam turbine condensers. It does not pick up any radioactivity. The only thing that happens to this cooling water is that it picks up a good bit of heat energy. Thus, the outlet temperature is a few degrees warmer than the inlet temperature. This warmer water (fresh river water or ocean saltwater) is dumped right back to the source it was obtained from. If cooling towers are used rather than condensers, then some of that water (still clean) is evaporated to the atmosphere. Hence, the plume of steam that you typically see rising from the cooling tower (not smoke, which is a common misconception).

The warm water emission is the reason you will always see a civilian nuclear reactor situated by a large body of water capable of mitigating the temperature effect. Permits are required to ensure the environmental impact (local temperature rise) does not exceed ecological limitations. Warmer water will hold less dissolved oxygen, which can affect sea life.

[carz89]

Originally Posted by Dave_PH

Of course you are. And I bet you're also a former Navy Seal stationed aboard that submarine.

I've noticed from reading your responses on other threads (such as "Arkansas Gazette - Bell the Hybrid") that you pretty much disregard the intelligently-stated, well-documented posts of other forum members to further your own agenda.

When you walk into a doctor's office, do you say in a sarcastic tone "of course you are a doctor. And I bet you are also a former resident physician at Bethesda Medical Hospital who treats members of congress and the President." Do you inspect the copies of their diplomas and licenses for authenticity before you accept any advise from a doctor?

As a matter of fact, I am a veteran submarine officer, USNA graduate, with a master's degree in Environmental Engineering from the U of Washington. Intensively nuclear trained while on active duty, as well as having 10 years of experience as a nuclear test engineer and emergency planner for a naval shipyard. Do I need to have my universities mail you certified copies of my transcripts?

If you are that untrusting of other people's genuine advice and experience in a forum like this, then you have bigger issues that certainly won't be solved by browsing PriusChat.

I anxiously await to hear your credentials, since you seem to have boundless energy in discrediting the opinions on just about every thread you visit.

[darelldd]

Originally Posted by Dave_PH

No engine oil at all to reduce wear and tear on parts?

I was going to write "crankcase oil" but didn't want to alienate anybody.

There is no engine oil because there is no engine. The electric motor's output shaft support bearings do sit in a sealed oil bath of a couple of tablespoons of synthetic oil. It isn't going anywhere though. It is truly sealed - for life of the motor assembly. And that life is considered to be about 1 million miles of road duty.