Nuclear power - should "we" go there?

[gearheaded1]

What are your opinions on all things nuclear?

Is it the answer to all of our energy needs, or is it the key to the apocalaypse?

Are we opening Pandora's box by building reactors, and touting our nuclear know-how?

Is it fair to deny new countries access to the big-bang club?

Are we nuts or are we on the cusp of something remarkable?

 

[Tonington]

I'm all for it. We have enough material in Canada that we would never need anything else, but I don't propose going that far, at least not yet. The worries about explosions and the like are moot. First off, the only explosion you get is the steam breaking through the vessel container. Then the radiation leaks out. The Chernobyl accident was caused by human stupidity. In order to generate more power for some Soviet celebration, the Chernobyl plant took the safety measures off-line. Then they removed the control rods, speeding up the reaction to generate more power. When the reaction became uncontrollable, the safety measures couldn't stop the reaction and well the rest is history.

A lot of the waste generated can be recycled, further still a large portion of the waste is just barely above the background radiation.

 

[#juan]

Hi guys

We have two nuclear topics. I will scratch the one I started.

 

[#juan]

Here is a bit of information on Canadian nuclear power.

http://www.candu.org/candu_reactors.html

 

[gearheaded1]

Excellent link to Canada nuclear info... anyone on this thread should read these stats first!! Thanks!

 

[The Project Man]

Your not planning on producing nukes are you guys?


I notice it stated it could also reuse fuel from other reactors and the fact that no enrichment plant is needed is a huge bonus. Saves in the transport and public safety.

Why couldn't they build a couple in succession for the distribution of the downgraded products and reduce the risk of radiation upon disposal. Minimize the potency.

So far sounds good.

 

[gearheaded1]

.... where did I leave my plutonium... it was here a minute ago.

Your not planning on producing nukes are you guys?

That's classified...

 

[The Project Man]

Like John McPhee Gearheaded1?

gearheaded1
.... where did I leave my plutonium... it was here a minute ago.

That is outstanding. There is a book by John McPhee entitled, "The Curve of Binding Energy".



It reports on the poor record keeping of stock piles. It simply states we do not know where a % of the stock has gone. Mind you, it is kept in "Well Guarded Facilities". They guess it was stolen and sold....

But really you building nukes?

 

[gearheaded1]

Did you check under the bed?

But really you building nukes?

As soon as I find that missing bolt for the start-up power supply (a.k.a. rusty lawnmower motor), get a new ripcord, 3 rolls of ductape, and a re-inforced bucket for the extra-heavy water, we should be "go for launch" for the WHODU reactor.

... do you smell something burning?

 

[#juan]

Is it the answer to all of our energy needs, or is it the key to the apocalaypse?

The supply of uranium is finite just like the oil. If, in answer to the growing climate change problems, the world turns to atomic energy, we obviously need breeder reactors or fusion power, but the main problem facing us, is that there is simply too many of us. The other problems, such as the disposal of nuclear waste, and diminishing water supplies, will come to the forefront as the number of nuclear reactors in the world grows, but overpopulation is the real bogeyman that we will have to face.

 

[Zzarchov]

In Terms of nuclear waste. while it is true you can't get rid of it, neither can you get rid of the toxic base elements used in creating other "green" technologies. Solar power being the worst (with all those batteries). If you boil down to between 1 tonne of atomic waste or 20,000 tons of arsenic and cyanide buried in my backyard for the same power generated..I'd pick the atomic waste.

 

[Tonington]

This young Kid bacame the 18th listed amateur to creat e a fusion reaction.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061119/NEWS03/611190639

 

[Toro]

Yes.

 

[MikeyDB]

Our problems have never been what we've built....bio-weapons aside for the moment, but the uses we've put our Dark Ages technology to...that's dangerous!

I was having a discussion on another forum where an individual contended that Canada shares in the inevitable negative consequences that will emerge from the use of DU shells by the American military ...since we supply the majority of uranium to the U.S. that is used for these weapons... Can anyone here verify or refute that assertion wtih a link or first hand knowledge?

 

[#juan]

DU is the by product of extracting weapons grade U-235 from natural uranium. DU is mainly U-238. We don';t have to supply DU to the U.S. They already have a million tons of the stuff, and they've had it since before DU was considered any kind of a weapon.

 

[Tonington]

Well depleted uranium comes from processing it for use in nuclear reactors as well as nuclear weapons programs. There are large stockpiles of the depleted uranium, some estimates palce the American reserves at 500,000 tons. I'm sure in the other discussion forum it hasd been mentioned that use of DU rounds is in violation of some UN motions, though is not specifically banned. I think the majority of the American DU could be reused like they do in France.

Really I don't think we can blame Canada or Australia for what another nation does with their material.
Kinda humorous though when you compare it to nations who want to develop nuclear reactors in a "peaceful" capacity.