nuclear energy

[zerocool1]

do you think nuclear energy is something that the US should be pursuing further, or is it still too unsafe?

 

[Aimster]

F u s i o n

China claims the technology is there

 

[straightalker]

Google THE DISCLOSURE PROJECT and then click on the new video selector at the top of the search page to the right side of "images" to see the list of the videos on this subject.

Get busy and study and learn. You can thank me later for the links.

In direct response to the question you posed about nuclear energy, there's two kinds. Fission and fusion. Fission is much more dangerous and less efficient than fusion. But fission reactors can indeed be built safely and maibntained safely. France for example does this.

But i'd be concerned most about removing all the the obstructions to the advanced energy technologies currently being witheld from us. Study the above videos and then let's talk.

 

[LEDominator]

If anyone has ever read the book The Radioactive Boyscout it will really open your eyes about nuclear power.

 

[Moonbeam]

I want to consider nuclear power just as soon as all the nuclear waste we have produced so far is safely stored. I see the nuclear industry as just another group willing to risk the health of the world for the sake of money with constant lies and promises. We see what will be when we look at what is. The wast that is not cleaned up is just a part of what they will create more of and not clean up. Nuclear energy is a dangerous fraud and any time they want to prove otherwise they will deal with the current mess first before they make more.

 

[BrownTown]

Iromically the two groups risking the health of the world with regard to nuclear energy are the enviromentalists and the pacifists. The pacifists oppose reprocessing of fuel becasue it *can* be used to make weapons grade materials, this means 30 times as much waste is produced than should be if we were allowed to reprocess spent fuel or use breeder reactors. And of course the enviromentalists wont allow the small amounts of radioactive waste that will still be produced to be stored andywhere safely, so its sitting right near our cities instead of in the middle of Nevada where it belongs.

I'm not saying these groups dont have decent points, but they really need to get over their fears and allow a more educated nuclear energy policy to prevail (the current one is based mostly on trying to keep everyone happy, which inevitably makes NOBODY happy =/).

 

[judasmachine]

:music:
have no fear
for atomic energy
'cause none of them
can stop the times
:music:

with apologies to mr. marley.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: LEDominator
If anyone has ever read the book The Radioactive Boyscout it will really open your eyes about nuclear power.

Yeah, we need to get rid of all nuclear material in the world so some over-inventive kid can't create his own reactor. We all know that most reactors are built using aluminum foil and operated out of a backyard shed.

Envirofreaks would have you believe that nuke power is so dangerous as to be a weapon at any given time. That is a complete lie and a stupid one at that. Much more radioactive or harmful material is ejected by "normal" methods of producing energy than anything nuke power has generated.

It is by far the cleanest and safest form of energy we have.

As far as Fusion, the Tokamak reactors can't sustain a net positive reaction and most scientists believe it is at least 20 years off.

We can wait 20 more years and pollute like crazy for 20 more, or build some intermediate fission reactors to help reduce the amount of crap we spew worldwide.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I want to consider nuclear power just as soon as all the nuclear waste we have produced so far is safely stored. I see the nuclear industry as just another group willing to risk the health of the world for the sake of money with constant lies and promises. We see what will be when we look at what is. The wast that is not cleaned up is just a part of what they will create more of and not clean up. Nuclear energy is a dangerous fraud and any time they want to prove otherwise they will deal with the current mess first before they make more.

The US commercial nuclear industry has far more megawatt hours under its belt than any other nuclear energy progam in the world. We have over 100 operational commercial power reactors in the US. As fossil fuel prices have increased dramatically (most notably NG) nuclear power plants have become very desireable due to consistantly low fuel expenses per kWh, predictable outages, and reliability. There has only ever been one serious incident resulting in the loss of a reactor, which was contained by the plant's engineering safeguards.

The reprocessing ban has finally been lifted and the DOE is currently letting contracts for pilot reprocessing facilities. That will reduce the amount of high level waste requiring long term storage to about 1/8th of its original mass and create more fuel in the bargain.

The long term geologic storage question still needs to be adressed, however the reduced waste quantity buys us more time to select a solution. Yucca Mtn. would be more than sufficent as an interm waste repository if it is indeed found to be unsuitable for long term storage (maybe use the Canadian Shield instead).

 

[piasabird]

The problem with nuclear power is that you have to assume that a greedy power utility is looking out for your safety. The second thing is that you have to depend on a government agency to look out for your safety when they inspect nuclear facilities.

How much do you trust these two entities to protect you?

What happens to the spent fuel rods and the heavy water? It has to be stored someplace or we have to have a facility to reclaim it.

Here is the status of a nuclear accident that occurred in the old USSR:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

It takes a while to go through all the web pages but it has a lot of important information. Thousands of Acres of the best farmland in the world for raising grain is unusable for 100-500 years.

There are hidden costs of nuclear energy. There are not many hidden costs of making energy from sunlight in unusable desert land.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The problem with nuclear power is that you have to assume that a greedy power utility is looking out for your safety. The second thing is that you have to depend on a government agency to look out for your safety when they inspect nuclear facilities.

How much do you trust these two entities to protect you?

What happens to the spent fuel rods and the heavy water? It has to be stored someplace or we have to have a facility to reclaim it.

Here is the status of a nuclear accident that occurred in the old USSR:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

It takes a while to go through all the web pages but it has a lot of important information. Thousands of Acres of the best farmland in the world for raising grain is unusable for 100-500 years.

There are hidden costs of nuclear energy. There are not many hidden costs of making energy from sunlight in unusable desert land.

All commercial power reactors in the US use light water, not deuterium oxide. Spent fuel should be reprocessed and the unusable fraction of it intered for long term geologic storage.

Chernobyl was so bad because the Soviets cheaped out and didn't build a containment like every single power reactor in the west is required to have. That would have kept the core from being blown into the atmosphere even if they still did the absurd amount of things wrong to get the reactor to that point.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: LEDominator
If anyone has ever read the book The Radioactive Boyscout it will really open your eyes about nuclear power.

Yeah, we need to get rid of all nuclear material in the world so some over-inventive kid can't create his own reactor. We all know that most reactors are built using aluminum foil and operated out of a backyard shed.

Envirofreaks would have you believe that nuke power is so dangerous as to be a weapon at any given time. That is a complete lie and a stupid one at that. Much more radioactive or harmful material is ejected by "normal" methods of producing energy than anything nuke power has generated.

It is by far the cleanest and safest form of energy we have.

As far as Fusion, the Tokamak reactors can't sustain a net positive reaction and most scientists believe it is at least 20 years off.

We can wait 20 more years and pollute like crazy for 20 more, or build some intermediate fission reactors to help reduce the amount of crap we spew worldwide.

lol, its true the book is about the kid who did that, but it also has stuff in there about how a couple of reactors almost blew up in Illinois, as well as the problems with breeder reactors. You must have missed that commentary in there somewhere.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: LEDominator

lol, its true the book is about the kid who did that, but it also has stuff in there about how a couple of reactors almost blew up in Illinois, as well as the problems with breeder reactors. You must have missed that commentary in there somewhere.

As one of superiors always asks..."So what?".

1. Reactors don't "blow up" in a nuclear burst type of problem. As somebody mentioned, had the Soviet reactors had proper containment there wouldn't have even been a release of material.

2. Because it "almost" happened doesn't mean anything. Lots of things "almost" happen but don't but that doesn't stop any sane person from not persuing those activities.

3. Breeder reactors have been operating for years without problems, get with the times.


as I have stated in previous threads, Chernobyl is the most extreme case used by whackos, but it can't happen with a Western reactor of any type, let alone the latest. TMI was completely blown out of proportion and anything else has been minor or non-existant. The plain fact is that air travel has killed 6x as many people as nuclear power, yet millions still fly.

Statistics and real probabilities of a modern reactor definitely provide the cheapest, cleanest, and safest form of energy around.

But what do you care? You would rather spew thousands of tons of radioactive material into the air from traditional power sources and other pollutants. That is *MUCH* better than concentrating it and dealing with it.

 

[Schadenfroh]

They could build a nuke power plant in my backyard for all I care, would rather have it than some coal plant spewing soot in the air. Chernobyl was the result of human error and I believe that as long has you have competant people working the plant, you wont have any problems.

 

[marvdmartian]

Wow.....anyone who compares Chernobyl with the nuclear power industry in the US is seriously in need of some research time! Even the very worst designs ever considered and built in the US are multitudes better than Chernobyl, if for no other reason than they all had containment. Even the worst nuclear incident in the US (look it up, it's not 3 Mile Island..... it was an Army test reactor) didn't cause the death and destruction of Chernobyl, because it happened inside a containment building.

As far as bringing back the nuclear energy building boom, I'd have to say go for it. First, the willy-nilly building of the 60's & 70's has been replaced with ~4 DOE approved designs. If anyone wants to build a new reactor complex, they have the choice of building it to their own design (which is going to take years, probably decades, to approve), or building a pre-approved design. The DOE basically sat down, took the best & worst of all designs, and came up with a handful of great designs, which they assure anyone interested in building a new plant will be approved on a fast track.

Second, we have a highly refined source of fuel just as close as all the nuclear warheads sitting in the old soviet union. No need to use low grade fuel anymore, which can be used up in a short period of time. Now we could actually take that refined uranium in the old warheads and put it to good use, and build reactors that will last two dozen years before requiring refueling, and produce a LOT less waste! Even better, it would give the old USSR countries a viable material to increase their economic health......and there's no near-term shortage either!

And for those that think that nuclear energy is dangerous, I give to you the US Navy, who has operated nuclear reactors for 50+ years, without even ONE serious incident. Old Hymen Richover might have been a sonofabitch, but he knew how to build reactors!!

 

[Harvey]

The concept and consequencs of OOPS! mean that the only level of safety I would accept for nuclear power is 100%, both in operation and dealing with the byproducts.

 

[frostedflakes]

Something else to consider is that because of the phobia surrounding nuclear power, the industry is VERY tightly regulated. As LegendKiller pointed out, burning coal releases a significant amount of radioactive material into the air we breathe, not to mention greenhouse gases, NOx, etc.. Also consider that the ash byproduct produced by burning coal is filled with heavy metals and radioactive material, yet coal plants can essentially just dump the waste into landfills. At least with nuclear disposal of the waste is highly regulated.

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: piasabird

There are hidden costs of nuclear energy. There are not many hidden costs of making energy from sunlight in unusable desert land.

or wind in unusable areas. I saw an article about harnassing the power of waves or wind turbines on lakes.

I'm not sure why I started thinking about all this. I think I was talking to my friend about global warming.

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Second, we have a highly refined source of fuel just as close as all the nuclear warheads sitting in the old soviet union. No need to use low grade fuel anymore, which can be used up in a short period of time. Now we could actually take that refined uranium in the old warheads and put it to good use, and build reactors that will last two dozen years before requiring refueling, and produce a LOT less waste! Even better, it would give the old USSR countries a viable material to increase their economic health......and there's no near-term shortage either!

suppose the nuclear material gets stolen, they have weapons grade uranium. This an obvious concern. How stable is the stuff?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: zerocool1

Originally posted by: piasabird

There are hidden costs of nuclear energy. There are not many hidden costs of making energy from sunlight in unusable desert land.

or wind in unusable areas. I saw an article about harnassing the power of waves or wind turbines on lakes.

Wind power is being increasingly exploited, problem is it is still more expensive per kWh than nuclear and is reliant on weather. Nuclear provides a set baseline capacity.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: zerocool1

Originally posted by: piasabird

There are hidden costs of nuclear energy. There are not many hidden costs of making energy from sunlight in unusable desert land.

or wind in unusable areas. I saw an article about harnassing the power of waves or wind turbines on lakes.

I'm not sure why I started thinking about all this. I think I was talking to my friend about global warming.

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Second, we have a highly refined source of fuel just as close as all the nuclear warheads sitting in the old soviet union. No need to use low grade fuel anymore, which can be used up in a short period of time. Now we could actually take that refined uranium in the old warheads and put it to good use, and build reactors that will last two dozen years before requiring refueling, and produce a LOT less waste! Even better, it would give the old USSR countries a viable material to increase their economic health......and there's no near-term shortage either!

suppose the nuclear material gets stolen, they have weapons grade uranium. This an obvious concern. How stable is the stuff?

Yes, the costs of making energy from sunlight are very obvious, and they are 10 times that as making it from nuclear. Also, the uranium from nuclear weapons used in reactors is downblended so it is not weapons grade.

EDIT: also, I was reading the NEI (nuclear energy institute) quarterly report yesterday, and it is interesting to not that there is more wind power scheduled to be installed in 2006 and 2007 than either coal or natural gas, so wind power is deffinitely being utilized, its just gonna take 10-20 years before it can reach a few percent of the market since power plants last 50+ years, so the turnover is pretty slow.

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Also, the uranium from nuclear weapons used in reactors is downblended so it is not weapons grade.

I did not know that....that's definately comforting.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: zerocool1

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Also, the uranium from nuclear weapons used in reactors is downblended so it is not weapons grade.

I did not know that....that's definately comforting.

Dont quote me on this but I believe the fuel used in reactors is something like 2-3% pure while weapons grade is typically >90%

You can see how we could realize a large increase in fuel capability by reusing our weapons that are being retired, reducing the purity and sticking them in a reactor for 20 years.

 

[Brovane]

Dont quote me on this but I believe the fuel used in reactors is something like 2-3% pure while weapons grade is typically >90%

That is correct. The uranium in a us nuclear reactor is at only 2-3% and weapons grade is much higher percentage. That is one reason why it is physically impossible for a nuclear reactor to ever blow up like a nuclear bomb.

Basically nuclear reactors are a great baseline power source with zero C20 emissions.

Windpower and Hyrdoelectric power are great sources of peak power.

GB

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: Harvey
The concept and consequencs of OOPS! mean that the only level of safety I would accept for nuclear power is 100%, both in operation and dealing with the byproducts.

While this may sound like a well thought out comment, in reality it's not. You know as well as I that nothing is 100% safe. If you drive, walk outside, eat, drink, breath, or are generally something other than dead you are ALWAYS dealing with less than 100% safety.


So what are you're real concerns and how do you balance them against the downsides from other power sources?

 

[Paratus]

BTW nature built this uncontained nuclear reactor in Africa. Probably should levey some enivronmental fines on Mother Nature for that one.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml