Nuclear Power
- Thread starter wuluf
- Start date
grymster2007
New member
How ‘bout we store the waste in Iran?
Yup. Practical fusion energy generation is likely decades off, but it’s coming.
Unregistered
Moderator
That would be OK. Do you suggest genocide in Iran first, or just let them die from the radiation?
Someone also mentioned putting the waste on Mars or the Moon. Good idea also, assuming the rocket carrying it doesn't go Challenger over a populated area.
I have an 8 pound piece of depleted Uranium sitting in my desk.
The half life of the main constituent U238 is 4.46E9 years.
4,460,000,000 years!
The Small amount of U235 with a half life of 7.04E8 years.
704,000,000 years.
It is NOT a significant hazard as anything but a heavy metal poison unless you grind it into a powder and then breathe the dust.
The very LONG half life isotopes are NOT a hazard.
They may last millions of years, but the rate of breakdown is VERY low.
The very short half life items produce a prompt hazard.
The things that are intermediate, 1-20 years are the hazard.
They produce enough radiation to cause issues with long term exposure.
The ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) method is used dealing with radiation, coupled with strict limits on total annual exposure.
I test electronic devices at cyclotrons, and we routinely ‘activate’ targets (most often with proton testing).
The lead and copper in PC boards are the main things that get activated since they are dense enough to stop an appreciable number of protons.
Half lives are often in the couple minute to hour range though, and after 24-48 hours we can normally ship the targets back to out office since they are no longer radioactive.
Even when fuel rods ARE re-processed they are allowed to cool for a couple YEARS to reduce the hazard from the short lived isotopes.
While the long half lives SOUND dangerous they are NOT.
azredhawk44
Moderator
Uh, oh...
Now you did it.
grymster2007
New member
fa·ce·tious
Pronunciation:
\fə-ˈsē-shəs\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
Date:
1599
1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : waggish <just being facetious>
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark>
applesanity
New member
I believer there are two kinds of people who oppose nookuler power:
- Tree-hugging hippies who waste their trust funds
- NIMBY
azredhawk44
Moderator
RE: shooting waste into space.
http://www.slingatron.com/spacelaunch.htm
How much Unique do I need to match that feat?
Just shoot the crap at the sun.
http://www.slingatron.com/spacelaunch.htm
How much Unique do I need to match that feat?
Just shoot the crap at the sun.
Unregistered
The waste from nuclear plants remains radioactive for thousands of years. Where do you want to put it? How about in a landfill near your hometown?
B.N.Real
The nuclear waste is deadly for thousands of years.
That's only if we follow the idiotic Jimmy Carter policy of not reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel. As others have mentioned, the long half-life isotopes are more dangerous from the heavy metal poisoning and not from the radiation. If you reprocess the fuel you are basically left with isotopes that are dangerous for decades and centuries at most.
As for where to put the remaining material? Yuca mountain is a good place. Deep underground and far away from the water table. Put it there and keep an eye on it.
What we have produced since the second World War will get into the ecosystem and will contaminate our great grandchilderen and beyond.
It's just a matter of time.
You do realize that the Coal plants in the US release more radioactive material into the atmosphere every year than nuke plants ever have? The fear of radiation is largely overblown. There are only a few isotopes that are a real radiation threat. Most others have half-lives that are either too long or short to pose any significant long term threats.
The Chernobyl disaster killed 50 people and caused about 4,000 cases of (curable) thyroid cancer, and shorter life spans for about 4,000 people. Many hundreds of thousands more were exposed to measurable, but not dangerous, levels of radiation. Up to a point, the human body is rather resistant to radiation, we absorb a significant amount every year from basic background radiation. So our bodies have evolved to deal with this threat.
For comparison, the toxic chemical leak in Bhopal India on December 2, 1984 killed about 7,000 people, another 15,000+ have died from injuries since the disaster and over 100,000 continue to suffer from debilitating conditions as a result of the disaster. No radioactive material was involed.
If there was a way to convert the radioactive waste to a different type of isotope that was'nt radioactive then I'd be on board.
Pyroprocessing in a fast reactor is an option. The end result are isotopes that decay quickly into harmless, from a radioactive standpoint, materials. Breeder reactors are needed to ensure a steady supply of fuel by converting U-238 into Fissionable isotopes.
The waste from nuclear plants remains radioactive for thousands of years. Where do you want to put it? How about in a landfill near your hometown?
B.N.Real
The nuclear waste is deadly for thousands of years.
That's only if we follow the idiotic Jimmy Carter policy of not reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel. As others have mentioned, the long half-life isotopes are more dangerous from the heavy metal poisoning and not from the radiation. If you reprocess the fuel you are basically left with isotopes that are dangerous for decades and centuries at most.
As for where to put the remaining material? Yuca mountain is a good place. Deep underground and far away from the water table. Put it there and keep an eye on it.
What we have produced since the second World War will get into the ecosystem and will contaminate our great grandchilderen and beyond.
It's just a matter of time.
You do realize that the Coal plants in the US release more radioactive material into the atmosphere every year than nuke plants ever have? The fear of radiation is largely overblown. There are only a few isotopes that are a real radiation threat. Most others have half-lives that are either too long or short to pose any significant long term threats.
The Chernobyl disaster killed 50 people and caused about 4,000 cases of (curable) thyroid cancer, and shorter life spans for about 4,000 people. Many hundreds of thousands more were exposed to measurable, but not dangerous, levels of radiation. Up to a point, the human body is rather resistant to radiation, we absorb a significant amount every year from basic background radiation. So our bodies have evolved to deal with this threat.
For comparison, the toxic chemical leak in Bhopal India on December 2, 1984 killed about 7,000 people, another 15,000+ have died from injuries since the disaster and over 100,000 continue to suffer from debilitating conditions as a result of the disaster. No radioactive material was involed.
If there was a way to convert the radioactive waste to a different type of isotope that was'nt radioactive then I'd be on board.
Pyroprocessing in a fast reactor is an option. The end result are isotopes that decay quickly into harmless, from a radioactive standpoint, materials. Breeder reactors are needed to ensure a steady supply of fuel by converting U-238 into Fissionable isotopes.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Thats all folks.
All the rest is hyperbole to fit an agenda.
Like the Universe gives S**T as to what we do. Time goes on till it ends.
Get real folks, there is NOTHING we can do to screw up anything other than ourselves. Lets live large! My replacement is being born right now, my predecessor is adding chemicals to the atmosphere as he, she, it rots away.
We are stardust, we are golden
We are ten billion year old carbon
WildanwegottogetourslevesbacktothegardenAlaska TM
warrior poet
New member
I love nuclear power. If a plant is to be built, definitely go with a U.S. style reactor. Since water is both the moderator and coolant, the reaction CAN NOT accelerate out of control and cause a meltdown. No coolant = no moderator, which equals no chain reaction. Nice and safe. 
One more thing: Since Three Mile Island, the U.S. has not issued any permits for the construction of new nuclear power plants. The ones in place are getting old, and their cores with need (or currently do need) replacing. This is not a refueling, but an actual replacement of the core. Unless new permits start getting issued, the few U.S. nuclear power plants will simply be forced to shut down as they come to the end of their service life.
I'm rather pleasantly surprised to find so many "pro-nukers" among fellow shooters. It is always a good feeling to know you are not alone.
One more thing: Since Three Mile Island, the U.S. has not issued any permits for the construction of new nuclear power plants. The ones in place are getting old, and their cores with need (or currently do need) replacing. This is not a refueling, but an actual replacement of the core. Unless new permits start getting issued, the few U.S. nuclear power plants will simply be forced to shut down as they come to the end of their service life.
I'm rather pleasantly surprised to find so many "pro-nukers" among fellow shooters. It is always a good feeling to know you are not alone.
Last edited:
Seems to me that nukes are a good way to generate power, but I'm puzzled as to how nukes get us away from using oil. Setting aside the "Back To The Future" DeLorean, cars and trucks tend to use petroleum products for fuel, lubrication, components, etc. Lots of other products use oil as well, in applications that nuke and other alternate power sources cannot be substituted because "power generation" isn't the reason for using oil.
So, nuke and other power sources are options for reducing oil consumption, but it's premature to say we can completely divest ourselves of oil consumption.
However, it would be nice if we could shift enough of the burden to non-oil usage such that our native oil supplies could sastify most if not all of our oil needs.
So, nuke and other power sources are options for reducing oil consumption, but it's premature to say we can completely divest ourselves of oil consumption.
However, it would be nice if we could shift enough of the burden to non-oil usage such that our native oil supplies could sastify most if not all of our oil needs.
Nuke power gets us away from petroleum (fossil nomenclature is no longer accurate) fuels by elimination of their use in generating electricity, and if they're able to produce power cheaply enough, will enhance the viability of electrically powered vehicles.
I don't expect electric cars and trucks to replace cars and trucks on a large scale basis, but replacing all of NYC taxicabs, or all trains, or any other concentrated, urban systemized vehicles with electrically powered ones would be possible.
Last, elimination of all petroleum use is very short sighted, there's many uses for it in addition to fuels; and there's a huge supply of it.
I don't expect electric cars and trucks to replace cars and trucks on a large scale basis, but replacing all of NYC taxicabs, or all trains, or any other concentrated, urban systemized vehicles with electrically powered ones would be possible.
Last, elimination of all petroleum use is very short sighted, there's many uses for it in addition to fuels; and there's a huge supply of it.
They are already doing some small scale tidal in N.Y. city,as for putting metal in salt water I thought we had that pretty well figured out , better check with the navy maybe I missed something but I thought most of their canoes were metal,as far as cost like anything the more you produce the cheaper it gets.
If we are disagreeing, it's over a matter of semantics. When I read posts such as earlier in this thread about "getting away" from oil, I read that as meaning a complete break, which simply is not currently possible (nor necessary).
Regardless, eliminating oil from our economy isn't possible; significantly reducing our usage is.
Unregistered
Moderator
I never realized there were so many nuclear physicists who were also gun enthusiasts.