Stuff you didn't know and probably don't care about

[Charmonium]

Note - lay vs lie. I lie down but I lay the fork down.

Wow. Still a lot of reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear sources.

Thorium reactors should be very much safer than traditional fission reactors.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Thorium reactors should be very much safer than traditional fission reactors.

https://theecologist.org/2014/mar/26/exposing-thorium-myth

In some respects, it's worse and not too different.

 

[Captante]

Thorium reactors should be very much safer than traditional fission reactors.

Sounds like something the Nuclear power industry would want you to believe and completely untrue.... the ONLY significant advantage Thorium has is there's a lot more of it then U-232.

 

[Charmonium]

https://theecologist.org/2014/mar/26/exposing-thorium-myth

In some respects, it's worse and not too different.

I just skimmed the article but it seems their main issue is the fact that it's still nuclear fission and therefore, more or less by definition, not safe.

But from what I can recall, a thorium reactor can never meltdown, explode, etc. You can also have very small reactors - perhaps stretching the definition of "portable."

Now, if I'm mistaken about that, that's a different story.

 

[Captante]

I just skimmed the article but it seems their main issue is the fact that it's still nuclear fission and therefore, more or less by definition, not safe.

But from what I can recall, a thorium reactor can never meltdown, explode, etc. You can also have very small reactors - perhaps stretching the definition of "portable."

Now, if I'm mistaken about that, that's a different story.

Reality is that barring natural disaster stuff like Fukushima, actual melt-downs in modern nuclear reactors of any kind are unlikely in the extreme.

The risks are slightly different using Thorium then they are with Uranium, but it's still nuclear fission so heat, high-pressure and highly radioactive material are all still part of the process. (as mentioned in linked article)

Plus most significantly it still produces a bunch of very dangerous waste-products.

 

[Charmonium]

The point is that 'safety' is a relative concept. Are we more worried about climate change or the fairly trivial issue of waste disposal. France deals with the problem by recycling their fuel - a fairly costly and difficult process.

Climate change will kill more people than radiation ever has.

There's also the fact that even modern uranium/plutonium reactors have a multitude of things that can go wrong - control rods, coolant conveyance, etc.

Lastly, according to a documentary on Chernobyl based on KGB files released by Ukraine, the death toll was much lower than anyone expected - whether from the initial exposure or cancers that developed decades later.

 

[Captante]

The point is that 'safety' is a relative concept. Are we more worried about climate change or the fairly trivial issue of waste disposal. France deals with the problem by recycling their fuel - a fairly costly and difficult process.

Climate change will kill more people than radiation ever has.

There's also the fact that even modern uranium/plutonium reactors have a multitude of things that can go wrong - control rods, coolant conveyance, etc.

Lastly, according to a documentary on Chernobyl based on KGB files released by Ukraine, the death toll was much lower than anyone expected - whether from the initial exposure or cancers that developed decades later.

The best solution I've seen to deal with nuclear waste was going to be Yucca mountain but that's going nowhere now.

Instead we have a patchwork of spent fuel-rod storage facilities spread throughout the US, some in shocking states of disrepair/neglect and with very lax security.

Nuclear fission is not the long-term answer unless somebody comes up with an easy, efficient and safe way to deal with the toxic leftovers.

 

[sdifox]

The best solution I've seen to deal with nuclear waste was going to be Yucca mountain but that's going nowhere now.

Nuclear fission is not the long-term answer unless somebody comes up with an easy, efficient and safe way to deal with the toxic leftovers.

What's wrong with reprocessing?

 

[Captante]

What's wrong with reprocessing?

I said easy and efficient.... there's zero justification to not focus on tidal, solar, wind and geo-thermal instead long-term unless you are the Nuclear power industry.

Nuclear fission is a cleaner solution then burning fossil-fuels for power short-term though that's for certain.

 

[sdifox]

I said easy and efficient.... there's zero justification to not focus on tidal, solar, wind and geo-thermal instead long-term unless you are the Nuclear power industry.

Nuclear fission is a cleaner solution then burning fossil-fuels for power short-term though that's for certain.

Nuclear provides acceptable base load. I am not saying stop renewables.

 

[Charmonium]

The best solution I've seen to deal with nuclear waste was going to be Yucca mountain but that's going nowhere now.

Instead we have a patchwork of spent fuel-rod storage facilities spread throughout the US, some in shocking states of disrepair/neglect and with very lax security.

Nuclear fission is not the long-term answer unless somebody comes up with an easy, efficient and safe way to deal with the toxic leftovers.

Hear! Hear!

Disposal is only a "trivial" issue if you compare it to something like an extinction level event. And even then, you don't want to make any compromises you don't absolutely have to. The problem though is, when do we ALL agree on what constitutes "absolutely have to."

I was living in central jersey when we had Three Mile Island. "Shitting a brick" is one phrase that only starts to do justice to the FUD that blossomed afterwards. So it's fair to say that I've got some skin in the game and would very much like to have that skin back.

What's wrong with reprocessing?

Excellent question. It's soooo good, that I'm hoping you can dumb the answer down to the 5 y/o level. Five year old cat.

 

[sdifox]

Hear! Hear!

Disposal is only a "trivial" issue if you compare it to something like an extinction level event. And even then, you don't want to make any compromises you don't absolutely have to. The problem though is, when do we ALL agree on what constitutes "absolutely have to."

I was living in central jersey when we had Three Mile Island. "Shitting a brick" is one phrase that only starts to do justice to the FUD that blossomed afterwards. So it's fair to say that I've got some skin in the game and would very much like to have that skin back.

Excellent question. It's soooo good, that I'm hoping you can dumb the answer down to the 5 y/o level. Five year old cat.

If the French, Russians, Brits, Indians, Pakistanis and Japanese can do it, why is the US reluctant to do so?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

 

[snoopy7548]

It's pronounced nuke-u-lur.

 

[Charmonium]

I'd have to look this up, which is not happening today, but my guess is that the only thing they can use again, is the "unburnt" stuff. That much is obvious. Less so is the fact that, in this context, spent fuel is just a tiny fraction of what needs to be interred or otherwise 'disappeared.' If you watch documentaries, places like Hanford, WA (an original/OG Project Manhattan site) have waste ranging from a few times above background to instant, crispy death. Beyond that, you have no idea the number and/or size of shit that can be irreparably contaminated.

So to get to the MF point, spent fuel is probably the waste in greatest need of safe disposal. But it is dwarfed by everything else.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I do think more effort needs to go towards reprocessing waste. Either to "recharge" it or render it into something 100% safe. The waste issue is not as bad as it seems though, but it still could be better. Great video that explains it:

 

[Ajay]

https://theecologist.org/2014/mar/26/exposing-thorium-myth

In some respects, it's worse and not too different.

That article is so idiotically short that it has no use whatsoever in the debate over nuclear. It doesn't cover any significant topic in the use of new fuel cycles that create short lived radioactive wastes, use of high temp molten salts with much higher fuel efficiencies, fuel encapsulated in ultra high temp ceramic spheres, automatic safety systems that kick in when power fails (no backup gens needed), blah, blah, blah...

Freaking idiots.

 

[Ajay]

I was living in central jersey when we had Three Mile Island. "Shitting a brick" is one phrase that only starts to do justice to the FUD that blossomed afterwards. So it's fair to say that I've got some skin in the game and would very much like to have that skin back.

That was an incredibly absurd shit show. Sorry you lived through it. Although he French and the US Navy have pulled it off with no leaks, PWRs have some serious issues and need to be replaced with much more advanced systems. With so much damage done by (just talking about coverups and blame shifting) and to the industry, who knows if that'll ever happen.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Freaking idiots.

What's the best way forward with nuclear in your opinion?

 

[Charmonium]

What's the best way forward with nuclear in your opinion?

Best? Deep space. The voyager missions used thermionic batteries that should last as long as they do. Zero moving parts.

Next up, fusion. Fun fact, the sun doesn't weigh enough to support fusion solely from temp and pressure. It has to "cheat" by relying on quantum tunneling.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Next up, fusion. Fun fact, the sun doesn't weigh enough to support fusion solely from temp and pressure. It has to "cheat" by relying on quantum tunneling.

Extension - IS the Sun hot enough for fusion?

www.alevelphysicsnotes.com

Although, the chance of any proton tunnelling through the coulomb barrier, the number of protons in the Sun is so vast, a low probability event happens very often.

We are alive because of a low probability event happening very often??? Crazy!

 

[Charmonium]

It's pronounced nuke-u-lur.

Or nuke-lee-er - which is also not listed in M&W's dictionary.

3 Ways to Pronounce Nuclear - wikiHow

How hard can it be to say the word "nuclear"? Actually, the correct pronunciation is debated. Most experts agree that one pronunciation is correct, but so many famous people say it another way that some dictionaries think both versions can...

www.wikihow.com

.

 

[KMFJD]

Best? Deep space. The voyager missions used thermionic batteries that should last as long as they do. Zero moving parts.

Next up, fusion. Fun fact, the sun doesn't weigh enough to support fusion solely from temp and pressure. It has to "cheat" by relying on quantum tunneling.

This was interesting

Demonstration Proves Nuclear Fission System Can Provide Space Exploration Power - NASA

NASA and the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have successfully demonstrated a new nuclear reactor power system

www.nasa.gov

https://twitter.com/x/status/1539283172764094465

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilopower

Voyager is very close to running out of power i read this week, maybe 5 years left (which is amazing considering they were launched in '77)

https://www.space.com/voyager-spacecraft-lose-power-in-5-years.html

 

[igor_kavinski]

By the way, is it feasible to send spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste to a collection facility in orbit and from there, launch tons of the stuff on a trajectory towards the sun? Or using space tugs?

 

[Mai72]

There are many horrible Buddhist Hell Realms.

In one hell realm, the person has their intestines filled with blazing iron pellets.

In another Buddhist hell realm the person suddenly has their body marked with black lines. Then, they are cut piece by piece, and their body comes fully back together to be sliced up again.

 

[Mai72]

There is even a Buddhist Hell theme park in Thailand.