phroziac To all the pro non-candu-nuclear folks on here.
I support Candu for being available now, but like the Integral Reactor,
and Thorium Reactor more.
Wtf are we sitting on all these spent fuel rods that could be producing power in a candu design?
Fuel rods produce only around 5% of
the energy outside the reactor, as they were inside. Over the next few years the amount produced falls exponentially due to the increase of Neutron
Poisons inside the rods. This is actually a good thing, as the decrease in temperature enables you to cut the rods up, for recycling & reprocessing
(or in America’s case burying!).
However some newer reactor designs, will utilise some of their spent fuel rods heat.
Remember the paint on solar panels a few months ago? What if every roof in japan had that on its entire surface? How much power would that
Oh there’s loads of ideas, but when will be cheaper enough to stop firstly coal (the most carbon intensive), then gas, and finally
(to solve our transport needs) oil (which is more carbon intensive (per unit of energy) than gas, but less than oil)?
Although maybe promising us something, practical one day; you know, as well as I (that without government subsidies) the future for solar, is looking
well... pretty overcast!
Why dont we make electricity from flowing sewage? Wouldn’t be much but would be something.
No it wouldn’t be much, less than 10%
of the UK grids requirements.
The human body is about 50% efficient, so the amount of energy available to power our modern energy needs is about the same as what it takes to live.
However we consume far more electricity than it takes to us energy to live.
Furthermore bacteria consume most of mucks energy, before leaving just some as methane gas. Nevertheless what you say is underway, and deserves more
government subsidy because it is actually reliable (without expensive lead batteries) as well as workable.
What about all the paper we throw away? Wood gas!
You forgot “Plasma Waste Recycling” this burns waste at such high temperatures,
that no oxygen is required. Instead gases are produced which are burnt (releasing some C02) but making much electricity, plus metals (from unsorted
waste) are recovered, and the waste ash, comes as a rock, good enough for building & insulating materials. Two minute public education vid...
With all the UK’s waste recycled this way, together with the bio gas mentioned, our government thinks we should be able to meet around 25% of our
In the end (after solar, wind, and tidal) around 50% is going to be nuclear. The first step was just to replace existing nuclear capacity. However it
does look like it will take some kind of government subsidisation to actually get all our nuclear power stations built. But the public (reluctant to
spend even on renewables) is not willing; so we’ll see how this pans out.
My bet is: Electricity prices will rise, whilst individual reactors, will be made much smaller so they can be completed faster. I.e. Britain will
still have large nuclear power station sites -just with many smaller reactors.
Ultimately more nuclear is certainly on the way, but (despite being a big fan of science) if I were a electricity company; I would invest in gas
turbine electricity. This is exactly what they are doing!!!
This means... We are about to have our ancient water supplies permanently
contaminated with fracking chemicals. Then nuclear will follow.
Of course: If the sorts of people on here were a bit more considering of the bigger picture, then we could get away with just nuclear right
now; but that won’t happen, so our water will be contaminated first (then nuclear gets built afterwards anyway).
On the Upside
With the Passive Safety of modern technology, we can safely say that what happened to Fukushima (designed in the 60’s and built in 70’s) is a lot
closer to becoming history. That is the nature of Passive Safety i.e: No moving parts, no need for functioning cooling systems, because the rector
shuts itself down anyway.
The Integral Reactor (for instance) uses a Neutron Reflector with holes in it, to reflect radiation back onto the reactor. If the shield is not there,
then the reactor cannot operate. However in the integral reactor, the holes simply expand (due to the increase in temperatures from a reactor failure)
so with bigger holes, letting more radiation out onto the shield (i.e. neutron absorber) the reactor closes itself down. The Thorium Reactor ceases to
operate the moment it goes into meltdown, and leaves it’s neutron shield. Sure it’s still radioactive, but it produces very, very, little heat.
PS: Another reactor you hear a lot about is the Pebble Bed Reactor, it's possibly literally safer than our sun, but produces too much nuclear waste,
for too little heat. That isn't a safety issue (unlike reactor accidents, nuke waste has killed almost nobody) but it is a cost issue, as well as
public relations one (since the public don't tolerate waste anywhere).
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)