Wordle - daily game
- islander - May 29, 2023 - 8:36am
Come join us in Eureka!
- thisbody - May 29, 2023 - 8:33am
Mixtape Culture Club
- Lazy8 - May 29, 2023 - 8:02am
Helpful emergency signs
- Proclivities - May 29, 2023 - 7:14am
What Makes You Laugh?
- Beaker - May 29, 2023 - 6:40am
Outstanding Covers
- black321 - May 28, 2023 - 9:25pm
What Did You Do Today?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 28, 2023 - 8:56pm
Eversolo DMP-A6 streamer and RP?
- William - May 28, 2023 - 8:36pm
MQA in administration
- William - May 28, 2023 - 8:27pm
Stream stopping at promo
- William - May 28, 2023 - 8:18pm
Ukraine
- kcar - May 28, 2023 - 6:21pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - May 28, 2023 - 3:30pm
What's your favorite quote?
- maryte - May 28, 2023 - 9:12am
Counting with Pictures
- Proclivities - May 28, 2023 - 4:59am
Ask for a tea
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 28, 2023 - 3:29am
Graphic designers, ho's!
- Manbird - May 27, 2023 - 5:43pm
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today...
- ScottN - May 27, 2023 - 5:28pm
THREE WORDS
- oldviolin - May 27, 2023 - 12:52pm
FOUR WORDS
- oldviolin - May 27, 2023 - 11:42am
ONE WORD
- oldviolin - May 27, 2023 - 11:30am
TWO WORDS
- oldviolin - May 27, 2023 - 11:28am
Things You Thought Today
- Steely_D - May 27, 2023 - 8:34am
China
- miamizsun - May 27, 2023 - 8:04am
Animal Resistance
- Red_Dragon - May 27, 2023 - 7:46am
Little known information...maybe even facts
- miamizsun - May 27, 2023 - 7:24am
Guns
- Red_Dragon - May 27, 2023 - 6:57am
RightWingNutZ
- kcar - May 26, 2023 - 8:09pm
You're welcome, manbird.
- Bill_J - May 26, 2023 - 6:00pm
In My Room
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 26, 2023 - 4:17pm
The Lincoln quote ... wasn't from Lincoln
- Proclivities - May 26, 2023 - 1:19pm
Live Music
- Steely_D - May 26, 2023 - 10:51am
It seemed like a good idea at the time
- Red_Dragon - May 26, 2023 - 10:35am
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge?
- miamizsun - May 26, 2023 - 8:31am
A Picture paints a thousand words
- Proclivities - May 26, 2023 - 8:00am
The Daily complaint forum, Please complain or be Happy
- sunybuny - May 26, 2023 - 7:08am
Gas or Electric?
- ColdMiser - May 26, 2023 - 6:19am
Need help - anyone got a copy of Aristotle's Politics?
- lily34 - May 26, 2023 - 5:48am
Republican Party
- westslope - May 26, 2023 - 2:30am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 25, 2023 - 1:50pm
Word Association - temporary
- oldviolin - May 25, 2023 - 1:34pm
Florida
- R_P - May 25, 2023 - 11:22am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - May 25, 2023 - 11:17am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - May 25, 2023 - 10:27am
What's playing
- lily34 - May 25, 2023 - 9:17am
BRING OUT YOUR DEAD
- oldviolin - May 25, 2023 - 9:15am
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 25, 2023 - 9:03am
Happy Birthday!
- lily34 - May 25, 2023 - 8:40am
NASA & other news from space
- miamizsun - May 25, 2023 - 7:51am
The Obituary Page
- lily34 - May 25, 2023 - 5:17am
Musky Mythology
- rgio - May 25, 2023 - 4:49am
Canada
- Red_Dragon - May 24, 2023 - 6:38pm
What Are You Grateful For?
- Antigone - May 24, 2023 - 4:06pm
Fascism In America
- rgio - May 24, 2023 - 1:56pm
Graphic designers, ho!
- RedTopFireBelow - May 24, 2023 - 12:43pm
LeftWingNutZ
- Proclivities - May 24, 2023 - 10:29am
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- oldviolin - May 24, 2023 - 10:19am
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi...
- GeneP59 - May 24, 2023 - 8:16am
Manbird's Episiotomy Stitch Licking Clinic - KEEP OUT
- miamizsun - May 24, 2023 - 5:22am
Questions.
- oldviolin - May 23, 2023 - 7:59pm
Name My Band
- oldviolin - May 23, 2023 - 7:58pm
mood
- oldviolin - May 23, 2023 - 7:57pm
Museum Of Bad Album Covers
- oldviolin - May 23, 2023 - 2:55pm
Baseball, anyone?
- Proclivities - May 23, 2023 - 12:19pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 23, 2023 - 11:40am
What The Hell Buddy?
- oldviolin - May 23, 2023 - 10:53am
Floyd forum
- kurtster - May 22, 2023 - 7:26pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 22, 2023 - 4:31pm
Eclectic Sound-Drops
- oldviolin - May 22, 2023 - 1:58pm
Quick! I need a chicken...
- oldviolin - May 22, 2023 - 1:24pm
One Partying State - Wyoming News
- Beez - May 22, 2023 - 10:29am
Play the Blues
- thisbody - May 22, 2023 - 9:30am
Classical Music
- thisbody - May 22, 2023 - 9:16am
Jazz
- thisbody - May 22, 2023 - 9:06am
Climate Change
- westslope - May 22, 2023 - 12:52am
Australia has Disappeared
- haresfur - May 22, 2023 - 12:32am
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge?
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 24, 25, 26 Next |
miamizsun

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP) Gender:  
|
Posted:
Mar 22, 2011 - 4:39pm |
|
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: If the claims are true (99.5% efficiency, use of spent fuel from water-cooled reactors, nuclear waste with a half-life of 200 years, enough fuel already there (i.e. no new mining) for a thousand or more years), then we don't need to wait for fusion... or at the least it will give us another 1000 years development time.. Sounds pretty good to me!
There are some pretty decent reviews on Blees book on Amazon as well. I don't know enough about this subject and I'd like to read his book, however my reading list is six books on my desk right now. Regards
|
|
MrsHobieJoe

Location: somewhere in Europe Gender:  
|
Posted:
Mar 22, 2011 - 11:28am |
|
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:Georges Monbiot has really put the cat among the pigeons today with his article favoring nuclear power. Before everyone starts ditching the idea of nuclear power, take a look at this design and I'd appreciate if anyone could tell me what the drawbacks are.. (I know there must be some but the concept looks damn good to me. The danger in this is that I am neither an engineer nor a physicist so I'm not really qualified to judge) Yes, I read the article in the Guardian today. My only comment is about the title of the thread- why does it have to be "saviour or scourge?"- this isn't the X factor. It's a useful tool but not without some significant drawbacks.
|
|
NoEnzLefttoSplit

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Mar 22, 2011 - 11:15am |
|
Georges Monbiot has really put the cat among the pigeons today with his article favoring nuclear power. Before everyone starts ditching the idea of nuclear power, take a look at this design and I'd appreciate if anyone could tell me what the drawbacks are.. (I know there must be some but the concept looks damn good to me. The danger in this is that I am neither an engineer nor a physicist so I'm not really qualified to judge)
|
|
(former member)

Location: hotel in Las Vegas Gender:  
|
Posted:
Mar 20, 2011 - 3:04pm |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon

Location: Dumbf*ckistan 
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:10pm |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: huge manatees all over the place?
snerk.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming

Location: Powell Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:09pm |
|
islander wrote: one word: Balloons.
huge manatees all over the place?
|
|
islander

Location: Seattle Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 9:49pm |
|
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:The other thing that excites me about some of these GenIV designs is that they can be used to produce hydrogen thermochemically in addition to the electricity they produce. I know hydrogen has major problems all of its own ( transport, storage, etc.) but at least it's clean. one word: Balloons.
|
|
NoEnzLefttoSplit

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 9:29pm |
|
The other thing that excites me about some of these GenIV designs is that they can be used to produce hydrogen thermochemically in addition to the electricity they produce. I know hydrogen has major problems all of its own (transport, storage, etc.) but at least it's clean.
|
|
NoEnzLefttoSplit

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 8:06pm |
|
cptbuz wrote:I hate getting involved in these discussions but...
I have been inspecting nuke plants for over 20 years, to me they are a safe and viable energy option. One of the big concerns that people bring up is what to do about the radiological waste. By far the majority (volume-wise) of radioactive waste produced at a nuke plant is very low level contaminated trash. The good news is that over the past 20 years the amount of contaminated trash created at nuke plants has dropped significantly through better planning, the reuse of materials/tools etc. in contaminated areas. The source of high level waste is spent fuel. Sites have spent fuel storage pools, but they are fast filling up (due to operating license extentions). Dry cask storage, an above ground shielded storage 'pod', allows for safe on-site storage of spent fuel and is a system used at many sites already. Dry cask storage has created a public uproar at some sites that could potentially cause a plant to shutdown prior to the end of its licensing.
Many people argue that wind and solar are "green" energy sources while nuke power, because of the waste and potential of contamination, should not be considered 'green'. What these arguements don't consider is the climate damage created in the manufacture of items such as fiberglass for fan blades of a wind farm, or manufacture of the panels for solar collectors. Yes, the concrete and steel used in the manufacture of a nuke plant adds a size or two to the ol' carbon foot print too, but unlike wind and solar farms, the concrete structures of a nuke plant do not need to be routinely replaced.
Finally, ground has been broken in the U.S. for a new nuke plant @ the Vogtle site in Georgia. The hope is for the new unit (one of 7 planned in the US) to be on the grid by 2017...and one last thing, nuclear power plants are not run by baffoons as depicted in movies like 'China System', or (UGH!) the made for TV abomination 'Atomic Twister'.
I'm glad you joined the discussion cptbuz! What is your opinion on fast breeders? Are their claims realistic? They seem to have pretty good fail-safes built into them and the waste has a half-life of 200 years (or low level for hundreds of thousands but so low it's not a major issue). I don't know why we are wringing our hands looking for alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuels when this technology is just sitting there unused.
|
|
geoff_morphini

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 8:44am |
|
Beaker wrote:Buffoons China Syndrome  I'm a nuclear inspector Jim, not a proofreader!
|
|
cc_rider

Location: Bastrop Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 8:40am |
|
cptbuz wrote:I hate getting involved in these discussions but...
I have been inspecting nuke plants for over 20 years,
Nice to hear from someone who is intimately involved with existing facilities. Thank you.
|
|
cptbuz

Location: Sacramento CA Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 8:38am |
|
Beaker wrote:Buffoons China Syndrome  damn decaf!
|
|
cptbuz

Location: Sacramento CA Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 8:22am |
|
I hate getting involved in these discussions but...
I have been inspecting nuke plants for over 20 years, to me they are a safe and viable energy option. One of the big concerns that people bring up is what to do about the radiological waste. By far the majority (volume-wise) of radioactive waste produced at a nuke plant is very low level contaminated trash. The good news is that over the past 20 years the amount of contaminated trash created at nuke plants has dropped significantly through better planning, the reuse of materials/tools etc. in contaminated areas. The source of high level waste is spent fuel. Sites have spent fuel storage pools, but they are fast filling up (due to operating license extentions). Dry cask storage, an above ground shielded storage 'pod', allows for safe on-site storage of spent fuel and is a system used at many sites already. Dry cask storage has created a public uproar at some sites that could potentially cause a plant to shutdown prior to the end of its licensing.
Many people argue that wind and solar are "green" energy sources while nuke power, because of the waste and potential of contamination, should not be considered 'green'. What these arguements don't consider is the climate damage created in the manufacture of items such as fiberglass for fan blades of a wind farm, or manufacture of the panels for solar collectors. Yes, the concrete and steel used in the manufacture of a nuke plant adds a size or two to the ol' carbon foot print too, but unlike wind and solar farms, the concrete structures of a nuke plant do not need to be routinely replaced.
Finally, ground has been broken in the U.S. for a new nuke plant @ the Vogtle site in Georgia. The hope is for the new unit (one of 7 planned in the US) to be on the grid by 2017...and one last thing, nuclear power plants are not run by baffoons as depicted in movies like 'China System', or (UGH!) the made for TV abomination 'Atomic Twister'.
|
|
laozilover

Location: K Town (Kenosha, Wisconsin) Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 4:15am |
|
The discussion so far seems pretty reasonable. Is this RP??? I read Beaker's link and the Wikipedia article on the IFR. Looks like the IFR wins on points. Nice to see both PEAK OIL and Global Warming taken seriously, even tacitly.
Thanks for the topic, Beaker.
|
|
NoEnzLefttoSplit

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 7, 2009 - 9:33pm |
|
miamizsun wrote: far out.. they are pretty amazing claims! Here's the wiki entry on it.I remember the fast breeder project getting cancelled in Germany in the nineties although I do seem to remember that a lot of the reservations were technical rather than political. Still, I'm with James Lovelock, I think it is high-time we put nuclear power back on the agenda. It is certainly not the only solution and I would love investment in "cleaner" technologies to mushroom, like that osmosis power plant Hazzeswede posted a link to, and solar, but time is running out and we have to get away from fossil fuels and the faster the better. Unfortunately, Lazy is also right when he describes the Luddites behind the anti-nuclear movement back in the day. I remember it well. Very very few in the movement actually knew what they were talking about and 3 mile island and Chernobyl sealed the fate of the entire industry in the public's eye. A great shame because it has cost us a good 20 years of pursuing technologies like this. If the claims are true (99.5% efficiency, use of spent fuel from water-cooled reactors, nuclear waste with a half-life of 200 years, enough fuel already there (i.e. no new mining) for a thousand or more years), then we don't need to wait for fusion... or at the least it will give us another 1000 years development time.. Sounds pretty good to me!
|
|
miamizsun

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP) Gender:  
|
|
islander

Location: Seattle Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 7, 2009 - 5:39pm |
|
dionysius wrote:
I just want a bigger effort made towards fusion (with solar, geothermal and wind energy utilized as stopgaps until such time as it is feasible). Then we can abandon the poisonous carbon and fission technologies altogether.
okay, and reasonable. But given the demand, and the increase in demand between now and when when fusion becomes viable, how do we support the increased system load? Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal ect. will help, but even with support that they are not likely to get near term they are only pieces of the whole solution, that also include conservation and systemic shifts in usage. That really leaves fission and fossil as the only proven things on the table that can scale to meet the demands. I"m all for the experimental too, but we need a plan B (or really a plan A while we hope one of the experiments pans out). And since we know that fossil just exacerbates the problems... well, that leaves nuclear - which is pretty well proven and would probably be saving our bacon already had we not had such high profile problems as 3 mile island and Chernobyl.
|
|
dionysius

Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 7, 2009 - 5:29pm |
|
islander wrote: I like this analogy. But I'm surprised that given your view of climate change (a correct one I think) that you are worried about this. We have a far better chance of figuring out what to do with/how to properly label nuclear waste if we use this tool to fix the larger climate problem. Else the ensuing climate catastrophe/flood/famine/riots/ handfull will render our current nuclear sites (and possibly melted down nuclear plants, and piles of nuclear weapons) just as much a future landmine for whatever species manages to figure out how to survive the new environment we create.
I think it's even more shortsighted to wait for a better solution while plunging headlong into the void. Do what we can when we can.
I just want a bigger effort made towards fusion (with solar, geothermal and wind energy utilized as stopgaps until such time as it is feasible). Then we can abandon the poisonous carbon and fission technologies altogether.
|
|
islander

Location: Seattle Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 7, 2009 - 5:26pm |
|
dionysius wrote:The rewards of a successful R&D effort towards commercially viable fusion would indeed be very great (some of that research is going on right here at UT Austin). But the economics of this R&D still just don't make sense for private utilities and energy companies. Exxon-Mobil and BP would just not be making the same kind of record profits selling ultracheap fusion kilowatts than it would selling post-peak oil to the carbon junkie market. Why throw their money after it. when the public sector is doing the work for them? As one might expect, the international public/university consortium ITER in France are out front in fusion research, and might have something online by 2050. Still a wait, but within the lifetimes of many now living. This will change the game entirely.
And I'm astonished to see that you think storage of fission waste is mostly political. Even finding the right geology to store waste for millennia and millennia is a challenge, and it will remain a poisonous reminder of our short-sightedness into a distant future we can't even imagine. This would be like stepping on landmines left by the Sumerians, only over an even greater timeline.
I like this analogy. But I'm surprised that given your view of climate change (a correct one I think) that you are worried about this. We have a far better chance of figuring out what to do with/how to properly label nuclear waste if we use this tool to fix the larger climate problem. Else the ensuing climate catastrophe/flood/famine/riots/ handfull will render our current nuclear sites (and possibly melted down nuclear plants, and piles of nuclear weapons) just as much a future landmine for whatever species manages to figure out how to survive the new environment we create. I think it's even more shortsighted to wait for a better solution while plunging headlong into the void. Do what we can when we can.
|
|
Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 7, 2009 - 2:45pm |
|
dionysius wrote:The rewards of a successful R&D effort towards commercially viable fusion would indeed be very great (some of that research is going on right here at UT Austin). But the economics of this R&D still just don't make sense for private utilities and energy companies. Exxon-Mobil and BP would just not be making the same kind of record profits selling ultracheap fusion kilowatts than it would selling post-peak oil to the carbon junkie market. Why throw their money after it. when the public sector is doing the work for them? As one might expect, the international public/university consortium ITER in France are out front in fusion research, and might have something online by 2050. Still a wait, but within the lifetimes of many now living. This will change the game entirely. Assuming it works, or that the eventual solution (if any) looks even remotely like what ITER is doing. ITER will not generate usable power, it's an experimental setup. Those involved are happy just to be working on the problem; if it doesn't ultimately produce anything usable they had their fun and still got paid. This is the difference between basic research (which the for-profit private sector does poorly) and people driven by curiosity rather than profit: when your own money is on the line you invest it where you think it has a decent chance of paying off. Real discoveries seldom happen on a schedule. And that post-peak oil market is going to have a lot fewer customers if somebody can make fusion work. But I suppose if that day comes we can always subsidize the oil industry as a pointless, inefficient money-bleeding sop thrown to senators from oil states. Like Amtrak or the sugar industry. And I'm astonished to see that you think storage of fission waste is mostly political. Even finding the right geology to store waste for millennia and millennia is a challenge, and it will remain a poisonous reminder of our short-sightedness into a distant future we can't even imagine. This would be like stepping on landmines left by the Sumerians, only over an even greater timeline.
The really dangerous hard radiation-emitting waste is actually a small fraction of the waste produced by nuclear power; most of it is low-level stuff contaminated in maintenance and use (like used bunny suits). For instance the beta sources I work with emit so little radiation (beta particles—you can stop all but an undetectable fraction with two sheets of paper or about a foot of air) that they could be legally sold as food. The health risks associated with that level and type of radiation is miniscule, but since the sources are classified as hazardous they have to be handled with extreme and very expensive care. Stuff like this constitutes the bulk of the radioactive waste we're talking about. Yes, it will be radioactive for thousands of years, but so will some of the soil it's buried in. You could probably walk around the house you're living in or a national park and find completely natural sources that give off more radiation than a ton of this stuff buried a foot underground. And we have lots of places we could put it a lot farther away from humans than that. We have some good solutions for stabilization and storage (vitrification and burial in offshore subduction zones, for instance) but in the current political climate they can't be used. Regardless of how good a solution we come up with it will meet reflexive opposition—there are people simply unalterably opposed to anything to do with nuclear power. That's not a technical problem, but it remains the single biggest obstacle. Nonetheless waste raises the cost and complexity of fission power. If we can find a way to fusion power (or some other holy grail technology) then we can stop generating that waste. If we can't then we need fission anyway and we need to start using it. It already works.
|
|
|