Nuclear power

[RighteousFury]

Well for those who are wondering: The Chernobyl event was as bad as it was cos the moderator (the material that makes the neutrons in the reactor "slow") was made of graphite. So when the whole thing began to heat up it started to burn, and the rising hot air blew all kind of crap like 137Cs into the air. Western NPP use water as a moderator. And water usualy doesnt burn

 

[Geo]

Well for those who are wondering: The Chernobyl event was as bad as it was cos the moderator (the material that makes the neutrons in the reactor "slow") was made of graphite. So when the whole thing began to heat up it started to burn, and the rising hot air blew all kind of crap like 137Cs into the air. Western NPP use water as a moderator. And water usualy doesnt burn

Yeah also the people in charge also done a very stupid thing when they noticed there was a problem. Someone gave an order to shut down a safety valve so that the rods would drop and when they dropped they jammed and the reason the safety valve was there was incase this ever happend lol and due to it being deactivated they couldnt lift the rods again to resolve the issue.

 

[endgegner]

Nuclear power is better than coal power. It produces more electricity than coal and doesn't require some of the environmentally hazaardous methods used to mine coal, but at this point in time there is NO SAFE WAY to dispose of nuclear waste. Due to that fact nuclear power should be banned. It's a small step up from coal, but the long-term effects may be even more detrimental. We should be pushing initiatives for solar, wind, thermal and hydro energy rather than spending time on dangerous and hazaardous materials.

 

[endgegner]

Not only would an alternative energy be better for the environment but it would be better for the global economy too!! More alternative energy = more jobs and with more people buying in to alternative energies the price will go down, the technology will increase even more than it already has, and everything is gravy baby

 

[endgegner]

Would it be possible to send a solar panel (which makes energy out of sunlight) with a huge powercable attached to it into space near the sun? That would be cool and efficient at the same time.

The earth rotates, idiot.

 

[endgegner]

Solar panels are NOT a viable alternative to any major power source. They are however a nice power source for localized energy production such as heating water, recharging batteries or for anything that doesn't require sustained power over a lengthy period of time. Although the current methods for making these panels are so energy intensive that it takes about 10 years until they are actually good for the environment. However, this is all about to change with new ways of making the panels that will make them much cheaper (no need for subsidies) and less energy intensive to fabricate.

As for these things that use mirrors to focus light to heat water, they are even more useless that the stupid windmills people are building and destroying the underwater landscape. You would need to cover half of africa with these things to get the same energy outpit as a single nuclear power station.

Old dude. They've made a solar panel circa last february that's 40x smaller than the normal one and produces 6x more electricity, and it's silicon-free. There are also panels that are essentially shingles that you can nail to the roof of your house. If every house had a system of those they could go off the grid entirely. Solar actually IS good for long-term use, as it can be stored easily and the average lifespan of today's solar panel is guaranteed for 20 years. A solar field can generate a ton of electricity (though you wouldn't find this anywhere but the desert probably). I don't know what panels you have in the UK, but the energy put in to making a solar panel is regained within about 20 months - 2 years of using them depending on the conditions.

 

[endgegner]

@geo,
Yes solar energy seems the best, Geothermal is good but the sources can deplete (And I don't think it's good for the earth either if used on mass-scale) , And it can only be used at 'hot-spots' so geothermal can not be used everywhere.
And like you said with solar energy being expensive, you bring up nanotechnology which is even more expensive But yes, solar combined with nano-technology could be our future power supply

I met, spoke with and had dinner with two of the leading alternative energy policy experts in the world in February and they are more pro-wind than pro-solar because they think the technology is more advanced now. I personally disagree although I'm not as smart as they are, but they said in 5-10 years solar outtakes all, and within 20 years solar can produce more than nuclear.... very interesting if it's true.

 

[Prometheus]

gez what a thread like u can make any difference

 

[MeetYourMaker]

Did you really need to make 5 posts to answer instead of one!

I cant see Solar in the near future ever being more than just a localised addition to your power requirements, the current production panels require a lot of enerygy to produce, their carbon footprint still takes 18months to balance and they are pricey (about £3500 for a system to produce enough power to "help" heating systems or £15000 to produce enough to cover a 3-4 bedroom house).
Yes theyll reduce your gas and electricity consumption but I cant see it ever being anything more than that, get a long period of bad weather so the cells purely run on daylight and there is a potential to run out of power, there would have to be alternative methods for producing or sourcing power so its not a replacement.

 

[uZi]

There's a little bit too much of "I heard", and "someone told me" in this thread, and generally when people are discussing nuclear power.. so here's my thoughts..

I am pro nuclear energy..

As others have mentioned, it is easily the cleanest and most environmentally friendly major energy source (note solar, hydro, geothermal, etc are not major energy sources) in day to day running. Yes the possibility of meltdown does also make it the most dangerous in extreme cricumstances, but tbh the amount of safety involved in these plants is insane. Look at France, they've been using nuclear power as their primary source of electricity for a good 20-30 years now, and there has not been a single incident on the scale of a meltdown. If you factor in the danger of mining coal and the pollution of the surrounding area, I doubt there is much difference in the damage to human life between it and a nuclear plant. And I've ignored the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere there.

That's another thing which annoys me actually, all this "Carbon footprint" bollox.. it's not just carbon dioxide which causes problems for the planet, there's plenty of others which help in the reflecting of heat back towards the earth, for example methane, water vapour, nitric oxide, etc, which are released by coal power plants. Ok water vapour would be released into the air on a large scale by a nuclear plant too.

So that leaves the radioactive waste, which from energy production, has a relatively high half-life. The storage of this material is the biggest problem, but if done correctly, can have almost no impact on the surrounding area, but obviously people fear "the terrorists" etc.. So why not just blast large amounts of nuclear waste in a rocket.. straight into the sun!! the sun then gets free fuel \o/.

K that last bit was a joke, it would probably lessen the sun's lifetime by a tiny fraction of a second . Also, I doubt anyone would want to put the waste into a rocket in case of a malfunction resulting in a giant radioactive raincloud overhead...

Fusion is an awesome idea, but getting it to work as a viable commercial energy means is another 25-50 years away imo. I've been to JET as well mym, interesting place if you care about the mechanics of particle acceleration.. not very interesting otherwise

 

[RighteousFury]

Best thing with JET is their creativity. There is a new heating system with, i think, microwave something pannels developed for ITER. But ITER isnt completed yet and they wanted to test the thing. So they upgraded JET to work with those pannels as well. Now they needed to find a name for the hole thing. Guess what came out: "ITER like JET"

about some other points:

Waste burried in the ground. Well ever wondered were the original Material came from? Yeah rite, digged out of the ground...

The earth rotates, idiot.

Well check Wiki for "geosynchronous orbits"

 

[sneez]

So concluding from this topic we can safely say that a geosynchronous orbiting solar panel with nanotechnology is a potential power source.

 

[RighteousFury]

Its all a question of the scale. Those things might be working in laboratory envirenments on a very small scale. But on large scales you dont have the quantities of material requires, the capacities to orbit all the stuff (consider that each rocket take off is worth for the environment then fuck knows how many cars) plus we hardly have any experiance with large scale space isntallations. Remember you need constant maintenance and repair for systems that work all day on a high powerlevel. I doubt such systems would be practicable be4 fusion energy is. Same problems...

 

[sneez]

Atm the only thing holding us back is money. Lol.

 

[RighteousFury]

Nah thats not the only issue m8. Lets take an exsample. For a working fusion power plant you need a blanket. Basicly thats the inner wall of the fusion chamber. Now this material used must be able to withstand very high temperatures, considerind a plasmastream at about a few million degrees Celsius is only a step away from it. It will be bombarded by a high amount of high energy particles like neutrons all the time as well. So its very likly that nucleons of that material will be knocked out of the material. Now comes the problem. The more resisant the material is the more it will interact with the plasma in the reactor. So basicly the harder and more stressable the material is, the less likly it is, that it will pollute the plasma, but the more serious such a pollution is.

Finding an optimum between those values is a hard task. In theory you can just alter the parameters of the material and solve some quite easy differential equations and your done. But in the real reactor you only have certain materials with specific properties. This takes years even if money is not an issue. And even if you find "the best" sollution it will have some major flaws that must be corrected by other means and so on and so on...

Now that goes for about every single part of the new system. Most things are newland not through the fact that you have no hypothesis or theories for em but no real life experience.

 

[m1cr0]

1 word: pro

 

[Bart]

And again a small incident happened in a western europe NPP:

yesterday, just as the Festival d'Avignon was opening, an 'incident' happened at the nuclear power plant of Tricastin near Bollène, about 50 kilometres upstream of Avignon : approximately 30 cubic metres of water charged with 12 grams per liter of uranium were spilled onto the ground and then into the small streams of the Gaffière and the Auzon, which feed into the Rhone. All swimming, fishing and drinking has immediately been prohibited by the authorities

The radiation rate is 1000 times higher than normal. gg

 

[Quasi^]

nuclear accidents so far this decade:

• April 10, 2003 — INES Level 3 - Paks, Hungary - Fuel damaged

• Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets at Paks Nuclear Power Plant. It is suspected that inadequate cooling of the rods during the cleaning process combined with a sudden influx of cold water thermally shocked fuel rods causing them to split. Boric acid was added to the tank to prevent the loose fuel pellets from achieving criticality. Ammonia and hydrazine were also added to absorb iodine-131. [33], [34]

• April 19, 2005 — INES Level 3 - Sellafield, England, United Kingdom - Nuclear material leak

• Twenty metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 liters of nitric acid leaked over several months from a cracked pipe into a stainless steel sump chamber at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The partially processed spent fuel was drained into holding tanks outside the plant. [35].

• November 2005 — INES Level needed - Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak

• Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon's Braidwood station. Groundwater off site remains within safe drinking standards though the NRC is requiring the plant to correct any problems related to the release.

• March 6, 2006 — INES Level needed - Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak

• Thirty-five liters of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown and a required public hearing on the licensing of the plant.[36] [37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

Although nuclear energy sounds good we are too stupid to use it safely.

 

[Quasi^]

Radiation accidents so far this decade:

• February 1, 2000 – The radiation source of a teletherapy unit was stolen from a parking lot in Samut Prakarn, Thailand and dismantled in a junkyard for scrap metal. Workers completely removed the 60Co source from the lead shielding, and became ill shortly thereafter. The radioactive nature of the metal and the resulting contamination was not discovered until 18 days later. Seven injuries and three deaths were a result of this incident. [29]
• December 2000 – Three woodcutters in the nation of Georgia spent the night beside several "warm" canisters they found deep in the woods and were subsequently hospitalized with severe radiation burns. The canisters were found to contain concentrated 90Sr. The disposal team consisted of 25 men who were restricted to 40 seconds' worth of exposure each while transferring the canisters to lead-lined drums. The canisters are believed to have been components of radioisotope thermoelectric generators intended for use as generators for remote lighthouses and navigational beacons, part of a Soviet plan dating back to 1983.[30]
• February 9, 2002 – Two workers were exposed to a small amount of radiation and suffered minor burns when a fire broke out at the Onagawa Nuclear Power Station in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan. The fire occurred in the basement of reactor #3 during a routine inspection when a spray can was punctured accidentally, igniting a sheet of plastic. [31]
• March 11, 2002 – A 2.5 metric tonne 60Co gamma source was transported from Cookridge Hospital, Leeds, UK, to Sellafield with defective shielding. As the radiation escaped from the package downwards into the ground, it is not thought that this event caused any injury or disease in either a human or an animal. This event was treated in a serious manner because the defense in depth type of protection for the source had been eroded. If the container had been tipped over in a road crash then a strong beam of gamma rays would have been directed in a direction where it would be likely to irradiate humans. The company responsible for the transport of the source, AEA Technology plc, was fined £250,000 by a British court.
• 2003 – Cape of Navarin, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Russia. A radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) located on the Arctic shore was discovered in a highly degraded state. The level of the exposition dose at the generator surface was as high as 15 R/h; in July 2004 a second inspection of the same RTG showed that gamma radiation emission had risen to 87 R/h and that 90Sr had begun to leak into the environment. [32] In November 2003, a completely dismantled RTG located on the Island of Yuzhny Goryachinsky in the Kola Bay was found. The generator's radioactive heat source was found on the ground near the shoreline in the northern part of the island. [33]
• September 10, 2004 – Yakutia, Russia. Two radioisotope thermoelectric generators were dropped 50 meters onto the tundra at Zemlya Bunge island during an airlift when the helicopter flew into heavy weather. According to the nuclear regulators, the impact compromised the RTGs' external radiation shielding. At a height of 10 meters above the impact site, the intensity of gamma radiation was measured at 4 mSv/hr. [34]
• 2005 – Dounreay, UK. In September, the site's cementation plant was closed when 266 liters of radioactive reprocessing residues were spilled inside containment. [35][36]. In October, another of the site's reprocessing laboratories was closed down after nose-blow tests of eight workers tested positive for trace radioactivity. [37]
• November 3, 2005 – Haddam, Connecticut, USA. The Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company reports that water containing quantities (below safe drinking water limits) of 137Cs, 60Co, 90Sr, and 3H leaked from a spent fuel pond. Independent measurements and review of the incident by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are due to begin November 7, 2005. [38][39][40]
• March 11, 2006 – at Fleurus, Belgium, an operator working for the company Sterigenics[41], at a medical equipment sterilization site, entered the irradiation room and remained there for 20 seconds. The room contained a source of 60Co which was not in the pool of water.[42] Three weeks later, the worker suffered of symptoms typical of an irradiation (vomit, loss of hair, fatigue). One estimate that he was exposed to a dose of between 4.4 and 4.8 Gy due to a malfunction of the control-command hydraulic system maintaining the radioactive source in the pool. The operator spent over one month in a specialized hospital before going back home. Today he still shows after-effects (fatigue) that should attenuate in several months. To protect workers, the federal nuclear control agency AFCN and private auditors from AVN recommended Sterigenics to install a redundant system of security. It is an accident of level 4 on the INES scale.[43][44][45]
• March 16, 2006 – The State of Illinois sued Exelon Corporation for repeated leaks of tritium into water discharged around its Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station. Exelon states that despite the leaks it has operated within legal limits, but agreed to compensate landowners. [46] [47] The tritium was produced during normal operation and, as fuel reactivity declines, is legally discharged with the borated water into the nearby river. However, some of this water leaked onto land. On March 20, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced it had formed a task force to examine tritium leaks [48], and a “white paper” was issued on June 30. [49]
• May 5, 2006 – An accidental release of 131I gas at the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant in Minnesota exposed approximately one hundred plant workers to low-level radiation. Most workers received 10 to 20 millirads (0.1-0.2 mSv), about the same as a dental X-ray. The workers were wearing protective gear at the time, and no radiation leaked outside the plant to the surrounding area. [50]
• Lisa Norris died in 2006 after having been given an overdose of radiation as a result of human error during treatment for a brain tumor at Beatson Oncology Centre in Glasgow (Scotland).[51][52][53]. The Scottish Executive have published an independent investigation of this case.[54]. The intended treatment for Lisa Norris was 35 Gy to be delivered by a LINAC machine to the whole of the central nervous system to be delivered in twenty equal fractions of 1.75 Gy, which was to be followed by 19.8 Gy to be delivered to the tumor only (in eleven fractions of 1.8 Gy). In the first phase of the treatment a 58% overdose occurred, and the CNS of Lisa Norris suffered a dose of 55.5 Gy. The second phase of the treatment was abandoned on medical advice, after having lived for some time after the overdose Lisa Norris passed away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents

Both these list are only civilian. I bet there are a few military accidents dont get reported.

 

[uZi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll

compare the nuclear incidents with coal incidents?