Radiation Watch 2013

reply to post by intrptr


That's really rather intellectually dishonest of you.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and don't understand the concept.

unless...

Thorium, on the other hand, can also be used to generate nuclear energy. But its proponents are saying that “molten salt reactors” that burn such fuels won’t “meltdown” because, unlike today’s high-pressured units, they are low-pressured and won’t vaporize.

www.forbes.com...


Ain't Chemistry a b*tch?

Yes, so eliminate the exhaust and problem is solved.

WALA,

Actually it's Voila.

And you still don't address the problems. Liquid Fuel - are you talking about a Sodium Reactor? Still requires massive cooling - maybe not fresh water but still requiring a huge amount of water and energy to cool. Generators run down after time - maybe the new magnetic (oh what are they called - Google has a few...) generators might work - but for how long.

You'd have to build an entirely new infrastructure to refine the 'liquid' fuel and how safe would that be. You still have mining, transportation and storage problems unaddressed.

Nuclear is already very safe, even accounting for all the victims of all nuclear accidents it is the safest source of energy per TWh produced we have. Misinformed people dont realize how much a single reactor produces, if we replaced it with renewables, then more humans would die just as a result of trivial accidents during installations. Next generation reactors are order of magnitude safer than even renewables, and some of them also solve most issues with waste or potential lack of fuel.

Despite the naive fear-mongering, Fukushima is really a non-issue, with the highest credible death count estimates somewhere around 100-200. Meanwhile, we have a coal Chernobyl every week, coal that could be to a large degree replaced by nuclear! Opposition to nuclear power has already killed an order of magnitude more people than nuclear will ever will.

I am not saying nuclear is perfectly safe, nothing is. However opposition to nuclear power stems largely from misinformation and lack of the knowledge of science and technology. Which is also behind the fact that statisticaly speaking, more educated people tend to support nuclear. I wonder why that is?

Anyway, if we ever hope to solve peak oil or global warming, nuclear is here to stay.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Actually a lot of them do. If you're using the right materials, the waste is an energy source that can be used. If you're using carbon derived containment, salt water can be used, because there's no metal to corrode.

Do you have a source for any of this that you would care to share? Your link about "LENS...." doesn't work.

Carbon derived containment - do you been 'clading' or control rods - that type of containment - contrainment of the pile itself or... a containment vessel to contain radioactive steam and particles in the event of an accident?

For the first - I don't want any water in direct contact with fissionable materials at all - you can't keep recycling it in the system forever.

For the second - I don't see what difference it would make.

Granted I have not looked into these '4th gen' reactors because I think it's foolishness but I am willing to look at any sources you might have to educate myself futher.

Originally posted by Maslo
Nuclear is already very safe, even accounting for all the victims of all nuclear accidents it is the safest source of energy per TWh produced we have. Misinformed people dont realize how much a single reactor produces, if we replaced it with renewables, then more humans would die just as a result of trivial accidents during installations. Next generation reactors are order of magnitude safer than even renewables, and some of them also solve most issues with waste or potential lack of fuel.

Despite the naive fear-mongering, Fukushima is really a non-issue, with the highest credible death count estimates somewhere around 100-200. Meanwhile, we have a coal Chernobyl every week, coal that could be to a large degree replaced by nuclear! Opposition to nuclear power has already killed an order of magnitude more people than nuclear will ever will.

I am not saying nuclear is perfectly safe, nothing is. However opposition to nuclear power stems largely from misinformation and lack of the knowledge of science and technology. Which is also behind the fact that statisticaly speaking, more educated people tend to support nuclear. I wonder why that is?

Anyway, if we ever hope to solve peak oil or global warming, nuclear is here to stay.

edit on 15/1/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

With all due respect - I believe you need to take off the blinders and widen your vision beyond REACTORS. Hypotheticly (did I spell it right) it's possible to build (and site) a safe reactor - you still have to address the mining, refining, transportation, storage, and chemical toxicity issues as well before you can present a credible argument in favor of Nuclear Power.

This isn't being done, here or in the public discourse on the issue. The big picture needs to be addressed and that includes the disasters of the past. Chernobyl is an ongoing problem and always will be. The cement sarcophagus is crumbling from radiation bombardment and a new stainless steel one is being built at huge world wide expense (www.scientificamerican.com...). How long will the stainless steel one hold up - a hundred years - Not Enough.

As an aside - the work was award to the LOWEST BIDDER. (www.vinci-construction-projects.com... gus).

reply to post by FyreByrd


Everything you mentioned will be needed for virtually any change from oil.

Again, if you're not willing to pay for something that actually works, then you might as well just stick with oil and find a way to make bacteria produce it.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Not LENS.

LENR. Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. It's still a bit cloudy. Some say NASA has something, some say the Japanese, others say it's a bit far away.

www.e-catworld.com...

futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov...



As for Molten Salt reactors, you'd have to research that yourself.

If I'm reading it correctly, at least for some designs of a molten salt reactor, there are no control rods.

www.energyfromthorium.com...

moltensalt.org...

The heat-removal cycle is from fuel salt to a secondary coolant salt to air. No control rods are needed because the fuel has a temperature coefficient of reactivity of approximately -4 x 10-5 (&/k)/OF.

Control of' this reactor is quite simple and does not call for internal control rods of any kind.

It's also at a low pressure, so no nuclear steam.


I mean I'm not sure I understand it 100%, but it looks like a fairly straightforward device that is fairly advanced over modern designs. The only problem it can cause is a leak, which can be cleaned up through chemical reactions.

Basically, to store the waste, you turn it into glass.



For carbon, basically, it lasts long and there's lots of it. But there's some risks as with everything. Just a hell of a lot fewer.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Hypotheticly (did I spell it right) it's possible to build (and site) a safe reactor - you still have to address the mining, refining, transportation, storage, and chemical toxicity issues as well before you can present a credible argument in favor of Nuclear Power.

All right.

First thing to realise is that nuclear industry (including mining, refining, transportation etc.) is among the safest industries ever, with the least amount of work-related deaths and accidents. Second thing to realise is that to get the same amount of energy, with nuclear you need the smallest overhead (mining, refining, transportation..) of all known energy sources. You need A LOT more mining, refining and transportation with fossil fuels, but also with renewables, to provide the same energy. And third, with new reactors (LFTR, IFR, CANDU..), this already low overhead related to fuel is further reduced by an order of magnitude, because they can utilise considerably more than the usual 1 % of energy in the fuel.

How long will the stainless steel one hold up - a hundred years - Not Enough.

No, it can last thousands of years. The old sarcophagus was somehow rushed and not intended to be final. It is possible to built structures to be safe for much longer.

reply to post by Gorman91


LENR is very dubious at best (low energy nuclear reaction - basically a pseudonym for cold fusion).

MSR (LFTR) is credible and very promising, but its not based on LENR, its conventional nuclear fission, just using thorium instead of uranium, and liquid instead of solid fuel. And it does not need questionable LENR to burn nuclear waste (transuranics). You can do it only using MSR. The waste from a LFTR reaches uranium ore radiation levels in just 300 years, compared to 10 000s of years from current reactors.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by thorfourwinds

 

Dr Helen Caldicott is probably the best source of info on this. Its a long video and I dont agree with everything she says, but she is a good source of info about radiation and its effects.

Greetings:

Thank you for the information.

Dr. Caldicott was our first Twitter follower on earthaidconcert...

Our buddy Miles O'Brien will moderate the forum and Dr. Caldicott will give the opening plenum for what might be described as "The Texas Hold'em of Alternative Energy" where we invite all parties to give it their best shot.

Can't wait to nail Rod Adams - if he has the huevos to participate... he blocked us on Twit!

[color=magenta]Peace Love Light
tfw [color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution

reply to post by Maslo


Ah, thanks. I'm not entirely sure on these things as I've only begun looking at them a few months ago.

First thing to realise is that nuclear industry (including mining, refining, transportation etc.) is among the safest industries ever, with the least amount of work-related deaths and accidents. Second thing to realise is that to get the same amount of energy, with nuclear you need the smallest overhead (mining, refining, transportation..) of all known energy sources. You need A LOT more mining, refining and transportation with fossil fuels, but also with renewables, to provide the same energy. And third, with new reactors (LFTR, IFR, CANDU..), this already low overhead related to fuel is further reduced by an order of magnitude, because they can utilise considerably more than the usual 1 % of energy in the fuel.

This is based on direct deaths - deaths due to short term exposure. This doesn't even consider long-term effects and deaths at all and those are the ones that are most serious. You can breathe in an atom of plutonium and not see any effects for 10, 20, 30 years - it is still the cause. Offically, only around 100 deaths are attributed to the Chernobyl accident - where in fact the vast majority of Liquidators have died from radiation/chemical effects. Thousands are suffering from Thyroid Cancers. The facts are there and not be acknowledged.

No, it can last thousands of years. The old sarcophagus was somehow rushed and not intended to be final. It is possible to built structures to be safe for much longer.

I would like to see a source for this fact. The original sarcophagus was rushed because the event was so potentially devastating that the Russian (actually Soviet) People did what ever was necessary to protect the environment and the future. They didn't have time to think, robots didn't work, they had to act with what they had and and used some 250,000 men working a shovel at a time to contain the fallout and contaimination. These people were heros and should be hailed as such. The Japanese (and by inference the USA) are sitting by hoping it will get better at Fukushima and it's not and hence the pollution goes on and on.

Yes all forms of Energy are dirty in some aspect or another and how you choose to line up your statistics is important. These are complex systems that require whole system understanding before one starts f**** with the parts.

We need to be opened minded and that starts with knowing that we really don't know much about this (as I believe you mentioned earlier). Fossil fuels are horribly toxic and dangerous to the environment as well. Natural Gas is turning into another monster as well.

Conservation and Smart Grid technology will help.

One of the hardest ideas for me to get my head around was that power is always flowing at maximum capacity through the grid and my house so that any peak load can be handled. It does slow down when demand is low - in fact, electric companies' tend to encourage you to use power at non-peak times (maybe they should charge less). Unused electricity is just simply lost to - the air, the ground, I've no idea really (and who knows to what efffect on our climate - nobody is even looking at that) that just developing a better system (personally I think local - even household generation is key) would likely save us and the planet.

This is the kind of discussion I was looking for on ATS and I thank everyone who is participating. And thank you Original Poster for openning the door.

reply to post by FyreByrd

This is based on direct deaths - deaths due to short term exposure.

Thats what we were talking about. Indirect deaths due to cancer from nuclear accidents are in the thousands or tens of thousands, almost all of them from Chernobyl disaster. Yet as I have already written, even accounting for these deaths nuclear is among the safest sources per TWh produced, and the Chernobyl is very unlikely to repeat with modern plants.

I would like to see a source for this fact.

It is common knowledge. A concrete and steel structure can easily last for millenia. One problem is that some long-lived waste requires not millenia, but millions of years. However this is more of an abstract issue, such timeframes are out of human concerns. (Note also that some modern reactors waste requires only 300 years of storage.)

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

I would like to see a source for this fact.

It is common knowledge. A concrete and steel structure can easily last for millenia. One problem is that some long-lived waste requires not millenia, but millions of years. However this is more of an abstract issue, such timeframes are out of human concerns. (Note also that some modern reactors waste requires only 300 years of storage.)

I have to jump in on this... common knowledge is not a source. Maybe you meant century (100 years) instead of millenia (1000 years).

Reinforced Concrete has only been around for a bit over 100 years.

Even the article that FyreByrd linked (read again) says it "has design life of 100 years".

Show me any reinforced concrete structure older than 200 years. Then show one over 200 years old with constant radiation bombardment. Last time I checked many concrete reinforced bridges are designed to last around 50 years.

Nuclear radiation is no joke (the stuff used in reactors.) It is about as natural as refined oil, except much more dangerous to health in my opinion. Radioactive material is definitely not easy to "make it go away".

reply to post by Philippines

I have to jump in on this... common knowledge is not a source. Maybe you meant century (100 years) instead of millenia (1000 years). Reinforced Concrete has only been around for a bit over 100 years.

Pyramids, the Coloseum and early medieval cathedrals, churches and castles - some examples of pretty primitive structures far inferior to modern architecture, yet they already lasted for 1 000 - 2 000 years with no sign of falling apart. With modern materials and design specifically intended for durability, I am sure we can manage to hit 10 000 years. The 100 years probably refers only to the lowest guaranteed time.

Not that such things would be needed for normal operation, since waste burning reactors cut the time needed for the waste to cool off to just 300 years (which is well within our reach).

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Philippines

 

I have to jump in on this... common knowledge is not a source. Maybe you meant century (100 years) instead of millenia (1000 years). Reinforced Concrete has only been around for a bit over 100 years.

Pyramids, the Coloseum and early medieval cathedrals, churches and castles - some examples of pretty primitive structures far inferior to modern architecture, yet they already lasted for 1 000 - 2 000 years with no sign of falling apart. With modern materials and design specifically intended for durability, I am sure we can manage to hit 10 000 years. The 100 years probably refers only to the lowest guaranteed time.

Not that such things would be needed for normal operation, since waste burning reactors cut the time needed for the waste to cool off to just 300 years (which is well within our reach).

edit on 16/1/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/1/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

These are stone structures and again not bombarded by radiation on a daily basis.

As to architecture of the past being inferior - I beg to differ. In many ways the arhitecture and engineering from the past is vastly superior to that of today.

We can't even manage household plumbing that lasts much more then 50 years (and that with regular maintenance). The coloseum is being destroyed by air pollution. I'm glad I visited years ago when you could still walk around inside - it was impressive.

Sources please.....

Technology and the "latest thing" isn't always best - look up 'Planned Obsolesance'. We live in a throw away society.

So anyways... Back to the thread..

It does seem many regions of the human race are really *bleeped*.

Meanwhile, the politicians around the world are concerned with guns, wars, drugs, oil, and most anything else involving money.

This thread's subject is definitely a HUGE issue that is being ignored by the focus of the world (because of propaganda media). This "radiation" stuff does not go away in anyone's lifetime, it kills them well before that. Japan, the USA, and Europe all are getting hit with radiation from Fuku or other run-down nuclear facilities etc.

People around the world really should focus on these issues more than the predominant messages currently programmed into the brainwashed masses.

Oh,heck,if you just burn the radioactive debris,it all goes away,right?

Despite fears of radioactive contamination, Osaka Prefecture is finalizing plans to begin incinerating 36,000 tons of tsunami debris from Iwate Prefecture next month. The debris is scheduled to be burned in the city of Osaka's harbor district. The resulting ash will then become landfill on Yumeshima, or "Dream Island," a man-made isle in Osaka Bay that was once a proposed site for the city's failed 2008 Summer Olympics bid. Originally, the prefecture was supposed to have begun burning the debris last spring. But local opposition due to fears the incineration would create highly radioactive ash delayed the start. Critics argued that even with special filters at the incineration plant, radioactive ash would still pollute the air, and that it was folly to bury the ash in the bay area.

www.japantimes.co.jp...

reply to post by FyreByrd

These are stone structures and again not bombarded by radiation on a daily basis.

Radiation does not damage the structural integrity of anorganic materials in a way that would endanger them.

Technology and the "latest thing" isn't always best - look up 'Planned Obsolesance'. We live in a throw away society.

Keyword is planned. We would not plan for nuclear waste containment to be obsolete in a few decades like we do with other things. We would make it as best as we can.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by openminded2011

 

Not all nuclear power does actually. As I've stated a few times now.

Furthermore, there is an inherit problem with solar power. It can never quite beat fossil fuels. And as we approach the ability to engineer bacteria that can consume solar energy and output oil, you can bet your but that the oil companies will be all over that.

A barrel of oil always beats a solar panel. Oh what a great irony if solar power made oil renewable.

If one reactor does it, we are talking about THOUSANDS of years of contamination. Are you ok with that, as long as "some reactors" are safe? Why don't you ask the people of Japan how they feel about that? Dont you think it would be better if we start to develop solar and wind? We have already had 2 major accidents on Earth in the past 30 years and a large area of our planet is now poisoned. Give it some thought.