| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: re:Climate-Sorry for all your Ignorance,politics & Hype |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 111
|
|
| Author |
|
|
courine
Master Cruncher Capt., Team In2My.Net Cmd. HQ: San Francisco Joined: Apr 26, 2007 Post Count: 1794 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Oh Dave,
----------------------------------------I see what you mean. The funny part is that when anyone thinks that the reason why nuclear power should be used, saying it's safe in its use, is not addressing the reason why is shouldn't be used. As you say, "What do you do with the spent rod?"     [Edit 2 times, last edit by courine at Jan 29, 2008 5:34:41 PM] |
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
What do you do with the spent rod? The new reactors don't use rods - they use pebble beds. |
||
|
|
courine
Master Cruncher Capt., Team In2My.Net Cmd. HQ: San Francisco Joined: Apr 26, 2007 Post Count: 1794 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Well then, what do you do with it? Rod, pebbel or otherwise?
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
http://www.physorg.com/news8956.html
Fuel pebbles have 4 caps of containment built in. Many authorities consider pebbled radioactive waste stable enough it can be safely disposed of in geological storage – without any additional shielding or protection. Even in tests where pebbles were exposed to very high heat without coolant for long periods, they showed no outward damage. If one did manage to break a pebble it would only release one tiny (0.05mm) uranium dioxide particle. This particle is too heavy to be wind borne and so could not be blown into other areas like the fallout from the explosion at Chernobyl. PBR proponents state they plan to store all waste products on the plant site – avoiding costly and dangerous radioactive material movement. |
||
|
|
courine
Master Cruncher Capt., Team In2My.Net Cmd. HQ: San Francisco Joined: Apr 26, 2007 Post Count: 1794 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
What is the half-life of U-238? Do you know why there have been no new nuclear plants in the USA since 1996? Do you know why, in California, we pay about a buck a month per person, to get out of the nuclear mess?
----------------------------------------The only use for a nuclear reactor is to start a fusion reactor. Then turn off. As no mater the fuel, the only place that is safe for it on the planet, is inside the reactor itself. This means you must only use the plant once. No new fuel. The one thing though about this article that does show promise. These plants could be excellent replacements for already existing plants that cant be replaced soon. As the eventual phase out of nuclear fuels completely, with the future forefront yet at hand. [Edit 1 times, last edit by courine at Jan 29, 2008 7:34:52 PM] |
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
We're not creating new radioactive material. As I understand it, the stuff we are putting back in the ground is no more radioactive than the stuff we took out.
It's more concentrated, of course. But that shouldn't be a problem if it is stored safely. What really is worrying is the use of depleted uranium on the battlefield. That is simply not condonable. Depleted uranium may not be a great threat, but it is HIGHLY toxic. |
||
|
|
courine
Master Cruncher Capt., Team In2My.Net Cmd. HQ: San Francisco Joined: Apr 26, 2007 Post Count: 1794 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
D,
----------------------------------------What is a breeder reactor made of? You know, the one that makes those nasty little nukes. [Edit 1 times, last edit by courine at Jan 29, 2008 7:33:24 PM] |
|||
|
||||
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Piece Meal Piece Meal:
----------------------------------------Does anyone know the amount of water needed to cool Coal plants opposed to NPs v.v. David Autumns quip on NA reactors having had to be dialled down due lack of water. Probably not, but here's a report that does explain: http://reid.senate.gov/pdfs/THE%20ADVERSE%20E...N%20WATER%20RESOURCES.pdf Nuclear needs only slightly more over coal, but this does not take into account the new technology with which the new NPs are going to be build.
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
courine
Master Cruncher Capt., Team In2My.Net Cmd. HQ: San Francisco Joined: Apr 26, 2007 Post Count: 1794 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
You don’t get it, you shouldn't smelt the stuff in the first place.
----------------------------------------Try un-smelting it. Safe disposal has long been a myth. The real problem goes far beyond these words, but D was closer. |
||
|
|
damir1978
Senior Cruncher Joined: Apr 16, 2007 Post Count: 397 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
What we need is Nuclear FUSION power.
----------------------------------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power So in order to have this we have to concentrate resources on experiments like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER With ITER working, we can understand how to make feasable Fusion Power and forget about all our energy problems. |
||
|
|
|