Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Advantages And Disadvantages Of Nuclear Energy  
User currently offlineRichPhitzwell From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 22993 times:

seemed like a new thread is necessary instead of hijacking the memorial thread found here

21st Anniversary Of Chernobyl Disaster (by Levg79 Apr 26 2007 in Non Aviation)

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1982 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 22983 times:

Well I think the positives would be, a clean source of energy. Negatives being well Chernobyl type events or the Nuclear waste left over.


Keep the shinny side up!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 22975 times:

Advantages:
- generation of electricity produces no carbon, nitrous, sulfuric, or mercury pollution
- excellent source of base power supply

Disadvantages:
- high upfront investment
- strict oversight and regulation
- long-term disposal of waste

I am disappointed that nuclear fission fissiled as rapidly as it did post Three Mile Island and especially post Chernobyl. The Chernobyl disaster itself is virtually impossible due to western reactor design and the fact that safety was a word rarely taken seriously in the former USSR.

The generation of electrical power is one of the greatest contributors to both the pollution that could be leading to climate change and the foreign energy dependence that haunts the U.S. As it happens, the U.S. has some of the highest abundance of uranium ores in the world. I certainly wish solar PV and wind could provide the base power loads we need, but they simply can't with the technology available at present. That leaves nuclear as the only emissions-free source of base power.

The green crowd screams about radiation and waste disposal, but our coal power plants are spewing more radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere than any nuclear power accident to date. Getting those plants offline should be a top priority for the environmental front. What they need to realize is that there is no "perfect" source of power yet, but nuclear fusion is a huge step in the right direction. With properly regulated waste recycling, we could start putting a real dent in pollution and fossil fuel demand without the frivilous airline taxes and one-piece-of-toilet-paper programs we have seen to date...


User currently offlineSpringbok747 From Australia, joined Nov 2004, 4387 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 22952 times:

Its 'Nucular', not 'Nuclear'..ok?  Wink

Advantages:

Clean
Fuel is inexpensive
Waste is more compact than any source
More $$$$ to the Australian govt

Disadvantages:

Requires larger capital cost because of emergency, containment, radioactive waste and storage systems
Problem with storing high-level waste (unless of course you dump it in the middle of the Outback here)
Potential nuclear proliferation issue
Uranium is not renewable



אני תומך בישראל
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 22936 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
- strict oversight and regulation
- long-term disposal of waste

The two are closely related...
The longterm disposal wouldn't be a fraction of the problem it is today (literally!) if the regulations were more sensible.

As it is it's not allowed to refine fuel for nuclear powerstations from nuclear waste despite it being quite possible to use a lot of that waste as fuel for rapid breeder reactors.
If it were allowed the volume of waste that needs to be stored would go down to a fraction of what it is today (and even today it's no more than a few cubic meters per year for most reactors).

The anti-nuclear lobby has been highly successful in giving people the false belief that every nuclear powerstation is an atomic bomb waiting to go off and is producing tons of weapons grade plutonium each year.
Nothing could be further from the truth (though 1940s style reactors like the ones at Chernobyl are dangerous, such haven't been used in the west since the 1950s).

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 3):
Uranium is not renewable

That is correct. It's however in large enough supply that it can last until something better is found. It also reduces our depence on the unstable regions of the planet for energy (middle east, Venezuela, Russia), which in itself is IMO an excellent reason to use it.

And there is no truly renewable source of energy anyway. Windmills need raw materials and effect weather patterns in ways we're only now starting to understand (effects which are silently ignored by the environmentalist lobby).
Same with solar, which is also extremely polutant when disposing of used up solar collectors and solar cells as they contain large amounts of plastics and heavy metals).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineRaventom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 22936 times:

Advantage:

It is not weather relliant like most renewable sources.



I love the smell of burnt kerosene!!!!!!!!!!!!
User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 4 hours ago) and read 22928 times:

I'm all for nuclear energy. However, my understanding is that the operational costs are just enormous in terms of employee procedures and training. I have a friend who used to work out at the Vogel site in Georgia and the amount of time and "stuff" he had to go through every time there was even the slightest indication of contamination -- well it just seems impractical and this stage, unfortunately.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
Getting (coal) plants offline should be a top priority for the environmental front.

It is not that simple. Honestly. The truth is that we don't have enough production capacity in place in the US to replace those plants if they were just switched off. Replacing them is an major problem due to the fact that it is near impossible to get a permit for a new plant due to all the NIMBY-ing. Even if a permit were available, it would be nearly 10 years before a new plant would come online due to all the clearances and rules.

I hear what you are saying but sound bites don't tell an accurate story.


User currently offlineGalapagapop From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 910 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 2 hours ago) and read 22915 times:

It's clean burning, but problem is, even with new Uranium mines popping up in UT and NV and of coarse the large ones in Kazakistan, Uranium supplies at current use rates, last only about 75 years. Surely that will rise as new mining locations are found but this does not include the expected surge in nuclear reactors to come on line domestically and internationall over the next 20 years. BTW if anyone neeeds a new major, I'd go to be Nuclear technicion, you don't need to be a rocket scientist though. But let me tell ya if you want a good paying job, let's do the math. Average age of current Nuclear powerplant workforce? 55+, new plants expected domestically and internationall in next 5 years? 10+, number of jobs needed to be replaced in next 10 years with new anum growth? 20,000+ for a job largely ignored since the 70's and 80's.

 Silly


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months ago) and read 22891 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
Advantages:
- generation of electricity produces no carbon, nitrous, sulfuric, or mercury pollution
- excellent source of base power supply

Disadvantages:
- high upfront investment
- strict oversight and regulation
- long-term disposal of waste

I

 checkmark  A succinct list, although the spent fuel is less of a problem than you might think. Another point I would have added is the cost of adhering to the Linear No Threshold (LNT) theory which underpins the current International Committee on Radiological Protection (ICRP) requires members of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) to adhere to. This means in principle that any exposure to radiation is harmful and that members policy should be "as low as is practically possible" in terms of exposures. This costs the industry billions annually in costs and this is reflected in electricity rates.

No self-respecting scientist (that I know) believes in LNT anymore, there's simply no real evidence to support it. But, it's a political and PR position that ICRP has taken, and WANO has basically grabbed its' ankles on this issue. Below about 50 Rem exposure, there seems to be zero effect on a human being. After all, our species has evolved on a planet that is naturally radioactive. There's all manner of radioactive sources out there, from K40 to radon to uranium & thorium in various granite/gneiss formations, and on and on. If it was that dangerous, we wouldn't be here in the first place.

As for waste management, well, for CANDU reactors, we only extract about 1% of the available energy from the fuel when it exits the reactor (for a number of reasons). It would ne nice to get more out of the fuel in order to extend the length of time we have uiranium available. That means reprocessing, which has a number of tough chemical engineering issues, and with current technology produces a lot of radioactive liquid waste. But the point is, again looking at CANDU, the spent fuel in about 700 years is back to the radiation levels it had when the U3O8 ore came out of the ground. More preferable to me is medium-term above ground storage in concrete/steel canisters -- which we're starting to do here in Canada. It's cheap, it's quick, and it leaves a resource available for future use.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 6):
'm all for nuclear energy. However, my understanding is that the operational costs are just enormous in terms of employee procedures and training. I have a friend who used to work out at the Vogel site in Georgia and the amount of time and "stuff" he had to go through every time there was even the slightest indication of contamination -- well it just seems impractical and this stage, unfortunately.

Good to hear. See my point above about radiation dangers & protection. This costs an _enormous_ amount of money, and is a good example of the 90/10 rule: 90% of the costs are created to ensure the last 10% of protection -- which most of us think is completely pointless.

Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 7):
But let me tell ya if you want a good paying job, let's do the math. Average age of current Nuclear powerplant workforce? 55+, new plants expected domestically and internationall in next 5 years? 10+, number of jobs needed to be replaced in next 10 years with new anum growth? 20,000+ for a job largely ignored since the 70's and 80's.

That is an EXCELLENT point. This is likely the single biggest problem in the nuclear industry - we're old. No real hiring has occurred for a long time, sonce many viewed it as a sunset industry. So, retirement is looming for a big fraction of the people currently employed there, including me. We need to hire, mentor, and train _tons_ of new people in all areas: engineering, physics, chemistry, design, you name it. So I would say to anyone reading this thread who is looking to make a career decision, look at the nuclear power business.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months ago) and read 22882 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
Disadvantages:
- high upfront investment

Part of the high upfront investment cost however, is the fact that nuclear power plants haven't been built in the US in 30 years.

France get the vast majority of their power from nuclear. I'm sure that an analysis of their up front cost would show that it's not as expensive as it is here in the US.

Further Disadvantages are:

NIMBY No one wants to have one near them. and the threat of terrorism against a plant.

I think the safety concerns are over blown. The US Navy has been successfully using nuclear power for over 50 years. That's a lot of expertise out there in the marketplace.

The main problem is the waste. The Yucca mountain plan is a good plan. There again you have NIMBY blocking the path of progress.


User currently offlineGalapagapop From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 910 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22841 times:

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 8):

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it not take that long to be certified to work basic tech or core positions? And also do you have any ballpark of starting salaries for say a 4 years college grad? Figure's that pop into my mind are 55-65k but I know I'm off somewhere, but either way I've considered it. It's similar to the FAA in their problems with ATC controllers and the looming shortage in 10 years as well, except their schools are fairly full, and unlike the FAA the nuclear power industry is in private hands so salaries won't lag the demand curve. Lucrative either way!


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22834 times:

Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 10):
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it not take that long to be certified to work basic tech or core positions? And also do you have any ballpark of starting salaries for say a 4 years college grad? Figure's that pop into my mind are 55-65k but I know I'm off somewhere, but either way I've considered it. It's similar to the FAA in their problems with ATC controllers and the looming shortage in 10 years as well, except their schools are fairly full, and unlike the FAA the nuclear power industry is in private hands so salaries won't lag the demand curve. Lucrative either way!

For a tech position, a 2-3 yr program is sufficient, starting salaries (in Canada) are in the 42-45K range. For a 4-yr university grad (engineer usually, but physiccs/chemistry also) around 55-60K, so you are in the ballpark. Salaries from what I can tell in the US market are a little higher. If you have a post-grad degree, then you get bumped fairly well. Also puts you more likely on the road to management, if that's your goal.

Unlike the US, in Canada all nuclear, with one exception, is provincially-run (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick). The exception is Bruce Power, which is a private consortium created to operate the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station (largest in the world). BP _lease_ the station from the provincial utility and sell the power back to them.

I don't believe you'd go wrong going down this road. One utility in the US that I know is serious about new nuclear is Dominion Energy in Virginia. They've kicked the tires on our new product, but I truly believe they will purchase the Westinghouse AP1000.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22819 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
What they need to realize is that there is no "perfect" source of power yet, but nuclear fusion is a huge step in the right direction

Just an edit that I'm surprised no one else noticed, but that above statement should regard nuclear fission!  Wink

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 6):
It is not that simple. Honestly. The truth is that we don't have enough production capacity in place in the US to replace those plants if they were just switched off.

And I never implied that it was a simple problem. However, if there is any energy source that is capable of replacing the majority of combustion-based power generation, the best we can do with present technology is nuclear fission.


User currently offlineGalapagapop From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 910 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22812 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
nuclear Fusion

I find fission very promising, but fusion is as well, if not more so. The fusion of Deuterium and Tritium is very beneficial and efficient. Although Tritium is a low level radioactive element, it's got a 12 year half life with only a few Kg naturally in existance, so we will artificially make it, from Lithium bombarded with nuetrons to form Tritium with a byproduct of Helium, which is an excellent by product, as Helium is a depleting resource with not many new wells being found and much just going into the atmosphere, it can help prevent a He shortage in the next 20 years if it becomes widely produced. Lithium and Deuterium are very common in the enviroment and should make fusion viable, although by no means a free energy.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 22807 times:

Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 13):
but fusion is as well, if not more so

Except that the technology has been "30 to 50 years off" for the past 30-50 years.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineGalapagapop From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 910 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 22802 times:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 14):
Except that the technology has been "30 to 50 years off" for the past 30-50 years

True but they are finally starting to test and better implement the magnetic fields needed to have fusion contained. Before it was more of theory and understanding it would work, but there had been zero practical implementation of a proper chamber with a magnetic field that can support 100mil degrees of fusion particles, not to mention the sensoring equipment and the understanding of best elements to use (from day 1 it wasn't Deutrium and Tritium, took lots of tests.) I'm sure it won't be online by 2020 or probably 2030. But hey most large scale energy ideas aren't in full practice either and won't be for a loooooong time.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 22785 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
Disadvantages:
- high upfront investment
- strict oversight and regulation
- long-term disposal of waste

This still applies to most conventional plants as well, if to a lesser degree. Nuclear power in the West (especially Europe) has had a safe enough history to make it a better option than others.


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 22778 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 16):
This still applies to most conventional plants as well, if to a lesser degree. Nuclear power in the West (especially Europe) has had a safe enough history to make it a better option than others.

I don't know about that. The Siemens gas-fired systems are pretty cheap up front but have (potentially) very high operating costs. They are also modular so that you can install (I think the power rating is) 180 MW at a time, as you need it. Construction time is usually about 18 months.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDrDeke From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 22759 times:

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 17):
I don't know about that. The Siemens gas-fired systems are pretty cheap up front but have (potentially) very high operating costs. They are also modular so that you can install (I think the power rating is) 180 MW at a time, as you need it. Construction time is usually about 18 months.

Yeah, natgas fired power plants are pretty slick pieces of engineering. They are essentially large turboshaft engines with generators connected to their shafts, and then if the utility is smart, and if the plant will be run for more than just peak demand times, they use the (large quantity of extremely hot) exhaust gases produced by the gas turbine to fire a secondary boiler which is then piped to a steam turbine for further electrical generation (and/or district heating/cooling, etc). As far as power plant cycles go, it's quite efficient.

However, it strikes me as slightly nuts to burn natural gas for base load utility power in most circumstances. As has already been mentioned, the fuel is not cheap. It also strikes me as a wiser idea to save natural gas for applications like domestic heating, domestic water heating, and so on. We don't want to go back to having plumes of soot coming out of our houses from our coal furnaces, do we? It seems to me that it would be a lot cheaper and more effective to burn coal in base load power plants and install cleaning/scrubbing/etc apparatus, the cost of which would be absolutely prohibitive for individual homes.

DrDeke



If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 22755 times:

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 18):
However, it strikes me as slightly nuts to burn natural gas for base load utility power in most circumstances. As has already been mentioned, the fuel is not cheap. It also strikes me as a wiser idea to save natural gas for applications like domestic heating, domestic water heating, and so on. We don't want to go back to having plumes of soot coming out of our houses from our coal furnaces, do we? It seems to me that it would be a lot cheaper and more effective to burn coal in base load power plants and install cleaning/scrubbing/etc apparatus, the cost of which would be absolutely prohibitive for individual homes.

Nat gas might be better used for feedstock to make synthetic materials, and leave oil for refining to motive fuel and lubricants. As for coal, I am interested in the cleam coal/'carbon sequestration idea, and I believe a demonstration plant is being (or is planned) for the Long Beach area. Something on the order of 250 MW. If this works, it pretty much reduces greenhouse gas emissions to a minimum, and also has the by-product of producing H2, which can be used for other purposes.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13033 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 22752 times:

In the USA, although about 20% of electricity is from Nuclear plants, there are still strong objections as to Nuclear electricity generating or expanding it. In France, I believe that number is over 60%. The last plants were started up over 25 years ago in the USA, and a number of planned plants failed to ever be completed or even started. Some sites turned out to be in high risk areas for earthquakes. The events at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, that plants could be terror targets, the problems with handling and long term storage of the very hazardous spent fuel all work against it and creates a massive NIMBY attitude even worse than for 'conventional' plants, including coal, oil and Natural gas. Many USA plants are approaching or are already beyond their planned safe time of use. If I am correct, Sweden and some other countries plan to de-comission all of their current nuclear power plants due to the risks of them.
You also have the massive financial resources needed to build nuclear power plants today. Back in the 1980's, the Washington State Power Authority defaulted on it's notes to be used to fund new nuclear plant building with Billions in losses to taxpayers and investors. Since the start of nuclear power in the USA, those power plants have been exempt from their losses if something should happen - that it would be the obligation of the Federal government to pay for damages.
There is considerable investment in the USA being made by power suppliers and the makers with politicians and government agency lobbing to allow for new nuclear power plant production, even if people don't want it. Yes, nuclear power doesn't put out CO2, dust, fumes or other short and long term risks but some consider the risk too high vs. conventional means.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 22747 times:

I like Nuclear for an ALTERNATIVE.

Our primary energy sources should be water (sea and dams) and solar. Then wind (preffer offshore), Then Natural gas, then nuclear, and if it's ABSOLUTELY necessary (national emergency of epic proportions) coal. We also should be pressuring the PC industry, TV industry, and the lighting industry to come up with even cheaper (consumption wise) alternatives. Transportation is a HUGE PROBLEM and we REALLY need to get ahead on the curve for alternatives. We will eventually run out of JP8 (not in our life times but eventually) and if we don't find an alternative we are going to be screwed.

Needless to say, I'm VERY much for anything that can isolate us from being dependent on others for our needs.


User currently offlineWSOY From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 22739 times:

The world's most powerful reactor (1600 MW) unit is now being built at Olkiluoto, western Finland, due to start generating in 2011. A montage picture of the whole future power station area is below. The existing two 880 MW reactors are on the foreground.
The preparations for a third unit have recently been initiated on the other nuclear power station location in Loviisa on the south coast, which now has two Soviet VVER-440s (run at 488 MW).



more


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 22722 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 20):
read 28 times:

In the USA, although about 20% of electricity is from Nuclear plants, there are still strong objections as to Nuclear electricity generating or expanding it. In France, I believe that number is over 60%.

I think you'll find in the latest polling that a majority of Americans are either in favour of nuclear or 'accept it will be part of the energy mix' (which I guess is code for "Don't bother me with important issues"). It's very similar in Canada and is a marked change from 15-20 years ago. The fear-mongers are gradually losing the argument to the people with the facts.

BTW, for France the nuclear fraction is 80%. And it has the cleanest air in Europe.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 21):
Our primary energy sources should be water (sea and dams) and solar. Then wind (preffer offshore), Then Natural gas,

Sea power (usually called OTEC) is a very interesting possibility, but there are many problems to solve before it can be reliably deployed. No more hydro dams !!! They cause a lot of environmental damage not to mention they create large mercury problems upstream, as well as a (short-lived) but significant greehouse gas burst. The northern part of my home province has been ruined by these things. Natural gas costs way too much, given the current market, and the people who are pushing LNG in my view are simply insane. If an LNG tanker were to have an accident wherein it lost pressurisaiton/containment, it _would_ be like an atomic bomb going off.

If you want to look into sometihng that's available forever (well, OK, as long as Earth exists) check out geothermal energy. If you're going to build a new house, as I plan to do in about 2 years, that's the way to go.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 22718 times:

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 23):
Sea power (usually called OTEC) is a very interesting possibility, but there are many problems to solve before it can be reliably deployed.

I think what he meant were off-shore wind farms. I haven't heard of this OTEC technology.

http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/envhi...ean.pix/ioes.saga-u.indea-otec.jpg

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

Very interesting.

[Edited 2007-04-29 20:07:43]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
25 Connies4ever : I believe the Israelis have a proof-of-concept OTEC setup in the Dead Sea, and there is of course the one in Hawaii. I forgot to include in my reply
26 Galapagapop : Ted, if we learned anything from NOLA besides FEMA's incompetence is that messing with water sources for our own benefit hurts us in the long run. Ri
27 Post contains images Lehpron : That is because when most people think of nuclear, they either only think of fission or they do know of any other and don't bother informing themselv
28 Post contains images Baroque : Indeed, I tried to post along these lines in the Chernobyl thread and got deleted for my pains! You outline elegantly some of the basic problems lead
29 Connies4ever : Question for you, Baroque: I read today that PM John Howard has committed Oz to financial support for Gen IV reactor research. Since Oz does not have
30 Klaus : Incorrect. As the declining sources for natural uranium are mined ever deeper, the extraction consumes an ever increasing amount of fossil fuels and
31 Galapagapop : True but compared to every other alternative, this is by far the most efficient and cleanest. Oil, Gas, Wind, Solar, Dams, and so forth all require o
32 Connies4ever : Red herring, Klaus. All mines, whether uranium or coal, produce greenhouse gases. Oil & gas production produce greenhouse gases. Wind farm creation p
33 Post contains links WSOY : As far as the Finnish situation goes, there's a pioneering research project into a final disposal storage with deposits scheduled to commence from 20
34 Baroque : I think most current interest is in the thorium cycle, but getting reasonable information through the media is difficult because they don't have much
35 Post contains links WSOY : There's quite a bit of research going on nevertheless, see e.g. http://www.stuk.fi/julkaisut/tr/stuk-yto-tr196.pdf
36 Banco : One of the issues facing the UK concerning a new generation of nuclear power stations is the question of security of supply. With North Sea oil and ga
37 Post contains links Connies4ever : AECL actually did the pioneering research at the URL (Underground Research Laboratory) starting about 1982. This was a multi-partner multi-nation col
38 Post contains links WSOY : Thanks for the information! I think the word "pioneering" was put into where I found it because the aim from the beginning is to deposit the fuel the
39 NorthStarDC4M : ok im going to play another card here. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island both were water cooled reactors. There is another design out there that is much
40 Connies4ever : Very welcome. The AECL effort was a protoype and the only reason it actually got built in Manitoba was that the provincial government put a caveat in
41 Banco : It was a hobby of some of the staff to try to think up ways of defeating the safety systems and cause a major nuclear accident. The management would
42 Post contains links and images WSOY : An interesting diagram: load factor ("uptime") of nuclear power stations in various countries: (slightly dated) source
43 Baroque : " target=_blank>http://www.stuk.fi/julkaisut/tr/stuk...6.pdf Thanks to you and Connies for the links. Mind you, that one on the Finnish research would
44 TedTAce : I beg to differ (not to say it could be a primary source, but a viable alternative). I think the biggest osbtacle is adoption. 42" plasma TVs used to
45 NorthStarDC4M : Ok the question i guess is then is it the Graphite itself that melts, or is it the other components of the pebbles that melt... All this is coming fr
46 BarfBag : WTF is this nonsense about India's nuclear program amounting to proliferation ? On what basis do you presume such garbage ?
47 WSOY : I think there's a reason behind the fact. The paper is, as they say, "a critical report", commissioned by the regulatory authorities from independent
48 Connies4ever : Yes, I think we have to give credit where credit is due on this account. India used the CIRUS research reactor (see, Klaus?) to get their first real
49 Baroque : I think the trick is to have the graphite VERY pure. Other elements wreck its moderating effects. But you are right, graphite will burn quite nicely,
50 BarfBag : Connies: India never kept it a secret that we would obtain nuclear weapons. The stance had been official since before the CIRUS was setup, back in the
51 Connies4ever : Barf -- I don't think I claimed any such thing. I merely reported the facts. BTW, cooperation with India is back 'on' now for safety-related issues.
52 BarfBag : Canadian assistance is entirely unnecessary, and something we've done without for a quarter of a century. I don't see any reason why that's about to c
53 767Lover : There was an article in the Atlanta paper over the weekend about the Tennesse Valley Authority re-powering a nuclear reactor that had been dormant si
54 Jacobin777 : Nuclear fusion would put an end to most of this discussion....as its very clean and has practically an unlimited source (ok..maybe not Tritium).....ho
55 Galapagapop : Nope it can be derived from Lithium bombarded with Neutrons, and Lithium is plentiful. Actually it has the beneficial byproduct of Helium which in it
56 Baroque : Anyone care to draw a flow diagram of how the energy transfer from a working fusion reactor would be accomplished? I cannot see how to do it, but I w
57 Connies4ever : It will be interesting to see how Brown's Ferry 1 progresses. I cannot recall a reactor being reactivated after such a long down time. In a perfect w
58 Post contains images Galapagapop : Well for one keep in mind the vessel itself is lined with Graphite compounds that can withstand lots of heat, but also the main deflector is magnetic
59 Baroque : Ta Lgpgpp. Is not the heat generated within the inner torus or whatever shaped container they are up to now. OK, the walls are graphite, and graphite
60 Connies4ever : An interesting idea has resurfaced in Canada, after being absent from the debate for a couple of decades: nuclear energy in the Alberta oilsands. As m
61 Baroque : Well steam injection will help. At least it is a whole lot better than the 60s when apart from proposals to use nukes for canal excavation in Aus, it
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Turkey, France And Denial Of Denial posted Tue Oct 10 2006 12:38:54 by L410Turbolet
MAC Vs PC - Pros And Cons Of Both posted Sun Aug 6 2006 18:28:47 by Boeing Nut
Risk Of Nuclear War posted Sat Jun 17 2006 17:18:27 by Wrighbrothers
Humour In A Time Of Nuclear Crisis... posted Tue May 2 2006 13:38:41 by Windshear
Embassies And Consulates Of Iraq posted Wed Feb 8 2006 02:39:24 by AMS
The History And Future Of Scotland (for QFF Etc) posted Tue Jan 24 2006 13:24:39 by Gkirk
The Bias And Failures Of Islam posted Tue Jan 10 2006 23:14:08 by Ibhayi
Bunch Of Nuclear Questions... posted Tue Dec 20 2005 21:01:16 by Lehpron
Sick And Tired Of The Upsell posted Tue Nov 29 2005 19:33:00 by LHMARK
The Life And Death Of Belfast's 'Doris Day'. posted Wed Oct 12 2005 21:53:51 by GDB
In The Event Of A Nuclear Attack---- posted Thu Dec 16 2010 11:42:47 by ImperialEagle
Chavez Wants A Nuclear Energy Program .... posted Tue Sep 28 2010 16:13:16 by alberchico
Decline And Fall Of The US posted Wed Jul 28 2010 18:11:54 by TheCommodore
Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History posted Fri Apr 9 2010 01:43:21 by MoltenRock
I Am Sick And Tired Of...... posted Fri Oct 9 2009 14:44:39 by Force13
Pros And Cons Of Apple IPhone? posted Mon Sep 21 2009 02:16:41 by QantasA333
Legality Of Scanners, And Possibility Of Trouble posted Fri Sep 14 2007 09:22:29 by LAXspotter
American Athletes And Violation Of The Law(s) posted Wed Sep 12 2007 15:23:18 by UTA_flyinghigh