A nuclear reactor in every backyard?

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: LtPage1

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Nice. The 10's of 1000's more tons of waste we'll generate every year, even after reprocessing (oops! Did I just say "weapons-grade plutonium?") will be stored under the OP's lawn.

no

Every substantive study not funded by the nuclear industry (really, by the US government, because it's the most subsidized energy industry in America, and would be utterly insoluble without taxpayer money) agrees with me. Nuclear power would be awesome if it worked, was actually efficient where it counts, and didn't produce waste that we don't know what to do with. But it doesn't, it isn't, and it does. /shrug. Show me a sustainable, secure fusion reaction, and we'll talk again.

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

If it is like the Toshiba one, there are no rods to worry about retracting (or not). Just bury the thing for 20 years (some sources now say they think it would last 30), let the fuel get consumed, then they dig it up and replace it.

In regards to some of the posts in this thread, the ignorance from the P&Ntards is astounding, as usual.

And then do what with the spent fuel rods? Not to mention the cost of getting the thing running- the sad truth (and I absolutely mean that) is that nuclear power just costs more than fossil fuels-- and it's really hard to argue that nuclear fuel sitting around in unsecured casks on power plant grounds is that much better for the environment than greenhouse gases.

Did you even bother to read the article linked in the OP about the technology used?

Hyperion modules have no moving parts to wear down, and are delivered factory sealed. They are never opened on site. Even if one were compromised, the material inside would not be appropriate for proliferation purposes. Further, due to the unique, yet proven science upon which this new technology is based, it is impossible for the module to go supercritical, ?melt down? or create any type of emergency situation. If opened, the very small amount of fuel that is enclosed would immediately cool. The waste produced after five years of operation is approximately the size of a softball and is a good candidate for fuel recycling.?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: LtPage1

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Nice. The 10's of 1000's more tons of waste we'll generate every year, even after reprocessing (oops! Did I just say "weapons-grade plutonium?") will be stored under the OP's lawn.

no

Every substantive study not funded by the nuclear industry (really, by the US government, because it's the most subsidized energy industry in America, and would be utterly insoluble without taxpayer money) agrees with me. Nuclear power would be awesome if it worked, was actually efficient where it counts, and didn't produce waste that we don't know what to do with. But it doesn't, it isn't, and it does. /shrug. Show me a sustainable, secure fusion reaction, and we'll talk again.

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

If it is like the Toshiba one, there are no rods to worry about retracting (or not). Just bury the thing for 20 years (some sources now say they think it would last 30), let the fuel get consumed, then they dig it up and replace it.

In regards to some of the posts in this thread, the ignorance from the P&Ntards is astounding, as usual.

And then do what with the spent fuel rods? Not to mention the cost of getting the thing running- the sad truth (and I absolutely mean that) is that nuclear power just costs more than fossil fuels-- and it's really hard to argue that nuclear fuel sitting around in unsecured casks on power plant grounds is that much better for the environment than greenhouse gases.

Um, there ARE NO FUEL RODS. Did you even read the article? Nuclear power does "work." And we've been burying the waste underground in secure facilities. And wtf do you mean "efficient where it counts"? What the fuck does that even mean?


Edit: And as for those who are talking about reprocessing the waste into weapons-grade plutonium, you can't exactly do that in your backyard.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante

Originally posted by: LtPage1

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Nice. The 10's of 1000's more tons of waste we'll generate every year, even after reprocessing (oops! Did I just say "weapons-grade plutonium?") will be stored under the OP's lawn.

no

Every substantive study not funded by the nuclear industry (really, by the US government, because it's the most subsidized energy industry in America, and would be utterly insoluble without taxpayer money) agrees with me. Nuclear power would be awesome if it worked, was actually efficient where it counts, and didn't produce waste that we don't know what to do with. But it doesn't, it isn't, and it does. /shrug. Show me a sustainable, secure fusion reaction, and we'll talk again.

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

If it is like the Toshiba one, there are no rods to worry about retracting (or not). Just bury the thing for 20 years (some sources now say they think it would last 30), let the fuel get consumed, then they dig it up and replace it.

In regards to some of the posts in this thread, the ignorance from the P&Ntards is astounding, as usual.

And then do what with the spent fuel rods? Not to mention the cost of getting the thing running- the sad truth (and I absolutely mean that) is that nuclear power just costs more than fossil fuels-- and it's really hard to argue that nuclear fuel sitting around in unsecured casks on power plant grounds is that much better for the environment than greenhouse gases.

Um, there ARE NO FUEL RODS. Did you even read the article? Nuclear power does "work." And we've been burying the waste underground in secure facilities. And wtf do you mean "efficient where it counts"? What the fuck does that even mean?


Edit: And as for those who are talking about reprocessing the waste into weapons-grade plutonium, you can't exactly do that in your backyard.

Moreover, it would take prodigious resources wielded by a government infrastructure to attempt to enhance the weak radioactive core into a weapons-grade component. The fact is the radioactive fuel is so weak it will have to be replaced within seven to ten years.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

$.10 a watt? No thanks. That's a rip off.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: LtPage1

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Nice. The 10's of 1000's more tons of waste we'll generate every year, even after reprocessing (oops! Did I just say "weapons-grade plutonium?") will be stored under the OP's lawn.

no

Every substantive study not funded by the nuclear industry (really, by the US government, because it's the most subsidized energy industry in America, and would be utterly insoluble without taxpayer money) agrees with me. Nuclear power would be awesome if it worked, was actually efficient where it counts, and didn't produce waste that we don't know what to do with. But it doesn't, it isn't, and it does. /shrug. Show me a sustainable, secure fusion reaction, and we'll talk again.

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

If it is like the Toshiba one, there are no rods to worry about retracting (or not). Just bury the thing for 20 years (some sources now say they think it would last 30), let the fuel get consumed, then they dig it up and replace it.

In regards to some of the posts in this thread, the ignorance from the P&Ntards is astounding, as usual.

And then do what with the spent fuel rods? Not to mention the cost of getting the thing running- the sad truth (and I absolutely mean that) is that nuclear power just costs more than fossil fuels-- and it's really hard to argue that nuclear fuel sitting around in unsecured casks on power plant grounds is that much better for the environment than greenhouse gases.

If you're going to debate, it is best not to use arguments that have already been refuted by earlier posts. :laugh:

 

[ManyBeers]

Repost

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
Maybe in 1985 plutonium is available in any corner drug store...

LOL

They could use lightning instead.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Nuclear is not really the answer though. It may be better then some other stuff we use now, but it's not the answer. The ocean can only handle so much nuclear waste until we start seeing glowing green whales and everyone glowing green on their way back from a cruise vacation.

are you really that dumb?


1: we dont dump nuclear fuel in the ocean.

2: radiation doesnt permeate that far.

Last I heard they put it in really thick lead drums that are "supposedly" unable to break for 100's of years then they store them in mines, ocean etc... eventually some generations later, that will be a HUGE issue and kill tons of wildlife. The stuff they use such as uranium and plutonium has a half life of millions of years.

Nuclear may be clean while it's in use, but the byproduct is as worse as it gets.