First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Nuclear Energy Really Is Good....
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/1/17
The problem comes from reactor design. After watching a few documentaries on the subject, I see that the trouble is that they took a design meant to be used in a compact and limited capacity - a nuclear reactor for a submarine - and scaled it up to be used for civilian commercial energy production.

In the meantime a nuclear reactor design that actually has a lot of safety features was scrapped in 1969. This was done in order to shift those monies to California. It was a purely political decision.

Here are a few videos that will help to explain why the danger in nuclear energy is not that it is nuclear, but that the danger lies in the reactor design currently in use and the fuel that is used in those designs.

Here is the Reader's Digest version of the concept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N9drOczcvg

This video is a lecture presentation, followed by a question/answer session.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODea3YaTmKw

This video is a documentary that explains the history, science, technological pros and cons of the two main types of nuclear reactor designs, and their primary fuels, and the politics that got in the way of technological progress.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6mhw-CNxaE

Here is a documentary about the U.S. government's experiments with Molten Salt Reactors using Thorium.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o

This is the website mentioned in the first video at the top of this post, if you want more information.

http://energyfromthorium.com/
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/1/17
The lowest enrichment for a nuclear bomb is 70%. You can easily boil water with 5% enrichment. With 5% enrichment the reaction requires water in order to keep reacting. If you remove water the reaction stops. It requires a larger reaction chamber because its not as insanely hot but its also easier to maintain. Spent fuel can be reprocessed and 90% of it reused with some fresh uranium added. The waste is barely radioactive.
6309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
Weren't we "going" to do more into nuclear engineering (and in the process make more nuclear plants) and then the earthquake in Japan that caused the partial meltdown of Fukushima kinda put that on ice? Cuz I think what stopped the construction of more nuclear plants was Three Mile Island. I'd think that being able to harness nuclear energy efficiently would be a large step forward to fusion.

But I admit to knowing very little about this at all.
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17

DarthRutsula wrote:

Weren't we "going" to do more into nuclear engineering (and in the process make more nuclear plants) and then the earthquake in Japan that caused the partial meltdown of Fukushima kinda put that on ice? Cuz I think what stopped the construction of more nuclear plants was Three Mile Island. I'd think that being able to harness nuclear energy efficiently would be a large step forward to fusion.

But I admit to knowing very little about this at all.


The problem with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima was NOT that it was nuclear. The problem was that it was the type of reactor that was used.

The reactor was designed FOR THE U.S. NAVY, for their submarines. It was intended to be small, and to generate a small amount of power. Someone scaled up that same design to a huge size. And this introduced all kinds of situations where things could, and did, go wrong.

The SAME MAN WHO INVENTED THE NUCLEAR REACTOR FOR THE NAVY, SAID THAT IT WAS A DANGEROUS DESIGN TO UPSCALE FOR CIVILIAN POWER GENERATION USE. He invented the MOLTEN SALT REACTOR FOR CIVILIAN POWER GENERATION USE.

However, politics got in the way of finalizing the development of the design, and we ended up with the more unstable and dangerous upscaled design.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima could have been avoided, if a different reactor design was used. This is what the push for Molten Salt Reactors using Thorium is about.
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
Yeah it's really healthy you should try adding it to your diet
runec 
40048 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
[Ad hominem attack removed by mod]



923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
I'm in favor of nuclear power in theory, due to the revolution in reactor design that has occurred in the last few decades, but in practice there are many obstacles to adoption.

I don't have time to go through all the links, but thank you for sharing them.

I'll share one too, just for perspective. It's on the projected cost of cleaning up Fukushima.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/world/asia/struggling-with-japans-nuclear-waste-six-years-after-disaster.html


400 Tons of Contaminated Water Per Day
3,519 Containers of Radioactive Sludge
64,700 Cubic Meters of Discarded Protective Clothing
Branches and Logs From 220 Acres of Deforested Land
200,400 Cubic Meters of Radioactive Rubble
3.5 Billion Gallons of Soil
1,573 Nuclear Fuel Rods

But the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric say they are committed to removing all the waste and cleaning the site, estimated at a cost of $188.6 billion.
30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
[Start of derailment related to runec's response removed by mod]
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
[Continuing derailment removed by mod]
30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
[Continuing derailment removed by mod]
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
[Continuing derailment removed by mod]
30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
[Continuing derailment removed by mod]
11413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M
Online
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
The by product of nuclear waste that lasts for thousands of years. The United States government has a poor storage containment protocol for left over waste. Also let say a natural disaster happens like in Russia and Japan, the long term damages are catastrophic. Please be aware the Japanese plant is still dumping tons of radio active waste into the ocean today well after the fact.

13315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
Sure its great. Trusting people to do it correctly isn't. I am looking at you, Japan, Russia and USA. Don't cut corners with your power plants.

As long as capitalism is around, I doubt that will happen. Gotta make the biggest profit margin bois.
7455 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
I want molten salt reactors and I want them now. That means that no water and steam is needed to generate electricity.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.