JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
And the dust on the road make you inhale more particles than cigarette smoke.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Nuclear Power Reborn
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
And the dust on the road make you inhale more particles than cigarette smoke.
eits
Lifer
dude, there's no nuclear waste just lying around everywhere. the only nuclear waste that is lying anywhere is the illegally dumped nuclear waste from biochemical plants or x-ray machines from hospitals and doctors offices. reactor waste, however, is contained and dealt with in a very safe and efficient manner. it's not just sloppily disposed of or anything. it's a very careful and closely watched process.
hellokeith
Golden Member
Reason #119 that Texas is the greatest state in the nation. 🙂
Bring on new power plants! Our 3-section power grid will be even more stable, while the rest of the country gets rolling black-outs and excuses from New England & California politicians. 😀
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
I don't pay his idiocy much mind. He doesn't get to shoot his gun enough, apparently, and has to compensate for it online.
Well first off, I would just like to state that there will probably be 5 other COL applications before the end of the year. So its not like this is just a one time event, Calvert Cliffs already submitted part of their COL weeks ago, and TVA voted today to submit theirs, so well have at least 3 by the end of next month, and 5 by the end of the year, probably 10 at least by the end of next year.
As for the nuclear waste issue, this is again an example of anything with the world "nuclear" in it getting treated completely differently than anything else. First off nuclear "waste" can still be used for fuel for breeder reactors and throwing it away at all is an idiotic idea since you are throwing away 95% of the energy. However even if you are keen on getting rid of it, the waste could literally be vitrified in glass and throw in the bottom of the ocean and nobody would ever know the difference. You could just run a ship out to a deep ocean trench carrying all the nuclear waste in the USA, release it all into the trench and drive away and if you came back 10,000 years later 99.999% of it would still be there. If you want to do the land based geological storage, thats good too, again the containers will be able to last at least 10,000 years without incident, and even when they start leaking the amounts which manage to leach through 1000m of rock will be almost negligible. Personally I think in 100 years we will have a way to completely neutralize nuclear waste, and surely in 1000 years we will have one, WELL before any leakage could occur in even the most pessimistic of models. Nuclear waste is no more deadly than a hundred other chemical poisons in this world, there is really no reason it should be treated as such, but even if you do want to treat it as such you still have to be a complete loon to think that a place like Yucca mountain could not contain it. As was already stated, there were natural reactors and the Oklo site which produced nuclear waste which has moved only a few meter in the last BILLION years. The sun will literally have ceased to exist before nuclear waste could make its way from a deep underground mine out to the surface.
As for the nuclear waste issue, this is again an example of anything with the world "nuclear" in it getting treated completely differently than anything else. First off nuclear "waste" can still be used for fuel for breeder reactors and throwing it away at all is an idiotic idea since you are throwing away 95% of the energy. However even if you are keen on getting rid of it, the waste could literally be vitrified in glass and throw in the bottom of the ocean and nobody would ever know the difference. You could just run a ship out to a deep ocean trench carrying all the nuclear waste in the USA, release it all into the trench and drive away and if you came back 10,000 years later 99.999% of it would still be there. If you want to do the land based geological storage, thats good too, again the containers will be able to last at least 10,000 years without incident, and even when they start leaking the amounts which manage to leach through 1000m of rock will be almost negligible. Personally I think in 100 years we will have a way to completely neutralize nuclear waste, and surely in 1000 years we will have one, WELL before any leakage could occur in even the most pessimistic of models. Nuclear waste is no more deadly than a hundred other chemical poisons in this world, there is really no reason it should be treated as such, but even if you do want to treat it as such you still have to be a complete loon to think that a place like Yucca mountain could not contain it. As was already stated, there were natural reactors and the Oklo site which produced nuclear waste which has moved only a few meter in the last BILLION years. The sun will literally have ceased to exist before nuclear waste could make its way from a deep underground mine out to the surface.
This is why shit never gets done in America. Any effort requires paying the mob, ie lawyers, an insane amount of money before anything is even considered. Then after the application is accepted, the environmental groups move in with their lawyers, and then both sides pay their lawyers tons of money to fight it out in court. All lawyers should fvck off and die. They have a stranglehold on this country. They are worse than any external enemy.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Lawyers wouldn't be a problem if the Courts weren't in on the corruption and collusion.
40 million dollars for an application is a freaking bargain by any standard in the USA today. That low of a number indicates to me that so far they have NOT had to bring in the lawyers and such. Remember that an application isn't just a piece of paper saying "hey I wanna build a reactor can I?". These applications are tens of thousands of pages of technical documents written over at least a year of working on site visits to the reactor site, and huge amounts of engineering work. IF we assume that half the money is logistics and half is salaries than that would mean 200 engineers working for a year to write these applications. To me that seems entirely reasonable to create a customized design to construct a new nuclear reactor at a site. This project will be ~6 BILLION dollars in the ideal case assuming no environmental nuts are successful in delaying it so 40 million is a drop in the bucket.
The courts are run by lawyers, who are appointed by lawyers. Lawyers amass fortunes by creating and capitalizing on inefficiency and process in our economy. The fact that I have to pay a lawyer money in order to buy a house or file a will makes me want to shoot them all in the face. When I see lawyers shopping for clients for some class action or injury suit on TV, I want to shoot them in the face. God damn I hate lawyers. OK, I need to go to my happy place....where I imagine shooting lawyers in the face.
Ok, you win. We will continue to store the waste in leaky on site locations instead of below a highly studied mountain in the middle of the desert.
Personally, I think the entire NIMBY thing is going to hinder most new nuclear projects (aside from additions to current facilities). So we will probably just build a bunch more coal fired power plants to keep up with demand.
Happy?
Why would I be happy. I am arguing for what I see is truth. Responsible people would have dealt with nuclear waste from day one or shut down the reactors. But we are governed by idiots put in office for the sake of those who want to make a buck. So the waste collects in exposed sights at the nuclear facilities as stuff like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island happens.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
Yes i did, i've been asked to edit my posts before to save me vacations, nowadays they don't bother with it anymore because the reply is always the same from me, if i didn't intend to say exactly what i wrote i wouldn't have written it, TLC is an arsehole and deserves this, you can disagree and you can contact a mod, they will edit the post while banning me but see, that really changes nothing, my opinion is still mine and i stand by it, to me it's that is more important.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
As you are aware of radiation you are surely aware of the different kinds of radiation, like the difference of particle radiation and UVA+B radiation?
Besides, added radiation is just that ADDED, it's not like someone avoids all other forms of radiation and is only getting the amount from Yucca, it's added on top of all other radiation, kind of like how lack of oxygen in the air might not kill you but if you introduce CO in the mix, even at low concentrations, you'll die from it.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
Actually, i call it as i see it and all i ever see you doing is prancing around spouting crap in every thread and never ever backing up your crap, always returning later with a comment or two that does not adress your initial statements, i'd urge everyone to check it out because it's true, you're an uber-trolling little POS.
I don't think you're just dishonest though, i think you aim to be dishonest and untrustworthy.
I'd pity you if you were worth it, you're not.
Jaskalas
Lifer
For once Moonie we can agree on something.
America needs a serious and enforced plan on the radioactive waste lest we all find our children with Chernobyl Heart.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
Why do you always just pull irrelevat BS out of your arse? Can't you EVER debate anything on the grounds for the debate?
Lighter=fire *link to burn victim* BAN LIGHTERS! is your argument simplified, you take the completly unrelated uncontrolled disaster of Chernobyl and link it to a controlled form of storage?
I pretty much find myself arguing against two extremes in every single thread in this forum.
Jeff7
Lifer
Not really. Ideally, yes. Problem: rockets do still explode. And, the payload for a big rocket is quite small. The better way might be with space elevators to hoist the waste to low Earth orbit, and from there it could be more easily hurled into the sun. But they're a long way off, too.
Reprocessing would help reduce the amount of waste present, and would serve to extend existing uranium supplies.
Finally, send more money to fusion research. Start projects. More test reactors. Something! Fusion would, at worst, produce low level waste that would be dangerous for up to 300 years. There's also no danger of a meltdown, as there would be no chain reaction. Right now, fusion reactors use magnetic fields to confine a plasma stream, in which the fusion reaction occurs. If the magnetic field fails, the plasma will expand, cooling it. It will then hit the walls of the chamber, cooling it further. Either one would serve to stop the fusion reaction.
Alas, a commercially viable fusion reactor is decades away. China and India are growing faster than that. Oil supplies will get tight. Our options until we reach the fusion era are: more coal (more mining, more pollution), more nuclear (waste storage issues, and we need reprocessing facilities), and renewables (expensive, inconsistent output).
Brovane
Diamond Member
As far as I can see nuclear power is the only way to generate large amounts(Gw+) of consistent baseline power load with 0% C02 emissions. The nuclear waste problem is solvable however the opponents of nuclear power have the stymied any attempt at solving the issue and then they use it as argument against nuclear power. If you just start reprocessing the spent reactor fuel most of the nuclear waste problem would go away however these same nuclear opponents prevent the US from seriously undertaking reprocessing of spent fuel.
I do have just one word on fusion that I think needs to be made clear. Many people are big proponents of fusion power, including myself, but it should be understood what fusion power provides and what it does NOT provide. Fusion power provides energy security since we don't have to rely on other countries, fusion power provides huge possibility for expansions since the fuel is essentially unlimited whereas oil, gas, uranium, and coal are all going to be depleted at some point, and depending on who you believe one if not all of these will have "peaked" in your lifetime. Fusion provides clean power with no CO2 emissions, no NOx, no SOx, no long lived radioactive isotopes. However, what fusion does NOT provide is cheap power. Fusion plants are the same as any other power plant in how they produce electrical power, the secondary side will be just as expensive as any other plant, and the primary will be FAR MORE expensive than any other plant. Fusion power is expensive power, definitely more expensive than wind will be and likely on par with solar. So, just remember that fusion power solves alot of problems (energy security, global warming, radioactive waste), but it does not solve the economic problem of cheap power.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
