[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

THE CARS featuring TODD RUNDGREN - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 15, 2019 - 6:21pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - Coaxial - Sep 15, 2019 - 6:09pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 15, 2019 - 5:08pm
 
Trump - islander - Sep 15, 2019 - 4:48pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - islander - Sep 15, 2019 - 4:33pm
 
9/11 - haresfur - Sep 15, 2019 - 4:08pm
 
Immigration - R_P - Sep 15, 2019 - 4:00pm
 
Guns - westslope - Sep 15, 2019 - 3:23pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Sep 15, 2019 - 11:55am
 
Interesting or Weird Cover Versions - SeriousLee - Sep 15, 2019 - 10:52am
 
What are you listening to now? - SeriousLee - Sep 15, 2019 - 10:33am
 
What makes you smile? - SeriousLee - Sep 15, 2019 - 6:18am
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Sep 15, 2019 - 6:00am
 
FLAC stream - amokbunny - Sep 15, 2019 - 4:21am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 14, 2019 - 9:23pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - R_P - Sep 14, 2019 - 6:21pm
 
Trump Lies - westslope - Sep 14, 2019 - 5:31pm
 
Live Music - R_P - Sep 14, 2019 - 3:45pm
 
FLAC blocks - BillG - Sep 14, 2019 - 2:53pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - SeriousLee - Sep 14, 2019 - 1:25pm
 
Name My Band - Isabeau - Sep 14, 2019 - 1:19pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - SeriousLee - Sep 14, 2019 - 1:14pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - SeriousLee - Sep 14, 2019 - 11:49am
 
Saudi Arabia - R_P - Sep 14, 2019 - 11:02am
 
President Elizabeth Warren - westslope - Sep 13, 2019 - 3:00pm
 
The Obituary Page - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 13, 2019 - 2:46pm
 
Word of the Day - buzz - Sep 13, 2019 - 12:37pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - ptooey - Sep 13, 2019 - 12:15pm
 
Counting with Pictures - SeriousLee - Sep 13, 2019 - 11:54am
 
Democratic Party - miamizsun - Sep 13, 2019 - 11:54am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - SeriousLee - Sep 13, 2019 - 11:38am
 
BACK TO THE 80's - R_P - Sep 13, 2019 - 10:38am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - BillG - Sep 13, 2019 - 9:53am
 
Back to the 70's - Proclivities - Sep 13, 2019 - 6:42am
 
Favorite Monsters - SeriousLee - Sep 13, 2019 - 12:55am
 
OUR CATS!! - SeriousLee - Sep 13, 2019 - 12:54am
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Sep 12, 2019 - 11:10pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 12, 2019 - 7:28pm
 
Would you order a nuclear counter-attack? - Steely_D - Sep 12, 2019 - 2:24pm
 
HomeKit HomePod AppleTV - BillG - Sep 12, 2019 - 12:19pm
 
Fake News*  ?  ! - R_P - Sep 12, 2019 - 11:15am
 
PUNS - CARS - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 12, 2019 - 10:01am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - kurtster - Sep 12, 2019 - 8:31am
 
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't... - Coaxial - Sep 12, 2019 - 8:19am
 
Republican Party - Steely_D - Sep 12, 2019 - 5:17am
 
Cause of Poverty - R_P - Sep 11, 2019 - 10:11pm
 
Pick a sport, any sport - haresfur - Sep 11, 2019 - 6:29pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - haresfur - Sep 11, 2019 - 3:29pm
 
Thorium Power - haresfur - Sep 11, 2019 - 3:17pm
 
What the world needs now is .... - haresfur - Sep 11, 2019 - 3:10pm
 
'Til Death - miamizsun - Sep 11, 2019 - 1:01pm
 
Favorite Quotes - sirdroseph - Sep 11, 2019 - 12:07pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Sep 11, 2019 - 11:30am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Sep 11, 2019 - 10:27am
 
Alternate Streams on Sonos? - RobOK - Sep 11, 2019 - 8:12am
 
Climate Change - R_P - Sep 10, 2019 - 10:58pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - PoundPuppy - Sep 10, 2019 - 9:47pm
 
Pence - R_P - Sep 10, 2019 - 6:44pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 10, 2019 - 6:26pm
 
How's the weather? - westslope - Sep 10, 2019 - 5:06pm
 
Robots - haresfur - Sep 10, 2019 - 3:51pm
 
Brexit - R_P - Sep 10, 2019 - 3:43pm
 
Aliens, Aliens! - haresfur - Sep 10, 2019 - 3:42pm
 
THE SFW winter Manbird oldslabsides OV thread, but WHY? - oldviolin - Sep 10, 2019 - 12:41pm
 
China - R_P - Sep 10, 2019 - 12:18pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - miamizsun - Sep 10, 2019 - 10:06am
 
Sarah Palin - westslope - Sep 10, 2019 - 9:40am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Proclivities - Sep 10, 2019 - 7:59am
 
Haiti - miamizsun - Sep 10, 2019 - 6:06am
 
Play the Blues - sirdroseph - Sep 10, 2019 - 5:13am
 
Skip with F9 Next key on MacOS - q4Fry - Sep 9, 2019 - 10:52am
 
Environmental, Brilliance or Stupidity - Proclivities - Sep 9, 2019 - 9:53am
 
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year - sirdroseph - Sep 9, 2019 - 9:51am
 
France - jasko - Sep 9, 2019 - 2:49am
 
Cowboy Bebop theme "Tank" by the Seatbelts - mariodrv - Sep 8, 2019 - 10:42pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 21, 22, 23  Next
Post to this Topic
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 17, 2019 - 5:43am

 islander wrote:


 Red_Dragon wrote:

The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
 

I see your point, but unless you can get people to stop reproducing at the current rate, and cut their consumption by ~30%, there isn't another source on deck that can meet the need. We need solar, we need wind, we need geothermal and tidal, but we need nuclear too. And the irony of the environmentalists dissing a major component of the solution to an environmental problem is pretty ripe. Nuclear can and has been done well and safely (see France). And if you leave it out of the solution, you don't have a solution. 

 

ironically, the more energy we produce the higher/better quality of life we have, the fewer children we have

hans rosling has churned out scads of research on this




Safe and clean energy

Generating power using a Molten Salt Reactor closely meets the safety, waste, cost and CO2 standards that we expect of today’s energy technology. As long ago as the 1960s, the Molten Salt Reactor was shown to be possible in principle. Although research at the time was suspended because other demands were being placed on reactor technology, it has now been resumed internationally.

Research into molten salt at Petten

Research reactors such as the High Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten are indispensable to the development of new reactor technology such as the Molten Salt Reactor. With the experiments that can be carried out in the HFR, molten salt technology can be shown to work just as the theory has predicted.

The research at Petten currently consists of molten salt irradiation, materials research, helium bubbling research, gamma irradiation and waste management.

A subsequent step in the research could be the development of a tube in which molten salt can be pumped around under representative conditions. The realisation of such a facility can be a decisive step forward for the international research into Molten Salt Reactors.


islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 9:44am



 Red_Dragon wrote:

The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
 

I see your point, but unless you can get people to stop reproducing at the current rate, and cut their consumption by ~30%, there isn't another source on deck that can meet the need. We need solar, we need wind, we need geothermal and tidal, but we need nuclear too. And the irony of the environmentalists dissing a major component of the solution to an environmental problem is pretty ripe. Nuclear can and has been done well and safely (see France). And if you leave it out of the solution, you don't have a solution. 
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 8:59am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


 Red_Dragon wrote:

The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
 

 
{#Lol}
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 8:40am



 Red_Dragon wrote:

The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
 


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 8:30am

 islander wrote:


Another fine reactor we should be using, but the original contractor messed up on the location. They claimed something about a secondary concern over gravity and wanting some safety space in case of uncontrolled reaction outbursts. It resulted in right of way problems for running power lines, and substantial interference from both local phenomenon and a seasonal rotational error in our own planets original setup.  In the end it wound up as a nice thermal and lighting source, but had problems meeting the unplanned linear demand spikes from a runaway customer base.
 
The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 8:23am



 Red_Dragon wrote:


 

Another fine reactor we should be using, but the original contractor messed up on the location. They claimed something about a secondary concern over gravity and wanting some safety space in case of uncontrolled reaction outbursts. It resulted in right of way problems for running power lines, and substantial interference from both local phenomenon and a seasonal rotational error in our own planets original setup.  In the end it wound up as a nice thermal and lighting source, but had problems meeting the unplanned linear demand spikes from a runaway customer base.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 7:50am

 islander wrote:

 A wise person around here one said the best green power is the kind that glows. 

 

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 7:33am



 miamizsun wrote:
reality intervenes...

Union of Concerned Scientists For Nukes!

Activist group finally recognizes that it can't achieve its energy and climate goals without nuclear power.

The activists at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have had a partial change of heart about nuclear power. Back in 2007, the UCS' Global Warming and Nuclear Power report declared, "prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria."

In its new report, The Nuclear Power Dilemma, the UCS now recognizes that nuclear power plays an important role in addressing the problem of man-made global warming by helping to keep U.S. carbon dioxide emissions considerably lower than they would otherwise be.


 

 A wise person around here one said the best green power is the kind that glows. 
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 7:10am

reality intervenes...

Union of Concerned Scientists For Nukes!

Activist group finally recognizes that it can't achieve its energy and climate goals without nuclear power.

The activists at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have had a partial change of heart about nuclear power. Back in 2007, the UCS' Global Warming and Nuclear Power report declared, "prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria."

In its new report, The Nuclear Power Dilemma, the UCS now recognizes that nuclear power plays an important role in addressing the problem of man-made global warming by helping to keep U.S. carbon dioxide emissions considerably lower than they would otherwise be.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 28, 2018 - 2:51pm

 miamizsun wrote:
i've posted about thorcon before (not sure which thread)

hargraves is making a case that nuclear is safer and cheaper than coal (while keeping co2 in check)

possibly targeting asian energy needs as a market



 

i know, the guy in the video below {#Arrowd} looks like lurch...

China and Russia looking at 27 floating nuclear reactors but ThorCon and Indonesia could scale to 100 per year.

ThorCon is developing molten salt floating nuclear reactors. They use the same steam and electrical side as a standard 500 MWe supercritical coal plant. But gone are the massive coal handling systems, the 100 m high boiler, the flue gas treatment system, and the ash handling and storage system. A generous estimate of the overnight cost of the ThorCon steam side, everything but the nuclear island, is $700/kW. This is a well-established number.

The total overnight cost of a 500 MWe coal plant is between 2000 and 1400 dollars per kW. Both figures assume no attempt at carbon capture. ThorCon would be 2 to three times cheaper than coal.

The ThorCon nuclear island requires one-sixth as much steel and one-fourth as much concrete as the portion of the coal plant upstream from the turbine. A 1 GWe ThorCon nuclear island requires less than 400 tons of superalloys and other exotic materials. ThorCon operating at near ambient pressure has a 2:1 advantage in steel and a 5:1 advantage in concrete over its nuclear competitors on the nuclear side. Much more importantly, very little of ThorCon’s concrete is reinforced. Reinforced concrete is impossible to automate, drives the critical path, is not amenable to block construction, and entombs the critical portion of the plant in a mausoleum making repair and replacement extremely difficult. ThorCon can be produced entirely in bargable blocks at shipyard assembly line productivity.

Based on resource and labor requirements and allowing for stringent inspection and testing, the ThorCon nuclear island should cost less than $500 per kW on an overnight basis.

Thorcon wants to provide Indonesia initially with 7 cents per kwh power that can be moved to any of the hundreds of islands in Indonesia. The costs should then go down with later units.




miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 13, 2018 - 7:25am

How We Screwed Up Nuclear Power

Half a century ago, nuclear power was on track to out-compete fossil fuels around the globe, which would have reduced the price of electricity, the amount of harmful air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change. Then came a dramatic slowing of new construction and research into safer and more efficient nuclear reactors.

According to Australian National University researcher Peter Lang, the '60s and '70s saw a transition "from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment." Had the initial trajectory continued, he writes in the journal Energies, nuclear-generated electricity would now be around 10 percent of its current cost.

In a counterfactual scenario featuring increasing uptake of nuclear power from 1976, Lang calculates that by 2015 it would have replaced all coal-burning and three-quarters of gas-fired electric power generation. Thus, over the past 30 years we could have substituted 186,000 terawatt-hours of electricity production, avoiding up to 174 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions and 9.5 million air pollution deaths. Cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions would be about 18 percent lower, and annual global carbon dioxide emissions would be one-third less.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 16, 2018 - 7:14am

 haresfur wrote:

It was a mistake for Carter to cancel the reprocessing program and mixed fuel reactors. I think it is a laugh when people complain about using plutonium in reactors when power reactors are getting about 1/3 of their energy from the plutonium produced by the time they need refueling. But the waste problem isn't the plutonium, although that is what scares people. The real issue is the long-lived fission products like technetium-99 and I-129. You still have to deal with those and reprocessing mobilizes them. There is a pretty good iodine plume from the British reprocessing plant.

I don't have an opinion on Thorium reactors. In the early days, the Hanford site played around with thorium in the K reactors by using it in the outside core tubes. You get a different suite of fission products but nothing that will go boom. I forget the details and my chart of the nuclides is at work.

 
this may offer some info/insight on the subject

sorenson has a loner more detailed google talk about the waste issue

one of the freaky things about this video is around the 13.39 mark george lucas of star wars fame strolls up behind the interview and nobody really notices or cares
{#Lol}



haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 16, 2018 - 6:24am

 miamizsun wrote:


i agree with teac and pro-nuclear scientists and engineers that the politics around nuclear energy have been misrepresented and/or misinterpreted 

broadly speaking old tech was geared toward making stuff that goes boom (see oak ridge) and people should be cautious about weaponizing anything

when designed primarily for energy production the waste and the risk are greatly reduced (in fact we can burn the old waste for energy)

obviously coal and fossil fuels are sun-setting tech and solar and wind are intermittent and usually require storage and back up sources of energy

i encourage folks to investigate and thanks for the support
 {#Cheers}
 
It was a mistake for Carter to cancel the reprocessing program and mixed fuel reactors. I think it is a laugh when people complain about using plutonium in reactors when power reactors are getting about 1/3 of their energy from the plutonium produced by the time they need refueling. But the waste problem isn't the plutonium, although that is what scares people. The real issue is the long-lived fission products like technetium-99 and I-129. You still have to deal with those and reprocessing mobilizes them. There is a pretty good iodine plume from the British reprocessing plant.

I don't have an opinion on Thorium reactors. In the early days, the Hanford site played around with thorium in the K reactors by using it in the outside core tubes. You get a different suite of fission products but nothing that will go boom. I forget the details and my chart of the nuclides is at work.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 16, 2018 - 5:15am

 haresfur wrote:
I know a bit about nuke stuff and tend to agree with you, at least in the mid-term timescale, but not because I'm wild about the risks or dealing with the waste.

Mainly I'm anti-coal and I reckon that if people want the energy they should be willing to assume the risks of nuclear rather than the known damage from coal mining and coal emissions.
 

i agree with teac and pro-nuclear scientists and engineers that the politics around nuclear energy have been misrepresented and/or misinterpreted 

broadly speaking old tech was geared toward making stuff that goes boom (see oak ridge) and people should be cautious about weaponizing anything

when designed primarily for energy production the waste and the risk are greatly reduced (in fact we can burn the old waste for energy)

obviously coal and fossil fuels are sun-setting tech and solar and wind are intermittent and usually require storage and back up sources of energy

i encourage folks to investigate and thanks for the support


 {#Cheers}

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 16, 2018 - 3:55am

 katzendogs wrote:
I had a  job here once.  


Just an FYI. {#Lol}
I rented a trailer in Joshua. The trailer (ina park) was backed up to a small ranch(ito) and was quiet and like in the middle of nowhere. This is where I found my first Walmart. Bought everthing I could get with my first paycheck. i bought the hottest friffin type of sleeping bag ever, not knowing all those ratings they have. (i'm in texas).

But i had a cow. I called her 96. Because of the tag in her ear. She and I would sometimes 'holla' at each other ! {#Lol} 
I would throw scraps at her at times. some beef even. Some eggshells. she was a crazy old friend from those few months.

 

some of us have had "kerouac moments" in our lives

mine wasn't as sexy as yours

{#Wink}
haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 15, 2018 - 5:34pm

 miamizsun wrote:

i like the energy and i still think nuclear is the way to go

in the mean time i say build a lot of smaller reactors with the tech we have

scatter them where we need to

you know, to hold us over until this cake is baked
 
I know a bit about nuke stuff and tend to agree with you, at least in the mid-term timescale, but not because I'm wild about the risks or dealing with the waste.

Mainly I'm anti-coal and I reckon that if people want the energy they should be willing to assume the risks of nuclear rather than the known damage from coal mining and coal emissions.
katzendogs

katzendogs Avatar

Location: Pasadena ,Texas
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 15, 2018 - 5:12pm

I had a  job here once.  


Just an FYI. {#Lol}
I rented a trailer in Joshua. The trailer (ina park) was backed up to a small ranch(ito) and was quiet and like in the middle of nowhere. This is where I found my first Walmart. Bought everthing I could get with my first paycheck. i bought the hottest friffin type of sleeping bag ever, not knowing all those ratings they have. (i'm in texas).

But i had a cow. I called her 96. Because of the tag in her ear. She and I would sometimes 'holla' at each other ! {#Lol} 
I would throw scraps at her at times. some beef even. Some eggshells. she was a crazy old friend from those few months.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 15, 2018 - 3:41pm




flan, that's actually funny  {#Arrowd}
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 9, 2018 - 2:00pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:

I think energy should be decentralized - every home should have it's own reactor.

 
Slippery slope my friend. With our luck, Trump will agree to share nuclear weapons technology with North Korea when he meets Kim Jong Un, in return for hair grooming secrets.

Next thing you know Suburban Americans will be using superior North Korean weapons technology to employ their reactors to construct tactical weapons.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 9, 2018 - 1:53pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:
I think energy should be decentralized - every home should have it's own reactor.
 

easy

next thing you know you'll ask for running water and indoor plumbing



Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 21, 22, 23  Next