Slashdot Mirror


World Nuclear University Launched

nuke-alwin writes "The first meeting of the 'academic council' of the newly-launched World Nuclear University (WNU) was held in the UK last week. The mission of the WNU is to strengthen the international community of people and institutions to guide and further develop nuclear power and many other nuclear applications (in agriculture, medicine, environmental protection). As workers in the nuclear industry are aging, organisations have started Young Generation Networks such as the YGN of the British Nuclear Energy Society. The WNU is a further recognition that the nuclear industry needs to educate a new generation of workers, so that nuclear power can continue to provide electricity without the production of greenhouse gases."

8 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Nuclear Power is the future by Brahmastra · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While solar, wind and tidal power look very attractive, they suffer from the problem of being at the mercy of nature. That is not the case with nuclear power. All you have to do is replace fuel rods once in a while and you get emission-free, clean power. There is the issue of disposing nuclear waste, but I'm confident that issue will also be dealt with as technology advances.

    1. Re:Nuclear Power is the future by f97tosc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While solar, wind and tidal power look very attractive, they suffer from the problem of being at the mercy of nature.

      I think the biggest problem with these technologies is that they take up very large areas. This is fundamental limitation; if we want to get large amounts of energy from solar cells and wind power we have to give up large areas for these purposes.

      As a friend of the environment, I would much rather use such areas for wildlife/ national parks and take the energy from nuclear plants.

      It is too bad the environmental movement is so dogmatic; they get these ideas that certain things are Bad, and at that point no science or rational comparisons can make them change their mind. It does not matter if that there has been tremendous development of nuclear technology in terms of efficiency/ security/ waste.

      It seems like GM is facing the same issues. Instead of discussing intresting tradeoffs suchs as herbicedes/ GM/ larger areas for cultivation the enviroment lobby is completely fanatic.

      It too bad, because the issues they argue about are really important.

      Tor

    2. Re:Nuclear Power is the future by Brandybuck · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There have been a lot of sensible proposals for the secure safe storage of nuclear waste, but every one has been shouted down by the "anti-nuke" crowd. Not in my county! Not in my state. Heck, not even in my continent!

      What's wrong with abandoned salt mines? It may not be perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than steels drums sitting around. Or what about encasing the waste in ceramic nodules and dumping them into the Marianas trench? Digging mile long shafts into geologically stable granite mountains?

      Europe's using a heck of a lot of nuclear power. Probably ten times what the US is using. What do they do with it?

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  2. Uranium in the atmosphere by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's interesting that the amount of uranium (in a natural distribution of isotopes) injected in the atmosphere by the burning of coal greatly exceeds the amount put in by nuclear weaponry or nuclear plant crisis. In fact, in the U.S., more people die per year from natural gas (leaks, explosions, housefires) than due to radiation. The real danger to the general population is the mishandling or theft of spent nuclear fuel. Plutonium oxide is very poisonous, in addition to being radioactive. Remember to check scientific fact before arming the FUD Torpedos.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  3. Re:When is the US going to grow up? by turgid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not just the USA. Unless you live in France, your country probably has a really negative attitude to nuclear power, which has been allowed to grow over the last 30 years. It stems from the serious nuclear accidents of the past (Windscale, TMI, Chernobyl) coupled wig public ignorance, "environmental" groups with political agendas and good old fasioned FUD and sensationalism in the press. People will tell you about the accidents, but they won't tell you about the benefits, the advances of the last 50 years and the potential for the future, including the huge environmental benefits. This new Nulcear University is the best news I've heard in 10 years, regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Oh, I was a Reactor Physics Engineer at a nuclear powerstation in the UK until the lack of direction, investment and doubt about the medium-term future of the industry forced me to leave and become a software engineer... Not that I'm bitter or anything.

  4. Re:LOLx2 Need More Nuclear Workers by ninthwave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I grew up in Harrisburg PA so I have a bias here. I watched Three Mile Island be built and I watched them take away the damaged reactor. From my childhood into my young adulthood. I believe in the theory of nuclear power as a clean efficient fuel source, I fear the economics that lead to companies cutting corners to increase profits. Until the American system of capitalism can include social, environmental concerns in the structure of a company that works with material as this the risk is too high. It is the human nature not the science that lets us down with nuclear power.

    And the waste solutions.

    --
    I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
  5. Not a bad idea. by ciphertext · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps now, this will provide the United States with an impetus to standardize on a reactor plant design. If the Federal Government approached nuclear power with the same notions as the U.S. Navy, perhaps we would see a greater role for nuclear power in our society. It is markedly more easy to design, develop, and implement a reactor plant design that can be certified; than it is to have to certify each individual reactor plant design. The U.S. Navy (and possibly other world Navies) certify a small number of designs and fabricators so that an inspection is all that is required. Example: The reactor system made by GE or Westinghouse has been certified by the Navy's nuclear regulatory authority and can be built immediately upon order from the Navy. A simple inspection and sea-trial are all that is required to validate its functionality. There is not a requirement that the design for that reactor be submitted for approval for each build, as the design has already been approved.

    This is contrary to the public power generating stations. Each reactor and plant design must be submitted for review prior to the plant being built. It would be far wiser and more efficient to have the appropriate regulatory agency(s) (FERC, NRC, AEC...it changes) approve a set of reactor plant designs and their respective fabricators/construction agencies before a plant is needed. Example: A nuclear power plant design for 1000Mw, 500Mw, etc... has been approved for build by the appropriate agencies. Reliant Energy needs to expand its capacity to provide power by 500Mw in the next 3 years. Reliant has simply to consult the regulatory agencies list of approved design/fabricators to determine what they could build. The plant can be built immediately or as soon as possible and would only require inspections and testing, and would not require a design submission. This could shave off years of wait time for Reliant, and reduce the costs of electricity to consumers.

    --
    To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
  6. Your name's FUD. Elmer FUD. by Tau+Zero · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'll take on some of those statements.
    The half-life of radioactive waste that comes from nuclear power plants is measured in hundreds of thousands of years.
    False and grossly misleading. The majority of the radioactivity in the spent fuel is in isotopes with half-lives less than 50 years, much of them less than 30. That gives 20 or 30 half-lives in a thousand years, or from hot to dead in about the age of the Coliseum.

    There are some long-lived isotopes in the mix, but we're fairly good at separating isotopes from each other. There is no reason we couldn't filter those out (e.g. Tc-99) and package them for multi-million-year disposal. The beauty is that the hot isotopes are short-lived, and the long-lived isotopes aren't hot.

    Keep in mind when you government tells you how 'safe' nuclear power is that they are using ammunition made from 'depleated' uranium which they claim is 100% safe...
    100% safe... to sit next to. You know, like blocks of lead and sealed vials of mercury? Just don't take any internally.

    It might interest you to know that good old stable arsenic is a serious problem in parts of Asia. Turns out that the wonderful high-tech (not) invention of tube wells for drinking water allowed the over-pumping of aquifers, which let air into them. The air oxidized the formerly-stable arsenic, which became soluble in the water and came up via the wells. Now people across large parts of India have chronic arsenic poisoning. I can't think of any problem with Yucca Mountain affecting so many people or so large an area.

    Think of the trouble the world is in over oil. Uranium will be no different. If you base the world's energy needs on a scarce resource, it will result in eternal military conquest.
    Yeah, someone is bound to lay claim to the world's oceans and all their dissolved uranium, and all the world's thorium while they're at it. And every bit of granite on the planet, and all the coal ash (the uranium in granite gives it more potential energy than coal, and the U and Th in coal ash has more energy potential than the carbon in the coal).
    iving in Australia, with one of the world's richest known sources of uraniam, I am petrified at the thought of what will happen when the oil runs out and the US comes looking for alternative sources. Renewable is the only answer.
    I've got nothing against renewables, just badly-thought-out renewables. So what are you doing to support Bryan Roberts and his gyromill generators?
    --
    Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.