The US dropped the ball

[cwjerome]

Story here

Being the first nuclear nation on earth, you'd think the US would be leading the pack in nuclear development and advancement. Since we scared ourselves shitless over anything nuclear in the 70s and 80s, we've been behind Europe and now Japan.

We still make some damn good reactors for many of our naval vessels... maybe we can park and Los Angeles class sub in every major city in the US and tap it. (J/K)

 

[frostedflakes]

Yup, absolutely no innovation from the US. It's not like General Electric designs reactors or anything.

We're definitely falling behind other nations when it comes to reprocessing, though.

 

[JSt0rm]

but hey when it comes to nuclear weapons we got them all beat

 

[Colt45]

deployed maybe, but not stockpile

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Yup, absolutely no innovation from the US. It's not like General Electric designs reactors or anything.

We're definitely falling behind other nations when it comes to reprocessing, though.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree, as oil prices go through the roof, and as fossil fuels contribute to global warming, its clear that nuclear energy is back in vogue with many nations petitioning the IAEA to start their own peace time nuclear programs.

The new challenge will be what to do with the resultant spent fuel rods, not only an ecological danger, but also very useful for developing nuclear weapons capabilities
for any nation with nuclear reactors.

Only 3.5% or so U235 enrichment is needed for a nuclear reactor, yet reprocessed fuel rods can yield pure weapons grade plutonium with mere chemical separation. To make a nuclear weapon with Uranium requires 93% or so U235 enrichment which requires a
huge national investment and many many years.

Many nations will be willing to simple get rid of their spent fuel rods and the USA isn't even prepared to process our own spent fuel rods.

 

[Jeff7]

Yes, we should be.

We also have a very unhealthy fear of science, and a tendency to listen to whatever moron happens to be yelling at a TV camera, regardless of how much he genuinely knows about what he's talking about.

"He's on TV, so he must know what he's talking about, and he's yelling, so it must be true."

And it uses the word "radiation," which makes most people shit themselves on the spot, nevermind the fact that everything that exists in an environment above absolute zero is constantly being irradiated by EM emissions. Or "irradiated beef" - they probably should have found some other term. "Purified" or "sanitized" or "Awesomeified" beef might have sold more, and then just don't use any form of the word "radiation" on the label. Google search says that X-rays, gamma rays, and electron beams may be used on beef. Fine, market it as "Gamma Beef" or something.

Concerning the moronic weapons proliferation concerns I've seen as the excuse for the reprocessing ban: The military isn't going to give a damn about something like that. If the government wants weapons capable of wiping out a small island or city, they'll find a way around the ban. Pretty much like gun control - the people who really shouldn't have them are still going to get them anyway. If you ban reprocessing, it just results in more waste that needs to be disposed, and an increased demand for raw fuel - and the government will still find a way to make their weapons.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Many US citizens have been scared of nuclear power for a while now, unfortunately.

you'd think the US would be leading the pack in nuclear development and advancement

Toshiba owns Westinghouse, right? I would think that American scientists helped develop their nuclear technology / patents on US soil. But, in the end, a Japanese firm does own it.

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
but hey when it comes to nuclear weapons we got them all beat

Russia has more nukes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Yup, absolutely no innovation from the US. It's not like General Electric designs reactors or anything.

We're definitely falling behind other nations when it comes to reprocessing, though.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree, as oil prices go through the roof, and as fossil fuels contribute to global warming, its clear that nuclear energy is back in vogue with many nations petitioning the IAEA to start their own peace time nuclear programs.

The new challenge will be what to do with the resultant spent fuel rods, not only an ecological danger, but also very useful for developing nuclear weapons capabilities
for any nation with nuclear reactors.

Only 3.5% or so U235 enrichment is needed for a nuclear reactor, yet reprocessed fuel rods can yield pure weapons grade plutonium with mere chemical separation. To make a nuclear weapon with Uranium requires 93% or so U235 enrichment which requires a
huge national investment and many many years.

Many nations will be willing to simple get rid of their spent fuel rods and the USA isn't even prepared to process our own spent fuel rods.

We had the capability to recycle them, but since you can make plutonium with it was killed. Such a program should be restarted.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Yup, absolutely no innovation from the US. It's not like General Electric designs reactors or anything.

We're definitely falling behind other nations when it comes to reprocessing, though.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree, as oil prices go through the roof, and as fossil fuels contribute to global warming, its clear that nuclear energy is back in vogue with many nations petitioning the IAEA to start their own peace time nuclear programs.

The new challenge will be what to do with the resultant spent fuel rods, not only an ecological danger, but also very useful for developing nuclear weapons capabilities
for any nation with nuclear reactors.

Only 3.5% or so U235 enrichment is needed for a nuclear reactor, yet reprocessed fuel rods can yield pure weapons grade plutonium with mere chemical separation. To make a nuclear weapon with Uranium requires 93% or so U235 enrichment which requires a
huge national investment and many many years.

Many nations will be willing to simple get rid of their spent fuel rods and the USA isn't even prepared to process our own spent fuel rods.

Space-dump

 

[sonoma1993]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Story here

Being the first nuclear nation on earth, you'd think the US would be leading the pack in nuclear development and advancement. Since we scared ourselves shitless over anything nuclear in the 70s and 80s, we've been behind Europe and now Japan.

We still make some damn good reactors for many of our naval vessels... maybe we can park and Los Angeles class sub in every major city in the US and tap it. (J/K)

i think part of the problem, people want nuclear power in our country but they don't want it in their own backyard.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: sonoma1993
i think part of the problem, people want nuclear power in our country but they don't want it in their own backyard.

I do. We have space, we have rivers, we have flat land. Put it right here and tear down the coal plant down the road. Give me an energy discount and I'll get my shovel and help you build it on the weekends.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think that the biggest impediment to nuclear development has been inaction wrt safe and sane handling and storage of existing and future nuclear waste.

Hanford is a disaster waiting to happen and Yucca mountain was a pretty poor plan overall.

Deal with that, and concentrate on walk away safe reactor designs to create public acceptance of nuclear power.

There are more than a few potential sources of hydropower untapped in huge western reservoirs, as well. They have guaranteed downstream flows and plenty of fall, but the electrical generating part of their plans were scrapped at the time to, uhh, "save money" in typical shortsighted fashion...

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: sonoma1993
i think part of the problem, people want nuclear power in our country but they don't want it in their own backyard.

I do. We have space, we have rivers, we have flat land. Put it right here and tear down the coal plant down the road. Give me an energy discount and I'll get my shovel and help you build it on the weekends.

:thumbsup:

Well said, same goes for my hometown when I move back.

Does not really count for where I live now... Y-12 is not far, so more nuclear activity is meaningless.

Y-12 manufactures nuclear weapons components, participates in stockpile stewardship research, and "is the 'Fort Knox' for highly enriched uranium

 

[sonoma1993]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: sonoma1993
i think part of the problem, people want nuclear power in our country but they don't want it in their own backyard.

I do. We have space, we have rivers, we have flat land. Put it right here and tear down the coal plant down the road. Give me an energy discount and I'll get my shovel and help you build it on the weekends.

Im all for nuclear power as well. I don't mind having it in my back yard or my town. But it the other people that don't want it due to what happen at 3 mile island and Chernobyl. Even though their hasn't been a nuclear accident since those two incidents as far as I know if. But people fear some then like that may happen even though the technology, safety features, designs, etc for nuclear power plants have improve alot over the years.

 

[piasabird]

There are too many regulations and it takes too long to get a Nuclear power plant approved and built 10-20 years. Not only that but it is kind of hard to build anything like a nuclear power plant near a fault line or in the middle of a flood plain. The government and the left wing nutjobs (Special Interest Nutjobs) just will not allow a power plant to be built, much less a nuclear power plant. We also do not have a breeder reactor to reclaim spent fuel rods. There is no place to store them, so if you want to build a nuclear power plant, you have to also build your own storage for the next 30 years, or maybe forever.

Maybe we should store the material in desert countries. Even if we had a place to store them, just think of the ruckus when the nuclear train comes through your city . . . .

This is why in some countries it is the Government that owns and runs the nuclear power plants. That way there is no argument, because the power is part of a Socialist Regime or a socialized government structure.

Did I just make an argument for government run Power Plants? Does that scare you?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: sonoma1993

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: sonoma1993
i think part of the problem, people want nuclear power in our country but they don't want it in their own backyard.

I do. We have space, we have rivers, we have flat land. Put it right here and tear down the coal plant down the road. Give me an energy discount and I'll get my shovel and help you build it on the weekends.

Im all for nuclear power as well. I don't mind having it in my back yard or my town. But it the other people that don't want it due to what happen at 3 mile island and Chernobyl. Even though their hasn't been a nuclear accident since those two incidents as far as I know if. But people fear some then like that may happen even though the technology, safety features, designs, etc for nuclear power plants have improve alot over the years.

Comparing TMI to Chernobyl is like comparing a coffee spill inside your car to ramming it into a school bus full of children at 90mph while clutching a lit stick of dynamite between your teeth.

 

[BeauJangles]

Bring on the nuclear power. I think we'd have an easier time figuring out a long-term storage solution for spent nuclear fuel than we will solve the energy crisis and / or global warming or global cooling or climate change or whatever.

 

[StageLeft]

I suppose the best way to prevent another Chernobyl and its destruction of a city and surrounding countryside is to spread the pain and stick with the pollution potential of burning coal and oil for our power, thus helping along the destruction of all cities and all countrysides. But it's so slow and if we can't see it surely it's not really hurting us, eh?

 

[piasabird]

Build it in Mexico.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: sonoma1993

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: sonoma1993
i think part of the problem, people want nuclear power in our country but they don't want it in their own backyard.

I do. We have space, we have rivers, we have flat land. Put it right here and tear down the coal plant down the road. Give me an energy discount and I'll get my shovel and help you build it on the weekends.

Im all for nuclear power as well. I don't mind having it in my back yard or my town. But it the other people that don't want it due to what happen at 3 mile island and Chernobyl. Even though their hasn't been a nuclear accident since those two incidents as far as I know if. But people fear some then like that may happen even though the technology, safety features, designs, etc for nuclear power plants have improve alot over the years.

It's funny how people bring up 3-mile island as some sort of evidence as to how unsafe nuclear power is when in fact it shows you how safe it really is. Something like 50% of the core melted down and the resulting radiation leak was less than what is contained in a standard smoke detector.

The Chernobyl accident happened because the Russians built a cheap piece of shit of a reactor with minimal failsafes and a poor design(IE they built it as cheaply ass possible).

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sonoma1993

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Story here

Being the first nuclear nation on earth, you'd think the US would be leading the pack in nuclear development and advancement. Since we scared ourselves shitless over anything nuclear in the 70s and 80s, we've been behind Europe and now Japan.

We still make some damn good reactors for many of our naval vessels... maybe we can park and Los Angeles class sub in every major city in the US and tap it. (J/K)

i think part of the problem, people want nuclear power in our country but they don't want it in their own backyard.

I agree. However I am not one of them. I have a nuke plant 7 miles from me. On a cold day I see the smokestacks from the coal plant right next to it.

 

[CLite]

I agree completely, the U.S. needs to master the emerging nuclear revolution in order to enjoy the next economic revolution. Obama's energy secretary is pushing Nuclear power, and it is my earnest belief that President Obama under the influence of Steven Chu will push Nuclear power. The safeguards are stronger than ever, and the means to re-cycle spent fuel exists (both extending the potential supply and decreasing the amount of long lasting radiation).

I believe if we pursue the next-generation nuclear power plants that we can experience an economic boom similiar to the electronics revolution. The next-gen plants can do an incredible assortment of tasks, such as providing a means for the hydrogen in a potentially burgeoning hydrogen economy (either by use of excess heat for processing of hydrocarbons, or by the very ineffiecient current method of electrolysis).

As an engineer I have had the opportunity to work on dealing with certain nuclear issues (such as addressing generic letter issues) and also working on some of the high-pressure designs for a hydrogen economy (still an area that has a lot of work to be done with in dealing with hydrogen cracking and fiber wrapped vessels). They are both fields I am very interested in.