Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Use of nuclear power in the US
Freejack
Jake the Not-so-Wise
in Zocalo v2.0
Here's and interesting article about the endorsment of nuclear power by certain environmentalists:
[url]http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=375[/url]
I usually don't pay much attention to environmental sites, because many are so idealistic that they are not interested in real-world solutions, or just want to bash the "establishment" but this ecoworld site is growing on me. Their articles seem more focused on pragmatic, practical solutions than most...
Jake
[url]http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=375[/url]
I usually don't pay much attention to environmental sites, because many are so idealistic that they are not interested in real-world solutions, or just want to bash the "establishment" but this ecoworld site is growing on me. Their articles seem more focused on pragmatic, practical solutions than most...
Jake
Comments
If modern reactor designs are used, it's even relatively safe. Pebble bed reactors cannot melt down and produce less waste than the reactor designs in use today, which, by and large, are 40 years old. Technology has moved on a long way since then.
That said, I agree. Nuclear power sucks, but it sucks less than just about everything else right now.
[B]Pebble bed reactors have their own production and efficiency problems,[/b][/quote]
I never said they were perfect, problem free designs, just better in two (important) ways than reactors currently in use.
[quote][b]and there are other designs that show more potential.[/B][/QUOTE]
Such as?
As for more promising designs, I like what I've heard about the IFR sodium reactors, but I am not a nuclear physicist.
[B]Nuclear power is certainly getting a much worse reputation than it deserves. Sure, it's not clean. But nothing is. It's certainly fuckloads better than burning coal (which actually puts more radiation into the atmosphere in most cases).[/B][/QUOTE]
I think most people don't even know that coal-powered plants release more natural radioactive elements into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants do during normal operation.
What about petrol? I mean, ok, the gasoline you put into your car has been processed, coal probably isn't, or is it?
[B]What about petrol? I mean, ok, the gasoline you put into your car has been processed, coal probably isn't, or is it? [/B][/QUOTE]
Gasoline is not as bad as coal, but it still releases radioactive material in combustion. Plenty of other nasty, non radioactive things, too.
I'm still shocked we're not seeing rapid development of thermal depolymerization technology. The ability to reformulate any organic substance into pure hydrocarbon chains of ANY particular variety seems to not be something people are interested in, I guess.
[B]Gasoline is not as bad as coal, but it still releases radioactive material in combustion. Plenty of other nasty, non radioactive things, too. [/B][/QUOTE]
But there is also a matter of efficiency. The most efficient gasoline engines are no more than 25% efficient at converting the chemical energy in gasoline into mechanical energy, where as a power plant and the associate grid and final use are closer to 60%
Jake
[B]Practically anything that combusts or undergoes some chemical transformation will release some other products...usually not particularly desired, but that can vary.
I'm still shocked we're not seeing rapid development of thermal depolymerization technology. The ability to reformulate any organic substance into pure hydrocarbon chains of ANY particular variety seems to not be something people are interested in, I guess. [/B][/QUOTE]
plenty of people are interested in it at a basic level, like cracking coal to petroluem, but its an expensive technology to invest in, and unless they are sure that oil prices are going to remain high (and some other legal hurdles get cleared) it wont be heavily invested in.
Frankly if I was given cart blanche Id probably build a mixture of pebble bed reactors in more build up areas, and maybe massive lead cooled fast reactors in more remote areas.
Id personaly avoid sodium cooled reactors cause if there is a catastrophic failure, its going to be REALLY catastrophic given the chemical properties of sodium. While the actual flamability of pyrolitic carbon is currently in dispute, the flamability of sodium and even worse its explosive potential when combined with water, is well established and probably not a good to have in a nuclear reactor.
with all the electrical generation comming from the nuke plants and additional massive solar farms in the american south west, Id then procede to start cracking all that coal to other producs for the petrochemical industries needs.
And really somebody needs to get cracking on that whole fusion thing.