minervx
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 14, 2011
Age: 21
Posts: 1101
Location: United States
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:02 pm Post subject: nuclear power |
 |
|
The merits of nuclear power greatly outweigh those of oil (soon to be extinct) and solar power (not cost effective due to subsidies).
I'm suspecting people will say Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, but please do your homework before you solely rely your opposition on those (fallacious) arguments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29318
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:51 pm Post subject: Re: nuclear power |
|
|
| minervx wrote: | The merits of nuclear power greatly outweigh those of oil (soon to be extinct) and solar power (not cost effective due to subsidies).
I'm suspecting people will say Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, but please do your homework before you solely rely your opposition on those (fallacious) arguments. |
The latest generation of nuclear reactors is far safer than the prior generation of light water reactors. Breeder reactors eliminate the problem of waste and thorium reactors eliminate the problem of producing bomb-grade by products. Also thorium is plentiful and there is enough for a thousand years. Why which time we may get decent batteries to make solar and wind production feasible for main line power supply.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
VIDEODROME
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2008
Age: 36
Posts: 1700
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a lot of concerns about nuclear waste storage but in some ways I can see that it is still potentially the better solution.
Also I wonder if to make that work we'd have to rethink transportation. I'm not that sure about electric cars at this time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
shrox
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 12, 2011
Posts: 3254
Location: OK let's go.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nuclear power, love it.
The waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant, a by-product from burning coal for electricity, carries 100 times more radiation into the surrounding environment than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29318
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VIDEODROME wrote: | I have a lot of concerns about nuclear waste storage but in some ways I can see that it is still potentially the better solution.
Also I wonder if to make that work we'd have to rethink transportation. I'm not that sure about electric cars at this time. |
Breeder reactors produce virtually no radioactive waste.
There will still be heavy metal to dispose of but that is a much more manageable problem.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
spacebrain
Snowy Owl
Joined: Jan 04, 2011
Age: 27
Posts: 159
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: nuclear power |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | minervx wrote: | The merits of nuclear power greatly outweigh those of oil (soon to be extinct) and solar power (not cost effective due to subsidies).
I'm suspecting people will say Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, but please do your homework before you solely rely your opposition on those (fallacious) arguments. |
The latest generation of nuclear reactors is far safer than the prior generation of light water reactors. Breeder reactors eliminate the problem of waste and thorium reactors eliminate the problem of producing bomb-grade by products. Also thorium is plentiful and there is enough for a thousand years. Why which time we may get decent batteries to make solar and wind production feasible for main line power supply.
ruveyn |
even the most conservative estimates put supply well beyond a thousand years for the us alone, and that is taking the rising demand into account(as far as that is possible, we always underestimate these things)
on a global scale its even more abundant
@ spacebrain the 3000 year mark is only for reactors that use lithium, few of the designs we are trying to get to work use lithium, they use deuterium and tritium instead, something we can get form water.
and even then
| Quote: | | lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[39] To put this in context, 150 billion years is close to 30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun.[40] |
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
spacebrain
Snowy Owl
Joined: Jan 04, 2011
Age: 27
Posts: 159
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:41 pm Post subject: Re: nuclear power |
|
|
| Oodain wrote: |
even the most conservative estimates put supply well beyond a thousand years for the us alone, and that is taking the rising demand into account(as far as that is possible, we always underestimate these things)
on a global scale its even more abundant
@ spacebrain the 3000 year mark is only for reactors that use lithium, few of the designs we are trying to get to work use lithium, they use deuterium and tritium instead, something we can get form water.
and even then
| Quote: | | lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[39] To put this in context, 150 billion years is close to 30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun.[40] |
|
Right now reactions using deuterium are implausible because they require too much energy to initiate the reaction and the output energy will not, theoretically, outweigh the cost of the input. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:05 pm Post subject: Re: nuclear power |
|
|
| spacebrain wrote: | | Oodain wrote: |
even the most conservative estimates put supply well beyond a thousand years for the us alone, and that is taking the rising demand into account(as far as that is possible, we always underestimate these things)
on a global scale its even more abundant
@ spacebrain the 3000 year mark is only for reactors that use lithium, few of the designs we are trying to get to work use lithium, they use deuterium and tritium instead, something we can get form water.
and even then
| Quote: | | lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[39] To put this in context, 150 billion years is close to 30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun.[40] |
|
Right now reactions using deuterium are implausible because they require too much energy to initiate the reaction and the output energy will not, theoretically, outweigh the cost of the input. |
deuterium tritium reactions are feasible and i should have clarified.
tritium isnt that hard to make it does require nuclear reactors however,
but the whole point was that nuclear energy from thorium will last for thousands of years and after that we still have several million years of lithium based fusion, nowhere near the 3k year mark(might be true for nuclear alone)
i agree with the sentiment that we should use our knowledge to engineer ourselves a better future and there is little point in waiting.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
BobinPgh
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: Apr 06, 2012
Posts: 184
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shouldn't this thread be in the Computers, Math and Science forum?
Anyway, I read that the problem with the thorium reactor is that the coolant is salty and corrosive. Perhaps someday a reactor could be made kind of like a crock pot maybe? For now, we will probably see more pressurized water reactors like the Westinghouse AP1000. After Fukushima I don't think any utility would want to buy a GE boiling water reactor. GE does make PRISM which uses a sodium as a "heat transfer medium". The first PRISM reactor will be in England to help consume the UKs plutonium stockpile.
Oh, and nuclear power is one of the interests of mine that other people don't want to hear about. Oh, how I wish I could work for Westinghouse! |
|
| Back to top |
|
DC
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 16, 2011
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BobinPgh wrote: | Shouldn't this thread be in the Computers, Math and Science forum?
The first PRISM reactor will be in England to help consume the UKs plutonium stockpile.
Oh, and nuclear power is one of the interests of mine that other people don't want to hear about. Oh, how I wish I could work for Westinghouse! |
Nuclear power is a very political topic, ask Angela Merkel...
Yup the UK has insane amounts of plutonium, good job the US likes us!
Let rip with the interest, plenty of people here don't mind reactor discussions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BobinPgh wrote: | Shouldn't this thread be in the Computers, Math and Science forum?
Anyway, I read that the problem with the thorium reactor is that the coolant is salty and corrosive. Perhaps someday a reactor could be made kind of like a crock pot maybe? For now, we will probably see more pressurized water reactors like the Westinghouse AP1000. After Fukushima I don't think any utility would want to buy a GE boiling water reactor. GE does make PRISM which uses a sodium as a "heat transfer medium". The first PRISM reactor will be in England to help consume the UKs plutonium stockpile.
Oh, and nuclear power is one of the interests of mine that other people don't want to hear about. Oh, how I wish I could work for Westinghouse! |
while sodium is corrosive it can be engineered around, in (later) russian nuclear subs they used a ceramic coating to prevent corrosion of metal pipes and it doesnt have to function at the insane pressure levels some advanced small form factor water reactors require(read toshiba 4s for an example), making contructiion of the pressure vessel much simpler.
i even think there are some steel alloys that dont corrode under direct sodium contact, the russians used a lead bismuth mix to cool their reactors come to think of it.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
minervx
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 14, 2011
Age: 21
Posts: 1101
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the people using this forum are one step ahead, intellectually, from most people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
shrox
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 12, 2011
Posts: 3254
Location: OK let's go.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| minervx wrote: | | the people using this forum are one step ahead, intellectually, from most people. |
ĦAy, caramba! |
|
| Back to top |
|
spacebrain
Snowy Owl
Joined: Jan 04, 2011
Age: 27
Posts: 159
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:54 pm Post subject: Re: nuclear power |
|
|
| Oodain wrote: | | spacebrain wrote: | | Oodain wrote: |
even the most conservative estimates put supply well beyond a thousand years for the us alone, and that is taking the rising demand into account(as far as that is possible, we always underestimate these things)
on a global scale its even more abundant
@ spacebrain the 3000 year mark is only for reactors that use lithium, few of the designs we are trying to get to work use lithium, they use deuterium and tritium instead, something we can get form water.
and even then
| Quote: | | lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[39] To put this in context, 150 billion years is close to 30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun.[40] |
|
Right now reactions using deuterium are implausible because they require too much energy to initiate the reaction and the output energy will not, theoretically, outweigh the cost of the input. |
deuterium tritium reactions are feasible and i should have clarified.
tritium isnt that hard to make it does require nuclear reactors however,
but the whole point was that nuclear energy from thorium will last for thousands of years and after that we still have several million years of lithium based fusion, nowhere near the 3k year mark(might be true for nuclear alone)
i agree with the sentiment that we should use our knowledge to engineer ourselves a better future and there is little point in waiting. |
I wonder how easy it is to extract lithium from the ocean. After I saw the movie Moon I was pumped to read about HE3 for energy, disappointed though, when I found it would be too hard to sift through the moons dust and extract it. But inclusive with all that was sending machinery up into space to make it a reality, lithium extrapolators could be set up right on the coast. Hail if its small enough just put them on the back of cargo ships. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
