Request for Real Science Friday. Nuclear Power!

[Nimrod]

Plenty of ignorance of radiation. I thought it would be nice
to educate the listeners how safe radiation is compared to coal burning.

For example, Coal burning causes air pollution which is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths a year.

Nuclear Power will save lives.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nuclear power has the energy density to meet the demands of large U.S. cities. It is available 24 hours per day verses solar that is only available for 10 hours or less per day. It is more stable and more predictable than wind generators.

 

[Jukia]

Works for me. Athough there is the issue of storing the spent fuel. Perhaps we can store it at Nimrod's and Cabinet Maker's houses?

 

[The Berean]

Where are all the fusion reactors? :idunno: When I was a kid in the early 1980s I kept reading about how fusion is "20 years away"? Well, it's been over 20 years so where are the fusion reactors? :IA:

(Note, nuclear science has since discovered that controlled nuclear fusion is far more complex than previously understood)

 

[CabinetMaker]

Works for me. Athough there is the issue of storing the spent fuel. Perhaps we can store it at Nimrod's and Cabinet Maker's houses?

Why not refine it and reactor technology such that the spent fuel can be used. When it finally reaches the point where it can no longer be reused, we have Yucca Mountain and the salt caverns down in Arizona, if memory serves. The casks used to transport the material have been proven to withstand tremendous impacts, more than they are likely to see in an accident. So sure, they can transport the waste through my backyard!

 

[CabinetMaker]

Where are all the fusion reactors? :idunno: When I was a kid in the early 1980s I kept reading about how fusion is "20 years away"? Well, it's been over 20 years so where are the fusion reactors? :IA:

(Note, nuclear science has since discovered that controlled nuclear fusion is far more complex than previously understood)

No its not. Haven't you heard that it can be accomplished at room temperature?!

 

[Jukia]

Why not refine it and reactor technology such that the spent fuel can be used. When it finally reaches the point where it can no longer be reused, we have Yucca Mountain and the salt caverns down in Arizona, if memory serves. The casks used to transport the material have been proven to withstand tremendous impacts, more than they are likely to see in an accident. So sure, they can transport the waste through my backyard!

Since there seems to be a major issue with spent fuel I am assuming that it cannot be easily reprocessed. Not sure why.

 

[Nimrod]

Works for me. Athough there is the issue of storing the spent fuel. Perhaps we can store it at Nimrod's and Cabinet Maker's houses?

This is statement makes my point of the mass amount of ignorance out there.

Funny how the US has stricter regulations on spent fuel than the nasty chemicals truckers drive around. There is no problem storing the fuel. It is expensive because the US government is the only entity doing it. If it was privatized, it would introduce competition and drive the price down.

We can store the spent cells about 600 miles north of Hawaii in the ocean floor, Yucca mountains, and other places when needed. Or we can build a reprocessing plant like the one France is building and re-use the spent fuel into more power.

 

[Aimiel]

Even the small amout of waste nuclear fission produces is more than a fair tradeoff for the benefits of nuclear reactors: clean cities, inexpensive power generation, boost to US industries, profits will also help with fission as well as fusion research.

Side note: the company I work for sold a press to Los Alamos National Laboratory to press fuel for use in rod for nuclear reactors. And, before anybody asks: no, I didn't take any laptops and I don't know where any missing HDD's are. :chuckle:

 

[Nick M]

Works for me. Athough there is the issue of storing the spent fuel. Perhaps we can store it at Nimrod's and Cabinet Maker's houses?

Used fuel is not a problem. Build the facility and stick it there. Or make it in to more weapons.

The sad thing is, after Obama tries to bankrupt the coal industry, millions will be on rolling blackouts. Assuming he gets his communism past capitol hill.

 

[Jefferson]

The sad thing is, after Obama tries to bankrupt the coal industry, millions will be on rolling blackouts. Assuming he gets his communism past capitol hill.

Let's see, Obama trying to get his communism past all the other communists on capitol hill? Shouldn't be a problem for him.

 

[Sealeaf]

Nuclear power produces dangerous waste that needs to be stored 25000 years before it is no longer dangerous. That is 5 times the length of recorded history. How long has the oldest country managed to stay politically stable? A few hundred years? Our country has had, what a hundred and forty or so since the War Between the States? Given that anything humans can bury, other humans can dig up, are you willing to bet the lives of your grand children that no one else's grand children will dig up that nastiness and throw it at them? You know that if it had been available in 1865 it would have been used.
A dirty bomb consisting of "hot" nuclear waste packed around a core of conventional explosive could easily make a city uninhabitable or make valuable farm land unusable. The more such waste there is in the world the more certain it is that it will be done, and done often.

 

[Nimrod]

Nuclear power produces dangerous waste that needs to be stored 25000 years before it is no longer dangerous. That is 5 times the length of recorded history. How long has the oldest country managed to stay politically stable? A few hundred years? Our country has had, what a hundred and forty or so since the War Between the States? Given that anything humans can bury, other humans can dig up, are you willing to bet the lives of your grand children that no one else's grand children will dig up that nastiness and throw it at them? You know that if it had been available in 1865 it would have been used.
A dirty bomb consisting of "hot" nuclear waste packed around a core of conventional explosive could easily make a city uninhabitable or make valuable farm land unusable. The more such waste there is in the world the more certain it is that it will be done, and done often.

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. Take a look at Chernobyl. That place is NOT a wasteland that you doomsayers say it is. It is overgrown and overrun by wildlife.

Another problem you have, is U235. It is natural in the ground and is everywhere. If countries really want to build nuclear, after some time they too will have the technology for weapon grade material.

Another problem you have is the making of the dirty bomb. When nuclear reactors create waste, they can surround or mix with the plutonium other minerals like thorium to make the material useless. For someone to come around, dig it back up, then re-convert it, will be too costly. In otherwords, it would be cheaper to start from scratch.

Exactly how dangerous is nuclear waste after 100 years compared to the chemicals we have here in America?

The dirty bomb is a joke. Radio active material is a pathetic way to kill people. There are much more dangerous and effective ways to kill people from chemical, biological, and planes crashing into buildings.

Lets say, you were exposed to high level radio active material. How long will it before you die? The answer is anywhere between 0-10 years.

Case in example is the defector KGB in London. That man swallowed plutonium (worse case scenario). And even then it took a couple weeks to polish him off. Getting radio active waves via air will make death take even longer.

 

[Jefferson]

Nuclear power produces dangerous waste that needs to be stored 25000 years before it is no longer dangerous.

Reality check: The longer the half-life of radioactive material, the lower the level of radiation.

 

[Jukia]

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. Take a look at Chernobyl. That place is NOT a wasteland that you doomsayers say it is. It is overgrown and overrun by wildlife.

Another problem you have, is U235. It is natural in the ground and is everywhere. If countries really want to build nuclear, after some time they too will have the technology for weapon grade material.

Another problem you have is the making of the dirty bomb. When nuclear reactors create waste, they can surround or mix with the plutonium other minerals like thorium to make the material useless. For someone to come around, dig it back up, then re-convert it, will be too costly. In otherwords, it would be cheaper to start from scratch.

Exactly how dangerous is nuclear waste after 100 years compared to the chemicals we have here in America?

The dirty bomb is a joke. Radio active material is a pathetic way to kill people. There are much more dangerous and effective ways to kill people from chemical, biological, and planes crashing into buildings.

Lets say, you were exposed to high level radio active material. How long will it before you die? The answer is anywhere between 0-10 years.

Case in example is the defector KGB in London. That man swallowed plutonium (worse case scenario). And even then it took a couple weeks to polish him off. Getting radio active waves via air will make death take even longer.

Wow, it is hard to know how to respond to this. Lets start with the last sentence----"radioactive waves". Nimrod, suggest you go back to high school physics for starters!!!

 

[koban]

Works for me. Athough there is the issue of storing the spent fuel. Perhaps we can store it at Nimrod's and Cabinet Maker's houses?

How embarrassing for us that the French, of all people, seem to have figured it out and we can't.

 

[Nimrod]

Wow, it is hard to know how to respond to this. Lets start with the last sentence----"radioactive waves". Nimrod, suggest you go back to high school physics for starters!!!

Maybe the reason why you can not respond because the only criticism you have is terminology. Radiation would be the correct word, but I was trying to speak in ways people can understand.

 

[Jukia]

Maybe the reason why you can not respond because the only criticism you have is terminology. Radiation would be the correct word, but I was trying to speak in ways people can understand.

Actually, I must apologize. I think there is some radiation that is wave like----photons for example exhibit both wave and particle aspects. However, I think that nuclear radiation is for the most part a particle.
However, it always helps to be technically correct.

 

[Nick M]

Let's see, Obama trying to get his communism past all the other communists on capitol hill? Shouldn't be a problem for him.

They will fight over who gets the credit and blame. They did fail in 93-94 with many things.