Nuclear Power . . .

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
waste is a non-issue. We can bury the 1%, no biggie

Read the Hanover [sic] data - they're looking at 53 million gallons of radioactive tank waste.
The conversion job is to change it into a stable silica glass substance.
That's one site out of hundreds.

They aren't attempting to reprocess the Hanford waste; reprocessing refers to nuclear transformations, not sealing the stuff in glass (vitrification.) They're attempting to vitrify it then bury it for thousands of years, while we simply don't have the technology to seal a site securely for time periods of that magnitude.

Isn't that what I said ? Glassification = conversion job is to change it into a stable silica glass substance.

You did say that, but you said it in response to a comment which said to bury the 1% of the waste that was left after reprocessing, hence my clarification above.

and I had fixed the typo . . . Handford, Wa, USA National Park Come and watch us glow.

I've been reading about the work on B Reactor and would love to go see it some day. Trinity site in New Mexico is also open to tourists, but it was only on a once a year basis when I was last nearby.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Still burning those fossil fuels to power it!

are you trying to make a point? say it then.

if you are trying to make me out to be a hypocrite becasue I use the exsisting power grid in our modern society save your childish banter

I dont drive nor would I support saudi terrorism by owning a car

Why is one childish banter and the other is not?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Hey Mr. Stubborn - do you realize that China alone puts out 20 times what we do on our worst day - & they're not gonna change anything.

China's starting to work on environmental issues and is planning to build 30 new nuclear reactors, including pebble bed designs, by 2020. However, they're still going to be burning lots of coal if their power needs continue to increase at the same rate they have been over the last two decades.

[edited to add] There's a good summary of China's environmental problems (people having to wear face masks in large cities due to smog, dust storms in Beijing, etc) and what they're planning to do about them in Jared Diamand's Collapse.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de...6276-3186210?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[NeenerNeener]

I would also like to add that while I believe nuclear fission power is better than fossil fuel power, that our supply of fissionable resources may be just as finite, if not more so, than our supply of fossil fuels, plus there is also still a degree of hazardous waste. We still need to remain on a path toward renewable, non-polluting forms of energy as well as nuclear fusion power.

http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTStirling.html

Check out this stirling engine design! Waaaaaay cool! Add a parabolic solar reflector and/or a lense, and viola! Free power. Perfect power!

We are the movers and shakers. We are the dreamers of a dream.

 

[sbacpo]

For those of you who think nuclear power can't be safe I direct your attention to the US Navy. They have been running reactors for over 50 years without so much as a minor incident. They are currently running about 70 reactors under the harshest conditions imaginable still without incident.

Getting rid of the waste is an issue, operating them safely is not.

They are price prohibitive because of government regulations. I'm not advocating a reduction in those regulations but a review of them would seem to be in order.

 

[2cpuminimum]

There is only enough nuclear fuel to run reactors at current rates of consumption for another fifty years. That's if we don't build more. discuss.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: 2cpuminimum
There is only enough nuclear fuel to run reactors at current rates of consumption for another fifty years. That's if we don't build more. discuss.

Prove it.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 2cpuminimum
There is only enough nuclear fuel to run reactors at current rates of consumption for another fifty years. That's if we don't build more. discuss.

Nuclear fusion will be realized in 50 years...no?
I have no idea if the infrastructure of the two forms compare.

Maybe others can address this?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: 2cpuminimum
There is only enough nuclear fuel to run reactors at current rates of consumption for another fifty years. That's if we don't build more. discuss.

Prove it.

Linkage
I see global production at 34tons, and reserves at 4,416tons.

That gives 100+ years to find more, before converting to fusion or other forms of energy generation.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 2cpuminimum
There is only enough nuclear fuel to run reactors at current rates of consumption for another fifty years. That's if we don't build more. discuss.

Nuclear fusion will be realized in 50 years...no?
I have no idea if the infrastructure of the two forms compare.

Maybe others can address this?

Fusion is the sh1t! Unlike fission reactions that need uranium or plutonium, fusion will use two isotopes of hydrogen: Deuterium (one proton, one neutron) and Tritium (one proton, two neutrons). The process yields Helium and an energetic neutron that we capture to heat water, make steam, turn a turbine, or maybe in the future, a stirling engine, create electricity. It doesn't yield nuclear waste like fission does, and the fuel for the reaction can be gotten from seawater; which is accessible throughout the globe!

At least that's what I say to the kids when I visit the classrooms.

Hopefully fifty years should do it. On other threads I've already written about ITER the international thermonuclear experimental reactor. It will start to get built in 2 years. It is supposed to be the first tokamak to reach ignition (where it produces enough energy to feedback into the coils to keep the plasma perpetuating itself).

Here's my company's education site.

And here's my division's main site.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: 2cpuminimum
There is only enough nuclear fuel to run reactors at current rates of consumption for another fifty years. That's if we don't build more. discuss.

Prove it.

Linkage
I see global production at 34tons, and reserves at 4,416tons.

That gives 100+ years to find more, before converting to fusion or other forms of energy generation.

Yes, that isn't even considering MOX fuel which greatly extends that timeline/capacity.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: 2cpuminimum
There is only enough nuclear fuel to run reactors at current rates of consumption for another fifty years. That's if we don't build more. discuss.

Prove it.

Linkage
I see global production at 34tons, and reserves at 4,416tons.

That gives 100+ years to find more, before converting to fusion or other forms of energy generation.

Don't forget that the rest won't be consumed linearly, especially if the US begins seriously phasing it in. The world consumption rate will increase quite a bit.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Don't forget that the rest won't be consumed linearly, especially if the US begins seriously phasing it in. The world consumption rate will increase quite a bit.

I thought i did considering it's 130 years given those numbers, and I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say: we might find more in a century and a half.

100+ is an extremely low figure in my opinion.

 

[zendari]

Steeplerot, where DO you want to get power from? Or do you want to live in the stone age?

 

[maluckey]

On the same thought....

85 percent of the power needs of Arkansas are met by nuclear power. Entergy is looking to build a "new style" reactor within 15 years. That is one of the drawbacks to nukes in the U.S....the time factor from planning to implementation.

Contrary to Steeplerot's accusations, the Govt. is anal retentive about safety nowadays. It takes close to 15 years from the start to first power to the grid for a nuke plant. It takes about five for a coal plant, and for gas turbine about a year and three quarters. While the time lag is so great, nukes are not feasible. Who wants an obsolete reactor from the get-go?

I love nature as much as the next guy, and I hate to see mother earth raped for coal and oil, the sky poisoned and the rivers and forests corrupted by dams. Nukes affect the environment less, can cost less, use fewer resources, and are cleaner in operation.

Sure the graphite cored (Russia?s Favorite) monsters of yore were not so, but most all modern reactors are virtually idiot-proof.

 

[2cpuminimum]

Even if we have enough nuclear fuel to last 130 years, that is still just a short term solution. Do you want people to be stuck in the stone age 130 years from now just because of our shortsightedness? It makes sense to have some nuclear power to diversify the energy portfolio, but it is foolish to use it as the sole, or even the main source. There are tremendous amounts of wind and solar energy just going to waste right now. Anyone who truly considered the well being of our descendents would favor the development of renewable resources. Do you want to be remembered for thousands of years as the person responsible for the failure to develop renewable energy leading up to the energy crash that started the new dark ages? The way things are going, that will be our legacy.

As for the assertion that wind power would change weather patterns, the energy extracted by windmills is returned as soon as the electricity is used, so it is unlikely to have much net effect.

No matter the timescale, fissionable materials are a limited resource, and when they are gone there is no going back. As such they should not be wasted on such a large scale.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 2cpuminimum
Even if we have enough nuclear fuel to last 130 years, that is still just a short term solution. Do you want people to be stuck in the stone age 130 years from now just because of our shortsightedness? It makes sense to have some nuclear power to diversify the energy portfolio, but it is foolish to use it as the sole, or even the main source. There are tremendous amounts of wind and solar energy just going to waste right now. Anyone who truly considered the well being of our descendents would favor the development of renewable resources. Do you want to be remembered for thousands of years as the person responsible for the failure to develop renewable energy leading up to the energy crash that started the new dark ages? The way things are going, that will be our legacy.

As for the assertion that wind power would change weather patterns, the energy extracted by windmills is returned as soon as the electricity is used, so it is unlikely to have much net effect.

No matter the timescale, fissionable materials are a limited resource, and when they are gone there is no going back. As such they should not be wasted on such a large scale.

Oil has an expected 40 year life, oh noes!, stop driving your car!!
Limited resource! only 40 years left, time to stop consuming!...

130 years is staggering. Get a clue buddy, this will outlast coal, gas, and oil. Your fears are misdirected and your conclusions are just beyond logical reasoning.

Come look me up in 100+ years when we have "run out" of uranium...or 50years according to you. I'm telling you right now that fission will be out of date in the time frames we are discussing here.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Washington Group is the chief Hanford subcontractor for Bechtel National, which is in charge of designing, building and testing Hanford's top-priority glassification project through 2011. The facility is supposed to convert at least 10 percent of the site's 53 million gallons of radioactive tank wastes into glass by 2018.

That's not a contract to build a new power plant - it's a glassification and clean-up of the old Hanford Weapons plant in
Eastern Washington on the Columbia river, an old, old weapons grade production facility.
The Fed's shut it down back in 2001.
Since 1943
Hell - that thing's 3 months older than I am !

We were told that the project were nuclear reactors by Washington group employees, I found the law suit on one of the search engines and it was 2 gas fired power plants and some other misc. work.

http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20010326b.asp

Reglardless, Steeplerot and his irrational fear of nuclear power are the problem. He knows litterally nothing about the technology, it's implimentation or it's safety. He opposes it because he is ignorant and afraid and because of that irrational fear derived from his ignorance he won't bother to educate himself about it. Our only hope is that his view has moved into the minority as time has passed. I hope this is true because nuclear power could provide the time we need to get the oil monkey off our back while we develop the holy grail of energy, fusion.

[edit] Stunt, there are over 200 years of coal reserves in the US alone and that's just the accessible stuff they know about[/edit]

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: K1052
The fact is that the currently operating plants are inherently more dangerous than the new designs and are growing moreso as the plants age. Yet, you oppose new construction/replacement on the basis that nuclear power is unsafe.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: 2cpuminimum
Even if we have enough nuclear fuel to last 130 years, that is still just a short term solution. Do you want people to be stuck in the stone age 130 years from now just because of our shortsightedness? It makes sense to have some nuclear power to diversify the energy portfolio, but it is foolish to use it as the sole, or even the main source. There are tremendous amounts of wind and solar energy just going to waste right now.

It's true that we need to use more renewable sources too, but nuclear has its place and there are limits to wind and solar power as well. In fact, as of 1986, humans were already diverting half of the world's photosynthetic capacity to their own uses and at the current rate will require all of it by 2050.

As for the assertion that wind power would change weather patterns, the energy extracted by windmills is returned as soon as the electricity is used, so it is unlikely to have much net effect.

It's not returned as wind, and we've already observed ecological impacts of wind farms. See
http://www.responsiblewind.org/goodnews.php
We should use some wind power, but we need to learn how much we can use with acceptable consequences, as is the case with hydroelectric and solar power too.

Renewable energy sources are similar to other renewable resources like forests and fish--you can only take so much of the resource at a time before experiencing detrimental effects.

No matter the timescale, fissionable materials are a limited resource, and when they are gone there is no going back. As such they should not be wasted on such a large scale.

It's worth pointing out that uranium is not a fossil fuel and there is a huge amount of it in this solar system. While hopefully we'll have fusion in 130 years, I hope we'll also be looking at space, both for mining and for gathering solar energy that doesn't fall on the Earth. Unfortunately, the launch of the world's first solar sail spacecraft failed yesterday.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Another quirky advantage to fission power. If we use all the plutonium and uranium up. Nobody can make nuclear weapons! hehehe

 

[K1052]

In case anyone is interested:

Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX)

Fast Breeder Reactors

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: 2cpuminimum
No matter the timescale, fissionable materials are a limited resource, and when they are gone there is no going back. As such they should not be wasted on such a large scale.

1. Uranium is the only element used for reactors.
2. There will be plenty of uranium left over as only select isotopes are usuable for reactors.
3. What exactly are we going to "waste" this uranium on if we don't use it to make power?

Do you think it has some value in making couches or something? Uranium is a rather toxic metal (chemically). Uranium isotopes used in reactors don't have any use other than for energy generation that I'm aware of. The fact is that uranium isn't real useful and "wasting" it on power production is a hell of lot better than just letting it convert itself into lead over the next million years.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: 2cpuminimum
No matter the timescale, fissionable materials are a limited resource, and when they are gone there is no going back. As such they should not be wasted on such a large scale.

1. Uranium is the only element used for reactors.
2. There will be plenty of uranium left over as only select isotopes are usuable for reactors.
3. What exactly are we going to "waste" this uranium on if we don't use it to make power?

Do you think it has some value in making couches or something? Uranium is a rather toxic metal (chemically). Uranium isotopes used in reactors don't have any use other than for energy generation that I'm aware of. The fact is that uranium isn't real useful and "wasting" it on power production is a hell of lot better than just letting it convert itself into lead over the next million years.

They can be used in bombs.

 

[Sunner]

Good decision, if only our government could do the same and just give the envirowackos the finger.
Not often I say this, but :thumbsup: for Bush&Co.