Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Stephen Swaffer]

For perspective, the coal industry produces  in excess of that annually, just in coal ash. https://www.epa.gov/coalash
No matter what solution we choose, there is going to be some waste and negative impact, the trick is to finding what has the best return for the least amount of impact.

My point was that people tend to view wind energy as impactless.    What can't even be measured is the ecological impact of removing gigawatts of energy from the windstreams.

To bring it back on topic, its the same human psychology as the guys that insist on using (misusing?) line arrays because they're perfect, or point source is the solution for every audio need, or a hundred other audio related topics (high end CAT5 cable anyone?) that people want to believe are THE solution-but refuse (or don't understand how) to honestly look at the whole picture and the physics involved.

[John A Chiara]

Umm. WOW.
Least amount of impact, except for storing the spent fuel rods for the next 10 centuries....
While rare, 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima  were quite impactful, and that impact will last for generations.
Chris.

You might want to research your opinion on this. Lots of new stuff coming. New plants...even Gen3 will not suffer these ills.

[Nathan Riddle]

Not sure I understand that?

I have a poorly written sentence. Apologies.

I had a whole bunch written, but I don't want to derail any further.

Look up Kurzgesagt & Michael Shellenberger on youtube for balanced and well-cited presentations about nuclear power, thank you.

The final objection to the proliferation of nuclear weapons has typically gone down in countries adopting nuclear power.

What I meant to say was:

A major objection to nuclear power is the continued proliferation (increase/creation/reproduction) of nuclear weapons when countries obtain nuclear power technology & fissile material.

But countries that adopt nuclear power typically sign agreements & also follow-through with not creating nuclear weapons with the fissile material and are subject to UN regulations and inspections. There are always bad eggs, but why kill the planet with more fossil and/or "renewable" fuels that are far worse than nuclear's impact.

-------

Back to the subject!
My vote is for small nuclear thorium reactors or gen IV on a truck and boomsauce clean energy!
Heh, kidding (or am I) 

[Tim McCulloch]

It's all fun and games until it's YOUR turn to fuel the reactor in the garage...

[Riley Casey]

My favorite climate change related cartoon is some character asking another " What if it's all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

Pretty sure that just about the time we get carbon emissions down to neutral some wise guy is going to come up with kitchen table cold fusion.

[Daniel Levi]

See if Britain had made gas cooled reactors properly economically viable (on load refuelling never worked on the AGR's, and the MAGNOX reactors were not efficient enough due to their dual use) we would now have reactors that can't do a Chernobyl or Fukushima as there is no water to boil and become pressurised and thus no steam explosion.

Note that nuclear reactors can't go up like an atomic bomb, you need a very tightly  controlled explosion, in the correct order, in a correctly shaped vessel to do that, blowing up a nuclear power station again would not have that effect.

As for refueling, the actual fuel before it enters the reactor is quite safe and can be handled with minimum PPE.

As for nukes, the whole point is that they aren't supposed to ever be used, mutually assured destruction and all that.

[John Roberts {JR}]

See if Britain had made gas cooled reactors properly economically viable (on load refuelling never worked on the AGR's, and the MAGNOX reactors were not efficient enough due to their dual use) we would now have reactors that can't do a Chernobyl or Fukushima as there is no water to boil and become pressurised and thus no steam explosion.

Note that nuclear reactors can't go up like an atomic bomb, you need a very tightly  controlled explosion, in the correct order, in a correctly shaped vessel to do that, blowing up a nuclear power station again would not have that effect.

The failure concern is "china syndrome" meltdown, like made popular in that old movie. The heat from a runaway reaction would melt a hole in the ground all the way to china. There are self quenching new designs that do not require forced active cooling to remain stable. 

As for refueling, the actual fuel before it enters the reactor is quite safe and can be handled with minimum PPE.

As for nukes, the whole point is that they aren't supposed to ever be used, mutually assured destruction and all that.

A review of history suggests that they were originally designed to be used and were. MAD works when two rational countries do not believe they have a winnable advantage over each other and would suffer significant losses from such an engagement. Putin is working on advanced delivery systems to gain some competitive advantage (we believe a nuclear powered missile prototype exploded in Russia, but the news about that accident has been censored).

My concern is what less rational actors might do with such weapons. 

JR

[Jonathan Johnson]

Nuclear waste (non radioactive) is lower than any other power technology besides hydro.

The Trojan Nuclear Power Plant near Portland, Oregon, was decommissioned beginning in 1992. All of the spent fuel used during its operation is still stored onsite, currently in "dry cask" storage that is vented to the atmosphere. All of the remaining incidental radioactive material (including the reactor core) was shipped to permanent disposal sites, mostly the Hanford Reservation in eastern Washington state.

The irony of radioactive material is that material with a short half-life is more dangerous initially but quickly degrades to a safe level, while material with a long half-life is only mildly dangerous but for a very, very long time.

[Daniel Levi]

Yes the fact that the radioactivity takes so long to disperse means it cannot be giving off that much radiation, Thunderf00t did a good video on it.

[Jason Glass]

The irony of radioactive material is that material with a short half-life is more dangerous initially but quickly degrades to a safe level, while material with a long half-life is only mildly dangerous but for a very, very long time.

Ah yes.  Flux density.

People have lots of irrational fears about radioactivity, most of them based on ignorance.  For example, it obeys the same inverse-square law that acoustical and radio frequency propagations obey.  A difference of inches in one's distance to the source can mean life or death.  But the average person has no idea nor desire to learn "that sciency stuff".  Their own homes are protected by smoke alarms containing enough radioactive material inside to kill them if ingested.  The material is completely harmless while located up on the ceiling.

[ProSoundWeb Community]