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."

22 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Dear Sirs, by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    We would be very blessed to have our best students
    attend your Nuclear School. Our people need this
    nuclear information to produce power so that we may
    destroy western infidels^W^W our dependence on fossil
    fuels while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    Yours very truly,

    Osama bin Laden &
    Saddam Hussein
    --
    Trolling is a art,
  2. What you won't read in the article... by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

    Students attending this new university are reported to have a half-life of only 18 months. Essentially, upon graduating students have little to no life left in them. How this differs from any other university remains to be seen.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  3. interesting choice of words in headline. by Savatte · · Score: 5, Funny

    When in the same sentence, the words 'launch' and 'nuclear' usually signal bad things are to come.

  4. Just what the world needs by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A bunch of drunk college frat boys with nuclear waste. Nothing can go wrong with that at all.

    --

    Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

  5. 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.
  6. Obligatory Simpsons reference by YetAnotherName · · Score: 4, Funny

    Prof: This proton accelerator destabilizes the atom in this chamber here, then propels it--

    Homer: Uh, excuse me, Professor Brainiac, but I worked in a nuclear power plant for ten years, and, uh, I think I know how a proton accelerator works.

    Prof: Well, please, come down and show us.

    Homer: All right, I will.

    Everyone abandons the glowing green building. Homer walks out, glowing green himself.

    Homer: [to meltdown men] In there, guys.

    Men: Thanks, Homer.

    -- Homer Goes to College

  7. Auction by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 4, Funny


    Visit my Ebay listings for lead jock straps, helmets and surplus radioactive materials.

    --

    Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
  8. It is a double edged sword by George+Walker+Bush · · Score: 5, Funny

    My fellow Americans,

    I am extremely concerned about this nuclear school and what it means for our national securitization. We must not misunderestimatify the potential for doing both good and evil that this nuclear school provides. We must keep tabs on it to make sure that the nuclear knowledge does not fall into the wrong hands and remains in the control of Americans for the good of America.

    Thank you and God bless America.

    --
    George W. Bush
    President, United States of America
  9. When is the US going to grow up? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Informative

    When is the US going to grow up and recycle and refine spent uranium, instead of trying so hard to bury it in the ground. Other countries have breeder reactors that refine used uranium, meaning less fuel mined, less waste made, and the waste that is made has less radioactivity and half life...

    We have enough power generation capacity sitting in nuclear waste cooldown pools to run all of our nuclear power plants for several decades... we just have to refine it.

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    1. 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.

  10. Re:Nuclear Power is the future by gpinzone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The DOE promised that they'd have a solution for waste instead of stockpiling it at the reactors. Still years after the deadline and nothing yet.

  11. Nuclear Convocation by sssmashy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I look forward to seeing the first convocation ceremony for the Nuclear University. All those young, fresh-faced graduates, glowing with pride... at least, we hope it's pride...

  12. Are you sure it doesn't stand for... by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..."WNU's Not a University"?

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  13. 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

  14. 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
  15. 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!
  16. Re:Nuclear Power is the future by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...and you get emission-free,

    Folks, pay no attention to the radioactive waste. Nothing to see here.

    clean

    We repeat: Pay no attention to the radioactive waste. Move along...

    power. There is the issue of disposing nuclear waste,

    Folks...errr...we might need to slightly modify our previous "emission-free, clean" statements. The statements are still true, but for a slightly smaller value of "true" than we'd used originally.

    but I'm confident that issue will also be dealt with as technology advances.

    All right folks, we'll level with you. There are a few by-products that are created by our nuclear power plants, and they're what you might describe as "incredibly hazardous". But remember, a watermelon can also be very hazardous if you try to swallow it whole. Just want to keep things in perspective here.

    However, the good news is that these clean, non-emissive, watermelon-like by-products will be around for thousands of years, so there's ample time to study them, and we're sure that technology will someday be able to deal with them. Until that time arrives, we'll just be...ummm...well, kind of shoving it in a hole in the ground.

    Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!

    --
    A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
  17. Nuclear power for our future by RevMike · · Score: 4, Informative
    I shudder to say this, but we (USA) would do well to emulate the French (Oh god - maybe I'll post this as an AC) in this area.

    The countries that have used nuclear power effectively have set up a program where they designed and certified a one, two, or a small handful of reactors. Then the built from those same reactors over and over and over again. Given that the amount of engineering man-hours in a nuclear reactor is staggeringly huge, this is a far more cost efficient than the US model where every nuclear power plant is a custom job.

    Incidents are bound to occur in any sufficiently complex system. Due to safety conscious design, incidents in western commercial nuclear power plants are virtually never hazardous to the public. But it would be far better for a pump to fail prematurely at one plant, and have a message go out to 50 other plants to check that pump, rather than have every plant discover problems on their own.

    Spent fuel reprocessing is probably a good idea too. It will reduce the amount of waste and also limit the amount of uranium mining. I recall that I once read that mine accidents dwarf every other cause of "commercial nuclear power" related deaths combined. If the remaining waste is glass-encapsulated and stored, it should be very stable and be cause for very little concern.

    Finally, Americans must understand that every power generation technique has some impact. Fossil fuel plants likely contribute to tens of thousands of deaths each year - from mining/drilling operations, accidents transporting the product, people breathing the waste. Solar manufacturing exposes workers to fair numbers of toxic and hazardous chemicals. Hydroelectric plants have substantial envrinmental impact. Wind power is unsteady and kills birds. When these factors are all taken into account nuclear power looks fairly good on balance.

    In the long run, I believe that a system of a large number of modern nuclear power plants built form a small number of designs should be operated as our "baseline" electrical energy source. The reactors will be supllemented with a system of solar, wind, and gas-turbine plants to accomodate peak demand. This system will minimize the impact on our environment, provide a high level of safety, and provid ethe power we need to grow.

  18. Re:Nuclear Power is the future by cmowire · · Score: 4, Informative

    They've had a solution since the 70s, actually.

    It's very simple. You reprocess the fuel to recover the usefull stuff out of it. Some of the U235 wasn't used up, so you can save that. Some of the U238 absorbed neutrons and turned into Pu239 and Pu240, which can also be used. Plus there's a smattering of other useful heavy isotopes, some of which (potentially of the Platinum group) would be useful to isolate and sell.

    The problem is that you are creating Plutonium, which is bad on the grounds of nuclear proliferation. Although, the Plutonium produced isn't actually too useful for nuclear warheads anyways because the Pu240 contaminates the warhead-friendly Pu239.

    The remaining stuff is generally not suitable for reactor usage but is occasionally reactive. It looks like you might be able to make it either a net-gain or, at least, not a substantial waste of energy, to bombard it with neutrons so that it will decay much faster.

    The fun thing is that, once the nasty stuff that's very radioactive has had a chance to decay, you are talking about stuff that is actually less radioactive than the source rock. Even without reprocessing, you are talking about storing the stuff for maybe a thousand years.

    The problem is that it's a bad word because we're trying to get all of the little countries of the world to *not* have nukes, and one of the good ways to do this is to build some reactors, put in rods of U238, and then isolate out some Pu239 before the Pu239 has a chance to absorb another neutron and become Pu240. Somebody got the bright idea that if nobody had access to a reprocessing plant that they'd never be able to get enough Plutonium to make a bomb. It's really kinda dumb and just makes us further beholden to the oil and coal reserves.

    The problem is that there's so many whackos of every variety (including overzealous environmentalists) who oppose nuclear power, every single move, even it's a really good idea, is heavily argued about.

  19. A few thoughts on nuclear power by acaird · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. how odd is it that as I'm typing this "Dr. Strangelove" just started on TCM...
    2. I vaguely recall learning that some incredibly large fraction of the cost of a nuclear power plant (and thus what the utility charges) is legal fees getting it built, and that is why no new plants have been built in the last 20 or so years
    3. Yes, nuclear plants produce very dangerous byproducts. However, you know right where they are - in those little metal tubes. Contrast with coal/natural gas/oil plants. Much of the waste from those plants is, well, sort of everywhere. If the non-nuclear power plants had the same emissions standards (even if it was just the same radiation emmission standards) as nuclear power plants, electricity would be fantastically expensive.
    4. Nuclear waste can be stored and processed and transported safely. It's done every day. I've seen it. Why isn't it re-processed? Again, the legal fees in defending the construction of a plant make it cheaper to leave it at the plants.
    5. Nuclear plants in the U.S (and Europe and Asia) cannot blow up like Chernobyl. In two sentences: When Chernobyl (and like reactors, known as RBMKs) get hot, the reaction rate increases, then they get hotter, then the reaction rate increase, then they get hotter, until the structure can't take it. Non-RBMK's (all of the reactors in US, Europe, Asia, etc.) have a negative coefficient of reactivity; when they get hot the reaction slows. This is a property of physics, not of any external controls.
    6. Interesting that there is a "shortage" of nuclear workers. Of the 10 people in my undergraduate nuclear engineering class (U. of Michigan, 1989-93), 4 are in IT-related fields, 1 is in the nuclear Navy, 1 is doing brain cancer treatment research (nuclear medicine), 1 is managing hotels, and I've lost track of the other three. It's tough to find work as an entry-level nuclear engineer, even if you want it.
    7. Personally, I believe nuclear power is the lesser evil of coal, oil, and natural gas.
    8. Construction of solar panels generates all sorts of nasty waste, and panels, by definition, make shade where there used to be sun - for all of the interest in solar power these two facts are often overlooked. Perhaps we just don't like the desert ecosystem. :) Panels on building, if they can be constructed with minimum environmental damage, are a good idea, but just can't produce enough power at those sizes to matter too much.
    9. Wind and tide power have promise; nice mechanical systems with (hopefully) manageable environmental impacts.
    10. Hydro-electric pretty much defines negative environmental impact.
    11. Geothermal is great. In Iceland.

    A. Caird
    B.S. Nuc. Eng. 1993 U. of Michigan
    M.S. Nuc. Eng. 1996 U. of Michigan
    (but I've never worked as a nuclear engineer; IT jobs are available in nearly every city in the world, computational reactor design jobs are not)

    Take it for what it's worth.

    --
    Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. E. Tufte
  20. Re:Nuclear Power is the future by Listen+Up · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Technically, speaking as someone who is currently working as an engineer in the energy/utility field, there are two fundamental problems with people talking without knowledge of what they are talking about.

    1) Yes, you are at the mercy of nature. Let's get some facts straight for the mis-information givers. To begin with, the two largest problems facing solar power is that for one, the farther you are away from the equator, the less solar power you can produce. Most of the US in not on the Equator. Secondly, solar power production is directly related cloud cover, among other factors. Building a solar powered facility in Wisconsin, where I live, never pays off. At night, you need energy storage, and that is a whole other issue. Some states it may work, but 90% of the rest of the US...it doesn't.

    2) Now, wind power does not take up large amounts of space. What you don't understand is that the actual footprint of a wind turbine is only around 100-150 square feet. A wind turbine is generally 50-100 meters tall. The taller the wind turbine, the more power it can produce (on flat land like Iowa, Nebraska, etc.) Wind turbines are always built based on worse case scenario wind shear conditions at a design height. Wind turbines do not speed up or slow down, since the generator has a naturally occuring electrical braking action (think Eddy Current braking) and is built to worse case scenario wind shear conditions for minimum operation. The real problem, at least in Iowa where I have done utility studies for the IDNR (Iowa Department of Natural Resources) is that a lot of birds get killed flying to into these huge wind turbine farms and animal activities/tree huggers try to get them shut down. Apparently, the tree huggers want their cake and eat it too. Idiots.

    For a great example of wind power helping out on a massive scale is look at Denmark. They are currently working on converting 90% of their entire COUNTRY to using solely wind power. How are they doing this? Simple. They are building large wind farms far out into the ocean and using constant ocean winds to power the wind turbines. Is it working? YES. Here is an internet link to check this out for yourselves

    http://www.windpower.org/en/core.htm

    Now, the idea has been presented in the United States by several MAJOR utility companies in recent years. The response they have gotten? "We don't want hundreds of wind turbines blocking our view of the ocean."

    You want renewable energy? You change the piss poor, "I only care about me and my pretty ocean view and my pretty birdies, but SAVE THE EARTH and give me FREE CLEAN POWER" Of course, only the US seems to care about points #1 and #2.

    PS-According to a multi-year study in Denmark on their ocean wind turbine farm and birds? Guess what, after a couple of years, the birds learned to fly around the wind turbine farm. Gee, figure that.

  21. 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.