gf beranek
Old Schooler
This kid is an amazing speaker.
Plus he supports nuclear.
Plus he supports nuclear.
17 year old advocate for nuclear energy.
- Thread starter gf beranek
- Start date
- Replies 78
- Views 2K
Treeaddict
Treehouser
I’m dumbfounded that people who are so anti carbon are so anti nuclear. Wind and solar ain’t gonna cut it, says the science. I’m all for nuclear. They regulated it out of existence over here. What a shame. Guess we need nuclear medicine shut down too? Here’s to hoping modular reactors will pop up all over this country and planet.
Burnham
Woods walker
I'd be a lot happier to see nuclear power if the safe waste disposal issue was solved.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
The tech has advanced enough to help with that. They have found ways to use the waste in several stages.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel
Get up to speed with these five fast facts about spent nuclear fuel.
The energy in nuclear waste could power the U.S. for 100 years, but the technology was never commercialized
The technology to turn nuclear waste into energy, known as a nuclear fast reactor, has existed for decades. Now, it's getting a second look.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
What is nuclear waste and what do we do with it? - World Nuclear Association
The small amount of waste produced by nuclear reactors has been managed responsibly since the dawn of civil nuclear power. There are several management strategies available, such as direct disposal or recycling in reactors to generate more low-carbon electricity.
world-nuclear.org
Treeaddict
Treehouser
I truly believe lithium ion battery disposal is far more hazardous and a conundrum than spent nuclear fuel. It can be used until it’s nearly spent and it’s so little waste volumetrically we’re actually dealing with.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
Indeed
Burnham
Woods walker
Maybe so...but just because li battery disposal is hazardous does not mean nuclear waste is safe enough to be of little concern. Keeping anything safely contained for over 20,000 years seems like a risky bet.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
Read the articles I put up B.
Down to more like 200
Down to more like 200
Burnham
Woods walker
I did read them, and that's very much not what I read. I will look again.
Oops, missed the last one. I will read it.
Oops, missed the last one. I will read it.
Burnham
Woods walker
I don't see that 200 year number in that last one?
Burnham
Woods walker
Or in the other 2 articles, Stephen. Sorry.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
Sorry, I am trying to find the 200 year statement, but it might have been one I looked through.
In the last article, few hundred was stated. Of the dangerous waste that only makes up a small percentage of the total.
Since the dawn of the civil nuclear power industry, nuclear waste has never caused harm to people. The popular misconception is that because certain parts of nuclear waste remain radioactive for billions of years, then the threat must be sustained for that period. However, this is not the case. Whilst remaining weakly radioactive for a few hundred thousand years, the radioactivity from the main component of the waste which could cause health problems will have decayed to safe levels within a few hundred years. "
In the last article, few hundred was stated. Of the dangerous waste that only makes up a small percentage of the total.
"Perceived health risks
Since the dawn of the civil nuclear power industry, nuclear waste has never caused harm to people. The popular misconception is that because certain parts of nuclear waste remain radioactive for billions of years, then the threat must be sustained for that period. However, this is not the case. Whilst remaining weakly radioactive for a few hundred thousand years, the radioactivity from the main component of the waste which could cause health problems will have decayed to safe levels within a few hundred years. "
Burnham
Woods walker
I'm afraid that it's not a compelling argument, but that's just to me. Thanks for the links and looking it up, Stephen.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
YVW.
To be carbon neutral (or close to it), nuclear can not be ignored and will have to make up a portion of the energy provided by everything else where it at least falls short..
Now, if we can succeed at fusion reactors, this will also solve some of our issues.
Fusion is close. But still not quite sustainable.
To be carbon neutral (or close to it), nuclear can not be ignored and will have to make up a portion of the energy provided by everything else where it at least falls short..
Now, if we can succeed at fusion reactors, this will also solve some of our issues.
Fusion is close. But still not quite sustainable.
A few hundred years ago tallow candles were the popular lighting source, horses provided transportation, and the European population of the US was ~400. Not 400 million, not 400 thousand; 400. Fewer people than are in a modestly sized school. A lot can happen in a "mere" few hundred years.
Treeaddict
Treehouser
Every single power source has risks and downsides. Anything is like that really. I wonder what the French do with their nuclear waste? (Could look it up, I guess, instead of wondering) I read they are powered solely by nuclear reactors and waste incinerators.
Really no reason that the waste can’t be transported to a pit/mountain with nothing around for many miles. Transportation would have to be figured out.
Really no reason that the waste can’t be transported to a pit/mountain with nothing around for many miles. Transportation would have to be figured out.
stikine
Treehouser
Yeah, it would be nice if it was that simple but inevitably there will be some escape into the water or otherwise.
Kaveman
Treehouser
We have a mountain like that. Yucca Mountain. The problem is that Nevada doesn't want to be America's nuke dumping ground. So lots of money has been spent on a hole in the desert that serves no purpose currently.
Man phuk Nevada, out side of the shithole that is Vegas, there's like half a dozen tweakers in the desert...
Marc-Antoine
TreeHouser
Not only nuclear and waste burning, hydroelectricity is a thing too, But the main part is nuclear by far.
We have a big facility to handle and retreat the nuclear waste coming from all over the world. They try to develop an underground storage elsewhere for the long term activity nuclear waste, in a deep thick layer of clay, but there are a lot of opponents to the project.
The transportation is well tuned with specialized containers for boats and railroads, not like the usual tincans of the maritime containers, but some massive chunk of steel, like two trains colliding together and sending the thing tumbling in the air with no damage.
Treeaddict
Treehouser
@Marc-Antoine Sounds like France has clean, reliable, affordable, and secure energy?
Have there been any incidents with nuclear?
I saw a statistic where more people have died from wind turbines than nuclear. The study showed deaths directly related to energy sources. It included: coal, NG, hydro, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.
Have there been any incidents with nuclear?
I saw a statistic where more people have died from wind turbines than nuclear. The study showed deaths directly related to energy sources. It included: coal, NG, hydro, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.
I'm all for nuclear, but there's a reason why we aren't building them left and right. As a fitter we work on them and build them, personally I've mostly stayed away from them thus far because the pace of the job would drive me insane, but it's good work. The reason why Europe runs different reactors than us is because they run what they call breeder reactors, where they use the excess radiation to enrich lower grade fuels to make more fuel and save waste. Russia and the us banned them back in the day because the upgraded fuel is ideal for weaponry, so there's pretty important treaties blocking that path, and with both of us at war with each other again that's likely not gonna be a good idea to try to renegotiate at the moment.
Also the plants are as safe as they are because of the regulations in place, yes its annoying how they do things, but they do those things for a reason. You are dealing with a source of energy that could catastrophically endanger human life and the environment on a global scale, just look at chernobyl and Fukushima, and we were very close at 3 mile Island. Used fuel is just one source of radioactive waste, you are also not considering all of the piping, valves, etc that have to be replaced periodically that are completely unusable for centuries because of the radioactivity. Most foundries even check every load of the incoming scrap for radioactivity, it's that bad, and melting it down will cause a release so they can't just recycle it like normal. The plants are very complex and take a long term investment to build and maintain, roughly a decade to build one brand new, and the guys who are knowledgeable to do this work are in short supply. Russia experimented with modular ones already, at least a thousand are currently abandoned littering the landscape just waiting to rust away and start leaking.
Yes they are dangerous to work in, when you work in the containment area you sign stuff saying you know that if it goes south they will flood you to save the reactor, takes less than 30 seconds. You wear badges to measure your radiation dose, and you are only allowed so much a year. Not to mention you're doing very heavy industrial work which is dangerous as is. But it is a very effective and ultimately safe way to make energy without carbon (likely our best current option), but there's a bit more to it than meets the eye. Once fusion becomes viable they will be building those as fast as they can, because from what we know they will be much safer in terms of waste, but they will still be a miniature star so that risk is still there. They will also be figuring out the engineering of them as they go, so i wouldn't get excited that they will be coming online anytime soon, and they will likely be much more complex and demanding on the materials so the construction will reflect that.
Personally i view biofuel advancements as the more readily accessible option, simply because the technology and engineering has been common knowledge for over 100 years. The us has at least 1 powerplant running on duckweed, which can double its mass every 24 hours or so, and they gasify it just like they do coal, so you could conceivably grow the fuel fast enough to actually run stuff. Nature has been pretty good at figuring out how to convert sunlight into carbon energy, i say we should work with her on it. Converting existing or abandoned coal and natural gas plants to that seems to me much more viable at the present in my opinion. They can also use that as feedstock to make liquid fuels as well, which is exactly how Germany powered their war machine in ww2 using coal as the feedstock. By gasification they break the hydrocarbons down into hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which is called syngas and was used to power lights and stuff before natural gas became common, all coal plants use this process to burn the coal. Before the oil wells burned the natural gas off right at the well because it was an unwanted and hazardous byproduct of oil extraction, and many places still do exactly this because it's not economically viable to pipeline it in on certain wells. By using gasification all carbon based feedstocks give the exact same byproducts, co and h2, and this can be used with existing or formerly used processes to power both electrical plants and existing modified engines.
Also the plants are as safe as they are because of the regulations in place, yes its annoying how they do things, but they do those things for a reason. You are dealing with a source of energy that could catastrophically endanger human life and the environment on a global scale, just look at chernobyl and Fukushima, and we were very close at 3 mile Island. Used fuel is just one source of radioactive waste, you are also not considering all of the piping, valves, etc that have to be replaced periodically that are completely unusable for centuries because of the radioactivity. Most foundries even check every load of the incoming scrap for radioactivity, it's that bad, and melting it down will cause a release so they can't just recycle it like normal. The plants are very complex and take a long term investment to build and maintain, roughly a decade to build one brand new, and the guys who are knowledgeable to do this work are in short supply. Russia experimented with modular ones already, at least a thousand are currently abandoned littering the landscape just waiting to rust away and start leaking.
Yes they are dangerous to work in, when you work in the containment area you sign stuff saying you know that if it goes south they will flood you to save the reactor, takes less than 30 seconds. You wear badges to measure your radiation dose, and you are only allowed so much a year. Not to mention you're doing very heavy industrial work which is dangerous as is. But it is a very effective and ultimately safe way to make energy without carbon (likely our best current option), but there's a bit more to it than meets the eye. Once fusion becomes viable they will be building those as fast as they can, because from what we know they will be much safer in terms of waste, but they will still be a miniature star so that risk is still there. They will also be figuring out the engineering of them as they go, so i wouldn't get excited that they will be coming online anytime soon, and they will likely be much more complex and demanding on the materials so the construction will reflect that.
Personally i view biofuel advancements as the more readily accessible option, simply because the technology and engineering has been common knowledge for over 100 years. The us has at least 1 powerplant running on duckweed, which can double its mass every 24 hours or so, and they gasify it just like they do coal, so you could conceivably grow the fuel fast enough to actually run stuff. Nature has been pretty good at figuring out how to convert sunlight into carbon energy, i say we should work with her on it. Converting existing or abandoned coal and natural gas plants to that seems to me much more viable at the present in my opinion. They can also use that as feedstock to make liquid fuels as well, which is exactly how Germany powered their war machine in ww2 using coal as the feedstock. By gasification they break the hydrocarbons down into hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which is called syngas and was used to power lights and stuff before natural gas became common, all coal plants use this process to burn the coal. Before the oil wells burned the natural gas off right at the well because it was an unwanted and hazardous byproduct of oil extraction, and many places still do exactly this because it's not economically viable to pipeline it in on certain wells. By using gasification all carbon based feedstocks give the exact same byproducts, co and h2, and this can be used with existing or formerly used processes to power both electrical plants and existing modified engines.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
Agreed.
