Nuclear Power!

[KitKat]

Nuclear power gets such a bad rap. Due to incidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, there is a significant amount of public fear and paranoia surrounding this subject. Movies like Spiderman 2 only serve to fuel these irrational fears and propagate misconceptions about what nuclear power actually is and what the actual dangers are. The reality is that nuclear power is one of the cheapest and cleanest energy sources available. I could talk on and on, but let's here from you guys first. What do you think of nuclear power? What are your fears? What would you like to know? Anything from how a basic nuclear reaction works, to what the inside of a reactor looks like, to how much radiation exists naturally in our environment. Maybe Kairi will come help answer some questions too. She's actually specializing in nuclear engineering, whereas I've only taken a couple courses. So come and discuss and become more informed about nuclear energy!

[ChaosK]

i say nuke=great energy but its kinda risky...i mean i know everybody working at a nuclear plant is highly trained and on task but if just one dude does something wrong, it could fuck up a whole city. thats why i think nuke=good but try to find some remote place to acctually perform nuclear engineering and maybe just get it here somehow...i dunno those shots i had today are kinda messing with my head.

[Assassin]

Originally posted by: KitKat
What would you like to know? Anything from how a basic nuclear reaction works, to what the inside of a reactor looks like, to how much radiation exists naturally in our environment.

If i were to ask those questions, the FBI would bust down my door and i'd get to go on a nice long vacation in Cuba i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

[Mite Gai]

The problem I have with it is the danger of someone messing up and also the fact that the leftover nuclear waste has to be disposed of somehow and the half-life on it is extremely long (learned this in high school, I think it was like 4,000 years or something). Though I do not know how much radiation exists in our environment so I am unsure if it is bad or not.

[Board of Command]

Nuclear reactors are actually very safe, much safer than what most people think. Meltdowns are caused by mechanical problems, not human errors. It's not like in The Simpsons where everyone goes around carrying barrels of plutonium. Practically everything is automated and the controlled process of fission is very safe. Qualified workers nowadays don't "mess up".

The real and only problems with nuclear power is the waste it produces and the decommissioning of nuclear reactors. It costs a fortune to decommission a nuclear reactor, and since modern reactors only last about 40 years each (maybe just for CANDU, not sure about regular plants), it costs us taxpayers, not the power company themself. Plus, decommissioning nuclear reactors also means you gotta get rid of the waste, and again, that's a pain in the ass.

That's my take on nuclear power.

[Assassin]

Just throw it down a volcano. Let the planet's core deal with it.

[masamuneehs]

The Ruskies seem to think that nuclear power is good... for everyone to have....

Russia, Iran Eye Deal On Nuclear Power Program
http://www.sptimes.ru/story/16026

Russia may corporatize nuclear power utility by year's end
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20051108/42022996.html

Russia to build Chinese nuclear, thermal power plants
http://www.new-europe.info/new...playnews.asp?id=116941 (http://www.new-europe.info/new-europe/displaynews.asp?id=116941)

I think it (nuclear power) can do alot of good, but its potential to be harnassed as a weapon should never be taken lightly.

[Assertn]

We would certainly wish we had more nuclear plants if we run out of gas for petroleum plants....

I heard a stat that it's possible for gas quantities to be exhausted in a matter of a few years...and even planning for it now, there wouldn't be enough time to establish alternative sources of power (like nuclear) to sustain the cities we have now

[Kraco]

From what I have heard, nuclear power isn't exceptionally cheap. The price of nuclear electricity is just competitive enough to make building the plants a viable alternative (if the political state of the country supports nuclear power). Of course it's much cheaper than wind or solar powers, or other "green" power sources that unfortunately just couldn't run Gotwoot servers in the near future (not counting hydroelectric power, of course, which is probably the most competitive real power source).

Well, I currently support nuclear power. Mainly because it helps cut down greenhouse gas emissions and it lessens dependency on fossil fuels. I just hope they get fusion power to actually work one day...

[010577]

Originally posted by: Kraco
From what I have heard, nuclear power isn't exceptionally cheap. The price of nuclear electricity is just competitive enough to make building the plants a viable alternative (if the political state of the country supports nuclear power). Of course it's much cheaper than wind or solar powers, or other "green" power sources that unfortunately just couldn't run Gotwoot servers in the near future (not counting hydroelectric power, of course, which is probably the most competitive real power source).

Well, I currently support nuclear power. Mainly because it helps cut down greenhouse gas emissions and it lessens dependency on fossil fuels. I just hope they get fusion power to actually work one day...

agreed. nuclear power is not cheap... BOC is right about the plants too...

the fact is it can be pretty environmental too which is good... using ISL techniques to harvest (In-situ leach... don't worry about it not very interesting) and nuclear power is still fairly hard to refine ...

there is such thing that the nuclear "waste", called tails, can be used to produce energy and if we have a good balance of both (i.e. enough tail processing but not too many) we can get it going

[KitKat]

In response to Chaoskiddo, you don't really need to worry about human error causing an explosion or spreading radiation over a city these days. Like BoC said, nuclear power is extremely safe. Each plant will generally have 3 independent shutdown systems that will come into effect the minute any abnormal or potentiall dangerous conditions are detected. For instance, in CANDU reactors the control rods are held up using electro-magnetic force. The minute the power is cut, there is nothing holding up the rods and they drop down and stop the reaction. This isn't to say that accidents can't happen, but the probability of a nuclear disaster is extremely low.

BoC is also spot on about the decommissioning. Right now in Canada, we have several reactors that are out of date and should really be shut down soon, but it's cheaper to keep them running than to take them out of service. Radioactive waste is probably the biggest problem facing the nuclear industry at the moment. Some of the waste produced has a relatively short half life, but other elements will stay radioactive for thousands of years. Still, compare this to extremely toxic elements that get casually thrown into landfills. They will never cease to be toxic, yet we don't give much thought to their disposal. Right now, Sweden is the best at disposing of their nuclear waste, sealing it in a giant underground vault beneath a lake, filled with concrete and neutron-blocking materials.

010577 is right about the waste being able to be recycled. We have the capability to process spent fuel and re-enrich it. Also, CANDU reactors require a lower enrichment of uranium than light water reactors, so we can actually use the spent fuel from the US in our reactors here.

In terms of cost, the only reason nuclear isn't the cheapest is because fossil fuels are so cheap. We've had access to a relatively cheap and abundant supply of fossil fuels, but that's starting to change. People are starting to realize that the supply is finite, and prices are starting to climb. If you want to check out a really great cost analysis which takes quite a few different factors into account, check out this website: http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

The thing is, we can't phase out fossil fuel power plants completely. Nuclear reactors are quite expensive to turn on and off, therefore ideally we want to keep them running all the time. Power demand however, fluctuates quite a bit, peaking during the day and falling to a low at night. So it's best to use nuclear for the baseload and gas-fired plants to meet the daytime demand since these are easy and fast to fire up. The worry is that our supply of fossil fuel will be exhausted before we even have enough nuclear plants to meet the baseload requirement.

[Assassin]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
We would certainly wish we had more nuclear plants if we run out of gas for petroleum plants....

I heard a stat that it's possible for gas quantities to be exhausted in a matter of a few years...and even planning for it now, there wouldn't be enough time to establish alternative sources of power (like nuclear) to sustain the cities we have now


Just yesterday, one of my profs was mentioning this in his lecture. He said in about 50 years we'll run out of fossil feuls completely, at the current rate of consumption.

However, he mentioned something else that was rather intresting. Apparently the actual process of the creation of fossile feuls (organic matter under extreme pressure for a bazillion years) isn't known. Which is why it hasnt been duplicated under labratory conditions. However, he mentioned a theory by some guy who'se name escapes me, but its gaining momentum in the scientific circles apparently.

This guy proposed that fossil feuls werent created from organic matter at all, atleast not all of them. He talk about a "Hot Biosphere" under the surface of the earth, some 100-200km deep perhaps, on top of which is a layer of fossil feuls, being continually created by the earths core. Where this layer manages to reach the surface, we have our oil fields. But this layer supposedly is inexhaustable.

If i remember correctly, theres about 10^11 tons (or litres, i forget what the unit was) of pertoleum available today, from our current sources. If this 'hot biosphere" theory is correct, that number would actually be 10^17 tons...enough to last another 20 million years. The only problem with this is that we lack the technology to drill that far into the earth's crust. The deepest mines today are only about 8km deep. So in order to get access to this infinite source of fossil feuls (if it actually exists) we have to reach it first.

I'll try to look at my notes and see if i took the guys name down. Maybe i can find some links to his theory that i can post later.

[Assertn]

That's good to hear....because frankly, I'm sorta concerned about a worldwide collapse of civilization as a result of exhausted sources of energy.

[Assassin]

Thomas Gold: 1920-2004

"His most recent far-out idea, which he discussed in his 1998 book The Deep Hot Biosphere, was that oil and coal are not remnants of ancient surface life that became buried and subjected to very high temperatures and pressures. Gold instead argued that these deposits are produced from primordial hydrocarbons dating back to when the Earth was formed. He claimed that volatile gases then migrate towards the surface through cracks in the crust, and either leak into the atmosphere as methane, become trapped in sub-surface gas fields, or lose their hydrogen to become oil, tar or coal. In other words, there must be reserves of fuel vastly in excess of the quantities that the gas and petroleum industry estimates."

Unfortunately this guy had a tendency of proposing theories that were not widely accepted in the scientific community, but despite that several of his theories were eventually proved to be true. So theres hope yet i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

Thomas Gold (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html)

[Kairi]

Originally posted by: KitKat

010577 is right about the waste being able to be recycled. We have the capability to process spent fuel and re-enrich it. Also, CANDU reactors require a lower enrichment of uranium than light water reactors, so we can actually use the spent fuel from the US in our reactors here.


KitKat has hit on pretty much my biggest pet peeve about the nuclear industry with this statement. There would actually be less wasted fuel if the public wasn't so scared of the technology. KitKat is exactly right that the CANDU reactors could theoretically use the spent fuel from light water reactors to run. So instead of waste, the spent fuel from these reactors would become fuel (and actually better fuel than natural uranium) for the CANDU reactors. The problem is that it is not safe or feasible to ship the fuel because of public protesters and government regulations. Picture this... we start shipping fuel from the US to Canada. Say by airplane. A group of people decide to protest the shipment by somehow closing down the airport or inhibiting the landing somehow. The plane doesn't have permission to land anywhere else, can't land there, and has limited fuel to keep circling around with.... I'm sure we can all understand how this would become unsafe. Of course there are other issues but I have a limited amount of time to rant here. Plus, you guys have all covered things pretty well here.

[Assassin]

So our only solution is to kill all hippies!

[aznimperialx]

Originally posted by: Assassin
So our only solution is to kill all hippies!

I agree i/expressions/beer.gif

[Deadfire]

Originally posted by: Wikipedia

Nuclear power is the use of sustained nuclear reactions to do useful work (in the past, this was called Atomic Energy). Currently, Nuclear power is generated by nuclear fission reactions which occur when sufficient amounts of uranium-235 and/or plutonium are confined to a small space, often in the presence of a neutron moderator. The reaction produces heat which is converted to kinetic energy by means of a steam turbine and then a generator for electricity production. Nuclear power currently provides about 17% of the world's electricity and 7% of global energy. An international effort into the use of nuclear fusion for power is ongoing, but not expected to be available in commercially viable form for several decades.

After a period of decline following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 incident at Chernobyl, there is a recently renewed interest in nuclear energy because it could partially address both dwindling oil reserves and global warming with fewer emissions of greenhouse gases than fossil fuel.

The use of nuclear power is controversial because of the problem of storing radioactive waste for indefinite periods, the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, and the possibility that its use could in some countries lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Proponents, including some national governments, claim that these risks are small and can be lessened with new technology. They claim that France and all of the industrialised economies of Asia see nuclear power as a key economic strategy, that the safety record is already good when compared to other energy forms, and that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source. Many environmental groups claim nuclear power is an uneconomic, unsound and potentially dangerous energy source, especially compared to renewable energy, and dispute whether the costs and risks can be reduced through new technology.

In 2005, there were 441 commercial nuclear generating units throughout the world, with a total capacity of about 368 gigawatts. 111 reactors (36GW) have been shut down.80% of reactors (and of generating capacity) are more than 15 years old.

In 2004 in the United States, there were 104 (69 pressurized water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate, producing a total of 97,400 megawatts (electric), which is approximately 20 percent of the nation's total electric energy consumption. The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power. Future development of nuclear power in the U.S. (see the Nuclear Power 2010 Program) was enabled by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. As of 2005, no nuclear plant had been ordered without subsequent cancellation for over twenty years, thus the need for programs to promote new construction. However, on September 22, 2005 it was announced that two sites in the U.S. had been selected to receive new power reactors (exclusive of the new power reactor scheduled for INL) - see Nuclear Power 2010 Program.

In France, as of 2004, 83.4% of all electric power was generated by 58 nuclear reactors, the highest share in the world.

Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, India, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, and the U.S. are currently planning or building new nuclear reactors or reopening old ones. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Indonesia, Israel, Romania, Slovakia, South Africa, Turkey, and Vietnam are considering doing this. Armenia, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom have nuclear reactors but currently no advanced proposals for expansion.. Sweden and Germany have decided on a nuclear power phase-out, but depending on the September 2005 elections Germany may reverse its decision.

According to the EIA and the IEA, nuclear power is projected to have a slightly declining 5-10% share of world energy production until 2025, assuming that fossil fuel production can continue to expand rapidly (which is controversial)



I would be safer knowing that the pros outweigh the cons.. which was been discussed above. This is also getting into that fact of people. would people general except power from something they don't understand? this is sort of like the current media witch hunt and all sorts of things. Human nature has to be taken in account if we wish to use it

[XanBcoo]

If nuclear fission could be perfected, then the treatment of nuclear waste would become a lot less of a problem. Of course that's just another "what if" solution. I'm all for Nuclear power otherwise, I have yet to hear a good reason why it should not be used - other than the problem of dealing with the hazardous material left over. Bah, had this topic been around last semester I could give a little more input, but everything I learned in Chemistry faded fast...


Right now, Sweden is the best at disposing of their nuclear waste
Hehe, another joke the IRC thread clued me in on. i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

[Honoko]

see, this is what's so frustrating about relying on "public opinion" precisely because it can be easily swayed or controlled by the media and then further propogated by the politicians that this "public" elects (in the US, at least).

i liked this thread alot considering that i actually learned something as opposed to being brainlessly entertained in other posts i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif Of course, nothing wrong with being brainlessly entertained...

[Terracosmo]

I like it, since it works. Sure things blow up occasionally, but hey, what doesn't?

[Ryllharu]

There's a lot of hope in the future for nuclear power plants. Not fission however.

Japan conceded to France to built ITER, the testing site for all future fusion power plants. ITER (pronouced like "sitter")
is being built in France and hopes to start the fusion reaction in 2016. The deal is that if it's built in France, the majority of the engineers and workers are Japanese, though it is an international project.

Basically it's a tokamak reactor (a huge magnetic torus used to hold in the plasma, suprisingly an older technology than most think. Invented in the 50's by Russians) with some of the newer fusion ideas incorporated.
http://www.iter.org/

Until then, I'm all for Fission plants. They're clean, efficient, and the fuel lasts a LOT longer in smaller amounts. There's the waste issue involved, but once fusion becomes a viable resource, I can see most of the nuclear reactors getting filled with concrete.

[Board of Command]

Originally posted by: Assassin
This guy proposed that fossil feuls werent created from organic matter at all, atleast not all of them. He talk about a "Hot Biosphere" under the surface of the earth, some 100-200km deep perhaps, on top of which is a layer of fossil feuls, being continually created by the earths core. Where this layer manages to reach the surface, we have our oil fields. But this layer supposedly is inexhaustable.

Trust me, you do ~~~NOT~~~ want to drill that deep!!!!!!!