pg 2

4/25/2007 12:04:17 AM

Quote :

"where does the US Navy fit into this equation??"

Naval reactors refuel a lot less often than commercial reactors. Ideally (at least for submarines), the core would last the life of the boat and the core and fuel would be disposed of in Hanford, Washington during decommissioning. More realistically, they refuel every 15-20 years, once or twice over the life of the boat. The old core and spent fuel removed during refueling ends up in Hanford as well.

4/25/2007 8:03:12 AM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606

Very interesting video of Robert Bussard giving a lecture at google about IEC (inertial electrostatic confinement) fusion.

4/25/2007 8:51:20 AM

Hehehe, Bussard. As in Bussard collectors.

[/Trek geekiness]

4/25/2007 9:37:14 AM

Yes, same guy.

4/25/2007 9:38:20 AM

hahaha. I've heard of Bussard Ramjets in tons of scifi shows and books. I didn't know it was actually based on some dude IRL. Thats pretty cool.

4/25/2007 10:14:34 AM

this picture is in color. the waste in hanford is just THAT bad...

4/25/2007 10:44:26 AM

What about pebble bed reactors?

I know they're still being messed around with, but aren't they essentially meltdown-proof?

To me that takes care of half the issue with nuclear power. If a reactor can't melt down, and we can drastically improve on our waste reprocessing technology, nuclear would be the way to go.

More reasearch on PBRs plz.

4/25/2007 10:55:50 AM

Quote :

"this picture is in color. the waste in hanford is just THAT bad..."

Yes, so bad it turned distant mountains black and white.

If you're a troll: Come up with something better.
If you're not a troll: You're a bigger fucking idiot than...well...everyone. Don't forget to breathe!

4/25/2007 11:05:04 AM

i think it was a joke.

4/25/2007 11:22:00 AM

yes, that was obviously a joke.

4/25/2007 1:23:26 PM

With Aristotle, you never can tell. Hence my disclaimer: "If you're a troll: Come up with something better."

4/25/2007 2:05:31 PM

Fission power = best chance to produce relatively clean energy for next 100 years.

Fission power systems, when managed properly and with conscientious waste reclamation programs, are extremely safe and clean. Hell the radiation near a nuclear plant or waste storage facility is a hell of a lot lower than near a coal plant. Add to that the fact that the required perimeter around nuclear plants creates green spaces, and environmentalists should be chomping at the bit to have more nuclear reactors built. Some of the most beautifully preserved areas around the world are within the safety perimeters of nuclear plants.

Now also consider that the cost per kw*hr from nuclear energy is very close to coal (one of the reasons they're base-load providers) and you also have a strong economic incentive to build these plants. The initial capital cost may require some government inducements, but the net cost per kw*hr is still very attractive to both consumers and utilities.

Fusion power = best hope for mankind to survive it's own thirst for energy.

The cool thing about developing fusion power, is the potential for helium-3 fusion and the incentive that fusion offers to develop our space programs. There's more energy in the helium 3 on the moon, than there ever has been in all the fossil fuels on earth. As far as hydrogen goes... I hear there's gobs of the stuff right past the asteroid belt.

Of course, fusion is 30-50 years away, and that sliding rule has been repeated for the last 20 years or so... And yeah, I've seen the Bussard lecture. It's really cool, and I've heard the US government has decided to provide him funding. That may slide the fusion time table up a little bit, but his machine requires slightly less abundant elements.

[Edited on April 25, 2007 at 3:17 PM. Reason : ]

4/25/2007 3:15:20 PM

^good post imo

Quote :

"Regarding the new presidential candidates Does anyone know their (Romney, McCain, Clinton, Obama, etc.) take on nuclear energy as an alternative solution to fossil fuels?"

4/26/2007 4:28:27 AM

I fully realize the problems with this approach, but I've said for years that we should develop a system to shoot nuclear waste off this planet into distant stars.

4/26/2007 4:55:17 AM

That is ridiculous. It would cost billions of dollars to get rid of all of it like that.

4/26/2007 5:00:38 AM

^ NB:

Quote :

"I fully realize the problems with this approach. . . ."

It is not ridiculous. If a highly reliable and efficient system could be developed, the nuclear waste problem on our planet would be solved--once and for all. Do you realize the billions of dollars that the solution would be worth?

4/26/2007 5:06:18 AM

I don't buy it. I heard somewhere it costs about $10,000 / lb. to get something into orbit. There are millions of pounds of nuclear waste on this planet.

4/26/2007 5:16:09 AM

^ Are you even bothering to read my posts?

Quote :

"If a highly reliable and efficient system could be developed. . . ."

For example--and this is just an idea--perhaps some type of super-catapult system could be developed and the payload would be caught by a device in the upper atmosphere and taken the rest of the way into space. The payload could then be placed in some type of vehicle that would take it the rest of the way to the giant incinerator--a star.

PS: Concerning the dollars-pounds ratio, you have to start somewhere.

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 5:27 AM. Reason : .]

4/26/2007 5:25:24 AM

While shooting the waste into space is one idea, I think improving our waste reclamation technology might be an even better step. After all, why throw away free energy? If there's still energy to be extracted from radioactive waste, I say we try to squeeze out as much of it as we can.

4/26/2007 7:09:10 AM

yeah, at $10,000 per pound to launch into space, it would cost $20 billion annually for the US industry at least. Not to mention what happens if the launch fails.

4/26/2007 7:10:26 AM

I think the last time I heard the "launch it to space scenario" I was sitting at the 8th grade lunch table. Our Nuclear waste is very usable. We need to close the fuel cycle.

4/26/2007 9:08:48 AM

Uhh yeah, the whole launching nuclear waste into space idea is really bad. It would be way too expensive, and the consequences of a failed launch would be disasterous.

We just need to step up R&D for reprocessing. There is tons of energy left in spent reactor fuel, and I for one don't want it flying above my head. I'd rather it be used.

4/26/2007 9:22:45 AM

As as been mentioned before, most spent fuel can simply be reprocessed and reused.

When fusion becomes practical, it will be possible to bombard what's left of our waste with neutrons from a fusion reactor and render it quite safe in relatively short order.

4/26/2007 12:04:47 PM

Quote :

"I fully realize the problems with this approach. . . ."

Quote :

"If a highly reliable and efficient system could be developed. . . ."

Yeah, launch problems, radiation dangers, and costs never occurred to me. God damn, some of you are thick! Many new ideas sound fantastic or too costly or both--until they become reality. I'll take one true visionary over a thousand naysayers any day of the week.

4/26/2007 12:42:12 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, launch problems, radiation dangers, and costs never occurred to me. God damn, some of you are thick! Many new ideas sound fantastic or too costly or both--until they become reality. I'll take one true visionary over a thousand naysayers any day of the week."

Dear True Visionary,

I regret to inform you that your idea isn't new, fantastic or visionary. You aren't the first person to think of shooting nuclear waste to a star. It is too costly, so you're one for four. You can play the IF game all day. I can too! Let's see how we do.. If a highly reliable and efficient system could be developed, we could just reprocess most of the waste we've created, and use the product to continue to fuel our reactors. Oh wait, we can pretty much already do that.

I don't care how reliable and efficient your system is, you're going to have a rough time convincing the nations of the world that slinging nuclear waste into the atmosphere is a good idea. Strapped to a rocket, a booster, launched with a catapult or otherwise sent aloft, it's not likely to happen.

Thanks,

Us Thick People

4/26/2007 6:01:15 PM

I'm thick.

4/26/2007 6:08:09 PM

4/26/2007 6:11:07 PM

^^^ I never said I was a visionary.

4/26/2007 6:44:37 PM

^^ Eurika! I've got it!

We'll chop up the nuclear waste and grind them up in hot dogs, they already put all KINDS of crap in there so no one will ever be the wiser!

4/26/2007 6:57:17 PM

is there a single topic that hooksaw isn't retarded about?

4/26/2007 8:53:39 PM

^ STFU, guthtard! I was simply proposing something that's outside the box, dammit! I mean, the Japanese had death rays, which used microwaves to fry people at distance, way back in WWII! High technology is an amazing--and continually advancing--thing.

As I posted, it was just an idea:

Quote :

". . .and this is just an idea. . . ."

What's your solution, smartass? More "retard" comments? Piss off.

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 11:47 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2007 11:45:49 PM

Quote :

"the Japanese had death rays, which used microwaves to fry people at distance, way back in WWII! High technology is an amazing"

Nicola Tesla accually had a working death ray before 1934, which dates prior to WWII.

4/27/2007 1:38:18 AM

^ I am somewhat familiar with Tesla's work. I have mentioned here HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), which uses some of Tesla's work as a basis. If I'm not mistaken, however, his experimentation was more in the area of electromagnetism, right?

The Japanese weapon at issue used microwaves, and it was one example among many of the Allied and Axis efforts featured recently in a program on History Channel called Weird Weapons. I listed the "death ray" example simply to illustrate that the fantastic notions of today can be commonplace tomorrow.

PS: I am also familiar with the dates of WWII, thx.

[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 2:06 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2007 2:04:41 AM

nuculer.

4/27/2007 2:34:10 AM

^ What "smart" people like you apparently don't understand, HockeyRoman, is that the pronunciation you mocked is allowed--if you check just about any dictionary, you will see that such is the case.

BTW, in this case, I am not defending Bush or his pronunciation of the word at issue. You should, however, get your facts straight.

4/27/2007 5:44:30 AM

Thanks Webster!

4/27/2007 6:02:30 AM

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?nucle01m.wav=nuclear

from Webster.

4/27/2007 10:21:16 AM

i like it

4/27/2007 11:38:25 AM

^^ and ^ If you had thoroughly checked any recent Webster's dictionary, you would have clearly seen that the pronunciation in question is allowed but not preferred--just like how many of you feel about Bush.

K, FappyPappy, et al?

4/27/2007 11:59:31 AM

I'm pretty sure that's as recent as it's gonna get, since you know, it was pulled directly from the Merriam Webster Dictionary website.

But then again maybe it's like your posting in this thread, allowed but not preferred.

4/27/2007 12:14:21 PM

4/27/2007 12:29:58 PM

Quote :

"Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-ky&-l&r\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, United States cabinet members, and at least two United States presidents and one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers. (Webster)"

It never says it is an accepted pronunciation, it just says people pronounce it that way.

[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

4/27/2007 1:26:07 PM

enough already lets get back to the topic.

4/27/2007 10:07:59 PM

I think we were at waste and what to do with it.

4/27/2007 11:27:24 PM

Quote :

"If a highly reliable and efficient system could be developed. . . ."

to somehow convert all of hooksaw's retarded posts into usable energy, all our future energy problems would be solved.

4/28/2007 12:06:36 AM

^ Try devoting your energy to thinking of a new word besides "retard"--Boone-tard.

^^^^ It is allowed--but not preferred. Moreover, I await similar attacks on Ebonics from you left-wing know-it-alls.

4/28/2007 12:44:27 AM

the classic im rubber and youre glue argument. brilliant!

4/28/2007 12:46:17 AM

If a highly reliable and efficient system could be developed to turn nuclear waste into sunshine lollipops and unicorn giggles, then I'd be all for it.

4/28/2007 12:57:25 AM

I'm serious, Pebble Bed Modular Reactors. Will one of you nuclear engineer types please explain to me why these aren't a great idea?

-Meltdown Proof
-Scalable to Energy Demands
-Higher Efficiency than LWRs (I think)

I know a South African company is building a commercial reactor, and China is pouring money into PBR research.

I think these sound like a solid idea.



[Edited on April 28, 2007 at 1:44 AM. Reason : .]

4/28/2007 1:43:17 AM