LENR Low Energy Nuclear Reactor http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/encouraged/ I have very recently come across a bit of news from someone whom I consider trustworthy who has knowledge of developments surrounding the upcoming E-Cat test and report which gives an encouraging picture. If the plan that I have learned about is fulfilled, when the report comes out it could be quite convincing to the wider world. I am beginning to understand why recently Daniele Passerini of 22passi.blogspot.com has been so positive in his outlook. This is all I will say at the moment. Andrea Rossi today said on the Journal of Nuclear Physics that the report of the testing will be published âwithin Septemberâ â so there looks like there will be some more waiting. I believe that the wait may be worth it.
we just need to build a space elevator, then we can fling all the waste towards the sun (or away whatever) and we don't have to worry about it at all... until it lights up alien sensors and they come and pillage us. but i'll take that chance.
This is an area that I know something about, having worked in the earlier part of my career at the scientific end of reactor fuel development, and having had an opportunity to become familiar with the design of various types --steam turbine, gas turbine, breeder, sodium cooled, etc. --nuclear reactors and their spent fuel disposal/reprocessing problems. I just want to make a few comments that I hope will still be of some interest though I have been away from that industry for many years now. The safety record in terms of human health, so far, of nuclear power generation is pretty good so long as you exclude Chernobyl. Even when you include Chernobyl the safety record of nuclear power holds up fairly well to that of the coal mining/coal fired plant record. It is very difficult to get an accurate handle on the health effects of fly ash, sulfur oxides, and radioactive C-14 CO2. Granted the history of coal fired plants is a much longer one, so that should be taken into account in any safety comparisons. Coal fired plants release more radioactivity to the atmosphere than a properly operating nuclear plant, which releases none. Traditional Coal and Natural Gas fired plants release huge amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, nuclear plants release none. There are tremendous reserves of coal but much of it is low grade, high sulfur. This kind of fuel releases both CO2 and sulfur oxides, chiefly SO2 and SO3 which become H2SO3 and H2SO4 when they react with atmospheric moisture. Capturing these sulfur oxide emissions significantly raises costs. Newer fossil fuel plants that capture some or all of the CO2 emissions are being proposed, but they cost still more and may make nuclear plants cost competitive. Your electric rates will go up either way.. At the time I was involved years ago, the amount of waste from power plants was insignificant compared to the radioactive waste from the weapons program, but I don't know if that is still true. Nevertheless the waste from the weapons program is significant. Mishaps in U.S. commercial nuclear plants so far have demonstrated an excellent safety record with regard to human safety, but have been rather disastrous with regard to cost. Three-mile island being the worst in this regard. Public fear of reactors and particularly resistance to less costly, but safe methods --in my opinion-- of spent fuel disposal have increased the total cost of building new U.S. reactors tremendously, and kept them non-competitive with coal and natural gas fired plants. The French, who are virtually 100% nuclear, have an excellent safety record. For years, they disposed of their waste by concentrating and sealing it into glass casks and dropping it into deep ocean trenches. I don't know if they are still doing it that way. Back in the early 1970's it was said that if you took all the waste from commercial reactors and put it in 55gallon drums it would occupy and area about the size of a football field -- can't recall if that was one drum deep or two. There would be a few football fields worth now. At the Univ. of California's Los Alamos Lab we disposed of our radioactive chemical waste by absorbing it into vermiculite and mixing it into concrete. The concrete blocks were then piled up outside in a "hot dump". The event in Japan makes clear that the siting of reactors is a very important adjunct to safe operation. There have been some extremely bad decisions by power company Boards when it comes to selecting reactor designs and size of reactors. The customers of these companies have been "burned." The Grand Gulf reactor in Port Gibson Mississippi would be an example of such a mistake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Gulf_Nuclear_Generating_Station Personally, I would like to see hydroelectric, solar, and wind generation wherever practical. But when it comes down to coal or nuclear I think it is roughly a tie at present -- though coal seems to have a slight edge on initial cost and a huge fear factor edge. Perhaps newer reactor designs can improve still more on both safety and cost effectiveness. Even considering the waste disposal aspect, they have a large advantage over fossil fuel fired plants if environmental damage is to be considered.
the trend is to switch from coal to natural gas. France after the tsunami is talking about eliminating nuclear generally speaking, nuclear power plants are very peaceful places, I would like to have the landscaping contract as for my uneducated opinion, if you use the power, you store the waste no sending it off somewhere else where "nobody" lives
I would say Fukushima Daiichi was worse than Three-mile Island. @piezoe: You seem fairly knowledgeable, so you should know that there is no such thing as "spent fuel disposal". Spent fuel cannot be disposed of, only stored. The idea of disposal comes from an obsolete paradigm called "out of sight, out of mind". In the nuclear age, we cannot throw things away anymore. The absolute nightmare scenario is dumping nuclear waste in a deep sea trench. Contrary to what most people would think, I am actually becoming more accepting of nuclear power. Now that we have had meltdown disasters with loss of life, and financial disasters from power company mismanagement and regulatory failure, we can begin to move past the BS that nuclear power is cheap and safe. It is neither, but properly managed and regulated, it could have a future again some day. We just have to accept that it is harder than it looks, and we are not as smart as we think we are.
When it goes wrong, and people are freakin morons, so it does... It's clouds of death. I'm not in favor of relying on these morons to not screw it up. They do and will again. Shut them all down.
Agreed, Fukushima was worse. I was only considering the U.S. commercial reactor experience. Well of course the idea of "burial at sea" is controversial, and I've learned that it is not supposed to be done anymore by international agreement. The way the French did it made good sense to me, but apparently not to everyone, including yourself. In the U.S., construction of commercial power reactors has been very heavily subsidized by your tax dollars. My impression is that without these subsidies nuclear power generation is not competitive with alternative technologies (Some, perhaps all, of the alternative technologies are also subsidized.) I consider cost, not safety, to be the main problem with nuclear. Most others I think would want to rule it out on the basis of safety considerations, but I don't think I would agree. I'll have to think about that some more. I gets complicated because both natural gas and coal plants, especially coal, have huge emission problems. To make a really clean coal plant may cost about the same as a nuclear plant.
The only difference between Fukushima and the other GE plants is who is regulating it [or not]. I agree that cost, not safety, is the impediment to greater use of nuclear. If we deregulate nuclear, as many have urged, that would likely make it cost-effective. My biggest concerns with nuclear, at this point, are with the "active cooling" designs, and the problem of nuclear waste. If they can come up with a good "passive cooling" design, I would be willing to give it a try. With active cooling, if anything goes wrong, you have melt-down. Last time it was a tsunami. I have no idea what will cause loss of cooling next time, but I am pretty sure there will be a next time. Cruise ships carry lifeboats for everybody, not because cruising is unsafe, but because stuff happens. We need to plan for the unexpected. If folks would just stop talking about "disposing of" nuclear waste, and accept that it has to be stored and monitored forever, then I am satisfied we are ready to try commercial nuclear energy again.