Nuclear Power

[XemnasXD]

i like how so many ppl thought best idea for getting rid of nuclear waste was to throw it into something that constantly spits things back out....


and they just took that and ran with it like it was the greatest thought that had every thunk....

[LillDev!l]

i like how so many ppl thought best idea for getting rid of nuclear waste was to throw it into something that constantly spits things back out....


and they just took that and ran with it like it was the greatest thought that had every thunk....

Made me laugh aswell ^^ though luckely just as many people disagreed

Also, Riptide honestly ... your acting as if we'dd **** up the entire universe with a little nuclear waste ... >.< your your neighbours garden / earth <---> the entire universe ... besides the fact that they simply cant be compared just because of their size alone, its also not like deep space is full of civilisations, the universe wont be mad at us dont worry ...

[XemnasXD]

i used to think nuclear waste was a huge deal until a little boy named Barotix proved me wrong....though its something that should be addressed it's not as big a deal as ppl think when handled properly....so says they....

[Riptide]

i like how so many ppl thought best idea for getting rid of nuclear waste was to throw it into something that constantly spits things back out....


and they just took that and ran with it like it was the greatest thought that had every thunk....

Made me laugh aswell ^^ though luckely just as many people disagreed

Also, Riptide honestly ... your acting as if we'dd **** up the entire universe with a little nuclear waste ... >.< your your neighbours garden / earth <---> the entire universe ... besides the fact that they simply cant be compared just because of their size alone, its also not like deep space is full of civilisations, the universe wont be mad at us dont worry ...

Basicly what I'm saying is that just throwing it away won't be a proper solution. It suprises me that people think that if we throw something away and forget about it, the problem is solved. No thats not how problems are solved, its the way problems are made.

But hey, lets just dump everything in the universe and pretend nothing is wrong.....

[LillDev!l]

i like how so many ppl thought best idea for getting rid of nuclear waste was to throw it into something that constantly spits things back out....


and they just took that and ran with it like it was the greatest thought that had every thunk....

Made me laugh aswell ^^ though luckely just as many people disagreed

Also, Riptide honestly ... your acting as if we'dd **** up the entire universe with a little nuclear waste ... >.< your your neighbours garden / earth <---> the entire universe ... besides the fact that they simply cant be compared just because of their size alone, its also not like deep space is full of civilisations, the universe wont be mad at us dont worry ...

Basicly what I'm saying is that just throwing it away won't be a proper solution. It suprises me that people think that if we throw something away and forget about it, the problem is solved. No thats not how problems are solved, its the way problems are made.

But hey, lets just dump everything in the universe and pretend nothing is wrong.....

Tell me about the problems we'dd be making ^__^ enlighten me

[Riptide]

Dunno, I was just filling some time with a pointless discussion

But basicly, best way imo is to recycle and recylce and recycle .... someone here posted that they will be able to recycle nuclear wast soon....

[MrJoey]

People don't seem to realize that Chernobyl wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been run by a bunch of inept fucktards that probably shouldn't even touch a potato gun.

[Midori]

People don't seem to realize that Chernobyl wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been run by a bunch of inept fucktards that probably shouldn't even touch a potato gun.

you mean by russians right?

[_IceCold_]

its also not like deep space is full of civilisations, the universe wont be mad at us dont worry ...

u don't know that

and wtf putting nuclear waste in a Volcano

[Reise]

I wonder why they don't just dump it into a volcano if they are so worried about it. Since nuclear waste is pretty dense, it should sink in the molten rock and slowly dissolve away. I'm guessing the cost of doing that would be pretty high, but it's worth it in the long run.

Radiation doesn't work that way, bro.

Better off putting it all in a big cave under a mountain like we do now.

[Jstar1]

no just make a really big rocket and cram all the nuclear waste we have and just blast it out of the earth into space, I think thats the best way

[LillDev!l]

its also not like deep space is full of civilisations, the universe wont be mad at us dont worry ...

u don't know that

and wtf putting nuclear waste in a Volcano

Years and years of looking for possible civilisations came out with nothing, i doubt the nuclear waste we'dd send into space would bump onto a civilisation haha

[Stephanus]

i used to think nuclear waste was a huge deal until a little boy named Barotix proved me wrong....though its something that should be addressed it's not as big a deal as ppl think when handled properly....so says they....

Oh, mighty forumgod of heavenly wisdom, enlighten me. I stumble in the dark, coz your face blot out the sun...
-------------------------------------------------------------
OT
Besides this hearthshaking event above, there is wikipedia:

You see what i paste here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste

1. You dudes have questions.
2. You search for answers.
3. You think and relate and read and make conclusions. -> start of a good topic.
/thread


ps: Im in a bad mood, dont bother to quote me, just read this dam.n article i posted here.

[Grimjaw]

i used to think nuclear waste was a huge deal until a little boy named Barotix proved me wrong....though its something that should be addressed it's not as big a deal as ppl think when handled properly....so says they....

Oh, mighty forumgod of heavenly wisdom, enlighten me. I stumble in the dark, coz your face blot out the sun...
-------------------------------------------------------------
OT
Besides this hearthshaking event above, there is wikipedia:

You see what i paste here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste

1. You dudes have questions.
2. You search for answers.
3. You think and relate and read and make conclusions. -> start of a good topic.
/thread


ps: Im in a bad mood, dont bother to quote me, just read this dam.n article i posted here.

Oops, my bad. Singer Flipped.

[XemnasXD]

You earn my wisdom by using the search button

[EvGa]

People don't realize wikipedia is NOT a valid source? Submit a paper to any college with a wiki link as a source and they'll throw your paper in the trash. Anyone can edit that stuff.

Tons of correct and useful info there, just saying... Not saying anything in that article is wrong, just saying.

I'm all for Nuclear Power.

[Midori]

People don't realize wikipedia is NOT a valid source? Submit a paper to any college with a wiki link as a source and they'll throw your paper in the trash. Anyone can edit that stuff.

Tons of correct and useful info there, just saying... Not saying anything in that article is wrong, just saying.

I'm all for Nuclear Power.

I remember hearing that some colleges except wikipedia as valid source.

[EvGa]

People don't realize wikipedia is NOT a valid source? Submit a paper to any college with a wiki link as a source and they'll throw your paper in the trash. Anyone can edit that stuff.

Tons of correct and useful info there, just saying... Not saying anything in that article is wrong, just saying.

I'm all for Nuclear Power.

I remember hearing that some colleges except wikipedia as valid source.

My high school and the 4 colleges I've attended didn't. Just going by personal experience. Yeah, 4. I move around a lot.

[Reise]

They don't let you put Wikipedia as a source because one could easily plagiarize, as articles can be edited and changed. It doesn't necessarily mean the information on Wikipedia is false or inaccurate, even though it sometimes can be. I know you can't just hop on and start writing your own shit, they do moderate pages, and there are backups of them.

[Stephanus]

They don't let you put Wikipedia as a source because one could easily plagiarize, as articles can be edited and changed. It doesn't necessarily mean the information on Wikipedia is false or inaccurate, even though it sometimes can be. I know you can't just hop on and start writing your own shit, they do moderate pages, and there are backups of them.

And

People don't realize wikipedia is NOT a valid source? Submit a paper to any college with a wiki link as a source and they'll throw your paper in the trash. Anyone can edit that stuff.

Tons of correct and useful info there, just saying... Not saying anything in that article is wrong, just saying.

I'm all for Nuclear Power.

Srf is not a highschool/university -> if someone asks aything without any research before, also others write bs and stuff i might be annoyed slightly -> put on a link to wiki, coz even if wiki isnt 100% correct(lets say only 99.5%), its enough for srf.

Also(im teaching math in private) when i give a damn theme for research to my pupil, i wont accept wiki, coz stuff from wiki is copy+paste, there is no work in it -> my pupil does not learn/earn the informations related to my theme, just copies them -> i fail as a teacher. If you guys think trough, you would do the same as a teacher: bann wiki as a source of informations(still it can be used, but only for related stuff, like authors, related themes, etc)

[Jstar1]

People don't realize wikipedia is NOT a valid source? Submit a paper to any college with a wiki link as a source and they'll throw your paper in the trash. Anyone can edit that stuff.

Tons of correct and useful info there, just saying... Not saying anything in that article is wrong, just saying.

I'm all for Nuclear Power.

I remember hearing that some colleges except wikipedia as valid source.

Then those colleges must be pretty low quality because wikipedia is a terrible source. The only good thing about it is that somebody puts together all the references they use and you can just refer to those, and not waste time googling for them. ~~~~

[Grimjaw]

Srf is not a highschool/university -> if someone asks aything without any research before, also others write bs and stuff i might be annoyed slightly -> put on a link to wiki, coz even if wiki isnt 100% correct(lets say only 99.5%), its enough for srf.

Also(im teaching math in private) when i give a damn theme for research to my pupil, i wont accept wiki, coz stuff from wiki is copy+paste, there is no work in it -> my pupil does not learn/earn the informations related to my theme, just copies them -> i fail as a teacher. If you guys think trough, you would do the same as a teacher: bann wiki as a source of informations(still it can be used, but only for related stuff, like authors, related themes, etc)

And for the illiterates here at Silkroad Forums right?

[Stephanus]

****

And for the illiterates here at Silkroad Forums right?

Better than post bs or mindless stuff at OTL imho.
Also for those who are curious, wiki is the best site ever.
Even so, i did not wrote ppl here are illiterate.They might be not knowing or lazy, but not illiterate(whats the difference.....). There is a remark -> i was in a bad mood:p

[EvGa]

Oopsy, didn't mean to start an argument. /slap on wrist.

Go back to talking about nuclear power! NAO!

[Grimjaw]

Better than post bs or mindless stuff at OTL imho. Even so, i did not wrote ppl here are illiterate.They might be not knowing or lazy, but not illiterate(whats the difference.....). There is a remark -> i was in a bad mood:p

Way to go Stephanus. You just openly insulted every member on the board here. You called the people here lazy and uneducated members, who are not worthy of anything but halve or incomplete truths. Wikipedia is good enough for them right? You're a pretentious fool filled with nothing but irregularity, ambiguity and shallowness. But I guess that's to be expected from a misunderstood genius such as yourself right?

[Teddybeer]

i understand Riptide's point but i do not agree
Chernobyl was an accident and had nothing to do with nuclear WASTE
Chernobyl's cooling device broke down
Radioactive uranium needs 500k or more years to lose its radioactivity
Nuclear energy might destroy humanity but im not htat worried
Chernobyl is a ghost town and will stay it for more 700 years
Dumping in a volcano is the stupidest solution i've ever heard
If the volcano corrupts it will result in a global fallout
Space? maybe a solution i dont have the knowledge
I mean ther are too many story's of the worlds end
2012 nuclear blast word war III omg
if the world meets his and,
Bend to your knees and kiss ya ass goodbye

Im not worried
I'm very intrested in nuclear energy tho^^

[Stephanus]

Better than post bs or mindless stuff at OTL imho. Even so, i did not wrote ppl here are illiterate.They might be not knowing or lazy, but not illiterate(whats the difference.....). There is a remark -> i was in a bad mood:p

Way to go Stephanus. You just openly insulted every member on the board here. You called the people here lazy and uneducated members Dear hypocrite, of course they are uneducated in geology and nuclear physics(like me), who are not worthy of anything but halve or incomplete truths noone would study for 5+ years at a university for the "perfect truth"... what you assume from every forummember here would be Che Guevara demanding absolute truth wich does not exist from the beginning . Wikipedia is good enough for them right? Yes, it is, coz it gives you a fine insight into things even if its not 110% perfect
You're a pretentious fool filled with nothing but irregularity, ambiguity and shallowness. But I guess that's to be expected from a misunderstood genius such as yourself right?if you have bad feelings, dont hold back, just send me an angry pm, ill be glad to read what you think about me;)

*sigh* this is what i got from answering your post and i tought i have a crush on drama...

Illiteracy means someone can not comprehend the text or relate to/from the issue/anything he might be reading. So he does not understand, even if he sees things clearly written/explained. Thats one thing.
On the other side(wich is mine) not knowing and lazyness means exactly what they are. He is curious, also too lazy to search for additional info -> he just starts a topic becoz of boredomness/curiousness but thats all. I might be annoyed, but do not flame like you do above. I even contribute hopefully usefull info to the topic and not just picking on 1 or 2 person who i dislike like you or **** for example
(edited the name coz he will appear anyway).
Also this is the last time i feed you good sir. I know you are hungry, but too much food is bad for your health.

[Grimjaw]

Blah.

Dear noble steed of supreme wisdom and great intelligence. I assure thee I harbor no ill wishes upon thee, but rest assured and calm thy heart that I shall always show thee and inform others in our midst of thy cockiness and melodramatic longing for the condescending E-heroism. While you're banners of intent may be righteous, they are being wielded under the wrong intentions.

You are not better then the rest, you are merely there equal.

*sigh* this is what i got from answering your post and i tought i have a crush on drama...

Illiteracy means someone can not comprehend the text or relate to/from the issue/anything he might be reading. So he does not understand, even if he sees things clearly written/explained. Thats one thing.

On the other side(wich is mine) not knowing and lazyness means exactly what they are. He is curious, also too lazy to search for additional info -> he just starts a topic becoz of boredomness/curiousness but thats all. I might be annoyed, but do not flame like you do above. I even contribute hopefully usefull info to the topic and not just picking on 1 or 2 person who i dislike like you or Priam for example
(edited the name coz he will appear anyway).
Also this is the last time i feed you good sir. I know you are hungry, but too much food is bad for your health.

I know that you noob, I used that to lure you out. And I fixed that name for you. Hiding behind a false code of righteousness doesn't help you here Stephanus, contrary to you're opinions of everyone here, the mods and the people here are not blind. So copping out behind the obvious flame insult is merely wasting you're time. And what if some people are lazy or are not as educated as others here? Who told you to rise up and point out everyone's flaws or inabilities? That repulsive attitude you try to portray doesn't even categorize itself under intellectual snobbishness. You're nothing more then a fraud. Albeit a very bad one. You don't expect to be taken seriously when you offer them wisdom, guidance and assistance with one hand, yet flick them off with the other hand behind you're back? That's not the way it works, you can't impose things on people like that, thinking you can is stupidity in itself. And I do hunger Stephanus, not for the meat of the innocent, but for the meat of the wolf hiding in the shepherd skin.

But feel free to take you're leave out of this discussion Stephanus, don't let the door hit you on the way out. :>

[Stephanus]

People don't realize wikipedia is NOT a valid source? Submit a paper to any college with a wiki link as a source and they'll throw your paper in the trash. Anyone can edit that stuff.

Tons of correct and useful info there, just saying... Not saying anything in that article is wrong, just saying.

I'm all for Nuclear Power.

Many ppl dislike it tough as i do. I prefer fusion reactors over traditional, old reactors, coz they produce too dangerous stuff.
Even so, to this point old type nuclear energy is the best solution imho.

Spoiler!

Solid waste
For more details on this topic, see Radioactive waste.

The safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste is a significant challenge and yet unresolved problem. The most important waste stream from nuclear power plants is spent fuel. A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres (25–30 tonnes) of spent fuel each year.[63] It is primarily composed of unconverted uranium as well as significant quantities of transuranic actinides (plutonium and curium, mostly). In addition, about 3% of it is made of fission products. The actinides (uranium, plutonium, and curium) are responsible for the bulk of the long term radioactivity, whereas the fission products are responsible for the bulk of the short term radioactivity.[64]

[edit] High level radioactive waste
See also: High level waste

Spent fuel is highly radioactive and needs to be handled with great care and forethought.[citation needed] However, spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over the course of thousands of years of time. After about 5 percent of the rod has reacted the rod is no longer able to be used. This leads to an inefficient use for these rods.[citation needed] Today scientists are experimenting on how to recycle these rods to reduce waste. In the meantime, after 40 years, the radiation flux is 99.9% lower than it was the moment the spent fuel was removed, although still dangerously radioactive.[54]

Spent fuel rods are stored in shielded basins of water (spent fuel pools), usually located on-site. The water provides both cooling for the still-decaying fission products, and shielding from the continuing radioactivity. After a few decades some on-site storage involves moving the now cooler, less radioactive fuel to a dry-storage facility or dry cask storage, where the fuel is stored in steel and concrete containers until its radioactivity decreases naturally ("decays") to levels safe enough for other processing. This interim stage spans years or decades, depending on the type of fuel. Most U.S. waste is currently stored in temporary storage sites requiring oversight, while suitable permanent disposal methods are discussed.

As of 2007, the United States had accumulated more than 50,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors.[65] Underground storage at Yucca Mountain in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety.[citation needed]

The amount of waste can be reduced in several ways, particularly reprocessing. Even so, the remaining waste will be substantially radioactive for at least 300 years even if the actinides are removed, and for up to thousands of years if the actinides are left in.[citation needed] Even with separation of all actinides, and using fast breeder reactors to destroy by transmutation some of the longer-lived non-actinides as well, the waste must be segregated from the environment for one to a few hundred years, and therefore this is properly categorized as a long-term problem. Subcritical reactors or fusion reactors could also reduce the time the waste has to be stored.[66] It has been argued that the best solution for the nuclear waste is above ground temporary storage since technology is rapidly changing. There is hope that current waste may well become a valuable resource in the future.

According to a 2007 story broadcast on 60 Minutes, nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and the cheapest electricity in all of Europe.[67] France reprocesses its nuclear waste to reduce its mass and make more energy.[68] However, the article continues, "Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will ... Nuclear waste is an enormously difficult political problem which to date no country has solved. It is, in a sense, the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry ... If France is unable to solve this issue, says Mandil, then 'I do not see how we can continue our nuclear program.'"[68] Further, reprocessing itself has its critics, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists.[69]

[edit] Low-level radioactive waste
See also: Low level waste

The nuclear industry also produces a huge volume of low-level radioactive waste in the form of contaminated items like clothing, hand tools, water purifier resins, and (upon decommissioning) the materials of which the reactor itself is built. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has repeatedly attempted to allow low-level materials to be handled as normal waste: landfilled, recycled into consumer items, et cetera. Most low-level waste releases very low levels of radioactivity and is only considered radioactive waste because of its history. For example, according to the standards of the NRC, the radiation released by coffee is enough to treat it as low level waste.[citation needed] However, concentrating the waste in large landfills obviously concentrates the amount of radioactivity.

[edit] Comparing radioactive waste to industrial toxic waste

In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, which remain hazardous indefinitely unless they decompose or are treated so that they are less toxic or, ideally, completely non-toxic.[54] Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material than fossil-fuel based power plants. Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and radioactive material from the coal. Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power. The population effective dose equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as nuclear plants.[70]

For me there is too much risk depostiting nuclear waste into the base of old mountains or similar. Some part of nuclear waste needs more than 500-1000+++ year to dissolve and for humans it is too much, there could happen almost anything to it.
Better for to wait until ITER succeeds.
http://www.iter.org/

Spoiler!

The large flux of high-energy neutrons in a reactor will make the structural materials radioactive. The radioactive inventory at shut-down may be comparable to that of a fission reactor, but there are important differences.

The half-life of the radioisotopes produced by fusion tend to be less than those from fission, so that the inventory decreases more rapidly. Unlike fission reactors, whose waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100. Although this waste will be considerably more radioactive during those 50 years than fission waste, the very short half-life makes the process very attractive, as the waste management is fairly straightforward. By 300 years the material would have the same radioactivity as coal ash.[8]

Additionally, the materials used in a fusion reactor are more "flexible" than in a fission design, where many materials are required for their specific neutron cross-sections. This allows a fusion reactor to be designed using materials that are selected specifically to be "low activation", materials that do not easily become radioactive. Vanadium, for example, would become much less radioactive than stainless steel. Carbon fibre materials are also low-activation, as well as being strong and light, and are a promising area of study for laser-inertial reactors where a magnetic field is not required.

In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less radioactive material than a fission reactor, the material it would create is less damaging biologically, and the radioactivity "burns off" within a time period that is well within existing engineering capabilities.

Also, there is a chance for cold fusion itself( the theory is more than questionable but for me its worth a shot or two... man never knows)

Spoiler!

Cold fusion (sometimes referred to as low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) studies or condensed matter nuclear science.[1]) refers to a postulated nuclear fusion process of unknown mechanism offered to explain a group of disputed experimental results first reported by electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons.

Cold fusion, under this definition, was first announced in March 1989 when Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons reported producing nuclear fusion in a tabletop experiment involving electrolysis of heavy water on a palladium (Pd) electrode.[2] They reported anomalous heat production ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes.[3] They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[4] These reports raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.[5]

Enthusiasm turned to skepticism and scorn[6][7] as a long series of failed replication attempts were weighed in view of several theoretical reasons cold fusion should not be possible, the discovery of possible sources of experimental error, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[8] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[9] However, some researchers continue to investigate cold fusion and publish their findings at conferences, in books, and scientific journals.[10]

[EvGa]

I thought they already threw the idea of cold fusion out the window.

Bubble Fusion in interesting stuff. Starts around 2:30ish I believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wS5etm_6Co

Problem with fusion is getting the reaction going. Takes huge amounts of energy.