Mother Nature Does Nuclear Power

wjwlsn writes "Back in the day (2 billion years ago), even before the time of iron men and wooden reactors, Mother Nature had mastered nuclear power. She built a passively safe system at Oklo that had fully automatic control and built-in waste containment, and operated it safely for about 150 million years. Now researchers at Washington University in St. Louis have deduced the operational characteristics by examining the isotopic composition of xenon contained in rock samples taken from the reactor site. More details at Eurekalert."

Comments

That brings back memories.

[Anonymous Coward]

In my college chemistry class we had this great textbook, and it had a small two page aside on this event.

It's not wrong to wistfully remember chemistry texts is it?

Re:That brings back memories.

[gstoddart]

It's not wrong to wistfully remember chemistry texts is it?

As long as its for the actual chemistry and not some creepy wierd fetish that's OK.

Otherwise, no.

=)

Not just 2 billion years ago.

[noselasd]

Even today mother nature does nuclear power

Re:Not just 2 billion years ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not nuclear power so much as it is a continuous thermonuclear explosion contained by it's own gravity.

Re:Not just 2 billion years ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sun is one giant fusion reactor, only held back not exploding by its own gravity.
Get over it.

Re:Not just 2 billion years ago.

[n6mod]

I've always wondered about this in the context of Berkeley and Santa Cruz's "Nuclear Free Zones".

'You! With the solar panel! Don't you know this is a Nuclear Free Zone!'

Re:Not just 2 billion years ago.

[rthille]

Hey, don't forget about Sebastopol...

And Poland, don't forget Poland!
Oh, wait, they have nukes...

Re:Not just 2 billion years ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or smoke detectors.

OPOD Link

[Trikenstein]

APOD: 2002 October 16 - Oklo: Ancient African Nuclear Reactors

Time spans

[Richard_at_work]

Humans really do not have an adequet grasp of timespans when it comes to geology or similiar such things. This happened over 150million years, didnt cause the end of the world, and life went on around it, whereas today we cant run powerstations without people declaring that they will bring about the end of hte human race, anything that comes within a hundred miles will die of radiation poisoning. This shows that the world can cope with nuclear waste, and it can cope pretty damn well. But then the world has always had to deal with bigger issues than anything humanity can throw at it anytime soon.

We have been around for 50,000 years, give or take. The earth has been around for 4billion years. Give nature some credit.

Re:Time spans

[madstork2000]

Thank you. I wish I had mod points today. . .

Re:Time spans

[Baron_Yam]

To quote George Carlin, "The world isn't going anywhere... we are!"

Just because it's unlikely we'll screw up the environment enough to sterilize the planet doesn't mean there isn't a significant chance we'll screw it up enough it kill off humanity.

Re:Time spans

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats killing people today is not nuclear power. Its not using nuclear power thats killing people. Consider that a 2.7 mpg increase in the fuel efficiency of automobiles would eliminate the need for foreign oil. Considering that the average car has a fuel efficiency of about 22 mpg, and that oil accounts for about 7% of US energy production, if all the oil that was being used for electricity was nuclear instead, we would be independent of foreign oil. If that were the case, our interest in the Middle East would decline. Events like the first and second Iraqi war would not have occured. Instead, rabid environmentalists are causing people to be indirectly killed because of their failure to understand science and irrational fear of technologies that they don't control.

The importance of energy independence to national security cannot be underestimated.

Re:Time spans

[Anonymous Coward]

Faulty argument, but conclusion is true. This article states that the US electricity is 2% by oil and this article states that 2/3 of all oil is used in cars. We can assume that the other 1/3 is for electricity (with trivial amounts going to other petroleum products). We can also note that the oil percentage has gone up greatly since California had its energy crisis (and decided to make tons of oil fired plants). You can do the math, but your conclusion appears to be true. If we lost the 20% of power being made by nuclear, our dependance on foreign oil might be very scary. I've seen manufacturing companies go out of business because of a couple of percent rise in energy prices. If energy prices fluctuated by 50% (like they do for gas at the pump), manufacturing companies would have a very hard time.

Re:Time spans

[daiakuma]

I think it would be very hard to kill off humanity, even if we tried. Our numbers and our spread are the reason. It is difficult to think of a scenario in which everyone from Siberia to Trinidad, from Tibet to Cape Town, and from Chile to Nova Scotia is killed off, without at least a few surviving somewhere.

Re:Time spans

[jfengel]

This is true. But the existence of a safe nuclear reactor doesn't mean that any particular power plant is safe. The plants currently in existence are run by people, are located within tens of miles of human homes, and are vastly complicated pieces of machinery. When they're done they leave radioactive bits lying around; even self-contained they're potentially dangerous for thousands of years.

You're right: if somebody were to mimic nature's design by building a totally safe and self-contained a bunch of know-nothing, knee-jerk environmentalists would protest against it anyway. But that doesn't imply that the same know-nothing, knee-jerk environmentalists are wrong to protest current designs.

The Oklo reactor has a number of design advantages (as it were) over ours. For one thing it doesn't actually have to generate any power, so it can run at an arbitrarily low level and far away from anybody who might care what it does. For another it didn't have to cope with the possibility of somebody attempting to steal its fuels or attempting to destroy it hoping to cause injury.

For a third, it didn't consider the possibility that its waste products would be a danger to anybody walking by. Our waste products must not only be sealed, but potentially people may even forget where they are, and warnings must be placed for thousands of years.

I don't think that these problems are insoluble. I believe safe reactors can be built, the risks reduced to acceptable levels. There will be those who don't understand, and I get frustrated at them, too. But neither will I pretend that nuclear power is totally safe, especially in its present implementation. Those opposed to nuclear power are not completely off base, and it's wise to listen to the smart ones. As for the stupid ones... well, there are stupid people on every side of every argument.

Re:Time spans

[M1FCJ]

Yep, true. Apparently Oklo genereated around 100 Kilowatt (thremal). A typical nuclear reactor usually generates around 2000 NWatt thermal and 1200 Megawatt electrical.

Re:Time spans

[M1FCJ]

Nwatt? I have to fix the fonts on this Sunsparc20... Megawatt of course...

Re:Time spans

[thedillybar]

>But the existence of a safe nuclear reactor doesn't mean that any particular power plant is safe.

I can assure you that burning millions of tons of coal isn't safe.

>When they're done they leave radioactive bits lying around; even self-contained they're potentially dangerous for thousands of years.

When we burn coal there is no doubt that the pollution IS dangerous for thousands of years. There's no "potentially" about it.

We need to stop looking at how safe/unsafe a new concept like this is; instead we should be looking at whether it is safer or less safe than our current methods. Just because people have been burning coal long before we were born doesn't make it okay.

Re:Time spans

[jfengel]

Agreed. The point of my post was not that coal power is da shiznit, but that those who were worried about the risks of nuclear power weren't totally off-base, as the top-level poster implied.

I'd love to see this sort of decision made on a dispassionate basis by experts on the risks and rewards of all approaches. Yeah, right. (You'll have to forgive my cynicism; there's been a national election between my original post and now.)

Flaming Hydrogen Ball

[pipingguy]

Safe nukes (employ ex-sub engineers as operators at $120K/yr and run by military rules) are the best option in the long run.

Short run, we have lots of alternatives.

Re:Flaming Hydrogen Ball

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been thinking this since High School; seems blindingly obvious.

Why is it that your /. post is the first I've seen it in print?

Re:Flaming Hydrogen Ball

[Anonymous Coward]

Two problems:

1. The Cold War is over. There aren't as many nuclear submarines around anymore, so there are fewer Navy Nukes (what we call ourselves).

2. I think you are greatly mistaken if you believe that the NRC is a lax organization. The NRC had alot of pain after TMI occured. This was mainly because they hushed a previous incident at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in 1975 (a severe fire) and failed to see the potential for a meltdown in the future. The end result is similar to what happened to the Space Shuttle program at NASA. Every safety program at nuclear plants had to be reviewed and the procedures and administration for running them was overhauled. The NRC changed from an organization that tried to help nuclear plants operate (similar to the Department of Transportation) to an organization that only tries to find wrongdoers (like the Department of Justice). Putting military rules on the NRC would only make them more lax.

Re:Flaming Hydrogen Ball

[Anonymous Coward]

3. The precambrium is also over

Will someone please do something

[Rares Marian]

about the X is DYING jokes? Maybe we can get the Dept of Homeland Security to sue the writers on Kreskin's behalf (that would be trademark law correct?)

On another note, I wish X would die.

Re:"Mother Nature"?!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you want to replace one imaginary being with another? Sure, go ahead.

This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mean that the news is 2 billion years ago, but that a much larger nuclear power reactor has been known for quite some time... We scientists call it: "The Sun."

Re:This is news?

[PaSTE]

The sun is a fusion reactor, which is not remarkable by any means--if you put enough light stuff in a tight space, gravity will crush it into a fusion reactor without any sort of quirks or anomolies. What makes this news is that nature had created a fission reactor--something that doesn't just happen if you have a lot of heavy stuff in a tight space. You need enough of relatively uncommon isotopes of Uranium, something created in very, very tiny amounts in supernovae, with enough neutron inhibitor mixed in to prevent a melt-down, but not so much that is prevents the reaction from happening in the first place. Quite news-worthy, indeed.

Re:"Mother Nature"?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Two wrongs make a right, unless they're both imaginary wrongs. Then its still wrong.

Of course it does nuclear power.

[FooAtWFU]

And not only nuclear power, nuclear fusion power! Take a look at the sun sometime- that's a thermonuclear reaction, right there.

What's that? You've never seen the sun? Oh, wait... Slashdot... yeah...

Re:Of course it does nuclear power.

[MachDelta]

RTFA much? Its nuclear fission, which is different from the sun (nuclear fusion). In galactic terms, fission is a relatively simple process. All you're doing is crushing a fuckton of matter into a very dense ball, adding energy (heat), and waiting for things to go boom.
Fission, on the other hand, is a much more delicate process. You need relatively precise concentrations of a rare fissionable material (U235), and an almost exact quantity of water (the moderator in this case). Too little of either, and you cant sustain a reaction. Too much, and it smothers itself. For mother nature to randomly nail down the requirments for a fission reaction like that is a pretty unique event. Certainly something worth noting in a community so interested in science. :)

Re:Of course it does nuclear power.

[Anonymous Coward]

Owww... I'll just wait a while for the skin on my eyeballs to grow back. Look at the sun, eh? You jerk.

Has Microsoft Patented This?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely they've tried.

Re:"Mother Nature"?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! A Baaaad math joke.

cool, but not a practcal method

[Mr. Slippery]

passively safe system at Oklo that had fully automatic control and built-in waste containment, and operated it safely for about 150 million years

And with a 30 minute reaction cycle followed by a 150 minute dormant period, in a manner that I would guess is almost useless for power generation.

Re:cool, but not a practcal method

[M1FCJ]

30 minute reaction cycle is a pretty long time for reactions. Nuclear reactions happen in a fraction of a second. Recent tokamak reactors have been operated for around a fraction of a second to a second. Fission reactors are easier to manage but still 30 minutes of reaction is pretty substantial. If it were just a thermal expansion that stopped a reaction (google for the first man to die because if direct irradiation of a nuclear reaction) it would have taked less than a second. On the other hand, the reaction itself is quite slow, the article suggests around 100 kilowatts which is only as good as 100 typical electrical kettles.

If this reactor had more moderator, flowing in like a river does, it would have worked for longer. 30 minutes to boil all of the water around you to generate a geiser is quite spectacular. Water boils away, gets converted to steam, reaction stops because of the loss of moderation, some other water flow in, cools the rocks and everything starts again. Neat.

Many of the reactor designs use this negative reactivity coefficient to stop the reactor running away. This is usually used with the pressurised water reactors where the coolant (and the moderator which is water (heavy or normal depending on the reactor design) flows through the elements with a forced circulation. If you lose the circulation, water boils, reducing the amount of moderator, hence slowing the reaction. If you loose enough water, the reaction will stop. (although it is a little bit more complex, depending on the reaction design, you also lose the ability to cool down the elements (air is much worse heat conductor compared to water, even a boling one).

Reactor design is not simple, there are many things to think about, how to moderate, how to cool down, how not to overheat (this is critical because the claddings around the elements usually get weaker when heated and crack. Once cracked, you cannot stop contaminating the water used for the reactor). Anyway, reactor design is one of the most beautiful engineering challenges I can think of. If only I could work on it even more, it was fun, pure engineering, even in undergrad level, it was a joy to learn. If only I could work on it for longer. When I graduated from my university, I had to meet real-life situations, no one wants a good engineering solution if it is marked "Nukular". :-(

Re:cool, but not a practcal method

[turgid]

Recent tokamak reactors have been operated for around a fraction of a second to a second.

When I visited JET back in 2001 they said they were achieving sustained reactions over several tens of seconds (~30) before the plasma became unstable.

Fission reactors are easier to manage but still 30 minutes of reaction is pretty substantial.

Well, my old powerstation used to manage several months of continuous fission reactions on each reactor, before thunderstorms or welding operations or rod-drops would cause the reactors to come off. In theory, a reactor could be run continuously for 2 years i.e. between statutory (legal) biennial outages. These were reactors designed in the late 1950s.

Reactor design is not simple, there are many things to think about, how to moderate, how to cool down, how not to overheat (this is critical because the claddings around the elements usually get weaker when heated and crack. Once cracked, you cannot stop contaminating the water used for the reactor).

Here in the UK most of our reactors are gas-cooled (using carbon dioxide). We have one commercial PWR in Suffolk (Sizewell B). The Magnoxes were positive-feedback systems and could, in theory, overheat, but in practice the passive safety systems prevented this. The AGRs avoid this problem (caused by plutonium resonance with the thermal neutrons and graphite moderator) by holding the graphite temperature steady, by providing the graphite with it's own cooling loop (actually the first stage of core cooling, the gas then gets passed over the fuel). In effect the cold gas coming in cools the moderator, picking up some heat (being pre-heated) and then cooling the fuel, up to about 650 degrees C IIRC.

This all relies on active feedback systems as it is a chaotic system (in conjunction with the boilers).

If an AGR looses forced cooling, it's quite dangerous, as there is a maximum period of time in which you must get the automatic system back up and running. Otherwise you risk ruining your boilers. The "superheat" part of the boilers must under no circumstances get wet or else they are knackered forever, and your powerstation is useless. (AGRs and the two concrete pressure vessel Magnoxes, Oldbury and Wylfa, have "once-through boilers" which are a unique British design developed specifically for nuclear reactors and used nowhere else in the world).

AGRs are better than PWRs in another respect and that is the reactor pressure vessel is too strong to ever develop a significant breach that would result in a depressurisation and catastrophic release of radioactive substances.

Unfortunately, Margaret Thatcher chose a PWR for Sizewell B to improve Anglo-American relations. PWRs do not have concrete pressure vessels and are more "dosey" that AGRs (and the two concrete Magnoxes). They od have a sealed containment building, whic saved the day at Three Mile Island, but this is not required in an AGR or PBMR since the pressure vessel is much stronger and the failure modes are different. AGRs can not melt their fuel even with no forced convection, as long as you keep water in the boilers.

Re:cool, but not a practcal method

[Idarubicin]

And with a 30 minute reaction cycle followed by a 150 minute dormant period, in a manner that I would guess is almost useless for power generation.

Being active for 30 minutes out of 150 isn't necessarily a dealbreaker. Just build six, and have them run sequentially. Actually, build a few more, so you can deal with outages for maintenance and so forth. No biggie.

Of course, the power output of these natural plants is pretty low--the parent is right that they're probably ultimately useless for us.

I hate correcting myself too, but...

[MachDelta]

Ah fuck. Forgot to preview:

"In galactic terms, fission is a relatively simple process"

I meant fusion. Fusion I tells you! My kingdom for an edit button...

Big difference in agenda

[foniksonik]

In nature the reaction may have been a long term sustained process...

We humans on the other hand want to extract energy from the reaction... which seems to be the big difference here...

Sure you can have a sustained reaction but can you DO anything with it? Our goal has been to use it as a super steam engine that drives a generator to create electricity. Nature has no such objective...

Re:"Mother Nature"?!

[aussie_a]

However 2 wongs don't make a white though. That was a political campaign in Australia back in the day *shudder*

Once-through boilers

[wjwlsn]

You said '..."once-through boilers" which are a unique British design developed specifically for nuclear reactors and used nowhere else in the world.'

I don't believe that's completely true. The Babcock & Wilcox designed PWRs use once-through steam generators as well. There were not too many of these plants built, though. As far as the historical US reactor vendors go, B&W had the fewest units.

I don't know too much about AGRs. I've never understood why more weren't built... then again, I've never really researched it.

Insoluble shithead babble

[Anonymous Coward]

every acceptable shithead pretend level frustrated implementation faggot

Nuclear waste is no more dangerous...

[Gordonjcp]

... than the radioactive rock the ore came from. The reason that radioactive materials remain radioactive for a long time is the same reason that we have radioactive stuff *at all*.

Re:Nuclear waste is no more dangerous...

[jfengel]

Except that radioactive rock is buried well away from things, and it takes a major effort to go get it. People burying radioactive waste have a tendency to go to the minimum level of effort to get rid of it. Radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain won't be buried, not in that sense: the doors will still be open until the thing is sealed. At which point we'll still have radioactive waste, and be looking for another place to put it.

Also, I'm not convinced that nuclear waste is no more radioactive than radioactive ore. High-level waste is far more radioactive than radioactive ore. Low-level waste, which is far more prevalent, may be no more radioactive than most ore, but there are vast quantities of it, and right now it's sitting out there right on the surface.

Re:Nuclear waste is no more dangerous...

[Gordonjcp]

High-level waste is far more radioactive than radioactive ore.

But it's not very radioactive for very long.

Somebody tell Bush

[eap]

We should invade, capture, or kill this "Mother Nature" immediately.

Re:Somebody tell Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHA THAT'S SO FUCKING FUNNY.

Retard. Those jokes stopped being funny more than a year ago.

proof of evolution?

[ZeeCog]

I know they're different ballparks but this might be an indirect form of support for the theory of evolution. If a nuclear reaction can occur randomly, without being initiated by an intelligent being, then why not a biological lifeform? (And yes I'm aware of the phenomenon of nuclear fusion occuring in stars across the universe.)

Re:proof of evolution?

[iamlucky13]

Well, I wouldn't want to let you leave without an answer from a right-wing Bible thumper. Before I begin, I should probably mention that I think "evolutionary creation" fits within a figurative interpretation of Genesis, although I don't discount the literal interpretation, either.

The universe tends toward the lowest energy state. With radioactive atoms, fission (or fusion, if the initial conditions are right) wants to occur if individual atoms can get over the initial energy hump. People are not the lowest energy state. They have an orderly arrangement of trillions of cells, each composed of millions of atoms that took energy to arrange. In short, formation of a complex being goes against the thermodynmic model of the universe. Now it's true that often relatively high energy arrangements are the result of higher-energy reactions (the space shuttle is a very large man-made example). Additionally, scientist have experimented with "primordial soups" thought to be similar to the earth's atmosphere 4 billions years ago, and found that lightning could spark the formation of simple amino acids, but that's all the further it got. It certainly never showed any inclination to build DNA or wrap it's self in a lipid bi-layer or even form whole proteins. Granted the time period was relatively extremely short, so I'll offer a little more.

Scientists estimate the universe came into existance as we know it approximately 14.5 billion years ago. We don't know why it did, we don't know what was there before, and we don't have a very good idea what happened. Whatever did happen seems to defy our understanding. Enter Deus ex Machina. "Somebody" snaps their fingers and (big) bang! Light. I know I don't have a real convincing argument but I've heard other people state it way better. I don't have a proof for God anymore than others have a proof that He doesn't exist, but unlike too many people assumed, I have given the topic plenty of rational thought and decided to r

Re:proof of evolution?

[MrOrn]

...although I don't discount the literal interpretation, either.

Well, at least you're honest in your ignorance. This comment is so confused as to be unintelligible. I'll give you some leeway as your screed as written suggests that English isn't your first language.

The universe tends toward the lowest energy state.

Obviously, we live in different universes, you and I. In mine, the Universe tends towards equilibrium. Yours must be fscking cold at close to absolute zero, which would be the lowest energy state attainable. Pretty hard to do anything down at that level of energy, huh. Maybe this is why your "plenty of rational thought" hasn't led you to a more sound conclusion than the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Additionally, scientist have experimented with "primordial soups" thought to be similar to the earth's atmosphere 4 billions years ago, and found that lightning could spark the formation of simple amino acids, but that's all the further it got. It certainly never showed any inclination to build DNA or wrap it's self in a lipid bi-layer or even form whole proteins. Granted the time period was relatively extremely short, so I'll offer a little more.

Actually, check Science, vol 306, p. 283 for an article by Ghadiri et al. on how the volcanic gas carbonyl sulphide reacts directly with the amino acids you mention to spontaneously link them into peptides.

The reaction occurs under a wide variety of plausible prebiotic conditions and has been shown to join up to 80% of the available amino acids into peptides. This was the missing link in the chain of how the first proteins came about.

People are not the lowest energy state. They have an orderly arrangement of trillions of cells, each composed of millions of atoms that took energy to arrange.

Just in case you haven't noticed, people aren't composed of pure energy, hence can't attain any energy state (unless you count the particular colloquial state I'm in: "tired of ignorant Creationists"). The energy that arranged the creation of a human being is derived from the food that the mother ate while pregnant.

In short, formation of a complex being goes against the thermodynmic model of the universe.

No, it doesn't. You do realise that the concept of thermodynamic entropy as used in the second law of thermodynamics is stated as operating in a closed system don't you? Obviously not, like other Creationists, you simply ignore science and fasten onto the words you can then choose to redefine. You ignore the fact that the Earth is not a closed system, as it receives significant amounts of input from the Sun as solar energy. At a more personal level, a pregnant female isn't a closed system either, just in case your "plenty of rational thought" didn't extend to thinking of this.

Re:proof of evolution?

[Chris Tucker]

So, MrOrn, laying the smackdown on iamlucky13, sez:

"No, it doesn't. You do realise that the concept of thermodynamic entropy as used in the second law of thermodynamics is stated as operating in a closed system don't you? Obviously not, like other Creationists, you simply ignore science and fasten onto the words you can then choose to redefine. You ignore the fact that the Earth is not a closed system, as it receives significant amounts of input from the Sun as solar energy. At a more personal level, a pregnant female isn't a closed system either, just in case your "plenty of rational thought" didn't extend to thinking of this."

Heed the words of MC Hawking!

"Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!"

iamlucky13, "Upon blind faith you place reliance. What you need more of is SCIENCE!"

Word!

Re:proof of evolution?

[iamlucky13]

I originally typed lowest exergy, but assumed that not many people know the difference between energy and exergy, and those who did should be smart enough to figure out what I meant, so I changed it. Oh well. You can't connect with everybody.

Althought no one has confirmed it, it does appear the universe is a closed system. We haven't observed mass or energy going either in or out.

Just an FYI: grammatical criticism is not considered a fatal wound.

You seem very angry. Have you been saying your prayers at night?

Re:proof of evolution?

[MrOrn]

Althought no one has confirmed it, it does appear the universe is a closed system.

So what? Even if this is found to be true, does the fact that Earth is covered mostly by water mean that I will not die of thirst in the Sahara Desert? We are not discussing whether life evolved in the Universe (of which we can't determine the answer), just whether the Earth (where we can answer that question) is a closed system, which it isn't.

We haven't observed mass or energy going either in or out.

This simply shows how unsound your inductive reasoning is. If it "does appear that the universe is a closed system", how can you make this statement without any observations? Oh, wait, I forgot, you're a Creationist, you don't need to rely on facts.

Just an FYI: grammatical criticism is not considered a fatal wound.

No, not necessarily, but it does indicate sloppy thought. Oh, and BTW, I didn't actually try to fault you grammatically (even though I made reference to your syntax (which BTW is a completely different beast from grammar)), I specifically directed my arguments against your ideas.

The fatal wounds to your argument you mysteriously neglect to rebut. Sometimes what you don't say speaks volumes.

If I had been more motivated, I would have gone at your logical fallacies, which litter your expression.

I originally typed lowest exergy, but assumed that not many people know the difference between energy and exergy, and those who did should be smart enough to figure out what I meant, so I changed it.

Even if you had written exergy, it wouldn't alter your argument. The quality of the energy transaction doesn't matter if your other premisses are false. Your system still isn't closed. Your conclusion is still wrong.

This behaviour simply doesn't make the grade either: I meant to say this but thought that most people wouldn't understand it. If you thought that many wouldn't understand your argument, then you need to explain it further, not weaken it by saying something incorrect.

You seem very angry.

Only against ignorance. Your further troll isn't very creative either. Don't assume that every anti-Creationist doesn't say prayers: I might be a member of the Church of Satan. That would satisfy your preconceptions, now wouldn't it?

Because a reactor is just a big lump of U238...

[Anonymous Coward]

...mixed with a moderator, but the simplest living thing is stupendously complicated in very precise ways.

It's like saying, well, caves form naturally and caves make neat dwellings and offices so isn't that evidence that the World Trade Centre towers could have formed naturally? However, accidental World Trade towers with all of their pumps and elevators and airconditioning and so forth are far, far more likely than life forming by accident.

And that's all nuclear powered? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

a much larger nuclear power reactor

Are you absolutely sure?

Now you're being greedy

[Anonymous Coward]

My kingdom for an edit button...

You've already got a preview button, slacker.

"Mother Nature" still operates the largest reactor

[gd23ka]

As a matter of fact "Mother Nature (Mother Gaia, Mother Goose???)" still operates the largest nuclear reactor on the planet and I doubt any man-made reactor is ever going to surpass it in Terawatts or size: You are standing on it, it is below your feet! It is the core of the planet. If it weren't for the decay of radioactive isotopes under our feet the oceans would have frozen up billions of years ago. Ground-thermal heat is not a holdover from the planet creations, that energy has long since been dissipated into space.

New-cue-lar chickens

[alw53]

http://peacecountry0.tripod.com/cold_fusion.htm

Careful measurements of the calcium intake and output of chickens suggest that chickens transmute silicon into calcium.