Merged nuclear power safe?

[r-j]

All reactors previously built, all that are in service now and all that are likely to be built in the future have the ability to burn up and completely eliminate plutonium.

I think many people would be interested in that. How do they do it? How does any reactor use up all the plutonium? Everything I read says that can't be done. Even the ones designed to run on plutonium still have plutonium waste at the end of the fuel cycle.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You can separate out the plutonium from the waste and reintroduce it into the fuel cycle.

We can supply all our energy needs this way for tens of thousands of years.

 

[bikerdruid]

You can separate out the plutonium from the waste and reintroduce it into the fuel cycle.

We can supply all our energy needs this way for tens of thousands of years.

is that bruce power's plan?
why do they need a river?
why not put the reactor on the banks of a cnaadian shield lake, that could be isolated, and is on pure granite?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

is that bruce power's plan?

I don't think they are thinking of anything in the "thousands of years" range. They are probably thinking in the 50 year range.

why do they need a river?

Because they're great places to put reactors.

why not put the reactor on the banks of a cnaadian shield lake, that could be isolated, and is on pure granite?

Because then it wouldn't be in Alberta.

 

[bikerdruid]

I don't think they are thinking of anything in the "thousands of years" range. They are probably thinking in the 50 year range.



Because they're great places to put reactors.



Because then it wouldn't be in Alberta.

so...you have no real answers.....got it.

if bruce power is only looking 50 years in the future, who is responsible for their waste in a thousand years?
why does the reactor need a river, if there is no waste to flush?
why is alberta necessary? we sure as hell don't need any jobs, we are already many tens of thousands shy on our work force.
locating the reactor on a granite contained lake in northern saskatchewan could actually be closer to ft macmurray, where the power is conceivably most needed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nobody is confused about the difference in politics. The argument was it was "all political" that a solution hasn't been found for spent nuclear fuel storage. If you don't like the solutions they found, that is a different issue.

I refer you to Belz:

I'll save you time by explaining it to you: there ARE safe ways to dispose of nuclear waste.

 

[shadron]

so...you have no real answers.....got it.

if bruce power is only looking 50 years in the future, who is responsible for their waste in a thousand years?

The people alive them, just as we are responsible for wastes created in the industrial revolution. _Perhaps not really "responsible", but who else is it possible to name?

why does the reactor need a river, if there is no waste to flush?

Reactors create steam. You can flush it to the atmosphere, just as steam locomotives did, but that is pretty wasteful of a fairly precious resource. So they use water to condense the steam. The "steam" you see coming out of the stacks at a nuke would be nothing compared to the clouds coming out if they simply vented the steam to the atmosphere, and then grabbed more water to turn into steam. So, live water carries away the condensed waste product of steam turbines - heat. If you could send it economically to heat houses, that would be a plus.

why is alberta necessary? we sure as hell don't need any jobs, we are already many tens of thousands shy on our work force.

I got one word for you: policy. That is all.

locating the reactor on a granite contained lake in northern saskatchewan could actually be closer to ft macmurray, where the power is conceivably most needed.

Perhaps. You need to consult with some engineers who will tell you of the pros/cons with that design.

 

[r-j]

You can separate out the plutonium from the waste and reintroduce it into the fuel cycle.

What would you do with the waste?

 

[uruk]

According to the statistics, there aren't.

What are the statistics concerning windturbines and solar farms?

Solar panels have notoriously bad photon to conversion rates. I haven't read yet what the efficiencies are with windtubines. Texas has HUGE wind turbine farms in the north west.

Looks eerily beautiful. Hundres of square miles of giant pin wheels lazily spining the wind.

Freaky. I'l try to post some pictures I took recently.

 

[uruk]

So what degree of risk is presented by stored nuclear wastes?

The fact that it exists doesn't tell us how much of a danger it presents. What is the danger?

All the spent fuel and waste products were to be intern in a central location easy to protect and monitor. That never happened. so all the sprent fuel is stored on site at operating and decommissioned nuclear plants. This material is spread out over various places and the responsibility of protection is the responsibility of the various coporation who are operating the facilities.

How well is this protection? Corporations are not in the habit of telling the "whole truth" especially where money is involved.

I wonder how easy it would be to compromise this security and abscond with enough spent fuel to produce a dirty bomb or contaminate agricultural areas or aquafers in the US?

It seems to be retlatively easy to steal weapons from national guard armories.

 

[uruk]

But no one is suggesting the nuclear power is without any danger or risks. What is true is that those dangers and risks are less per kWh than the alternatives.

The major danger of Nuclear facilities is not so much with the reactors, but with the growing issue of managing spent fuel and radiactive waste.

 

[uruk]

That is entirely a political, not technical, problem.

technical, political, fiscal, what does it matter? The problem still remains unresolved.

At least technical probelms can be solved by some very clever people. Stupidity coupled with political power is a harder nut to crack.

 

[uruk]

Of course we do. We put it somewhere until it's no longer radioactive.

If only it were that simple. some of this stuff remains radioactive for a very long time. Long term storage becomes an issue when the government allows the company operating the plant to be relieved of responsibility after a few years. It is unclear as to who the responsibily of security of this dangerous material falls on. (I assume it becomes the government's responsibility)

Besides, the promised facility in which to "put it until it is no longer radioactive" has still not materialized.

How do you safely store toxic waste from other processes ?

I don't know, are they being safely stored? I suspect not. If not, I think it would not bode well for the safe storage of nuclear waste either.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What would you do with the waste?

Most of the waste will be U-238. Which can be turned into Plutonium-239 and then burned (this is where the "doing it over and over again for thousands of years" part comes in).

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

so...you have no real answers.....got it.

Yes I do. You just don't want to listen.

if bruce power is only looking 50 years in the future, who is responsible for their waste in a thousand years?

Our inheritors will take the "waste" from our current fuel cycles and burn it in their own reactors.

why does the reactor need a river, if there is no waste to flush?

Because it's the easiest way to dispose of waste heat and carry it away from the reactor.

why is alberta necessary?

Because our growing economy, ironically especially our energy sector, needs the energy. I've described to you before the limits of our natural gas supply and the need for something to replace it.

we sure as hell don't need any jobs, we are already many tens of thousands shy on our work force.

We need the energy.

locating the reactor on a granite contained lake in northern saskatchewan could actually be closer to ft macmurray, where the power is conceivably most needed.

Lakes are nice. Bruce Power already operates the largest reactor complex in the US and Canada on a major lake. But rivers carry the excess heat away from the site.

Putting the power plant within a few hundred miles of where the power is needed is certainly far better than the other end of the continent. But once you're within that range, the benefits of siting it even closer become less pronounced.

If you want a more detailed answer, you could try contacting Bruce Power directly.

 

[r-j]

If nuclear power actually was safe, and nuclear waste was safe, and nuclear material was safe, nobody would be discussing it. We would just all be using safe nuclear power.

 

[Ziggurat]

technical, political, fiscal, what does it matter? The problem still remains unresolved.

Political problems often get solved as soon as there's sufficient incentive. Right now, the incentive is rather low. Fossil fuels remain sufficiently abundant that we can do without more nuclear, and short-term fuel storage works well enough with the quantities we have. We haven't adopted a long-term solution because we don't need a long-term solution yet. As soon as we do, we'll adopt one.

In contrast, there's no telling when the technical problems for fusion will be solved.

 

[Ziggurat]

If nuclear power actually was safe, and nuclear waste was safe, and nuclear material was safe, nobody would be discussing it.

No large-scale power source is safe. They all have dangers. So that has never been the relevant metric.

 

[r-j]

Nobody is even discussing the dangers, much less shutting down coal power plants. Even the ones directly next to population centers. The risk to reward ratio seems to be acceptable. This is not true for some nuclear reactors.

By "Nobody is even discussing the dangers" I mean I can't find any topics about coal plants and how dangerous they are.

 

[Ziggurat]

By "Nobody is even discussing the dangers" I mean I can't find any topics about coal plants and how dangerous they are.

Then you're not trying very hard.