Are you for or against expanding the use of nuclear power?

[arjan de lumens]

A quick google search turns up this article on the subject of coal burning and radiation; apparently, raw coal isn't just clean carbon, but contains small amounts of a number of other elements as well, such as arsenic, mercury, thorium and uranium, which aren't exactly easy to filter out of the incoming coal or the resulting emissions.

I would count uranium emissions as 'radioactive waste'.

As for the reactor than can "suck out" the last bit of energy from nuclear waste, I seem to remember that so-called "breeder reactors" can be used for this purpose. Although, given that they are expensive and can easily be used to manufacture weapons-grade plutonium, they are rather controversial.

 

[SvP]

Id like to see current nuclear plants replaced by newer safer plants that are more efficient and safer (designed to withstand certain terrorist attacks).

I think they are already designed to do that (the most important parts of the plant can withstand plane crashes, if that's what you meant)

 

[RussSchultz]

Id like to see current nuclear plants replaced by newer safer plants that are more efficient and safer (designed to withstand certain terrorist attacks).

I think they are already designed to do that (the most important parts of the plant can withstand plane crashes, if that's what you meant)

So was the world trade center. We see how that turned out.

 

[Kyyla]

I think nuclear power is way ahead of the alternatives. Even with the risks.

 

[SvP]

I think they are already designed to do that (the most important parts of the plant can withstand plane crashes, if that's what you meant)

So was the world trade center. We see how that turned out.

Haven't heard of any building except nuclear power plants built to withstand crashing of a plane. The building has to have reinforced concrete walls couple of meters thick to withstand that kind of punch. Walls of windows obviously aren't up for the task

 

[RussSchultz]

You'll find that one of the criteria in the construction of the WTC was that it withstand a direct hit from a airplane. This requirement stemmed from the B29(?) that ran into the empire state building in the 40's.

Of course, planes have gotten bigger since the WTC was designed, and there were a few design assumptions made that in the end failed to hold true.

 

[Bogotron]

The WTC towers didn't collaps due to structural damage from the aircraft crashing into them. If it was they would have collapsed sooner. It was the fire that was the main factor.

[discovery channel knowledge] If the fire proofing on the support girders had been maintained properly the towers should have held even longer. Part of the problem was that the metal right beneath the fireproofing was fairly rusty and when the fire started it didn't take long before the fireproofing fell off in big chunks. [/discovery channel knowledge]

PS: Dunno if this has been refuted or discredited elsewhere.

 

[pcchen]

The reactors of nuclear power plants are generally covered by 6-feet thick (or thicker) concrete walls. Without a lot of explosives, I don't think an airplane crash can penetrate such building.

Of course, there's no law forcing terrorists to use airplanes to attack a nuclear power plant. No matter what, attacking a nuclear power plant is considerably harder and the effect is not really that great (it's probably rewarding for a opposing warring nation, but not for terrorists).

However, I still don't like fission powers. They may be safe and clean, but they also generate hard-to-process nuclear wastes. Arguing burning coals generate more radiation is pointless, since the main problem with the nuclear wastes is about its density. I think we should always try and spend some R&D on alternatives.

 

[Willmeister]

The only problems I have with nuclear power mostly revolve around the fact that today's technology makes nuclear power a 'break-even' energy system at best.

There isn't much of a problem with fission power at the moment. Nuclear waste is literally safe to handle without protection after about 500 years. It's literally safe except for ingestion...

Just about ever facility in North America has a twin coal plant to make nuclear fuel for another. Any environmental savings from nuclear power are negated by the pollution caused by these coal plants.

Other than that, a nuclear plant is just a glorified boiler.

I'm actually more fearful of fusion power than fission. In order to generate usable fusion energy on the surface of the Earth, we would need to increase the temperature and pressure to many times that of the sun to compensate for the lost in gravitational energy of the sun. I'm more afraid of a fusion breach than fission.

Honestly, I don't really follow nuclear issues.

 

[MfA]

How long would it take till we had to switch to breeder reactors if the world energy needs were supplied with nuclear fission?

 

[DemoCoder]

Willmeister, what are you talking about.

Fusion systems are inherently safe, much safer than fission. There is no such thing as a "runaway fusion" reactor, as the reaction isn't self-sustaining.

A breached fusion reactor would immediately lose its energy, it would not "meltdown" and explode like a fission reactor. The temperatures and pressures are irrelevent measures. You could create a 10 million kelvin plasma in a lab and drop it on the floor and maybe you'd melt some floor tile and heat up the air at best, you would not get an explosion, and you would not get a "china syndrome". There's not much total mass in such a plasma, it's virtually a vacuum. The relevant figures are the total energy to be dumped and how quickly it is being dumped. An air molecule could run into your skin at 100+mph and not hurt you, but obviously, a larger mass would. A square mile of lava at much lower temperature will do far more damage than a square centimeter of plasma at much higher temperatures. Lightning strikes go up to 100,000 K in the atmosphere, sonoluminescence in water bubbles could go as high as 1 million K.


The only reason why we use such high temperatures and pressures is not because of the gravitational loss of the sun, but because the Sun is SLOW (average time for nuclei to react is 10 to the 29th power seconds). The reaction rate is too slow to produce enough energy to keep the system going. The Sun makes up for the slow reaction rate by massive volume of reactions (10 to the 59th power number of nuclei)

Nuclear fusion only has one issue, which is neutron release and a small amount of by products. But some even hotter fusions, like P+Be are aneutronic, meaning they are virtually 100% clean, and even harder to self-sustain.

 

[Vince]

How long would it take till we had to switch to breeder reactors if the world energy needs were supplied with nuclear fission?

Thats's a good question. I think the AEC initially said something along the lines of a few decades back in like the 1950's based on known U235 supplied; which helped push research into the LMFBR. But, obviously that's not valid in the face of 50-odd years of geologic exploration.

So if anyone knows; would be interesting to know.

PS. Democoder, what ever happened to the sonoluminescence craze? Anything (somewhat substantive) ever come of it? Because they promised me fusion and all I've got so far was Keanu Reeves.

 

[Nathan]

What about trying to use less energy? Why is that never a valid option?

 

[pax]

Ya the proposed first viable fusion reactor to be built near Pickering fuses very few atoms compared to a nuke... I dont think we need to generate that much energy in that short a time to make things viable hhe... Has anyone heard any news as to when (and where actually as there was a contest between a handful of sites) that fusion reactor is to be built?

Also was it the russian tokamak design that was chosen?

 

[Natoma]

The WTC towers didn't collaps due to structural damage from the aircraft crashing into them. If it was they would have collapsed sooner. It was the fire that was the main factor.

[discovery channel knowledge] If the fire proofing on the support girders had been maintained properly the towers should have held even longer. Part of the problem was that the metal right beneath the fireproofing was fairly rusty and when the fire started it didn't take long before the fireproofing fell off in big chunks. [/discovery channel knowledge]

PS: Dunno if this has been refuted or discredited elsewhere.

Almost, but not quite. The fire proofing was never good enough. It was sheet rock basically. It was used because it was light and inexpensive. So when the planes hit, the concussive force blew all the sheet rock off, leaving the metal directly exposed to 2000+ Degree heat. Steel loses structural integrity at those temperatures, and that's why the towers came down.

That's also why the stairwells were fairly useless around the impact points. Because the walls were also made of the same fireproof sheet rock.

 

[Natoma]

You'll find that one of the criteria in the construction of the WTC was that it withstand a direct hit from a airplane. This requirement stemmed from the B29(?) that ran into the empire state building in the 40's.

Of course, planes have gotten bigger since the WTC was designed, and there were a few design assumptions made that in the end failed to hold true.

The airplane it was built to withstand was the 707. The planes that hit the WTC were the much bigger 767's. For clarification purposes only.

 

[Natoma]

What about trying to use less energy? Why is that never a valid option?

Heh. If I recall correctly, some democrats and republicans proposed raising the standard for mpg in cars and trucks, but the motor industry lobbyists won out.

It's sad really. A fleet of hybrid cars would enable the US to save millions of BBL of oil per day, and would effectively reduce our need for foreign imports and reduce our energy requirements, saving the economy billions in the process.

But that's common sense, and whoever said detroit-driven politicians had any.

 

[DemoCoder]

Well, not everyone wants to drive hybrid cars. I think the current ones suck from an aesthetic point of view, and I'm not talking about performance.

SUVs are artifacts of a bizarre loophole in the law, in which MPG standards didn't apply to these "pseudo-trucks"/offroad vehicles which masquerade as soccer mom cars.

Most SUVs are paradoxically
a) cheaper to construct (non-unibody construction)
b) less safe
c) eat up way more fuel
d) have a way higher profit margin


If I have my heart set on a Nissan Z, or a G35, or a S2000, or M3/Z3, there is no way you're gonna convince me to by a shitty Insight or Prius. They need to add hybrid features like regenerative breaking to existing car designs. The Insight IMHO looks godawful, and I'm not giving up aesthetics to gain a slightly better drag coefficient. I also won't give up performance. I refuse to drive a car with shitty HP/Torque.


If they want me to buy fuel efficient vehicles, the cars need to have the same or superior performance, and can't skimp on style or luxury.

 

[PC-Engine]

Well, not everyone wants to drive hybrid cars. I think the current ones suck from an aesthetic point of view, and I'm not talking about performance.

SUVs are artifacts of a bizarre loophole in the law, in which MPG standards didn't apply to these "pseudo-trucks"/offroad vehicles which masquerade as soccer mom cars.

Most SUVs are paradoxically
a) cheaper to construct (non-unibody construction)
b) less safe
c) eat up way more fuel
d) have a way higher profit margin


If I have my heart set on a Nissan Z, or a G35, or a S2000, or M3/Z3, there is no way you're gonna convince me to by a shitty Insight or Prius. They need to add hybrid features like regenerative breaking to existing car designs. The Insight IMHO looks godawful, and I'm not giving up aesthetics to gain a slightly better drag coefficient. I also won't give up performance. I refuse to drive a car with shitty HP/Torque.


If they want me to buy fuel efficient vehicles, the cars need to have the same or superior performance, and can't skimp on style or luxury.

Actually high performance hybrid sports cars aren't too far off. Honda showed a prototype not too long ago..forgot what it was called though.

 

[Paul]

Honda Civic hybrid.