An intelligent person from about two-hundred years would never have believed that moving color pictures would someday fly through the air and land in a box in the living room, either. Yet, television exists in our time.

4/28/2007 1:47:48 AM

^^PBR are the shit

I will comment tomorrow when I'm not drunk

4/28/2007 2:24:35 AM

shut up hooksaw.

PBR are an excellent prospect with a major flaw. They don't close the fuel cycle. Waste will still be problem. Separate reactors (burner types) will have to be researched and build to process waste. With fast reactor, fuel reprocessing and waste disposal is a more realistic. Test facilities have been build and tested like the EBR-II.

4/28/2007 1:50:24 PM

       

Separated at birth?

[Edited on April 28, 2007 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ]

4/28/2007 3:09:44 PM

^lol I love it

^^close the fuel cycle? can you explain that to me or link me some info? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I just don't understand what you're reffering to.

4/28/2007 4:51:56 PM

there two types of reactors, thermal and fast reactor. thermal reactors (almost all of reactors in the US) burn fuel for thermal power production and lack excess neutrons for any other uses. (i.e. plutonium production or actinide (waste constituents) burn up.) Fast reactors can product equivalent thermal power and provide excess neutrons for breeding or burning.

Breeding: the process of making fissile material from fertile material. (example: turning U-238 to Pu-239, weapons material generation is the most well known uses)

Burning: the process of fissioning reactor waste products. These waste produces are highly radioactive and long lived. Once burned they can still be highly radioactive, but with half-lives on the order of 10's of years instead of 100,000's of years.

if thermal reactors are used then separate reactor will need to be constructed to burn these product. The alternative is bury the stuff, which is what we do now.

To fully answer the question, closing the fuel cycle means reprocessing old fuel, burning the actinides from the old fuel and storing Highly radioactive material for ~7 half-lives(now ~300 years instead of 300,000 years)--then return to environment. compete the circle

[Edited on April 28, 2007 at 5:44 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2007 5:41:37 PM

Quote :

"shut up hooksaw."

Fuck you, FappyPappy. You are a closed-minded, know-it-all, n00b.

4/28/2007 8:05:47 PM

you got me.

4/28/2007 8:11:43 PM

bttt

5/6/2007 12:36:12 AM

hey, Pappy, dont fuck with hooksaw. he knows everything. he says he's a TA in CHASS.

so you better recognize.

5/6/2007 12:42:25 AM

are we close to some like groundbreaking technology?

like similar in scale to the invention of the television or computer

5/6/2007 3:04:34 AM

no. No, I think it's completely different actually

5/9/2007 12:32:37 AM

The new designs for nuclear power plants have 4 redundant systems (compared to 2 in previous generations), and a containment chamber for any leaks in case of a meltdown.

They are also being built to withstand attacks from missiles + aircrafts.

Nuke plants are already safer than any other type of power plant (coal, gas, etc). These will be even safer.

5/9/2007 10:09:04 AM

the NRC's expected new nuclear power plant applications:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf

summary: 12 new plants in seven different states (2 new AP1000 units in Raleigh) are proposed

5/23/2007 8:51:31 PM

I just started a job at the Harris Nuclear Plant

Harris is looking to apply for 2 new reactors and also to renew their current license.

We have the reactor sites, designs, and have done geological/environmental testing but haven't yet applied for the license. Harris is expecting to apply by the end of the year but the application will not go through for another few years.

[Edited on May 23, 2007 at 9:11 PM. Reason : yo]

5/23/2007 9:07:02 PM

Welcome back Browns Ferry 1


The newest old plant in America's nuclear fleet.

5/23/2007 9:33:06 PM

the new ap1000 and the new licensing procedure is going to speed up plant construction like whoa

5/23/2007 9:57:22 PM

Quote :

"The new designs for nuclear power plants have 4 redundant systems (compared to 2 in previous generations), and a containment chamber for any leaks in case of a meltdown."

Which system?
Which design?

This statement holds no truth whatsoever without those specified.

5/23/2007 10:53:29 PM

^^Too bad the ABWR is going to beat that by a few years. True it isn't a full "next generation" reactor, but it is already licensed and there have been a few of them built (overseas).

5/24/2007 6:09:15 AM

Quote :

"PBR are an excellent prospect with a major flaw. They don't close the fuel cycle. Waste will still be problem. Separate reactors (burner types) will have to be researched and build to process waste. With fast reactor, fuel reprocessing and waste disposal is a more realistic. Test facilities have been build and tested like the EBR-II."

Ahh, ok. Thanks for the explanation of closing the fuel cycle too. But it seems like all you're saying is that even though the fuel cycle for PBRs isn't closed now, the ability DOES exist for it to be closed. Obviously the reactor/fuel type is still so rare as to not have warranted investment into fuel reprocessing yet.

So other than the yet unclosed fuel cycle for PBRs, is there any other major problem with them?

5/24/2007 9:57:44 AM

like the 2nd post in this thread stated. reprocessing. more specifically, pyro-process reprocessing.

can be set up on site (no transportation of super radioactive super long term stuff)

and if implemented new plants can run/breed fuel for the older ones

this results in never needing to mine for uranium for 100 or so years (if we reprocess what we have already and such)....

reprocessing results in fuel that is unsuitable for nuclear weapons, and waste that has had the most dangerous long term (thousands and millions of years) radioactive material removed (it can be used as fuel actually and thus break down into much less hazardous waste)

the resulting waste is only highly dangerous for a few hundred years at the most (100-200 i think) and we can build containers that can hold it for that long very safely very easily already. rather than the 1000's + years that current waste remains extremely dangerous....

5/24/2007 10:39:07 AM

^^ There's nothing inherently different about reprocessing the PBR fuel, except for the fact that it's just more difficult chemically to separate out the usable stuff. It's like if you made a new super awesome type of plastic that was safer and stronger, but then as a side effect *oh shit* now it'll take 2 times the energy to reprocess it.

As for any other major problem with the PBR, I would say that it's a problem that it's just not as proven of technology. the question of weather it will need a containment structure or not, for instance, is an issue. We know that it's safer than LWR plants, but we don't perfectly know how much safer, which could determine if it's an economic go or no go.

Quote :

"can be set up on site (no transportation of super radioactive super long term stuff)"

This is the first i've heard of this. I don't even see this as being safer. The way the current reprocessing nations do it is to have pretty much one national facility, which seems better because there's only one place that ever touches the separated plutonium. Spread out reprocessing units seem like they would be more difficult to safeguard and protect.

5/24/2007 3:06:42 PM

um it doesn't remove the plutonium.... at least not the type that's suitable for bombs...

5/24/2007 5:10:50 PM

Quote :

"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."

hooksaw

As I posted on Page 2, I think that approach listed above is a viable option--perhaps the best option--but I was ridiculed. Well, scientists are working on a device that could make the off-loading of nuclear waste from our planet economical and routine, just as I posited.

I give you the Space Elevator:



http://video.aol.com/video-detail/id/4109960150

I told you so.

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 3:39 AM. Reason : ]

7/21/2007 3:38:57 AM

i like nuclear power.

thumbs up

7/21/2007 10:21:10 AM

Quote :

"Which system? Which design?"

Sorry, I should've been more specific. I'm talking about the EPR.

And all of the critical systems are 4-way redundant.


Right now, tons of utilities and nuclear suppliers are chomping at the bit to get started on new plants... guess who's holding everything up (yep, the government).

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 7:22 PM. Reason : d]

7/21/2007 7:21:31 PM

From what I understand the EPR in the US won't have such defense-in-depth as the NRC doesn't require 4 separate systems.

7/22/2007 12:04:36 AM

Yeah, I noticed that all you fucking know-it-alls from the earlier pages are conspicuously avoiding the Space Elevator post. What's the matter, nuclear engineers, have your fingers been irradiated?

[Edited on July 23, 2007 at 1:08 AM. Reason : .]

7/23/2007 1:06:42 AM

hold on let me go back and read it

ok

what am I supposed to do agree/disagree with the idea? If that is the most cost effective/safe way to take care of waste then sure, make a space elevator. A fuel reprocessing plant, similar to the one in France, seems like a more logical idea though. And "it turns into plutonium eventually" is an awful excuse not to build the plant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COGEMA_La_Hague_site

7/23/2007 10:43:40 AM

^ I never posted that I was against reclamation of energy from waste materials, but my idea of using existing giant solar incinerators was summarily dismissed. I continue to think, however, that the idea has merit.

7/23/2007 11:10:07 AM