Almost waste free Nuclear reactors.

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

...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.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well in a written environment. But I agree, they would keep on artificially inflating the prices.

The hippies would still complain about that 1% waste produced, to them I say;
"The scientists came up with the 99%, how about you do something useful and solve the 1% problem?"

 

[Johnnyallstar]

...would make gasoline cheaper...

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

Of course they would! The more inexpensive it is to produce gasoline by supply and demand, means that more product would move. The more product that moves, the more profit there is to be made. They would love lower gas prices. Besides, they only make a fraction off of producing gasoline of what the government does taxing it.

 

[CrikeyO]

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.

I heard it was because they were testing the reactor to see its limits, the reaction spiralled out of control, and when they tried to stop it, it was too late and the core went into meltdown.

On topic, if these new reactors are proven beyond a doubt to be safe they would certainly be a good intermittent solution between fossil and completely renewable energy. There have been explosions in non nuclear power plants, but none of them inspire the potential panic of a Chernobyl or a Three Mile Island.
Here in Ireland we've had people shaking their fists across the sea at Sellafield and asides from the Windscale fire (which was a primitive reactor by today's standards) we've had no major disasters yet. Time to embrace technology.

 

[jpoon]

Good news there, hope they work out all the kinks post haste.

 

[the_dancy_vagrant]

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.

Nope, sadly it doesn't work that way. Uranium is pretty tricky to get, you either have to mine it out of the earth and then enrich it into a useful form (ie, make it really, REALLY radioactive) or put thorium into a reactor and bombard it with neutrons until it transmutes into uranium.

The new reactors just make better use of the many, many byproducts that the nuclear fuel cycle produces. The big selling point is that more of the waste that comes out of the hybrid reactors have a relatively short half-life, maybe a couple of hundred years. Compare that to the nuclear waste that older reactors make, some of which is known to put out deadly levels of radiation for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Damn lack of delete your own post option.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

The new reactors just make better use of the many, many byproducts that the nuclear fuel cycle produces. The big selling point is that more of the waste that comes out of the hybrid reactors have a relatively short half-life, maybe a couple of hundred years. Compare that to the nuclear waste that older reactors make, some of which is known to put out deadly levels of radiation for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.

I wonder if the waste from these older reactors can undergo the process to make it inert, being able to reduce the world's nuclear waste by 99% is something any decent person would have a hard time saying "No" to.

 

[the_dancy_vagrant]

The new reactors just make better use of the many, many byproducts that the nuclear fuel cycle produces. The big selling point is that more of the waste that comes out of the hybrid reactors have a relatively short half-life, maybe a couple of hundred years. Compare that to the nuclear waste that older reactors make, some of which is known to put out deadly levels of radiation for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.

I wonder if the waste from these older reactors can undergo the process to make it inert, being able to reduce the world's nuclear waste by 99% is something any decent person would have a hard time saying "No" to.

That's the notion. The only downside to recycling the waste is that some of the materials that are created are extremely useful for non-weapon/non-energy based applications, especially in medicine - "safe" nuclear materials are used in CAT scanners, x-ray machines, contrast dye, and radiation treatments for cancer patients.

In the end, there's not really a way to make anything that comes out of a reactor inert from the get go. The fact that they can make it much less dangerous is a step in the right direction, though.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

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.

No.

Essentially, all modern reactors that aren't commissioned by insane evil geniuses are built to be self-scramming. In simple terms, they will simply stop working if their operational heat starts to rise to unsafe levels. They can't physically keep working. Unless, of course, somebody disables every safeguard that's in place and sabotages half of the reactor assembly.

There's really no danger in nuclear power; they emit a lot more background radiation than solar or wind, but, as long as you don't put a hospital next to them, the population should stay relatively human.

 

[Lucifron]

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.

Oh, I see. That's awesome.

I hate politicians...

 

[arsenicCatnip]

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.

No.

Essentially, all modern reactors that aren't commissioned by insane evil geniuses are built to be self-scramming. In simple terms, they will simply stop working if their operational heat starts to rise to unsafe levels. They can't physically keep working. Unless, of course, somebody disables every safeguard that's in place and sabotages half of the reactor assembly.

There's really no danger in nuclear power; they emit a lot more background radiation than solar or wind, but, as long as you don't put a hospital next to them, the population should stay relatively human.

Most people don't believe that though, after Chernobyl.

Personally, I think this is an awesome thing, and could be a huge step in the right direction for slowly lowering our dependence on fossil fuels (cause let's face it, we're never gonna be off that teat entirely). Nuclear power is 90% safe, why not use it?

 

[Cabisco]

No.

Essentially, all modern reactors that aren't commissioned by insane evil geniuses are built to be self-scramming. In simple terms, they will simply stop working if their operational heat starts to rise to unsafe levels. They can't physically keep working. Unless, of course, somebody disables every safeguard that's in place and sabotages half of the reactor assembly.

There's really no danger in nuclear power; they emit a lot more background radiation than solar or wind, but, as long as you don't put a hospital next to them, the population should stay relatively human.

Though I agree with you, the public at large won't. They will just go "LALALALALALA not listening nuclear equals death". To have Nuclear power, at least in England you would need some sort of PR god to change everyones mind.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

Most people don't believe that though, after Chernobyl.

Which is ridiculous. There have only been two reactors in history that went prompt-critical, and Chernobyl was one of them. Even then, most of the Chernobyl explosion was steam; a nuclear reactor isn't going to explode like a nuclear bomb (because they're constructed in very, very distinct and separate fashions). The most that happens is, as my physics prof likes to put it, your reactor pile becomes a pile of reactor.

Though I agree with you, the public at large won't. They will just go "LALALALALALA not listening nuclear equals death". To have Nuclear power, at least in England you would need some sort of PR god to change everyones mind.

I blame Hollywood for all the "the reactor's going critical!" crap. A reactor is always critical. It's critical when it's on. Fucking Hollywood scientists.

 

[Danny Ocean]

An average nuclear reactor takes about 20 years to pay itself of, a wind turbine takes 2. The only reason that people belive in nuclear power is that it seems futuristic, bullshit

-edit-
not to mention that a nuclear powerplant can take up to 15 years just to get built

Not to mention that you need at least a dozen wind turbines to every reactor.

 

[Spacewolf]

Awesome will they get rid of all the barrels scattered around the globe they've just thrown in a hole though?

This is dumb. Nuclear waste is not a green sludge that is stored in a barrel like you see on The Simpsons. It is more like a big sheet of glass, very small amounts of it get produced (if the average north american had all of their power needs for their entire life supplied by nuclear power, it would only produce one kilogram nuclear waste), and it is physically incapable of affecting anything outside of its container, let alone anything that is not also sitting in an underground cavern.

People really need to get over their irrational and unfounded fear of nuclear power. Nobody's afraid of the waste produced by coal power, despite the fact that nuclear waste is considerably less radioactive.

except it also irradiates the ater used to cool the reactor and quite alot of other stuff the glass is just a very small % of actual nuclear waste, why do you think Sellafield is so big

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I have a better idea. Have either Canada or England take us over. I think that our opposition to health care has shown we have no right to a country.

I think your national debt has scared away all potential invaders.

Perhaps if Hollywood made a movie realisticly depicting Nuclear power then the public might calm down enough to support them being built. I saw the movie China Syndrome in my youth, from what I can recall it was a pretty fair portrayl of a real nuclear disaster.

Overall I think the cost of recycling the waste may deter people from doing it, unless there were a way they could make money off it.

 

[Good morning blues]

Awesome will they get rid of all the barrels scattered around the globe they've just thrown in a hole though?

This is dumb. Nuclear waste is not a green sludge that is stored in a barrel like you see on The Simpsons. It is more like a big sheet of glass, very small amounts of it get produced (if the average north american had all of their power needs for their entire life supplied by nuclear power, it would only produce one kilogram nuclear waste), and it is physically incapable of affecting anything outside of its container, let alone anything that is not also sitting in an underground cavern.

People really need to get over their irrational and unfounded fear of nuclear power. Nobody's afraid of the waste produced by coal power, despite the fact that nuclear waste is considerably less radioactive.

except it also irradiates the ater used to cool the reactor and quite alot of other stuff the glass is just a very small % of actual nuclear waste, why do you think Sellafield is so big

...I'm pretty sure the radioactive material is separated out of the water and placed in the waste glass, although admittedly I'm not a nuclear waste disposal expert.

 

[the_dancy_vagrant]

Awesome will they get rid of all the barrels scattered around the globe they've just thrown in a hole though?

This is dumb. Nuclear waste is not a green sludge that is stored in a barrel like you see on The Simpsons. It is more like a big sheet of glass, very small amounts of it get produced (if the average north american had all of their power needs for their entire life supplied by nuclear power, it would only produce one kilogram nuclear waste), and it is physically incapable of affecting anything outside of its container, let alone anything that is not also sitting in an underground cavern.

People really need to get over their irrational and unfounded fear of nuclear power. Nobody's afraid of the waste produced by coal power, despite the fact that nuclear waste is considerably less radioactive.

except it also irradiates the ater used to cool the reactor and quite alot of other stuff the glass is just a very small % of actual nuclear waste, why do you think Sellafield is so big

...I'm pretty sure the radioactive material is separated out of the water and placed in the waste glass, although admittedly I'm not a nuclear waste disposal expert.

Statements like that one prove your previous point, morning blues. Ignorance of how a reactor works is what makes people afraid of them.

Nuclear plants are basically a gigantic double boiler. In the core, there's some uranium surrounded by a pool of coolant in a radiation proof shell. The water that's used gets passed through channels close enough to the inner shell to pick up heat. It turns to steam, pushes a turbine, and somewhere someone gets to turn on their 360 to hear the heart warming profanity-shrieking of 13 year olds on live.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Nuclear plants are basically a gigantic double boiler. In the core, there's some uranium surrounded by a pool of coolant in a radiation proof shell. The water that's used gets passed through channels close enough to the inner shell to pick up heat. It turns to steam, pushes a turbine, and somewhere someone gets to turn on their 360 to hear the heart warming profanity-shrieking of 13 year olds on live.

You just solved the problem of Perpetual Motion; Screaming 13 year olds produce heat which boils water which spins turbines which creates electricity which allows them to play on xbox live which causes them to scream.

 

[Sebenko]

Nuclear plants are basically a gigantic double boiler. In the core, there's some uranium surrounded by a pool of coolant in a radiation proof shell. The water that's used gets passed through channels close enough to the inner shell to pick up heat. It turns to steam, pushes a turbine, and somewhere someone gets to turn on their 360 to hear the heart warming profanity-shrieking of 13 year olds on live.

You just solved the problem of Perpetual Motion; Screaming 13 year olds produce heat which biols water which spins turbines which creates electricity which allows them to play on xbox live which causes them to scream.

Science!

But no, a lot of energy is expended as sound, mainly "fag".