- #1
Acuben
- 64
- 0
I don't know too much about nuclear power and reactors, so I would like to ask some things.
I do realize that this isn't just science, but gets political and economical as well, so I decided to post in General discussion- so if you just want to talk about one area, or all three, either way is fine.
We have 2 active Nuclear Reactors
San Onofre Power Plant, (California)
http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs
Diablo Canyon Power Plant (California)
some things I'd like to know...
1. Don't we have a big earthquake coming to California? perhaps bigger earthquake than the one Japan had? So even with all the safety precaution and higher dams, deeper container, stronger container, etc, wouldn't it have no chance to prevent meltdown anyway? So shouldn't Nuclear power plants in california be deactivated as conclusion?
2. Would deactivated nuclear power plants still be threat in case of a big earthquake? (assuming they still have radiation emitting rod, and afaik, they do. Correct me if I'm wrong)
Does this mean nuclear meltdown on deactivated power plants are as dangerous as activate power plants?
3. Is it possible to move(transport to different state in US) the radioactive rods that are in deactivated nuclear power plant? You see, i don't know how the transport would have to be done, I don't think It'd be as simple as 1,2,3 (1. pick up the rod, 2.throw in the truck, 3.drive :P ) afaik, even rods that have not been in use for a while still needs to be constantly cooled to prevent meltdown...
4. Once deactivated, how long would radioactive rod emit radiation?
5. Shouldn't people in California move to other states?
6. If it is better off for people in California to move, would it be possible that government does not want me to move ?(therefore they don't want people to know the seriousness?) Of course, for political and economical reasons
7. Could there be a political and/or economical reasons why the nuclear reactors are not deactivated? I do think that if reactors are shut off all of sudden, that will bring huge impact on economy and it wouldn't be possible to change the source of energy all of sudden (therefore bad news for those who relied on nuclear power).
I do realize that this isn't just science, but gets political and economical as well, so I decided to post in General discussion- so if you just want to talk about one area, or all three, either way is fine.
We have 2 active Nuclear Reactors
San Onofre Power Plant, (California)
http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs
Diablo Canyon Power Plant (California)
some things I'd like to know...
1. Don't we have a big earthquake coming to California? perhaps bigger earthquake than the one Japan had? So even with all the safety precaution and higher dams, deeper container, stronger container, etc, wouldn't it have no chance to prevent meltdown anyway? So shouldn't Nuclear power plants in california be deactivated as conclusion?
2. Would deactivated nuclear power plants still be threat in case of a big earthquake? (assuming they still have radiation emitting rod, and afaik, they do. Correct me if I'm wrong)
Does this mean nuclear meltdown on deactivated power plants are as dangerous as activate power plants?
3. Is it possible to move(transport to different state in US) the radioactive rods that are in deactivated nuclear power plant? You see, i don't know how the transport would have to be done, I don't think It'd be as simple as 1,2,3 (1. pick up the rod, 2.throw in the truck, 3.drive :P ) afaik, even rods that have not been in use for a while still needs to be constantly cooled to prevent meltdown...
4. Once deactivated, how long would radioactive rod emit radiation?
5. Shouldn't people in California move to other states?
6. If it is better off for people in California to move, would it be possible that government does not want me to move ?(therefore they don't want people to know the seriousness?) Of course, for political and economical reasons
7. Could there be a political and/or economical reasons why the nuclear reactors are not deactivated? I do think that if reactors are shut off all of sudden, that will bring huge impact on economy and it wouldn't be possible to change the source of energy all of sudden (therefore bad news for those who relied on nuclear power).
Last edited by a moderator: