What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
165 Comments
- SiNN4R, on 12/24/2007, -6/+50Go go nuclear power! Screw the environuts and their anti-nuke propaganda.
- bilbus, on 12/24/2007, -0/+27Some of you people don't understand how nuclear power works. Even if there is a accident where the reactor overloads, it does not explode! The Chernobyl explosion was because the steam boiler blew up. This explosion caused radiation to spread to the surrounding area.
They also failed to do a few things correctly.
Chernobyl disabled the fail safes and put the reactor on manual.
Chernobyl used graphite as a moderator, everyone else uses water. If the water is removed the reactor will shutdown not melt down.
Chernobyl had only a partial containment, US reactors have 3 levels of containment. - MisterMills, on 12/24/2007, -0/+26Solar and wind energy have their place as part of the grid. There still needs to be a reliable source of generations such as nuclear, hyrdo, or clean coal plants to be the major source of generation.
- sonycam, on 12/24/2007, -0/+24People seem to think anything which is 'nuclear' is bad. For energy, it's far cheaper than the green sources and produces far less pollution than the dirty ones.
- masterm1nd, on 12/24/2007, -4/+25What is considered "waste" actually still has a lot of energy in it.
- HMTKSteve, on 12/24/2007, -1/+20Nuclear Waste is a bit of a misnomer. It is only "waste" because we lack the technology to extract more energy from it.
Think of a full plastic bottle of thick salad dressing. Even though you can't pour more out of it there is still some inside of the bottle. Nuclear Waste is like that. As we develop the technology to access the energy inside those leftovers it can be reused as fuel. - donjacko, on 12/24/2007, -1/+15the thing is that i have attended numerous conferences on the subject, all of which have estimates that the Canadian and Australasian reserves can be mined at current costs and consumption for around 150 years
- donjacko, on 12/24/2007, -2/+14amen to that
- Spanq, on 12/24/2007, -0/+11Chernobyl was also a piece of *****, even by the standards back in its day.
- trevis989, on 12/24/2007, -1/+11Its not a matter of what is there to lose. Try powering the entire world on solar and wind alone, have fun with that. There is no way we can satisfy current and growing power demands with solar/wind/hydro alone, we need a base line generation source (oil/nuclear/coal) to smooth transients and provide the bulk of the power. Wind/solar/hydro/geothermal energy sources are in all relative terms unlimited (though in the long run they are not), but the efficiencies of the systems we have to utilize them are terrible to say the least, not to mention the obscure effects they have on the environment (sure they may be "clean" but they still have negative effects). What we SHOULD be doing is integrating new nuclear with solar/wind/hydro as a package to reduce carbon emissions and make an overall push towards cleaner energy.
- lacronicus, on 12/24/2007, -0/+10Modern reactors are designed so that chernobyl can't happen. Not just unlikely, not just someone ahs to screw up big time, but its actually impossible. They are designed so that, should anything impostant fail, the worst that will happen is the radioactive material will be submersed in water, rendering it harmless.
- Breepee, on 12/24/2007, -1/+10The thing all seem the be forgetting is that European mainland reactors and US/UK reacters are fueled differently. European reactors have been accomodated to reuse recycled uranium (in a seperate plant like Urenco in the Netherlands). This way, current uranium estimates can last up to a thousand years.
The way the UK and US are using uranium is basically only using a few percentage of the energy in there and then calling it 'waste' and stowing it away. Europe recycles this waste into reusable uranium and so increases efficiency dramatically. - scoottie, on 12/24/2007, -1/+10thats what this article is about
- donjacko, on 12/24/2007, -0/+9we need them too- they will still be built
- vesopeso, on 12/24/2007, -0/+9Its not that much crap, 60 000 tons is nothing for 50 years of operation and can be safely disposed without great environmental risk. Most of this stuff comes from the early years when we were not yet using these materials efficiently enough.
Coal mining for example has a much greater impact on environment, especially if you count in surface mining and such nice things like acid rains.... - donjacko, on 12/24/2007, -1/+9uranium running out in 20years? hmmm that seems amazingly short
- MisterMills, on 12/24/2007, -2/+10There is already much talk about this on a global scale as a way to deal with nuclear waste and put it to some use. It is quite possible that if all the red-tape could get cleared up that Canada could start re-burning a lot of spent US fissile material in the existing CANDU reactors.
One of the major issues surrounding spent fuel is handling it. Spent fuel has a high field, thus making it very difficult to handle, process, and transport in a safe and responsible manner. There is also the issue of security when transporting it. - thebellmaster1x, on 12/24/2007, -0/+8Well, hey, solar and wind power are still great.
But, no, I don't really have any problem with nuclear power. It has good efficiency, meltdowns happen very rarely--I don't understand why people are so afraid of it.
I'm just pissed that we don't have fusion yet. CURSE YOU, SUN! - The_Wallbanger, on 12/24/2007, -0/+7I don't think you understand what the word "polluting" means.
- Ramble, on 12/24/2007, -0/+7There's over 1000 years left until world uranium runs out, provided we recycle it. By then fusion will be up and running.
- weFallAround, on 12/24/2007, -0/+6Chernobyl was a gift to the anti-nuclear crowd, it damaged the public view of nuclear power to the average person, despite not being at all representative of the industry. Chernobyl is better used as an example of poorly managed state-owned industry, rather than the dangers of nuclear power
The fact is that, currently, renewable energy isnt economically viable as a main fuel source and nuclear, whilst not the cleanest source of energy, is a much much cleaner source than any fossil fuels.
As for the waste generated by this, the waste is already there. I think the point of the article was that the majority of the fuel burned is already inventory at Sellafield and the waste to be 'burned' in the breeder reactors is currently being stored on site as 'waste'. This would minimise the risk from transporting the materials around and the cost because, well, the uk already owns it.
France has it right, theyve selected the lesser of any viable evil and opted for a majority nuclear energy - UtopiaInTheSky, on 12/24/2007, -1/+7In other news, the population of the USA is five times that of the UK.
- spaceman84, on 12/24/2007, -2/+8At CURRENT costs and consumption. There are already several applications to build new reactors in the US. Japan, France, and England will continue to build reactors. China and India are going to build a LOT of reactors over the next couple decades. Consumption will multiply rapidly. Sooner than you think, it's going to be an absolute necessity to recycle nuclear material.
- donjacko, on 12/24/2007, -0/+6thats called visual pollution- but since when do wind turbines look worse than huge power plants based on steam generation?
- chris9902, on 12/24/2007, -0/+6why does it have to be one or the other?
Nuclear is the future until we can build good enough renewable energy sources without using up 40% of the land mass. - inactive, on 12/24/2007, -0/+6Did you at least read the article?
"We can bury our reactor _waste_ or we can _treat it_ and then use it as free fuel for life,' said the cabinet's chief science adviser, Sir David King. 'It's a no-brainer." - johndi, on 12/24/2007, -0/+6The more you recycle it the shorter the half-life of the remainder. Eventually it ends up as non-nuclear waste. (Which may or my not be useful.) That's what a fissile reactor does, it speeds up the decay cycle until you eventually end up with non-fissile materials. You half to recycle to remove these because when you get enough the reaction stops. The materials you remove to make it fissile again generally have a very short half life.
- thomtomw, on 12/24/2007, -0/+6an important question perhaps?!
- mazza558, on 12/24/2007, -2/+8...Wait, what happened to the wind farms?
- Ramble, on 12/24/2007, -0/+5What he said. It is impossible to meltdown a modern reactor.
- thebellmaster1x, on 12/24/2007, -0/+5What? How does this violate the 2nd law? There's still a metric ***** of energy in nuclear waste. It's not perpetual until it can power itself. It can't. After it's been used enough times, it's done.
- trevis989, on 12/24/2007, -0/+5This is one of the biggest problems with people's view of nuclear today. I once heard someone ask "what if terrorists nuked a nuclear power plant???" For starters, the nuclear explosion from the bomb itself >>>> the effect of anything created by the plant. The fact of the matter is the way nuclear plants are built ensures that in the event of an external hazard, 6-10 foot thick concrete/reinforced steel walls surround the core and primary loop piping systems of the reactor. This effectively prevents major damage to the system in event of a bomb or plan crash. If such an event were to cause damage to the core itself, there are other safeguards that will prevent radioactive release above that of background levels.
People today think that nuclear plants are huge nuclear bombs waiting to go off. They are not, nor can they.
People today think that if some nuclear material is stolen from US sights, they can make nuclear weapons out of it. They cannot without billions of dollars worth of enriching equipment and high tech bomb supplies. At worst you could strap dynamite to a chunk of material and blow it up, causing more damage from the actual dynamite than the nuclear material. - MrWhite7, on 12/24/2007, -2/+7Oh look, the council on foreign relations...
- MisterMills, on 12/24/2007, -0/+5Yes there will still be waste, however as elnerdo pointed out, by re-using it you can draw a lot of energy out of it and subsequently the fuel will turn into less radioactive sources and potentially turn into elements that have a shorter half life.
- rarson, on 12/24/2007, -1/+6Chernobyl has absolutely nothing to do with the US' operation of nuclear reactors. Misinformed, inaccurate public opinion is to blame. The nuclear industry has been hindered by activist groups that don't know a thing about nuclear power.
The worst nuclear accident in the history of the US was Three-Mile Island. And no one got hurt, or even received a significant dose of radiation.
The people screaming out against nuclear power are usually the ones that know the least about it. If they were better informed, they would be touting it as a clean, cheap, safe alternative to coal and oil, because it's actually cleaner, cheaper, and safer than both. - DrBob, on 12/24/2007, -0/+5The whole point of this proposal is to use up some of the waste we've got hanging around by turning it into new fuel...
- inactive, on 12/24/2007, -1/+5Don't worry, fusion power is only 30 years away.
/sarcasm - MWeather, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Peak Uranium doesn't mean it's going to run out any time soon.
"production at first increases approximately exponentially, as more extraction commences and more efficient facilities are installed. At some point, a peak output is reached, and production begins declining until it approximates an exponential decline."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
This is the same formula used by mining an oil companies. - ScarHawk, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Dugg up for the "metric *****", a too often neglected and yet important unit of measurement.
- unknownsoldierX, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4That depends on your definition of "accident." There's a plant in my county that leaked tritium into the water supply, TWICE. (Braidwood, IL.)
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id= ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braidwood_Nuclear_Gen ... - stev31h, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4so you're saying we shouldn't shoot our nuclear waste at the sun?
- MioTheGreat, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4It's not only that they happen very rarely (Though some of the newer designs are actually IMPOSSIBLE to melt down by design.), but even if they did happen, there are other measures in place to prevent the meltdown from ever being an issue. Look at three mile Island for a perfect example.
- rarson, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Yes, and the feet of concrete and steel that surround a core (you have to have containment to prevent the release of radiation and contamination) would prevent a plane from having much of an effect on an operating reactor, other than probably necessitating shutting it down.
- Tusa, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Wind is fine, but it is not consistent - neither is solar (though thermal solar with reserve capacity may solve this eventually)
Nuclear can provide stable baseline power today, tomorrow and years from now. - lacronicus, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4do your research, there hasn't been an accident since chernobyl, and that can't happen in the US, due to the way our reactors are designed.
- KingGorilla, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4That would be expensive
- thebellmaster1x, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4This would last until 2060, not START in 2060. As in you'd be good power-wise until you croak.
- rarson, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Not exactly. Chernobyl's boilers circulated the coolant itself through the plant (thus, everything in the plant, steam turbines and all, are contaminated by design). The lid of the core is what actually blew off the ceiling of the building, but had it been a boiler, the results would have been the same (release of radioactivity).
Most US designs (all, as far as I know) use a primary coolant system that transfers heat to a secondary system, which does not come into contact with the radioactive material. Thus, if a steam generator were to explode (which would still be an extremely serious, but extremely unlikely situation), radioactivity release isn't an immediate given.
If you remove water from a pressurized water reactor (the type the US uses a lot), it will overheat the core. A meltdown is caused by lack of circulating coolant, and most cores use water as a coolant. The moderator helps keep the fission reactions under control. If you remove the moderator, you're in trouble.
Chernobyl also employed some seriously retarded designs, like a boiling water reactor (the coolant is designed to be allowed to boil) and a positive coefficient of reactivity (so the hotter the core gets, the higher reactor power goes), and control rods that actually INCREASED power upon the initiation of insertion into the core (so when they started driving rods in to combat the casualty, there was a period of time where their required safety actions were actually making the problem worse). Even with all these horribly bad design aspects, it STILL required several procedural violations and overriding numerous failsafe devices. - Ramble, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Do you actually read what you type?
- rarson, on 12/24/2007, -1/+5Imagine if we used completely pointless, irrelevant mental exercises to limit our energy options for no reason. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 166 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is