What is Digg?30 Comments
- jorisb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15250 million is to start the initial research.
Just a little known fact: The Canadian CANDU reactor is already capable of burning spent pressurized as well as light water reactor fuel. In addition, it is designed to burn natural mined uranium (no enrichment), and can burn weapons grade plutonium used in nuclear weapons.
It would be wise to build some of these Heavy water reactors along with America's LWRs and PWRs. - Merkidemis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Sounds like a win-win scenario. Is $250 million this year enough to get the project rolling?
- bolero421, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Hi there Mr. Strawman! How are you today?
Congratulations on bashing an imaginary proponent of nuclear power. Do you actually have any reason to dislike nuclear power yourself, or are you just trolling? Your comment contributed zero positive input to this discussion.
Please, do tell. I'm very interested in hearing some more anti-nuclear misinformation. - darkened, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What I don't understand is why the USA still seems to completely act as if the Pebble Bed Reactor Technology doesn't exist and isn't absolutely viable with absolute 0 chance of a nuclear explosion from a core breach or insurgent attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
I first read about this in Wired magazine well over a year ago and was always expecting this to be brought up more frequently but sadly it has not. I truly believe nuclear power is what we must adopt to maintain the power demands of our advancing civilization until we can finally harness true fusion in a safe manner (that might be impossible) or a way to directly harness the suns energy possibly from an orbital solar power station or a huge leap in solar cell technology.
Until then Pebble Bed Reactors (PBRs) are a clear need as a source of energy that removes the risk of nuclear explosions that is a very large concern with current reactor designs. - szelij, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Great. We need renewable energy, preferably one that does not impact the environment. Electricity generated from dams damage the ecosystem, and so do other "green" energy initiatives to a certain extent.
The only problem with nuclear energy right now is what to do with the nuclear waste, the problem of safety has largely been eradicated due to new strides in nuclear safety design. Safer and more efficient reactor designs are constantly being churned out by computers too.
The only question is if it will be commercially viable? If it expensive then you'd either have to raise the tax on pollutive energy or give rebates/tax breaks/subsidies. - ylocav, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7a meltdown is NOT the same as a blast.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9There's a reason this is illegal. The same process that makes the old uranium reusable ALSO makes plutonium, which is a substance that is very dangerous to have around.
- szelij, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Can you give me a link to that? I must have missed this...but if that's true then it could potentially open-up a new source of economic activity in Africa, especially in the barren deserts.
- szelij, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Danger is relative. I think people are too scared of "what if" today, especially in the States. The safety measures in place would be the same as for any other nuclear reactor. In today's reactors if people can get a conventional bomb to detonate within the complex, the core would still be safe as its behind very very thick concrete walls.
Its irrational fear thats what's it is. You might as well fear being bombed on a cruise ship, that probability is much higher. - kublerross, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@szeli
Safety is relative as well. Im sure when they built the levys in New Orleans they were championed as impregnable.
In theory all of this sounds great. But who in their right mind trusts either having the government or even private industry in charge of such risky operations?
The truth is we live in a time where it seems neither (corporations or governement) have any sense of moral duty to protect the general population, its all about profit.
I dont want some corrupt CEO or politician trying to find ways to cut corners to earn a few extra bucks when dealing with dangerous nuclear waste...when youre dealing with something that has such a long half life there is little margin for error.
Before using the global warming scare as an excuse to jump right in an crank up nuclear power we need to find an acceptable solution to the disposal of nuclear waste (of which we already have very sizeable amounts built up awaiting proper disposal) - 81v3d07g0d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I am glad to see that this idea is gaining more acceptance. I have known about this for quite some time, but it takes a lot more than scientific proof to get people to change their mind about something they think they know.
- thatsiebguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4A Breeder Reactor? Thats not new, but our best option for the future.
- corser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Maybe this is the same thing. I read about a new reactor technology, in Scientific American, which didn't use enriched uranium, reprocessed the spent fuel to remove the unusable bits using some form of electrolysis, and then recycled what was usable until you got to a point where the waste would only remain dangerous for ~500 year.
The upsides to this technology were you never had the fuel in a state that would make it easy to create weapons, you extracted basically all the nuclear energy possible from the fuel and the waste wasn't dangerous for that long. - ebrandsberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was excited about pebble bed reactors, but I think the ultimate problem is that in the end the pebbles still need to be disposed of, and they can't easily be refined to produce more fuel without the Plutonium issue. Mining Uranium and refining it isn't exactly the most pollution free process, and while we have enough Uranium available when using breeder reactors to create power for a LONG time, if you throw it away after burning only a few percentage of it (as we do now), it won't last that long.
Another hope is making use of Thorium powered reactors: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68045,00.html - cphuntington97, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Are you scared of the radioactivity you are exposed to from burned coal?
Note: the US burns enough coal for power to produce more radioactivity (trace amounts in the coal) in the environment than all the nuclear plants together! - bilbus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It costs alot to build a nuclear power plant because of red tape.
- Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"in the best scenario GNEP would take decades to develop"
Trojan horse. - consoneo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hope it's true... that could be some wonderful sutff :)
- wunksta, on 03/12/2009, -0/+1@jerbaker
"Nuclear power advocates who claim that nuclear power can play a viable role in reducing our impact on global warming are by and large the same people who claim global warming is not caused by humans. "
yeah, you are completely wrong - HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm all for nuclear power but 500 years is still a long time.
- jabowery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Rather than yet another technosocialist boondoggle that simply plays out to provide retirement benefits for DoE favorites after a generation of failure, as the Tokamak program has become, why not do what a founder of the Tokamak program recommends and replace the government program with a series of prize awards for the achievement of intermediate technical objectives toward the goal of reuse of nuclear waste products?
See:
http://www.geocities.com.nyud.net:8080/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html - geonox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well with the nuclear waste you can do like what they did in "Sahara" used solar panels in high heat areas then use the thermal energy too superheat the waste. Computer models have shown this can happen
- kent1146, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3How easy / feasilble would it be to hide a bomb in the trash, and set it off while it is about to enter the nuclear reactor? Would this pose a danger to the reactor?
- Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Umm... no $250 million this year is not enough to get the project rolling
- Chromantix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Sounds like a great start on an important technology.
Fund it with the money that would have had to go to support the Kyoto treaty and America can have a reactor per state in no time. - diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1When a utility can afford to build it and insure it without help from the government, I will be pro-nuclear. The utility must pay for the clean up, too. Today, too many technologies are subsidized by the government, including off-loading of risk. There is too much corporate welfare.
Look at oil, the government spends billions abroad to maintain the status quo. If, all the costs were included in the price of oil products, Americans would drastically change how they live. Let the market choose the future. We need government's thumb off the scale, so we may see the true measure of our choices. - nicstevens42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Oh dear, where can the matter be when it gets converted to energy?
- gregm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2As far as bombs coming into the facility... think about it. The walls around the reactor are designed to withstand a nuclear blast... so nothing short of a much larger nuclear blast is going to damage it. I wouldn't worry about people bombing it.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Nuclear power advocates who claim that nuclear power can play a viable role in reducing our impact on global warming are by and large the same people who claim global warming is not caused by humans. Ask one of them to explain why when talking about nuclear power they're happy to tell you that it will help global warming, but when you're talking about regulating carbon output they claim that humans are not the cause (meaning there's nothing we can do about it). The real answer is that they are happy to adopt whatever position they feel is most advantageous to their current agenda without any regard to honesty.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is