Nuclear Now!

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
They make a rather convincing case for nukes in the future.

They gloss over waste disposal and storage a bit, but still a very interesting read. Assuming future nuke technology can be both more efficient and safer than the stuff everyone's scared of, I'm all for this.

On the other hand, the area around Chernobyl isn't supposed to be habitable for another 20,000 years or so. :Q

IBnobodyreadsthearticle
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
the Chernobyl design was ancient when it blew up and a bad design to begin with. the Chernobyl accident was a combination of a bad design and human error that was pretty unique.
the safety record of the plants in western europe should be enough to convince people it is a good idea.
...France, which gets 77 percent of its electricity from nukes.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
A village in Alaska is supposed to be installing a super small nuclear plant to provide power. Link
The small town of Galena, Alaska, is tired to pay 28 cents/kwh for its electricity, three times the national average. Today, Galena "is powered by generators burning diesel that is barged in during the Yukon River's ice-free months," according to Reuters. But Toshiba, which designs a small nuclear reactor named 4S (for "Super Safe, Small, & Simple"), is offering a free reactor to the 700-person village, reports the New York Times (no reg. needed). Galena will only pay for operating costs, driving down the price of electricity to less than 10 cents/kwh. The 4S is a sodium-cooled fast spectrum reactor -- a low-pressure, self-cooling reactor. It will generate power for 30 years before refueling and should be installed before 2010 providing an approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Read more...

My father worked on the nuclear power plant in Dothan, AL and the conversion of the plant in Midland, MI. He regaled me with many a story of all the safety requirements that had to be met in order to get the Dothan plant running. It's a shame that the USA developed a NIMBY attitude toward nuclear power because it truly is the best current method of providing clean, efficient energy. (Just as long as we keep the override device out of the terrorists hands)
 

acemcmac

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
13,712
1
0
I don't see any reason we can't store radioactive waste under a giant mountain until we come up with idiot proof enough technology to hurtle it at the sun, provided, of course, that we put it in good fvcking containers....
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: FoBoT
the Chernobyl design was ancient when it blew up and a bad design to begin with. the Chernobyl accident was a combination of a bad design and human error that was pretty unique.
the safety record of the plants in western europe should be enough to convince people it is a good idea.
...France, which gets 77 percent of its electricity from nukes.
GA gets a chunk of our energy from nukes, but our coal-fired plants are the largest point source polluters in the state (cars are the largest non-point, BTW).

 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
With all of the uranium left on the planet, even using breeder reactors, we only have a 50 year supply of energy.. and that's at current usage levels. With more and more countries developing into the industrial age, it might last 30 years at most. We need something else.
 

Torghn

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2001
2,171
0
76
Originally posted by: acemcmac
I don't see any reason we can't store radioactive waste under a giant mountain until we come up with idiot proof enough technology to hurtle it at the sun, provided, of course, that we put it in good fvcking containers....


Why can't we just recycle it like the rest of the world? Oh yeah, Carter made it lillegal so we have to store it now. :disgust:
 

Zanix

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2003
5,568
12
81
Originally posted by: acemcmac
I don't see any reason we can't store radioactive waste under a giant mountain until we come up with idiot proof enough technology to hurtle it at the sun, provided, of course, that we put it in good fvcking containers....


I'm thinking about cleanup. Oil is hard enough to clean up after, and it seems like there is accidents every couple years. We start increasing the use of nukes, and accidents will be proportional. How do we clean up after a radioactive waste spill?
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: acemcmac
I don't see any reason we can't store radioactive waste under a giant mountain until we come up with idiot proof enough technology to hurtle it at the sun, provided, of course, that we put it in good fvcking containers....

Because the enviro-nuts are having a coniption fit over storing the waste under that mountain in the middle of nowhere in Nevada....
 

Torghn

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2001
2,171
0
76
Originally posted by: joshsquall
With all of the uranium left on the planet, even using breeder reactors, we only have a 50 year supply of energy.. and that's at current usage levels. With more and more countries developing into the industrial age, it might last 30 years at most. We need something else.


These numbers are based off of our current level of minining and refining technology. In 50 years (or even 30) we'll have found a lot more or have greatly improved the mining/refining process. After that we'll figure out controled fussion.
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: Torghn
Originally posted by: acemcmac
I don't see any reason we can't store radioactive waste under a giant mountain until we come up with idiot proof enough technology to hurtle it at the sun, provided, of course, that we put it in good fvcking containers....


Why can't we just recycle it like the rest of the world? Oh yeah, Carter made it lillegal so we have to store it now. :disgust:
Recycling spent fuel - the technical word is reprocessing - is one way to make the key ingredient of a nuclear bomb, enriched uranium. In 1977, Jimmy Carter, the only nuclear engineer ever to occupy the White House, banned reprocessing in the US in favor of a so-called once-through fuel cycle. Four decades later, more than a dozen countries reprocess or enrich uranium, including North Korea and Iran. At this point, hanging onto spent fuel from US reactors does little good abroad and real mischief at home.

The Bush administration has reopened the door with modest funding to resume research into the nuclear fuel cycle. The president himself has floated a proposal to provide all comers with a guaranteed supply of reactor fuel in exchange for a promise not to reprocess spent fuel themselves. Other proposals would create a global nuclear fuel company, possibly under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This company would collect, reprocess, and distribute fuel to every nation in the world, thus keeping potential bomb fixings out of circulation.

In the short term, reprocessing would maximize resources and minimize the problem of how to dispose of radioactive waste. In fact, it would eliminate most of the waste from nuclear power production. Over decades, it could also ease pressure on uranium supplies. The world's existing reserves are generally reckoned sufficient to withstand 50 years of rapid nuclear expansion without a significant price increase. In a pinch, there's always the ocean, whose 4.5 billion tons of dissolved uranium can be extracted today at 5 to 10 times the cost of conventional mining.

Uranium is so cheap today that reprocessing is more about reducing waste than stretching the fuel supply. But advanced breeder reactors, which create more fuel as they generate power, could well be the economically competitive choice - and renewable as well.

 

stephenw22

Member
Dec 16, 2004
111
0
0
If it were up to me, I'd set up a storage facility in my province in Canada. We produce something like 30% of the world's uranium, and we have all these leftover mines. Why not store the waste in there? It's not like they were leaking radiation before we started mining. They've been safe for a billion years already.

Give me 100 billion dollars and I'll take your waste. Then in 50-100 years, when uranium runs out, I'll sell the waste back to you as fuel for your next generation of reactors.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
They need to speed up development of fusion reactors. The problem with that is that nobody wants to fund that research.
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
The other interesting bit about this approach is that it would make the push toward hydrogen-powered vehicles that much more viable (since it does take energy to make hydrogen).

If a single change could truly ignite nuclear power, it's the grab bag of technologies and wishful schemes traveling under the rubric of the hydrogen economy. Leaving behind petroleum is as important to the planet's future as eliminating coal. The hitch is that it takes energy to extract hydrogen from substances like methane and water. Where will it come from?

Today, the most common energy source for producing hydrogen is natural gas, followed by oil. It's conceivable that renewables could do it in limited quantities. By the luck of physics, though, two things nuclear reactors do best - generate both electricity and very high temperatures - are exactly what it takes to produce hydrogen most efficiently. Last November, the DOE's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory showed how a single next-gen nuke could produce the hydrogen equivalent of 400,000 gallons of gasoline every day. Nuclear energy's potential for freeing us not only from coal but also oil holds the promise of a bright green future for the US and the world at large.
 

gabemcg

Platinum Member
Dec 27, 2004
2,597
0
76
No nukes is good nukes

disposal = not possible (safely at least)

I mean, we could probably ship all the waste out to space, but imagine what happens when the nuclear trash shuttle blows up in the atmosphere!
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,676
46,389
136
Originally posted by: Fausto
The other interesting bit about this approach is that it would make the push toward hydrogen-powered vehicles that much more viable (since it does take energy to make hydrogen).

If a single change could truly ignite nuclear power, it's the grab bag of technologies and wishful schemes traveling under the rubric of the hydrogen economy. Leaving behind petroleum is as important to the planet's future as eliminating coal. The hitch is that it takes energy to extract hydrogen from substances like methane and water. Where will it come from?

Today, the most common energy source for producing hydrogen is natural gas, followed by oil. It's conceivable that renewables could do it in limited quantities. By the luck of physics, though, two things nuclear reactors do best - generate both electricity and very high temperatures - are exactly what it takes to produce hydrogen most efficiently. Last November, the DOE's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory showed how a single next-gen nuke could produce the hydrogen equivalent of 400,000 gallons of gasoline every day. Nuclear energy's potential for freeing us not only from coal but also oil holds the promise of a bright green future for the US and the world at large.

Yes, there are 4th Gen plants being designed for thermal hydrogen production that look pretty neat.
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
Originally posted by: stephenw22
If it were up to me, I'd set up a storage facility in my province in Canada. We produce something like 30% of the world's uranium, and we have all these leftover mines. Why not store the waste in there? It's not like they were leaking radiation before we started mining. They've been safe for a billion years already.

Give me 100 billion dollars and I'll take your waste. Then in 50-100 years, when uranium runs out, I'll sell the waste back to you as fuel for your next generation of reactors.

holy Carp!!! BRILLIANT!!!! :thumbsup:

put it back where it came from, that seems very logical

(i am serious, this is a good idea)
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: gabemcg
No nukes is good nukes

disposal = not possible (safely at least)

I mean, we could probably ship all the waste out to space, but imagine what happens when the nuclear trash shuttle blows up in the atmosphere!
1) Enrichment

2) Read the article (particularly its projections regarding energy demands) and tell me what the good alternative is. I mean, I'd love it if everyone rode their bikes to work like I do, but we all know that's not ever going to happen.

 

stephenw22

Member
Dec 16, 2004
111
0
0
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: stephenw22
If it were up to me, I'd set up a storage facility in my province in Canada. We produce something like 30% of the world's uranium, and we have all these leftover mines. Why not store the waste in there? It's not like they were leaking radiation before we started mining. They've been safe for a billion years already.

Give me 100 billion dollars and I'll take your waste. Then in 50-100 years, when uranium runs out, I'll sell the waste back to you as fuel for your next generation of reactors.

holy Carp!!! BRILLIANT!!!! :thumbsup:

put it back where it came from, that seems very logical

(i am serious, this is a good idea)

If it weren't for the stupid ignorant rednecks who populate this place, I'm sure we'd already be doing this. Also, as far as our regional economy goes, an extra $100B or so wouldn't hurt.

 

Ilmater

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2002
7,516
1
0
Originally posted by: Fausto
Other proposals would create a global nuclear fuel company, possibly under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This company would collect, reprocess, and distribute fuel to every nation in the world, thus keeping potential bomb fixings out of circulation.
Yeah... just like the Oil-for-Food program would keep the money out of politicians' hands and give food to the people.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
3 years ago our stupid politicians decided to dismantle our 7 reactors (nuclear energy supplies 60% of Belgian electricity). Luckily they are rethinking this strategy and they will probably stay open for the forseeable future