Reviving the Nuclear Energy Debate

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Milton Bradley My bigges complaint is the way they store the spent fuel rods. They're just huge terrorist targets, and I don't plan on giving up liberties in exchange for security.

The neoconservatives have won.

[gallo]

Quote by: Domino Well, I certainly didn't think we could just pour it right back in the reactor.

Good.

To say the least, the stuff corrodes the barrels in which it is stored, and most corrosive reactions involve electron exchange, from which we should be able to derive a current, and those are specially made barrels: I'm sure we could come up with something more easily corroded.

Any chemical corrosion comes after the damage from the radiation has already been done. Chemical corrosion is not the problem in the long term storage of highly radioactive waste. It is alpha radiation.

Of course, for all I know the corrosion is a result of neutron activity, rather than electron exchange. Sadly, I am not a nuclear physicist.

So now you'll learn better. It is the result of alpha radiation. Essentially, an alpha particle is a helium-4 nucleus. That's a pretty large particle that is the result of the spontaneous fission of radioactive nuclei (into helium and something else with two fewer protons than before fission). That something else is also radioactive and continues the process by more alpha radiation until the remaining material finally decays to some stable element. Alpha particles are 2+ ions. They do a great deal of damage to anything they impact. The quickly grab bind any available electrons, so I don't think it would be conducive to electric generation since it depends on moving electrons. I'd have to look into that to be sure, but that's my guess. My son, as a graduate assistant nuclear engineer worked on research into the long term effects alpha radiation on various materials, specifically with the purpose of evaluating them for long term storage of nuclear waste. Essentially, they took helium, stripped off the electrons and then shot them at samples using a particle accelerator.

By the way, Marie Currie died of leukemia that is thought to have been caused by exposure to alpha radiation.

I don't know all relevant details of alpha, beta, or gamma particles, or loose neutrons, but I know that some of those can be converted to light, which could be converted to electricity.

But what are the side effects of that light? Corrosion?

I suppose the electricity obtained in these ways probably sells for less than the cost of developing or producing whatever equipment might be required.

Not to mention the dangers of trucking around large quantities of highly radioactive materials. You'r going to scare Milton with that kind of talk.

I just hate to see people complain about unharnessed radiation

Why is it a goal to "harness" radiation?

[xyzer]

gallo hits on the basic factor in storage. Sure uraniun 235 is radioactive but it has to reach 'critical mass' to detonate and when depleted can be stored so that it doesn't. Hence the capsules and water tanks used to store the residue.

What puzzles me is why all the hesitation in using nuclear as our replacement for coal. We worry more about a unproven environmental (climate)influence while wringing our hands about an existing one that is relatively easy abd cleaner to use. Maybe its the Hollywood influence that overcomes our good sense? It's my understanding that our, some one hundred, nuclear power plants develop 20% of out power needs. Why not build another 100 rather than worry about intentionally restricting carbon fuels?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Between Nuclear power as well as other renewable sources and electric cars (which are already extremely viable and should have been on the market years ago, in combination with a small gas motor, if you like, to be backup) could eliminate much of the pollution normal people put out in their daily lives. We have an often dispraportional phobia of nuclear energy, when we are fine with thousands of nuclear weapons sitting all around the world.

[gallo]

Quote by: xyzer gallo hits on the basic factor in storage. Sure uraniun 235 is radioactive but it has to reach 'critical mass' to detonate

Right, but we're not talking about detonation. We are talking about power generation from a sustainable fission reaction. Natural uranium doesn't contain enough U235 (~0.7%) to get a critical mass. Enriched uranium has about 3.3% U235 and can, with a moderator, achieve a critical mass. Other reactors, like the breeder reactors, may use more highly enriched uranium. Weapons grade uranium is also highly enriched. The same is true of plutonium. Weapons don't have a moderators.

and when depleted can be stored so that it doesn't.

Spent fuel cannot be configured to achieve critical mass. Preventing critical mass isn't a consideration in storage of spent fuel.

It's my understanding that our, some one hundred, nuclear power plants develop 20% of out power needs.

There are currently 66 commercial power reactors in the U.S. There are other government reactors that are used for other purposes, as well as reactors at several universities.

[Domino]

Thank you, for the explanation of alpha particles.

Quote by: gallo Alpha particles are 2+ ions. They do a great deal of damage to anything they impact. The quickly grab bind any available electrons, so I don't think it would be conducive to electric generation since it depends on moving electrons.

I'm guessing these things are moving too fast for helium's buoyancy to become a factor, so you can't exactly just strap a balloon to the barrel. If you could collect the ions before they can grab electrons, current generation should be a cinch.

Alternatively, it seems like keeping a charge on the barrel ought to prevent corrosion. It'll add a maintenance cost, but that might be cheaper than leaky barrels.

But what are the side effects of that light? Corrosion?

Well, I've found this: United Nuclear- Optical Geiger Counter
As alpha particles impact the thing, photons are released. If you've got photons flying around, it's pretty easy to turn 'em into electrons that go where you want. I suspect, though, that, as a light source, this is not nearly sufficient for any significant power generation. Solar cells are barely sufficient, and this thing can't compete with a candle.

Not to mention the dangers of trucking around large quantities of highly radioactive materials. You'r going to scare Milton with that kind of talk.

Well, we already do that. If we can ship them to a useful place instead of a useless place, let's.

Why is it a goal to "harness" radiation?

Because otherwise, it's just waste. We derive our electricity from exploiting energy differentials, and here's one going unexploited. That's not to say they're all worth exploiting. The potential energy of Yucca Mountain will last for millennia, but if all it can do is power one house, it's probably not worth it. It's nice to think that energy acquired over that duration would surely justify the initial investment, but it might not.

[MplsBison]

Because of regulations requiring a nuclear energy plant be able to withstand a meltdown, the cost of building one is prohibitive.


Reduce regulations and you reduce costs.

[Gods_Mercenary]

And you get a meltdown.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: gallo You'r going to scare Milton with that kind of talk.

Hey, I live right by the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, which almost had a catostrophic accident due to corporate cost cutting, so don't attempt to paint this as an inert issue, it's a huge issue.

[gela]

Its just another short term solution.

The only reason it has so much government support is because it makes money for big business.

Solar Power is a much more logical solution.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: gela Its just another short term solution. The only reason it has so much government support is because it makes money for big business. Solar Power is a much more logical solution.

Solar is even more expensive than Nuclear.

[Hurt]

Quote by: MplsBison Solar is even more expensive than Nuclear.

Perpetual resources are much better though.

[gela]

Solar is even more expensive than Nuclear.

They might have the initial cost of setting them up; but they don't have the ongoing cost of mining the uranium, transporting the uranium, using the uranium, transporting the nuclear waste, disposing of the nuclear waste.

The mining industry, the transportation indusdustry, and the power industry can gain from Nuclear energy.

Solar energy can be set up by the individual, put on your roof, and then if you have excess power, you can sell it back to the power company.
Only a non existant solar panal industry would profit from this system.

I wonder why nuclear power has so much support?

[Hurt]

Quote by: gela They might have the initial cost of setting them up; but they don't have the ongoing cost of mining the uranium, transporting the uranium, using the uranium, transporting the nuclear waste, disposing of the nuclear waste. The mining industry, the transportation indusdustry, and the power industry can gain from Nuclear energy. Solar energy can be set up by the individual, put on your roof, and then if you have excess power, you can sell it back to the power company. Only a non existant solar panal industry would profit from this system. I wonder why nuclear power has so much support?

Profits are best enjoyed in the short term fresh out of the refrigerator.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: gela I wonder why nuclear power has so much support?

Because we have the technology and know it works today.


Solar is unproven and doesn't even have a single plant in operation.


Personal panels at residences only supplement power from the grid.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: gela Its just another short term solution.

I wouldn't call the next century "short term".

The ONE Yucca Mountain facility has enough capacity to store the nuclear waste of every facility in the United States spanning from the dawn of the nuclear age until 2014 WITHOUT spent rod reprocessing, which would save about 60% if the US were to build such a facility.

Another Yucca Mountain-like place and fuel reprocessing, along with some minor efficiency innovations sure to come along in the future would EASILY push us past 2100.

The only reason it has so much government support is because it makes money for big business.

Well that's not the only reason, but even if it is one such reason, what's the problem? Do you have something against supporting an industry that would create thousands of high-paying jobs?

Solar Power is a much more logical solution.

Based upon what? The fact that it lacks the capacity or efficiency to power large cities? The fact that it takes millions of acres to generate the same amount of power that a nuclear plant can do on a much smaller footprint?

Quote by: gela They might have the initial cost of setting them up; but they don't have the ongoing cost of mining the uranium, transporting the uranium, using the uranium, transporting the nuclear waste, disposing of the nuclear waste.

And yet somehow, nuclear power is still less expensive than solar. So how do you figure solar is better?

The mining industry, the transportation indusdustry, and the power industry can gain from Nuclear energy.

Sounds great. Are you arguing for or against it?

Solar energy can be set up by the individual, put on your roof, and then if you have excess power, you can sell it back to the power company.

Your claims here are laughably naive. First of all, solar power is much too complex to be set up by the average do-it-yourselfer. I consider myself to be a pretty far above-average do-it-yourselfer, I've done extensive electrical work on my own house, and installing solar is above my comfort level. I priced a contractor to do it just out of curiousity, they wanted $20,000 not including the price of the panels.

The "if you have excess power" is a really HUGE "if". In my area of the country, the best estimates say that, given my roof area and number of "solar" days, I could get about 33% of my power through solar. Not close to providing all of my needs and a HUGE leap from "selling" anything back to the grid.

There are other complications as well... I can set up a battery system to save for rainy days, however due to safety concerns the power company won't let me have the battery system connected to their power system, so if I lose power I need to physically switch the power myself, and then switch it back when it comes back on.

Only a non existant solar panal industry would profit from this system.

The solar power industry exists, it's just a niche industry due to the limitations of the technology.

I wonder why nuclear power has so much support?

I think I've answered this, don't you?

Quote by: Hurt Profits are best enjoyed in the short term fresh out of the refrigerator.

mmmm as an avid homebrewer (all organic and preservative-free beers!) I would wholeheartedly agree.

[gela]

Hmm.. Keep in mind that I am arguing from an Australian view point. We have thousands of kilometers of useless space that has constant sunlight (bar night obviously) practically all year around.
Even on the coast, where I live, It is sunny for most of the year.
I don't know what the climate is like where your from, but it seems like pure stupidity that our government isn't putting more effort into solar power.

Well that's not the only reason, but even if it is one such reason, what's the problem? Do you have something against supporting an industry that would create thousands of high-paying jobs?

If thats what politians are aiming at by supporting Nuclear power, then mabe they should be direct about it - instead of using global warming as an excuse to get their big money making business up and running.

Based upon what? The fact that it lacks the capacity or efficiency to power large cities? The fact that it takes millions of acres to generate the same amount of power that a nuclear plant can do on a much smaller footprint?

Like I said above. Space is hardly a problem over here.
Even then, if the government put some tax cuts into solar panels, and made it more affordable, so everyone could have one - then you would have millions of acres to generate.

And yet somehow, nuclear power is still less expensive than solar. So how do you figure solar is better?

Well, I have nothing but your word to back up this one.
Source it.

Sounds great. Are you arguing for or against it?

Nope, Im saying why it has the support it does, and the reason isn't 'to help the environment'.

Your claims here are laughably naive. First of all, solar power is much too complex to be set up by the average do-it-yourselfer. I consider myself to be a pretty far above-average do-it-yourselfer, I've done extensive electrical work on my own house, and installing solar is above my comfort level. I priced a contractor to do it just out of curiousity, they wanted $20,000 not including the price of the panels.

Thats why I think the government should get behind the industry, and give it tax cuts to make them more affordable.

The "if you have excess power" is a really HUGE "if". In my area of the country, the best estimates say that, given my roof area and number of "solar" days, I could get about 33% of my power through solar. Not close to providing all of my needs and a HUGE leap from "selling" anything back to the grid.

South Australia (one of the smaller states over here) have introduced a tariff (sp?) on their solar power. The government matches every dollar you make putting power back into the grid - so your making twice as much money selling solar power.

My point is, that over here, people do make enough electricity - because people have enough left over to put it back into the grid. If not in family houses - then in houses that only have couples (a suprisingly large amount these days).

There are other complications as well... I can set up a battery system to save for rainy days, however due to safety concerns the power company won't let me have the battery system connected to their power system, so if I lose power I need to physically switch the power myself, and then switch it back when it comes back on.

Problems that would probably be solved if the government would put more money into the industry.

What Im sick of, is governments saying that nuclear power is the only solution to unclean energy.
If they really cared about unclean energy, they would put money into solar power - not into nuclear power.

[gela]

Solar is unproven and doesn't even have a single plant in operation.

Interesting..

solar-europe

[MplsBison]

Quote by: gela Interesting.. solar-europe

What's so interesting about power "plants" that output 11 MW (and that's by far the biggest one)?

[gela]

It still makes your comment wrong.

I wasn't looking for plants with a high output.