First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Nuclear Energy Really Is Good....
30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/1/17

Dark_Alma wrote:

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.


That's the beauty of the liquid salt thorium reactor design, though: it does not produce plutonium or U235, and therefore cannot feed a nuclear weapons program (one of the main reasons the solid uranium fuel rod design WAS developed), and it is self-terminating in the event of any form of primary containment breach.

Accidents like Chernobyl are literally impossible with a thorium salt reactor design: if primary containment fails, thorium salt fuel leaks into secondary containment, where it spreads out into a collector pan; the physical spreading-out of the fuel liquid in secondary containment reduces neutron density below the minimum required activity to sustain a reaction, and the reactor automatically shuts down.

As opposed to a solid fuel reactor, where an accident can cause the coolant water to boil off (including explosively) and once that happens the graphite moderator rods can burn off, thereby allowing a runaway reaction (but not a nuclear detonation). Exactly what happened at Chernobyl.
runec 
39000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17

outontheop wrote:
Having another "I have nothing substantive to add to the conversation, but I have a compelling need to shit on anyone else's ideas even though I have no actual counterargument" moment, I see.


Do you really need me to explain how this topic is more complex than Oats is preaching and how making a proclamation like Chernobyl could have be avoided based solely off this Youtube video he just watched is silly? I mean, really? Do you? Because I'm frankly tired of doing everyone else's research every time someone get's an idea in their head from one badly edited Youtube video.

He could have just said "Hey, thorium reactors look promising, lets talk about it". But no, it has to become a conspiracy to which he now holds the answer.


outontheop wrote:
or have a suggestion for better alternatives.


Read a book? Learn the history of nuclear development and energy? Maybe go read up on the incidents in question and how they occurred? Maybe acknowledge that you can't possibly be making absolute proclamations on this topic based on one badly edited Youtube video by some random dude from Alberta? ><


39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17

mittemeyer wrote:

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.


At the very least, look at the "Reader's Digest" version. It's a 10 minute TED Talk video that boils everything down to it's essential elements. You will see the enormous difference between a Light Water Reactor and a Molten Salt Reactor. Accidents like Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island would NOT have happened if MSR technology was used.

Molten Salt Reactors, in general or Liquid Fluoride Thorium (salt) Reactors in particular is what is at the core of safe nuclear energy. We need to get away from using Light Water Reactors, and move to LFTRs
30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17

runec wrote:
Do you really need me to explain how this topic is more complex than Oats is preaching and how making a proclamation like Chernobyl could have be avoided based solely off this Youtube video he just watched is silly? I mean, really? Do you? Because I'm frankly tired of doing everyone else's research every time someone get's an idea in their head from one badly edited Youtube video.

He could have just said "Hey, thorium reactors look promising, lets talk about it". But no, it has to become a conspiracy to which he now holds the answer.


outontheop wrote:
or have a suggestion for better alternatives.


Read a book? Learn the history of nuclear development and energy? Maybe go read up on the incidents in question and how they occurred? Maybe acknowledge that you can't possibly be making absolute proclamations on this topic based on one badly edited Youtube video by some random dude from Alberta? ><


DeadlyOats posited a position. He provided a number of supporting documents that support that position. His supporting documents address counter-arguments, and use facts and science to support their assertions. They may or may not ultimately be 100% correct, but they ARE arguments in good faith, and they ARE valid sources. You sneer about how we should just "read a book". What's wrong with posting the sources we have, prompting discussion, and using that discussion and the associated crowdsourcing inherent to discussion to help find additional sources? Are YOUR (undisclosed) sources the only "valid" sources? If so, why are you holding out on us? Apparently a tiny bit of reading is enough to completely disprove him, so go on, then, PROVIDE SOURCES.

Nothing DeadlyOats stated was factually incorrect. Reactor meltdowns that have occured HAVE been due to inherent dangers from solid fuel rod uranium reactor design. DeadlyOats never posited a crazy "conspiracy", he just said that one reactor design was chosen rather than the other, and that there have been avoidable accidents because of that choice. And he is 100% factually correct in that statement.

Yes, the topic is complex. Maybe try actually addressing the complexities and the problems they pose to thorium salt reactors, rather than just arrogantly dismissing DeadlyOats when he has posted a supported, reasonable argument, supported by reasonable supporting documentation, in a non-confrontational manner. Or do you take it as a personal affront, regardless of the validity of the CONTENT of DeadlyOats' argument, simply because the source was DeadlyOats?

*edit ok, to be TOTALLY fair, there is one (relatively tiny) flaw in DeadlyOats original post: the LFTR design wasn't thrown out PURELY for political reasons, there were, in 1969, material science hurdles to the project, because alloys available at the time corroded too quickly in the design. However, the basic assertion is true: politics played a large role in killing the project. (and better alloys are now available that are up to the task)



12131 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]
12131 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]
15979 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/1/17
I've more or less always thought that nuclear power is the best thing.
runec 
39000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17

outontheop wrote:
DeadlyOats posited a position. He provided a number of supporting documents that support that position. His supporting documents address counter-arguments, and use facts and science to support their assertions. They may or may not ultimately be 100% correct, but they ARE arguments in good faith, and they ARE valid sources.


He provided some Youtube videos. One of which is in the spectrum of the usual quality he shares with us. I am not objecting to the technology of thorium or molten salt reactors. I am objecting to the "This could all have been avoided had the entire world just listened to one guy!" angle. Saying one design was "chosen" over the other and could have saved Chernobyl ignores a wealth of issues from economical to historical to technological to, yes, political to simply geographical.

12131 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
[Content Removed by mod]

Oh, and I am quite familiar with Chernobyl, thank you. My chemistry professor in uni was (at least in his estimation) the first westerner to visit the site, and spoke about Chernobyl at great length. He had an anecdote he liked to tell, about how at the time of the Chernobyl disaster, he was working at a chemical supply company, when he received an order from a buyer in the Soviet Union for a LUDICROUS amount of boron carbide, IMMEDIATELY, PRICE IMMATERIAL. Now, he thought to himself "funny, what would they need such ridiculous amounts of boron carbide for?" and realized it is a neutron inhibitor, and by that, figured out (according to him) that the Soviet Union must have had a reactor meltdown, before the western world at large figured it out, and WAY before the Soviet Union admitted it. Of course, he might have fabricated the whole story, who knows.



39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/1/17

catseyestiger wrote:

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.


Radioactive waste is a result of using Light Water Reactors. According to the information provided in the videos, Molten Salt Reactors, Liquid Fluoride Thorium (salt) Reactors greatly reduces waist. In fact, the final waste product is a form of uranium that NASA craves because it is used as fuel for deep space probes (the space probes that can go beyond the asteroid belt). This information is discussed in the videos.



Dark_Alma wrote:

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.


Yes. I agree. Tepco ignored many, many recommendations for its Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plants in favor of shortcuts. Those shortcuts rose up and bit them in the ass - hard.

So, we have to make sure that any kind of nuclear power plants built in the future follow all of the safety recommendations, and are up to code.

However, the nuclear power plant designs they used that got into accidents were Light Water Reactors. The inventor of the solid fuel Light Water Reactor said that the design was prone to many points of failure, because it was not a design meant to be built at such a huge scale. That design was meant for small reactors, like the ones in nuclear submarines.
30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
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]
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.