Nuclear power

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

NUCLEAR, not nucULer,

I heard this news report yesterday that said that they are now using a highly specific form of carbon/graphite or something like in nuclear power plants that is supposed to make them almost impervious to meltdowns.

A waste product of nucluer fission is hydrogen, according to this report.

So, I submit that in the future, nuclear power will provide most of the nation's power, and supply limitless hydrogen that will power engines in the future. Both create no greenhouse gasses.

Also, if they can make artificial diamonds from carbon, doesn't it seem likely that they should be able to use heat and pressure in some way to create oil from organic matter?

Leggester · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 6:43 am Post subject:

Well, the greenies will kill nucular power. Just as they have 9 oil refieneries we need.

Get over the mispronunciation. You're from New York, you'd sound awful funny to most Coloradans and Texans.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

I don't think the "greenies" will always be against nuclear power if it can be demonstrated to be much safer than it was a decade ago, before they started using this graphite material for containment. It's supposed to be non-degradable and much, much safer. Nuclear power is infinitely cleaner than oil or gas or coal.

Jester · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 6:48 am Post subject:

"Look at all this beautiful foilage."
"Mom, it's pronounced foliage."
"That's what I said, foilage. It doesn't take a nucular scientist to know that!"
Laugh

I'm all for making nuclear power as safe as possible. I think the main problem with using hydrogen as a power source is that it's pretty reactive. Then again, the vapors from gas get pretty volatile too so I guess it's not that different. Whatever, if I'm gonna pay less than $3 a gallon I'll support it.

jt09 · Ladies Man Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 22083 City: Austin

Leggester · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 7:14 am Post subject:

We've had Nuke power capabilities since the seventies. They have not changed their stance. TThey never will. If it were up to them, all human beings would have to die and leave the world to the animals before they were satisfied.

Once again, get over it. Dean and Kerry both have their own speech idosyncracies. As tdo most East coasters, West coasters, Mid westerners and Southeners. They only folks without any sort of speech idiosyncracies are native Coloradans! Cool

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Leggester · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 7:27 am Post subject:

Well, I know of at least three Nuke plant that have been operating that long. Never heard of any problems with them either.

In fact, the only problem in the US was 3 mile IIRC. Illinios, Kentucky ( i think ) have operated with great safety, yet we are still woefully short on power. Also, refineries for petroleum are needed like 10 years ago.

I have NO respect for Greenies. I've been involved with conservation and wildlife/land management since my teens. The greenie dorks have no godammed clue whatsoever!

( yeah and Ted Kennedy should learn how to pronounce "r"s )

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

when you say "Greenies" are you talking about the Green party, or just people who are hyper-nature-conservatives?

We only get 20% of the nation's power from nuclear power plants. I think that with the projected improvements in safety, nuclear power is the obvious choice, in both regards to power cost, environmental safety, public safety. The problem is, if an accident happens, the cost would be HUGE in life and the environment. But I think that these new advances really make Nuke power a better option than it has been in the past.

Leggester · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 7:45 am Post subject:

Either. There ain't any difference between "hyper" conservatives and greenies. If they are for management of resources, fine, if they are for the hands off or back to nature approach - I have no use for them.

But I digress. Unecessary prevention of such processes has effected us since the 70s.

Leggester · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 7:48 am Post subject:

You'll have to forgive me, I live in CO and I've had my fill of Save the Prarie Dogs, Save the Grasslands, Leave the mountains alone... ...

Yet, we also do not allow Coyotes, fires and other natural means of control to be left in place.

eeven73 · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 7:52 am Post subject:

Has anyone seen the Discovery Channel retrospective on the nuculer disaster at Chernobyl (sp?). They were showing the effects on the population within several hundred miles and it was so freaky sh*t. They had some incredible rates of cancer, and other illnesses associated with the accident but the scariest was the birth defects. Sad

There was one kid who was like a dwarf but had regular length arms.

I am by no means a "greenie" and even support the use of nuculer power, but that show scared the sh*t out of me.

PS I know nuclear, I just wanted to see if I could get anyone flamed up during my post. Sorry could not resist Wink

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

I think it's largly a matter of perception. Let's analyze this logically, or at least attemt to:

Burning and mining gas, oil, coal, etc. causes emissions and waste products that cancer, even if there is no accident. So let's say that 1000 people get cancer every year, and that can be linked, conclusivel or inconclusively, to the mining and burning of fossil fuels.

Now, let's imagine an all nuclear energy source. It operates for 50 years with no mishaps. Modern production of nuclear energy creates no carcinogens, except the radioactive by-product, which now, supposedly, can be stored safely and with relatively no risk of contamination or meltdown. So we go 50 years with no mishap. That means that 50,000 people, potentially, have been spared of cancer.

Now, if an accident does happen (which is now much, much less likely), and for some reason is can't be contained (also now much, much less likely) then the net cancer may still be less than would have occurred with the processing of fossil fuels.

Sick to think of it that way, but it does seem logical?

Also, chernobyl was a run down dump that had no business even operating. I would assume that we would regulate the hell out of our Nuclear industry, as we regulate the hell out of everything from resturants to motor vehicles.

eeven73 · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 8:30 am Post subject:

Just to be devils advocate.

We regulate the hell out of airline safety and planes still go down from sh*tty maintiaince on jack screws.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

True, but statistically, airline travel is much, much more dangerous than producing nuclear power. More people die in ariline mishaps yearly, by far, than are killed becasue of nuclear power. BUt point taken.

I bet more people are killed yearly in the production of fossil fuels than in the production of nuclear energy. Then again, hard to quantify.

RampageWake · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 8:53 am Post subject:

Is the main objection to nuclear power the threat of a meltdown, or the disposal of radioactive waste from the plants? Assuming they now have a graphite material to help reduce the first objection, what about the disposal issue? Also, this may be a dumb question, but after we get all these nuclear plants online, how much fissle material do we have to run them? Will the uranium eventually run out as fossil fuels are expected to?

BTW, I am for nuclear power, I think there is always a risk/reward factor in things, and its benefits greatly outweigh its risks IMO.

eeven73 · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 8:55 am Post subject:

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

I think the disposal issue is coming under controll because of new innovations as well, but I have to do some more research.

I don't think that running out of Uranium is much of an issue. Besides, there are a number of substances that can be used, Uranium is just the easiest to work with.

I am very upset about the idea of running out of fossil fuels. I have 15 years to pay on my boat!

base · Outlaw Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 208

we need to star mining helium3 on the moon. 1 train car full of this stuff will power the united states for a full year at current consumption levels. the moon had a million tons of this stuff on the surface...no digging required.

imo, this is the real reason why we are going back to the moon(that is if we ever really went in the first place)

oh and btw, this stuff is clean burning. u coud build a helium3 plant next to a school, use it for 50 years and tear it down and build a school on top of it with no risk to the kids health...

there is enuff helium3 on the moon to fuel the earth at it's current consumption levels for 10,000 years. its the future oil, and whichever country gets there first and claims it will be the new saudi arabiaX1000!

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

What happens to the tides and stuff if we alter the weight of the moon. I haven't heard anything about helium3.

Tyler T · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 9:10 am Post subject:

cameraboy, if Im not mistaken, as of right now absolutely no new nuclear power plants can be built until our nations radioactive waste facilities are improved. With more nuclear power, more storage facilities will be required for for the spent fuel rods. I am a proponent of nuclear power, but I just think that that is something to take into consideration when weighing the pros and the cons. The radioactive material that is a byproduct of nuclear fission doesn't go away for a LONG LONG time.

base · Outlaw Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 208

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/europa@klx.com/msg03265.html

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

If that's legit, we will be fighting a war in space in the next 500 years over this.

base · Outlaw Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 208

yup...against china...but we are way ahead of them...why do u think they are trying to get there all of a sudden? whoever gets there and annexes the moon will be da bomb!

Chales · Guest

Ever read "Angels and Deamons"? How about that antimatter idea?

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Angels and Deamons was pretty good. I don't know how much of that anti-matter stuff is legit, though.

base · Outlaw Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 208

helium3 is legit. it will just take 10-20 more years to work out the kinks in the technology before we can convert it into usable energy. but we need to work on getting to the moon and mining, now...

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Um I think it is more like 10-20 decades:

<quote>
Most of today's fusion research uses the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, which fuse at relatively low temperatures, about 100 million degrees, Wurden said. But deuterium and tritium mixtures release about 80 percent of their energy in the form of fast neutrons, which produce radioactive waste.

A helium-3 and deuterium mix gives off much fewer fast neutrons, but requires about four times the temperature to react. A pure helium-3 reaction, on the other hand, would produce zero radioactive waste at the cost of even higher temperatures.</quote>

A reaction at over 400 million degrees. Won't be seeing that anytime soon.

base · Outlaw Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 208

nah...tops 50 years...if u didn't notice, there's a quickening with technology thats been going on for over a 100 years.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Yea, but 400 million degrees? There has to be an AWEFULL lot of quickening to handle something like that.

base · Outlaw Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 208

yeah...its called fusion camerakook...

x vegan x · Addict Joined: 19 Jan 2004 Posts: 857 City: Minneapolis

I’m jumping into this thread a little late; so let me address a few things.

Chernobyl was a joke of a plant. Their safety measures were the equivalent of putting a coffee can over a stick of dynamite and expecting it to subdue the explosion. Nuclear plants in the US are built much, much better. A 9/11 like attack would not breach our reactors.

Three Mile Island was blown WAY out of proportion! Only a few people in the plant received any radiation at all. What they did receive was little more than you’d get from a few x-rays. That being said, it was a stupid mistake and never should have happened.

Biomass, wind and solar power are great forms of supplemental energy. However, even if they were fully utilized along with hydro power (which, while clean, is horrible for the environment) they would not produce enough power to fulfill our energy needs. Fossil fuel plants produce less volatile waste than fission plants, but emit more of their waste. Fission produces very little waste. The problem is, what they do produce is extremely dangerous. We’ve developed ways to contain this waste safely, however we have no way to get rid of it. Still, this, along with conservation, seem like the best solutions to our energy problem at this time. Sadly, people are so freaked out about anything nuclear that it won’t happen anytime soon. The nuclear industry needs to educate the public so they start thinking with their heads instead of their hearts.

What we really need is nuclear fusion (other than He3). It seems like a pipedream at the moment, but there is progress being made in this direction. Assuming fusion becomes possible our energy problems are over. It produces insane amounts of energy and is completely clean. This seems like a much better solution than creating more fission plants or trying to ship He3 back from the moon. This isn’t Star Trek.

base · Outlaw Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 208

with that attitdue we will go nowhere...

Chales · Guest

Why do we even need all this "power" anyway? Just give me a boat and a board and I'm happy.

Dave W · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 11:44 am Post subject: Re: Nuclear power