Slashdot Mirror
Uranium Pebbles May Light the Way
kristy_christie writes "According to Wired News, South Africa's state-run utility giant Eskom and its international partners want to build the world's first commercial 'pebble bed' reactor, which, instead of using fuel rods, 'is packed with tennis ball-size graphite "pebbles," each containing thousands of tiny uranium dioxide particles'. To developers, the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor promises a rebirth of nuclear energy. Proponents insist that the reactor's design features make it 'meltdown-proof' and 'walk-away safe'."
I applaud this kind of work.
Nuclear Power, despite the cries of environmentalists, is possibly the cleanest mass power source. On a scale of power generated per ton of input material it is incredibly efficient (bested only by those power sources which require no nonrenewable input, like wind/tidal/etc.), generates no effluent or air pollution, and needs only a competent staff (and, unfortunately, security), to stay running properly.
Nuclear plants may be prohibitively expensive to build these days, but if "pebble bed" reactors cost significantly less, then they may lead the way back towards what I view as our ideal energy source.
It's time to give nuclear a second chance.
It's how to handle the waste. That represents a real engineering challenge - some of that stuff is going to remain toxic for tens of thousands of years. Not only does it have to be stored safely and securely, but you have to work out some way of marking it so that should anyone stumble across it in a couple of thousand years, they understand not to touch it. The amount languages and cultures change, you can't just write on it, and even things like skull pictures could be interpreted as meaning "burial chamber - archaelogists, get digging!".
That said, I'm not against nuclear power (from fusion) per se. Of the options we have, it's one of the best at the moment. "Alternative" power sources need a lot more work, and fusion, whilst extrememly promising, just isn't practicable yet (unless I've missed a major breakthrough in the last couple of years). I'm just pointing out that there are still other problems that need to be addressed.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Graphite in a nuclear reactor? Sounds like a good idea, lets see what the folks at Chernobyl think...(yes, I realize the lower density of uranium would prevent thermal runaway).
The other thing is, any nuclear reactor is safe to walk away from. Just take long, quick steps.
I think it is important to move away from the current reliance on fossil fuels as quickly as possible and move towards nuclear power generation as the only realistic sustainable alternative power generation scheme.
Many of the world's problems exist because of the small patch of oil-soaked land out in the Middle East and the lack of trustworthy stewards of those fields. With Gulf War II over and those oil fields finally in the hands of Western democracies we may see some improvement in global stability vis a vis the opening of OPEC to its main customers. However, because we continue to rely on oil as our primary power source we will likely continue to have problems as the oil fields run drier and drier.
It is good to see Africa (of all nations!) take the lead in this new system of nuclear power generation. Older systems like the ones in Canada and France are fine, however it would be a stretch to say that they are perfect. There is plenty of room for improvement in those power plants. This usage of uranium pebbles is one such improvement, but there are more.
It is a problem that people would be willing to block the development of Africa because they object to the usage of these newer power systems. Especially so because for the most part the same protesters unwittingly reap the benefits of their own country's nuclear power generation systems.
The perennial question is one of waste disposal. It's all very well having a realtively clean source of energy right now, but if you have to guard against people getting hurt for X years, where X is a very large number...
...
They claim the graphite and silicon carbide around the pebbles will keep it sealed for ~ 1 million years, which is impressive. It'll be interesting to see if humanity is around in ~1 million years
It also produces about 19 tons of radioactive waste (in the form of these coated pebbles) every year. That's going to be some landfill site, if the technology takes off...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
How can anyone say that nuclear power is clean? what happens to the depleted uranium? It's radioactive for something like 40,000 years after it gets used in a power station. Would you like that toxic waste buried in your backyard? Depleted uranium disposal is a growing problem in every country that has nuclear reactors...oh, we could just build some missiles and shells with the depleted uranium and use them in conflicts the world over, thus spreading the radiation thinly over the planet's surface, making sure that cancer and birth defects can be shared by all...
Proponents insist that the reactor's design features make it 'meltdown-proof' and 'walk-away safe'."
Said a Mr.J.Simpson.
Reading some of the comments in this article, I have to wonder when 'Geek' and 'Nerd' transformed into 'Reactionary Luddite'.
"Africa's state-run utility giant"... WTF?
Africa is not a state or a single country for that matter, it's a continent made up of many states. Please be specific, ppl are very ignorant about this, just like many think that all africans speak the same langauge (there are over 200 langauges in Nigeria alone for example).
While the density of the uranium in the pellets would not be high enough to produce the temperatures needed to ignite the graphite or cause a meltdown, the density of the craniums of slashdotters is close to infinite...
"Africa" is not a state- it's a continent containing many many independent, sovereign nations - about 50, I think. In this case, the state in question is called "South Africa". They have the state-owned company with this new proposal.
Would that be Fruity or Coco? The coco were the best.
So what do you do with that radioactive steel mass?
Ah right, decomissioning doesn't cost anything, just stick up a fence round the reactor and bury the waste in the ground.
And before you mention the lack of effluent, bathing in the irish sea or eating fish caught there is now considered a "risky activity".
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Africa's state-run utility giant Eskom /rant
I'm going to pop a vein! Afirca is not a country, it's a continent . South Africa, the country where Eskom resides, is a country in Africa (easily confused with South America by Americans. South America is a continent south of North America, the continent with three different countries on it, including the USA). There are 54 independent, different countries in Africa, each with their own government. Africa is not simply a big ol' jungle where everyone speaks Swahili (only 50 million of the more than 700 million people in Africa speak Swahili).
OK, now that I got that off my chest: Eskom has been talking about this for a while now, and they are facing some resistance to the idea. The problem being the general conception that "nuclear is evil".
We (USA in the 90s) promised two of these (or very simiar to these) to North Korea so that they a) could have plenty of power and thus might spend money on economic growth/feeding their people and b) couldn't develop nuclear weapons from the material. but oops, congress wouldn't approve it. Now look where we are with them. big mistake
though many popular activists site environmental reasons as opposition to nuclear energy, disposing of nuclear waste really isn't that difficult. Most scientists (at least those in the field) object to nuclear power because of the potential of the spread and proliferation of weapons. while environmental issues ARE a concern (there's always some governmental dweeb that screws things up), it is something that can fairly easily be isolated given the proper precautions. Part of the reason that these reactors get so much attention is that these same experts have much fewer qualms with them precisely because they are so much more difficult to make weapons-grade uranium/plutonium from. (i cite Howard Margolis, Dealing with Risk as a decent summary of this topic).
For you geographically challenged people. Africa is a whole continent. Like North America, South America and Australia.
South Africa is a country. It's at the tip of Africa. You'll never guess where it is in Africa.
It was a British Colony, but gained independence about 55 or so years ago, and promptly began to institutionalise pernicious racially-based discrimination. It was called Apartheid. After a long struggle (40 years) the white people agreed to share power and democratic elections took place. Nelson Mandela (you may have heard of him) was elected president.
The economy of South Africa is split - there's a strong first world component, and a large third world component. The first world component rivals the economies of Europe and the USA in sophistication - though it's much smaller. The third world component - i.e. subsistence farming, and subsistence trading - involves many more people. Unemployment rate is high - a few years ago it was 40%. Not sure what it is now. HIV/Aids rate is probably the highest in the world - hitting around 10% of population. Some places have rates as high as 40%. The current government until recently has ignored the problem.
Eskom is a world-class power utility. They have existing nuclear reactors, which were learning grounds for the Apartheid state in their quest for nuclear weapons. (Ten or so years ago South Africa admitted that they had nukes, and then destroyed them. Thank you Nelson Mandela and South Africa for making the world a safer place.)
It's questionable whether South Africa needs more nuclear power plants but Eskom has traditionally had a strong technocratic streak. (I was an employee a long time ago.) SA is rich in coal and natural gas.
I personally think that the money could be better spent given South Africa's problems - the only justification would be to export the technology. And maybe greater access to nuclear expertise is not what the world needs.
Jeff Veit
It would seem, critically, that the waste can be stored on site for 40 years, does not need to be transported elsewhere, and is inherently more stable than the waste in a typical water reactor.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
This technology has been around for at least 30 years. The Germans even built an example pebble bed reactor at Hamm-Uentrop which has led to the technology being heavily criticized by enviromentalists. Normally I would be hesitant to swallow raw what enviromentalists feed onto the internet, especially the religiously fanatical German anti nuclear lobby, but in this case their claims are reenforced by the fact that their opinions of pebble bed reactors are shared by the German state who shut the Hamm-Uentrop plant down in 1989 after the management covered up serious problems with the reactor. The whole affair has led the People of Hamm-Uentrop to start a citizens group which among other things aims to start an Information exchange with the people of South so that the Africans can take into account the German experiences before one of these things gets built in their back yard. Feel free to call this a troll but with so many people singing the "See!! I told you nuclear is safe" psalm here I figured the other side of the coin deserved a mention.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Such reactors are not new, e.g. there was/is one in Hamm-Uentrop, Germany called "THTR 300".
Building started 1970, reaction started 1983, shut down 1988, disassembling started 1991.
Its output was 308MWe, so I assume it was not just a toy.
AFAIK they had problems with the moderation and breaking of the balls.
Nothin' new, actually.
Why do they invest more money in such technologies. They have the Sahra desert. 10% of that desert would be enough for supplying the whole world (yes, even the USA) with enough energy.
The problems with solar based energy production are purely political, not technical.
Seriously. I hate buying gas. Would be nice not to have to buy gas again - ever.
Oh sure, what happens if I get into an accident? Well, that's why you build the reactor compartment the same way as an airplane's black box, if that can survive a plane crash, a car crash should be a walk in the park.
There's a problem with terroists getting uranium and making dirty bombs you say? Not a problem either! Just outlaw radiation suits so anyone that opens the reactor is instantly nuked like a frozen chicken pot pie. Of course, that means no more tinkering with your car, but would you really miss it if you never had to buy gas again?
I want my nuclear car, damnit.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
I think people see three problems with Nuclear power generation. 1. It might blow up or some similar disaster. This is what this type of reactor is designed to eliminate. 2. During its operation, it may pollute the environment with radioactive waste. This is IMHO the unanswered question. 3. Decommissioning and storage of Nuclear waste is unattractive. I think this is an easy one. We already have places on earth that are so horribly polluted that adding more would have no detrimental effect on the environment - just put it a mile below the surface. Take a look at http://www.ga.gov.au/oracle/nukexp_query.html for possible sites. (America is lucky enough to have some very good sites indeed ;)
Wise up people - we all like our homes to be warm, our nice large cars and our industry that produce the goods we buy - it all takes energy.
The ONLY reason we don't have more Nuclear energy is that we have sufficient fossil fuels (currently) for our needs. Just watch what happens when this starts to run out - then we'll see how serious people are with not wanting this type of energy.
This post makes a good point that many people forget. News/literature from a group supporting that group is usually meaningless. I'm thinking every news article should have, in big bold font, at the beginning "this article was written by etc." and including, where appropriate, "we are owned/I was paid by etc."
But your honor, I only hit him in the face with a pebble. I don't know what he's whining about.
Since when shit the size of a tennis ball is considered a pebble.
Check this
Not to be pedantic, but this is something that many Africans, myself included, are rather sensitive about. Africa is a continent, not a country!
Eskom is South Africa's electrical utility, though it is active throughout Southern Africa (the region).
But where can you buy these uranium-oxide enriched pebbles?
Your local confectionary shop, of course. I'm used to the chocolate filled type, but I guess they come in all varieties. Just make sure you get the ones that look a good ripe green.
Pebbles - so safe, you can eat them!
Ask me about repetitive DNA
It's been done before. In Germany. It was called "schneller Brueter". It never went operational.
The rationale was that it would be vatsly more efficient. In practice, those "balls" were harder to control than the normal rods. In testruns they would jam as they were processed in the facility.
So it's neither the first time this is being built, nor is it the answer to all energy-questions in the world.
Just go here.
"Uranium Pebbles" Sounds like a great name for a breakfast cereal. Makes your teeth glow!
If you outlaw the law, only criminals will have laws
Metamoderators, this is not redundant. It is is informative (IMHO). a few prior posts may have made the Africa Vs South Africa point, but none of them got highly rated, few of them suplied this much detail or links, or provided background detail on Eskom.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Just a rather pedantic point but something that I do find irritating: Eskom is not a state run utility it privatised many years ago and is listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE).
It has been mentioned above that there is some opposition locally to the idea. Based on some of the comments in support of the idea it would be great if those interested could inform Earthlife Africa of your opinion.
People are going to have to start to do some sensible and unemotional re-evaluation of nuclear power generation pretty damn soon.
Yep, some people will die from an increased incidence of cancer and yes, some people will die from nuclear mishaps and/or terrorism.
However, global climate change will kill billions of people unless fossil fuel utilisation is vastly reduced over the next century.
Renewable energy supplies may solve some of the problem. USAians forgoing their gas guzzling trucks and starting to think some about energy efficiency willl solve some more. However, the only current economically viable non CO2-producing technology is nuclear fission and adopting it on a wider scale will save lives and help to protect the environment.
You'll never convince the lumpenproletariat of the fact, though.
Africa is a continent not a country. The correct word is South Africa.
the only real problem they had with the reactor was that management decided to release 300-400 grams or so nuclear waste in dust form when the chernobyl cloud went by hoping no one would notice. they got shut down afterwards.
well thats what the mayor of hamm told me anyway..
If you hadn't felt the need to go into the "you moron" part, I'd have modded you up.
Yes, it's sad that so many people don't have a fscking clue, and yet pass judgment. Then again, that's life.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
that's right, this stuff is unbreakable, & wwworks on several (more than 3) dimensions. it is being used extensively in the wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative, increasing the badtoll on the perpetraitors of the corepirate nazi life0cide against the creators' innocents.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator... the lights are coming up now.
... yet that doesn't keep you from judging and condemning something.
First of all, as was already said, the waste produced by fission plants is _not_ depleted uranium. It's not like "new batteries" and "used batteries", you know. When a uranium nucleus splits, it splits into much smaller nuclei. Ones which aren't uranium at all.
Second, I get this feeling that you don't understand how depleted uranium weaponry even works. I keep reading all sorts of SF (read: stupid) posts about how it explodes inside the tank, or how some shell's explosion spreads uranium dust and debris all over, and whatnot.
The only quality of depleted uranium is that it's an extremely hard material. Much harder than steel or even than tungsten penetrators. Its only quality is that a sharp tip made of depleted uranium, can go straight through armour made of steel. That's all.
It's also _not_ used in high explosive ammo. And APHE ammo (i.e., ammo which is both armour piercing and explosive) was last used by the Soviets in WW2. They discarded it as being useless.
The shells that tanks shoot at each other today are _not_ explosive. (Regardless of how it looks otherwise in computer games.) The preferred large caliber anti-tank ammo nowadays is APFSDS: Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot. It basically shoots a thin sharp metal rod with fins. Much like a crossbow bolt, if you will.
This goes through armour by sheer kinetic energy, and by being sharp. Again, just like a medieval crossbow bolt would.
Why is it important that it's very hard? So it doesn't deform while going through armour. Think a crossbow bolt with a steel bodkin tip, and now think one with a rubber tip. The rubber one will deform and spread the impact over a larger surface, whereas the steel one might stay sharp as it goes through armour. (Thus keeping the impact concentrated on the small surface of the tip.)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Congratulations, I thought Carnot had proven that the machine of perpetual motion was impossible...
Seriously, there's a limit on breeding (there has to be if physics has sense). You get waste anyway. Making fuel out of waste is not necessarily economically or energetically sound, and the efficiencies... well, there's no 100% efficiency in this world, right?
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Nuclear power is a subject that is near and dear to my heart having spent a part of my life working in the industry for Uncle Sam. There are three real issues with Nuclear power that keep it a hot button issue:
* Proliferation of WMD. Widespread use of nuclear power creates huge opportunites for people to get their hands on fissile material or highly radioactive material. A "dirty bomb" consisting of a few hundred pounds of waste and a few hundred pounds of explosives could do incalcuable damage. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are NOT high tech. It's technology from the era of propeller airplanes, black and white movies, radio and vaccum tube electronics.
* Economics: widespread use of nuclear power would render a large sector of the global economy useless. There is a substantial interest in keeping the world dependent on our dwindling supplies of fossil fuel -- remember suply and demand? What happens when the supply decreases and demand increases? Many nations, corporations, and ultimately individuals stand to get very, very rich by monopolizing the resource (OPEC is a benign example compared to what we'll see in the future)
* Finally, there is a more practical issue: much of today's power challenges are demand side issues. Most people are blissfully unaware of what it takes to supply a couple of killowatt hours to their homes and especially businesses.
-- $G
I have been trying to figure out a problem with this idea i have. If somebody can tell em why it won't work or has costs associated with it which are excessive(because i believe that there will be no magical soloution which will not have any disadvantages to it).
So i propose that the nuclear waste first be sealed in secure containers. These containers must not leak for a period of 100 years. They should also be treated to ensure that it does not corrode due to exposure to salt water.
Once sealed in these containers I propose that the tubes be tied together and droped into the mariana trench.
So what can go wrong here?
All the spent fuel that the PBMR generates during its 40-year life will be stored on site....
Finally, the density of spent fuel in each sphere is so minimal that the repository can be packed as efficiently as possible.
Now, what if there is some malfunction, and a sizeable amount of non-spent pebbles are accidentally "discarded": Instant nuclear bomb! After all efficient packing is one way to reach critical mass and get some megaboss oomph!
If I'm not mistaken, hot Graphite burns when exposed in air (and this stuff is at 900 deg Celcius plus and under pressure, 8.4 Mega Pascals)...... and we've already had one too many of those "burning Graphite" disasters already... Windscale back in 1957, and they changed the name to get around the public memory of the original disaster.
Sorry, but I have no faith in any process which combines a combustible material run at high temperatures and relying on keeping air out...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
The UK government are planning to stop reprocessing.
3 ,1 029943,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,276
It's far too expensive and if you think it's "ecologically sound" I invite you to dine on fish from the Irish sea and bathe in it's waters just off the coast from Sellafield.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Africa is now a unified state?
</whinge>
The Sahara is not anywhere near South Africa - they're at opposite ends of the world's 2nd largest continent.
I was fully aware that this reactor did not use carbon as moderator rods, but instead to "bulk out", if you will, the uranium to a point where it could not go critical (which is why I included the comment in brackets: to curb the enthusiasm of those who can't recognize a joke when they see one). The method of heat transfer (helium in this case, water or sodium in others) is largely irrelevant to whether or not the core can go critical.
Here.
there is something new.
Chernobyl had a lot of things that were just wrong.
The reactor increased in efficiency as temperature increased. This is a nice little feedback loop. Most reactors lose efficiency as temperature increases, meaning that it is difficult to try and overload the reactor, even on purpose.
The reactor was designed to be cheap, and it did not have a dome. Domes contain radioactive material very well. Tests have shown that an aircraft hitting a dome would hardly scratch it.
As another cost-cutting measure, the reactor didn't have any good backup power. It may seem silly to have a power plant that needs power, but nuclear power plants do need power to start up and in case of emergencies. Western plants have batteries and generators.
As if these technological blunders weren't enough, some bonehead transfered control of the power plants from the ministry that designed and built them, where all the trained personnel are employed, to the ministry of energy. There are reports of operators sitting on the control board and people showing up to work drunk.
Basically, in 1986, the Chernobyl reactor demonstrated a bunch of "don'ts" to a world that should have already known.
There will always be technology out there that can be misused. The amount of that technology will only increase. Do we ban knives because people get stabbed? Do we ban nuclear power because a couple of Russians cut costs?
The 'ball' nuclear reactors are basically foolproof. You put a bunch of balls next to each other and you get heat. This is not weapons grade Uranium.
I only see one problem with nuclear -- the small amount of waste that is generated needs to be handled properly. It can be done, but it just has to be done right.
I would like to see the Department of Naval Reactors, in conjuction with the Department of Energy and the U.S. Navy be contracted to design, build, man and run nuclear power plants for commercial power consumption. Then turn around and sell that power to the utilities companies.
They already buy power from one another on a regular basis and the more importantly the track record of the U.S. Navy in Nuclear Power useage is impeccable. The training program, security, design protocols, safety record and tradition of excellence make them the only people in the world I would trust 100% to run a nuclear power plant.
He should be reassigned to one of these reactors.. pronto!
Paging Mr. Burns...
yea, right, Troll. The 'Reactionary Luddite' that the original poster refers to are often just trolls, who often take the contraian point of view just for kicks. Others can be explained as uninformed "non-techies", like (most likely) yourself. Maybe, to get a slashdot account (even to post AC) users should pass a basic technology test. Of course we would be without many "gems" like your posts.
A nuclear reactor made of a bed of uranium-enriched tennis ball-sized reactants? Somebody's been watching a bit too much Total Recall...Here's hoping they put this thing on Mars and never activate it.
The Human Cow - bringing you scrumtrelescence since 1995
ah ah ah this is soo wrong ! one would think that fixing the power grid should be the first to do !
With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
Another problem with pebble-beds is that they use natural or low-enriched uranium in a cycle where the fuel passes through the reactor relatively quickly and continuously (no big refueling outages). This makes them ideal Plutonium factories, which is obviously a matter of concern. Most of the graphite-moderated reactors ever built were designed primarily to produce Plutonium, including the Soviet RBMK's and the piles at Sellafield.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for nuclear power for many reasons, but I'm not sure the pebble bed is that much of a breakthrough, and I don't think graphite is the best choice of material. And any operator of a plant in trouble that went home for the weekend should be shot. "Walk-away safe" my ass.
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
I am pretty green; I hate SUV's can't stand Bushes policies on energy, BUT clearly Nukes pollute FAR less then coal fired power plants.
The amount for NOx, SOx and COx put in the atmosphere, by Coal fired plants, is un-FREGGIN believable. The storage of nuclear waste is actually solvable; the trashing of our atmosphere may NOT be fixable. I like to breath.
Maybe I feel this way because I live in the Midwest where there is one power source real and that is coal, the air is so hazy here it is starting to look like L.A.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
I thought they quit letting the mental patients use the internet.
- Turq - "That's TRON, he fights for the users."
yikes. you can almost smell the hate/fear?
lookout bullow. doN'T be afraid/afraud. here comes the light...
as to coal power plants: if they would filter the ... I wonder if da sediment
smoke thru water first and let it sediment they'd
prolly be cleaner too
can be reused in the burning process (koks?).
this excerpt from:
"designing for dummies"
Is it just me, or did anyone read "coastline north of Cape Town" and think "no shit!"
Is any form of nuclear power renewable? Can we recycle any waste? No? Let's skip this one then. We already have plenty of non-renewable, non-recyclable power generators. Maybe we should ask the politicians to stop taking bribes from people whose hands are filthy with oil and politely request more effort in the area of renewable energy. How about not using so much energy in the first place? I remember my last visit to Vegas, seeing a casino front wide open to the outside with a veritable wall of air-conditioning blasting from the ceiling above the opening. Never have I seen such wasteful energy consumption. Without doubt, nuclear power has a major waste management problem. I don't think the same thing applies to PhotoVoltaics or wind turbines. If this really is news for nerds about stuff that matters, well this matters and yet I have read far too much from some nerds who are willing to endanger their chilrens-childrens-childrens-childrens... lives to the half-life of stuff that anti-matters. http://www.homepower.com Get on the right track.
U-238 is barely radioactive, with a halflife of about 4500 million years. U-235 on the other hand is way more radioactive, and thus the part they are interested in using for reactorcores.
Not true. The half-life of U-235 is 710 million years -- enriched uranium is NOT too hot to handle.
Pu-239 (half-life 24400 years) and Pu-240 (half-life 6580 years) are hotter and are the reason spent fuel needs to be sequestered for so long. But the really nasty, ultra-hot radioisotopes are all the neutron-rich fission byproducts from splitting U-235 or Pu-239. Byproducts like barium-140, cesium-134, cesium-137, and iodine-131 have half-lives in the days to only a few years that make them intensely radioactive (thousands of times more radioactive than Plutonium and millions of times more radioative than U-235). Worse, these byproduct elements will chemically react with ordinary matter, form water-soluable compounds, and lodge in living tissue if injested.
Fact: Spent fuelrods from reactors are a major enviromental problem.
Extremely true, but not because of U-235.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
...accelerator-driven transmutation - does the trick!
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Uh, no thanks.
If you're happy and you know it read my blog
All these free neutrons will convert the metals in the surrounding electronics and containment into radioactive isotopes. Some of these are nastier than fission products to deal with.
Here in Colorado, we had a helium reactor that spent more time down than up. The problem was the helium. While it is none reactive, all the equipment to work with it seemed to have loads of problems. Ultimately, it was shutdown and converted to Coal.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When solar and wind and whatever become more economically practical, they will begin to expand more. There are no vast conspiracies, sorry. I know ideology has probably murdered your capacity for critical thinking and rationality, but that's the facts.
The Advanced Fast Reactor, an improved Integral Fast Reactor/Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor is a modern design that:
- burns it's own waste as fuel.
- is safe (The reactor core will cease to function when it gets to hot).
- could be use current 'nuclear waste' as fuel.
- could use current weapons grade plutonium (think decomissioned warheads).
- the final by products 'nuclear waste' will be as radio-active as normal uranium ore.
I really with the nuclear energy phobic would learn a little bit about modern reactor technology.
IFR - http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html
AFR - http://www.rae.anl.gov/research/ardt/afr/
...that Germany, where this technology was developed, ceased further development and is getting out of nuclear power entirely. If you look at the hassle they get from demonstrations each time spent fuel is moved, I guess it just ain't worth it long-term. I work for a large power producer in the SE USA (yes, them!) with several nuclear facilities, and when I look at the Billy-Bobs they're run by, I get very scared. The public should, too.
Yeah I scored 4 out of 5 on the antidrug quiz too.
is that they're rarely inspected and maintained the way they're supposed to be. If you actually look at the design of these reactors, it's pretty rare that they have inherent design flaws that would hurt their longevity. Like all mechanical devices, a nuclear reactor requires regular intervention in order to continue running optimally.
Why, then, do they fall into disrepair? Ironically, both privately-run (e.g. Three Mile Island) and government-run reactors (e.g. Chernobyl) both seem to have problems. The privately-run reactors end up having cost pressures put on by management whereby they cut corners and push the design. The government-run reactors oftentimes are victims of the indifference of government employees. Either way, the result is the same.
The disposal of nuclear material notwithstanding, reactors with many design philosophies can be safe. But any time you have human intervention, you are guaranteed an unreliable system. The more human intervention, the more unreliable the system. That's why this new design of reactor may actually be the best even if it can't push out as much power as its larger brethren.
While I do think that nuclear power will make up more energy in the future, I also think that with a bit of inginutity we can lessen the need for plants. Basically, by storing excess power, we can add 33% to 100% power to the plant. This would also allow for alternative energy input. One approach is via 2 water resoivors with hydro power and simply use excess power to pump the water back.
Perhaps a better way is for us to spend money on high thermal storage with salts. Ideally, we would do small units and spread them out to provide emergency power in local areas (think hospitals, anywhere on the coast esp, Florida, Texas, and California).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Firstly, you want to make that South Africa. Eskom has projects in other countries, but it's a South African company.
Guess when ZA will run out of electricity? 2007, 2009, 2030?
2003. Right now. We hit max a few months ago and some mothballed stations are being brought back online to cater for the following winters.
True, if you only consider what is legally released into the environment while the nuclear plant is operating. If you consider the fission byproducts and their "disposal" (e.g. long term storage) then this isn't true. Yucca Mountain nonwithstanding, the problems associated with nuclear waste may not be worth the benefit (and I'm a nuclear-trained engineer).
will this also be, um, "to be too cheap to meter"?
I think it is important to move away from the current reliance on fossil fuels as quickly as possible and move towards nuclear power generation as the only realistic sustainable alternative power generation scheme.
I challenge the assertion that nuclear power is sustainable.
My challenge is based on the fact that there is a finite (though possibly vast) quantity of fissible material. This quantity is, obviously, reduced by using such material. Eventually, the supply will run out.
When we learned to tap oil and coal and natural gas as sources of energy, we looked at the vastness of the supply and believed that it was essentially unlimited. This belief failed to take into account the enormous growth in usage that since took place.
The lesson to be learned from fossil fuels is that vastness should not be confused with sustainability.
The only sustainable energy sources are those that draw their power in short-term from the sun. That would be solar, wind, hydro. Yes, the sun will eventually run out, but when it does (assuming that homo sapiens still exists), I think we will have bigger problems to deal with than how we're going to power our vehicles that way 2t to carry one 70kg commuter to and from his job.
www.wavefront-av.com
Well I have problems with the "breaking of the balls" too!
Were you in Chernobyl when it blew? It would explain a lot!
While there are semi-desert regions in South Africa, the Sahara is in North Africa. Get a map, or a clue!
The latest cost estimates for building a 'demo model' is about R10 billion, and will be completed in 2008. That's about 5 years over schedule, if my memory serves me. The PBMR company ltd., not Eskom directly, is building this thing. That company's shareholders are currently Eskom and BNFL. Since BNFL is currently being restructured, as the cleanup costs for Sellafield have forced it into bankruptcy, Eskom is the only real player. (US company Exelon was involved, but now they've pulled out)
R10 billion is way more than Eskom can afford. Therefore they are looking for external partners to invest in the project, and that depends on selling PBMRs being commercially viable. Now, nuclear electricity is very expensive - one of the reasons that the world nuclear industry is in the doldrums. There was a paper in the South African Journal of Science about this some time back, which examined the economic models Eskom was using for PBMR, and found them to be wildly optimistic.
So if the economics are so screwy, why is Eskom pursuing this project? No one really knows, but I'm sure the fact that the chairperson of Eskom, Reuel Khoza, effectively controls one of the main contractors (IST), through a holding company has got something to do with it. Even if the PBMR project fails, Khoza and buddies will end up much richer. IST got handed a R260 million (?) contract, which is about as much as its previous annual turnover. Their shareprice went through the roof, making Khoza and co's share options worth a lot more.
Besides the Reuel Khoza link, there is an argument to be made that difficult-to-manage technologies like PBMR will be an incentive for the government to keep a much more centralised and powerful Eskom around for much longer. Eskom is currently facing deregulation and restructuring, and this Apartheid-legacy parastatal needs to justify why it still needs to exist. Experience in other companies has shown that deregulating nuclear power is very hard, so PBMR might be a bargaining chip in the complicated game around Eskom's future.
Funnily enough, the Wired article and the Slashdot responses have all the hallmarks of engineers - in love with 'sexy technology' while pretty much ignoring the bigger political/economic picture.
Peter
Sounds good so far. Maybe we can begin ignoring those for whom antinuclearity is a religion, when they point to _The China Syndrome_, and move on.
I *would* like to suggest that, in a setting with such grave consequences for error, engineers tell themselves daily that "meltdown-proof" really means "all failure modes are unknown." I think that would lead to a healthier attitued toward the whole thing.
I'm no nuclear expert, but I did pick up on the Graphite/Uranium construction mentioned in the Slashdot summary.
Graphite regulated nuclear systems, so far, are the ones that cause the "Big Scares" amongst the public. Chernobyl was a graphite regulated plant (Graphite/Water), as was the one that blew up in England in the late 1950's.
The problem is related to the inablility to shut them down quickly and safely once they "go off"; unlike water, graphite burns (A Bad Thing).
That's not to say they're inherently bad; there are a number of graphite regulated reactors in use; Russia and the UK still use them. Can they be properly maintained, so as to remain safe, in Africa?
When the Three Mile Island reactor had its partial core meltdown, note that there was still enough safety margins active that its radioactive release was very small indeed. It definitely helped that the reactor was inside a strongly-built containment building, which essentially confined the radioactive release.
Since Chernobyl had NO containment structure, when that reactor's fissile material pile exploded there was NOTHING to stop its release into the atmosphere.
In that case we will dispose of the byproducts of the process in your backyard.
I am all for alternatives to producing energy. However the people in charge are historically not very good at keeping their promises of disposing these kinds of wastes in a way that will be safe for the next 10,000 years.
Gee, if the airplane black boxes can withstand an airplane crash, why don't they just make the airplanes out of the same stuff?
(/joke)
We should all welcome a new and (even safer?) design strategy, but all designs have trade-offs.
...but the tradeoff is all that heavy water runs up the price of the thing.
Canada is justly proud of its very safe CANDU design, some good links at:
http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/candu.htm
They've got a new design out that's, yes, even safer, and (they hope) cheaper to run. They've got a good business going overseas, but you can't sell the things in North America at all.
So far.
One can only hope the interest in reducing carbon emissions will bring people to their senses. I'm all for green renewable technologies, too, but hydro, wind, and solar are just not yet up to being more than 20% or so of the generation mix. The other 80% has to be fossil or nuclear. Nukes are way cleaner.
Salon magazine recently has some hair-raising stories about environmental devastation from coal; and that's what "greens" are guaranteeing to continue by opposing nuclear.
Let's just wait and see, shall we?
Read that article carefully. It is pretty clear that primary insurance is somewhat limited and that the government is insuring the rest of it in case bad things happen. So yes they are insured, but private companies won't insure them for the full cost of a disaster. As the original poster said, private companies won't fully insure a plant.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Your statement is nothing more than a rephrased "shoot the messenger" fallacy.
Judge the articles based on their content, not who authored them.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
I mean, why would you even post at all without reading it? To make us think you're "smart" about nuclear reactors?
-
a) AFAIK the concept of a pebble bed reactor where the nuclear material is embedded in graphite balls is nowhere near 'new'. The Thorium High Themerature Reactor (THTR) in Hamm-Uentrop/Germany has been running a while and I think the technology has been abandoned (word?) for several reasons.
b) No matter how fresh and clean clean the running reactor might ever be, it still leaves behind radiactive waste which will glow (be dangerous) for several thousands of years. The end deposit problem for radioactive waste has not been solved within the last fourty years of experience and research.
c) Apart from security, safety and environmental reasons nuclear energy has more drawbacks. It results in a vast concentration of power(!) in terms of electricity and in terms of political/social power. Money gets concentrated to big energy companies and we, the people (sheep) have to buy.
d) Please go ahead and try terrorizing a mayor city by hijacking a plane and crashing it into a windmill. Good luck. With nuclear plants on the other hand....
e) I wish I had your faith.
-silence
Dyslectics of the world, untie!
the problem that most people have with nuclear power is tchernobyl(or similar catastrophy that would release radioactivity to a wide area).
I'm glad you mentioned Chernobyl...
'is packed with tennis ball-size graphite "pebbles," each containing thousands of tiny uranium dioxide particles'... Proponents insist that the reactor's design features make it 'meltdown-proof' and 'walk-away safe'."... because apparently these people haven't learned anything from it.
The most important lesson of Chernobyl is that graphite burns. So if you lose control of this thing, it will catch fire. And the fire will spread radioactive decay daughters all over the place.
I am a big proponent of nuclear power, but only of one design: CANDU (CANadian Deuterium-Uranium). It's inherently impossible for it to melt down. It uses U-238 (natural uranium, in the form of "ceramic" pellets of uranium dioxide) which is NOT capable of a chain reaction without a heavy water moderator. (Heavy water is just water where the hydrogens have neutrons. Non-radioactive, naturally occurring, and just slightly heavier than normal water.)
As a result, if you lose control of a CANDU reactor, the reactor will overheat. Pressure will build up in the heavy water system until something breaks. The moderator will escape as steam, and since the fuel is essentially non-water soluble, with only extraordinarily small trace amounts of radioactive materials. With no moderator, the chain reaction stops, and the reactor cools down. This process occurs as a result of the laws of physics; in other words, Chernobyl cannot happen at Pickering or Darlington even if all the control systems fail or someone goes to extraordinary lengths to circumvent them.
The other great lesson is not to let boobs run the reactor. All nuclear power programs have had problems with this in the past; a "walk away" approach simply encourages this.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
This places the uranium pollutant into the worst possible form: an ihalable carcinogen.
Visit the best Liberal Blog: DU
Yes, because we all know Africa is just one big country.
Will code a sig generator for food
There's a better chance of widepsread usage of dilithium crystals over anything involving nuclear fission.
the solar wind would send it right back and we'd end up with tons of radioactive plutonium in the upper atmosphere.
I think you're a bit confused: the probability for anything coming
out of the sun to hit earth is rather low (considering that the
magnetosphere is 6-10 Earth radii, ie ~5*10^4 km,
while the sun is 1.5*10^8 km, the solid-angle is quite small
And just to make sure, one can always use an orbit to the sun which is
above the solar-system plane, and thats it.
No, reverse pollution is not a problem. Findig the energy to send all
the material to the sun is
(Ironically, the only concievable option is an Orion
Working for necessity's mother.
should have been:
while the sun is 1.5*10^8 km away, of course.
Working for necessity's mother.
The continent of North America has 25+ countries and territories, "each with their own government".
Maybe you should step down from your soap box for a minute and actually learn some facts about what you are ranting about, especially since you have only illustrated your blatent ignorance about the subject matter.
Burning petrochemicals seems like a scandalous waste when you think about everything else we do with them.
The end of oil energy would not be the end of the oil industry in total.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I know that the US has given us the impression that nuclear waste needs to be carefully stored, but really that care is only warranted if there are people around. Once you've got it off the planet, it's best to keep the waste away from places of interest like the moon. Instead, just push it out into the black.
If nuclear energy is really so efficient, then why not use some of that efficiency to create the rockets necessary to dispose in space? At the very least it'll give the private space industry something to do.
Current uranium reserves are estimated to last for hundreds of years with the current usage rate + a modest increase. If we want to use the fuel for longer than that we can always develop breeder reactors so that we can utilize U238 and thorium. Current known reserves with breeder reactors will last something like 7000 years. By that time I'm sure we have figured out fusion.
Larger than North America, BTW.
"...who are really anti-industry, as a side-effect of being anti-capitalist..." At what point does "Anti-industry" make you "anti-capitalist"? Generally, if someone does not like polluting, unclean industry it is largely because they a) like being able to breathe clean air, b) realize that there is nothing in history that should dictate trusting businesses to regulate themselves and c) understand that the only way you can get a & b is to enpower the state to regulate it as pollution prevention is inherently non-profitable. That being said, nuclear energy is probably our best hope for the future. Take a look at the Cold Fusion research program at CalTach & Cal Poly Pomona or at the UC Berkley Fusion research project. For that matter, there is nothing that says an anti-nuclear group is anti-industry. They are against what they see as an unsafe technology that has only been reinforced by events at home and abroad. Whether or not they are Luddites is another question... but they have as much right to their beliefs as anyone else. Thats what Democracy is about.
As if these technological blunders weren't enough, some bonehead transfered control of the power plants from the ministry that designed and built them, where all the trained personnel are employed, to the ministry of energy. There are reports of operators sitting on the control board and people showing up to work drunk.
I also saw a report that the above-mentioned rummies decided to test one of the safety systems BY DISABLING ALL THE OTHERS so the conditions could be created that would cause it to work.
So of course when it DIDN'T work (or didn't work well enough) there were no others available. Oops!
The results were detected in the west by atmospheric radiation monitors and thermal satellite imagery.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I am so sic of these ignorant tree hugging morons trying to stop nuclear power because they don't understand it or they watched one too many science fiction movies. thats the problem, the amount of waste produced by any chemical reactor ( gas, coal, oil) could fill a stadium the amount of nuclear waste that is created by a fusion reactor could fill the back of a Toyota truck. ooooo but radiation last a really long time, well no you primeval ignorant moron, if you recycle the rods you get even less radiation, but your inbred potbrained parents put a stop to that. if this world ever wants to solve its energy problems we need to take all of the green party and anti nuke moron's and shoot them, because they are the problem, they're worse than the so called evil corporation's they oppose. the way to introduce new formes of energy is not through dogma but through the pocket book. i agree that we did a really bad job of making reactors in the past, but this idea of ending fusion technowlogy is throwing the baby out with the bath water. the problem is that the green party and anti nuke FUD is even worst than Bill Gates could ever dream of. they lie, obstruct the truth and brow beat anyone who doesn't tow their party line. its time to fight their lies with the truth, such that any green party or anti nuke protester is laughed at like the village idiot that they are.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for doing some actual research rather than spouting off yet another knee-jerk "nukes are evil" and/or "anti-nuke luddites are idiots" post.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
We got a "sorry" speech from the mayor personally. Rumor at time was that nearly 50% of the measured radioactivity nearby was not from chernobyl but from the release. I can't say if this was true or not but we ertainly a got a lot of "bow down" and "please pardon" speech...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
North America, the continent with three different countries on it, including the USA).
When you're done correcting the original poster's grotesque ignorance of geography, you might spend a little time correcting your own. There are ten nations on the North American continent. The seven you forgot are: Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Direct quotes from the PBMR web page:
"This turbine forms part of the High-pressure Turbo...Next, the helium flows through the Low-pressure Turbine, which is part of the Low-pressure Turbo Unit...The helium is then cooled in the inter-cooler. "
In other words: they're going to build a twin-turbo nuclear reactor with an intercooler.
I didn't see any mention of chrome exhaust tips, cupholders, cruise control or racing stripes, but how far behind can these things possibly be? That's gonna be one decked out nuclear reactor...I wonder what kind of stereo system they'll put into it?
Perhaps for the opening ceremony I'll fly to Africa and plant a "Type R" decal on the side of the reactor building.
Nuclear power will never be clean. Just look at the sun now, it's lashing out lethal radiation like never recorded before, it's trying to tell us something.
;-)
Look it up on the net, or your favourite occult media. You will feel that the underlying message is right, despite the propaganda, fear and paranoia it is sometimes masked as. There's a reason people are against nuclear power on principle. The feeling in their heart is based on truth, that nuclear power is inherently bad for our planet and solar system, and therefore also for us.
We should stop using nuclear power now and at once, for our own survival as a species. The authorities have already been warned several times, the sun-storms predicted to them on specific dates. Don't believe there's a future for nuclear power, because something much better will come along.
Come'on! You can at least mod this up as Funny!!
24. If you're going to count Madagascar as a part of Africa then you have to count the Carribean islands too. And let's not lose sight of the difference between "nation" and "state" -- the former is much harder to definitively delineate.
...just consider one question: Who is going to pay to take care of the toxic waste for the next 100,000 years? No economic model is complete without this factor and damn, it wrecks any chance at any profitablity and make it the most expensive source of energy known to humankind. Not to mention that no human institution has ever lasted even one tenth that long - and certainly none that had no profit.
Unless this issue is resolved, any form of fission based power in this biosphere is a crime against humanity. I propose a swift and sure death penalty for the evil people who create this kind of mess - no wait. Just confine them inside the containment vessel. That will take care of them.
The US seems to have a pretty good plan for disposing of our nuclear waste. We take all these spent fuel rods, pull out the most radioactive bits, take the remaining depleted uranium and fasion armor piercing shells out of it. Then the next time we go to war, we spread our nuclear waste all over thier country. It works really well.
DU Education project.
"Africa's state-run utility giant" is badly written, not "ignorant" or "confused."
Eskom is indeed "Africa's," in that "Africa" is one way of naming the place where Eskom operates. The description is inexact--as would be, say, "North America's software monopoly Microsoft"--but still correct.
But I'm to understand that you're "confused" due to "ignorance" about such toddler-level grammatical arcana, right?
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
a) Sure, but the reason the Germans abandoned it was public pressure, not technical.
b) Er, fast-breeder reactors? The "thousands of years" waste is plutonium, which can be used as fuel. Other stuff has shorter half-lives, making storage easier. Vitrification is also good. The major problem is not how to store it, it's that no-one is prepared to have it anywhere near them, no matter how good the solution is.
c) A good reason why not to have electricity companies the American way, as if you needed another after Enron and the blackout.
d) With the nuclear plant here, it will do naff all. And even your bog-standard version, the plane will likely bounce off the dome. In fact, these days just hijacking a plane would be quite a feat - in fact it was always quite a feat in every country except the US where security was a joke. (Incidentally, maybe I'm callous, but my amazement at 9/11 was not that the terrorists tried it, but that on three of the four planes they managed it without anyone trying to fight them.) And if you want to be worried about terrorists hijacking planes, I suggest you be more concerned about chemical factories, oil refineries and drilling rigs, all of which are utterly unprotected.
Grab.
Contrary to common perception, radioactive materials are not manufactured by humans, but are found lying about in nature. It is the natural state of our planet to be somewhat radioactive, very much so in certain spots.
You can even argue that by taking away radioactive materials from the natural habitat and using it in reactors etc, we are raping Mother Earth in yet an other way. Putting back the fuel where we found it when it's burned out is one way to try to make it right.
What seems questionable about this plants design is that the same helium used in the reactor flows through pipes to the turbines, cooling system, etc.
Seems to me, IF somehow the reactor were to have a problem, that basically the reactor contents would be spilling out at high pressure.
I guess you have that same problem if you design a closed-loop, which leads to a heat exchanger with a separate closed loop which drives the power system, but the direct setup here just seems like youve got more places for the pipes to go wrong (and more moving parts (3 turbines!) inside the closed system).
On the other hand, I looked up the half life of helium, and helium-5 is a tiny fraction of a second. So any irradiated helium that escapes will be safe before it gets very far... as long as it doesn't carry any uranium, etc with it.
Well, to give you the benefit of the doubt, the /. editors might have screwed up originally and fixed it by the time I looked at the post, but, uhh. . . it says "South Africa's state-run utility giant." And last time I checked, South Africa is in fact a country in the continent of Africa.
No, the Sun is (well, of course, that star does use nuclear fusion...). But by far the cleanest large-scale base-power option is space solar power. We've been discussing it a bit recently...
Energy: time to change the picture.
Generally, while I know it isn't a real continent, those countries are considered part of Central America
Didn't Eric Von Daniken propose something similar in his book "Chariots of the Gods"?
I wouldn't want to get into a discussion on whether UFO's exist or whether our ancestors had access to Stargate type mining equipment, but after reading this book, I always wondered whether the aircraft he proposed would actually be aerodynamic or not (hemisphere on top of a inverted cone with four propellors at 90 degrees apart. Each propellor system was actually mounted on top of a wheel with a couple of robot arms at each side. This was supposed to be fueled by a nuclear powered pebble reactor (thus the robot arms).
The real problem of nuclear power plants is not the meltdown but what to do with nuclear waste. There is simply no method that can guarantee that mid- to highly radioactive waste with decay rates ranging to tens of thousands of years can be kept safe and contained for that period of time. Also, all the models calculating the cost of the energy simply ignore the cost of handling the waste.
And in case you think the list linked above ends in 1978:
This looks like another cheap Chernobyl type reactor. The proposal assumes it "safe" - like Titanic is unsinkable. Lets see: cooling by high-pressure helium - high-pressure staff is known to escape, so sooner or later it will. When there is no helium there is no cooling - proposal assumes pebbles will not heat more than 1600C, because if they are graphite will fall apart, core will heat even more, more graphite will fall of the pebbles, and next there is going to be big "kaboom". In this situation, we need just one pebble to loose its protective graphite coating to start chain reaction. Remember Chernobyl? Do we have 100% warranty that no pebble will make over 1600C?
The proposal also mentions refueling while reactor is in operation. Great idea to have access to reactor core when it is in operation! What happens if someone puts something other than pebbles into it while reactor is on max power?
The biggest issue I see is that reactor core must be oxygen and water free - otherwise pebble graphite coating will ignite and burn off and we'll get runaway chain reaction.
"Shoot the messenger" refers, to my knowledge, to situations when you get some bad news and you get mad at the 'messenger'.
"Africa's state-run utility giant Eskom ."
I'm going to pop a vein! Afirca is not a country, it's a continent
That's great, quote only part of the sentence and then bitch about the meaning of the partial quote. You're a genius.
Try this, Sparky. The first part of the sentence from which you snipped the above quote is:
According to Wired News, South Africa's state-run utility giant Eskom and its international partners...
It appears this is "South Africa's" state-run utility.
Clueless fucking moderators need to learn how to read, also.
a) As far as I recall it there were also technical problems with the loading/unloading mechanism. But I might be wrong.
b) Plutonium is not only radiactive (Alpha rediation by the way which can be shelded by a piece of paper), but it is among the most toxic elements we know. Smallest amounts will cause lung cancer if inhaled. Combine with d) for a risk estimation. And please again compare this risk with the alternatives (like more energy efficiency, solar, water, geothermal, biogas etc.)
c) Repeat: focussing on nuclear energy will cause a centralization process, which I consider negative. Napster was shut down with that pattern and Microsofts business behaviour is another argument against.
d) 'Bounce off the dome'? As I said to the other comment: I wish I had your faith.
-silence
Dyslectics of the world, untie!
Military technology is often "things that can kill thousands of people - period". If you're going to restrict the subject with that additional clause, you might as well add this phrase as well, so it reads, "things that might kill _the wrong_ thousands of people while handled by a drunk. There's no way to compare risk of death for systems if some of those systems are _supposed_ to cause death. A better example might be the civil space program, which is not intended to kill people. (Yes, someone told NASA that, but I'm not sure they were paying attention). Even more relevant would be sticking to coal fired plants, hydroelectric plants and other power generation. After all, a drunken dam inspector could concevably kill thousands. Drunken coal truck drivers have definitely killed far more than that many over the history of the industry, although a handful at a time. (By the way, the published risks from nuclear power deaths often include possible auto/truck or auto/train accidents for the small amount of shipping required, but invariably omit the death toal from shipping coal by truck or rail, even though that takes thousands of times the trucks or freight cars, and the inspection standards are far lower).
Who is John Cabal?
Plutonium has a half life of 25000 years - that is almost as stable as iron ore! The talk about plutonium being poisonous and a radiation danger is mostly bunk. It is true that the human body doesn't handle heavy metals well, but you can use plutonium for dental fillings and less harm will be done than with mercury amalgam fillings...
I'll spot you a perfect accident record, no terrorist fucking things up, no technological "Oops, I didn't think of thats" and no guilt about enabling the nuclear weapons industry and still show you why nuclear fission power is bad.
1) Pollution! Not Air Pollution or Water Pollution, but the Solid Waste products generated by actually using the fissiles. What do you do with the tons of highly radioactive waste products produced by fission? Some of that stuff has a billion year half-life (some of the Thorium isotopes) and some of it decays pretty quickly (Neptunium) and it is all mixed together at the atomic level so you have tons of solid waste that throws radioactivity for the next few billion years. And it's not just the fuel, metals used to handle nuclear fissionables, tend to become radioactive as well and contribute to the waste problem.
2) Safety issues. I'm still spoting you a perfect accident safety record, but calling you out on the costs of preventative safety measures. Mining and transport of unused and depleted fissiles is very expensive because you need to shield the humans from the fissiles at all times.
3) NIMBYism and other political effects. Assuming nuclear power is perfectly safe, you still have to deal with the NIMBYism, the ignorance of the people who don't understand the science and spread horror stories and rabid environmentalists. It's a political quagmire. Educating the Pinks and placating the Greens takes time and money.
4) Cost. Nuclear fission power plants are extremely expensive to construct and maintain.
5) A Cheaper and Safer technology exists. The silver bullet for energy production is Solar Powered, radiant heat fueled Stirling engines.
Stirling engines are cheap, simple, 100% pollution free when using a Solar Radiant Heat power source and safe enought to put in your backyard. And if you can put the power plant next to the power user, you lose less power in transmission!
Yes, solar power relies on consistant sunlight, but extra power produced can be banked via chemical (battery, hydrogen) or mechanical (flywheel, gravity stored potential energy) means. and reharvested during low/no sunlight times.
The ball is still in the scientific communities court as far as working out a way of decontaminating the toxic waste. Science is usually understood as clever, but so far the nuclear industry/science still doesn't appease us with 'cleverness'. Sure there are 'clever' and ingenuous methods of producing energy from splitting atoms, but burying the waste is like 'giving up' . All we can do is hope that science will one day real soon now amaze us with their 'cleverness' and discover a way of decontamitating the waste or maybe discovering a new use for it or maybe even 'split' the waste into several new safe byproducts ?
"People do not want nuclear power because it means leaving nuclear waste in the environment for tens of thousands of years."
That is not correct. There are reactor designs that produce no waste. There is technology for recycling our current repository of nuclear 'waste' and turning it back into fuel.
There *is* a criminal lack of knowledge in the general public regarding nuclear energy. Google for yourself on 'IFR reactor'. This reactor was designed and tested 20 years ago.
Iron comes in six principal isotopes -- 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 50. Fe-55 has a half-life of 2.7 years, Fe-60 has a half-life of 1.5 million years, and the rest are stable. Plutonium is far more radioactive than that. It's not nearly as dangerous as most people think, but it's far from being as safe as iron or even mercury.
Putting an amount of plutonium in your fillings equivalent to the amount of mercury often used is going to subject the inside of your mouth to a fair amount of radiation, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if a tongue cancer emerged. However, inhalation is the primary means of common intake which would cause problems (injection would be worse, but requires a more deliberate act). Depending on the amount inhaled, there's a fair (though not certain) chance of something developing.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Chernobyl is also a good example of a RBMK reactor which is a unique design in that it is graphite rod moderated. The less you cool it the more efficent it gets - what is called a "positive void coefficient" - after Chernobyl many of the same RBMK reactors were fitted with many safety systems including containment. They still don't meet western safety standards, but there are several still in operation today - some of them are even connected to Europe's grid and producing electricity continent wide as a write this. The biggest is one called "Ignalina" in Lithuania.
Chernobyl had a cap on it - in fact when Unit 4 exploded it blew off the 2000 ton shield off the top of the reactor. When it exploded they were doing a test and were impatient with the performance of the control system and had subsequently shut off the safety systems. Oops.
RBMK reactors are kinda cool in the sense they can be refueled while online, but other then that...
I remember watching a show on PBS about nuclear energy and they talked about how the DOE had programs to find 1) an easier way to recycle nuclear waste into something usable by the reactor, but not "clean" enough for a nuclear weapon, and 2) a new type of fuel rod that made it near impossible for a meltdown/explosion. Supposedly, they had been running a test reactor with the new rods using fuels from their new cleaning technology and showed that under controlled stress conditions they could not get the reactor core hot enough for meltdown to occur.
This fuel rod was made of segments. During normal operation, the segments were close enough together to allow the chain reaction to occur to produce heat->electricity. However, if the temperature got too hot, then the segments would expand away from each other, immediately dampening the reaction.
I'm not a nuclear physicist and so I have no idea about the distances involved or the mass/kind of radioactive material. However, since the rods themselves have the ability to help control the chain reaction, this solution seems simple and more elegant solution to the reactor control issue.
I've been trying to dig up a link to this reasearch, but I can't seem to dig up anything relevant on google, yet.
did you know that coal power stations produce more radioactive wastes than nuclear reactors? Yup, coal has bits of uranium and other radioactive materials in it.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"Also, we've done well with Reduce and Recycle, but how are we doing with Re-use? It seems to me that much rad "waste" is just a resource for which nobody has tried hard enough to find a use"
The SCO building needs a new lobby floor I hear.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Let's see, there's something like 10^17 square meters of surface area on the planet. Hide something properly, and it won't be necessary to guard.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Canada has had safe reactors for many years using a natural uranium fuel system that is delivered in packages to the core while it is running.
CANDU Nuclear Power Plants
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
Do we ban knives because people get stabbed?
Welll... actually yes we do. Don't try taking one on an airplane these days.
Tests have shown that an aircraft hitting a dome would hardly scratch it.
There have not been any such tests. There were engineering estimates made that concluded that a nuclear containment dome would probably survive an aircraft impact, but even those estimates were only made with the largest aircraft at the time, a Boeing 707. Aircraft today are much larger and there is the added problem of having them packed with explosives or even shaped munitions designed to breach the vessel.
There is potential in designs of this type I think, but we can't rely on the overly optimistic article referenced by the oriinal post to be the basis for our informed decision on its safety.
If you dig into that site you will find...wait for it....drum roll...
/.ers would be the book "Trust Us, We're Experts", which throws light on these so-called experts, their spin machines, and their tactics.
The primary sponsorship for this project comes from the Public Information Committee of the American Nuclear Society...
and you actually believe the information coming from this this self-serving, industry-sponsored site? Your post sounds a lot like the spin that comes from the talking points provided for pro-nuclear speakers on the ANS site itself. If we are to believe them, everything is rosey and perfect in the nuclear industry and there are no issues at all with nuclear power that aren't raised by anyone other than ill-informed, non-technical luddites who think radioactive material is green goo (I got the green goo thing from their website).
Maybe a better resource for
Nuclear power is SAFER than traditional power because fewer nuclear workers have been killed? Hogwash. If that's the case then walking in a minefield is safer than driving a car.
A shoot the messenger fallacy is attempting to discredit an argument by questioning the motives, character, etc. of the entity or person proposing the argument, rather than addressing the actual argument itself.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
That's called Argumentum ad hominem. I've never heard it called "the shoot the messenger fallacy". And the thing about that fallacy, is people scream it too much. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question.