NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that here in the UK, there are a number of nuclear power stations nearing the point where they need to be decommisioned. Tony Blair has expressed a view that these power stations should be replaced with more nuclear power stations, and that possibly the nuclear power generating capacity of Britain should be increased in order to meet greenhouse gas emmissions targets.

While certain safety issues remain, I have heard that if spent fuel is properly reprocessed, the longest half life of the remaining waste is 30 years, meaning that waste does not have to be stored realistically for more than 200 years (far less than the several million years some people talk about).

It seems that in Europe and the US, it is a long time since any nuclear power has been introduced. How would you feel about an increase in nuclear power generating capacity in your country?

I approve of Nuclear Power. But only if we spend the money, and buy a good plant. it's not something you can cut corners with. Spend the money though, and it's pretty damned safe, and good.

I would support it, but I'd rather find another solution. We cannot rely on wind power, solar power (especially in the UK) and wave power at the moment - they are in their absolute infancy in terms of development. Personally, I'd like to see more money in making a fusion reactor, but that won't happen for years.

There should defidentally be an increase of nuclear power facilities, but it should be handled by the government, or at least heavily watched. I dont trust companies with a potential radiation bomb, as they are only seeking to gain a profit out of these facilities.

There should defidentally be an increase of nuclear power facilities, but it should be handled by the government, or at least heavily watched. I dont trust companies with a potential radiation bomb, as they are only seeking to gain a profit out of these facilities.
To make a completely idiotic statement, to which even I can see a simple rebuttal; Chernobyl was govt. controlled. As is Sellafield (sp? it's near me and I can't fcuking spell it)

There's no choice, really. Ultimately, I'm not that concerned by the dangers of nuclear power.

it really comes down to pumping the chemicals into the air or burying them under a mountain. personally, id rather not breath in my chemicals.

There's no choice, really. Ultimately, I'm not that concerned by the dangers of nuclear power.
What about if someone put one down the road from you? Lots of people say 'I like nuclear power' but the minute someone tries to build one nearby, mass petitions spring up against it.

Sorry, I'm not aiming that at you, Saxnot. Just trying to stimulate some conversation in this thread. Damn my interest in this topic.

*shakes fist at sky*

The nuclear power I'd like to see is nuclear fusion. Maybe if the nations of the world put some more funding into research, we could have this brilliant source of power soon. Of course, with all the extra funding, we may have to cut military spending by 1% :rolleyes:

Yeah, I'm kinda interested in this, and see a distinct lack of disadvantages. Looks like you share my views on this, but I'd really like to hear from someone who disagrees. If they built one down the road from me, I'd be quite interested and probably want to visit.

It seems that here in the UK, there are a number of nuclear power stations nearing the point where they need to be decommisioned. Tony Blair has expressed a view that these power stations should be replaced with more nuclear power stations, and that possibly the nuclear power generating capacity of Britain should be increased in order to meet greenhouse gas emmissions targets.

While certain safety issues remain, I have heard that if spent fuel is properly reprocessed, the longest half life of the remaining waste is 30 years, meaning that waste does not have to be stored realistically for more than 200 years (far less than the several million years some people talk about).

It seems that in Europe and the US, it is a long time since any nuclear power has been introduced. How would you feel about an increase in nuclear power generating capacity in your country?

A long time in the US? over the last decade my Power company has built 7 new nuclear stations.

To make a completely idiotic statement, to which even I can see a simple rebuttal; Chernobyl was govt. controlled. As is Sellafield (sp? it's near me and I can't fcuking spell it)

And ukraine doesnt equal the US. You cant do a country by country comparison, as that would bring you to France, with no major accidents.

Yeah I'd really like to see fusion too. The problem is, the concept has been around for decades with few advances towards controlled fusion as suitable for power generation. Though there is a fair bit being spent on it, one of the most promising projects, ITER has stalled because there's an argument about where it's built (either France or Japan).

It's not exactly a renewable resource though, is it?

One statistic quoted to me the other day when I got into a debate over this was that tehre was only around 40 years of uranium supply left that was the type used in nuclear fission reactors. Obviously, I cannot vouch for this, but it would mean that nuclear power plants aren't a long term investment.

And how is half life for uranium decreased from 4.5 billion years to 30 years?

Supporters of nuclear power always fail to include the build and decommisioning costs of power stations. These, including, disposal costs and the risks of leakage make nuclear power incredibly expensive per kilowatt.
Re-newables (wind and solar) are also expensive to produce but many other systems including animal waste (methane) and domestic waste burning are cheap, clean and attractive but suffer from the "not on my doorstep" factor.

As to fussion. great if you can get it to work but worrying if you do. Surely a run away fussion reaction is called a sun.

And ukraine doesnt equal the US. You cant do a country by country comparison, as that would bring you to France, with no major accidents.
Yeah, I get your point. I was just sort of leaning towards the 'govt. failure' argument. I mean, with no incentives to keep processes efficient and no incentives to workers to work intensely hard (OK, so that doesn't happen too often in large private firms either, but it's definitely greater than in state owned enterprise) you end up with a lack of due care and attention to work and hence risk of accidents increases.

A long time in the US? over the last decade my Power company has built 7 new nuclear stations

Really? I read somewhere (sorry, I can't quote a source) that there had been no new nuclear stations since the '80s. Where are they?

I'm absolutely in favor of more nuclear power plants to cut Carbon Dioxide emmissions, and reduce our dependance on foreign fuels. I think we should build plants that run on Thorium though. It's more plentifull than Uranium.

Funny fact. Several years ago the Swedes voted to end nuclear power in their country. Now that the first nuclear power plant is being shut down the majority of Swedes want to increase the number of nuclear power plants in their nation. Just goes to show, democracy doesn't work.

It's not exactly a renewable resource though, is it?

One statistic quoted to me the other day when I got into a debate over this was that tehre was only around 40 years of uranium supply left that was the type used in nuclear fission reactors. Obviously, I cannot vouch for this, but it would mean that nuclear power plants aren't a long term investment.

And how is half life for uranium decreased from 4.5 billion years to 30 years?
sorry. many power plants use other elements like plutonium and thats something thats artificially created in the first place.

Supporters of nuclear power always fail to include the build and decommisioning costs of power stations. These, including, disposal costs and the risks of leakage make nuclear power incredibly expensive per kilowatt.
Re-newables (wind and solar) are also expensive to produce but many other systems including animal waste (methane) and domestic waste burning are cheap, clean and attractive but suffer from the "not on my doorstep" factor.

As to fussion. great if you can get it to work but worrying if you do. Surely a run away fussion reaction is called a sun.
so all those private independent companies as well as millions of dollars in government research all just missed this? doubtful. why would a multi-billion or multi-million dollar corporation just skip over this. before these investments are made bought and sold people account for how economically viable these sources are.

Nuclear power has been proven to be safe, if nobody's stupid, proven to work, and proven to produce a heck of a lot of electricity cleanly. Plus, pebble-bed reactors are now feasable, making nuclear meltdown practically impossible. I see no reason not to go nuclear.

I think Nuclear power is a great idea, but we need to invest more in nuclear fusion. I read that they're gonna build the world's first energy efficient Tokamak (sp?) but they can't agree on where to put it.

One statistic quoted to me the other day when I got into a debate over this was that tehre was only around 40 years of uranium supply left that was the type used in nuclear fission reactors. Obviously, I cannot vouch for this, but it would mean that nuclear power plants aren't a long term investment.

That statistic may well refer only to known uranium reserves. Even if it doesn't, a fisson reactor produces a number of elements which, when reprocessed can be used again (in reactors that have been designed to use them), Plutonium for example.

Also, the half life of Uranium isn't reduced, but what I have read (and I will try and find a source), all the reactor products with long half-lives are removed in reprocessing and can be used as fuel.

Really? I read somewhere (sorry, I can't quote a source) that there had been no new nuclear stations since the '80s. Where are they?
im pretty sure thats only oil refineries

Fusion would be good - too bad about creating and maintaining a sustainable reaction.

Fission Reactors, when properly constructed and maintained are excellent sources of power. If they could reclaim the spent rods, they'd have a high recovery rate - somewhere around 97% unspent fuel, if my memory serves me correctly.

I think the 30-year limit is where it stops being too 'hot' to handle. The half-life depends on the isotope - U-238 has 4.46B y half-life, whereas U-235 (the one used for reactors) has a half-life of 704M y.

Living near reactors is ok - fence-level measurements are lower than those from your TV when measuring a safe reactor.

The report in the press about the leak at sellafield (although it was contained) which wasnt spotted for 5 months kinda worries me although i still think nuclear power is the best way to go

It's not exactly a renewable resource though, is it?

One statistic quoted to me the other day when I got into a debate over this was that tehre was only around 40 years of uranium supply left that was the type used in nuclear fission reactors. Obviously, I cannot vouch for this, but it would mean that nuclear power plants aren't a long term investment.

And how is half life for uranium decreased from 4.5 billion years to 30 years?


It's called a breeder reactor. I can't be certain as to the exact process but it is something along the lines of this.... uranium239 fissionable heat is released(power created) which then degrades to uranium235 and so forth. by adding things and using the fission process you end up with very little left. I did a project on this 12 years ago so I remember almost none of it. I do know it's true though. My father worked at EBR-II or Expirimental Breader Reactor -II in Arco Idaho.
I'll ask him about how it worked and get back to you guys later.

wow so far 26-0 pro nuclear

so all those private independent companies as well as millions of dollars in government research all just missed this? doubtful. why would a multi-billion or multi-million dollar corporation just skip over this. before these investments are made bought and sold people account for how economically viable these sources are.
This ones so easy to argue.
Link (http://depletion-scotland.org.uk/ds_nuclear.htm)
Cost...
The costs typically quoted for nuclear-generated electricity are operating costs only and do not include costs for plant decommissioning and spent fuel storage. When fully costed, nuclear power is by far the most expensive conventional energy source. Total costs are so high that following electricity deregulation, nuclear plants in the US were deemed unable to compete and utility companies had to be bailed out for nuclear-related stranded costs. British Energy received £10 billion to keep it afloat in 2002.

CO2 Emissions...
Claims that nuclear power "doesn't emit any carbon dioxide at all" are true only in that the nuclear reaction itself doesn't create CO2 emissions. Mining, refining and concentrating the uranium ore to make it into nuclear fuel are all highly polluting processes. Construction of a nuclear power station requires huge amounts of energy to make the steel and concrete. This energy comes mostly from oil and coal. If the whole power station life-cycle is taken into account, nuclear power is responsible for significant CO2 emissions

This is just the first page I Yahoo'd up. It's foolish to argue in favour of this technology

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

wow so far 26-0 pro nuclear
Bullshit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
Yes but...
The fuel supply for nuclear power is virtually limitless if fast-breeder reactors are used to produce plutonium. Just a few of these have been constructed and they have proven to be extremely expensive, largely as a result of the need for special safety systems. They are susceptible to serious fires involving the liquid metal (sodium) used to cool the reactor. Plutonium is used in nuclear arms production and requires extra security in our current times of heightened terrorist threat awareness

same reference as last time.

You all seem to live in Sci-Fi dream worlds.

Bullshit
Check the poll dude. At the time of this post it's 29 to nothing in favor.

Check the poll dude. At the time of this post it's 29 to nothing in favor.
Yeah I'm just too lazy to vote!

And so's my cat :p

EDIT but I'm sorry if my bluntness offended /EDIT

Yes but...
The fuel supply for nuclear power is virtually limitless if fast-breeder reactors are used to produce plutonium. Just a few of these have been constructed and they have proven to be extremely expensive, largely as a result of the need for special safety systems. They are susceptible to serious fires involving the liquid metal (sodium) used to cool the reactor. Plutonium is used in nuclear arms production and requires extra security in our current times of heightened terrorist threat awareness

same reference as last time.

You all seem to live in Sci-Fi dream worlds.
Thorium breeder reactors turn Thorium, which is extremely plentifull, into U233, which is great nuclear fuel. They produce less trans uranic waste, no weapons grade plutonium, and are light water reactors. No liquid sodium.

This ones so easy to argue.
Link (http://depletion-scotland.org.uk/ds_nuclear.htm)
Cost...
The costs typically quoted for nuclear-generated electricity are operating costs only and do not include costs for plant decommissioning and spent fuel storage. When fully costed, nuclear power is by far the most expensive conventional energy source. Total costs are so high that following electricity deregulation, nuclear plants in the US were deemed unable to compete and utility companies had to be bailed out for nuclear-related stranded costs. British Energy received £10 billion to keep it afloat in 2002.

CO2 Emissions...
Claims that nuclear power "doesn't emit any carbon dioxide at all" are true only in that the nuclear reaction itself doesn't create CO2 emissions. Mining, refining and concentrating the uranium ore to make it into nuclear fuel are all highly polluting processes. Construction of a nuclear power station requires huge amounts of energy to make the steel and concrete. This energy comes mostly from oil and coal. If the whole power station life-cycle is taken into account, nuclear power is responsible for significant CO2 emissions

This is just the first page I Yahoo'd up. It's foolish to argue in favour of this technology
1. so they made a mistake in research.
2. uranium isnt the only nuclear material out there.

This ones so easy to argue.
Link (http://depletion-scotland.org.uk/ds_nuclear.htm)
Cost...
The costs typically quoted for nuclear-generated electricity are operating costs only and do not include costs for plant decommissioning and spent fuel storage. When fully costed, nuclear power is by far the most expensive conventional energy source. Total costs are so high that following electricity deregulation, nuclear plants in the US were deemed unable to compete and utility companies had to be bailed out for nuclear-related stranded costs. British Energy received £10 billion to keep it afloat in 2002.

CO2 Emissions...
Claims that nuclear power "doesn't emit any carbon dioxide at all" are true only in that the nuclear reaction itself doesn't create CO2 emissions. Mining, refining and concentrating the uranium ore to make it into nuclear fuel are all highly polluting processes. Construction of a nuclear power station requires huge amounts of energy to make the steel and concrete. This energy comes mostly from oil and coal. If the whole power station life-cycle is taken into account, nuclear power is responsible for significant CO2 emissions

This is just the first page I Yahoo'd up. It's foolish to argue in favour of this technology


One great reason the cost ratio you claim to is so out of proportion is that most decommissioned reactors were shut down by the Clinton administration before they were really defunct. Your list, I'm certain, contains government run facilities, yes? Well we all know government projects take longer and cost much more that they should. Private sector is another story.
The plant my father worked on, EBR-II, was selling it's power to Utah Power & Light for pennies(literally) on the dollar. No wonder it cost more to shut down than it had been worth. It was an incredibly safe plant. I've seen the lists upon lists of safety features incorporated into that plant. Anything, I mean ANYTHING, malfunctioning would cause the reactor to Scram (shut down). There was nothing wrong with it. It functioned well and made some of the cleanest power available.
If it had been given a chance to stay open and sell its power at market rates your article would have less bouyancy.

Oh, it had been operating for over 30 years and was projected to last at least onther thirty.

You all seem to live in Sci-Fi dream worlds.
Nope. Sci-Fi dreamers are those who dream that wind turbines can save us all. Think of it this way - what is the maximum output of a wind turbine? I'm guessing that it's along the lines of 100kW max. (although I can't find figures so someone please help me out here). That power should make do for....100 1 bar electric fires. Yipee. :rolleyes:

One great reason the cost ratio you claim to is so out of proportion is that most decommissioned reactors were shut down by the Clinton administration before they were really defunct. Your list, I'm certain, contains government run facilities, yes? Well we all know government projects take longer and cost much more that they should. Private sector is another story.
The plant my father worked on, EBR-II, was selling it's power to Utah Power & Light for pennies(literally) on the dollar. No wonder it cost more to shut down than it had been worth. It was an incredibly safe plant. I've seen the lists upon lists of safety features incorporated into that plant. Anything, I mean ANYTHING, malfunctioning would cause the reactor to Scram (shut down). There was nothing wrong with it. It functioned well and made some of the cleanest power available.
If it had been given a chance to stay open and sell its power at market rates your article would have less bouyancy.

Oh, it had been operating for over 30 years and was projected to last at least onther thirty.
have government run anything REALLY worked since the New Deal?

Thorium breeder reactors turn Thorium, which is extremely plentifull, into U233, which is great nuclear fuel. They produce less trans uranic waste, no weapons grade plutonium, and are light water reactors. No liquid sodium.
I can't find much on the Thorium process and I'm not totally familiar with it but surely the cost of waste control and decommisioning stands for any of the three main fissionable materials as does the Co2 cost of building plants and extracting fuels.

The thorium process is apparently (I had to look it up) unproven?
"The “thorium cycle” is industrially unproved" (http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=40801)

Still not convinced. It's tech for the sake of tech. Spend those billions on researching new sources not refining old ones. (Analogy- build a petrol engine not a better steam engine)

Nope. Sci-Fi dreamers are those who dream that wind turbines can save us all. Think of it this way - what is the maximum output of a wind turbine? I'm guessing that it's along the lines of 100kW max. (although I can't find figures so someone please help me out here). That power should make do for....100 1 bar electric fires. Yipee. :rolleyes:
most go up to only 50kw according to a pro-wind power site (as noted by the url) http://www.wind-power.com/

Nope. Sci-Fi dreamers are those who dream that wind turbines can save us all. Think of it this way - what is the maximum output of a wind turbine? I'm guessing that it's along the lines of 100kW max. (although I can't find figures so someone please help me out here). That power should make do for....100 1 bar electric fires. Yipee. :rolleyes:
India for example...
"Indian wind generation has come of age, with a 3,000 MW capacity-already higher than nuclear power, without any of the gargantuan subsidies it receives. Wind potential is 70,000 MW-plus. India’s uranium reserves cannot even sustain 5,000 MW"
Ref: http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=40801

That's a bit puff of wind.

OMG! I am the first out of 34 to vote no!???!

What has this world come to where I have more in common with Greenpeace than 97% of voters in this poll!!?

GASP!~!

gaspgaspgaspgaspgasp!!!

ACK!

(die)

One great reason the cost ratio you claim to is so out of proportion is that most decommissioned reactors were shut down by the Clinton administration before they were really defunct. Your list, I'm certain, contains government run facilities, yes? Well we all know government projects take longer and cost much more that they should. Private sector is another story.
The plant my father worked on, EBR-II, was selling it's power to Utah Power & Light for pennies(literally) on the dollar. No wonder it cost more to shut down than it had been worth. It was an incredibly safe plant. I've seen the lists upon lists of safety features incorporated into that plant. Anything, I mean ANYTHING, malfunctioning would cause the reactor to Scram (shut down). There was nothing wrong with it. It functioned well and made some of the cleanest power available.
If it had been given a chance to stay open and sell its power at market rates your article would have less bouyancy.

Oh, it had been operating for over 30 years and was projected to last at least onther thirty.
I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the American market but in the UK plants are now reaching End of Life and have been subsudised with billions of public money even though nuclear power is now a private business. They want to build more and waste more money. As I say those billions are better spent on developing other sources.

OMG! I am the first out of 34 to vote no!???!

What has this world come to where I have more in common with Greenpeace than 97% of voters in this poll!!?

GASP!~!

gaspgaspgaspgaspgasp!!!

ACK!

(die)
No I was just too lazy. OK I voted.
Help fight the green corner please. I type to slow.

India for example...
"Indian wind generation has come of age, with a 3,000 MW capacity-already higher than nuclear power, without any of the gargantuan subsidies it receives. Wind potential is 70,000 MW-plus. India’s uranium reserves cannot even sustain 5,000 MW"
Ref: http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=40801

That's a bit puff of wind.
india cant really be compared to the US or Europe. and you keep talking as if only uranium is used when in fact it isn't and may even become obsolete in a couple decades or so.

Just to clarify;

I voted no because right now radioactive waste is a political hot-potatoe. It has to be disposed of but nobody wants it, so it is kept in temporary storage. Meanwhile the quantities of waste keep increasing with nowhere to put it. If a permanent storage location could be found I'd be ok with it, but until then it is only half of a solution.

Meanwhile, fear not, I've not given up my War-mongering, keep-the-lower-class down, rape the environment, bashagay conservative ways. :)

Though I still "ACK!" thinking about being on the same side of any poll as Greenpeace...

(barf)

I'm of the mind that just about every country should have a few nukes. Or none! One or the other. That way every country would be safe from the world police pushing their beliefs onto sovereign nations.

[...] As to fussion. great if you can get it to work but worrying if you do. Surely a run away fussion reaction is called a sun.
If a fusion reaction gets out of hand there will just be an explosion where all hydrogen and helium burns. I wouldn't really consider that a "sun".

I can't find much on the Thorium process and I'm not totally familiar with it but surely the cost of waste control and decommisioning stands for any of the three main fissionable materials as does the Co2 cost of building plants and extracting fuels.

The thorium process is apparently (I had to look it up) unproven?
"The “thorium cycle” is industrially unproved" (http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=40801)

Still not convinced. It's tech for the sake of tech. Spend those billions on researching new sources not refining old ones. (Analogy- build a petrol engine not a better steam engine)

The LWBR (EBR-II) [Shippingport] produced 2.5 billion kilowatt hours in its 5 year lifetime (before it was prematurly shut down)... The primary reason for its shut-down, was that it was viewed as Admiral Rickover's pet project. When ADM Rickover was out of the picture, no one was interested in following up on the design. (even though it had massive sucess) [mostly from petty rivalry]... The tech is already researched and documented. The process as also been used experimentally in HWBR's based off the CANDU design [Heavy Water Reactor-D2O] (Thorium HWBR's are currently being prepped for deployment in India).

Research has been done in TFTR, but it is mostly abandoned at present (awaiting more technology), and is still way too impractical for industrial/power generation...

Short of nuke power, there is no practical alternative that generates the necessary levels required today.

I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the American market but in the UK plants are now reaching End of Life and have been subsudised with billions of public money even though nuclear power is now a private business. They want to build more and waste more money. As I say those billions are better spent on developing other sources.
i thought the UK still had some capitalism left in them though.

If a fusion reaction gets out of hand there will just be an explosion where all hydrogen and helium burns. I wouldn't really consider that a "sun".
We're not really expert at this though are we and there's no empirical evidence that if would just go "flup". After all you did just say "All hydogen.."

I'm of the mind that just about every country should have a few nukes. Or none! One or the other. That way every country would be safe from the world police pushing their beliefs onto sovereign nations.
i thought this thread was about reactors not weapons proliferation.

India for example...
"Indian wind generation has come of age, with a 3,000 MW capacity-already higher than nuclear power, without any of the gargantuan subsidies it receives. Wind potential is 70,000 MW-plus. India’s uranium reserves cannot even sustain 5,000 MW"
Ref: http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=40801

That's a bit puff of wind.
OK, so I have found some other figures for turbines. There power output ranges from 500watt (pathetic) to 2megawatt (offshore, horrendously expensive, difficult to maintain, cannot work in low wind conditions). The average appears to be about 50kW as Club House pointed out. Assuming the average, that is 700,000 turbines in India. On the windiest of days. The words 'piss' and 'poor' come to mind.

Secondly - about that nuclear power figure. India must have some pathetic reactors for a maximum 5000MW output. Modern reactors are approaching (I think) 1000MW, so India could have, what, 5 reactors to manage that output. I'm sorry, but this alone leads me to doubt that article.

India for example...
"Indian wind generation has come of age, with a 3,000 MW capacity-already higher than nuclear power, without any of the gargantuan subsidies it receives. Wind potential is 70,000 MW-plus. India’s uranium reserves cannot even sustain 5,000 MW"
Ref: http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=40801

That's a bit puff of wind.
India's planning to build numerous thorium reactors.

www.barc.ernet.in/webpages/about/anu1.htm

It seems wind isn't enough.

We're not really expert at this though are we and there's no empirical evidence that if would just go "flup". After all you did just say "All hydogen.."
What do you think would happen? It turns into a supernova and destroy all life in the solar system?
You just get a nice warm fire when hydrogen burns, nothing more. You can even try this yourself at home: Burn fat in your kitchen and try to put the fire out by using water. Now what will happen? The fat will burn so hot that it separates the hydrogen from the oxygen atoms and the hydrogen will simply burn. I never heard of someone creating a supernova or a black hole this way, although you can of course prove me otherwise.

What do you think would happen? It turns into a supernova and destroy all life in the solar system?
You just get a nice warm fire when hydrogen burns, nothing more. You can even try this yourself at home: Burn fat in your kitchen and try to put the fire out by using water. Now what will happen? The fat will burn so hot that it separates the hydrogen from the oxygen atoms and the hydrogen will simply burn. I never heard of someone creating a supernova or a black hole this way, although you can of course prove me otherwise.
Fat doesn't burn hot enough to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. Few things burn that hot. Thermite might, (I don't know for sure) but fat definately doesn't.

The LWBR (EBR-II) [Shippingport] produced 2.5 billion kilowatt hours in its 5 year lifetime (before it was prematurly shut down)... The primary reason for its shut-down, was that it was viewed as Admiral Rickover's pet project. When ADM Rickover was out of the picture, no one was interested in following up on the design. (even though it had massive sucess) [mostly from petty rivalry]... The tech is already researched and documented. The process as also been used experimentally in HWBR's based off the CANDU design [Heavy Water Reactor-D2O] (Thorium HWBR's are currently being prepped for deployment in India).

Research has been done in TFTR, but it is mostly abandoned at present (awaiting more technology), and is still way too impractical for industrial/power generation...

Short of nuke power, there is no practical alternative that generates the necessary levels required today.
You obviously have a great deal of knowledge here so I won't even try to contradict you. I didn't get any of the abreviations to begin with :rolleyes:
And thorium does look good if a nuclear option is chosen
BUT
Surely spending on reducing power wastage is as clever as nuclear with no inherant risk (or even perseived risk)
We waste vast amount flying mange tout from Africa so snobs in London can have crispy salads and driving the kids 200 m to school

If a fusion reaction gets out of hand there will just be an explosion where all hydrogen and helium burns. I wouldn't really consider that a "sun".
When a fusion reaction gets out of hand you get a thermonuclear explosion.

What do you think would happen? It turns into a supernova and destroy all life in the solar system?
You just get a nice warm fire when hydrogen burns, nothing more. You can even try this yourself at home: Burn fat in your kitchen and try to put the fire out by using water. Now what will happen? The fat will burn so hot that it separates the hydrogen from the oxygen atoms and the hydrogen will simply burn. I never heard of someone creating a supernova or a black hole this way, although you can of course prove me otherwise.
That's probably due to the gigantic difference between 'fusion' and 'burning hydrogen'. One involves reacting hydrogen gas with oxygen gas to make water in an exothermic reaction. The other involves increasing the binding energy per nucleon by physically forcing hydrogen isotopes (sans electrons) together, forming helium and in the process releasing massive amounts of energy. Oh, and one other thing - fusion need a temperature in the millions of kelvin.

Fat doesn't burn hot enough to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. Few things burn that hot. Thermite might, (I don't know for sure) but fat definately doesn't.
Then why do you think you shouldn't put out fires where fat burns with water? Because the hydrogen will just make the fire worse.

You obviously have a great deal of knowledge here so I won't even try to contradict you. I didn't get any of the abreviations to begin with :rolleyes:
And thorium does look good if a nuclear option is chosen
BUT
Surely spending on reducing power wastage is as clever as nuclear with no inherant risk (or even perseived risk)
We waste vast amount flying mange tout from Africa so snobs in London can have crispy salads and driving the kids 200 m to school

LWBR = Light Water Breeder Reactor
HWBR = Heavy Water Breeder Reactor
TFTR = Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory)

And your solution has little bearing on fixing anything... aircraft use petroleum distilates, not nuclear power.

Then why do you think you shouldn't put out fires where fat burns with water? Because the hydrogen will just make the fire worse.
No, It just splatters. Water boils at a much lower temp than burning fat. Boiling water isn't the same as splitting the hydrogens off of the oxygens. Now if you really want to see what happens when a fire splits water into hydrogen and oxygen, throw water on burning potassium. BOOM!

What do you think would happen? It turns into a supernova and destroy all life in the solar system?
You just get a nice warm fire when hydrogen burns, nothing more. You can even try this yourself at home: Burn fat in your kitchen and try to put the fire out by using water. Now what will happen? The fat will burn so hot that it separates the hydrogen from the oxygen atoms and the hydrogen will simply burn. I never heard of someone creating a supernova or a black hole this way, although you can of course prove me otherwise.
In fussion they use a plasma contained (briefly) in magnetic fields. No?
That's a bit hotter than a chip pan fire I think.
The aim of fussion is to use water as a fuel source I believe.
If it runs away it runs hot and fast. Yes I know that so far it just goes "fut" and collapses but as I said where's the empirical evidence that it wont do that. Oh, now I remember it's theoretical science. The same theoretical science that said we'd have fussion reactors by the 1980's cos they were soooo easy to build. Sceptics of the world unite.

LWBR = Light Water Breeder Reactor
HWBR = Heavy Water Breeder Reactor
TFTR = Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory)

And your solution has little bearing on fixing anything... aircraft use petroleum distilates, not nuclear power.
Sorry my argument wasn't too well presented.
I was alluding to the CO2 costs which power production has and which we could reduce in other ways than going nuclear (one of the arguments in favour)

As for thorium. I'd like to see a reactor run to end of life (in someone elses country ;) ) before i'll have one in my garden. I like new tech.
Thrive on it. New tech geek me. but not when the risks of it going wrong are very very bad.

Edit. I'd love to stay and debate this further. I'm learning a lot. But I have a job interview (a the local fast breeder plant) in the morning and I want to look alive. Joke about the plant..pathetic but it made me smile /edit

how about using the methane gas given off, burn that - cheap power no recyling and i think methane is acctully clean burning

Sorry my argument wasn't too well presented.
I was alluding to the CO2 costs which power production has and which we could reduce in other ways than going nuclear (one of the arguments in favour)
If you're really going to argue about CO2 emissions in production of material, may I just point you to emissions from extraction of iron - most likely the metal used to construct the turbines. ;)

If you're really going to argue about CO2 emissions in production of material, may I just point you to emissions from extraction of iron - most likely the metal used to construct the turbines. ;)
See my ealier post about he enourmous co2 costs of extracting and shipping nuclear fuel. plus building powersations in general of course.

how about using the methane gas given off, burn that - cheap power no recyling and i think methane is acctully clean burning
Methane given off from what, may I ask? Besides, methane isn't entirely clean burning - it still produces CO2, even if in lesser quantities.

methane from landfills - sorry forgot a word

methane from landfills - sorry forgot a word
Ah, right. Difficult to extract, to the point at which organic methane sources were abandoned by the UK govt. as a source of energy.

methane from landfills - sorry forgot a word
Methane from landfills is contaminated with all sorts of sulfur and nitrogen compounds. It'll produce alot of acid rain.

I approve of Nuclear Power. But only if we spend the money, and buy a good plant. it's not something you can cut corners with. Spend the money though, and it's pretty damned safe, and good.

Agreed, in my opinion, nuclear power is the only way that we are going to meed our energy needs in the future, that and its pollution levels are far less than oil, gas and coal.

i made a proposal and here it is, i have a strong feeling it is going to fail, becuase voting ends today, can some people approve it, also i submitted another one just in case(i thought the other one failed already, but it has all of today left):

Nuclear Fusion Development
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Uranium Mining
Proposed by: Polioa

Description: This is The United States of Polioa's first proposal

This Proposal is to begin to develop and perfect the form of energy known as Nuclear Fusion, with the help of UN members we can develop this form of power prodcution, here are my 6 points.

1. Cheap Fuel
2. No Waste
3. No Pollution
4. No Risc of Meltdown
5. Almost Limitless Energy
6. Lower Prices for Helium

Nuclear Fusion is not possible yet becuase we can not master the proccess, but if we can we can have enourmus energy for a low cost fuel and envirometaly friendly.

Approvals: 47 (Polioa, Gaiah, Pharan, Black Reading, Noxinland, Brausi-mausi, Zealotos, The Derrak Quadrant, Aquarian Arcadia, East Sibir, Utopian Id, -Draconia-, King Dubya, Cameckistan, Insubordinates, Bernardi, Logostan, USCT, Smallpocks, Latagon, Moonstarpeople, Robinski, Jovix, Danelagen, Doikuit, Tactical PIE, Yatopia, Of Cascadia, Konte, Apolian Pirates, TrashManifest, Dorris The Destroyer, The Children of Dusk, Pagov, Heatheropolis, BLACKGRUE, Spaz Land, New Secundus, Andolya, Welgonia, Fenouil, Saintmichaels, Geevesustekastanilonia, Todays Romans, Ficticious Proportions, SenatorHoser, Contran)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 103 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue May 31 2005

Methane from landfills is contaminated with all sorts of sulfur and nitrogen compounds. It'll produce alot of acid rain.

So purify it.

On a related note: has anyone here realized that sooner or later people are going to start mining old landfills for the metals, recyclable plastics, and other materials that they provide?

So purify it.

On a related note: has anyone here realized that sooner or later people are going to start mining old landfills for the metals, recyclable plastics, and other materials that they provide?
And think of all those old graveyards just full of corpses being slowly converted into oil and natural gas! Fill 'er up with great great grandpa!

Then why do you think you shouldn't put out fires where fat burns with water? Because the hydrogen will just make the fire worse.


Umm, here is a science experement for you.

Put a lit candle in a jar then fill the jar with water. It goes out. Why?

Next, put some oil in a cup of water. Does the oil go on top of the water or underneath it?

Since you already know oil is fuel for a fire, I won't have you test that one.

I voted no because right now radioactive waste is a political hot-potatoe. It has to be disposed of but nobody wants it, so it is kept in temporary storage. Meanwhile the quantities of waste keep increasing with nowhere to put it. If a permanent storage location could be found I'd be ok with it, but until then it is only half of a solution.

There are various answers to this - eg blasting it into the sun, putting it in containers at the bottom of the sea or in disused mineshafts. However, most of the spent fuel can be reprocessed into fissionable material, and what's left has a maximum half-life of 30 years. Assuming you produce a tonne of this per year (or a ton, I don't care), by the time you have 44 tonnes, as much per year is decaying as is being produced. (I worked this out with some exponential differential equations from A-level maths that I'm damned proud of. The discovery of a practical use of this stuff is justification enough for the starting of this thread :p )

Well, it's not a question to say just yes or no to... But I don't mind nuclear power, as long as the plants are 100% safe (which is possible), and waste is dealt with appropriately (e.g. buried deep, deep within a mountain; certainly NOT dumped in the sea, like many do today).

Hopefully we'll have fusion rather than fission in some decades, and we won't have to worry more about waste and meltdowns.

Umm, here is a science experement for you.

Put a lit candle in a jar then fill the jar with water. It goes out. Why?

Next, put some oil in a cup of water. Does the oil go on top of the water or underneath it?

Since you already know oil is fuel for a fire, I won't have you test that one.
No, he's on the right track, wrong idea. You can't use water to put out certain types of fires because they burn too hot (why they had to use rubble to choke out the chernobyl fires, eg, graphite, on track with the nuclear idea), the water simply flashes to steam before it can do any significant cooling.

did anyone see my Nuclear Fusion Development Proposal to the UN on page 5, i need more approvals.

There are various answers to this - eg blasting it into the sun, putting it in containers at the bottom of the sea or in disused mineshafts. However, most of the spent fuel can be reprocessed into fissionable material, and what's left has a maximum half-life of 30 years. Assuming you produce a tonne of this per year (or a ton, I don't care), by the time you have 44 tonnes, as much per year is decaying as is being produced. (I worked this out with some exponential differential equations from A-level maths that I'm damned proud of. The discovery of a practical use of this stuff is justification enough for the starting of this thread :p )
I call bull. No way in hell you can infinitely reprocess fuel, its simply not possible. Either you take out all the U-238 (95%), leaving you with a good 2% of highly radioactive muck and another 3% of U-235 waste products, both of which are highly reactive and mostly useless in nuclear reactors.

how about using the methane gas given off, burn that - cheap power no recyling and i think methane is acctully clean burning

Let me see if I get this. Some guy who's name starts 'as...' wants to burn methane by shoving a generator up everyone's ...

On a related note: has anyone here realized that sooner or later people are going to start mining old landfills for the metals, recyclable plastics, and other materials that they provide?
It had crossed my mind, hell the level of most metals in your average landfill is above the level in most ores, it'll be the most effiecent place to look.
To make a completely idiotic statement, to which even I can see a simple rebuttal; Chernobyl was govt. controlled. As is Sellafield (sp? it's near me and I can't fcuking spell it)
Sellafield isn't government controlled. There's a large part of the HSE (Health and Safety Executive) which are responsible for inspecting nuculear installations, but its a private company which run it (British Nuclear if my memory is correct). And Chernobyl was an old design which had a poor coolant system. Just be glad that the last of its reactors has finally been decommishioned.

No, he's on the right track, wrong idea. You can't use water to put out certain types of fires because they burn too hot (why they had to use rubble to choke out the chernobyl fires, eg, graphite, on track with the nuclear idea), the water simply flashes to steam before it can do any significant cooling.

http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/chemistry/exchange/topics/safety/DEMOgreasefire.html

Correct, but overlooking one important detail... the steam itself acellerates the grease burning and will cause an explosion.

There was no explosion with the Iraq oil fields because the water vapor never could reach the fuel. But in your kitchen.... Read the article to see what happens when it does.

http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/chemistry/exchange/topics/safety/DEMOgreasefire.html

Correct, but overlooking one important detail... the steam itself acellerates the grease burning and will cause an explosion.

There was no explosion with the Iraq oil fields because the water vapor never could reach the fuel. But in your kitchen.... Read the article to see what happens when it does.
The rapidly expanding steam splatters burning dropplets of fat, or wax as in the experiment, out of the pan. The water doesn't decompose into hydrogen and oxygen as the original poster claimed.

Check it out! (http://www.ITER.org)

Check it out! (http://www.ITER.org)
How Long! Probably about a nanosecond!

It's waaaaay of steady fusion.

How Long! Probably about a nanosecond!

It's waaaaay of steady fusion.

But just think, who wouldn't want unlimited fusion power? If we just put some more funding into it, it could be completed in less than the 50 year estimate! I would love to see fusion within my lifetime...

That's probably due to the gigantic difference between 'fusion' and 'burning hydrogen'. One involves reacting hydrogen gas with oxygen gas to make water in an exothermic reaction. The other involves increasing the binding energy per nucleon by physically forcing hydrogen isotopes (sans electrons) together, forming helium and in the process releasing massive amounts of energy. Oh, and one other thing - fusion need a temperature in the millions of kelvin.
So? I would say that in a fusion reactor there is only so much hydrogen in the reaction chamber as necessary to support the reaction, and not more, and that there is a constant flow of hydrogen towards the chamber to keep the reaction going at a constant level. Due to this reason I don't think you will get the same reaction than from a fusion bomb, where all reaction material is immediately present. My "nice warm fire" remark should have triggered your sarcasm alert. The explosion from that material in the reaction chamber is not going to be anywhere near as dangerous as a meltdown of a nuclear fission plant.

In fussion they use a plasma contained (briefly) in magnetic fields. No?
That's a bit hotter than a chip pan fire I think.
The aim of fussion is to use water as a fuel source I believe.
If it runs away it runs hot and fast. Yes I know that so far it just goes "fut" and collapses but as I said where's the empirical evidence that it wont do that. Oh, now I remember it's theoretical science. The same theoretical science that said we'd have fussion reactors by the 1980's cos they were soooo easy to build. Sceptics of the world unite.
Predicting the difficulty level of something and predicting the outcome of a reaction is something different.

Umm, here is a science experement for you.

Put a lit candle in a jar then fill the jar with water. It goes out. Why?

Next, put some oil in a cup of water. Does the oil go on top of the water or underneath it?

Since you already know oil is fuel for a fire, I won't have you test that one.
Right, I forgot you can't put out any fire with water. The fire brigade must be really stupid to use water when it's so dangerous.

\
Right, I forgot you can't put out any fire with water. The fire brigade must be really stupid to use water when it's so dangerous.
Ever read the side of a fire extinguisher? There are different methods for putting out different fires. You don't put out high heat or eletrical fires using water.

India for example...
"Indian wind generation has come of age, with a 3,000 MW capacity-already higher than nuclear power, without any of the gargantuan subsidies it receives. Wind potential is 70,000 MW-plus. India’s uranium reserves cannot even sustain 5,000 MW"
Ref: http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=40801

That's a bit puff of wind.

What he is talking about is power output of a single wind-turbine (50kW)... What you're talking about is fields of turbines. According to the SEC their wind turbine distrobution accross 44 acres comes out to about 258,252 KW hours [over a year] (compared to the North Anna Plant, sitting on 128 acres, generates a total of 13,784,124 Megawatt Hours [over a year]...) that single station generating 53,000X the capacity, in less than twice the space.

A single wind turbine can produce 50kw output.... However, the output from a single steam-turbine from the North Anna Plant outputs 952 Megawatts... You're talking much greater energy densities....

India lacks much Uranium deposites for long term use... If wind was actally their godsend, they wouldn't be prepping to deploy HWBR's using the Thorium Cycle.... (which they have plenty of)... The energy density is much greater.

If a fusion reaction gets out of hand there will just be an explosion where all hydrogen and helium burns. I wouldn't really consider that a "sun".

in answer to both... TFTR's (Tokamak Fusion Test Rectors) are based off toroid design magnetic containment. It takes massive energies to superheat the deuterium beam inside the containment vessel..... breech means dispensation of the high-energy plasma.... "burn" doesn't even exist, since the material itself will dissipate quicker than it can actually cool (at the atomic level)... The only think keeping the material in place to fuse in the first place is the magenetic toroid vessel... More or less the stream would damage the vessel while it disipated.... but there would be no adverse health effects (since no one can be near the thing in operation anyway).... Temps are way too high near the vessel, not to mention the magnets Princeton's labs use, would pull the iron out of your blood-stream, if you were standing next to it while it was critical.... outside the housing, no one would notice the breech.

"CO2 Emissions...
Claims that nuclear power "doesn't emit any carbon dioxide at all" are true only in that the nuclear reaction itself doesn't create CO2 emissions. Mining, refining and concentrating the uranium ore to make it into nuclear fuel are all highly polluting processes. Construction of a nuclear power station requires huge amounts of energy to make the steel and concrete. This energy comes mostly from oil and coal. If the whole power station life-cycle is taken into account, nuclear power is responsible for significant CO2 emissions"

And mining coal, drilling for oil and gas, transporting them, building power stations for non-nuclear plants doesn't emit CO2?

Ever read the side of a fire extinguisher? There are different methods for putting out different fires. You don't put out high heat or eletrical fires using water.
Ever read the definition of sarcasm in a dictionary? It's a good read.

Supporters of nuclear power always fail to include the build and decommisioning costs of power stations. These, including, disposal costs and the risks of leakage make nuclear power incredibly expensive per kilowatt.
Re-newables (wind and solar) are also expensive to produce but many other systems including animal waste (methane) and domestic waste burning are cheap, clean and attractive but suffer from the "not on my doorstep" factor.

As to fussion. great if you can get it to work but worrying if you do. Surely a run away fussion reaction is called a sun.

I think you should check your facts :) because even with all the external costs nuclear power is still quite cheap compared to any renewable sources of energy (water excluded because it is usualy spoken of hydropower as of classical source). I am all for using renewable sources of energy as much as we can and for improvent of energy efficiency, but the fact is that there is no chance of covering worlds growing need for energy without nuclear power. And fusion reactor is far from being utilized (50 - 100 years).

If you want to cut the use of fissile fuels, it's the way to go. Safe, efficient and environmentally friendly. Looks like the US is also considering building some new ones.

I can see it now. A president proposing a 'nucular' energy initiative!

One tiny uranium pellet can produce as much energy as thousands of pounds of fossil fuels.



There is a very low risk of meltdown if you stick to the safety protocols.

India for example...
"Indian wind generation has come of age, with a 3,000 MW capacity-already higher than nuclear power, without any of the gargantuan subsidies it receives. Wind potential is 70,000 MW-plus. India’s uranium reserves cannot even sustain 5,000 MW"
Ref: http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=40801

That's a bit puff of wind.


Yeah it realy looks nice when you put it that way, but when you see how much energy is produced from all that capacity you'll see the difference :)
As my proffesor sais, wind turbines can't work when there is no wind and when there is wind only somewhere in the midlle :) (They can work only in intervals from 5m/s to 25m/s of wind speed :) ), and nuclear plants today can work more than 90% of time at full power :)
And about CO2 emmisions, if you compare nuclear power plant and a wind farm of lets say equal power capacity (not energy production) you'll see that amout of steel and concrete used for wind farm is way more than for nuclear plant, and no one says that wind plants emmit CO2 :)


I donćt know who said that there is uranium for only 40 years, I don't have real numbers here, but I'm sure that there is minimally uranium for 100 years (at least uranium that is economicly to extract), and of course there are breader reactors that produce plutonium from U-238 and thorium reactors (developing). The fact is that there is quite enough of nuclear fuel around. (Not to mention uranium from sea water that is for now too expensive to extract)

What about if someone put one down the road from you? Lots of people say 'I like nuclear power' but the minute someone tries to build one nearby, mass petitions spring up against it.

Sorry, I'm not aiming that at you, Saxnot. Just trying to stimulate some conversation in this thread. Damn my interest in this topic.

*shakes fist at sky*

I wouldn't mind. Hell, I was standing on a reactor :) (small one, for experiments :) )

Oh my God, I just read the afticle
http://www.climateark.org/articles/...sp?linkid=40801
It is full of false facts, people like this guy who wrote this stuff should be prosecuted :)