Is world safe enough for more nuclear reactors?

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 18:16
VIEWED: 4705
PAGE 2 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

RIONAEIRE

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 6:02 AM

I know what you're saying DT. But that little engine you speak of could end up destroying everything too, or at least destroying notable portions there of. This is my new stance, courtacy of the recent events in the world.

Why can't society use solar? All that needs to happen, as far as I know, is that it needs to be made more affordable and available and a bit more officient. Admittedly though I don't know all that much about power so it might take more to get solar up and running.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 3:31 PM

No, the world is NOT safe enough for nuclear reactors. Why are we even asking the question?

Two reasons:

1) SHIT HAPPENS.

Sometimes even "unimaginable" shit. Like a 9 earthquake and 45-foot tsunami. Let me give you a few more examples of "unimaginable" shit:

The earth is hit with a giant solar flare, and ALL of the electronics, transformers, and even motor windings in and around a nuclear power plant get fried.

A meteorite strikes near a nuclear power plant.

Operator error.

It's impossible to design for these things. There is no way to design for the unimaginable, and even if you could, the plant would then become impossibly expensive.

To repeat myself, so the point doesn't get lost: SHIT HAPPENS.

2) SPENT FUEL.

Yanno, we have quite literally thousands of tons of spent fuel and highly contaminated waste and we STILL haven't figure out what to do with it. It's hanging about at nuclear power plants like a pack of lost puppies with no home to go to.

That stuff is hot- thermally, radiologically- for tens of thousands of years. We've never had a civilization that lasted even half as long... how the f*ck can we ensure that this stuff doesn't get out? Hell, there are dozens of Seebeck effect plutonium-powered capsules scattered all over creation, many of which have been lost in just the past 20 years.

I have visions of a a future where hot springs in northern Japan are known by the locals to kill anyone who bathes in them, and they use these hot springs to kill suspicious guests and local criminals. Maybe call it "the bath of the god of death" or some such.

NOT SAFE.

SKYDIVELIFE

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:16 PM

SignyM,

I agree about the spent fuel part.

Yet, wind/solar/etc are not enough to supply our energy needs.

If someone were able to come up with a clean-energy alternative that:

1. Did not need huge tracts of land.

2. Was efficient.

3. Cost effective.

4. Gave out more energy than it took to produce.

5. Did not destoy the land/air/water that it was based from.

Then I think we would all be for it. But the problem is, none of them do.

HARDWARE

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:59 PM

Reprocessing is how you get rid of spent fuel. You get depleted uranium (militarily useful) and you get more nuclear fuel. Oddly, every country BUT the US reprocesses spent fuel.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:28 AM

Oh goody... militarily "useful" nuclear materials. For the same reason that nuclear reactors are unsafe, nuclear weapons are unsafe. But more so.

BTW- If "every" other nation reprocess spent fuel, then what is ALL that fuel (in dry casks and ponds) doing at Fukushima? Why does Germany bury it in granite rock?

www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html

Seriously, dude.

HARDWARE

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 3:56 PM

Do you have a problem understanding the English language? Or perhaps it is just ignorance, the original definition thereof. Depleted uranium is a non-radioactive, heavy metal usually used as a projectile in a sabot round. It is also used as a layer in composite armor for tanks. While it can be dangerous as any heavy metal can be if vaporized, like when it hits a target, it is depleted of radioactivity and inert.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

HARDWARE

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh goody... militarily "useful" nuclear materials. For the same reason that nuclear reactors are unsafe, nuclear weapons are unsafe. But more so.

BTW- If "every" other nation reprocess spent fuel, then what is ALL that fuel (in dry casks and ponds) doing at Fukushima? Why does Germany bury it in granite rock?

www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html

Seriously, dude.

From your own link.

Quote:

If the used fuel is reprocessed, as is that from UK, French, Japanese and German reactors, HLW comprises highly-radioactive fission products and some transuranic elements with long-lived radioactivity. These are separated from the used fuel, enabling the uranium and plutonium to be recycled. Liquid HLW from reprocessing must be solidified. The HLW also generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling. It is vitrified into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass, encapsulated into heavy stainless steel cylinders about 1.3 metres high and stored for eventual disposal deep underground. This material has no conceivable future use and is unequivocally waste. The hulls and end-fittings of the reprocessed fuel assemblies are compacted, to reduce volume, and usually incorporated into cement prior to disposal as ILW. France has two commercial plants to vitrify HLW left over from reprocessing oxide fuel, and there are also plants in the UK and Belgium. The capacity of these Western European plants is 2,500 canisters (1000 t) a year, and some have been operating for three decades.

"Dude" you need to come on. Read your own data before you try to refute mine. Yes, there is waste that is not processable to any further extent. At least until we come up with a viable self-sustaining fusion plant. But it is classified as intermediate level waste, not has hot as the actual nuclear fuel.

Uranium mines might be a good spot for storage. And reprocessing doesn't happen in the US because of protests by environmentalists about transporting spent fuel. But they want to scream about spent fuel rods laying about nuclear plants. Transport. Scream. In situ. Scream. Make up your fucking minds!

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

STORYMARK

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So. What are you, us, or anyone gonna do about it? If you're gonna keep generating these "We're all going to die!!!!" posts every day, at least try to find some possible solutions. If there are none, why pile on the woes?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Yeah, Niki - stop with the conversation. It upsets Granpa.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 6:49 PM

Er, what? All Uranium is radioactive, including depleted Uranium. It's just Uranium 238 isn't useful for nuclear power, and Uranium 235 is. Though you can convert Uranium 238 into Plutonium 238 through a series of decays, which IS good chain reaction fuel, and done through reprocessing as you say.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_Uranium

Depleted uranium (DU; also refered to in the past as Q-metal, depletalloy, or D-38) is uranium with a lower content of the fissile isotope U-235 than natural uranium (natural uranium is about 99.27% uranium-238 (U-238), 0.72% U-235, and 0.0055% U-234).

And even if the other forms of Uranium weren't radioactive, which they are, a "lower content of fissile material" doesn't mean "no fissile material".

Once atomic weight becomes higher than a certain mass (Bismuth is the last of the non-radioactive elements), the nucleus is unstable. Always.

Quote:
"Dude" you need to come on. Read your own data before you try to refute mine. Yes, there is waste that is not processable to any further extent. At least until we come up with a viable self-sustaining fusion plant. But it is classified as intermediate level waste, not has hot as the actual nuclear fuel.

This is correct. But intermediate level waste is still hot. It is not "inert" or "depleted of radioactivity."

Quote:
And reprocessing doesn't happen in the US because of protests by environmentalists about transporting spent fuel.

What I heard is that reprocessing doesn't happen in the US because the military is worried about creating weapons grade Plutonium that could be stolen.

Quote:
But they want to scream about spent fuel rods laying about nuclear plants. Transport. Scream. In situ. Scream. Make up your fucking minds!

I'd like them to leave it in situ. Whenever they want to move it, especially over in friggin' Europe, they think, "hey, let's dump it in Utah and piss Bytemite off! Utah's a wasteland anyway!"

Of course, if they leave it in situ and they contaminate all the nearby residents, or something like an earthquake happens and everything gets screwed up, and the public wants them all shot, that's on them. It's not the fault of the people who didn't want the stuff transported that apparently the folks in question can't safely handle the stuff (which is itself strong evidence that not letting them transport is a good decision).

HARDWARE

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 7:46 PM

If DU is so dangerously radioactive as you claim, then why is it used as radiation shielding?

In other news; all unstable isotopes eventually decay to lead.

An example is the natural decay chain of 238U which is as follows:
decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years to thorium-234
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 24 days to protactinium-234
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 1.2 minutes to uranium-234
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 240 thousand years to thorium-230
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 77 thousand years to radium-226
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 1.6 thousand years to radon-222
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 3.8 days to polonium-218
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 3.1 minutes to lead-214
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 27 minutes to bismuth-214
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 20 minutes to polonium-214
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 160 microseconds to lead-210
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 22 years to bismuth-210
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 5 days to polonium-210
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 140 days to lead-206, which is a stable nuclide.

4.5 billion years means that it is barely radioactive. You are in more danger of being in th e presence of a heavy metal than you are of radiation from DU. You probably get more radiation exposure from your smoke detector than you will from DU.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE