MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Nuclear Energy: Ban it or keep it?
Join to comment
 Group admin 
Alright guys, so all of you all know the importance of electricity; it powers our everyday lives, and we really can't live without it. There are many ways to create electricity, and one of the most powerful ways is via, a nuclear reactor, a place where the blast from a nuclear bomb is regulated, and used to boil water. However, as well all know, when a nuclear bomb goes off, serious damage is inflicted in the surrounding area's environment. So, do you support nuclear energy? Or do you think its too risky to use?

DEBATE!
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 2:55 pm
If it gets to the point where natural energy just won't cut it, maybe, as long as it's as safe as possible. I think that it's very rare for that to happen though. I'm aware that windmills do cause noise pollution and dams can kill fish, but its better than letting toxic run-off do its trick.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 3:14 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Brick Munky
If it gets to the point where natural energy just won't cut it, maybe, as long as it's as safe as possible. I think that it's very rare for that to happen though. I'm aware that windmills do cause noise pollution and dams can kill fish, but its better than letting toxic run-off do its trick.

I dunno. I really support Nuclear Energy. I mean, people like to point to Fukishima or Chernobyl, but the thing is, those are freak accidents. Advancements in nuclear reactor safety can fix the problems reactors have. Also, lets not forget that you aren't likely to pollute a massive portion of water via an oil spill. Not sure about noise pollution, but yes Dams do chance the entire environment. They should be built with extreme caution.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 3:18 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I dunno. I really support Nuclear Energy. I mean, people like to point to Fukishima or Chernobyl, but the thing is, those are freak accidents. Advancements in nuclear reactor safety can fix the problems reactors have. Also, lets not forget that you aren't likely to pollute a massive portion of water via an oil spill. Not sure about noise pollution, but yes Dams do chance the entire environment. They should be built with extreme caution.

There are also some problems regarding waste. Spent fuel usually has to be stored to stabilize, then it's treated as waste. Waste, as far as I know, isn't a problem for windmills or dams. (and as for noise pollution, I meant to say visual pollution. I have no idea how I got those mixed up)
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 3:39 pm
 Group admin 
I think nuclear power is one of the best sources of energy, because as long the spent waste is disposed of in a way it won't leak, it is very safe. France is powered almost entirely by nuclear.
he Fukushima-Daiichi accident was the weather's fault, not the concept's, and that they didn't have enough batteries and they didn't waterproof the generators, And Chernobyl was a design and operating error, again, not the overall concept.
And to correct you, there isn't quite an actual nuclear explosion atomic bomb-style inside the reactor.
As far as energy in general, I support an all-of-the-above strategy, but we must recognize that with wind and solar, the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, and because of that, we use more fossil fuels than we would if there was no wind and solar in the first place.
We have enough fossil fuels to last centuries, especially natural gas. We cut more carbon emissions on accident by using more natural gas than the Europeans did on purpose. And, contrary to the global warming theory, the increase in climate temperature has slowed or stopped, even though overall emissions have continued up. And wasn't "global cooling" the biggest threat just 30-40 years ago?
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 3:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Brick Munky
and as for noise pollution, I meant to say visual pollution.

Both are true. Windmills are noisy and ugly.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 3:50 pm
Quoting Michael K.
the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine,

But the water always flows ;)
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 3:56 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Brick Munky
Quoting Michael K.
the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine,

But the water always flows ;)

True, I have nothing against hydroelectric, if you have a big dam nearby.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 3:57 pm
Quoting Michael K.
Both are true. Windmills are noisy and ugly.

Much like solar panels, they're also a net loss in terms of energy used to produce them compared to the energy they output.

Especially since they're not even reliable.

Calling current 'alternative energy' "green" requires a degree of self-delusion that's admirable, in a way, for its sheer audacity.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 8:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
Much like solar panels, they're also a net loss in terms of energy used to produce them compared to the energy they output.

Especially since they're not even reliable.

Calling current 'alternative energy' "green" requires a degree of self-delusion that's admirable, in a way, for its sheer audacity.

I built a MOC with those energy sources, so I might as well come around to responding to this here comment.....

Reliable? Alright, well lets see. Its important to note that energy systems are not "reliable" in their infancy. They need more testing, but the money and effort required to do that is invested in, what? Coal and oil plants. Now, I would like to clear up something here. What kind of solar power are you talking about? The solar panel, or the solar energy plant that uses mirrors to reflect the sun's rays to the top of a tall building, which in turn boils water, and runs a generator? They are two different things, and are addressed separately.

They are "green" in the sense that they are completely, if not mostly, clean in the way they HARNESS and then CREATE energy.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 9:15 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Brick Munky
Quoting Michael K.
the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine,

But the water always flows ;)

Yeah, no. Perpetual motion is impossible here on Earth, I am afraid. (sorry, just had to say that!) But yes, water is powerful source of energy.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 9:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Reliable? Alright, well lets see. Its important to note that energy systems are not "reliable" in their infancy. They need more testing.

Some, like nuclear can be perfected, but wind and solar have fundamental flaws than can never be completely fixed.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Coal and oil plants. Now, I would like to clear up something here. What kind of solar power are you talking about? The solar panel, or the solar energy plant that uses mirrors to reflect the sun's rays to the top of a tall building, which in turn boils water, and runs a generator? They are two different things, and are addressed separately.

I know they work different, but the latter is probably better, since if it get dark you've still got hot water for a while.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
They are "green" in the sense that they are completely, if not mostly, clean in the way they HARNESS and then CREATE energy.

In the end, since the sun doesn't shine at night, they must use reliable fossil fuels during those times, and starting and stopping the fossil plants uses more energy, much how driving down the highway fast use less energy than slow stop-and-go traffic.
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 9:49 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
In the end, since the sun doesn't shine at night, they must use reliable fossil fuels during those times, and starting and stopping the fossil plants uses more energy, much how driving down the highway fast use less energy than slow stop-and-go traffic.

Wind and solar do have problems, and some can be fixed (easier to move wind turbines, etc), but once again, time and energy are given to fossil fuels.
Next, well, I hope the water is still hot; some serious energy coming in from reflecting the sun!
Finally, no, there is no "must" that we should use fossil fuels at night. Energy consumption at night is lower, and also, what happened to hydro-electricity?
Permalink
| July 18, 2013, 9:55 pm
in my opinion, nuclear is a disaster,
it is the ugly squeleton in our closet,
because of the waste that we are unable
to eliminate.
nobody ever found a way to clean it.

the answer they have found is to hide it,
like a dirty lie.
as long as there is no way to stop the
reaction...it s a nightmare.

the creators of this technology we re
apes playing with dynamite,
it s as foolish as giving a 5 year old kid
a loaded gun, he might not hurt anyone today,
but, tomorrow...he just might pull the
trigger right in your sorry face!

it s too powerful, unpredictable,
and we re fooling ourselves thinking
we control it, if we can t make the waste
as safe as spring water.

solar power is the way, we only tapped
the cover of it s possibilities,
we know more everyday,
I converted solar in pneumatic myself,
if I can come up with such a contraption
with lego elements...
imagine what real geniuses can come up with...

Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 3:42 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Wind and solar do have problems, and some can be fixed (easier to move wind turbines, etc), but once again, time and energy are given to fossil fuels.

All the private investment goes to fossil fuels, because that's proven to be profitable, and private business must profit or die. All the government money goes to alternative energy companies, many go bankrupt. Solyndra, most prominently, lost the taxpayer half a billion dollars going bankrupt.
Meanwhile we regulate traditional energy almost out of business, and won't build the Keystone Pipeline, which would mean tens of thousands of jobs almost overnight. Places like North Dakota where they drill for oil where the feds can't stop them, are boomtowns. Walmart jobs pay $17 an hour, and unemployment is like 3%. We should use all sources of energy, especially when fossil fuels can be used cleanly with the technology we have now.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Finally, no, there is no "must" that we should use fossil fuels at night.

True, but that's what they always do.
Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 8:34 am
 Group admin 
Quoting cyberfrank 2010
in my opinion, nuclear is a disaster,
it is the ugly squeleton in our closet,
because of the waste that we are unable
to eliminate.
nobody ever found a way to clean it.

the answer they have found is to hide it,
like a dirty lie.
as long as there is no way to stop the
reaction...it s a nightmare.

the creators of this technology we re
apes playing with dynamite,
it s as foolish as giving a 5 year old kid
a loaded gun, he might not hurt anyone today,
but, tomorrow...he just might pull the
trigger right in your sorry face!

it s too powerful, unpredictable,
and we re fooling ourselves thinking
we control it, if we can t make the waste
as safe as spring water.

solar power is the way, we only tapped
the cover of it s possibilities,
we know more everyday,
I converted solar in pneumatic myself,
if I can come up with such a contraption
with lego elements...
imagine what real geniuses can come up with...

I'm not sure about that. Nuclear energy is a VERY powerful source of energy. If harnessed correctly, it can be quite clean as well.

Its waste, that you are referring to, I am guessing, are the spend fuel rods of depleted uranium. The thing is that after years of those rods being submerged in water, they become more stable. They still have a little bit of radiation left, but for the most part are safe (they depleted Uranium is actually used in things like tank armor). And, as stated in the parenthesis, that substance is pretty strong. So, it all depends on the care that is given to the reactor. They need to be well maintained. And for the most part, they are. But those disasters like Chernobyl and Fukishima stick out to people as the way all nuclear reactors will end; which is not true in any way.
Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 10:57 am
Quoting cyberfrank 2010
in my opinion, nuclear is a disaster,
it is the ugly squeleton in our closet,
because of the waste that we are unable
to eliminate.
nobody ever found a way to clean it.

the answer they have found is to hide it,
like a dirty lie.
as long as there is no way to stop the
reaction...it s a nightmare.

the creators of this technology we re
apes playing with dynamite,
it s as foolish as giving a 5 year old kid
a loaded gun, he might not hurt anyone today,
but, tomorrow...he just might pull the
trigger right in your sorry face!

it s too powerful, unpredictable,
and we re fooling ourselves thinking
we control it, if we can t make the waste
as safe as spring water.

solar power is the way, we only tapped
the cover of it s possibilities,
we know more everyday,
I converted solar in pneumatic myself,
if I can come up with such a contraption
with lego elements...
imagine what real geniuses can come up with...

Exactly! I'd add hydro and wind to that mix, though :-)
Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 11:37 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad (from apocalypse-thread)
these gasses that are released, how much of it does there need for seious, irrepaitbae damage to the environment? And how much of it is being released? And finally, in the read surrounding nuclear reactors, just how much damage has occurred?

Well how much damage releases cause is one of the topics that spark most controversy in the scientific communities. Personally i belive the catious side, which maintains that ANY release causes local damage, with increasingly noticeable damage related to the extent of the release and the types of gases vented.

How much (and what) is being released is induvidual from plant to plant, some venting up to 10 curies of various gases per year. (one curie is material enough to produce 3.7x10E10, or 37 million, disintegrations per second) How long it stays around is individual, having to do with half-lives. 131iodine for instance has a half-life of 7 days, which means it will have reached a level below detectability in 70 days.

What damage has already occured is also a very touchy subject, but health findings confirm increasing cancer (and other health-risks) with increasing proximity to nuclear plants. Upwards of 20% above national levels (US figures) within 20 miles of some nuclear plants.
Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 12:20 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Builder Allan
Well how much damage releases cause is one of the topics that spark most controversy in the scientific communities. Personally i belive the catious side, which maintains that ANY release causes local damage, with increasingly noticeable damage related to the extent of the release and the types of gases vented.

How much (and what) is being released is induvidual from plant to plant, some venting up to 10 curies of various gases per year. (one curie is material enough to produce 3.7x10E10, or 37 million, disintegrations per second) How long it stays around is individual, having to do with half-lives. 131iodine for instance has a half-life of 7 days, which means it will have reached a level below detectability in 70 days.

What damage has already occured is also a very touchy subject, but health findings confirm increasing cancer (and other health-risks) with increasing proximity to nuclear plants. Upwards of 20% above national levels (US figures) within 20 miles of some nuclear plants.

Builder Allan, I am tempted to say that that is the most factual comment in this entire group! It seems that the Int'l Fan of Lego Debate Club has its own resident nuclear engineer :-)

Now, I must say, though, there must be a significant difference when it comes to the age of a facility. A nuclear reactor installed in the 70's most certainly is not as clean as one installed in, say, 2012. But even so, what about the reactors on board a nuclear aircraft carrier, or submarine? I understand that after 20-25 years, the ship or sub must spend time in a drydock, getting its reactor refueled. But when either ships or sub is underway, do they emit nuclear waste? I haven't heard of US carriers dumping any nuclear waste, and, while building my CVN-80, I haven't seen any smoke stacks or anything that would allow any nuclear gasses to be expelled. So why don't we just use those types of reactors?
Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 2:39 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
the documentary I saw stated that the waste was harmful for over 100 years, it was norvegian, they said that they had to bury the containers miles underground to make sure that if earthquakes occurred, it would not affect phreatic pools, they did nt specify rods, but, whatever was in there, it was dangerous, as for the plants, it is well known fact that the temperature will provoque more earthquakes, floods, ect, so these plants will get hit for sure.

Permalink
| July 19, 2013, 8:00 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Builder Allan, I am tempted to say that that is the most factual comment in this entire group! It seems that the Int'l Fan of Lego Debate Club has its own resident nuclear engineer :-)

Now, I must say, though, there must be a significant difference when it comes to the age of a facility. A nuclear reactor installed in the 70's most certainly is not as clean as one installed in, say, 2012. But even so, what about the reactors on board a nuclear aircraft carrier, or submarine? I understand that after 20-25 years, the ship or sub must spend time in a drydock, getting its reactor refueled. But when either ships or sub is underway, do they emit nuclear waste? I haven't heard of US carriers dumping any nuclear waste, and, while building my CVN-80, I haven't seen any smoke stacks or anything that would allow any nuclear gasses to be expelled. So why don't we just use those types of reactors?

Hehe thanks, and here i though that parts of it seemed vague :-D I must admit though, that this is merely a hobby study of mine.

Indeed there is a difference between emissions from old and new reactors, and it is significant. However, even new reactors emit gasses, as these are an inherent product of the process and needs to be vented. Also, the average age of reactors in the world is somewhere in the early thirties, with only few new reactors being actually built.
I found the list of those gasses by the way. Most notable ones are krypton, 135xenon, 131iodine and 129iodine (that has a half-life of 16 million years and with properties similar to 131iodine)

I must admit that i don't know much about smaller reactors, though i do know that they need to vent the gasses somehow too. Maybe through below-waterline pipes, condensing the steam before release? I don't know :-)

I would guess that they - might - be easier to keep sealed, perhaps having fewer problems with liquid releases than their 'bigger brothers'.

Wether using small reactors in the energy mix would be viable or not, i think is a difficult question to answer. That one also depends on who you listen to :-)
Permalink
| July 21, 2013, 3:03 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Builder Allan
Hehe thanks, and here i though that parts of it seemed vague :-D I must admit though, that this is merely a hobby study of mine.

Indeed there is a difference between emissions from old and new reactors, and it is significant. However, even new reactors emit gasses, as these are an inherent product of the process and needs to be vented. Also, the average age of reactors in the world is somewhere in the early thirties, with only few new reactors being actually built.
I found the list of those gasses by the way. Most notable ones are krypton, 135xenon, 131iodine and 129iodine (that has a half-life of 16 million years and with properties similar to 131iodine)

I must admit that i don't know much about smaller reactors, though i do know that they need to vent the gasses somehow too. Maybe through below-waterline pipes, condensing the steam before release? I don't know :-)

I would guess that they - might - be easier to keep sealed, perhaps having fewer problems with liquid releases than their 'bigger brothers'.

Wether using small reactors in the energy mix would be viable or not, i think is a difficult question to answer. That one also depends on who you listen to :-)

Hmm. Well, I did manage to clock some research, and this link:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081026125853AAHwaHy seems to have an answer. Most nuclear waste is contained in large, strong containers, and are then sent for burial (that links names Yucca Mountain, as an example). There is a tiny bit of waste that is emitted on a daily basis, and I am not sure what exactly that waste is. However, its important to note that nuclear submarines have been perusing the oceans for over 60 years, and there effects to the environment are, subtle, to say the least.
Permalink
| July 21, 2013, 11:08 am
 Group admin 
Quoting CY-EV .
My thoughts the topic.
Well spoken. Thank you for the information.
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 7:28 am
 Group admin 
Quoting CY-EV .
My thoughts the topic.
1) A clean, efficient, sustainable, reliable nuclear energy grid is quite feasible, and can power an entire first-world nation (look at France).

2) People cry about 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl, but those were years ago. Technology has progressed since then to make the whole deal safer and cleaner, just like with automobiles.

3) Yes, Fukushima was more recent, but the thing was in an earthquake-prone area to begin with. Blame the plate tectonics of the Ring of Fire, not the reactor tech.

4) Coal power plants (one of the most common conventional forms of generating electricity) produce far more radioactive contaminants (in the form of fly ash) than nuclear reactors do, and that waste is far less contained or regulated. That stuff coming out of the nuclear plant "chimneys" is just steam.

5) "Nuclear reactor" does not equal "atomic bomb". There is a big difference between nuclear fuel and weapons-grade fissile elements.

6) All the concerns regarding adequate control, waste management, security, and other staffing needs for nuclear power plants means more jobs that will need to be filled (a single such power plant can employ the population of an entire town + support jobs that cater to the workers - stores, restaurants, entertainment, etc).

More jobs means more consumers with more money to spend, which in turn means a better economy, which leads to lower prices, more business innovation, and all around increase in standard of living.

More people employed also means less crime and poverty, thus less government expenditure of our tax money on law enforcement, courts, welfare, etc.

Agreed. If well handled, nuclear energy can/will help the US. Its a powerful source of energy, and should be respected. I just wonder the cost of all those facilities in France. A fortune.....
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 2:45 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Hmm. Well, I did manage to clock some research, and this link:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081026125853AAHwaHy seems to have an answer. Most nuclear waste is contained in large, strong containers, and are then sent for burial (that links names Yucca Mountain, as an example). There is a tiny bit of waste that is emitted on a daily basis, and I am not sure what exactly that waste is. However, its important to note that nuclear submarines have been perusing the oceans for over 60 years, and there effects to the environment are, subtle, to say the least.

Hey great link, thanks!

The collected wates are stored 'on-site, untill..' which is, well, if done properly, probably safe enough i guess.
The thing is, yucca mountain has been cancelled, and no plans for a similar site is on the table. There are also issues about long-term storage, but that depends on who you listen to.

It actually puzzles me some that he doesn't mention the gasses, but the bit about coolant-emissions were interesting. I hope the coolant is from the secondary cooling loop, though i suspect not from the phrasing he uses.
Liquid releases usually contain heavier elements (caesium, plutonium, strontium, uranium etc) with varying half-lives, the shortest lived one being caesium with 30 years. That means that any emissions happening within 300 years of one another will accumulate, if you look at the total body of water. When taking bio-accumulation, currently dumped waste and the no-threshold model into account, i can't think that it is a good thing.
Granted, a 'drop in the ocean', but not a good thing :-)
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 3:47 pm
Oups, bio-accumulation should have been bio-concentration. The observed effect that radioactive particles concentrate all the way up the food chain.
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 3:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Builder Allan
Hey great link, thanks!

The collected wates are stored 'on-site, untill..' which is, well, if done properly, probably safe enough i guess.
The thing is, yucca mountain has been cancelled, and no plans for a similar site is on the table. There are also issues about long-term storage, but that depends on who you listen to.

It actually puzzles me some that he doesn't mention the gasses, but the bit about coolant-emissions were interesting. I hope the coolant is from the secondary cooling loop, though i suspect not from the phrasing he uses.
Liquid releases usually contain heavier elements (caesium, plutonium, strontium, uranium etc) with varying half-lives, the shortest lived one being caesium with 30 years. That means that any emissions happening within 300 years of one another will accumulate, if you look at the total body of water. When taking bio-accumulation, currently dumped waste and the no-threshold model into account, i can't think that it is a good thing.
Granted, a 'drop in the ocean', but not a good thing :-)

True. But do you mean that caesium has a half-life of 300 years, not 30?

Wonder though. If we were to use just regular reactors in space, how much would we harm, if anything?
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 4:12 pm
Quoting Builder Allan
Hey great link, thanks!

The collected wates are stored 'on-site, untill..' which is, well, if done properly, probably safe enough i guess.
The thing is, yucca mountain has been cancelled, and no plans for a similar site is on the table. There are also issues about long-term storage, but that depends on who you listen to.

It actually puzzles me some that he doesn't mention the gasses, but the bit about coolant-emissions were interesting. I hope the coolant is from the secondary cooling loop, though i suspect not from the phrasing he uses.
Liquid releases usually contain heavier elements (caesium, plutonium, strontium, uranium etc) with varying half-lives, the shortest lived one being caesium with 30 years. That means that any emissions happening within 300 years of one another will accumulate, if you look at the total body of water. When taking bio-accumulation, currently dumped waste and the no-threshold model into account, i can't think that it is a good thing.
Granted, a 'drop in the ocean', but not a good thing :-)

I wouldn't necessarily say that all options are off the table as far as storing waste. If I remember correctly, they were considering storing a lot of waste in a now secure salt mine in New Mexico. Maybe they cancelled that as well, I don't know. It's been a while since I've been updated on this nuclear energy stuff.
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 4:37 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
True. But do you mean that caesium has a half-life of 300 years, not 30?

Wonder though. If we were to use just regular reactors in space, how much would we harm, if anything?

It's 30, but that's only half of a given amount gone in 30 years. It will take 10 (in some cases 20) half-lives to reduce a given amount of radioactive material to below detectable levels. Thus, if the same amount of discharge is released each time and within the time of the half-lives needed (10 or 20) to neutralize the material, it will accumulate. For plutonium (one of its isotopes, don't remember the number), the half-life is 24.700 years. For uranium, it's something like 4.5 million years :-o

Indeed, reactors in space would be of no particular danger to anybody than the crew. In fact, we have a huge one 93 million miles away :-D So that would be fine by me, as long as they leave the waste somewhere else or send it into the sun :-)
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 4:44 pm
Quoting Cade .
I wouldn't necessarily say that all options are off the table as far as storing waste. If I remember correctly, they were considering storing a lot of waste in a now secure salt mine in New Mexico. Maybe they cancelled that as well, I don't know. It's been a while since I've been updated on this nuclear energy stuff.

You might be right about new plans actually, last thing i heard was the cancelled YM and that's quite a while ago now :-)

But i do agree with those that find our conviction that these wastes can be safely stored for 250.000 to be bordering the insane. WAY too many variables there!
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 4:49 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Builder Allan
It's 30, but that's only half of a given amount gone in 30 years. It will take 10 (in some cases 20) half-lives to reduce a given amount of radioactive material to below detectable levels. Thus, if the same amount of discharge is released each time and within the time of the half-lives needed (10 or 20) to neutralize the material, it will accumulate. For plutonium (one of its isotopes, don't remember the number), the half-life is 24.700 years. For uranium, it's something like 4.5 million years :-o

Indeed, reactors in space would be of no particular danger to anybody than the crew. In fact, we have a huge one 93 million miles away :-D So that would be fine by me, as long as they leave the waste somewhere else or send it into the sun :-)

Well the one 93 Million miles away is way better..... though did you know that if you were to compare the energy output of one cubic inch of human to one cubic inch of the sun, the humans makes more energy? Yeah.

Anyways, with enough shielding, the crew would be very safe; I haven't heard of crews aboard carriers getting radiation sickness.....
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 5:45 pm
hehe i actually didn't know that :-D I guess it has to do with mass (that einstein-thing), as the sun is mostly helium and we're mostly carbon :-)

I agree. With proper shielding, a moon-based NPP wouldn't be so bad. If we find a way to transfer the power, that is :-) In the meantime, nuclear-powered spaceships wouldn't be such a bad idea - if we handle the waste right.

About the crews of nuclear-powered ships.. Interestingly, the military does not keep records of disease statistics (radiation-related diseases at least) for crews. and since the crews hometowns are usually scattered, an individual cancer or other disease will only mean little in statistical terms for their home area.
Permalink
| July 25, 2013, 4:14 am
I personally, am all for Nuclear energy, The risk is a lot smaller than most people think, and it weilds great amounts of energy, we actually did a really big unit on this in my tech class. While doing a research project on this subject, I read a story of a attack on a nuclear power plant, they drove a plane into the building, and the plane literally crumpled. The building had 6 foot wide walls of concrete! I think the risk is waaay smaller than than the reward, also another thing is, Nuclear fusion is currently in development, if we could harness fusion, do you think this same debate would be going on, even though it is the "perfect" energy?
Permalink
| July 25, 2013, 1:24 pm
Ideally we would use wind, water, and the Sun to power everything. But since those are not perfected, I think nuclear energy is a good alternative. It can generate massive amounts of power with relatively little environmental impact (compared to what we have now).

However, I will say that these nucleur plants shouldn't be put in high-risk areas, to minimize catastrophic meltdowns. And when possible, put in a fairly low-populated area and just have the power carried all the way to the bigger cities. If there is a meltdown, it suck to lose some small town, but if it was to wipe out a major city that would be bad news.
Permalink
| July 25, 2013, 2:42 pm
Quoting Medieval Guy
nucleur plants shouldn't be put in high-risk areas

Haha! My country has one right on a tectonic crack!

I can not wait for an enclosed zombie apocalypse.
Permalink
| July 25, 2013, 4:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Builder Allan
hehe i actually didn't know that :-D I guess it has to do with mass (that einstein-thing), as the sun is mostly helium and we're mostly carbon :-)

I agree. With proper shielding, a moon-based NPP wouldn't be so bad. If we find a way to transfer the power, that is :-) In the meantime, nuclear-powered spaceships wouldn't be such a bad idea - if we handle the waste right.

About the crews of nuclear-powered ships.. Interestingly, the military does not keep records of disease statistics (radiation-related diseases at least) for crews. and since the crews hometowns are usually scattered, an individual cancer or other disease will only mean little in statistical terms for their home area.

It would be tricky, yes to transfer power from the moon to Earth.

This sounds kinda odd, but could we make, say, a battery that could be charged via a nuclear reactor?
Permalink
| July 25, 2013, 4:42 pm
Quoting Michael K.
Both are true. Windmills are noisy and ugly.

And they kill hundreds of birds and bats.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:26 am
Quoting Medieval Guy
Ideally we would use wind, water, and the Sun to power everything. But since those are not perfected, I think nuclear energy is a good alternative. It can generate massive amounts of power with relatively little environmental impact (compared to what we have now).

I think ideally we would use hydrogen fusion as our power source.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:27 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
And they kill hundreds of birds and bats.

Well, yes. But, if you want to be all eco and whatnot, the argument could be that fossil fuels destroy the environment that these animals live in, therefore, they are killing even more animals.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:33 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Medieval Guy
Ideally we would use wind, water, and the Sun to power everything. But since those are not perfected, I think nuclear energy is a good alternative. It can generate massive amounts of power with relatively little environmental impact (compared to what we have now).

I think ideally we would use hydrogen fusion as our power source.


Hydrogen fusion. Alright, well lets see.

The only fusion nuclear bomb to explode required hydrogen, though I'm not sure that you can control such a reactor (not yet anyways).
But another matter is this: how are you going to get hydrogen?

Its the most abundant substance in the universe, but on Earth, getting it is no that easy. Not sure how cost effective one would be, if it relied on Earth-farmed hydrogen particles.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:36 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad

Hydrogen fusion. Alright, well lets see.

The only fusion nuclear bomb to explode required hydrogen, though I'm not sure that you can control such a reactor (not yet anyways).
That's why it's ideally, it makes so much energy it's difficult to control. If we could control it, I think that it would be the ideal source of energy.
Quoting Achintya Prasad

But another matter is this: how are you going to get hydrogen?

Water has hydrogen in it. It's pretty easy to extract.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:42 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Achintya Prasad

Hydrogen fusion. Alright, well lets see.

The only fusion nuclear bomb to explode required hydrogen, though I'm not sure that you can control such a reactor (not yet anyways).
That's why it's ideally, it makes so much energy it's difficult to control. If we could control it, I think that it would be the ideal source of energy.
Quoting Achintya Prasad

But another matter is this: how are you going to get hydrogen?

Water has hydrogen in it. It's pretty easy to extract.

No, not necessarily. Water doesn't yield a source for hydrogen. I'm not sure as to how you would extract it, as its chemically bonded to oxygen, but I do know that even if you did, you would most likely need to convert that hydrogen into another state of matter, which isn't really easy either.

I would be happy to have an energy grid based off of hydrogen fusion, but that much power. I don't see anyway to control it with our current technology.....
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:45 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, yes. But, if you want to be all eco and whatnot, the argument could be that fossil fuels destroy the environment that these animals live in, therefore, they are killing even more animals.
Is it possible to have an energy source that doesn't damage the environment?
(destroy is not a good word to use here: The environment has survived several extinction events worse than we could possibly do without making a deliberate attempt to kill everything)
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:49 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, yes. But, if you want to be all eco and whatnot, the argument could be that fossil fuels destroy the environment that these animals live in, therefore, they are killing even more animals.
Is it possible to have an energy source that doesn't damage the environment?
(destroy is not a good word to use here: The environment has survived several extinction events worse than we could possibly do without making a deliberate attempt to kill everything)

Trick question. Technically, yes, if that source is on another planet, and sends energy straight to us.
One bit of opposition, I was thinking about, on hydrogen fusion would be a reactor meltdown. Mind you, I know those are rare, but in the event of one, my goodness.....
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:51 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Trick question. Technically, yes, if that source is on another planet, and sends energy straight to us.
Brilliant! Now, how do we get the energy back here?
Quoting Achintya Prasad
One bit of opposition, I was thinking about, on hydrogen fusion would be a reactor meltdown. Mind you, I know those are rare, but in the event of one, my goodness.....
Very true. You would have to have a ton of safety precautions, and probably put the reactor far away from residential areas.

Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 12:34 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
No, not necessarily. Water doesn't yield a source for hydrogen. I'm not sure as to how you would extract it, as its chemically bonded to oxygen, but I do know that even if you did, you would most likely need to convert that hydrogen into another state of matter, which isn't really easy either.
It wouldn't be that hard. I have actually done the experiment of breaking the hydrogen and oxygen apart myself, it's remarkably easy. You just have to put two electrodes in the water and collect the gas from the cathode. You don't need to change the state of matter, hydrogen fusion works when the hydrogen is in gaseous form (that's what happens in the sun).
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I would be happy to have an energy grid based off of hydrogen fusion, but that much power. I don't see anyway to control it with our current technology.....
That's the problem. We don't (currently) have the technology. But I really think we should put money into research to make hydrogen fusion feasible.

Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 12:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Trick question. Technically, yes, if that source is on another planet, and sends energy straight to us.
Brilliant! Now, how do we get the energy back here?
Quoting Achintya Prasad
One bit of opposition, I was thinking about, on hydrogen fusion would be a reactor meltdown. Mind you, I know those are rare, but in the event of one, my goodness.....
Very true. You would have to have a ton of safety precautions, and probably put the reactor far away from residential areas.

Hmm. Well, I was thinking, assuming that the we did have these power plants over on the moon, we could use a device that Tesla was perfecting, that didn't use wires to send out electricity. Or, I was thinking, maybe have batteries, the size of a tractor-trailer, that can be charged and used for 25-30 years. Use 'em as the power source for a large town. When they run out, install a new one, and send the old one back up to the moon to be recharged.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 6:33 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Achintya Prasad
No, not necessarily. Water doesn't yield a source for hydrogen. I'm not sure as to how you would extract it, as its chemically bonded to oxygen, but I do know that even if you did, you would most likely need to convert that hydrogen into another state of matter, which isn't really easy either.
It wouldn't be that hard. I have actually done the experiment of breaking the hydrogen and oxygen apart myself, it's remarkably easy. You just have to put two electrodes in the water and collect the gas from the cathode. You don't need to change the state of matter, hydrogen fusion works when the hydrogen is in gaseous form (that's what happens in the sun).
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I would be happy to have an energy grid based off of hydrogen fusion, but that much power. I don't see anyway to control it with our current technology.....
That's the problem. We don't (currently) have the technology. But I really think we should put money into research to make hydrogen fusion feasible.

Well, yeah, you can extract the hydrogen out, but how efficient is it? If you only manage to collect a few particles from, say, a gallon of water, you would have to use an enormous amount of water.

Money really does need to be sent to energy products those. Less on social programs! More on energy and space travel!
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 6:35 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, yeah, you can extract the hydrogen out, but how efficient is it? If you only manage to collect a few particles from, say, a gallon of water, you would have to use an enormous amount of water.

Money really does need to be sent to energy products those. Less on social programs! More on energy and space travel!

Well, this is kind of a social program... from a certain point of view.
But money isn't really spent on social programs... just lots and lots of time.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 9:42 pm
Quoting Brick Munky
Well, this is kind of a social program... from a certain point of view.
But money isn't really spent on social programs... just lots and lots of time.

Unless you count all the money spent on things like welfare and disability benefits.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 9:44 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
Unless you count all the money spent on things like welfare and disability benefits.

oookay, getting off topic here, fellas. I would think that green energy would be in infrastructure or energy anyways, so.


Permalink
| July 27, 2013, 10:32 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
It would be tricky, yes to transfer power from the moon to Earth.

This sounds kinda odd, but could we make, say, a battery that could be charged via a nuclear reactor?

Hi! Sorry for not answering sooner.

I think a battery-type solution would be unfeasible, even with the technology of tomorrow. Looking at the current battery capacity and the development in capacities over time, i think it will be a very long time until we reach a point where the power stored in the battery balances the power invested in generating and transporting it :-)

However, i saw a mention of Tesla's work here. If we indeed find a way to transmit the power without physical connection, that balance would suddenly be very different.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 11:00 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Builder Allan
Hi! Sorry for not answering sooner.

I think a battery-type solution would be unfeasible, even with the technology of tomorrow. Looking at the current battery capacity and the development in capacities over time, i think it will be a very long time until we reach a point where the power stored in the battery balances the power invested in generating and transporting it :-)

However, i saw a mention of Tesla's work here. If we indeed find a way to transmit the power without physical connection, that balance would suddenly be very different.

Hmm, yeah, I was thinking along the lines of a rechargeable battery, and maybe, with enough capacity to run a city for some time. Eh, it was a thought.


Tesla's system has proven itself to be safe, and feasible, at least on small scale. But would it be able to work between the void of Earth and the moon?
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 11:03 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Hmm, yeah, I was thinking along the lines of a rechargeable battery, and maybe, with enough capacity to run a city for some time. Eh, it was a thought.


Tesla's system has proven itself to be safe, and feasible, at least on small scale. But would it be able to work between the void of Earth and the moon?

Well it is not a bad thought, the only problem is that we would need capacities somewhere in the thousands of times higher (per gram weight of battery) than what we have today. Maybe in a couple hundred years it could be feasible :-)

About Tesla, well that is the big question.. But somehow i don't think it is entirely IMpossible, seeing all the other waveforms space has bouncing around.
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 11:15 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Builder Allan
Well it is not a bad thought, the only problem is that we would need capacities somewhere in the thousands of times higher (per gram weight of battery) than what we have today. Maybe in a couple hundred years it could be feasible :-)

About Tesla, well that is the big question.. But somehow i don't think it is entirely IMpossible, seeing all the other waveforms space has bouncing around.

True, but I am also thinking, though, how would you be able to control where the electricity goes? Like, in a wire, you string it from the power station to the house (with a few stops in transformers and whatnot), but how would you control a beam of electricity, essentially, lightening?

I sometimes wonder, how, in the 50's, people actually thought there would be nuclear blenders and toasters and whatnot. Nowadays, that just seems dumb!
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 11:19 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
True, but I am also thinking, though, how would you be able to control where the electricity goes? Like, in a wire, you string it from the power station to the house (with a few stops in transformers and whatnot), but how would you control a beam of electricity, essentially, lightening?

I sometimes wonder, how, in the 50's, people actually thought there would be nuclear blenders and toasters and whatnot. Nowadays, that just seems dumb!

Well that's where things get complicated and more research is needed. But personally, i imagine the energy transmitted as microwaves, radiowaves or light outside the visible spectrum, to be picked up by parabola-shaped mirrors or something. The downside to my idea is, that if we knew how to tap energy in these forms directly there would - literally - be no need for power plants. We would just 'pluck' electricity out of the abundance of energy thrown at us from all corners of space.

Hehe, you're right about that :-) I read a quote in an early 50's text somewhere that 'the risk of a meltdown due to a traffic accident on main street makes nuclear-powered cars undesirable, even if possible within the next decade'. Since then, somebody figured out that the technology to control such small reactors would be 'science fiction, seen from our time'. I think that was in the late 50's or early 60's.

Makes me wonder though, what will our kids be laughing at that our generation considered an inevitable part of the future? :-D
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 11:47 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
True, but I am also thinking, though, how would you be able to control where the electricity goes? Like, in a wire, you string it from the power station to the house (with a few stops in transformers and whatnot), but how would you control a beam of electricity, essentially, lightening?

I sometimes wonder, how, in the 50's, people actually thought there would be nuclear blenders and toasters and whatnot. Nowadays, that just seems dumb!

Uuh, i apparently wrote something that needed checking. I suppose my comment will turn up in a while :-)
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 11:50 am
I support nuclear energy. It is a great power source and if clean, nuclear waste is being disposed of in a variety of ways by different groups.
Yes there have been accidents like Chernobyl, caused by human error, or Fukushima caused by a massive natural disaster. Even three mile island, though this was a reactor failure, there have been no cases of illness resulting from it. USS thresher, a nuclear sub lost in the ocean, no radiation has leaked from its reactor, at the bottom of the ocean.
As for radiation, you get more radiation on a flight over the pacific than standing in Chernobyl
Bottom line, we need nuclear to power our lives and the "downsides" can be avoided easily.
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 11:04 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Builder Allan
Well that's where things get complicated and more research is needed. But personally, i imagine the energy transmitted as microwaves, radiowaves or light outside the visible spectrum, to be picked up by parabola-shaped mirrors or something. The downside to my idea is, that if we knew how to tap energy in these forms directly there would - literally - be no need for power plants. We would just 'pluck' electricity out of the abundance of energy thrown at us from all corners of space.

Hehe, you're right about that :-) I read a quote in an early 50's text somewhere that 'the risk of a meltdown due to a traffic accident on main street makes nuclear-powered cars undesirable, even if possible within the next decade'. Since then, somebody figured out that the technology to control such small reactors would be 'science fiction, seen from our time'. I think that was in the late 50's or early 60's.

Makes me wonder though, what will our kids be laughing at that our generation considered an inevitable part of the future? :-D

Maybe the internet :-0
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 12:58 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jack K
I support nuclear energy. It is a great power source and if clean, nuclear waste is being disposed of in a variety of ways by different groups.
Yes there have been accidents like Chernobyl, caused by human error, or Fukushima caused by a massive natural disaster. Even three mile island, though this was a reactor failure, there have been no cases of illness resulting from it. USS thresher, a nuclear sub lost in the ocean, no radiation has leaked from its reactor, at the bottom of the ocean.
As for radiation, you get more radiation on a flight over the pacific than standing in Chernobyl
Bottom line, we need nuclear to power our lives and the "downsides" can be avoided easily.

Maybe not easily, per say, but they can be avoided with great care.
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 12:59 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Maybe the internet :-0

Haha yeah, or mobile phones :-D
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 4:05 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Maybe not easily, per say, but they can be avoided with great care.

That's a better way to put it. Nuclear energy is very controversial, and I end up on the side of controversy more often than not, so I can get a bit carried away.
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 4:13 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I dunno. I really support Nuclear Energy. I mean, people like to point to Fukishima or Chernobyl, but the thing is, those are freak accidents. Advancements in nuclear reactor safety can fix the problems reactors have. Also, lets not forget that you aren't likely to pollute a massive portion of water via an oil spill. Not sure about noise pollution, but yes Dams do chance the entire environment. They should be built with extreme caution.

I have strongly to disagree with you. Nuclear energy is still, what is was all time: an uncalcuable risk.
First we have to think, what we are talking about. If a house is burning, the fire brigade comes and deal with it. If it comes to a meltdown, there will be no fire brigade which can help.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
... people like to point to Fukishima or Chernobyl, but the thing is, those are freak accidents.

how much accidents are needed, until mankind know that accidents still can happen? If you think, chernobyl and fukushima are far away from the states, dont worry! Even in the USA took some INES 5 and possible 6 place.
-Three Mile Island 1979
-First Chalk River 1952
Isnt that enough? Remember that these cases are only the ones, that made it to the public. I dont wanna know how much really serious nearly-accidents happen that are kept secret.
And until today, we dont have any place anywhere in the world for final storage of the nuclear waste.
Permalink
| September 23, 2013, 7:46 am
Quoting Michael K.
I think nuclear power is one of the best sources of energy, because as long the spent waste is disposed of in a way it won't leak, it is very safe.

And what if not?

Quoting Michael K.
he Fukushima-Daiichi accident was the weather's fault, not the concept's, and that they didn't have enough batteries and they didn't waterproof the generators, And Chernobyl was a design and operating error, again, not the overall concept.

Nobody could expect "weather" and nobody could expect human fails.
And nobody can expect that all can happen together....
Nuclear energy will always be save...until the next disaster happens.
Permalink
| September 23, 2013, 8:04 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
I have strongly to disagree with you. Nuclear energy is still, what is was all time: an uncalcuable risk.
First we have to think, what we are talking about. If a house is burning, the fire brigade comes and deal with it. If it comes to a meltdown, there will be no fire brigade which can help.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
... people like to point to Fukishima or Chernobyl, but the thing is, those are freak accidents.

how much accidents are needed, until mankind know that accidents still can happen? If you think, chernobyl and fukushima are far away from the states, dont worry! Even in the USA took some INES 5 and possible 6 place.
-Three Mile Island 1979
-First Chalk River 1952
Isnt that enough? Remember that these cases are only the ones, that made it to the public. I dont wanna know how much really serious nearly-accidents happen that are kept secret.
And until today, we dont have any place anywhere in the world for final storage of the nuclear waste.

These were human error, Chernobyl was lack of cooperation between generator scientists and nuclear scientists, Fukushima was poor contingency planning. We've never had a near-accident in USA for a while. France gets all their energy from nuclear, they have no problems.
Permalink
| September 23, 2013, 8:07 am
Quoting Michael K.
These were human error, Chernobyl was lack of cooperation between generator scientists and nuclear scientists, Fukushima was poor contingency planning. We've never had a near-accident in USA for a while. France gets all their energy from nuclear, they have no problems.

Human errors, as I said. But how did it change the result?
France has poor contingency planning too. A lot of power plants are build in an area which is known as earthquake-area (east france close to south germany). Or do earthquakes belong to the unexpected kinds of weather?
Would you still think so if a power plant close to Paris gets "problems"?
Permalink
| September 23, 2013, 8:32 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
And what if not?

That's the point, it IS buried safely.
Quoting Locutus 666
Nobody could expect "weather" and nobody could expect human fails.
And nobody can expect that all can happen together....
Nuclear energy will always be safe...until the next disaster happens.

We don't have tsunamis here. There are too many precautions for Chernobyl style accidents.

Quoting Locutus 666
Human errors, as I said. But how did it change the result?

It changed the result because it otherwise wouldn't happen.
Quoting Locutus 666
France has poor contingency planning too. A lot of power plants are build in an area which is known as earthquake-area (east france close to south germany). Or do earthquakes belong to the unexpected kinds of weather?

So they have earthquakes often and still no issues? No doubt that already occurred to them.
Quoting Locutus 666
Would you still think so if a power plant close to Paris gets "problems"?

Perhaps.
Permalink
| September 23, 2013, 8:39 am
 Group admin 
Gotta go, I'm off to school.
Permalink
| September 23, 2013, 8:39 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
I have strongly to disagree with you. Nuclear energy is still, what is was all time: an uncalcuable risk.
First we have to think, what we are talking about. If a house is burning, the fire brigade comes and deal with it. If it comes to a meltdown, there will be no fire brigade which can help.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
... people like to point to Fukishima or Chernobyl, but the thing is, those are freak accidents.

how much accidents are needed, until mankind know that accidents still can happen? If you think, chernobyl and fukushima are far away from the states, dont worry! Even in the USA took some INES 5 and possible 6 place.
-Three Mile Island 1979
-First Chalk River 1952
Isnt that enough? Remember that these cases are only the ones, that made it to the public. I dont wanna know how much really serious nearly-accidents happen that are kept secret.
And until today, we dont have any place anywhere in the world for final storage of the nuclear waste.

Well, there are some other things you need to think of. How many oil spills have occurred in the past 20 years? How many nuclear disasters? Also, in the case of depositing nuclear waste, for now, there is an entire mountain far away from civilization in the US that is being used for that very purpose. Also, we have space. Launch it up there, let it fly past, say, Jupiter, and by then, its at a safe distance away from Earth. Besides, carriers have been operating for 50 years with nuclear reactors; they seem to work fine.....
Permalink
| September 23, 2013, 5:53 pm
Quoting Locutus 666
And what if not?

Quoting Michael K.
he Fukushima-Daiichi accident was the weather's fault, not the concept's, and that they didn't have enough batteries and they didn't waterproof the generators, And Chernobyl was a design and operating error, again, not the overall concept.

Nobody could expect "weather" and nobody could expect human fails.
And nobody can expect that all can happen together....
Nuclear energy will always be save...until the next disaster happens.

Look at oil and coal power, they have accidents far more frequently than nuclear. Everything has failures, by your logic we should ban planes since too many crash. Nuclear power is still only a few decades old, and we are continuously learning. Everything has risk, every time you get in a car, walk outside, or even walk in your house, there are risks. No power source will ever be perfect.
Permalink
| September 23, 2013, 7:52 pm
Quoting Jack K

and
Quoting Achintya Prasad

You both try to compare the results and consequences of a nuclear meltdown with disasters at coal power plants, plane crashes and other such stuff.

But tell me, will ANY of these disasters consequences last for the next 300,000 years?

@Achintya
I know how long the USN is using nuclear reactors in ships. Do you think the navy will announce any problems if they appear?
As you wrote.."they seem to work fine.."

Nuclear waste into space? Somewhere behind the Jupiter??? Achintya dont tell me your that naive!
Will you pay that?
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 7:42 am
Quoting Locutus 666

I'm not saying that plane crashes and nuclear disasters are the same, I'm just saying that things go wrong, and even the most advanced technologies fail.
Also, 300,000 years is not entirely accurate. Some radiation lingers that long, but only in small amounts or in super condensed areas like reactor cores. Most of Chernobyl and Fukushima is now totally safe to walk in.

Weird story: I'm doing a opinion paper on nuclear power for my english class. I might post it when it's done just for kicks. I swear, every debate I have here, I have somewhere else.
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 7:04 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
and
Quoting Achintya Prasad

You both try to compare the results and consequences of a nuclear meltdown with disasters at coal power plants, plane crashes and other such stuff.

But tell me, will ANY of these disasters consequences last for the next 300,000 years?

@Achintya
I know how long the USN is using nuclear reactors in ships. Do you think the navy will announce any problems if they appear?
As you wrote.."they seem to work fine.."

Nuclear waste into space? Somewhere behind the Jupiter??? Achintya dont tell me your that naive!
Will you pay that?

Nah, nah, I wouldn't just wave 'em good by. But I do think, honestly, that the radioactive waste does have some use. Maybe we could harness it as another source of fuel for space craft. But the point is, we are all heavily dependent on electricity. As for as I see, nuclear energy is relatively clean (excluding the rods, essentially, they do have smokestacks, but compared to a fossil fuel plant?) it is manageable (once again, you most likely aren't going to end up with, say, a railcar derailment that might blow up twenty fuel cars), and, finally, it is the most efficient system for producing electricity that I know of.
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 9:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
I know how long the USN is using nuclear reactors in ships. Do you think the navy will announce any problems if they appear?
As you wrote.."they seem to work fine.."

Yes, they do seem fine. We'd hear about it if thousands of sailors got sick. You couldn't cover up the sheer amount of people.
Quoting Locutus 666
Nuclear waste into space? Somewhere behind the Jupiter??? Achintya dont tell me your that naive!
Will you pay that?

Hmmm, that might not be a bad idea. It doesn't take too much fuel to run a reactor, we could probably stuff it all into a can the size of an average satellite, and shoot it off just like a normal satellite. Even better, send it towards the sun.
Permalink
| September 24, 2013, 10:26 pm
Quoting Michael K.
Hmmm, that might not be a bad idea. It doesn't take too much fuel to run a reactor, we could probably stuff it all into a can the size of an average satellite, and shoot it off just like a normal satellite. Even better, send it towards the sun.

I see you seem to have no idea how much
1) energy in fuel it costs, to reach the delta velocity to get the waste far enough from earth
2) how much nuclear waste we have all around the world

And what if the rocket got a failure in midair? normally if the payload is a satelity or soemthing else they simply destroy the rocket. But what if the payload is nuclear waste? I would say, enjoy the green-glow-in-the-dark-rain! Wohooo! :)
Think about it.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 2:13 am
Quoting Jack K
Quoting Locutus 666

I'm not saying that plane crashes and nuclear disasters are the same, I'm just saying that things go wrong, and even the most advanced technologies fail.
Also, 300,000 years is not entirely accurate. Some radiation lingers that long, but only in small amounts or in super condensed areas like reactor cores. Most of Chernobyl and Fukushima is now totally safe to walk in.

Weird story: I'm doing a opinion paper on nuclear power for my english class. I might post it when it's done just for kicks. I swear, every debate I have here, I have somewhere else.

Thats simply not true my friend. Well i know the news dont tell you how condensed the area still is for the next 100,000 years (minimum) so it might be looking everything is okay.
Because of chernobyl people still get sick in europe. studys about that show a lot of signs for that.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 2:18 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You both try to compare the results and consequences of a nuclear meltdown with disasters at coal power plants, plane crashes and other such stuff.

But tell me, will ANY of these disasters consequences last for the next 300,000 years?

@Achintya
I know how long the USN is using nuclear reactors in ships. Do you think the navy will announce any problems if they appear?
As you wrote.."they seem to work fine.."

Nuclear waste into space? Somewhere behind the Jupiter??? Achintya dont tell me your that naive!
Will you pay that?

Nah, nah, I wouldn't just wave 'em good by. But I do think, honestly, that the radioactive waste does have some use. Maybe we could harness it as another source of fuel for space craft. But the point is, we are all heavily dependent on electricity. As for as I see, nuclear energy is relatively clean (excluding the rods, essentially, they do have smokestacks, but compared to a fossil fuel plant?) it is manageable (once again, you most likely aren't going to end up with, say, a railcar derailment that might blow up twenty fuel cars), and, finally, it is the most efficient system for producing electricity that I know of.

Sadly your right. We still need those power plants.
One more reason to look out for alternatives that we can replace those riskful nuclaer power plants as fast as possible!
nuclear waste do not have any further use. Thats why its called waste.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 2:22 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
I see you seem to have no idea how much
1) energy in fuel it costs, to reach the delta velocity to get the waste far enough from earth
2) how much nuclear waste we have all around the world

We sent satellites out into the outer solar system every year or so. It isn't THAT expensive.
Quoting Locutus 666
And what if the rocket got a failure in midair? normally if the payload is a satelity or something else they simply destroy the rocket. But what if the payload is nuclear waste? I would say, enjoy the green-glow-in-the-dark-rain! Wohooo! :)
Think about it.

This issue came up during the Apollo program. They used tiny reactors to power experiments on the moon for years. They build reentry proof casings, in case a rocket ever blew up. One of them came back during Apollo 13, no problems were caused. When was the last time one of our rockets blew up anyway?
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 7:54 am
Quoting Michael K.
We sent satellites out into the outer solar system every year or so. It isn't THAT expensive.

As I said, you dont know how much nuclear waste already exists.
Those satelites are kept in a very light weight. And yes, they are very expensive and no, you dont send them every year.
In wikipedia I find exactly 9 of them since 1977.

Quoting Michael K.
This issue came up during the Apollo program. They used tiny reactors to power experiments on the moon for years. They build reentry proof casings, in case a rocket ever blew up. One of them came back during Apollo 13, no problems were caused. When was the last time one of our rockets blew up anyway?

Your still far away from reality. We are not talking about a tiny reactor, were talking about a whole payload.

Quoting Michael K.
When was the last time one of our rockets blew up anyway?

Asking for the last time is irrelevant. Think of it when it happens with one of the waste payloads.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 8:19 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
As I said, you don't know how much nuclear waste already exists.
Those satellites are kept in a very light weight.

I'm sure, in all our human ingenuity, we can find a rocket strong enough.
Quoting Locutus 666
And yes, they are very expensive and no, you don't send them every year.

Of course they're expensive, I mean it's not so expensive it'll bankrupt us or anything
Quoting Locutus 666
In wikipedia I find exactly 9 of them since 1977.
OK, I exaggerated, but you get the point. Noe of those ever bankrupted us.
Quoting Locutus 666
Your still far away from reality. We are not talking about a tiny reactor, were talking about a whole payload.

Only saying it's happened before, on a smaller scale, and was fine.
Quoting Locutus 666
Asking for the last time is irrelevant. Think of it when it happens with one of the waste payloads.

Your whole argument in this topic is "It's bad because there's an outside chance something MIGHT happen."

I guess we'll never do something like this. The current methods, bury it in airtight cans in the desert, works fine for the foreseeable future.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 4:41 pm
Quoting Michael K.
I'm sure, in all our human ingenuity, we can find a rocket strong enough.

I think this problem is to serious for fairy tales...

Quoting Michael K.
Your whole argument in this topic is "It's bad because there's an outside chance something MIGHT happen."

I guess we'll never do something like this. The current methods, bury it in airtight cans in the desert, works fine for the foreseeable future.

foreseeable future? Dude are you kidding? Those nuclear materials need at least minimum 100,000 years until they lose its deadly radiation. If you think you can foresee even 1,000 years, than your really far away from reality and/or didnt realize yet how nasty this problematic nuclear waste is. And mankind is producing that stuff more and more year for year. Nuclear energy is realy cheap because the enormous prize has to be paid by future generations.

Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 5:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Nah, nah, I wouldn't just wave 'em good by. But I do think, honestly, that the radioactive waste does have some use. Maybe we could harness it as another source of fuel for space craft. But the point is, we are all heavily dependent on electricity. As for as I see, nuclear energy is relatively clean (excluding the rods, essentially, they do have smokestacks, but compared to a fossil fuel plant?) it is manageable (once again, you most likely aren't going to end up with, say, a railcar derailment that might blow up twenty fuel cars), and, finally, it is the most efficient system for producing electricity that I know of.

Sadly your right. We still need those power plants.
One more reason to look out for alternatives that we can replace those riskful nuclaer power plants as fast as possible!
nuclear waste do not have any further use. Thats why its called waste.

I'm not so sure. The "waste", I think, does still have use. Just need to find it.

Also, BTW, as much as I support, like, green energy and whatnot, I don't think it has the capability to single-handedly keep humanity running. I mean, look at a China. That, simply put, cannot be run by some windmills and solar panels, at least not with the current level of tech.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 7:12 pm
I am all for the advancement of Nuclear Energy Sector. I believe with the advancements in technology and newer safety techniques, this is our best chance at getting a system that works 100% of the time like fossil fuels. Unlike the higher expensive's green energy projects have been putting on Americans, the United States need to be looking at projects that can bring the cheep energy that works at all times, to the American people and Nuclear energy is one step we can take.
Permalink
| September 25, 2013, 9:32 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Sadly your right. We still need those power plants.
One more reason to look out for alternatives that we can replace those riskful nuclaer power plants as fast as possible!
nuclear waste do not have any further use. Thats why its called waste.

I'm not so sure. The "waste", I think, does still have use. Just need to find it.

Also, BTW, as much as I support, like, green energy and whatnot, I don't think it has the capability to single-handedly keep humanity running. I mean, look at a China. That, simply put, cannot be run by some windmills and solar panels, at least not with the current level of tech.

Okay, the USA found a way for the uranium waste. They made ammunition and used them in Iraq 1991. They even hurt their own GIs too.

Alternative energy is possible and can be good enough to supply the needed energy. But only if our energy consumtion will be decreased.
Permalink
| September 26, 2013, 2:47 am
Are you guys seeing the weird format of replies right now, or is just me?

Back on topic. DU (depleted uranium) tank rounds are incredibly dangerous. I don't like what they do radioactivity wise. We use DU in tank armor too, making tanks practically indestructible. I say that all waste material should be sealed up until we find a good use for it.
Permalink
| September 26, 2013, 6:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
I'm not so sure. The "waste", I think, does still have use. Just need to find it.

Also, BTW, as much as I support, like, green energy and whatnot, I don't think it has the capability to single-handedly keep humanity running. I mean, look at a China. That, simply put, cannot be run by some windmills and solar panels, at least not with the current level of tech.

Okay, the USA found a way for the uranium waste. They made ammunition and used them in Iraq 1991. They even hurt their own GIs too.

Alternative energy is possible and can be good enough to supply the needed energy. But only if our energy consumtion will be decreased.

Well. Ammo and Armor do use depleted uranium, but its not just the US. If I'm not mistaken, the German Leopard A2 tank has depleted uranium in its armor.


But all that is besides the point. Your main argument, from what I see, is that Nuclear Energy isn't a good idea, because it is dirty. But compared to a gas or coal plant? Its much cleaner.

Safety is also another thing. True, a meltdown is disaster, but that is why you don't build a power plant in the middle of a city.
Permalink
| September 26, 2013, 7:39 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad

Well. Ammo and Armor do use depleted uranium, but its not just the US. If I'm not mistaken, the German Leopard A2 tank has depleted uranium in its armor.


But all that is besides the point. Your main argument, from what I see, is that Nuclear Energy isn't a good idea, because it is dirty. But compared to a gas or coal plant? Its much cleaner.

Safety is also another thing. True, a meltdown is disaster, but that is why you don't build a power plant in the middle of a city.

I didnt say that the power plants itself a "dirty". Mining the uranium is dirty.
But its not about if this kind of energy is dirty or not, its about the risk. The nature dont care about radioactivity. Playing with that is like playing with fire. Its only a question of time until you burn your fingers.

Its unimportant if you build such a power plant in the middle of a city or not. If the disasters is big enough, the radioactive dust could be spread all around the world.
In 1986 the russians sacrifcied 1000s of red army soldiers to avoid such a thing. In fukushima their still fighting for it!

my arguemnts against nuclear energy are
1.) the uncalcuable risk
2.) the problem with the final storage of the waste

Both are facts that cannot be solved by discussions, they are a fact!
Permalink
| September 27, 2013, 2:50 am
/off topic

Yes i have some strange quotations too.
Permalink
| September 27, 2013, 2:50 am
Hmm i think i'd like to re-join the debate, though i don't really have time to debate a whole lot.

A few FACTS about nuclear energy:

With todays technology, the Energy Return On Investment is 1:11 for nuclear energy, and that is without factoring in the waste and decommission energy costs. More about the dangers later.

In comparison, a barrel of CO2-polluting oil with current extraction technology yields about 1:95 to 1:100.

For windmills the current EROI is 1:18, making them a more efficient and less CO2-emitting energy source than nuclear energy, and in many places where windmills are installed the wind blows consistently at a pace strong enough to produce plenty of power.

Also, the complete invested energy into all true green energy solutions (wind, solar, hydro) will be paid back in full as of next year. Green energy solutions are NOT ineffective when used in combination, and some can even stand alone.

About nuclear energy: During the process of splitting the atoms a vast array of different fission daughter-products with varying half-lives are produced. Fact is, not only are several of these in gaseous form and needs to be routinely vented (which they are, see NRC reports), heavier elements escape through cracks and small openings in the fuel rods and are routinely released through the thousands of miles of piping, thousands of valves, gaskets, tanks etc that make up the interior of a nuclear power plant. The 'smoke stack' seen at many nuke-plants is there to vent excess steam from the secondary cooling loop and these gases. The heavier elements too find their way into nature, with the secondary cooling water which is released into the rivers or oceans from where it was drawn.

When it comes to accidents... Well, when you have a technology that can bankrupt a nation, and potentially lay waste to most of it's lands - or it's neighbours lands! - it really doesn't matter if an accident happened due to human error or 'events beyond the basis of the design' (and the design basis is what the engineers says it is by the way - regardless of actual circumstances) an accident should just never happen. Period!

As of today, the world has officially encountered 7 major nuclear accidents, averaging one per decade since the invention of nuclear reactors.
Chalk River meltdown as mentioned, Canada, 1952.
Kyshtym storage tank explosion, Russian SSR, 1957.
Windscale reactor fire, UK, 1957.
Simi Valley meltdown, USA, 1959.
Three Mile Island meltdown, USA, 1979.
Chernobyl meltdown, Ukrainian SSR, 1986.
And of course:
Fukushima meltdowns, Japan, 2011. With three reactors involved. And four fuel pools!

And checking NRC reports, the US is currently averaging a near miss a year, so the US is no less in danger of having the next accident than any other country with nuclear plants in the world.

About how dangerous radiation really is:
Three current and indisputable science reports all conclude that ANY level of excess radiation yields an increase in cancer levels, and one even offers a table to calculate the Excess Risk Ratio at a given level of radiation (BEIR VII)

The reports are:
The BEIR VII Phase 2 report, by the National Academy of Sciences.
The 15-country Collaborative Nuclear Workers Study, By the European Radiation Research Society.
And the Chernobyl Consequences Report. An analysis in English of a large body of studies originally in Russian, by three doctors, two from Belorussia, and one from Russia.

I know it's a controversial topic, but with what i know my mind is made.

Oh, and once again: Thinking that the wastes can be safely stored for a minimum of 247.500 years (ten half-lives for plutonium) is.. Well.. A very optimistic thought, to say the least. The longest standing civilization has lasted 1300 years, the pyramids are a mere 6000 years old, our known written history stretches back no further than 9000 years, and Man as we know it has existed in it's current form for a mere 150.000 years tops.
Permalink
| December 19, 2013, 3:36 pm
And i even missed adding a ton of details all over the place.. Oh well, 'nuff said i should think :-)
Permalink
| December 19, 2013, 3:51 pm
Quoting Builder Allan
Hmm i think i'd like to re-join the debate, though i don't really have time to debate a whole lot.

A few FACTS about nuclear energy:

With todays technology, the Energy Return On Investment is 1:11 for nuclear energy, and that is without factoring in the waste and decommission energy costs. More about the dangers later.

In comparison, a barrel of CO2-polluting oil with current extraction technology yields about 1:95 to 1:100.

For windmills the current EROI is 1:18, making them a more efficient and less CO2-emitting energy source than nuclear energy, and in many places where windmills are installed the wind blows consistently at a pace strong enough to produce plenty of power.

Also, the complete invested energy into all true green energy solutions (wind, solar, hydro) will be paid back in full as of next year. Green energy solutions are NOT ineffective when used in combination, and some can even stand alone.

About nuclear energy: During the process of splitting the atoms a vast array of different fission daughter-products with varying half-lives are produced. Fact is, not only are several of these in gaseous form and needs to be routinely vented (which they are, see NRC reports), heavier elements escape through cracks and small openings in the fuel rods and are routinely released through the thousands of miles of piping, thousands of valves, gaskets, tanks etc that make up the interior of a nuclear power plant. The 'smoke stack' seen at many nuke-plants is there to vent excess steam from the secondary cooling loop and these gases. The heavier elements too find their way into nature, with the secondary cooling water which is released into the rivers or oceans from where it was drawn.

When it comes to accidents... Well, when you have a technology that can bankrupt a nation, and potentially lay waste to most of it's lands - or it's neighbours lands! - it really doesn't matter if an accident happened due to human error or 'events beyond the basis of the design' (and the design basis is what the engineers says it is by the way - regardless of actual circumstances) an accident should just never happen. Period!

As of today, the world has officially encountered 7 major nuclear accidents, averaging one per decade since the invention of nuclear reactors.
Chalk River meltdown as mentioned, Canada, 1952.
Kyshtym storage tank explosion, Russian SSR, 1957.
Windscale reactor fire, UK, 1957.
Simi Valley meltdown, USA, 1959.
Three Mile Island meltdown, USA, 1979.
Chernobyl meltdown, Ukrainian SSR, 1986.
And of course:
Fukushima meltdowns, Japan, 2011. With three reactors involved. And four fuel pools!

And checking NRC reports, the US is currently averaging a near miss a year, so the US is no less in danger of having the next accident than any other country with nuclear plants in the world.

About how dangerous radiation really is:
Three current and indisputable science reports all conclude that ANY level of excess radiation yields an increase in cancer levels, and one even offers a table to calculate the Excess Risk Ratio at a given level of radiation (BEIR VII)

The reports are:
The BEIR VII Phase 2 report, by the National Academy of Sciences.
The 15-country Collaborative Nuclear Workers Study, By the European Radiation Research Society.
And the Chernobyl Consequences Report. An analysis in English of a large body of studies originally in Russian, by three doctors, two from Belorussia, and one from Russia.

I know it's a controversial topic, but with what i know my mind is made.

Oh, and once again: Thinking that the wastes can be safely stored for a minimum of 247.500 years (ten half-lives for plutonium) is.. Well.. A very optimistic thought, to say the least. The longest standing civilization has lasted 1300 years, the pyramids are a mere 6000 years old, our known written history stretches back no further than 9000 years, and Man as we know it has existed in it's current form for a mere 150.000 years tops.

Sad, i just saw this excellent post now.
I agree. Nuklear power comes with a non calcuable risk.
Permalink
| January 13, 2014, 4:17 am
Quoting Locutus 666
Sad, i just saw this excellent post now.
I agree. Nuklear power comes with a non calcuable risk.

Hey thanks :-) I'ts a hobby study-project of mine, !nsanely complicated but extremely interesting once you get started.

A good site to start with is:
http://fairewinds.com/
Its a great site. Made by a guy who had a career in the industry as engineer and vice president of a nuclear power company for 40 years before he turned whistleblower. No one can argue with what he says :-D
Permalink
| January 14, 2014, 11:51 am
Quoting Builder Allan
Hey thanks :-) I'ts a hobby study-project of mine, !nsanely complicated but extremely interesting once you get started.

A good site to start with is:
http://fairewinds.com/
Its a great site. Made by a guy who had a career in the industry as engineer and vice president of a nuclear power company for 40 years before he turned whistleblower. No one can argue with what he says :-D

yes, but besides the uncalcuable risks wit ha running power plant, theres another problem. Where to go with all the nuklear waste. you should have a look at the debate here i nthis topic.
Permalink
| January 14, 2014, 12:18 pm
Quoting Locutus 666
yes, but besides the uncalcuable risks wit ha running power plant, theres another problem. Where to go with all the nuklear waste. you should have a look at the debate here i nthis topic.

That indeed is a huge problem too. I did read the waste-debate, and i know that there is really not much we can do to protect the environment or ourselves if the stuff needs to stay on our planet :-) In my view the only way we can keep the stuff from spreading in the environment is to send it off the planet. Not only the 1700+ tons of plutonium we have created, but all the other nasty stuff as well. Hundreds of thousands of tons i guess that is... If not, the laws of nature (Uncontrolled, matter in order will seek towards chaos), Human folly and tectonics will spread the stuff all over the planet over time, eventually leaving life very different than what it is today.
Permalink
| January 14, 2014, 12:37 pm
Quoting Locutus 666
yes, but besides the uncalcuable risks wit ha running power plant, theres another problem. Where to go with all the nuklear waste. you should have a look at the debate here i nthis topic.

Here's a thought-provoking vid about what is currently done with nuclear waste:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDNGWKCS39M
Permalink
| January 14, 2014, 12:40 pm
Quoting Builder Allan
Here's a thought-provoking vid about what is currently done with nuclear waste:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDNGWKCS39M

glad you linked a german vid. :) I just put it to favorites to watch it later because of lack of time at the moment.
Just remembering of an article when US-Scientist tried to develope in the 1950 and 60ies some signs which should be understandable for humans in about 10,000 years which maybe can find an deep storage tunnel in a mountain. The signs should tell them that the stuff storaged there is nuclear toxic waste. That was really crazy. :/
Permalink
| January 14, 2014, 4:36 pm
Quoting Locutus 666
glad you linked a german vid. :) I just put it to favorites to watch it later because of lack of time at the moment.
Just remembering of an article when US-Scientist tried to develope in the 1950 and 60ies some signs which should be understandable for humans in about 10,000 years which maybe can find an deep storage tunnel in a mountain. The signs should tell them that the stuff storaged there is nuclear toxic waste. That was really crazy. :/

Oh you're welcome :-) Admitted, if it didn't have english subtitles i probably never would have seen it myself. It's the only foreign language i really know!

Indeed the search for meaningful signs was folly. I remember that a painting by danish painter Edward Munch (the scream) was suggested because of it's immediately recognizable human figure in pain :-O
Permalink
| January 15, 2014, 1:37 am
Fact:
One gram of 137Caesium will render one square mile of land effectively uninhabitable.

Fact:
Plutonium on Earth is an exclusively man-made element. Before we created it, it hadn't existed here since Earth was 500 million years old.

Fact:
Depleted uranium (238Uranium) is what is left when you remove the weapons-grade uranium from the original mixture of uranium extracted from the mined ore. It is still radioactive(though less so), and like mercury or lead it is actually poisonous in it's own right.

Fact:
One half-life is the time it takes for half of the amount of a radioactive element to decay into a different element.

Fact:
It will take 10 half-lives for a radioactive element to decay almost fully into a different element.

Fact:
Half-life for 239plutonium: 24.700 years
Half-life for 90strontium: 90 years
Half-life for 137caesium: 30 years
Half-life for 131iodine: 7 days
Etc...

Fact:
More than 2000 different elements and isotopes are created when the uranium atoms inside a nuclear fuel rod are split. All vastly more radioactive than the original fuel itself, and several of them toxic in their own right.

Fact:
a large portion of radioactive elements only decay into new radioactive elements that also decay and thus form what is known as decay-chains.

Fact:
Only 1-2% of the uranium fuel inside a fuel rod is actually split or converted to elements heavier than uranium before it is considered spent.

Fact:
The fuel is 'spent', when the fuel rod becomes too unstable (radioactive that is) and generates too much heat on it's own to safely stay in the reactor.
Permalink
| January 15, 2014, 1:18 pm
Quoting Builder Allan
Fact:
One gram of 137Caesium will render one square mile of land effectively uninhabitable.

Fact:
Plutonium on Earth is an exclusively man-made element. Before we created it, it hadn't existed here since Earth was 500 million years old.

Fact:
Depleted uranium (238Uranium) is what is left when you remove the weapons-grade uranium from the original mixture of uranium extracted from the mined ore. It is still radioactive(though less so), and like mercury or lead it is actually poisonous in it's own right.

Fact:
One half-life is the time it takes for half of the amount of a radioactive element to decay into a different element.

Fact:
It will take 10 half-lives for a radioactive element to decay almost fully into a different element.

Fact:
Half-life for 239plutonium: 24.700 years
Half-life for 90strontium: 90 years
Half-life for 137caesium: 30 years
Half-life for 131iodine: 7 days
Etc...

Fact:
More than 2000 different elements and isotopes are created when the uranium atoms inside a nuclear fuel rod are split. All vastly more radioactive than the original fuel itself, and several of them toxic in their own right.

Fact:
a large portion of radioactive elements only decay into new radioactive elements that also decay and thus form what is known as decay-chains.

Fact:
Only 1-2% of the uranium fuel inside a fuel rod is actually split or converted to elements heavier than uranium.

Fact:
The fuel is 'spent', when the fuel rod becomes too unstable (radioactive that is) and generates too much heat on it's own to safely stay in the reactor.

Fact: You clearly learnt to debate from one-sided advertisements.
Permalink
| January 15, 2014, 2:42 pm
Quoting Reaper .
Fact: You clearly learnt to debate from one-sided advertisements.

I sat down and STUDIED the stuff before i started writing anything. From what i read here, most people didn't.
Permalink
| January 15, 2014, 2:45 pm
Quoting Reaper .
Fact: You clearly learnt to debate from one-sided advertisements.

And if you read through the debate, you will see that i did address other people.
Permalink
| January 15, 2014, 2:47 pm
Quoting Builder Allan
I sat down and STUDIED the stuff before i started writing anything. From what i read here, most people didn't.

Fair enough, fair enough, I just find that comments, ads, or anything else that addresses the audience in a "Fact:, Fact:, Fact:" manner tends to make me more firmly side with the opposition, simply because that style of case-making comes across as something done by someone who wants to scare people into siding with them rather than actually convince them with logical arguments. It's effective in political campaigns, and it probably would have been here, but in the real world, you're like to get someone (like me, but I'm still recovering from an operation, so I won't), who will come back with the positive facts, and then proceed to point out that you have only highlighted the "facts" (the quotes are there because not all things that you first assume are facts are entirely accurate) that support your argument. In a good debate, you have to be able to acknowledge that the other side has a case, and then go on to prove that it is nowhere near as convincing as your own. Just listing "facts" at people in an intimidating manner doesn't work.


So, sorry if I caused undue distress, and I hope you see this comment as the helpful tip that it is, not as an attack. Good day
Permalink
| January 15, 2014, 2:59 pm
Quoting Reaper .
Fair enough, fair enough, I just find that comments, ads, or anything else that addresses the audience in a "Fact:, Fact:, Fact:" manner tends to make me more firmly side with the opposition, simply because that style of case-making comes across as something done by someone who wants to scare people into siding with them rather than actually convince them with logical arguments. It's effective in political campaigns, and it probably would have been here, but in the real world, you're like to get someone (like me, but I'm still recovering from an operation, so I won't), who will come back with the positive facts, and then proceed to point out that you have only highlighted the "facts" (the quotes are there because not all things that you first assume are facts are entirely accurate) that support your argument. In a good debate, you have to be able to acknowledge that the other side has a case, and then go on to prove that it is nowhere near as convincing as your own. Just listing "facts" at people in an intimidating manner doesn't work.


So, sorry if I caused undue distress, and I hope you see this comment as the helpful tip that it is, not as an attack. Good day

Well i'm sorry too, i did react a bit harshly. Long day at work, tired - you know the drill :-)

I do see your point now. I think i was just trying to reply to a mass of earlier comments all in one. The thing is, that there are a lot of misunderstandings out there about the stuff. You can always debate whether or not it is actually as dangerous as the anti-nuke side says (and my stance is clear from earlier comments), but both sides do agree on some things. That's about as factual as it gets, and that was what i was trying to tell with that comment. the stuff both sides agree on :-)

Now, i should probably have addressed each debater individually but i don't really like to break into other people's debates - and at one point i feared that going full-scale into the debate would occupy way too much time.

But thanks for elaborating your comment, and i wishyou well in your recovery :-)
Permalink
| January 15, 2014, 3:19 pm
Quoting Builder Allan
Well i'm sorry too, i did react a bit harshly. Long day at work, tired - you know the drill :-)

I do see your point now. I think i was just trying to reply to a mass of earlier comments all in one. The thing is, that there are a lot of misunderstandings out there about the stuff. You can always debate whether or not it is actually as dangerous as the anti-nuke side says (and my stance is clear from earlier comments), but both sides do agree on some things. That's about as factual as it gets, and that was what i was trying to tell with that comment. the stuff both sides agree on :-)

Now, i should probably have addressed each debater individually but i don't really like to break into other people's debates - and at one point i feared that going full-scale into the debate would occupy way too much time.

But thanks for elaborating your comment, and i wishyou well in your recovery :-)

Thanks, I'm glad we could resolve this calmly. I must say, you've earned my respect in the way you've handled this.
Permalink
| January 15, 2014, 3:26 pm
Quoting Reaper .
Thanks, I'm glad we could resolve this calmly. I must say, you've earned my respect in the way you've handled this.

You're welcome, and likewise :-) My first response was not very polite.
Permalink
| January 15, 2014, 3:42 pm
I say keep it, as long as we take proper precautions it isn't dangerous. Instead of banning nuclear energy because of risks that can be avoided, we should embrace it openly because we cannot escape the fact we are in an energy crisis and nuclear energy makes the most energy out of all the sources we have learned to harvest. I respect the opinion of all who would disagree with me, but I must also respectfully say that I think you are incorrect. Efficiency is key right now, and nuclear energy is not only efficient but also clean when contained properly. It's very simple, when safely produced nuclear energy is a "godsend".
Permalink
| February 19, 2014, 1:15 am
Quoting toa taile
I say keep it, as long as we take proper precautions it isn't dangerous. Instead of banning nuclear energy because of risks that can be avoided, we should embrace it openly because we cannot escape the fact we are in an energy crisis and nuclear energy makes the most energy out of all the sources we have learned to harvest. I respect the opinion of all who would disagree with me, but I must also respectfully say that I think you are incorrect. Efficiency is key right now, and nuclear energy is not only efficient but also clean when contained properly. It's very simple, when safely produced nuclear energy is a "godsend".

We can perhaps disagree upon the risks and maybe even the assessment of them, but nuclear energy is actually not very efficient - as i noted earlier, it has a lower efficiency than windmills and actually produces more co2 than them per MWh when looking at the entire lifespan, from construction to decommission. It is also more expensive when all subsidies for both types of power production is removed. Look at Goldman Sachs, their latest energy investment is in a Danish power provider with a huge windmill-portfolio. To the best of my knowledge, there are currently no banks willing to invest in nuclear energy.

Also, in terms of using fuel - uranium is almost as rare as gold and only about 3% of the content in a fuel rod is used before it is too hot (literally) to stay in the reactor and becomes spent fuel.

Sources:
The Nuclear Roulette by Gar Smith, www.enenews.com and Danish national news outlets. (www.dr.dk, www.tv2.dk)
Permalink
| February 22, 2014, 4:24 pm
A few notes and corrections: The rare uranium type mentioned is 235uranium - the actual fissile material, of which only those 3% is used.

In theory, if we could fission the fuel fully and have little or no loss in the transferral of energy to actual electricity, then yes - it would be the second-greatest source of energy in existence - only rivaled by fusion power.

However, fusion power is still decades away, at least in terms of commercial use. And traditional fission (nuclear as we know it) comes nowhere close to even 10% efficiency with even the most advanced technology available.

Thorium fission is different and shows promise in several ways, but there's still a long way to go before anything commercially viable comes out of that field. And there's still an issue with waste.

In my opinion, wind, water and solar is the only way to go. for several reasons.

Another interesting source for nuclear info & news i should have mentioned in my previous post is: www.fairewinds.com.
Permalink
| February 22, 2014, 5:07 pm
Quoting Builder Allan

Fusion is a bit like peak oil - it's been about twenty years away for the last four decades.
Permalink
| February 22, 2014, 7:08 pm
Quoting Areetsa C
Quoting Builder Allan

Fusion is a bit like peak oil - it's been about twenty years away for the last four decades.

Hehe, how right you are :-D Last i heard, they still need more energy to run the fusion process than it actually produces.

However, check out these: 'The Japanese Monju breeder reactor' and LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors). Now, if these could be made safer...

Here's a lecture from a very enthusiastic LFTR scientist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3rL08J7fDA
I do disagree with him in certain areas but he does have some very sensible points about the efficiency.
Permalink
| February 23, 2014, 1:44 am
Quoting Builder Allan

You know, if they hadn't cancelled Project Orion, we'd have had orbital solar stations and nuke plants for decades now. The whole subject would be irrelevant.
Permalink
| February 23, 2014, 10:07 am
Other topics
Aliens? Updated Saturday
The Middle East Updated Tuesday



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use