Nuclear power

[clown_phobia]

this is an issue that has recieved a lot of media attention in Australia in the last month or so...

what is your view on nuclear power? Should it be used? What do you think of the dangers and advantages? What about the trade in uranium?

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I think people should hurry the hell up and start using it instead of coal power plants, at the very least. It's also preferable to pretty much any other form of electricity except hydroelectric and wind/solar.

[AKid2]

One of the most outstanding issues surrounding nuclear power is the waste. Nobody wants to deal with it. The spent fuel will remain radioactive for millions of years. It's almost impossible to gurantee a container can safely contain the fuel for such a period of time. It could leak into water, contaminate the ground etc etc. In America, we're not too dependent on nuclear power and we're really having a problem dealing with what relatively little leftovers we've produced. So this'll have to be overcome before we can go all out nuclear.

Also when you say nuclear people immediately associate it with meltdown bomb chernobyl etc. I don't think its an accurate portrayal of the risks but you know those things are hard to shake from the public. We've talked about this before, I think.

[LittlePound]

the answer is obvious....dump it in space...

[Amit]

the answer is obvious....dump it in space...

If you're being serious, there have been plenty of studies done on the dangers of all the crap we have in orbit already.

[LittlePound]

no, i was being sarcastic. That would be completely stupid.

[Atomic Rain]

Nuclear power is our friend, and at the moment the benefits outweigh thie disadvantages; global warming has gone so far already, and nuclear is more carbon neutral than they are by a long way.

However, once we've got fusion going we'll be all set.

[PerpetualBurn]

That would be completely stupid.

Seemed a lot like your "serious" posts then.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

If you're being serious, there have been plenty of studies done on the dangers of all the crap we have in orbit already.

links?

[tumples]

people who are anti nuclear here use the argument 'what if a terrorist flies a plane into the station, we'd have a chernobyl!'

am i the only one who thinks this is ridiculous

[Atomic Rain]

people who are anti nuclear here use the argument 'what if a terrorist flies a plane into the station, we'd have a chernobyl!'

am i the only one who thinks this is ridiculous

of course not

especially since nuclear plants are easily plane proof

They're designed to keep a nuclear explosion in and people don't think they can keep a plane out?

Plus unless they want us to have zero nuclear power plants then having 1 and having 100 gives just as much risk of terrorist attack, since terrorists will PICK ONE

[Riva]

One of the most outstanding issues surrounding nuclear power is the waste. Nobody wants to deal with it. The spent fuel will remain radioactive for millions of years. It's almost impossible to gurantee a container can safely contain the fuel for such a period of time. It could leak into water, contaminate the ground etc etc. In America, we're not too dependent on nuclear power and we're really having a problem dealing with what relatively little leftovers we've produced. So this'll have to be overcome before we can go all out nuclear.


Just some information from my lecture notes:

Nuclear Waste Disposal

One of the major problems with the disposal of radioactive waste is that some of the radioactive elements, or radionuclides, have very long half lives. This means that the deposits must either be kept in isolation from the hydrosphere and biosphere a very long time until its radiation has dissipated to a safe level, or that release from the disposal site extremely slow, such that the levels of radioactivity are not greatly above natural background levels.

The main components of a radioactive waste disposal site are the waste, the canisters that contain the waste, the filling and lining of the tunnels in which the waste is buried and the rocks in which the repository is built. The entire site should remain intact until it is uncovered by the slow processes of erosion. The main threat is water, which will almost inevitably flow through the repository and breach its defensive barriers.

The rate at which radionuclides escape depends on how quickly the water reaches them, how fast they dissolve and how much they interact with their surroundings, a process known as sorption. The surrounding rock should have low permeability, so that water movement through cracks, fissures and pores is very slow. The large volume of rock compared to the small quantities of waste means that sorption can be an important factor in controlling the rate of escape.

Natural analogues of nuclear waste disposal sites.

Due to the immensity of geological processes, particularly time, experiments that simulate geological processes may not valid, or at least, not able to be tested. To overcome this problem, analogues are sought that mimic known conditions over long time scales. The Oklo natural reactor sites is an example of such an analogue for a repository, although its original environment, being deeply buried and with free circulation of water, is quite different from the environments being sought for the disposal of spent fuel.

Laboratory experiments on corrosion over months or years, provide data for models of corrosion lasting thousands of years. These models can be tested against achaeological artefacts. Metal artefacts, such as cannons and armour, can indicate how metal canisters could corrode. Volcanic glass may mimic glasses in which waste is stored. Thick clay deposits simulate the lining of tunnels and shafts, and so on.

Roman nails

In the year 86 AD, the departing Roman army buried 12 tonnes of iron nails at a fort in Scotland. Archaeologists have recovered 875,000 nails from the site. Although the nails in the outermost few centimetres were heavily corroded, those inside were almost intact. It could therefore be reasonably expected that massive steel containers up to 25 cm thick, in deep repositories, should last well over 2000 years.

The Kronan

In 1676, the Swedish warship Kronan sank in the Baltic Sea. Archaeologists recovered a bronze cannon, made of more than 95% copper. The muds that surrounded the cannon excluded oxygen, and, based on the average loss of copper from the cannon in this anaerobic environment over the past 300 years, it was calculated that a leyer 5 cm thick would take a million years to corrode. Furthermore, the copper that leached from the cannon had only migrated about 4 cm, showing the very low mobility of metals in clay rich environments.

Loch Lomond

Between 5400 and 6900 years ago, a layer of silty clay was deposited in Loch Lomond, Scotland, when the loch was connected to the sea. This marine layer differs from the freshwater deposits above and below it, containing higher levels of uranium, radium, iodine and bromine. The deposits have been undisturbed since their formation. Iodine is a key element in assessing the safety of a disposal method, as iodine-129 appears to move freely in groundwater and is common in radioactive waste. In the Loch Lomond marine bed, however, iodine and bromine appear to have stayed where they were originally deposited, probably due to the interaction with carbon in the organic matter in the mud.

Jordan

The chemistry within waste repository sites can be complicated, due to the variety of materials in the wastes and barriers. Even so, analogues can often be found for diverse chemistries. A repository of waste encapsulated in bitumen and surounded by concrete, for example, would be highly alkaline. In Jordon, however, there are spring waters that percolate through limestones that contain bitumen. The springs have a pH of over 12.5. Research on these springs could show how elements move through analogous repositories.

Morro de Ferro

Morro de Ferro (Iron Hill) is one of the most naturally radioactive places on Earth. At the head of a small valley drained by a stream, there is an ore body containing 30,000 tonnes of thorium and its daughter products such as radium and rare-earth elements. Gamma radiation levels at the surface are so high that someone living there would receive an annual dose of 250 mSv. The average worldwide annual gamma radiation dose is 0.46 mSv. Plants have absorbed so much radium-228 that they produce images when placed on photographic film. The site allows researchers to model the release and migration of thorium and radium in groundwater.

Thorium is sometimes used as an analogue for plutonium when dissolved in water, as they are in the same section of the periodic table, the actinide series, and their ions behave in similar ways. It has been found that the mobilisation of thorium from the deposit is only one part per 1000 million per year. If thorium is a realistic analogue of plutonium, then the concentration of plutonium in the streams draining this highly weathered radioactive hotspot would be less than that permissable by the US government for drinking water by a factor of 20.

Options for permanent disposal sites

High level radioactive waste is currently stored in temporary storage facilities.

The technology for packaging the wastes so that they pose no current hazard is relatively straightforward. The difficulty lies both in being adequately confident that future generations are well protected and in making the political decision on how and where to proceed with waste storage. Permanent but potentially retrievable storage in deep stable geologic formations seems the best.

In the U.S., the major facility planned for the long term storage of high level nuclear waste is a Yucca Mountains in Nevada. So much time, money and effort has gone into proving that the area is safe, that it is perceived as being a real deterrent in producing an official report that is negative. This also means that further positive reports about the region are taken as being somewhat less reliable than they otherwise may be.

A $2 billion repository built in underground salt caverns near Carlsbad, New Mexico, is designed to store radioactive waste from the manufacture of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. This repository, located 655 m underground, is designed to slowly collapse and encapsulate the plutonium-contaminated waste in the salt beds. The repository began receiving radioactive waste shipments in April 1999. Environmentalists plan to file a lawsuit to close the Carlsbad repository.

In Australia, the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments have agreed that a national repository is the best way of safely managing Australia's small quantity of low level and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste.

To identify a suitable region in which a National Radioactive Waste Repository could be located, the Bureau of Resource Sciences has undertaken a rigorous evaluation of the Australian continent against a set of technical and social criteria.

The central north region in South Australia has been selected for further investigation from eight previously identified regions. Comparatively, the region contains the largest area of land considered suitable for a repository site.

[tumples]

couldnt they make a site in the desert, i mean, thats got hardly any moisture in it at all, and if running water is one of the main problems, then it eliminates that

[coheneran]

couldnt they make a site in the desert, i mean, thats got hardly any moisture in it at all, and if running water is one of the main problems, then it eliminates that

We have no right to contaminate deserts (or mountains or oceans or space) with our waste. The world-wide discussion about where to get energy after oil and gas deposits run out is fundamentally flawed. What we should be doing is minimizing our consumption, not trying to find something which will allow us to continue with the dangerous levels of waste we already produce.

[Kragen]

Also when you say nuclear people immediately associate it with meltdown bomb chernobyl etc. I don't think its an accurate portrayal of the risks but you know those things are hard to shake from the public. We've talked about this before, I think.

It always makes me laugh in films when someone blames a nuclear explosion from a nuclear weapon on an accident at a nuclear power plant :P

[Atomic Rain]

We have no right to contaminate deserts (or mountains or oceans or space) with our waste. The world-wide discussion about where to get energy after oil and gas deposits run out is fundamentally flawed. What we should be doing is minimizing our consumption, not trying to find something which will allow us to continue with the dangerous levels of waste we already produce.

Quick! get off the internet!

Your computer is using literally watts of power RIGHT NOW!

[Amit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/solarsystem/earth/spacejunk.shtml

[Chrysostom]

I see no problem with using nuclear power as long as the problem of waste disposal is adequaltely solved beforehand. Hell, nuclear power might as well be used for something other than blowing Asians up.

[coheneran]

Quick! get off the internet!

Your computer is using literally watts of power RIGHT NOW!

No smartarse, I was referring to industry, which creates more pollution and uses more energy than individual users.

[AKid2]

No smartarse, I was referring to industry, which creates more pollution and uses more energy than individual users.

This is by no means a personal attack, but this sort of thing is exactly why it'll be very difficult to decrease energy consumption: if everyone took the 'its not me its you' stance, we'd make zero progress in the conservation department.

Also, decreasing energy use in the home is the first step to a less consumptive society. Industry consumes a ton of energy only because we ask them to with our wants etc. You can't just ask industry to slow down for the sake of the environment when peoples' demands stay the same, they'll be bankrupt within a week's time. Sure you can make efficiency arguments but that only goes so far. Leading a less consumptive life is the first step to a less consumptive society. (duh)

But you are right really. The power debate treats the symptom not the cause.

[Scuba_Steve]

This is by no means a personal attack, but this sort of thing is exactly why it'll be very difficult to decrease energy consumption: if everyone took the 'its not me its you' stance, we'd make zero progress in the conservation department.




Judging by cohenerans posts here and in the punk forum, I'd be willing to bet he's already doing more than his part to reduce things like that.

[coheneran]

This is by no means a personal attack, but this sort of thing is exactly why it'll be very difficult to decrease energy consumption: if everyone took the 'its not me its you' stance, we'd make zero progress in the conservation department.

Also, decreasing energy use in the home is the first step to a less consumptive society. Industry consumes a ton of energy only because we ask them to with our wants etc. You can't just ask industry to slow down for the sake of the environment when peoples' demands stay the same, they'll be bankrupt within a week's time. Sure you can make efficiency arguments but that only goes so far. Leading a less consumptive life is the first step to a less consumptive society. (duh)

But you are right really. The power debate treats the symptom not the cause.

Good post.

I am not one of society's least consumptive individuals, but I try. I cycle, use public transport, only fill a kettle with as much as I'm going to use, don't leave a TV on standby, switch lights off in rooms nobody is in etc..

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I think waste disposal problems is utter bull. It's perfectly realistic to have complexes where they store nuclear waste (which is how it's done now) until it can be recycled. Apparently there's enough uranium already being stored to satisfy North America's energy needs for the next 200 years, and the only reason we haven't recycled it yet is because it's cheaper to get new uranium than recycle the old stuff. We're hanging on to it until it's worth it.

Chernobyl is also not a valid argument. Chernobyl, simply put, should not have been built. It had almost no built-in safety, and the exact same incident at a current North American nuclear reactor would cause exactly 0 problems. Chernobyl is the nuclear reactor equivalent to those flying machines you see in black and white movies that just bounce up and down and make a whole lot of noise.

Furthermore, flying a plane into a nuclear reactor will not cause a meltdown. It'd force people to shut down the reactor, obviously, but that's where the damage will end.

[coheneran]

You're telling me we can RECYCLE spent uranium?

[Atomic Rain]

You're telling me we can RECYCLE spent uranium?

not in a big way.

[Dannyboy15]

We have no right to contaminate deserts (or mountains or oceans or space) with our waste. The world-wide discussion about where to get energy after oil and gas deposits run out is fundamentally flawed. What we should be doing is minimizing our consumption, not trying to find something which will allow us to continue with the dangerous levels of waste we already produce.

That's still only a temporary solution.

[coheneran]

That's still only a temporary solution.

Who says that there will one day be a permanent solution?

[Scuba_Steve]

Who says that there will one day be a permanent solution?


there aren't really permanent solutions to anything in the world.


Just longer temporary solutions.

[coheneran]

True. So there is no way to clean the universe of our spent uranium, have I got that right?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

so what

[coheneran]

What, apart from the destruction to something that doesn't belong to us, that in fact gave birth to us? The pollution that future generations are going to have to deal with?

[Atomic Rain]

The world cannot support this many people. Arbitrary jobs emerge from nowhere to support the population, and unless we're gonna massacre the middle classes, we can't cut our energy consumption in a helpful way and still function.

[coheneran]

The world cannot support this many people. Arbitrary jobs emerge from nowhere to support the population, and unless we're gonna massacre the middle classes, we can't cut our energy consumption in a helpful way and still function.

Let's start with the rich, and slowly work our way down from there.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Let's start with the rich, and slowly work our way down from there.


Yeah so all those running big buisness disappear, and your Honda that was 20,000$ costs 50,000$.

Brilliant. I love your thinking.

[Kragen]

You're telling me we can RECYCLE spent uranium?

yeah it's called reprocessing.

[coheneran]

Yeah so all those running big buisness disappear, and your Honda that was 20,000$ costs 50,000$.

Brilliant. I love your thinking.

Lol, how about NO HONDAS?

[coheneran]

yeah it's called reprocessing.

Can you source some articles about that? I'm intrigued.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Lol, how about NO HONDAS?


And any cars, bikes, guitars, basses, drums and any thing else manufactured. The price will jump.

[coheneran]

And any cars, bikes, guitars, basses, drums and any thing else manufactured. The price will jump.

Not if the people control the means of production, and then they could stop producing cars for individuals, and instead produce specialised vehicles for professional services such as mass transit and rescue services.

Of course, you don't want to get into this debate, no one does, especially in this thread.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Not if the people control the means of production, and then they could stop producing cars for individuals, and instead produce specialised vehicles for professional services such as mass transit and rescue services.

Of course, you don't want to get into this debate, no one does, especially in this thread.


So people have to quit their normal jobs to make cars, for mass transit. Nice. When they could keep their jobs, and get a car cheapier if there was still mass production.

And yes, this is quite off topic :/

[Smokey D]

I love the irony involved in someone arguing for a massive drop in standards of living while in one of the richest regions in the world, sitting on their industry produced computer, eating their industry produced food, making use of their industry produced infrastructure, reading their industry produced anarchist litterature.

Stop being a hypocrite coheran. If we have the ability to improve standards of living, we are obligated to do so. Waste is not an insoluable problem, particuarly as technologies develop to help mitigate the dangers involved. While of course we should try and minimise our use and increase effeciency, that's not a reason to halt the things which make life bearable to all those who would otherwise starve or live in poverty.

[Syncratic]

They're storing the waste in caves in the Arizona desert.

It could be a godsend if not for the waste.

Who knows, they might find a way to harvest the waste for power, therefore dissipating it and there would be no waste and more power.

[Letto]

Can you source some articles about that? I'm intrigued.

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

Skimmed through that and it should be a good start; also check breeder reactors. Basically "spent" fuel is taken out of a reactor at the end of its life cycle. There is still tons of U-238 and Th-232 left over which can then be turned into fissile material (Pu-239 and U-233). So the spent fuel goes through processing where other elements are taken out (and these can be sold back to private industry), the U-238 and Th-232 is separated, and the total amount of useless radioactive waste is a great deal smaller. The U and Th then can be put in a breeder reactor or the 238 can just go back into normal fuels at a commercial plant. The concern with breeder reactors is that they produce a lot of plutonium. IIRC, the spent fuel after 3-4 years of operation for a commercial plant can be reprocessed to fuel the plant for an additional year.

In the past year a number of companies have filed for NRC licenses to build new reactors in the US (trying to get the money Bush offered as subsidies for new nuke plants). Licensing takes at least a few years, then construction takes a few more. There's a nuclear renaissance approaching, so get ready to see a lot of protesting, worn-out hippies.

[Letto]

They're storing the waste in caves in the Arizona desert.

It could be a godsend if not for the waste.

Who knows, they might find a way to harvest the waste for power, therefore dissipating it and there would be no waste and more power.

Yucca Mountain is in Nevada. The waste can be reprocessed to greatly reduce it's volume and produce more power.

A few years I did a report on Yucca Mountain and I remember reading about a feature to the area's geology. The name escapes me, but it's an organism or mineral in the soil that readily absorbs radiation. The waste storage area will have a ton of shielding, but the extremely small amount that inevitably escapes (due to the probablistic nature of radiation absorption, not a lack of effort in construction), will be absorbed by this feature in the soil. So the people who are worried about contaminated water have no cause for concern.

[coheneran]

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

Skimmed through that and it should be a good start; also check breeder reactors. Basically "spent" fuel is taken out of a reactor at the end of its life cycle. There is still tons of U-238 and Th-232 left over which can then be turned into fissile material (Pu-239 and U-233). So the spent fuel goes through processing where other elements are taken out (and these can be sold back to private industry), the U-238 and Th-232 is separated, and the total amount of useless radioactive waste is a great deal smaller. The U and Th then can be put in a breeder reactor or the 238 can just go back into normal fuels at a commercial plant. The concern with breeder reactors is that they produce a lot of plutonium. IIRC, the spent fuel after 3-4 years of operation for a commercial plant can be reprocessed to fuel the plant for an additional year.

In the past year a number of companies have filed for NRC licenses to build new reactors in the US (trying to get the money Bush offered as subsidies for new nuke plants). Licensing takes at least a few years, then construction takes a few more. There's a nuclear renaissance approaching, so get ready to see a lot of protesting, worn-out hippies.

PUREX is the current method of recycling (Plutonium and Uranium Recovery by EXtraction) and is used to extract WEAPONS GRADE MATERIAL, not stuff for energy. We don't want to make more bombs.

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

According to the second diagram (which, as far as I can make out, uses reprocessing) nuclear waste still goes into storage. So, please allow a few questions for the nuclear ignoramus:
Doesn't this stuff leak?
Security (both from independents (like terrorists) and from governments wanting to use it for radioactive weapons)?
Space for storage, how much is needed and won't it need constant maintenance (which goes back to security)?
How much waste could the reprocessing cycle produce per year, let's say at the amount we currently consume?

[Atomic Rain]

France is due to build a fusion reactor in 2008; fusion reactors are kinda awkward, but they've made another breaktrough in stopping "flares" of plasma damaging the reactors so who knows

Nuclear waste is probably not going to be a perpetual problem

[coheneran]

Probably isn't the nicest answer possible, and definitely not one I would accept.

[Smokey D]

Nuclear fuel is a nicer answer than the alternative.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Of course, the US has enough coal to last us more than 250 years...

[Atomic Rain]

Probably isn't the nicest answer possible, and definitely not one I would accept.

Fusion is the perfect energy source. The only fuel needed is some startup energy and hydrogen, the only waste helium.

[PerpetualBurn]

I love the irony involved in someone arguing for a massive drop in standards of living while in one of the richest regions in the world, sitting on their industry produced computer, eating their industry produced food, making use of their industry produced infrastructure, reading their industry produced anarchist litterature.

Stop being a hypocrite coheran. If we have the ability to improve standards of living, we are obligated to do so. Waste is not an insoluable problem, particuarly as technologies develop to help mitigate the dangers involved. While of course we should try and minimise our use and increase effeciency, that's not a reason to halt the things which make life bearable to all those who would otherwise starve or live in poverty.

Coheneran's character bears no relation to the validity (or lack thereof) of his argument.

[Letto]

PUREX is the current method of recycling (Plutonium and Uranium Recovery by EXtraction) and is used to extract WEAPONS GRADE MATERIAL, not stuff for energy. We don't want to make more bombs.

Doesn't this stuff leak?

Security (both from independents (like terrorists) and from governments wanting to use it for radioactive weapons)?

Space for storage, how much is needed and won't it need constant maintenance (which goes back to security)?

How much waste could the reprocessing cycle produce per year, let's say at the amount we currently consume?

Weapons grade material works great in a reactor. It's like the highest octane gas you can put in your car. The energy per unit mass of fuel is considerably higher than that of low enriched uranium.

The waste is put into heavily shielded containers (meant to absorb radiation) and these containers are incredibly structurally sound (meant to absorb impact). The containers used for shipment and storage of the waste can be run into by a full speed train and not be affected. The radiation leaking from a container will be negligible; then this container is housed in a massive tomb with additional shielding for absorbtion and security; then the soil outside of this structure readily absorbs radiation. So you have negligible^3 = 0. Note than the nature of radiation interaction will never give an absolute zero amount leaking through a container, but it can be minimized to a rediculously small amount.

The stored waste won't need any maintenance... just security. Of course there will always be military on duty. But do realize it would take a huge force and a lot of time to first gain entry to Yucca Mountain, then somehow manage to take MASSIVE nuclear waste containers from hundreds of feet below ground, transport to the nearest city and then to somehow dismantle the containers. As long as the containers are intact, then there's no cause for concern to any of the people around it. If the attackers managed to get fuel above ground, we could probably just bomb them with some small, smartbombs and the containers would remain intact.

"How much waste could the reprocessing cycle produce per year, let's say at the amount we currently consume?"

Much less than if the waste wasn't reprocessed.

[coheneran]

Aren't there any anti-nuclears in here? It's hardly a debate.

[Atomic Rain]

Aren't there any anti-nuclears in here? It's hardly a debate.

Take the hint ;)

Nuclear power is a fundamentally good idea.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Aren't there any anti-nuclears in here? It's hardly a debate.


I suppose your against Iran getting nuclear power too right?

I mean if America can't have nuclear power plants, then why on God's green earth would you want Iran to have nuclear power plants?

[coheneran]

Fundamentally?

[coheneran]

I suppose your against Iran getting nuclear power too right?

I mean if America can't have nuclear power plants, then why on God's green earth would you want Iran to have nuclear power plants?

Reread your post.

I'm no expert on psychology, but it looks to me like you're trying to find ways to make me look stupid.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Reread your post.

I'm no expert on psychology, but it looks to me like you're trying to find ways to make me look stupid.


I'm not trying to make you look stupid, though it may seem so at times. I'm just trying to figure out your reason of judgment.

You don't want America to have nuclear power plants. Because of terrorist attacks or it messes up the environment. But it's perfectly fine for Iran, which would have a much higher chance of having a terrorist attack than America. Or at least falling into terrorist hands.

[coheneran]

You don't want America to have nuclear power plants. Because of terrorist attacks or it messes up the environment. But it's perfectly fine for Iran, which would have a much higher chance of having a terrorist attack than America. Or at least falling into terrorist hands.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. I don't know much about nuclear power, and the only things I did know were the classic "dangerous waste" arguments, and even then I didn't know much about them, and in this thread I didn't really argue against nuclear power, seeing as I don't know jack about it. I asked lots of questions because I wanted to know more.

[ringworm]

the answer is obvious....dump it in space...
Yeah, we pretty much have polluted our Planet enough, now on to the next Frontier!
By the time we become advanced enought to travel large distances in space, it will be easy to see where to land. All the planets will be glowing & already inhabited with mutated animals from all the Radiation.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. I don't know much about nuclear power, and the only things I did know were the classic "dangerous waste" arguments, and even then I didn't know much about them, and in this thread I didn't really argue against nuclear power, seeing as I don't know jack about it. I asked lots of questions because I wanted to know more.


I may have jumped the gun, but I swore I saw you post about your support of Iran getting nuclear power. (wepons)

I may have been wrong if so, sorry :/

[Atomic Rain]

Fundamentally?

Like communism, honesty boxes and most things the human race touches, no amount of flawless planning and fantastic science can avoid the fact that the human race is rubbish, and that western society is beaurocratic. Although there is really no scope for things to go wrong, you can never discount the quantum ****wit.

[coheneran]

Like communism, honesty boxes and most things the human race touches, no amount of flawless planning and fantastic science can avoid the fact that the human race is rubbish, and that western society is beaurocratic. Although there is really no scope for things to go wrong, you can never discount the quantum ****wit.

Ah, yes, the only mathematical certainty.

[Atomic Rain]

Ah, yes, the only mathematical certainty.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Douglas Adams

[coheneran]

I must say, Hitchhiker is almost as much full of truths as the Bible is, with the bonus of logic and consistency.

[Atomic Rain]

I must say, Hitchhiker is almost as much full of truths as the Bible is, with the bonus of logic and consistency.

Amen to that. He was a smart man.

[Letto]

Atomic Rain-
Do you have a link about France building the fusion reactor in 2008? I'm pretty sure it'll just be an experimental reactor, definitely nothing commercial. France, the US, Canada and (I believe) Japan were going in together to design a fusion reactor (called ITER). Is that what you're referring to?

A few years ago, a group of students at my university designed a part for the ITER for their senior design project; they sent in the design to the ITER scientists and it's going to be used in the constructed model. :) I'm doing my senior design project over this next year, but I doubt it'll be anything close to the level of coolness as that.

Last I heard, commercial fusion is still 20 years away. And that's the same value that was given back in 1950. It's a fundamental constant of the universe: Time until commercial fusion = 20 years.

[MegaPhony]

I think it's kind of ridiculous, because for Iran to create nuclear weapons and hide them, it wouldn't take a whole lot of effort.
At least there being open to the world and honest, there isn't any guaranteed way to prevent terrorism from occurring.
I'm sure other countries could sell terrorists nukes much easier.

P.S. I'm for nuclear power;)

[Letto]

I think it's kind of ridiculous, because for Iran to create nuclear weapons and hide them, it wouldn't take a whole lot of effort.
At least there being open to the world and honest, there isn't any guaranteed way to prevent terrorism from occurring.
I'm sure other countries could sell terrorists nukes much easier.



Ummm... for Iran to create nuclear weapons they need to enrich uranium. This requires huge facilities that cannot be hidden. Therefore, in order to satisfy their need for enrichment facilities, they can claim they are only interested in creating nuclear power plants. While they develop their power industry, it also allows them to make weapons grade material. They are not being forthright and honest because they are nice guys. They have a right to nuclear power plants, but we don't want them with the potential to build bombs.

I was thinking that something along the lines of Iran building the plants and the US (and whoever backs us) would supply the fuel (including fuel loading and refuelling) could possibly work. But we somehow need to find a way to make sure they are not removing the fuel. One thing that might be of concern is their enforcement of security, but even if terrorists were allowed to take over the reactor, there would be no explosion or Chernobyl occuring.

A nuclear reactor could even be run remotely, but I'm not sure if overseas would really work... that would be interesting. Have the control room in the US and have all the Iranian manual labor onsite, so if something happens we can SCRAM the reactor immediately.

[Riva]

France is due to build a fusion reactor in 2008; fusion reactors are kinda awkward, but they've made another breaktrough in stopping "flares" of plasma damaging the reactors so who knows

Nuclear waste is probably not going to be a perpetual problem

Right now Fusion is insanely expensive to build, something like $1000 per kilowatt-hour.

The world cannot support this many people. Arbitrary jobs emerge from nowhere to support the population, and unless we're gonna massacre the middle classes, we can't cut our energy consumption in a helpful way and still function.

Like in THHGTTG?

I think waste disposal problems is utter bull. It's perfectly realistic to have complexes where they store nuclear waste (which is how it's done now) until it can be recycled. Apparently there's enough uranium already being stored to satisfy North America's energy needs for the next 200 years, and the only reason we haven't recycled it yet is because it's cheaper to get new uranium than recycle the old stuff. We're hanging on to it until it's worth it.


No, no, no, if you're considering using the spent U238, which is not an easily fissionable material, as fuel for the plant then you're basically suggesting something akin to putting diesel fuel in unleaded cars.

Once the U235 is bombarded with neutrons, it splits into two of nearly 200 different elements, none of which is U238 or U235. It costs enough as it is to enrich Uranium to 3% U235, so what's it going to take to enrich an already depleted source of Uranium, i.e (U238).

In conclusion, nuclear power is an option, but spinning fairytales about recycling the waste isn't. We need to look at Breeder Reactors and a more effecient enriching process, and deal with the waste.

couldnt they make a site in the desert, i mean, thats got hardly any moisture in it at all, and if running water is one of the main problems, then it eliminates that

Lots of deserts have groundwater, which is the problem.

There was a big discussion a few years back after the UN told Australia it was the new host to the world's toxic waste, and the Australian government gave a big proverbial back to the UN.

Ummm... for Iran to create nuclear weapons they need to enrich uranium. This requires huge facilities that cannot be hidden. Therefore, in order to satisfy their need for enrichment facilities, they can claim they are only interested in creating nuclear power plants. While they develop their power industry, it also allows them to make weapons grade material. They are not being forthright and honest because they are nice guys. They have a right to nuclear power plants, but we don't want them with the potential to build bombs.


It's incredibly expensive and dangerous to enrich U238 to U239, which is why modern Breeder Reactors are few and far between.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

No, no, no, if you're considering using the spent U238, which is not an easily fissionable material, as fuel for the plant then you're basically suggesting something akin to putting diesel fuel in unleaded cars.

Once the U235 is bombarded with neutrons, it splits into two of nearly 200 different elements, none of which is U238 or U235. It costs enough as it is to enrich Uranium to 3% U235, so what's it going to take to enrich an already depleted source of Uranium, i.e (U238).

In conclusion, nuclear power is an option, but spinning fairytales about recycling the waste isn't. We need to look at Breeder Reactors and a more effecient enriching process, and deal with the waste.


My source might have been flawed then. I forget what it was (some show on the Discovery channel iirc?), but my post was the gist of what it said. Something about how it would be expensive, but could be done.

[ashman]

Atomic Rain-
Do you have a link about France building the fusion reactor in 2008? I'm pretty sure it'll just be an experimental reactor, definitely nothing commercial. France, the US, Canada and (I believe) Japan were going in together to design a fusion reactor (called ITER). Is that what you're referring to?

ITER has a few more members then that :p


A few years ago, a group of students at my university designed a part for the ITER for their senior design project; they sent in the design to the ITER scientists and it's going to be used in the constructed model. :) I'm doing my senior design project over this next year, but I doubt it'll be anything close to the level of coolness as that.

I thought the ITER reactor was just a scaled up version of the
Last I heard, commercial fusion is still 20 years away. And that's the same value that was given back in 1950. It's a fundamental constant of the universe: Time until commercial fusion = 20 years.

The ITER reactor is just a scaled up Tokamak reactor, which came about in 1978 :p

ITER will be operational in about 10 years and will continue going for another 20 years after that. So, if ITER works, I guess we're about 10 years away from Fusion power (that's obviously not including Construction time).

[Riva]

ITER will be operational in about 10 years and will continue going for another 20 years after that. So, if ITER works, I guess we're about 10 years away from Fusion power (that's obviously not including Construction time).

Conservative estimates are around 50 years, last I checked.

[Letto]

It's incredibly expensive and dangerous to enrich U238 to U239, which is why modern Breeder Reactors are few and far between.

I don't know what this has to do with your quote of me. And I don't know why you are talking about enriching U-238 to U-239 for breeder reactors. U-238 just needs to be bombarded by fast neutrons (> 100 keV) and this breeds Pu-239.

[coheneran]

^^Suddenly everyone is a nuclear physicist.:rolleyes:

[Atomic Rain]

Atomic Rain-
Do you have a link about France building the fusion reactor in 2008? I'm pretty sure it'll just be an experimental reactor, definitely nothing commercial. France, the US, Canada and (I believe) Japan were going in together to design a fusion reactor (called ITER). Is that what you're referring to?

A few years ago, a group of students at my university designed a part for the ITER for their senior design project; they sent in the design to the ITER scientists and it's going to be used in the constructed model. :) I'm doing my senior design project over this next year, but I doubt it'll be anything close to the level of coolness as that.

Last I heard, commercial fusion is still 20 years away. And that's the same value that was given back in 1950. It's a fundamental constant of the universe: Time until commercial fusion = 20 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm

It looks like it is just experimetnal, yes.

I read about it in the new scientist, which is where 2008 came from.

[Chrysostom]

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Douglas Adams

:lol: I love it.

[ashman]

Conservative estimates are around 50 years, last I checked.

Bah...I reckon(hope) we're closer then that :mad:

[Letto]

Just a misunderstanding.

[Letto]

Alright, sorry about the temper. All I saw were arrows pointed at my post.

[Riva]

I don't know what this has to do with your quote of me. And I don't know why you are talking about enriching U-238 to U-239 for breeder reactors. U-238 just needs to be bombarded by fast neutrons (> 100 keV) and this breeds Pu-239.

Oh sorry, I was under the impression you knew what you were talking about. It's called a chemical reaction, Einstein.

[Letto]

Oh sorry, I was under the impression you knew what you were talking about. It's called a chemical reaction, Einstein.

Excuse me? First off your original quote of me was talking about Iran and their enriching for U-235, and you replied with, "It's incredibly expensive and dangerous to enrich U238 to U239, which is why modern Breeder Reactors are few and far between." I said that I did not understand what your reply had to do with my quote, and you replied with an insult.

And I don't know of the chemical reaction you're referring to. Do you mean a reaction in the enriching process? (Again, I don't understand why one would need to enrich uranium for the U-239 in order to build a breeder reactor.) Or do you mean the breeding reaction to convert U-238 to Pu-239? Because that reaction is a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction. Also, one does not enrich U238 to U239; they enrich uranium ore for a specific isotope. If you are talking about converting U-238 to U-239 by neutron bombardment, again that's a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction.

So instead of posting short, ambiguous replies, can you please explain yourself? I don't claim to know everything about breeder reactors so if you can add something helpful to this discussion I would appreciate it.

[Riva]

Yeah, look sorry, I'm stressed out about exams. I shouldn't have been on MX with my temper as it is, so my apologies. I actually misread your first post.

I'll be back later with a proper discussion.

[Letto]

No problem. Good luck on exams.

[coheneran]

^^Everyone's a damn hippie nowadays, apologisin' to each other. In my day, we'd ha' fought it out like men.:p

[Atomic Rain]

^^Everyone's a damn hippie nowadays, apologisin' to each other. In my day, we'd ha' fought it out like men.:p

"I'mma fukkin' kut u, kommie!!!"

It's just that in our day, most people weren't man enough to apologise.

[coheneran]

It's just that in our day, most people weren't man enough to apologise.

Yah, because femininity is the sign of a real man.:rolleyes:

[Atomic Rain]

Yah, because femininity is the sign of a real man.:rolleyes:

It takes a big man to admit he's wrong.

[coheneran]

It takes a big man to admit he's wrong.

A big man doesn't need to apologise, all he needs to do is put his considerable weight behind a punch. Only little men apologise.:p

[Letto]

Animosity just gets in the way of an otherwise civil and productive discussion.

[coheneran]

It was just a jokey argument. Maybe you should major Psych next year:p.

Oh bugger, I probably completely misinterpreted what you said.