So anyway.
Lately I have been discussing the current energy situation with some of my friends. These range from the problem of fuel cost to providing electricity to our homes.
Nuclear power seems to be the best solution to the electricity problem. However there seems to be an almost instinctual distrust in it from many people. I notice it mainly in my more liberal leaning friends but it is also prevalent in many of my more conservative ones. I guess I really don't understand the issue. It is clean, safe, and has a very high output.
Most arguments against it can be very easily debunked, yet there is still a huge resistance to it.
What are your feelings on it and why.
quote:
Kegwen had this to say about (_|_):
From what I can tell, the main reason people don't like it is because we don't really have anything to do with the waste.
If we allowed reprocessing then much of the waste could be reused. Granted we would still need some type of permanate storage but with a large enough effort that could be solved.
Edit: I don't proof read. Naimah fucked around with this message on 07-25-2005 at 11:34 PM.
quote:
Kegwen had this to say about Robocop:
From what I can tell, the main reason people don't like it is because we don't really have anything to do with the waste.
This is not mine so I can't take credit for it but:
quote:
The fuel for a nuclear power plant consists of hollow rods containing pellets of fissionable material - uranium oxide enriched in U-235 for the most common reactor type - the light water reactor. After 18 months to two years in the reactor, there is too little fissionable material to allow the reactor to continue to run at full power. The fuel rods are then removed and replaced by new rods. This takes about a month.
When removed from the reactor, the fuel rods are extremely radioactive and are continuing to generate heat. In fact, about 1/2 percent of the total energy is generated after the fuel rods are removed. At present it isn't considered worthwhile to try to make use of this heat, and the rods are stored under water. The water can absorb and dissipate the heat, but the rods remain intact and continue to confine the radioactive material.After five or more years in "swimming pool" storage, the fuel rods can be moved for reprocessing or for long term storage. There is no harm in leaving them in the pools for much longer times, but then enough storage has to be provided. What to do next is causing a lot of dithering in the U.S. and some countries---but not in all countries.
The normal solution is to move the rods to a reprocessing plants. There they are dissolved in suitable acids and the constituents separated. There is some leftover uranium which is depleted in U-235, at least relative to fresh fuel. It could be put into an enrichment plant again, but apparently this isn't done. There is plutonium, which is suitable for use as reactor fuel. This is the best thing to do with it. The plutonium from a power reactor contains a substantial fraction of Pu-240 which fissions spontaneously. For this reason, plutonium from the spent fuel is not used in nuclear explosives.
The major constituent of the spent fuel consists of fission products. These are elements of middling atomic mass and many of them are still very radioactive and will remain radioactive for hundreds or thousands of years. The elements that are most radioactive decay the fastest, so the amount of radioactivity is constantly reduced. Still it takes about 500 years for the overall level of radioactivity to be less than that of the original uranium ore.
The 500 years is mainly a talking point. No-one would want to live in a uranium mine, but at least it enables one to distinguish reasonable concern from unreasonable panic.
After the fuel is reprocessed, it is important to keep the fission products from contact with people. The French solution is to make a glass out of the products and store the waste in caverns cut in granite. This will surely work. There is 1.5 cubic meter of waste produced in a year by a 1,000 megawatt reactor after reprocessing. The waste is then often encased in glass which increases the volume. In any case, the caverns don't have to be dug very fast.
The proposed American solution was similar, and the favored place to store the waste is the Nevada Test Site which has already a lot of fission products from bomb tests. However, this solution has been stalled temporarily by environmentalist politics in successive administrations and by objections from the state of Nevada. 2002 Note. A bill has passed Congress and has been signed by the President to overcome the Nevada objections. There will be lawsuits, but it is thought that wastes can be stored starting in 2010.
In the meantime American waste remains in the "swimming pools". There is no harm in this, and the fact that there is no physical harm in delay encourages more and more delay. There is the political and psychological harm that delaying an important decision is used as an argument against nuclear energy.
Actually the American situation is complicated by the Carter Adminstration decision to refrain from reprocessing and dispose of the plutonium along with the fission products. This decision is wasteful and gives rise to arguments about proliferation, because someone might get the plutonium. The theory behind Carter's decision was that it would influence other governments to refrain from extracting plutonium from their wastes. No other government has been influenced, but reprocessing has not been resumed.
Let me reiterate that the main point of these Web pages is to show that progress is sustainable. It is not to recommend particular decisions about how to sustain it. Certainly nuclear power can provide the energy necessary to sustain progress.
So, all this being correct, the problem is not scientific, it is outdated regulations.
quote:
Kegwen had this to say about Tron:
From what I can tell, the main reason people don't like it is because we don't really have anything to do with the waste.
I say we launch it at the sun! 
I dunno I'm all for it that or we enter a steam powered age! But I think we're a little past that stage.
quote:
New Age Bane had this to say about Tron:
I say we launch it at the sun!I dunno I'm all for it that or we enter a steam powered age! But I think we're a little past that stage.
Highly radioactive material in our atmosphere would be a pretty bad thing. That puts the sun idea right out. Where would the steam come from? You have to make heat to make steam.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Duck Tales:
Highly radioactive material in our atmosphere would be a pretty bad thing. That puts the sun idea right out. Where would the steam come from? You have to make heat to make steam.
I don't know I'm a retard remember.
quote:
Naimahing:
Highly radioactive material in our atmosphere would be a pretty bad thing. That puts the sun idea right out. Where would the steam come from? You have to make heat to make steam.
Mako.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Cuba:
Mako.
The planet's dyin', Cloud. 
There is very tiny chance that the nuclear storage could go wrong(Yuca Mountain if it ever happens) and if it did, a fairly small geographic area would be affected.
And I live almost dead center between there nuke plants. Alaan fucked around with this message on 07-26-2005 at 12:00 AM.
quote:
JooJooFlop had this to say about Pirotess:
The planet's dyin', Cloud.
There ain't no gettin' offa this train we on!!
In my area, the local power company sunk billions of dollars into building a nuclear plant... then had to close it due to the area not having suitable evacuation routes in case of a meltdown. The government (don't remember county/state/federal) bought the plant for far less than it was worth (rumors said $1) and mothballed it. Meanwhile the power company went bankrupt and got bought out by its nearest neighbor, the supplier for Manhattan (and I believe New Jersey).
Shit look at most deisel Engines, in the last few years more homeowners have gotten into useing them, they have mad a big jump forward in the small ones. I rember when my old mand had his dodge and found out they nolonger use glow plugs.
quote:
`Doc had this to say about Optimus Prime:
The main concern for many people about nuclear plants isn't waste storage. It's what happens if the plant breaks down. If a fossil fuel plant breaks down, they have to shut it down and fix it. If a nuclear plant breaks down, people think of Chernobyl.In my area, the local power company sunk billions of dollars into building a nuclear plant... then had to close it due to the area not having suitable evacuation routes in case of a meltdown. The government (don't remember county/state/federal) bought the plant for far less than it was worth (rumors said $1) and mothballed it. Meanwhile the power company went bankrupt and got bought out by its nearest neighbor, the supplier for Manhattan (and I believe New Jersey).
Oyster creek sells it's generation to Pennselvania and Delaware I belive. I think the most of the NJ power would be from those Co-gen plants up by Bayone
No one source can (or should) supply our energy requirements. What is needed is to reduce our energy use by massive efficiency increases, and derive our energy from many sources simultaniously. Some oil, some coal, some gas, some nuclear, some tidal, some solar, some biological, some wind, some geothermal, etc, but not one of them should feel our full weight.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Pvednes!
The only problem with nuclear fission as an alternative energy source is that it's no more renewable than the oil. It could very easily supply our needs, but not in the long term.No one source can (or should) supply our energy requirements. What is needed is to reduce our energy use by massive efficiency increases, and derive our energy from many sources simultaniously. Some oil, some coal, some gas, some nuclear, some tidal, some solar, some biological, some wind, some geothermal, etc, but not one of them should feel our full weight.
Yes, but it is a solution to the energy problem we are having now. It's not like fissile fuel is going to run out in the next 20 years or some such. It would be a generational solution that would buy us time to find the next solution. We arn't far enough along in our technological advancement to come up with some silver bullet that is going to solve all our problems forever. We need to solve our problems as they come to the best of our ability and allow for the steady advancement of technology take care of the next crop of problems.
quote:
Naimah Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Yes, but it is a solution to the energy problem we are having now. It's not like fissile fuel is going to run out in the next 20 years or some such. It would be a generational solution that would buy us time to find the next solution. We arn't far enough along in our technological advancement to come up with some silver bullet that is going to solve all our problems forever. We need to solve our problems as they come to the best of our ability and allow for the steady advancement of technology take care of the next crop of problems.
So? We spend multiple decades and many trillions on the big switchover, and a century or so afterward we'd have to switch again. Not planning ahead is the very reason we're in the mess we're in. If we spread the load, there's more than enough energy to keep the lights going and the engines running for many thousands of years.
If you only look at the short term, things are perfectly fine the way they are. But then again, if you only look at the short term, Blade Runner Land is just around the corner. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 07-26-2005 at 10:27 AM.
quote:
`Doc has a secret obsession with Richard Simmons, as evidenced by...
The main concern for many people about nuclear plants isn't waste storage. It's what happens if the plant breaks down. If a fossil fuel plant breaks down, they have to shut it down and fix it. If a nuclear plant breaks down, people think of Chernobyl.
Do your Chernobyl homework. They shut down something like 30 out of 33 security measures which caused the meltdown. It's virtually impossible for a modern reactor to go lollypop.
But, the main reason is definitely ATOMS
Also, Pved: Are you saying we would run out of nuclear fuel within a century? Jensus fucked around with this message on 07-26-2005 at 12:25 PM.
quote:The point is that people are still afraid of it. I know that Chernobyl only went up because they essentially shoved in all the rods to see how hot they could make the reactor. However, people (in a general sense, not "you" or "I" or "we" or "your mother's secretary") are still afraid that a meltdown could still happen. A nuclear plant was not permitted to operate here due to those fears. That is a fact. Nobody here was worried about where they planned to stow the waste. Just because something is "virtually impossible" (a modern nuclear power plant having a nuclear meltdown) doesn't make it "totally impossible" (a coal power plant having a nuclear meltdown), and some people care a lot about the difference.
Ninety-nine bottles of Jensus on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of Jensus...
Do your Chernobyl homework. They shut down something like 30 out of 33 security measures which caused the meltdown. It's virtually impossible for a modern reactor to go lollypop.
quote:
x--`DocO-('-'Q) :
The point is that people are still afraid of it.
Mostly extremely ignorant people, however.
quote:That's still a majority pretty much everywhere
Ninety-nine bottles of Maradon! on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of Maradon!...
Mostly extremely ignorant people, however.
quote:
Pvednes's account was hax0red to write:
The only problem with nuclear fission as an alternative energy source is that it's no more renewable than the oil. It could very easily supply our needs, but not in the long term.No one source can (or should) supply our energy requirements. What is needed is to reduce our energy use by massive efficiency increases, and derive our energy from many sources simultaniously. Some oil, some coal, some gas, some nuclear, some tidal, some solar, some biological, some wind, some geothermal, etc, but not one of them should feel our full weight.
Since you are getting energy from the conversion of mass to energy rather by combustion, it is trivial to create a fission reactor that creates more fission fuel then it uses.
These types of reactors are called "Breeder" reactors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
Noxhil2 fucked around with this message on 07-26-2005 at 01:09 PM.
And, as said earlier, Chernobyl was a disaster because they disabled 90% of the safeguards in order to get the most amount of power that they could in a low-power run. The reactor doesn't like to run like this, and bad shit happened.
I live near TMI, and near Peach Bottom. My DAD worked at Peach Bottom. The government needs to spend a couple thousand dollars on a mass-education campaign to teach people that NUCLEAR POWER IS F'N SAFE ALREADY. Hell, they can air the discovery channel specials on Chernobyl and TMI, stressing WHAT went wrong, WHY it went wrong, and what steps we've taken to make sure it doesn't happen again.
And I agree with Pved; Nuclear power (Or any one powersource) shouldn't be our soul source of power. Spreading it out is goodmmkay. It's like the old SimCity for SNES; you didn't build just a coal or nuclear plant, you built both next to each other so that if one blew up, they'd both go! 
quote:
Father McKenzie thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
My cities would always start to collapse under their own growth and break down into squalor and corruption, turning SimCity into Sin City. Then I'd get frustrated, load up one of the prebuilt cities, and send monsters and disasters to destroy them for the perfection I could never attain.
SimCity always thought that you needed a police station every two f'n blocks, and a mass transit system instead of actual roads.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Dave wrote:
I say we make a giant rail gun to fire the waste into the sun. With a railgun you either fire or you don't. There is no rocket failure or it goes off corse etc.
Life is just like Unreal.
quote:
Delphi Aegis got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Plus, you know, shooting trans-lead elements into the SUN is a good f'n idea. Let me tell you why a star collapses! Because eventually, it fuses all it's shit into lead, which it cannot fuse further! So, shooting heavy (Even radioactive!) elements into the sun is not a good f'n idea.
Even if it's a bad idea, that is not the reason.
Mod fucked around with this message on 07-26-2005 at 03:16 PM.
quote:
Delphi Aegis had this to say about Pirotess:
Plus, you know, shooting trans-lead elements into the SUN is a good f'n idea. Let me tell you why a star collapses! Because eventually, it fuses all it's shit into lead, which it cannot fuse further! So, shooting heavy (Even radioactive!) elements into the sun is not a good f'n idea.
Ok the sun has a circumference of ~864,000 miles which give it a volume of something like 3.5 x 10 to the 17th power. Or something like 1.3 Million times the volume of the earth. You could send the entire planet into the sun and not have any overall impact on the life cycle of the sun.
As for the safety of nuke reactors, we DID learn a LOT about what not to do from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Modern reactors default, in case of loss of control or the like, to shutting down rather than getting worse or the like. It's entirely feasible.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Delphi Aegis had this to say about dark elf butts:
Plus, you know, shooting trans-lead elements into the SUN is a good f'n idea. Let me tell you why a star collapses! Because eventually, it fuses all it's shit into lead, which it cannot fuse further! So, shooting heavy (Even radioactive!) elements into the sun is not a good f'n idea.
....You know before the sun goes even close to that state, once it starts fuses mostly Heleium, it swells up into a Red Giant.
Anyways, Some tihngs we do are counter productive. Like AC, whe have been progressivly moveing to "greener" Refrigerants, the latest that will be phased in in by 2017 if free of freon. Problem is these "green" refrigerants while are nice and safe for the ozone, are not as good at transporting heat. this lead to the electric car problem, A/C units and refrigeration units Cycle more and longer. The only real thing that has prevented this from becomeing a big issue is the Vast improvment in Electric motors in the last few years.
