Coal vs. Nuclear Power

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sdifox
Storage of the nuclear waste is an issue since we haven't found a way to eliminate the waste. Not all of it is usable as ammo

better to store it under a mountain that pump it into the air

 

[SagaLore]

This technology is somewhat promising:

http://www.answers.com/topic/pebble-bed-reactor

But I still think there has to be a better way.

Why can't we come up with a way of extracting eletrical energy from the decay of uranium, so by the time we're done with it it is non-radioactive?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Coal sux REALLY REALLY bad. Nuke . . . eh not so much in comparison.

Popular Science (or Scientific American) had a nice piece on state of the art and next generation nuke plants. Despite the huffing and puffing in DC, the Energy Bill isn't going to make a big difference. It basically subsidizes coal (which already supplies nearly half our energy), while new nuke plants are still years (if not decades off).

I read even the Chinese and Indians are building better nuke plants.

Miri, many of your concerns are mitigated by the best nuke designs that not only produce more energy but generate A LOT less waste. And unlike the old model tech . . . you can still make the byproducts unuseable in a nuke weapon.

Several utilities have annouced their intention to apply for licenses in the next couple years as a result of the bill. IIRC, The bill provides protection from cost overruns to some degree for the first few reactors (mainly from delays caused by public opposition). The licensing process should have been streamlined to allow faster construction but it was not from saftey concerns. Yes, it will be years before a new plant comes online but we are at least getting started again after taking a few decades off.

The bill also inclues funding for the government to construct a pilot Gen IV reactor (of which the pebble bed design you mention above is a candidate) to be used for thermal hydrogen production.

 

[Bassyhead]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sdifox
Storage of the nuclear waste is an issue since we haven't found a way to eliminate the waste. Not all of it is usable as ammo

better to store it under a mountain that pump it into the air

Ditto, sdifox and miri need to read the OP's link again, if not yet.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: Bassyhead

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sdifox
Storage of the nuclear waste is an issue since we haven't found a way to eliminate the waste. Not all of it is usable as ammo

better to store it under a mountain that pump it into the air

Ditto, sdifox and miri need to read the OP's link again, if not yet.

Funny thing is we havent stored it under a mountain, it is still in its temporary storage.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

there has got to be a way of extracting uranium atoms from the soot/gasses that are produced in a coal furnace. Uranium is so heavy that it seems like you could collect a decent percentage of it, and use it in nuclear reactors.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: Bassyhead

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sdifox
Storage of the nuclear waste is an issue since we haven't found a way to eliminate the waste. Not all of it is usable as ammo

better to store it under a mountain that pump it into the air

Ditto, sdifox and miri need to read the OP's link again, if not yet.

Funny thing is we havent stored it under a mountain, it is still in its temporary storage.

which is still better than pumping it into the air.

 

[Bassyhead]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: Bassyhead

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sdifox
Storage of the nuclear waste is an issue since we haven't found a way to eliminate the waste. Not all of it is usable as ammo

better to store it under a mountain that pump it into the air

Ditto, sdifox and miri need to read the OP's link again, if not yet.

Funny thing is we havent stored it under a mountain, it is still in its temporary storage.

which is still better than pumping it into the air.

Again, I agree. The point is that nuclear waste remains controlled and confined no matter where it is, while coal burning plant wastes are in the air we breath, of which are contributing to a much larger dose of radioactivity than nuclear plants produce.

 

[KrazyBabaGanoush]

Untill there is reliable Fusion based power plants, I don't see Nuclear Power becoming that widely used.

 

[JackOfHearts]

I was under the impression that Bleeder Breeder reactors can be set up the so use recycled fuel and minimize waste. Down side being that the Bleeder Breede can be used to make weapons grade materials and there are treaties in effect that make construction of new ones a problem. I am be off base here, but that is just things, I think are the case.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
This technology is somewhat promising:

http://www.answers.com/topic/pebble-bed-reactor

But I still think there has to be a better way.

Why can't we come up with a way of extracting eletrical energy from the decay of uranium, so by the time we're done with it it is non-radioactive?

Hey, cool it with CO2 and we can cut CO2 level too I wish they can make the PBR a reality faster.

 

[DaShen]

It is true. So sad CA is so against it, and US (TX being a big supporter) being so dependent on $$ from fossil fuels.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sdifox
Storage of the nuclear waste is an issue since we haven't found a way to eliminate the waste. Not all of it is usable as ammo

better to store it under a mountain that pump it into the air

No contest there, I wish they can find a cleaner burning coal plant, since China is going to be on that one for a long time. But the North American reluctance to move off coal is just inexcusable.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Bassyhead

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sdifox
Storage of the nuclear waste is an issue since we haven't found a way to eliminate the waste. Not all of it is usable as ammo

better to store it under a mountain that pump it into the air

Ditto, sdifox and miri need to read the OP's link again, if not yet.

Storage is not a solution, it's called punting the problem to next generation. No matter how well made your container is, it will not last as long as your waste. So x years later, you have a bigger problem.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Agreed. The public only sees 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl when they think of nuclear power. Never mind the fact that we have dozens of other plants that have run flawlessly for decades now. :roll:

I always thought someone should build a huge nuclear complex just across the border of California, in Nevada. Up in the mountains, where cooling the plant will be easier, and require a smaller water source. It's close to California, so they should be able to sell the power to that power-hungry state at quite the premium price. It's outside of California, so the tree huggers and owl lovers can't whine too much. And it's close to the waste storage facilities in Nevada, so getting rid of the waste is a cinch!

only problem, where is the water to cool it comeing from it it's no top of a mountain in nevada?

edit: just got pwned by the pebble bed reactor.

storage is a solution. It came from the ground, back it goes. Why would the ones we store in containers be worse than the uranium deposits naturally in the ground? The ground uranium isnt as concentrated, but the rods are lagely spent anyway. There is no other way to get rid of it.