Author Topic: Nuclear Power  (Read 1611 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ah.hell

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7209
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2009, 05:22:38 PM »
I've operated an a4w reactor aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln for 4 years.  They are safe.  There are only 2 criticisms that make sense to me and I'm not certain that either is true. 

1.  There is a lot of waste that is around for a long time or a little waste that is around for a long time.  We really don't have a solid plan for dealing with.  This is mostly due to the public fear of the waste rather than reality. 

2.  The economics of nuclear power don't actually work without tremendous government subsidies.  I don't no how true this actually is.  How much does it cost to produce a kw/hr of electricity from a nuc plant versus a coal plant including externalities of both?  does anyone actually know this?

Offline Opcn

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2926
  • Perpetually happy!
    • facebook
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2009, 05:26:22 PM »
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm

Says it costs about 3% more than coal.

Offline JamesTate

  • I'm Actually Mr. Wiggles
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2004
  • All things being equal
    • A Skeptics Journey
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2009, 05:34:00 PM »
But its not just The US.

And it was Eyes of Nye Episode on Nuclear power.
"Always a plus when you aren't associated with genocide." - IrishJazz
"Doesn't this sound like a spaceship?" - Lady Cyrtpess
"A dry vagina is a sad vagina." -Pandaioum

Offline craig

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2800
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2009, 06:33:44 PM »
There is literally 50-100 times as much energy in our waste as we have used thus far. If we had mined all of the uranium already we could still power the US at current levels for the next 400 years.

To be fair Opcn, you are talking about a world where all of the current government policies regarding reprocessing have been completely reversed.  The US has opted against fast breeder reactors etc. for security reasons and I don't see any reason why those policies would change in today's world.
"Why ya gotta act like you know when you don't know....It's okay if you don't know everything." --- Ben Folds

Offline Opcn

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2926
  • Perpetually happy!
    • facebook
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2009, 07:24:26 PM »
I was under the impression that the regulations that prevent breeder reactors do so in kind of an accidental way. I was under the impression that other than research and a few specific ways people were not allowed to manipulate nuclear materials in certain ways and that breeder reactors are technically a violation of the rules. Also that if we were you use say 20 KG of uranium entirely in a breeder reactor there would be less material that a terrorist might use left over than if you were to use 600 KG of uranium in the normal fashion.

Offline Opcn

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2926
  • Perpetually happy!
    • facebook
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2009, 12:06:24 AM »
I just spent 15 minutes reading part of the the WP article on nuclear power and it was quite reassuring. Given todays rate of power consumption 150 billion years worth of deuterium. Although given a .1% increase per year that gets eaten up pretty quickly (about 19000 years, but then we would be using 150 million times the energy we do now, which seems unlikely to me, with a carrying capacity of twice todays levels thats still 75,000,000 times as much energy per person, we would incinerate ourselves).

I am no longer worried about running out of fuel.

Offline Ah.hell

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7209
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2009, 11:10:29 AM »
Keep in mind Deuterium is the fuel for fusion not fission. Nobody has figured out how to make fusion work for energy yet.

Offline JamesTate

  • I'm Actually Mr. Wiggles
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2004
  • All things being equal
    • A Skeptics Journey
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2009, 12:53:37 PM »
Something wasn't sitting quite right with me.
Total brian fart.
But yea, currently there are no working reactor that can use it. I'm all for Fusion reactors, and and if they ever get to work.
"Always a plus when you aren't associated with genocide." - IrishJazz
"Doesn't this sound like a spaceship?" - Lady Cyrtpess
"A dry vagina is a sad vagina." -Pandaioum

Offline Opcn

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2926
  • Perpetually happy!
    • facebook
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #23 on: March 24, 2009, 03:10:16 PM »
I am aware of that, its still Nuclear power. Its also just an engineering problem :)

Online Jonzard

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 188
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #24 on: April 01, 2009, 02:25:59 PM »

Moon Police

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2009, 04:03:42 PM »
Yucca Mountain is indeed dead  :(

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/yucca-mountain-plan-for-nuclear-waste-dies/


We still haven't gotten an answer to why the Obama administration opposes it. Assuming it's not just because it's politically untenable...which it is.
More importantly I want to know what Steven Chu really thinks about Yucca Mountain.

Offline seaotter

  • Drunkenly yelling LITTLE WING!
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 26420
  • My homunculus is firing rockets at Israel.
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2009, 08:10:43 PM »
Keep in mind Deuterium is the fuel for fusion not fission. Nobody has figured out how to make fusion work for energy yet.


Don't they say it's a problem of scale? Isn't the new fusion plant in Europe going to to produce excess energy?

"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." Lewis Carroll

Offline Ah.hell

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7209
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2009, 11:10:46 PM »
Don't they say it's a problem of scale? Isn't the new fusion plant in Europe going to to produce excess energy?



This is news to me, I've never heard of this.  Its also a problem of economics and scale can occasionally more than a trivial problem.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2009, 01:44:55 AM by Ah.hell »

Offline JamesTate

  • I'm Actually Mr. Wiggles
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2004
  • All things being equal
    • A Skeptics Journey
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #28 on: April 02, 2009, 01:13:22 AM »
Link?
"Always a plus when you aren't associated with genocide." - IrishJazz
"Doesn't this sound like a spaceship?" - Lady Cyrtpess
"A dry vagina is a sad vagina." -Pandaioum

Offline Hanes

  • Misanthrope.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10199
  • So it goes.
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #29 on: April 02, 2009, 03:43:15 AM »
A hundred years of nuclear energy (the absolute minimum predicted) would still be better than our other options.

I've included a picture of our other options below.



Go nuke or go live in a cave.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain