I work for one. There isn't enough physical space inside containment to fit all the fossil fuel required to produce steam if "nukes aren't real"
Either nukes are real, or we use some sort of satanic black magic to boil water.
boiling water is very easy so that explanation makes no sense
Let's do the math...
Average Nuclear Generating station is 1 Gigawatt, which is 1,000,000,000 Joules per second. Even assuming no thermodynamic losses, you would need 245lbs of coal (at 4,068,000 Joules per pound) per second to sustain that. So, just to feed the fire you would need 245 lbs. x 60 seconds x 60 minutes = 884,955 lbs of coal per hour 24/7 to sustain it.
That is actually a doable number, but not in the footprint of a nuclear reactor. The amount of coal for an hour of running would be a pile of 10,171 ft3 or 10' wide x 10' high x 101' long. So, whatever is inside that containment building has an energy density many times that of coal.
Your math is ballpark correct but you're using globalist units :)
The large nuclear units evaporate about 8 million lbm/hr of water at around 1000 psia. Enthalpy of evaporation at that pressure is 650.4 Btu/lbm, so the unit is using 5,203,200,000 Btu/hr to evaporate that water.
Now coal has varying heating values depending on the grade. Hard anthracite is around 13,700 Btu/lbm. Bituminous is around 14,300 (higher because it has more volatiles - flammable gases). Lignite (which the Krauts love to burn) is only 7200 due to all the water in it. Let's be generous and use the highest value - bituminous - which will result in the smallest weight of coal to burn. This comes out to 363,900 lbm/hr or 101 lbm/sec.
This big difference is due to your assumption of 4.1 MJ/lb. It's off by a factor of three as far as good U.S. coal is concerned (4.1 MJ/lb --> 3856 Btu/lb).
But to the main point, now determine the volume of coal for 18 months of operation. Won't fit in containment :)
Good grief you guys and your 'math' ... and if any idiots don't understand what we're saying then you're stoopid and we win the argument. LOL.
those maths don't add up. Takes way less to boil water. The main problem though is no proof, it'd be cool if you took video from inside showing this steam and the generators. I am guessing you don't actually have access to it, you're a janitor at best. Or yeah you're probably afraid you'd lose your job by showing proof. But they keep nuke plants secret for a reason.
Dude, he's going to murder you.
It takes a lot of energy to boil water. Nuclear power plants are real. Nukes are real. If you don't understand the math behind it, read up about it. There's no way you can boil the amount of water a nuclear reactor does in the limited amount of space if it wasn't a real form of energy. There would have to be constant coal shipments to the plants. I used to live near one, there aren't constant coal shipments.
The "nukes aren't real" people are glowies and a flock of useful idiots. It's the same playbook as flat earth.
We don't shut the reactor off for 18 months. Where would we keep the fuel if nukes aren't real? Try running your grill for that long without refueling.
Easy. Electricity. They are hiding an electric lines from you.
Joke's on you, my grill runs on pure water, next to my water-powered car.
18 months? maybe they refuel with the tiny amount needed every 18 months? Why are they shutting it down?
Getting the energy put into boiling the water back out ..actually transformed into a usable form ..like electricity..is the hard part
Boiling water IS easy. Boiling water to the point of 0 moisture (100% gas) is extremely difficult. This "superheated steam" (industry term) uses a lot of energy to get to this level of energy. You see this on steam ships and power plants. Temperatures are north of 900 F and Pressures exceed 600 psi.
I think you are confused.
No one is saying that radioactive material isn’t real or that it doesn’t react.
What they are saying is that fission bombs are not real.
No one is saying that radioactive material isn’t real or that it doesn’t react.
Actually some make exactly that argument. Frequently linking to old videos of people eating uranium.
Don't underestimate the power of stupid people.
people eating uranium.
but it's yellow cake.
Just have all the dumbasses eat uranium. Problem solved
thats the crazy people.
"NUKES" Fission bombs are not real. Just a jewish lie to control.
That's a silly position for them to take, it's the same physical phenomenon.
Tell that to the people in Hiroshima
Who rebuilt immediately and never suffered “fallout”?
Hiroshima was fuel bombed, just like Tokyo. Brick buildings were left standing.
Hiroshima was 15,000 tons of TNT with some radioactive materials, put into a train car and then white phosphurus bombs were dropped on the city, setting it off.
Faking a nuke is EASY
They'll just retreat to nuclear bombs aren't real.
But you haven't given any reason we should believe they are real....
Reactors =/= nooks. Radiation is real, muh nooks are not. There is literally no evidence of nuclear bombs existing
That's a good question, do they include the powerplant segment of the tech, or just the weapons?
NUCLEAR REACTORS ARE NOT ONLY REAL BUT OCCUR NATURALLY IN NATURE
Fission bombs are not real, they violate the law of conservation of energy
Nuke lies dot org explained this one. Nuclear reactors are nothing more than electric load dumps. The site explains electricity is not produced on demand it's approximated. For example if a city averages 100 gigawatts of power consumption a day then electricity companies would make that amount per day. On a day when only 90 gigawatts is used up by the city, that means 10 gigawatts of power have to be dumped somewhere. That somewhere is a nuclear power plant. The site gets more technical. One user Revisionist I believe makes the claim every Nuclear Power plant is protected by Israeli soldiers or security. I claim I was not able to verify.
So what does that mean for an electrical circuit or for electrical generation, that a nuke plant is a load dump?
I believe generation and yes. I will find the direct video link if interested. He goes into details.
Good news schlomo, you're partially correct. Site security is almost exclusively ex-military, meaning ex-ZOGbots.
(post is archived)