Nuclear Reactors

[dawp]

you can go passive solar to reduce the total energy needs of the building, but needs to be designed from the ground up. A lot has to taken into account such as lot, building orientation and such. if panels and windmills are added for electicity generation it could be quite effecent and self suffecent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar

not a lot of info on this at wikipedia.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: jagec
We already have an immense amount of infrastructure set up around centralized power plants. At this point it would make more sense to build a large-scale plant and take advantages of the efficiencies of scale.

Besides, we'll need breeder reactors to pull this off, due to the fairly low supply of fissile material, and do you want Joe Moron in the nuclear fuel production business?

Who wants to be on a grid. Not me if i could help it and still have clean reliable power.

what's wrong w/ being on a grid

Well, no more electric bill and gas bill too.
What about in natural disasters all that infrastructure gets destroyed and has to be rebuilt.
and where i live there is a maze of unsightly power lines all over.

I'd rather have a natural disaster take out the grid than take out my nuclear ractor.
I'd rather pay per kilowatt hour than buy a nuclear reactor and fuel.

 

[paulxcook]

No poll option for "I'm not nearly informed enough about nuclear power to make such a determination"? I'd pick that one. If I had to choose I'd say no, bad idea to just put nuclear anything out where any Joe Idiot can get drunk and try to hacksaw it apart.

 

[ForumMaster]

someone has already thought of this at toshiba...

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
As someone who recently got a job designing electrical systems for a nuclear reactor, and also having both parents with degrees in nuclear engineering I can pretty well say that this would be one of the most retarded ideas ever though up by man. I mean maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but it actually sounds like you are serious and this idea is dumb on many many levels. First off the RTGs spoken of are not nuclear reactors, they just use decay heat, the isotopes for these RTGs are created in a nuclear reactor, so its not like you are going "off the gird" here, you would need to build MORE large nuclear reactors in order to create this fuel. Also RTGs are exceedingly inefficient and do not even use the tiniest fraction of energy potential in that plutonium. Also, besides all that there is the simple fact that giving everyone a bunch of plutonium is completely retarded. Its is very radioactive, very chemically poisonous etc...

As for this whole story:

Originally posted by: jagec
And, again, there is NOT enough fissile material on the planet to support large-scale deployment of nuclear energy without breeder reactors!

I'm not really sure where this whole idea came up, it's probably from the whole peak oil folks, but it really does not apply to uranium at this time, there is currently a shortage of MINING capacity, not a shortage of uranium in the ground. While using only the U-235 is obviously terrible inefficient there are still hundreds of years worth of uranium in the ground even with a huge increase in consumption. And FWIW this is not even my opinion I am voicing here, it is my dads who BTW has a masters in nuclear engineering, and 32 years of experience in the nuclear fuel business. The good majority of his job is working with nuclear fuel companies to get contracts for nuclear fuel to be used in reactors, and the number of people selling uranium these days is going way up with all the new exploration going on based on the currently high uranium price. The current shortage is not the beginning of "peak uranium", it is simply due to the fact that uranium mining was depressed for many years when the government was releasing uranium from its own stockpiles and now that this practice has slowed there is a shortage of mining capacity until new mines open.

Well Toshiba
doesn't agree with you. Maybe ask your dad to rethink.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Eeezee
It's much more efficient to have nuclear power plants that generate power and distribute to the grid. Having a nuclear reactor in every home only introduces a million unnecessary complications; it'd be just as logical to install a coal-burning generator in your back yard. Coal is a very cheap source, but it's too expensive to run your own generator. Nuclear power is the same; it's cheaper for everyone if we run nuclear power plants rather than having a reactor in every home.

Solar power on every roof, however, makes a lot of sense only because there is so little maintenance and doesn't require a fuel source. Why would you favor a nuclear reactor over solar power when in most cities you'll end up selling electricity back to the grid. Also, don't forget that solar power is a lot easier+cheaper to install than a nuclear reactor.

Because you will need those nuke plants anyway, to handle that overcast july day where the temp drops from 100 to 90 and your solar panel drops to 5% output -- all the air conditioners have to stay on somehow, or the elderly and infirm die. Nuke plants + hydro (or wind + pumped storage instead of hydro in a pinch) is the solution. Everything else is just money wasted to feel good.

Exactly.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
I think a good start to America's energy needs would be all buildings should have there own individual nuclear reactor for power. No more power lines or grids. They can be made pretty small and efficient. In fact the latest Mars rover is nuclear powered.

I think you have the right idea but I would choose solar power. I would LOVE to have a solar powered home.

There are people who would never allow the average citizen to have that much power though. The idea is to keep you relying on government and big business to survive these days.

So would i, but is that really feasible to run all the electrical components of a modern home year round?

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
I think a good start to America's energy needs would be all buildings should have there own individual nuclear reactor for power. No more power lines or grids. They can be made pretty small and efficient. In fact the latest Mars rover is nuclear powered.

I think you have the right idea but I would choose solar power. I would LOVE to have a solar powered home.

There are people who would never allow the average citizen to have that much power though. The idea is to keep you relying on government and big business to survive these days.

Well for one thing solar is incredibly expensive these days, so it makes no sense as a grid level energy source. Secondly, it will NEVER make sense to have distributed electrical generation, the high capital costs and inefficiencies in converting and storing power at such small levels is absurd. The electrical grid is 90% efficient, really very little power is lost even when it is going hundreds of miles, so it makes WAAY more sense to set up huge solar arrays in certain location where economies of scale can be utilized and then pipe the power in to everyone house. That being said, there ain't no law saying you can't have a solar powered home, if you want one so much go out and buy one.

NOTE: I guess in some cities there might actually be a law against solar panels making the area look unattractive or some cr@p like that, but I find that unlikely unless you live in rich ass neighborhood area.

I'm trying to see your point in relation to my post, but there really isn't one.

I never said solar should be used for grid power. I think thats a terrible idea.

I never said anything about solar being used for distributed power. I think it's a terrible idea.

It would be nice to have a completely independent power source for a home, not connected to anyone, not shared with anyone in any way. Completely independent.

Someday I might build a home that runs on solar power.

That's right.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Colt45
I only skimmed the thread, cause i'm tired. but the rover, and all space shit, and all the russian lighthouses, etc... it's nuclear decay.. generating heat, and a thermocouple. it's not a reactor, and it doesn't make much power. the life isn't that long, and the dead thing is still radioactive. do you want to see Pu or Sr isotopes or whatever else in a small town dump?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...ermoelectric_generator

Fine that is a bad example but the idea of a small self-contained nuclear power source for homes isn't.

 

[Dualist]

It would be a good idea, providing that they're safe and easy to use.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Dualist
It would be a good idea, providing that they're safe and easy to use.

I don't think safety is really an issue because the reactors designed and built by the nuclear industry in this country are the safest in the world. As for ease of use; it would be installed in your home and simply produce electricity. Pretty easy.

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: yllus
Okay. I can't wait to try overclocking mine.

this is the kind of stuff that worries me...

Originally posted by: SampSon
Now if you could get me a Mr. Fusion, like in Back to the Future, I'm all in.

agreed

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I'm not really sure where this whole idea came up, it's probably from the whole peak oil folks, but it really does not apply to uranium at this time, there is currently a shortage of MINING capacity, not a shortage of uranium in the ground. While using only the U-235 is obviously terrible inefficient there are still hundreds of years worth of uranium in the ground even with a huge increase in consumption. And FWIW this is not even my opinion I am voicing here, it is my dads who BTW has a masters in nuclear engineering, and 32 years of experience in the nuclear fuel business. The good majority of his job is working with nuclear fuel companies to get contracts for nuclear fuel to be used in reactors, and the number of people selling uranium these days is going way up with all the new exploration going on based on the currently high uranium price. The current shortage is not the beginning of "peak uranium", it is simply due to the fact that uranium mining was depressed for many years when the government was releasing uranium from its own stockpiles and now that this practice has slowed there is a shortage of mining capacity until new mines open.

There's plenty of U238. There's not all that much U235. U238 is fertile but not fissile, and as such you need a breeder reactor to make proper use of the U238. Otherwise you need to enrich it in order to use it as fuel. With breeders, there's piles of nuclear fuel around, since they convert more fertile material to fissile than they consume. Without, we can't really support global adoption of nuclear power.

Granted, this info is from a book which was written some time ago, so maybe they're discovered much more fissile material since then.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Dualist
It would be a good idea, providing that they're safe and easy to use.

I don't think safety is really an issue because the reactors designed and built by the nuclear industry in this country are the safest in the world. As for ease of use; it would be installed in your home and simply produce electricity. Pretty easy.

Um, are you 10? Or are you joking? A fission reactor is going to need radioactive fuel, and it's going to produce radioactive waste. You'd be talking about putting this technology in the hands of a public that can't figure out how to program the time on a VCR. Just trucking around all this radioactive material to every house in the country, first it's going to use a lot of oil to fuel the trucks, second, if there's an accident, boom, you've got radioactive waste all over the place. And with lots more trucks carrying it, the chances of an accident go way up.

Then you'll have people modifying them for more power, or for who knows what.
"2000lbs of concrete shielding? Hell, it don't need that much, what's it stopping, eeeelektrawns and newtrawns? Them's tiny anyway, don't need all that concrete."

Or maybe, "Hey, I wonder what a nuclear reaction looks like. I think I'll drill a hole in the containment vessel and have a look."

Or, "I wonder what uranium pellets would do in the microwave."


Solar panels are quite safe, and a economical to deploy on a widespread scale. A grid-tied lead-acid battery bank - reasonably safe, if it's installed properly. Loads of lead-acid batteries will give off a fair amount of hydrogen. If it's not properly vented, it can be an explosion hazard, and I really don't like the idea of a fire in the midst of a bunch of containers of sulfuric acid.

Nuclear reactors are expensive - and that's something else. What would one of these reactors cost? $500,000? A million dollars? And how reliable would they be? The more reliable they are, the more expensive they'll be. What happens when the owners don't give them an oil change every 3000 kilowatts? What happens if the owners don't use premium uranium pellets, and just use Sam's Choice uranium pellets? What happens if the owners decide to short out the contacts with an opossum, just to see what happens?

It's much more economical, and much safer, to build large reactors, run by professionals, and send the power to the public through the power grid (which also desperately needs to be upgraded). Wind and solar are far better suited for widespread deployment.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: jagec
We already have an immense amount of infrastructure set up around centralized power plants. At this point it would make more sense to build a large-scale plant and take advantages of the efficiencies of scale.

Besides, we'll need breeder reactors to pull this off, due to the fairly low supply of fissile material, and do you want Joe Moron in the nuclear fuel production business?

Who wants to be on a grid. Not me if i could help it and still have clean reliable power.

what's wrong w/ being on a grid

Terminators can find you.

err, power grid <> information grid.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Dualist
It would be a good idea, providing that they're safe and easy to use.

I don't think safety is really an issue because the reactors designed and built by the nuclear industry in this country are the safest in the world. As for ease of use; it would be installed in your home and simply produce electricity. Pretty easy.

Um, are you 10? Or are you joking? A fission reactor is going to need radioactive fuel, and it's going to produce radioactive waste. You'd be talking about putting this technology in the hands of a public that can't figure out how to program the time on a VCR. Just trucking around all this radioactive material to every house in the country, first it's going to use a lot of oil to fuel the trucks, second, if there's an accident, boom, you've got radioactive waste all over the place. And with lots more trucks carrying it, the chances of an accident go way up.

Then you'll have people modifying them for more power, or for who knows what.
"2000lbs of concrete shielding? Hell, it don't need that much, what's it stopping, eeeelektrawns and newtrawns? Them's tiny anyway, don't need all that concrete."

Or maybe, "Hey, I wonder what a nuclear reaction looks like. I think I'll drill a hole in the containment vessel and have a look."

Or, "I wonder what uranium pellets would do in the microwave."


Solar panels are quite safe, and a economical to deploy on a widespread scale. A grid-tied lead-acid battery bank - reasonably safe, if it's installed properly. Loads of lead-acid batteries will give off a fair amount of hydrogen. If it's not properly vented, it can be an explosion hazard, and I really don't like the idea of a fire in the midst of a bunch of containers of sulfuric acid.

Nuclear reactors are expensive - and that's something else. What would one of these reactors cost? $500,000? A million dollars? And how reliable would they be? The more reliable they are, the more expensive they'll be. What happens when the owners don't give them an oil change every 3000 kilowatts? What happens if the owners don't use premium uranium pellets, and just use Sam's Choice uranium pellets? What happens if the owners decide to short out the contacts with an opossum, just to see what happens?

It's much more economical, and much safer, to build large reactors, run by professionals, and send the power to the public through the power grid (which also desperately needs to be upgraded). Wind and solar are far better suited for widespread deployment.

From what i read the U.S.makes the safest reactors in the world. I think you are overstating the danger and the cost would be much lower than you think.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

From what i read the U.S.makes the safest reactors in the world. I think you are overstating the danger and the cost would be much lower than you think.

Safety of a large-scale operation with professionals onsite 24/7 is NOT the same as safety in the hands of Joe Moron.

Besides, when your chief competition is Russia, it's not hard to win the safety contest.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

From what i read the U.S.makes the safest reactors in the world. I think you are overstating the danger and the cost would be much lower than you think.

Safety of a large-scale operation with professionals onsite 24/7 is NOT the same as safety in the hands of Joe Moron.

Besides, when your chief competition is Russia, it's not hard to win the safety contest.

Did you see that guys link to the Toshiba reactor? In it they talk about small reactors for apartment buildings , now how far is that from a single residence. Not much difference.

 

[potato28]

Wouldn't work. Radioactivity + eBay = Nukes for Cheap!!1

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

From what i read the U.S.makes the safest reactors in the world. I think you are overstating the danger and the cost would be much lower than you think.

Safety of a large-scale operation with professionals onsite 24/7 is NOT the same as safety in the hands of Joe Moron.

Besides, when your chief competition is Russia, it's not hard to win the safety contest.

Did you see that guys link to the Toshiba reactor? In it they talk about small reactors for apartment buildings , now how far is that from a single residence. Not much difference.

I'm not saying it can't be done, I just think it's a bad idea. Even if it were 100% safe, it would be an incredibly inefficient use of our resources.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

From what i read the U.S.makes the safest reactors in the world. I think you are overstating the danger and the cost would be much lower than you think.

Safety of a large-scale operation with professionals onsite 24/7 is NOT the same as safety in the hands of Joe Moron.

Besides, when your chief competition is Russia, it's not hard to win the safety contest.

Did you see that guys link to the Toshiba reactor? In it they talk about small reactors for apartment buildings , now how far is that from a single residence. Not much difference.

another thing you overlooking is who's gonna secure all those reactors? That's just asking for a dirty bomb. the feds will never allow it to happen. At least not any time soon.

 

[bob4432]

in all reality if my condo faced south, i would definitely look into solar - lots of tax incentives , plus the local laws make it so hoa's can't stop you from doing it.

i have always wondered why not so much solar here in the phx, AZ area (~4M people), hell we get ~300days of sun a year...