10 myths about nuclear power

[DBT85]

I kind of agree, but they still have not even recouped the energy they put into it, never mind a self sustaining reaction that gets more than is put in.

http://www.jet.efda.org/fusion-basics/fusion-as-a-future-energy-source/
'Thermonuclear fusion also bodes well for the future and could take over the reins from some existing energy sources towards the middle of the century’.
So 40 years, they think . . . .

That's why they are building ITER and then hopefully DEMO. It has been proven that the concept works on a small scale but obviously since the test kit wasn't able to sustain a reaction for long (5 seconds) they have to turn the wick up a bit to get more out than they put in. JET is currently undergoing a refit which will bring it more in line with the proposed specs for ITER. ITER will hopefully demonstrate that the tech works on a larger scale and can sustain a reaction for 10+ minutes at a time.

If it does work and meets its design aim it'll be capable of producing 500mw for an input of 50mw. Once they have that in the bag work will commence on DEMO which will take the process up a notch even further.

DEMO is currently expected to be ready for initial testing in about 2033.

Most of that is from Wiki but its stuff i heard Prof. Brian Cox talk about previously.

 

[steve45]

I think the main problem with nuclear power is just general ignorance of the majority of the public, for the past 60 odd years they have been told anything nuclear = dangerous, not helped by the chernobyl incident or other such disasters, so obviously whenever the subject of nuclear power is brought up everyone is a bit wary of it and the greens and other such completely ignorant people play on this.
yes it can be dangerous, but if done correctly is completely safe and relatively so mch cleaner.

the way i see it, nuclear power is the only reasonable solution until a more practical cleaner source of power is found.
the british population needs to get over its phobia of nuclear.

and before anyone starts with the whole nimby stuff, i wouldnt give 2 hoots if i lived next to a powerplant.

 

[Mr_T]

and before anyone starts with the whole nimby stuff, i wouldnt give 2 hoots if i lived next to a powerplant.

Thing is, nuclear power ability is inexplicably linked to the ability to produce Nuclear weapons, politically do you think that every country should be allowed to pursue nuclear ability?

 

[scrlk]

I support nuclear fully - it is the only way forward. What's more damaging, 1,000 wind turbines or one nuclear reactor.

 

[tibbsey]

Thing is, nuclear power ability is inexplicably linked to the ability to produce Nuclear weapons, politically do you think that every country should be allowed to pursue nuclear ability?

I don't see why not.


If they're actually bat-**** insane enough to use the damn things then they deserve the ****storm they bring upon themselves.





(this post has not been terribly well thought though...)

 

[jas72]

Is one of the myths that WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE ZOMG!

Is another one that THE SHEEP WILL HAVE THREE HEADS!

Chernoybl wasn't a MYTH.

I'd rather have a coal or wind powered disaster than an nuclear one.

Thames estuary seems like a great place to bulid one

 

[SiD the Turtle]

A couple of anecdotes I heard that may or may not be true:

MRI scans were originally called Nuclear MRI scans, but the nuclear was dropped for PR reasons.
The T in ITER (the experimental fusion reactor) is thermonuclear, so they changed the name to simpler Iter, which is Latin for something I forget.

 

[D.P.]

I'd dispute that. It's a slow process admittedly, but I'm sure I'll see it before I retire.

Indeed, i have several friends working in Fusion. although none of them are at optimistic and discuss worst case kind of scenarios bu they all believe that Fusion power is within out life time. Whether it solves all the world energy problems and becomes the dominant source is another matter.

In the end, there are numerous fusion generators that function perfectly normally. There are 2 right here at EPFL for starters (just little baby reactors for testing).

Its a case of optimization, better engineering and a steady stream of small breakthroughs that will make Fusion power reliably output significant energy.

The new reactor in France should show to the world commercial viability of Fusion within its lifetime. It will be the lessons learned from this experiment which will allow for the next generation of reactors.

 

[physichull]

At the end of the day it's just a steam generator. The problem really isn't the initial radiation, it's what the hell you do with the waste product afterwards. It's continual as well, those waste barrels don't just stay as barrels, they have to be cooled continually till they reach a point (many years later) that they don't need active cooling as such.

Perhaps if we could harness this heat SAFELY it would be beneficial as it could also be converted to electricity meaning that the costs of disposal are minimised and disposal is potentially beneficial.

but.. anyway.. about to read link.

Not true, the really hot stuff (fission products) are stored in stainless steel containers and put into a vault at Sellafield, surrounded by at least 4-5 metres of concrete. To mess with this waste would be shear folly, it is a needless risk and it wouldn't generate enough thermal heat to do anything anyway.

 

[steve45]

Thing is, nuclear power ability is inexplicably linked to the ability to produce Nuclear weapons, politically do you think that every country should be allowed to pursue nuclear ability?

i want to say yes as long as its for peaceful means, but we all know it dosnt happen like that, besides if a country wants nuclear capability, it will eventually get it through whatever means necessary despite what we want them to have, its just a matter of time.

but what does this have to do with us reinvestiing in nuclear tech.

 

[physichull]

Noticed an error in the article (at least I think it's an error). They say uranium is only fuel to produce more fuel when burnt? How so? burn would, get charcoal (if done right)... now technically this is producing more fuel even though the process isn't used for 'fuel', but could quite easily be, after all a Nuclear reaction is just a controlled process.

They don't mean "burn" in that sense, what they mean is, put the fuel under a neutron flux, i.e. in the reactor.

 

[SiriusB]

So the Soviets performing illegal experiments equates to all Nuclear Power Stations being at risk of blowing up?

There are so many safety systems built into even the current power plants that any disaster is extremely unlikely. With new stations they will be even safer. I believe new reactors are to be much smaller and use less fuel.

 

[physichull]

So the Soviets performing illegal experiments equates to all Nuclear Power Stations being at risk of blowing up?

There are so many safety systems built into even the current power plants that any disaster is extremely unlikely. With new stations they will be even safer. I believe new reactors are to be much smaller and use less fuel.

That's correct, they will also be able to use MOX fuel (Mixed OXide) which is basically reprocessed fuel that we have sitting at Sellafield doing nothing. They also produce hundreds of times less HLW than the Magnox stations which we built.

 

[SiriusB]

A couple of anecdotes I heard that may or may not be true:

MRI scans were originally called Nuclear MRI scans, but the nuclear was dropped for PR reasons.
The T in ITER (the experimental fusion reactor) is thermonuclear, so they changed the name to simpler Iter, which is Latin for something I forget.

The Way.


I think.

 

[KaHn]

I think this thread sums up the gerneral thought process of the goverment.

They are those who will accept that nothing can ever be 100% safe and know that processes are in place to prevent disasters happening.

And those who regardless of what evidence is put infront of them will just say no because of what could happen.

KaHn

 

[Vonhelmet]

Chernoybl wasn't a MYTH.

Human error played a major part in the Chernobyl disaster. Our current reactor designs also aren't susceptible to the technical flaws in the Chernobyl design.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Thing is, nuclear power ability is inexplicably linked to the ability to produce Nuclear weapons, politically do you think that every country should be allowed to pursue nuclear ability?

FYI - I assume you mean "inextricably" rather than "inexplicably".

The trouble with that argument is that nuclear weapons are "in the wild" and the technology for them is well documented. Any one of us could find details on how to produce them. Yes, the actual work required in creating them is hard, but even so. Besides, why bother creating them for terrorism, war, etc, when you can just steal them? Has 24 taught us nothing?

 

[Freefaller]

So the Soviets performing illegal experiments equates to all Nuclear Power Stations being at risk of blowing up?

There are so many safety systems built into even the current power plants that any disaster is extremely unlikely. With new stations they will be even safer. I believe new reactors are to be much smaller and use less fuel.

Indeed - spot on.

Human error played a major part in the Chernobyl disaster. Our current reactor designs also aren't susceptible to the technical flaws in the Chernobyl design.

Again, agreed, it was also a lack of maintenance and safety designs as well as monitoring of the generator. There were flaws with the monitoring systems too.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Argh, can't believe I wrote Chernobly, and now you've quoted it too!

Phew, no one will ever know now that you and I have edited it back to the correct spelling!

 

[Col_M]

So the Soviets performing illegal experiments equates to all Nuclear Power Stations being at risk of blowing up?

There are so many safety systems built into even the current power plants that any disaster is extremely unlikely. With new stations they will be even safer. I believe new reactors are to be much smaller and use less fuel.

Exactly, not only that but modern designs of reactor (not just modern even the old British Magnox reactors) just can't get out of hand, if any cooling or moderating system fails, the physical properties of the reaction taking place means the reactor can no longer operate without them and the nuclear reaction snuffs itself out naturally. The RBMK reactor at Chernobyl was the opposite and when the water which acted as a moderator boiled off the reaction got out of hand - i.e. it had a large positive void coefficient.

Does anyone know what reactors we'd use in the new stations? PWR like the rest of the newer power stations?