Nuclear Energy? Safe or No Way!

[Racoon]

I did search the Physics and Chemistry forums using "search this thread" and I know this topic has been posed a few times regarding energy... but I did not find what I was looking for...

 

Well, 20 years ago Chernobyl happened! :hihi: :shrug:

and today there was heated debate about Nuclear Energy and its viability.

 

There are YES and NO sides regarding Nuclear Energy:

 

the Pro's:

* Besides 3-mile island and Chernobyl there have been relatively few serious accidents.

* This type of energy creation emmits NO greenhouse gasses >>> unlike all the dirty coal plants we use

* Technology has gotten better, and the President supports new modernized reactors

* We will need something besides fossil fuels soon, and re-newable energy realistically won't be able to provide for all our energy needs.

 

the Cons:

* Spent fuel disposal

* Potential for catastrophic accidents

* Nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons made with the materials

 

What is your stance on Nuclear Energy?

Good Idea or Bad Idea?

 

There hasn't been a new Nuclear Plant built here since 1977 I believe...

So, with new Technologies, couldn't we build super efficient and safe reactors?

Or is building more Nuclear Plants asking for big trouble?

[Racoon]

OK, here are a couple links:

 

This shows energy usage percentages in the US

 

http://www.nei.org/documents/U.S._Electricity_Generation_Fuel_Shares.pdf.

 

And this is a good site for Uranium production, designs, and other info...

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelnuclear.html

[Jay-qu]

I think there is nothing wrong with it, anti-nuclear energy people should stop using chernobyl as an example. Ok yes, what happened there is an example of when things go wrong but only when the people running the joint start performing experiments that breach protocol and go against safety regulations..

[Panjandrum]

Chernobyl was a faliure of reactor design, and shouldnt be used as a reason to scrap nuclear technology. The biggest problem the nuclear industry faces is the reliabilty and therefore predictability of itssupply. Because its always on, always at the same rate of production, its underpriced in the energy market, so nuclear reactors cant make a profit on the energy they sell.

[Pyrotex]

...the Cons:

* Spent fuel disposal

* Potential for catastrophic accidents

* Nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons made with the materials

..?

There appears to be a "safe" reactor out there. Has been for a decade or two. It was invented by the Canadians {:confused:}, which is probably why we Americans have heard so little of it. Can't think of its name. :wave: It works by having the moving coolant water support a "bubble" of air around the core. The core gets hot and drives a turbine. So far, so what? But if the coolant is interrupted for any reason--the bubble collapses and the core is surrounded by water which damps the reaction and pretty much shuts things down.

 

What is the name of that reactor design??? {senior moment}:eek:

 

EDIT: It was the CANDU reactor, and it dates back to the 50's. Safe? Well, it was safer, but not as safe as I suggested. It is also cheaper, more reliable, easier to operate, and uses ordinary Uranium or even radioactive waste! The trouble was, it could be used as a "breeder" type reactor:

 

"In 1974, India explodes an atomic device using plutonium from a Canadian [CANDU] reactor." Wikipedia.

[TheBigDog]

Our entire stockpile of nuclear waste is viable fuel for the correct type of reactor. You can reprocess until all mass is lost. Trouble is you need to enrich it to weapons grade plutonium. So politics not technology is the impeding factor. No new reactors have been commissioned since 3 mile island. And that in hindsight is almost a non-event.

 

I live in the shadow of the Perry Nuclear Power Facility in Perry Ohio. It has been online for 25 years. If has only ever used one of the two reactors. As I understand it the other is built and maintained, but not licensed for use for purely political reasons. A damn shame. A terrible waste of money.

 

Bill

[Racoon]

Our entire stockpile of nuclear waste is viable fuel for the correct type of reactor. You can reprocess until all mass is lost. Trouble is you need to enrich it to weapons grade plutonium. So politics not technology is the impeding factor. No new reactors have been commissioned since 3 mile island. And that in hindsight is almost a non-event.

 

I live in the shadow of the Perry Nuclear Power Facility in Perry Ohio. It has been online for 25 years. If has only ever used one of the two reactors. As I understand it the other is built and maintained, but not licensed for use for purely political reasons. A damn shame. A terrible waste of money.

 

Bill

 

Well, I live, as does Turtle and several other million folks, down stream from Hanford Nuclear facility. Their storage tanks are antiques! and the once beautiful and bountiful Columbia river is the suffering consequence.

It is a nasty scenario. Nobody wants Nuclear waste. Not even Nevada! :wave:

 

It takes like 40 years before you can re-use the stuff again, but you are right theoretically BigDog. :eek:

 

Nuclear is a viable option. I would prefer that we switch to cleaner re-newable sources, and reduce use....

Asia is building most of the new Nuclear Energy plants as it is now. Europe derives much of its energy from Nuclear too.

Coal burning is having a negative impact, and gee, tough emmision standards are ignored...or rolled back

 

I think a couple modern Nuclear plants might be OK. But put them in the middle of nowhere...

If something happened though.... May there be a God and that it helps us!!

[Boerseun]

Nuclear energy's the way to go, but not in the current design.

 

Incredibly interesting article at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html?pg=1&topic=china&topic_set=

- do yourself a favour and read the whole thing, only three pages!

 

The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor's been thrown around a bit as an alternative, but the world got scared of nuclear power after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The way the Chinese are taking it up, seems pretty good! Two leaders in this field today, China and South Africa - and it seems as if nothing's gonna stop China from exploiting it. South Africa's having a spot of bother from the greens - although the first modular reactor was built and tested at the University of Potchefstroom a few months ago.

 

Interesting take on the third page, using the same pebble bed reactors to thermochemically split water into hydrogen for fuel production for automobiles. So, you generate electricity without any emissions, and in the same process produce clean auto fuel! A win/win situation!

 

With us either approaching (or already on top of) the Hubbert Peak, I don't see any real alternatives...

 

Interesting article - give it a read!

[Kayra]

Boerseun, that was a good read, thanks.

 

I had been looking into these reactors for a while now, and always thought they were quite interesting. Hydrogen has such a small nuclear profile that the atoms almost never become radioactive. (the neutrons mostly miss )

 

The newer CANDU II reactors, while more efficient and safer then any predecessors, can not hold a candle to the safely of the pebble bed reactor.

 

Interesting note on reactors, ever since anti-nuclear protesters have gotten involved, the costs of the plants have risen 10 fold over what was estimated or planned. One particular group claimed on their website that they singlehandedly stopped a nuclear installation through 10 years of court actions, that drove the company into bankruptcy. On the very next page of their website, one of the reasons that they lambasted the designers was because of the massive cost overruns of all nuclear reactors since the 1980's.

 

Before there was such an uproar from these groups, almost every installation was under budget, and in the estimated time frame.

[Jay-qu]

Great article Boerseun.

 

More nuclear reactors = good for Aussie economy, since we hold 40% of the world's total identified resources of uranium recoverable at low cost! Just $US40/kg

 

This temperature ceiling makes HTR-10 what engineers privately call walk-away safe. As in, you can walk away from any situation and go have a pizza.

 

Now thats what I'm talking about! "Hey guys its not like the reactors gonna blow while where gone, just come down for a couple'a beers" :hihi:

[GAHD]

yeah, You should also look into lead-cooled "hot" reactors. Wastes are much more radioactive but have a much shorter half-life too. Also when the reactor is finished with it's load,the lead cools and sets-up turning the reactor core into the cointainment vessel for that same waste.

[Cedars]

Interesting article Boerseun. Lots of info about things I had no idea existed. I would like to see more after some of this is online for awhile. It makes alot of good sense and seems to hold much less danger.

 

I am torn between the good and bad about nuclear power. Its the waste that concerns me the most, rather than possible meltdown (cherynobol aside).

 

Someone did give me examples of how little waste is generated by nuke facilities, I wish I could remember exactly what he said. While he was explaining to me how this worked with Minnesota plants, I had previously imagined thousands and thousands of gallons of waste and that was simply not true.

[Racoon]

I am torn between the good and bad about nuclear power. Its the waste that concerns me the most,

 

Someone did give me examples of how little waste is generated by nuke facilities, I wish I could remember exactly what he said. While he was explaining to me how this worked with Minnesota plants, I had previously imagined thousands and thousands of gallons of waste and that was simply not true.

 

Here is some info on Hanford.

The way Not to do it! ie. Single Shell Carbon Steel Tanks! :phones: :ip: :)

177 tanks near the Columbia River!

 

Of course, Hanford is where we processed the Plutonium to drop the bomb on Nagasaki. :singer:

 

Current events:

http://www.Hanfordwatch.org

 

History:http://www.environmentaleducationohio.org/Biosphere/Case%20Studies/hanford.html

[ronthepon]

I know that its rude to jump into a conversation like this but I gotta say something when nuclear reactors are being discussed.

 

Someone did give me examples of how little waste is generated by nuke facilities, I wish I could remember exactly what he said. While he was explaining to me how this worked with Minnesota plants, I had previously imagined thousands and thousands of gallons of waste and that was simply not true.

 

The thing is, that though nuke waste may be a real small amount, the waste is very very radioactive and thus very dangerous.:phones:

All the info i've ever seen just points to the fact that though low to even medium scale usage of nuke fuel can be done at the rate it is for some time. But there is no easy method to dispose of nuclear waste on a large scale.

 

I think that the world should bring the focus on this topic to a much higher level.:singer:

 

PS: I cant wait for viable fusion reactors

[Cedars]

I know that its rude to jump into a conversation like this but I gotta say something when nuclear reactors are being discussed.

 

The thing is, that though nuke waste may be a real small amount, the waste is very very radioactive and thus very dangerous.:phones:

All the info i've ever seen just points to the fact that though low to even medium scale usage of nuke fuel can be done at the rate it is for some time. But there is no easy method to dispose of nuclear waste on a large scale.

 

I think that the world should bring the focus on this topic to a much higher level.:singer:

 

PS: I cant wait for viable fusion reactors

 

Its not rude at all, its the way information is shared.

 

I know nuke waste is dangerous, but I wonder if the picture the public has in their head is the same I had. Up until my conversations with this person, I imagined vast amounts of waste rather than an amount (after years and years of use) that fit into an area no bigger than a few swimming pools (I cant remember exactly what he said but 3 swimming pools comes into mind). Another piece I cannot remember exactly is if the total area used was 3 swimming pools, including the concrete/lead/whatever containers to hold the waste.

 

People hear the words Mountain to store waste, etc... and I wonder if the picture in their head is the same I held. That the whole mountain is hollowed out and filled to the brim with this waste, so to speak.

 

So anyways, after learning the bit I did about this part of the issue, I couldnt help but being brought into the opinion of we need to explore this further, rather than the we gotta stop this now camp I had been in.

[Kayra]

I know that its rude to jump into a conversation like this but I gotta say something when nuclear reactors are being discussed.

 

 

 

The thing is, that though nuke waste may be a real small amount, the waste is very very radioactive and thus very dangerous.:shrug:

All the info i've ever seen just points to the fact that though low to even medium scale usage of nuke fuel can be done at the rate it is for some time. But there is no easy method to dispose of nuclear waste on a large scale.

 

I think that the world should bring the focus on this topic to a much higher level.:eek_big:

 

PS: I cant wait for viable fusion reactors

 

Not rude at all. The more people that discuss an issue, the more we all learn on the subject.

 

Sadly, reprocessing the ore does not reduce the problem of waste, it only exacerbates it :(

 

The waste from the reactors is typically drastically more radioactive then the fuel, and contains new elements that are particularly nasty.

 

Reprocessing the ore involves dissolving the fuel pellets in acid to recover the old elements of uranium and plutonium, leaving behind a slurry of drastically more radioactive material that has 100 to 100,000 more volume.

 

Several solutions are on the horizon. 2 of note (I can not find the darned articles now :( )

 

Encasement: one company has created a lithic matrix (rock) that is non-porous, easy to create from a slurry, and will easily last the lifetime of the radioactive material. If the system works (and preliminary tests are positive) then we can effectively create a sort of radioactive concrete that, once set, permanently stores the material and keeps it out of the environment. Even physically breaking the material up does not release it into the environment. It looks to me like the pebble bed reactor is basically starting off by embedding the fuel in a similar matrix. long term storage of that waste should be relatively trivial.

 

Neutron Bombardment?: I think this was the second type, but am not certain anymore. The basic premise was that if you bombard the material with neutrons, you could stabilize the waste, and reduce the radioactivity to the point where it was less dangerous then the ore it came from. I do not know how much of this was hype, but the company had claimed they were were going to release their breakthrough process sometime near the end of 2006.

If they can pull it off, they will pretty much have a lock on a technology everyone will demand. I only wish I could find that darned article :(

 

 

Fusion Reactors:

Sadly, they will also have radioactive waste. Fusion creates a large amount of neutron flux, which changes the structure of the massive reactor itself into a radioactive material over time. Tritium is also used in the process, and is rarer element then deuterium.

 

I have my own ideas on what our future power will come from, but until we can master the manipulation of graphene, nuclear power will be the inevitable future power of mankind. At least it is an industry held accountable for all of the impacts it has on us, unlike coal or most forms of renewable energy.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Of course, we could always just launch it into the Sun. Not going to bother anyone there.

 

I'm actually only half joking. What is the lifetime cost of storing spent nuclear fuel for 50,000 years or whatever, vs the cost of launching into a position where it will take a nice tumble into the solar systems ultimate incinerator? Even given that we need to develop the launch system to do so?

 

TFS