NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.answers.com/topic/fast-neutron-reactor,

It's a shame that these aren't in the news more. A Google News search on the subject revealed this:

http://news.google.com/news?q=Fast-neutron+reactors&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tab=wn&filter=0

A blurb from a subscriber-only article on Sci-Am reveals this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000D5560-D9B2-137C-99B283414B7F0000

I mean, geez people. I have concerns about nuclear power too, but it's a lot better than oil!

And electric cars ran off of power originating in nuclear power plants would be ridiculously low in overall emissions caused.

I mean, geez people. I have concerns about nuclear power too, but it's a lot better than oil!

And electric cars ran off of power originating in nuclear power plants would be ridiculously low in overall emissions caused.

Modern nuclear power is multiple times safer, cleaner, and more efficent than what was in existence when construction was halted in the 1970's. Hell, the cutting edge technologies can reduce the half-life of radioactive waste to a few centuries from tens of thousands of years, and can recycle almost all fissible material from the waste.

Don't forget cheap. Nuclear power would produce a lot of energy very cheaply, which means powering up would be quite inexpensive.

I for one firmly believe that nuclear power is the answer to the world’s energy troubles.

also pretty sweet (similar vein (i think - too lazy to read articles in full))

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm

http://www.iter.org/index.htm

:)

what? you liberals aren't all a bunch of anti-nuclear power loonies? :p

Yeah I think we should work toward bringing more nuclear power to the US.

what? you liberals aren't all a bunch of anti-nuclear power loonies? :p

Yeah I think we should work toward bringing more nuclear power to the US.

Indeed. I mean the power inside an atom is immense. Fusion, if we achieve it in a controlled reaction (as the article showed is being worked towards in Europe,) would have so little impact on the environmentand and produce so much energy as to be a no-brainer.

We need a President to make an Apollo-type push for this.

Indeed. I mean the power inside an atom is immense. Fusion, if we achieve it in a controlled reaction (as the article showed is being worked towards in Europe,) would have so little impact on the environmentand produce so much energy as to be a no-brainer.

We need a President to make an Apollo-type push for this.

It's not going to be this one unless he makes one hell of a push for it and breaks from the Ted Stevens/Trent Lott types who want to drill and combust our way out of energy dependence. If he does, it's going to be cause for me to reconsider my opinion of him...just maybe.

Good old nuclear reactores... The best way to make energy. We can just put the used stuff in Nevada like we're doing

Good old nuclear reactores... The best way to make energy. We can just put the used stuff in Nevada like we're doing

Well, if we'd just employ the newest technologies, there will be much less need for facilities such as Nevada's.

My view on energy is that whatever we do, we need to get as far away from fossil fuels as possible- between a finite supply of the stuff on Earth (with no prospects of finding more among the stars, unless we find another planet with huge, tremendous oil/coal resources from a local Carboniferous Period), global warming effects, regular pollution effects like smog, ozone depletion (don't hear about that much these days, do you?), and the fact that oil profits are the main source of funding for Al Qaeda and similar groups, this should be just common sense.

Of course, the question is what other energy sources we should switch to. Fusion, of course, is ideal; lots and lots and lots of energy for a little hydrogen (easily split off from water). However, we don't have the technology to generate fusion, and there's some debate as to whether or not we ever will.

There's lots of solar energy bombarding the Earth; however, productivity depends on the weather, and economic electricity generation requires huge amounts of land to be used. There's always the possibility of converting rooftops into solar energy farms (there's thousands of square miles of blank rooftop in New York City, for example), but it'd be rather difficult to convince private companies to place them there and maintain it anytime soon, and having the government install/maintain solar panels would be far too expensive for the tastes of my economically conservative counterparts.

Wind power is a possibility, but possible placement is limited to areas with a lot of wind, and production is even more dependent on the weather than solar power. I'm rather wary of wind farms' energy collection capacity. Tide generators are another possibility; I'm afraid I don't know much about these. From my limited knowledge, the only real problem is that they can only be built on the coasts of bodies of water large enough to have tides.

Finally, there's fission power. As Vetalia said, modern fission is much safer than it was when Chernobyl and Three Mile Island occurred, and the energy generated is very cheap. However, besides the panicked reactions of the Western world whenever anyone tries to develop nuclear power capacity, fission creates material that remains lethally radioactive for rather a long time. Since Nevada is starting to get upset about being a dumping ground for the nation's nuclear waste, new places must be found to dump the stuff where it won't cause unfortunate mutations amongst the multitudes. I understand there's a scheme to place garbage in areas where it would eventually be subducted into the mantel; could a similar scheme be crafted for nuclear waste?

It also makes sense to "spread it around a bit," by utilizing solar, hydro, wind and other renewable sources as well. I also don't think fusion is all that far off.

It also makes sense to "spread it around a bit," by utilizing solar, hydro, wind and other renewable sources as well.

This is true. Every little bit helps.

I also don't think fusion is all that far off.

Eh. My understanding is that fusion power is a lot like Duke Nukem Forever- it's been labeled 'coming soon' for a long, long time. The claim seems to be that it's been 10 years away for the last 20 or 30 years.

The problem with fusion power is that normal fusion is, well, hot; rather sun-like, in fact. There are some obvious difficulties in handling a small sun in your laboratory in any kind of economical manner (controlled fusion has occured, but with quantities of hydrogen so small that the energy and heat involved was negligible).

The Holy Grail of energy sources for the last few years has been cold fusion- fusion without the helial temperatures. Apparently, a team in Utah reported having performed cold fusion, but no one else was able to repeat their results. The possibility of cold fusion is still something of a question mark.

I had seen something using soundwaves and acetone that seemed promising. I'll try to dig up a link.

Nevermind - looks like another failure: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2151215.stm

Of course, the question is what other energy sources we should switch to. Fusion, of course, is ideal; lots and lots and lots of energy for a little hydrogen (easily split off from water). However, we don't have the technology to generate fusion, and there's some debate as to whether or not we ever will.

If we don't have the technology to create fusion reactors, then how come there's already several major fusion test reactors under construction, and many other successful tests (albeit on a smaller scale)? Fusion remains the best alternative energy, but it's gonna take a while till we see them widespread. It depends on whether these next test reactors produce enough energy to be worth it.

Now, fission reactors have gotten a lot better, but fissible material ain't exactly cheap, or all too common.

Good post. *bows*