Nuclear Power

[OdayJuarez]

So does anyone have a problem with nuclear power?

[deus-redux]

No.

Especially fusion. http://www.totse.com/bbs/cool.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/cool.gif)

-deus-

[Trousersnake]

I have a problem with nuclear waste.

[OdayJuarez]

"MOX

Main article: MOX fuel

Mixed oxide, or MOX fuel, is a blend of plutonium and natural or depleted uranium which behaves similarly (though not identically) to the enriched uranium feed for which most nuclear reactors were designed. MOX fuel is an alternative to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel used in the light water reactors which predominate nuclear power generation.

Some concern has been expressed that used MOX cores will introduce new disposal challenges, though MOX is itself a means to dispose of surplus plutonium by transmutation.

Currently (March, 2005) reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel to make MOX is done in England and France, and to a lesser extent in Russia, India and Japan. China plans to develop fast breeder reactors and reprocessing.

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, is a U.S. plan to form an international partnership to see spent nuclear fuel reprocessed in a way that renders the plutonium in it usable for nuclear fuel but not for nuclear weapons. Reprocessing of spent commercial-reactor nuclear fuel has not been permitted in the United States due to nonproliferation considerations. All of the other reprocessing nations have long had nuclear weapons from military-focused "research"-reactor fuels except for Japan."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel

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

"'Spent' fuel from commercial reactors still contains from 95 to 99% of unused uranium that can be and is re-cycled and re-used in some countries, but not in the U.S. although it once was. If fully utilised, each kilogram of uranium could produce 3.5 million kWh of electricity rather than about 50,000 to 250,000+ kWh(e) as at present (about 7,800 MWdays (thermal)/tonne (CANDU) to about 45,000+ MWdays(th)/tonne - PWR)."

Source: http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=724

[OdayJuarez]

quote:Originally posted by OdayJuarez:

Reprocessing of spent commercial-reactor nuclear fuel has not been permitted in the United States due to nonproliferation considerations.

A good start in the right direction is to focus on inefficiencies in the current nuclear fuel treatment infrastructure rather than fighting new reactors tooth and nail.

The entire US nuclear industry is being held at a virtual standstill because environmentalists are more than happy to whine about global warming, but anything short of a divine miracle in energy production isn't good enough.

You could build a perpetual motion machine out of cardboard boxes and they would complain it endangered cockroach habitat.

They'd rather wait waist deep in pollution than give their support to any proposal that doesn't have ZERO environmental footprint.

[This message has been edited by OdayJuarez (edited 03-03-2007).]

[Slave of the Beast]

Only in the sense that it's another non renewable fuel source, not a long term alternative.

quote:Originally posted by deus-redux:

No.

Especially fusion. http://www.totse.com/bbs/cool.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/cool.gif)

-deus-

I have a problem with it not working!

[deus-redux]

quote:Originally posted by Slave of the Beast:

I have a problem with it not working!

Ze people must be patient!! Ve vill make ze machine vork!! Ve just need more time, fur poken unt prodden! http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

-deus-

[m00fire]

quote:Originally posted by Slave of the Beast:



I have a problem with it not working!

It does work though. There is a fully functional fusion reactor in France (try saying that fast).

[Soda_Can_Sniper]

*VW commercial*

Tyme tu unpimp ze veactor..

*smash*

Ve joss drupped it lyke it's hot! Reprazenting deutchland!

[KwinnieBogan]

quote:Originally posted by Slave of the Beast:

Only in the sense that it's another non renewable fuel source, not a long term alternative.



QFT; Nuclear power is just a bandaid solution in the long run, though it is definitely far a better energy source than fossil fuels in the mean time.

Luckily in the US of A not too many people seem to have the "Cherynobl" mentality as the dumb fucks here in Australia do. It's proven to be the biggest obstacle, especially now that there are politicunts exploiting the hype to get their faces on TV.

There is only really one things I don't like about Nuclear power stations and I just realised that it wouldn't be an issue if we demolished the coal stations and built the Nuclear station in their places, using the same water sources for cooling.

I don't care for the Nulcear waste issue; It wouldn't be an issue if the government put 20 seconds into finding a solution.



EDIT: ..SOTB seems to make some really quality posts / holds good views.

[This message has been edited by KwinnieBogan (edited 03-04-2007).]

[Slave of the Beast]

quote:Originally posted by deus-redux:

Ze people must be patient!! Ve vill make ze machine vork!! Ve just need more time, fur poken unt prodden! http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

-deus-

Ve must tell Herr Doktor unt his team, zat ve vill need to produce enough power for ze probable provision of 9 billion untermensch by 2050. (http://tinyurl.com/j6fwc) Or in uzzer vurds...

Schnell, Schnell!!

quote:Originally posted by m00fire:

It does work though. There is a fully functional fusion reactor in France (try saying that fast).

If by fully functioning you mean current fusion reactors can produce energy at an appalling level of efficency for a few seconds at best, then yes, I suppose we do have functioning fusion reactors.

But by 'working' technology I mean something that is of some of practicle use now. Efficient fusion reactors aren't going to be seen by this generation (i.e. within the next 25 years) and possibly not by the following generation either.

[boozehound420]

we should just throw the nuclear waste into the deepest canyon at the bottom of the ocean. or find a spot where we can throw in a volcano that will bring the waste towards the center of the earth.

[OdayJuarez]

There's enough Uranium to fuel the planets energy needs for hundreds of thousands of years.

If they rationed it instead of making it free market, the world would scale back it's energy consumption as an adaptation to price.

Clearly there's still an issue of waste, but my concern right now is the fact that coal and oil are still in use. That's ridiculous when there are better alternatives that can get flown in, plunked down, and plugged in, in a matter of months if the obstacles were removed.

We could start by building some breeder reactors and recycling the "spent" fuel rods going to waste right now.

The only problem with nuclear waste is it isn't profitable to do the extraction processes necessary to isolate the individual isotopes.

Do hippies push for recycling programs that would turn nuclear power in to the greatest thing since sliced bread? No.

It's like they walked in to a dirty public restroom, got grossed out, and called for the entire thing to be closed down.

"It's too dirty!" "This restroom isn't worth the health risks!" Never even occurs to them to try to have it cleaned up.

[KwinnieBogan]

http://www.sone.org.uk/content/view/394/30/

[Slave of the Beast]

quote:Originally posted by OdayJuarez:

There's enough Uranium to fuel the planets energy needs for hundreds of thousands of years.

Source?

quote:Originally posted by OdayJuarez:

If they rationed it instead of making it free market, the world would scale back it's energy consumption as an adaptation to price.

On that logic the same thing could be said of oil production. Unfortunately economics dictates what is and isn't feasible.

[OdayJuarez]

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html

Obviously I was being imprecise. I think the entire nuclear industry is cynical enough about politics, and are content enough with the current situation, they've decided to wait out the "energy crisis" until the public inevitably comes crawling to them when oil hits insane prices. It's not worth drawing attention to themselves right now because they know the public is still not desperate enough to stop being spoiled little cunts and they are concerned the added attention can only be a bad thing right now.

Nuclear power is inevitably going to replace oil in the next 50 years. Environmentalists should approach the nuclear industry, and say "we recognize that nuclear power is the future, and want to work together with you to get past sensationalism and set the groundwork for a successful, and mutually benificial future now, before the financial interests involved become an obstacle."

Environmentalist leaders exploit the phobia around nuclear power to create an artificial crisis to empower their platform, and the time will come that this will backlash and hurt the environment unless they work to change now.

[ninja_turtle]

As a physicist the idea of nuclear power running out makes me laugh.

If you take into account only the nuclear material in the sea which can be extracted, there is enough to last longer than the lifespan of our sun.