Skip to comments.
New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD
The Register ^
| 22nd August 2012 15:13 GMT
| Lewis Page
Posted on 08/22/2012 9:24:35 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 last
To: lefty-lie-spy
A 10 gray source is fatal if you get a dose all at once I gotta get my eyes checked. I thought you said A 10 gay source is fatal if you get a dose all at once
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Reactors operating in the US are 30-40 year old designs. That and we haven’t reprocessed spent fuel rods for close to 40 years. In the mean time other countries have surpassed us in nuclear plant design, with improved efficiencies, safety, and cycle life. We have even let our military outpace our commercial reactors with their technology, and most of the people operating commercial plants are former Navy trained personnel.
If you want to get serious about nuclear power, lift the spent fuel reprocessing ban, develop a standard reprocessing progam, and license the building and use of a standardized proven reactor design. The US is 30 years behind the rest of the world in terms of nuclear power generation, it’s time to catch up.
42
posted on
08/22/2012 10:45:55 AM PDT
by
factoryrat
(We are the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Reactors operating in the US are 30-40 year old designs. That and we haven’t reprocessed spent fuel rods for close to 40 years. In the mean time other countries have surpassed us in nuclear plant design, with improved efficiencies, safety, and cycle life. We have even let our military outpace our commercial reactors with their technology, and most of the people operating commercial plants are former Navy trained personnel.
If you want to get serious about nuclear power, lift the spent fuel reprocessing ban, develop a standard reprocessing progam, and license the building and use of a standardized proven reactor design. The US is 30 years behind the rest of the world in terms of nuclear power generation, it’s time to catch up.
43
posted on
08/22/2012 10:46:09 AM PDT
by
factoryrat
(We are the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it.)
To: BuffaloJack
What, really, where, how and what power output?
44
posted on
08/22/2012 10:55:39 AM PDT
by
Sequoyah101
(Half the people are below average, they voted for oblabla.)
To: techcor; Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thorium is the answer.
Neither will be done though. This, like other issues, is one of the heart and emotions controlled by ignorant people. Ignorance leads to fear and fear leads to violence. They win unless they are removed.
45
posted on
08/22/2012 10:58:00 AM PDT
by
Sequoyah101
(Half the people are below average, they voted for oblabla.)
To: factoryrat
Well said.
If our nation dropped half the money into infrastructure improvements that they do into entitlements and social programs, we’d live in a very different country.
46
posted on
08/22/2012 11:01:22 AM PDT
by
Heavyrunner
(Socialize this.)
To: Sequoyah101
I don’t know the power output.
My buddy works at the local university, but he ordered this for himself before xmas and just got it. It cost $4k and change and shipping. I assumed it was the Defkalion because it outputs electric power as well as steam and I didn’t think Rossi’s unit did the voltage output. I’ll have to ask where he got it. It may have even been one of the other 2 dozen plus outfits that have appeared this past year with Rossi type designs. This is my buddy’s toy and he’s still in the playing and testing stages.
47
posted on
08/22/2012 12:08:57 PM PDT
by
BuffaloJack
(Repeal Obamacare, the CITIZENSHIP TAX)
To: cuban leaf
my impression is that fusion based nuclear power, when things go wrong, results in a melt down, but Fission based nuclear power, when things go wrong, results in a rather large, uh, things go boom.Nope.
1. There is no "fusion power" now, so things don't go wrong. Fusion power has been "20 years away" for 50 years now.
2. Fission power "may" melt down if things go wrong, but highly dependent on the design of the system. It is supposedly very nearly impossible to make one go "boom," even on purpose.
To: Sherman Logan
Yeah. I got fusion and fission completely backward. Sorry. And yeah, again. There is no working fusion plant. I’m talking about what I read about the risks of fusion based power plants if it were to ever lead to a runaway chain reaction.
That’s all.
49
posted on
08/22/2012 12:35:47 PM PDT
by
cuban leaf
(Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
At the moment people don't use nuclear power much (the UK's small and aged nuclear fleet can barely generate four times as much power as its wind farms, showing just how little energy we're talking about here: just 8 per cent of our national energy needs are derived from nuclear right now). As a result there's no scarcity of uranium, and indeed nobody has bothered exploring for more of it for decades.
Leave it to the Brits to ignore the French who get 75% of their electricity from nuclear power.
50
posted on
08/22/2012 12:42:08 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: Hillarys Gate Cult
51
posted on
08/22/2012 1:07:07 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
To: BenLurkin
Did you have that at the ready.....LOL!
52
posted on
08/22/2012 1:14:25 PM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
((The Global Warming Hoax was a Criminal Act....where is Al Gore?))
To: DuncanWaring; cuban leaf
...but Fission based nuclear power, when things go wrong, results in a rather large, uh, things go boom.
It's my understanding that in commercial nuclear power plants, intended for the generation of electricity, the enrichment level of the uranium is too low for "boom". I can confirm that thats what the math looked like when I was studying nuclear power half a century ago . . .
You dont want to overdo the enrichment because of monetary diminishing returns, let alone the possibility of going boom.
53
posted on
08/22/2012 1:16:26 PM PDT
by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
To: Sacajaweau
Nuclear power is safe....Tell that to the Russians...and the folks in Hiroshima.
Two things:
1. Total background radiation throughout Ukraine from Chernobyl is substantially less than the typical world background radiation. And there are places in the world where background radiation is hundreds of times higher than the world background radiation with no ill effect. Chernobyl had a lot of ink devoted to all the horrors it would cause. They just never happened. More people died from being evacuated, placed on a pension, and drinking themselves to death than those who expired from a lethal exposure to radiation (about 31). Projections for late cancer deaths have been confounded by
"a 15% to 30% deficit of solid cancer mortality" among the Russian emergency workers" and "a 5% deficit solid cancer incidence among the population of most contaminated areas." On the other hand, hydroelectric causes about 40 deaths per year.
2. Comparing nuclear power to Hiroshima is like comparing a vacation trip in a gasoline-powered car to getting hit dead on with a napalm bomb. Anyone who would try to draw equivalence between the two is either ignorant or dishonest.
54
posted on
08/22/2012 1:16:49 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: factoryrat
55
posted on
08/22/2012 1:50:52 PM PDT
by
TexasTransplant
(Radical islam is islam. Moderate islam is the Trojan Horse.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
And even if you think nuclear bombs are OK, the fearmongers have always added that there just isn't enough uranium about to keep the lights on for long.
Get rid of the ban on reprocessing of spent fuel rods and recover over 90% of the uranium that went into them. Use fast breeder reactors and make lots and lots of fuel. Between all these and thorium reactors, we can cover all electrical needs for longer than the human race has been around and doing anything more technical than using fire-hardened sticks for hunting.
56
posted on
08/22/2012 1:56:34 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: GraceG
atmospheric pressure reactors that have chemically inert ionically bonded reactants with PASSIVE safety systems.True. But for my money...if it were my money...Pebble Bed would be the way to go.
57
posted on
08/22/2012 2:27:06 PM PDT
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.)
To: BuffaloJack
58
posted on
08/22/2012 3:16:08 PM PDT
by
Sarajevo
(Don't think for a minute that this excuse for a President has America's best interest in mind.)
To: GreyFriar
Thanks for the ping. Extraction of Uranium from seawater means there will be plenty of it for power plants — and bombs.
59
posted on
08/22/2012 7:05:21 PM PDT
by
zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson