Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps not zero, but I admit the info came from a quick google search (link). If you have some more insight into the subject I'd love to be corrected.

Yes, you are wrong.

The only reason we are tied to Uranium-235 is because of restrictions that make it illegal to recycle (reprocess) nuclear fuel in this country, hence we have a surplus of "waste" (that can still be used in a breeder reactor -- we're just legally prevented from doing so) that we either bury (stupid) or sell to France (who isn't so ignorant when it comes to nukes).

In short, there is plenty of nuclear fuel -- we're just not allowed to use it because Carter thought that recycling nuclear fuel could lead to proliferation of arms-grade plutonium -- we of course have long since now known that it doesn't, but that hasn't done anything to remove these laws outlawing nuclear fuel recycling.

Here is a link for further reading.

It seems to me that you haven't read any papers on breeder technology. Waste from a breeder is not 'hot' for 10,000 years - the point of burning up the long half life actinides is to eliminate them from the waste stream, making what little waste there is very hot for a very short time. That's how radiation works - things are either very hot for a short time or moderately hot for a long time.

You realize that all of the nuclear waste in the US today is stored on-site in casks either _in the open_ or in a shallow pool of water?

I would suggest you read up on modern reactor technology (and existing, proven technology that Clinton canned like the IFR) before you rehash arguments based on information from the 1950's.

Poor man's delivery system for smaller countries: a Diesel-electric submarine, a nuclear torpedo, and the Hudson Bay. The technology is there already, and the US Navy has demonstrated on several occasions it cannot detect allied DE submarines in NATO exercises. The best defense against that is making sure you never lose track of hostile nation's submarines (assuming a limited submerged action radius).

Thus, while today's low uranium cost equates to about 50 years of assured resources (3.1 Mt) using conventional reactors at the current usage rate, a doubling of the market price increases this time roughly ten-fold. In all, conventional estimated resources account for about 250 years' supply (16.2 Mt) at the current consumption rate. This does not include advanced uranium-extraction scenarios (phosphate deposits accounting for 22 Mt, seawater accounting for up to 4000 Mt) that require 10-15 times the current market price.

According to the projections of Uranium reserves on this page, conventional nuclear power won't get us very far: http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/petch /2005/0703.html

However,if we ever get past the "pilot plant" stage in designing and building breeder reactors: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/ fasbre.html ,which actually create more fuel than is used, then the viabilty of nuclear fission as an alternate energy source might be enhanced considerably: http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste% 20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm The final waste products from plutonium fission have much safer radioactive by-products in terms of half-life, but plutonium itself presents problems as it is an extreme security risk and a very hazardous material

On the other hand, the supply of Deuterium and Tritium is vast, and the fusion reaction is clean, except for the need to absorb the free neutrons that are carrying the most of the energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

That would be nice, but breeder reactors are prohibited by some nuclear weapons treaty we (the US) signed, along with uh, some other nations.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does NOT prohibit breader reactors. Nor does any other treaty the US has signed. What does prohibit breader reactors in the US is an execuitive order signed by Jimmy Carter. In fact, France uses breeder reactors. The only reason Carter banned them is that they produce plutonium. This plutonium can still be used in power plants and still requires special refining in order to be used in weapons, if it is even possible (See second link below, it is believed to be impossible due to the purity requirements).

The only problem is, as you mention, the NIMBYs. Although I do recall a group attempting to start building a new reactor in the US. Sorry, can't find a link on it. I personally would have no problem living near a nuclear power plant.

Look at the French Super-Phoenix breeder reactor at the bottom of this page:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/ fasbre.html#c6

Jimmy Carter Execuitive Order mentioned here and some info on the weapons grade material:
http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste% 20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm

Maybe the US Navy is not as omnipotent as you believe. Numerous war games with their allies have proven otherwise.

http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Is%20the%20Nucle ar%20Submarine%20Really%20Invincible.htm

"...and just a year ago in September 2003, in an unnamed (read "classified") exercise, several Collins Class subs "sank" two U.S. fast attack subs and a carrier - all unnamed, of course. And a month later another Collins Class sub surprised and "sank" an American fast attack during another exercise. "
FYI - Collins Class submarines are members of the Australian Navy

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/functi on/view/categoryid/164/documentid/2873/history/3,2 360,656,164,2873

"For example, in 2002 during the biennial RIMPAC, exercises involving the navies of the U.S., South Korea, Canada, Japan, Chile, Peru, and Australia, an Australian Collins-class diesel-electric submarine was able to score multiple kills against two U.S. Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarines. "

There is nothing wrong with being cautious. In fact, in this area, your military would be well advised to increase its technological prowess.

I'll think you'll find that it's rather hard to use ICBM's against carrier battle groups or other mobile targets.

Assigning ICBM's to US carrier battle groups is a waste anyway. Diesel-electric subs will take care of the US carrier battle groups very nicely, as has been demonstrated repeatedly by NATO allies in military exercises.

What is certain - no matter whose model you use - is that the Kyoto accords will not appreciably affect CO2 in the atmosphere, and still less will it affect climate, while it will cost many trillions of dollars in direct costs and lost growth.

At one tyme I supported Kyoto and in the 2000 election instead of voting for whom I wanted I specifically voted against Bush. So it was with no supprise to me when he said he wouldn't support it once he got into office. However because of something he said I did some reseach, he specifically stated China and India along with other un/under developed countries didn't have any emissions targets. Sure enough in my research I found out he was right about that. So now as long as some are exempted from any emissions limits by Kyoto I too am against Kyoto. Back then both China and India were building new coal fired power plants that would put quite a bit of greenhouse gases out. However I still believe the US can and should do something. As for lost growth, I don't see it, if anything I see more employment a growth not less with a healthier environment. There would be more reseach into cleaner technologies and manufacturing jobs would be created in these clean(er) technologies. Solar energy for instance will require a boost in manufacturing pvs creating more jobs, distribution of and installation of PVs will create even more jobs as will periodic maintainance. The same will happen with wind genies, wind generators. Bioremediation and cleanup of brown fields will create more employment.

Also with Global Warming, if it's true, economic losses for businesses can be significant. Hurricanes need warm water to grow, and has been seen in Florida the last couple of years the state has been badly hit by one bad hurricane after another. Who suffers? Besides those killed, insurance companies have to make all those payments for damaged and lost property. To pay for those losses they raise their premiums so the insured pay more. About the only one who benefits from this are the construction companies.

And what of the spread of diseases and virii? Ebola for instance is spread by birds and mosquitoes, as warming happens mosquitoes will spread further north. I'd bet other virii can spread in the same way.

1. increased nuclear power investment, particularly fuel cycles that use the "waste" of current Uranium cycle plants (mostly Plutonium), or new Thorium-cycle plants.

At one tyme I was strongly against nuclear power, and am still wary of it, but as I learn more I think more and more that it may be an answer. For instance Integral Fast Reactors: Source of Safe, Abundant, Non-Polluting Power . And Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors - Myth and Promise .

Earth-based solar power, wind power, tide power, geothermal power, OTEC, biomass, and conservation will not provide enough energy to replace fossil fuels. Slower growth will just increase poverty and thus population, thus has no net long-term benefit.

Now as stated above I fully support some of these alternative energy sources.

The environmental movement has done a good job at requiring so many frivolous regulations that nuclear power in the US cannot be financially feasible, leading to increased pollution and disease due to other production methods.

However, with mismangement at the level we see at reactors like the Davis Besse reactor, we're lucky that these plants are offline most of the time.

If we really want to do nuclear power right, instead of designing each plan from scratch we should use the (US) design that the French use for all one of their plants. That way, the properties of the reactors would be well understood, and experience gained at one site would be directly transferrable to other sites.

Of course, with our current administration, if we use the design the French are fond of, we'll probably have to call it a "Freedom Reactor."

It might be better to use a more modern design that does not produce long-lasting nuclear waste, and can't melt down, but whatever we do, we should standardize on one reactor design. That would lower the costs of design, construction and operation without sacrificing safety.

Also, what idiot decided these things should be run by for-profit corporations? Has anyone else noticed that the safety of commercially run plants gets worse, not better, over time? (Do we really want Dogbert and the pointy-haired boss having final say over nuclear reactor operations?!?)

1)the waste problem, LONG term.

Combination of Breeder Reactors plus what we already have

2)the security costs of defending these plants against osame and pals

They are probably already the most secure. Do you even know where the reactor is in one of those? Hint: Not in the smoke stacks. They have already figured that if you crash a plane into a nuke plant it won't do anything. A regular bomb wont do anything that a plane wont do.

3)the problem of leakage, and potential long term health effects on people nearby

We have been operating nuke plants near people for 50 years. Leakage is measured, and is less than what you get by going outside and soaking up some rays. Already been measured, studied and evaluated.

4)the proliferation of nuclear tech. Pretty tough to lecture iran & korea about nuclear tech as you lay the foundations for 100 reactors.

The lecture to Irand and North Korea (Why does everybody forget the north part?) Is on nuclear WEAPONS, not power plants. It is believed by some (many?) that Iran would/is use/using the refining technology to refine weapons grade plutonium/uranium, not just creat nuclear fuel for power plants. As for North Korea, they have already claimed they have nuclear weapons. Laying the foundation for power plants has nothing to do with refining material for usage. As for Iran, one proposal was to have Iran shut down it's enrichment process and use fuel created elsewhere (say, in Europe). Iran would shut down it's refinery and get the fuel from someplace else. That is the big thing on Iran.

Renewable? No. Clean? It depends.

Renewable? YES! It's called reprocessing. We recycle the used radioactive material that comes out of a nuclear power plant and reprocess it in a breeder reactor to get more useable nuclear material. The result is more material suitable for a reactor and some (as in very little) low level radioative material that is much easier to hand and dispose of.

The original plan back in the 50's when we staretd using nuclear power was to use reprocessing on the fuel and make waste management easier. Carter nixed this. So as for "Clean? It depends." well, it still depends.

Here's some links on the matter, please actually read them, they give a better explanation than I can:
http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste% 20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_ waste_future/nuclear_waste_future.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/ fasbre.html

Here's an article which list all the recent "sinking" of US Nuclear Subs, Carriers and destroyers in recent years by Modern Diesel Subs.

http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Is%20the%20Nucle ar%20Submarine%20Really%20Invincible.htm

Nuclear sub's are loud ass bitches, sure they have the advantage of being able to stay under water much longer, but the noise they produce allow them to be picked up by passive sonar which is a disadvantage. Diesel subs operating on batteries are scarily quiet and are hard to find using passive sonar.

Like noise output has anything to do with how new US subs detect other subs. There's this fancy thing called "sonar" that's been around for 50+ years now, maybe you've heard of it?

Active sonar (generating a ping sound and waiting for a reflection off of nearby objects) is a good way to let other subs know you're in the area, for that reason passive sonar (just listening for noises around you) is usual prefered when quietly lurking around.

Already been addressed: breeder reactors essentially reprocess waste into more fuel. The initial load of a breeder reactor is U-238, which is 140 times more plentiful than U-235 (our current fission fuel). The fuel supply is effectively unlimited. Too bad President Carter decided to ban breeder reactors in 1977.

"Spent" fuel still has plenty of Uranium in it. So you can take that spent fuel, do a quick chemical seperation, and generate more *usable* fuel. Like the earlier poster said, PU (plutonium) can also be used and generated in certain reactor designs (commonly called "breeder" reactors). By using a system like this, it's stated that you can use about 75% of the uranium, rather than 1% of light water reactors. And a number of the byproducts will also fission, producing even more power. More than 75 times the power? I'd say that'd extend the lifespan of fission! It'd give us plenty of time to figure out fusion, or your solar energy. Waste wouldn't be as big of a deal, because there'd be 1/75 as much of it, and I've read that the waste has a shorter half life, so it'd only be dangerously radioactive for a couple centuries rather than thousands of years.

Fore more information, there are a number of sites such as this
Reason why we don't have breeder reactors
I've read that any nucleas heavier than Iron gives off energy when split, and atom lighter gives energy when fused. The further from Iron, the easier and more energy it gives.

The second is that nuclear power == nuclear bombs;

that's what i've heard, anyway.

Its all Bush's fault, all this pollution and global warming. Whatever people. I am getting sick of everyone bashing on our presidents. It happens with EVERY SINGLE president that comes to office. Can't you people just stop your bitching?

RTFA! This, added to my own theory that the earth may be creeping closer to the sun every 10 years, could mean that global warming is less of an issue we can deal with, and more of just be something we cannot evade.

Taken from this page:
"When ozone molecules break up spontaneously at the top of the atmosphere, new ozone is created immediately by the sun's ultraviolet light. Studies on how long this process takes indicate that ozone regenerates fast enough to preclude significant ultraviolet effects at the earth's surface. Put another way, when a ray of ultraviolet sunlight manages to slip past the initial clumping of ozone, because an O3 molecule happens not to be there, it runs smack into a regular old oxygen molecule and splits it apart, getting absorbed in the process and, by the way, generating replacement ozone.

This process is not an absolute. Some ultraviolet always reaches the Earth's surface. Since the thickness of the ozone varies continuously, the amount of ultraviolet at any spot on the Earth's surface also changes continuously, not to mention the effects of clouds, water vapor, smog, etc."

If you add up the pollution from all the CARS and AIRPLANES ( which happen to fly up there closer to the actual ozone ), do you think that is more or less than pollution from factories. What about all the 100 million smokers added to the cars and airplanes. 150 million rural households that burn all their trash, ect, ect. Add up all the non industrial pollution, and it will make the real industrial pollution seem like a drop in the bucket.

Ok, I am done.

did they just assume ownership of the south pole??

I guess so...

This is a fiction from Hollywood. For example, the commanders of a nuclear submarine can launch their nuclear weapons whenever they want to. It has to be this way. Otherwise disabling the American nuclear arsenal would be as easy as killing the handful of people who have the codes, or even just blocking their communications.