A New Reactor Concept Inches Forward, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
Topic started on 17-11-2009 @ 01:30 PM by x2Strongx
Some interesting "Science & Technology" news... Maybe this is the reason why we haven't built anything lately. The Reason... Waiting for other technology?

A New Reactor Concept


The Energy Department plans to announce on Tuesday a significant step toward building a new kind of nuclear reactor that could be used to replace the fossil fuels normally needed to complete high-temperature processing at chemical plants, fertilizer factories and oil refineries. Such facilities typically burn oil or natural gas — both of which contribute to global warming — to generate high-temperature steam needed for proper processing. Nuclear reactors, meanwhile, normally don’t run beyond 600 degrees, which is not hot enough for this purpose. The new reactor, however — under development at the Idaho National Laboratory — would run at temperatures approaching 1,500 degrees, making it a viable alternative to oil or natural-gas-fired processing. Among the innovations the Idaho researchers have developed is a casing for the uranium fuel made of a form of graphite — a material that does not melt and does a good job of sealing in the radioactive materials produced in the reactor.


It sounds pretty good if it's safe... but a lot of this science is beyond me. Maybe someone here at ATS can explain this in simpler terms.


reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 03:23 PM by mkross1983
reply to post by x2Strongx



I just don't understand how they can call Nuclear Plants safe when their byproducts are nuclear waste that has thousands of years shelf life, has to be buried underground, and nobody wants to store it. Either way it doesn't help the Earth.


reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 03:38 PM by LightFantastic
reply to post by x2Strongx



I guess this will be a disposable sealed unit reactor. When the fuel is expended you bury the entire thing and fit another.



reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 04:00 PM by buddhasystem
Originally posted by mkross1983
reply to
post by x2Strongx



I just don't understand how they can call Nuclear Plants safe when their byproducts are nuclear waste that has thousands of years shelf life, has to be buried underground, and nobody wants to store it. Either way it doesn't help the Earth.


If you compare that to gargantuan amounts of radioactive sulfur ejected into atmosphere by conventional coal-fired plants, that's really a pittance... Nuclear reactors, if properly run, emit much less radiation than your local coal plant...

But you knew this, right?


reply posted on 17-11-2009 @ 06:14 PM by mkross1983
reply to post by buddhasystem



Nuke plants may emit less radiation but you have to deal with the nuclear material that is now just radioactive waste. So they offset at the minimum.

So I still see no gain.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



The secrets hidden in the pyramids. A real eye opener!
  Posted 7 days ago with 188 member flags
6 Real People With Mind-Blowing Mutant Superpowers
  Posted 6 days ago with 90 member flags
a drop of water orbiting a nitting needle in space
  Posted 7 days ago with 69 member flags
Top 10 Most Incredible Pieces Of Nanoscale Art
  Posted 11 days ago with 43 member flags
The Danger of Microwave Ovens
  Posted 6 days ago with 20 member flags