Almost waste free Nuclear reactors.

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

They last a good 40 - 50 years if built right, Chernobyl only failed because the engineers working there were woefully undertrained and they cut corners during the building of the reactor. Theres talks of building more nuclear reactors here in Australia and since waste storage is a big issue in deciding this, I hope the new tech will be available if they decide to go ahead.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

The reasons for building nuclear reactors vastly outweigh the reasons not to. After the initial investment of the reactors, it will quickly pay itself off.

Want to make oil obsolete? Won't happen (plastics and such), but you can at least stop using it to power the electric turbines. Which would make gasoline cheaper, plastics cheaper, and so much more.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

...would make gasoline cheaper...

Yeah, Big Oil conglomerates would like to see this happen.

 

[dekkarax]

And even if that does not work, there are hybrid reactors, which can use nuclear waste as fuel

Do those hybrid reactors produce uranium as waste product? Thus creating a never ending cycle of energy?

Cuz, you know, that'd be pretty cool.

Hybrid reactors use a fission reaction (using the waste as fuel) to drive a nuclear fusion reaction, it doesn't produce uranium as a product unfortunately but it produces huge amounts of power with almost no downsides.

 

[Meemaimoh]

And even if that does not work, there are hybrid reactors, which can use nuclear waste as fuel

Wait, this exists? Why are we not doing this?

 

[Quad08]

Hopefully this will stop people from being so darn scared of nuclear power...probably not though

 

[Lucifron]

And even if that does not work, there are hybrid reactors, which can use nuclear waste as fuel

Wait, this exists? Why are we not doing this?

Because Greenpeace sucks and public opinion was contorted beyond reason after Chernobyl. Either people are consciously fooling themselves or they have forgone basing their opinions on facts and instead opted for pulling them out of their sphincters. That's why.

 

[Meemaimoh]

And even if that does not work, there are hybrid reactors, which can use nuclear waste as fuel

Wait, this exists? Why are we not doing this?

Because Greenpeace sucks and public opinion was contorted beyond reason after Chernobyl. Either people are consciously fooling themselves or they have forgone basing their opinions on facts and instead opted for pulling them out of their sphincters. That's why.

Ah, so same old, same old. Good to know that some things in this world are predictable. A shame it's always the worst things.

 

[era81]

I remember hearing about thorium which was found in the sixty's to be able to replace uranium but they couldn't weaponize it so they ditched the project.

 

[Cabisco]

I thought the big problem with nuclear power was that the public at large are scared of the whole it melting down thing. Aside from the fact they are now designed that if they do melt down, all it does is fuck up the part of land which the reactor was directly on (you know, that bit which was already being used). At least i'm sure this is how those new fancy ones in france work, i'll go do some research.

But my point still stands, you could actually say that this nuclear reactor could save millions of pounds but have fun trying to find anywhere to build it.

 

[Lucifron]

And even if that does not work, there are hybrid reactors, which can use nuclear waste as fuel

Wait, this exists? Why are we not doing this?

Because Greenpeace sucks and public opinion was contorted beyond reason after Chernobyl. Either people are consciously fooling themselves or they have forgone basing their opinions on facts and instead opted for pulling them out of their sphincters. That's why.

Ah, so same old, same old. Good to know that some things in this world are predictable. A shame it's always the worst things.

Indeed, although we are compensated by earning the privilege of writing witty forum posts and being snazzily jaded about it!

:>

 

[Dwarfman]

Wow! I must say it's so nice to see a bunch of people supporting thing liike this. To often I find myself confronted by people going 'oohhhh it's nuclear it's evil oooohhhhh'.

It's so good to see people - and can I go on a limb and say young people? - suporting this kind of thing

 

[Nmil-ek]

Hmm, looks good. But I wonder how expensive the new reactors are...

Less expencive than a continued investment in depleting fuel scources, and wars to procure said resources I would wager.

 

[Rhayn]

I bet the people building Finlands newest reactor hate themselves now, if they didn't already, considering it's 2 years after schedule and twice the budget.

On topic, a very fascinating read. I'm unfamiliar with how much money goes into the storages at this moment, but having seen one myself I doubt it's anything too cheap to build and uphold. That said, if there were only one or two storages needed in the world for the little nuclear waste the new reactor produces, it'll be something of a logistical nightmare to figure out where to put those so everyone would have easy access.

But it's good news, indeed.

 

[dekkarax]

And even if that does not work, there are hybrid reactors, which can use nuclear waste as fuel

Wait, this exists? Why are we not doing this?

Because Greenpeace sucks and public opinion was contorted beyond reason after Chernobyl. Either people are consciously fooling themselves or they have forgone basing their opinions on facts and instead opted for pulling them out of their sphincters. That's why.

Also because it's still in a theoretical stage, plus fusion reactors are huge.

 

[Lucifron]

Also because it's still in a theoretical stage, plus fusion reactors are huge.

I was unaware that the eat-nuclear-waste-reactors involved fusion. Are we talking about the "hai guyz I can has unlimited energiez nao" kind of fusion reactor or something else?

 

[Doitpow]

...would make gasoline cheaper...

Yeah, Big Oil conglomerates would like to see this happen.

So they lose more of their market control? so they can't artificially inflate prices with low supply? I do not understand you.

 

[dekkarax]

Also because it's still in a theoretical stage, plus fusion reactors are huge.

I was unaware that the eat-nuclear-waste-reactors involved fusion. Are we talking about the "hai guyz I can has unlimited energiez nao" kind of fusion reactor or something else?

It's the Fusion you're thinking about. The Fission reaction sustains the Fusion reaction, it's much easier than making a self sustaining Fusion reaction, although, a self sustaining one would practically never stop producing energy; a hybrid reactor needs fuel (nuclear waste) to keep the fusion reaction going.

 

[Aerodyamic]

That could be really cool, but you know full well that some environmental zealot is going to find some excuse to decry it. I (also) seriously hope that such a project will get tested in a 3rd World country, though, so we can prove that any country can be brought into the 21st century, if you give them the chance to work at it.

 

[Booze Zombie]

If they'd just get a way of doing it with not waste, now that, I'd get behind...

Just to note, by the way, if you were looking at radioactive waste stronge enough that it was green glowing goo, you would be dead.
I think even in Gordon Freeman's HEV suit you'd last like 5 minutes, tops.