Grim... wrote:
We should all move into blocks of flats. I didn't switch the heating on once in two years.
I use more electricity trying to cool the fucker, rather than heating it up... 
You could generate enough power for the next 100 years with the amount of hot air coming off this forum today.
Grim... wrote:
But wouldn't we need shed-loads of those generators (nuclear aside) to actually get a usable amount of energy from them?
We'd need loads of solar cells on as many buildings as possible, wind farms aplenty and useful tidal resources to be utilised, yes. But Germany and Denmark are already doing rather well in this, and the UK is a wind-rich (esp. the north), light-right (esp. the south) country with strong tides. If we took full advantage of such things and invested heavily, that would almost certainly cause short-term tax/energy price rises, but it would have the potential knock-on effect of a boost to industry and a long-term benefit of not being reliant on our dwindling fossil fuel reserves and then the Russians and others for gas/oil.
From the various reading I've done on this, there's little reason this country couldn't be self-sufficient in green fuel, and the more pessimistic outlook is a country that could be mostly self-sufficient in green fuel, then backing that with modern nuclear. Instead, we've a government backing away from its green promises and thinking coal and gas are the future. It's just mental. As I've said before, I think it's a red herring to consider this argument one of the moral high ground—it's about the long-term security of power generation and not becoming entirely reliant on other states for such things.
Hotness from large ball of fire causes street lights to melt in Oklahoma. Perfectly normal, citizens. Continue consumption.
New city in South Korea uses raft of technological innovations to use 40% less energy per person: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/ci ... doesnt.php
But no-one in Asia is doing anything about climate change.
But no-one in Asia is doing anything about climate change.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
But no-one in Asia is doing anything about climate change.
Which again, no-one said they weren't of course.
(Straw men are carbon neutral though
) Dimrill wrote:
Hotness from large ball of fire causes street lights to melt in Oklahoma. Perfectly normal, citizens. Continue consumption.
Dead link here.
Obviously the server got singed.
CraigGrannell wrote:
Grim... wrote:
But wouldn't we need shed-loads of those generators (nuclear aside) to actually get a usable amount of energy from them?
We'd need loads of solar cells on as many buildings as possible, wind farms aplenty and useful tidal resources to be utilised, yes. But Germany and Denmark are already doing rather well in this, and the UK is a wind-rich (esp. the north), light-right (esp. the south) country with strong tides. If we took full advantage of such things and invested heavily, that would almost certainly cause short-term tax/energy price rises, but it would have the potential knock-on effect of a boost to industry and a long-term benefit of not being reliant on our dwindling fossil fuel reserves and then the Russians and others for gas/oil.
From the various reading I've done on this, there's little reason this country couldn't be self-sufficient in green fuel, and the more pessimistic outlook is a country that could be mostly self-sufficient in green fuel, then backing that with modern nuclear. Instead, we've a government backing away from its green promises and thinking coal and gas are the future. It's just mental. As I've said before, I think it's a red herring to consider this argument one of the moral high ground—it's about the long-term security of power generation and not becoming entirely reliant on other states for such things.
To be serious for a second here, I do see the argument you're making in terms of energy dependency, or not, and can obviously see the benefit of not being beholden to some Russian Oligarch for 'volatile'/'market' energy prices etc. But didn't Labour look at this seriously? (This is not intended to be a political point) I thought the conclusion at the end of it all, after much grinding of teeth, consultancies paid no doubt and a whole bunch of guff about renewables - that nuclear was the only real (supposed) carbon neutral option, and wind turbines and all the rest were basically near useless, both in terms of large scale capacity and continuity of supply (not to mention not being particularly green either, once the carbon footprints from their manufacture and installation are factored in, as well as cable electrical losses and all the rest?)
No doubt the technology has moved on, but this was only 5 years ago or thereabouts. To be clear however, I'm not necessarily against pursuing renewable energy sources as a means of reducing energy dependency, far from it, and nor have I said anything to suggest the contrary here. However, these require and deserve a hard-headed, realistic, non emotive and fact-based analysis to be made for their justification and enormous investment cost, not to mention environmental impact. Preferably by businessmen, energy experts and engineers, not politicians and/or eco-mentalists.
IIRC, on the nuclear thing - and I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear this - Labour didn't want to make a decision either way and kicked it into the long grass. Then I think they were heading down the gas route (same as the current Government) showing the same massive lack of long term thinking.
Yes. That. And before them, the Tories privatised it, with no clear plans for how the private sector would be profitable (nuclear was, and remains, considerably more expensive than fossil fuels per kilowatt hour). So the private sector let it wither on the vine, of course, whilst also attempting to cut corners and stiff the tax payer with the costs of cleanup.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Yes. That. And before them, the Tories privatised it, with no clear plans for how the private sector would be profitable (nuclear was, and remains, considerably more expensive than fossil fuels per kilowatt hour). So the private sector let it wither on the vine, of course, whilst also attempting to cut corners and stiff the tax payer with the costs of cleanup.
I'm no expert on this, but would it not be fair to say that actually, the privatised energy utilities (British Gas, Powergen et al and their providers like Scottish Power etc.) were, and are, immensely profitable, generating billions for the exchequer, in stark contrast to the strike-ridden, failure-prone, under-invested, loss-making entities that preceded them? The 70s are hardly remembered as some golden age of power generation in the UK. Surely this is an apolitical matter of fact.
As far as the nuclear sector was, and is concerned, I thought this always remained within the public sector precisely because no-one in the private sector would touch it with a barge pole, not least because of the bottomless pit costs of decommissioning which are truly, truly obscene? In which case it's hardly fair to blame the private sector for not coming up with a magic wand for the inevitable "cleanup", it was never their problem!
Incidentally, I note that the next gen nuclear power investment proposals have died on their arse as well. Strange that. If the choice is between nuclear or gas, I'd take gas every time. Shit, I'd take burning babies over nuclear.
I think there's the looming spectre of nuclear fusion in the wings that may solve many problems when it gets here, so anything else in the meantime will be an expensive stop-gap measure that may well become obsolete. Whether it is true that it (or some other tech) will provide cheap power for all or not, I suspect it is stopping some of the main players from seriously investing in current inefficient alternatives for now.
The thing about the energy companies generating loads for the exchequer is true, but this is only done as a by-product of:
1) Making themselves incredibly rich
2) Utterly fucking over the consumer
1) Making themselves incredibly rich
2) Utterly fucking over the consumer
Captain Caveman wrote:
Shit, I'd take burning babies over nuclear.
Out of inerest, why?
On paper, for me, it wins out every time.
Curiosity wrote:
The thing about the energy companies generating loads for the exchequer is true, but this is only done as a by-product of:
1) Making themselves incredibly rich
2) Utterly fucking over the consumer
1) Making themselves incredibly rich
2) Utterly fucking over the consumer
I don't entirely disagree with you Curio, albeit in my opinion you do exaggerate? There again, that's Capitalism for you; the prime driver of it, and the reason why it works, is because people want to get on, acquire wealth - and require the means/a vehicle in which to do so. (It's also the prime reason why Communism doesn't work - human nature is what human nature is; it might be selfish but it ain't changing so we must build our political and business systems around this immutable truth to harness it as best we can, or so people like me believe at any rate).
From my POV I couldn't give a fig if a small bunch of people got filthy rich over the privatisation of the energy companies. All I care about is, the standards of service, reliability of supply, net contribution to the country's coffers with which to spend money on schools and hospitals (and foreign wars and sports jamborees
) are all immeasurably improved from what they were. That's just an irreducible by-product of the process which must be expressed, if we are to realise all the huge efficiency gains, overall profitability and all the rest. To my mind, there cannot be any serious argument that it would've been better to have kept these within the public sector, beyond simply the blind political prejudiced view, but then I like to think I am a pragmatist and empiricist, first and foremost.As far as the consumer is concerned, they weren't a happy bunch in the 70s, believe you me - black outs, strikes, absolutely *lousy* service like you wouldn't believe. My parents had to wait months for a new phone, of which there were only two types, in two colours, and you could *only* get them from the GPO - in 1978, not 1958. To cap it all off, these entities were hugely loss-making and required massive year on year public subsidies, direct from hard pushed taxpayers, as per just about any other nationalised, State run concern. (See a pattern emerging?)
I mean seriously, can you imagine anything like that shit today? This was not some Golden Age, far from it.
Not saying the old system was a golden age, just that there should be a happy medium. The energy companies are run by greed just as much as the bankers, and gouge prices up for no reason other than to increase their already immense profits. The 'regulators' complain about this, and the customer is evidently getting shafted, but Ofgem do appear to be rather toothless, so electricity costs will continue to rise, even if the cost of production decreases. Gotta get them bonuses.
Curiosity wrote:
Not saying the old system was a golden age, just that there should be a happy medium. The energy companies are run by greed just as much as the bankers, and gouge prices up for no reason other than to increase their already immense profits. The 'regulators' complain about this, and the customer is evidently getting shafted, but Ofgem do appear to be rather toothless, so electricity costs will continue to rise, even if the cost of production decreases. Gotta get them bonuses.
Okay, so that's a function of inept and/or toothless regulation, not privatisation per se. You may well be right.
Mr Dom wrote:
I think there's the looming spectre of nuclear fusion in the wings that may solve many problems when it gets here, so anything else in the meantime will be an expensive stop-gap measure that may well become obsolete. Whether it is true that it (or some other tech) will provide cheap power for all or not, I suspect it is stopping some of the main players from seriously investing in current inefficient alternatives for now.
Nah, don't believe it mate. Forgive my humble GCE Physics education here (hey, I got an 'A' though!
), but workable, sustainable, commerically viable fusion reactors ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. I watched an interview of a Physicist who spent his entire professional life working in this field, vehement in his belief that they were on the eve of cracking the problem - for 40 years - and upon his retirement they're not really any closer to realising the goal, in even his own estimation. I mean, plasma containment systems good for 14 million degrees C, sustained/continuous fusion reactions and all the rest?Even if we did, can you imagine the construction costs for such reactors? I hate to be pessimistic, I really do, but when even a scientist (as opposed to an engineer), who aren't exactly reknown for not jumping the gun years if not decades before a practicable solution can be realised, who has worked for four decades exclusively within a given field says it's still nowhere, then shit, I believe him.
So, forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, it's mainly the economic reasons that dissuade you from the nuclear option?
MaliA wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
Shit, I'd take burning babies over nuclear.
Out of inerest, why?
Where to start...?
The aptly-named Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl spring to mind, not to mention a whole bunch of near-misses many of which we'll never know about. We talk about leaving legacies for our grandchildren; how about humans living on this planet in 1,000, 5,000, 50,000, or even 200,000 years from now?
As an engineer, I abhor the practice of embarking on a project with absolutely no decommissioning strategy whatsoever - that's nuclear power. The irresponsibility of those scientists and engineers who built these things is to me utterly breathtaking.
Fission by-products and irradiated reactor parts/coolant etc. are the most toxic materials on the planet. One-millionth of one gram of plutonium, if inhaled or ingested, will kill you. Other by-products like strontium-90, iodine isotopes etc. are readily incorporated into the body with catastrophic results. Some half-lives range in the hundreds of thousands of years; we have no available technologies to safely and securely these materials for even a tiny fraction of this timescale, and there are already tonnes and tonnes of it, with much more to follow it would appear. To make matters even worse, it's hardly as though they are inert; heat and explosive gases are generated as they decay - for thousands of years. The risks posed by these materials of irreparable genetic damage to the human, and other genomes, e.g. through irradiation and/or actual contamination of germ cells, cannot be over-stated.
In terms of the reactors themselves, these cannot be engineered to be fail-safe in the event of freak planetary conditions like earthquakes, or conflicts, or human error, or human sabotage. All it takes is one meltdown.
To cap it all off, as if that wasn't enough, it isn't even cheap or green: nuclear power is fucking expensive, even if everything goes to plan, and even if you conveniently ignore the huge, albeit unquantifiable, decommissioning costs. There are huge environmental impact considerations; who would want to leave next door to, or anywhere near a nuclear reactor installation?
Not really sure what else there is to say TBH, and that's just the short version. I have been anti-nuclear (power and most certainly weapons) since the age of 16; at that time it seemed so fucking obvious to me. At 45, my views have not changed so much as one iota.
Captain Caveman wrote:
There are huge environmental impact considerations; who would want to leave next door to, or anywhere near a nuclear reactor installation?
While I agree with most of what you've written, living next door to a coal-fired power station will get you dead of radiation poisoning much quicker than living next door to a nuclear one will.
Craster wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
There are huge environmental impact considerations; who would want to leave next door to, or anywhere near a nuclear reactor installation?
While I agree with most of what you've written, living next door to a coal-fired power station will get you dead of radiation poisoning much quicker than living next door to a nuclear one will.
Not if it goes postal.
But they're generally pretty safe. Certainly I don't worry about living within easy eyeshot of one. Other stuff such as chemical and petrochemical plants are far more dangerous. People just hear the word nuclear and go all mental about it.
markg wrote:
People just hear the word nuclear and go all mental about it.
Sigh.
Sigh all you like but the fact remains that if nuclear power was exactly the same but didn't have the association with nuclear weapons then it wouldn't have seen such opposition.
markg wrote:
Sigh all you like but the fact remains that if nuclear power was exactly the same but didn't have the association with nuclear weapons then it wouldn't have seen such opposition.
You obviously didn't read my post about it then, or if you did, you chose to totally ignore it and just insult my intelligence. Wow, that's something of a recurring theme in this thread.
If you're going to engage in the discussion/argument, at least have the courtesy to do so constructively and intelligently.
I think I'm quite pro nuclear power.
Granted, the possibility of it going tits up on a grand scale exists, but it's possible to mitigate that risk. I think the advantages it offers outweigh the disadvantages by a lot.
The main problem is the disposal of the waste. I don't think there is an easy option for doing that. Shipping it to the developing world isn't really on the cards, nor is just taking it to a remote island and buring it.
I thought about sticking it onto a rocket and firing it up into the sun, but the danger there lies with the rocket exploding. maybe it could take up lots of small bits, rather than one big bit, but this would increase costs. in the next 10-20 years, I do think that it will be a viable option, and these problems will be solved. Either through a new processing technique, or more reliable rocket launches.
Granted, the possibility of it going tits up on a grand scale exists, but it's possible to mitigate that risk. I think the advantages it offers outweigh the disadvantages by a lot.
The main problem is the disposal of the waste. I don't think there is an easy option for doing that. Shipping it to the developing world isn't really on the cards, nor is just taking it to a remote island and buring it.
I thought about sticking it onto a rocket and firing it up into the sun, but the danger there lies with the rocket exploding. maybe it could take up lots of small bits, rather than one big bit, but this would increase costs. in the next 10-20 years, I do think that it will be a viable option, and these problems will be solved. Either through a new processing technique, or more reliable rocket launches.
Tip it into a volcano 
markg wrote:
Sigh all you like but the fact remains that if nuclear power was exactly the same but didn't have the association with nuclear weapons then it wouldn't have seen such opposition.
Captain Caveman wrote:
markg wrote:
Sigh all you like but the fact remains that if nuclear power was exactly the same but didn't have the association with nuclear weapons then it wouldn't have seen such opposition.
You obviously didn't read my post about it then, or if you did, you chose to totally ignore it and just insult my intelligence. Wow, that's something of a recurring theme in this thread.
If you're going to engage in the discussion/argument, at least have the courtesy to do so constructively and intelligently.
I wasn't even particularly responding to your post. I know there are other objections to nuclear power but a large part of the opposition from the public isn't based on a level-headed assessment of the actual risks and consequences so much as an instinctive reaction to anything nuclear.
Captain Caveman wrote:
markg wrote:
Sigh all you like but the fact remains that if nuclear power was exactly the same but didn't have the association with nuclear weapons then it wouldn't have seen such opposition.
You obviously didn't read my post about it then, or if you did, you chose to totally ignore it and just insult my intelligence. Wow, that's something of a recurring theme in this thread.
In fairness, Cavey, he didn't say that's why you oppose nuclear power.
[edit]Ah, there we are
markg wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
markg wrote:
Sigh all you like but the fact remains that if nuclear power was exactly the same but didn't have the association with nuclear weapons then it wouldn't have seen such opposition.
You obviously didn't read my post about it then, or if you did, you chose to totally ignore it and just insult my intelligence. Wow, that's something of a recurring theme in this thread.
If you're going to engage in the discussion/argument, at least have the courtesy to do so constructively and intelligently.
I wasn't even particularly responding to your post.
Right...
Quote:
I know there are other objections to nuclear power but a large part of the opposition from the public isn't based on a level-headed assessment of the actual risks and consequences so much as an instinctive reaction to anything nuclear.
That's your opinion and that's fine. I vehemently disagree, including writing off a large part of the public's opposition as not being level-headed/a knee jerk reaction to the word "nuclear". Sorry, but I just feel that is so incredibly arrogant and patronising, I can't think of any other way of putting it Mark.
We've talked about the incredible toxicity and longevity of the tonnes and tonnes of nuclear byproducts and reactor elements etc. We already have large areas of the planet that are blighted by nuclear accidents and will remain so for centuries. There are estimates of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of cancer deaths arising from said accidents, deformities and so on. We know that we have no way of containing this stuff for anything like the time needed - hundreds of thousands of years, almost as long as human-like creatures have walked the Earth - to make it even remotely safe. To brush all of this aside as some foolish public reaction etc. is totally unreasonable IMO, but there we are.
Then, after even all of that, there's the true monetary cost to consider as well, including decommissioning.
markg wrote:
I wasn't even particularly responding to your post. I know there are other objections to nuclear power but a large part of the opposition from the public isn't based on a level-headed assessment of the actual risks and consequences so much as an instinctive reaction to anything nuclear.
That, and, fossil fuels feel safer because carbon dioxide is only dangerous when there's a lot of it kicking around the atmosphere, whereas reprocessed fuels are dangerous in tiny amounts. What we're now finding out is that carbon dioxide is potentially going to be just as dangerous to mankind in the long term, albeit via different mechanisms, and unlike nuclear waste it cannot be contained into small areas to limit its affect. Note that Cavey's earlier rant conflates a whole bunch of issues that are more complex than he suggests. For example, it's true that iodine-131 [1] is just about the most poisonous of the fission byproducts and it's true that there'll be dangerous stuff in the fuel for thousands of years, but I-131 has a half-life of 8 days. Most of the worst byproducts have similarly short half-lives, because that's what makes them bad in the first place. The fuel isn't linearly dangerous and hard to contain for the whole of its life.
[1] I wrote part of the safety case for I-131 release scenarios for Sizewell B power plant for the 98-99 fuelling cycle.
Captain Caveman wrote:
markg wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
markg wrote:
Sigh all you like but the fact remains that if nuclear power was exactly the same but didn't have the association with nuclear weapons then it wouldn't have seen such opposition.
You obviously didn't read my post about it then, or if you did, you chose to totally ignore it and just insult my intelligence. Wow, that's something of a recurring theme in this thread.
If you're going to engage in the discussion/argument, at least have the courtesy to do so constructively and intelligently.
I wasn't even particularly responding to your post.
Right...
Quote:
I know there are other objections to nuclear power but a large part of the opposition from the public isn't based on a level-headed assessment of the actual risks and consequences so much as an instinctive reaction to anything nuclear.
That's your opinion and that's fine. I vehemently disagree, including writing off a large part of the public's opposition as not being level-headed/a knee jerk reaction to the word "nuclear". Sorry, but I just feel that is so incredibly arrogant and patronising, I can't think of any other way of putting it Mark.
We've talked about the incredible toxicity and longevity of the tonnes and tonnes of nuclear byproducts and reactor elements etc. We already have large areas of the planet that are blighted by nuclear accidents and will remain so for centuries. There are estimates of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of cancer deaths arising from said accidents, deformities and so on. We know that we have no way of containing this stuff for anything like the time needed - hundreds of thousands of years, almost as long as human-like creatures have walked the Earth - to make it even remotely safe. To brush all of this aside as some foolish public reaction etc. is totally unreasonable IMO, but there we are.
Then, after even all of that, there's the true monetary cost to consider as well, including decommissioning.
Also I don't think it's really very patronising or arrogant to suggest that public opinion is not always rational. I'm pretty sure I must get misled left right and centre on things that I don't know enough about.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Note that Cavey's earlier rant conflates a whole bunch of issues that are more complex than he suggests. For example, it's true that iodine-131 [1] is just about the most poisonous of the fission byproducts and it's true that there'll be dangerous stuff in the fuel for thousands of years, but I-131 has a half-life of 8 days. Most of the worst byproducts have similarly short half-lives, because that's what makes them bad in the first place. The fuel isn't linearly dangerous and hard to contain for the whole of its life.
[1] I wrote part of the safety case for I-131 release scenarios for Sizewell B power plant for the 98-99 fuelling cycle.
[1] I wrote part of the safety case for I-131 release scenarios for Sizewell B power plant for the 98-99 fuelling cycle.
Cavey's earlier "rant"...? There we go again! There was me thinking I was making an effort to engage in serious discussion.
Regardless though, thanks, but I was already well aware that the half-lives of strontium and iodine radioisotopes were much, much lower. Hey, they taught me that for Physics 'O' Level, so I'm okay there.
Strontium 90's is a mere 30-odd years (at which point of course, half of the original strontium still remains; you'd still require centuries to diminish to a "safe", residual level. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't exactly call that "short", and strontium is readily incorporated into bone, potentially adjacent to bone marrow, since as you are doubtless aware the body treats it similarly to innocuous calcium).
That's why I actually said:
"Some half-lives range in the hundreds of thousands of years..."
... Which I think you'll find is the best kind of correct, Doc.
But isn't it all contained in the reaction vessel? Can't you jsut pull it out, stick it in a shipping container, fill it with concrete and bury it somewehre a long, long way away from inhabbited places/places that are of SSI and leave it? I aprpeciate somethihng's going to get fucked, but omlete eggs, and it isn't as if anyone ever goes to the middle of the Sahara (top of my ehad isolated place, ignoring wind patterns, and so on). There's probably somewhere on this planet that we don't need.
EDIT: Or, as an alternative, why not, instead of having one big power station, have lots of little ones. Submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, so their plants must be small and contained, so that could be viable.
EDIT: Or, as an alternative, why not, instead of having one big power station, have lots of little ones. Submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, so their plants must be small and contained, so that could be viable.
MaliA wrote:
But isn't it all contained in the reaction vessel? Can't you jsut pull it out, stick it in a shipping container, fill it with concrete and bury it somewehre a long, long way away from inhabbited places/places that are of SSI and leave it?
No. The reaction vessel is part of the reactor that the fuel goes on, it's not removable. You refuel inside it, depending on the sort of reactor we are talking about.Quote:
EDIT: Or, as an alternative, why not, instead of having one big power station, have lots of little ones. Submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, so their plants must be small and contained, so that could be viable.
Subs and carriers use highly enriched fuel in order to reduce the physical size of the plant. Problem is, in that form, the fuel is a) very expensive, b) quite dangerous (as you need a lot less of it to get critical mass) and worst of all c) of much more value as an improvised weapon. You wouldn't want any more of that floating around. Hmm. I assume it isn't possible for one to make the reaction chamber a discrete unit?
The naval power plant information is interesting. I didn't think so far as to work out they might be more concentrated.
The naval power plant information is interesting. I didn't think so far as to work out they might be more concentrated.
MaliA wrote:
Hmm. I assume it isn't possible for one to make the reaction chamber a discrete unit?
The naval power plant information is interesting. I didn't think so far as to work out they might be more concentrated.
The naval power plant information is interesting. I didn't think so far as to work out they might be more concentrated.
Plus, let's be honest Mali, the thought of a whole bunch of small, embedded nuclear power stations dotted among conurbations and such like would surely be fairly terrifying. Doc's description of near-weapons grade Pu as "quite dangerous" has to be quite the understatement of the century.
Captain Caveman wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Hmm. I assume it isn't possible for one to make the reaction chamber a discrete unit?
The naval power plant information is interesting. I didn't think so far as to work out they might be more concentrated.
The naval power plant information is interesting. I didn't think so far as to work out they might be more concentrated.
Plus, let's be honest Mali, the thought of a whole bunch of small, embedded nuclear power stations dotted among conurbations and such like would surely be fairly terrifying. Doc's description of near-weapons grade Pu as "quite dangerous" has to be quite the understatement of the century.
I'm ideas. The Willy Wonka of energy solutions. Engineers are to be my oompa loompas.
MaliA wrote:
I'm ideas. The Willy Wonka of energy solutions. Engineers are to be my oompa loompas.
You've pretty much described the professional working relationship between scientists and engineers right there mate.
Captain Caveman wrote:
MaliA wrote:
I'm ideas. The Willy Wonka of energy solutions. Engineers are to be my oompa loompas.
You've pretty much described the professional working relationship between scientists and engineers right there mate.
You can thank The Big Bang Theory for that. it's derived their line. I lose my originality, quickly. Although, TBBT is a bit to close to me at times. Anyways, portable nuclear reactors, can't be a bad idea.
MaliA wrote:
Hmm. I assume it isn't possible for one to make the reaction chamber a discrete unit?
It doesn't achieve anything. If you wanted to use it for long term storage, it'd have conflicting design decisions to how you make it to be a running reactor. And you still have a load of irradiated primary coolant plant to deal with, so it doesn't make the plant any easier to clean up.Quote:
The naval power plant information is interesting. I didn't think so far as to work out they might be more concentrated.
My colleagues once had a sample of irradiated fuel through to work on. They didn't realise until tests started that it was 97%ish enriched (i.e. 97% U-235 -- commercial fuel is about 4%, natural stuff you dig out of the ground about 0.7%). Consequently, the tiny sample -- a couple of grams -- was going to be more than one year's worth of their strict quota for disposing samples over for reprocessing. When they raised this with their boss, the sample completely vanished one night. They later guessed it had to be sub fuel; no-one else on the planet needs that enrichment.Captain Caveman wrote:
Doc's description of near-weapons grade Pu as "quite dangerous" has to be quite the understatement of the century.
Apart from a handful of very specialised applications (pacemakers, space craft), you don't use plute as reactor fuel. Naval reactors use ceramic uranium dioxide, same as commercial reactors.Bonus marks for anyone who knows why it's ceramic UO2 and not pure elemental uranium.
Is it if the ship/sub/other sinks, the disc won't dissolve in the sea, instead sinking to the bottom?
MaliA wrote:
Is it if the ship/sub/other sinks, the disc won't dissolve in the sea, instead sinking to the bottom?
Nope. Commercial reactors use uranium dioxide, too. Well, all the ones after the '60s anyway. Magnox reactors used elemental uranium.
Edit -- although the SCRAM procedure for sub reactors does, I believe, involve dumping the naked core into the sea.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Bonus marks for anyone who knows why it's ceramic UO2 and not pure elemental uranium.
I do!
Bonus points, please.
Is it a practical application, or a chemistry one?
Grim... wrote:
I do!
Bonus points, please.
Is that because I've told you in the past?Bonus points, please.
MaliA wrote:
Is it a practical application, or a chemistry one?
It's a little of both. Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Apart from a handful of very specialised applications (pacemakers, space craft), you don't use plute as reactor fuel. Naval reactors use ceramic uranium dioxide, same as commercial reactors.
Fair comment, I stand corrected.
It's still bloody dangerous though.
Quote:
Bonus marks for anyone who knows why it's ceramic UO2 and not pure elemental uranium.
I haven't looked this up, but would hazard a total guess that it's heat- and oxidation related? I'm guessing that the heat generated in a small, high power density reactor, coupled with the readiness at which U will oxidise at such temps, means that the use of the oxide eliminates this issue, plus no doubt the oxide has a much higher melting point anyway?
Don't laugh if it's total bollocks, I'm doing my best.