Merged nuclear power safe?

[BobTheDonkey]

RF harvesting does not reduce or interfere with the communications systems The vast majority of the energy that is tansmitted by RF towers is wasted. The issue of RF harvesting is that early designs could only extract electricity form one frequency at a time. New developments allow RF harvesting from broad spectrums ranges. The more freqencies that you can harvest at one time the higher your electrical output.

The biggest issue I can see with RF harvesting is that it's really only a trickle reclamation of power already generated elsewhere.

Sure, it can be used to charge your iPod, but that's maybe about as far as I can see it going. And you'd still have to provide the initial power generation for the RF towers.

If we're talking large scale RF harvesting, then yes, there would be RF shadowing issues. Along with returning to the point that it's an extremely lossy way of reclaiming power already produced elsewhere. RF power (of the kind being targeted for harvesting) doesn't just exist, it's generated somewhere.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Those are the points I had in mind.

I am not really an expert, but I think the management of the cells and the active devices traveling between cells would be prohibitive. Also, IIRC the only reason providers use smaller cells currently are too many devices active per cell.

This, basically.

When cell phones are on a call while moving, the calls are switched between towers depending on which has the strongest signal. That handoff is already the limiting factor in cell phone use on aircraft (the ones that allow cell use have their own antenna in the aircraft itself) due to the ground speed of the aircraft.

Your computer bank to manage this system and the handoffs would necessarily grow. That, in and of itself, requires a larger power usage. There's going to be an equilibrium in how much power is saved by going to lower power antennas, and for all we know (in this thread, at this time), it could very well have been reached already.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Your computer bank to manage this system and the handoffs would necessarily grow. That, in and of itself, requires a larger power usage. There's going to be an equilibrium in how much power is saved by going to lower power antennas, and for all we know (in this thread, at this time), it could very well have been reached already.

True, the management overhead would increase. But then, computers get more powerful while at the same time using less and less power, so that might offset it to some extent. And then, GSM itself is pretty old, and it's time it gets replaced with something more modern (and more secure, for that matter).

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: Of course, even with the most efficient computers, the resources needed to actually build these smaller cells would not decrease.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Fuel recycling is problematic from a political stand point. A product of fuel recycling is purified plutonium, otherwise known as "weapons grade" plutonium. Try telling another country that you have a nuclear weapon reduction treaty with that the plutonium that your are producing is for reactor fuel recycling.

Calling plutonium "weapons grade" is redundant, and is most often used as a scare tactic. The ratio of fissile isotopes of plutonium to non-fissile ones are the reverse of what it is for uranium. Any plutonium produced is automatically "weapons grade".

Any country that has one or more active reactors already has either an existing weapons program or the capability to produce them. For these nations the issue of plutonium production is irrelevant as those decisions have already been made decades in the past.

Here in Alberta Canada, we produce millions of gallons of "napalm grade" gasoline every day. Our neighbors next door don't seem to have a problem with it.

 

[bikerdruid]

Here in Alberta Canada, we produce millions of gallons of "napalm grade" gasoline every day. Our neighbors next door don't seem to have a problem with it.

actually, we don't refine much anymore.
we ship mostly crude.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

actually, we don't refine much anymore.
we ship mostly crude.

As a Canadian, I'm not bothered by Americans producing "napalm grade" gasoline.

 

[Travis]

Shoot I have twenty gallons of the "napalm grade" stuff in just one vehicle!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Shoot I have twenty gallons of the "napalm grade" stuff in just one vehicle!

You're just ten gallons of soap flakes and one vietnamese village away from being a war criminal.

 

[r-j]

Calling plutonium "weapons grade" is redundant, and is most often used as a scare tactic.

Pu-239 is produced artificially in nuclear reactors when a neutron is absorbed by U-238, forming U-239, which then decays in a rapid two-step process into Pu-239. It can then be separated from the uranium in a nuclear reprocessing plant.
Weapons-grade plutonium is defined as being predominantly Pu-239 with less than 7% Plutonium-240.

Pu-240 and Pu-239 are not separated by reprocessing.

Pu-240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission, which can cause a nuclear weapon to predetonate. To reduce the concentration of Pu-240 in the plutonium produced, weapons program plutonium production reactors irradiate the uranium for a far shorter time than is normal for a nuclear power reactor. More precisely, weapons-grade plutonium is obtained from uranium irradiated to a low burnup.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 4; please ensure you properly reference/cite quoted material.

 

[Travis]

Correct me if I'm wrong (it happens) but can't all forms of plutonium be used in a bomb?

 

[Cuddles]

Correct me if I'm wrong (it happens) but can't all forms of plutonium be used in a bomb?

No, not all stable isotopes are fissile, and there are several more unstable isotopes that decay much too fast to make anything out of.

Pu-239 is produced artificially in nuclear reactors when a neutron is absorbed by U-238, forming U-239, which then decays in a rapid two-step process into Pu-239. It can then be separated from the uranium in a nuclear reprocessing plant.
Weapons-grade plutonium is defined as being predominantly Pu-239 with less than 7% Plutonium-240.

Pu-240 and Pu-239 are not separated by reprocessing.

Pu-240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission, which can cause a nuclear weapon to predetonate. To reduce the concentration of Pu-240 in the plutonium produced, weapons program plutonium production reactors irradiate the uranium for a far shorter time than is normal for a nuclear power reactor. More precisely, weapons-grade plutonium is obtained from uranium irradiated to a low burnup.

Amusingly enough, the part you deliberately cut out of that copy and paste from Wikipedia was the "citation needed" tag on the part claiming to give the definition of "weapons grade". In other words, all you've managed to do here is demonstrate your own lack of understanding and dishonesty.

Incidentally, the article is also incorrect. You certainly can separate Pu-240 and Pu-239 by reprocessing, it's just generally easier and cheaper to make them in acceptable ratios from the start. If you wanted to separate them further the process would be essentially identical to uranium enrichment.

 

[Belz...]

Seems like a given, really. You can't just type something as though it's your own words when it's not.

 

[uruk]

Wow. It must be fun when answering school tests to be able to choose an option that isn't there.

No, there is no third option. You can have human activity and no waste. You can't have energy generation and no waste. You just have to pick the best way and deal with it.

Yes, most if not all of human endeavours results in waste being produced. Some are just worse than others. I believe in chosing or at least continuing to develope the ones that are less worse. Or find better ones.

Because they're the only ones that do the job. But have you missed the part about solar and wind producing waste, too ? You seem to be ignoring the bits you don't like. It isn't like you, Uruk.

True, but very few of them have to be buried or isolated from habited areas for decades or hundreds of years, and much of the material that goes into building a wind turbine can be derived from recycled sources.

I repeat: those things are recycled when no longer needed. You'll need windmills for a very very very long time.

Yea, and the thing about nuclear power plants is that they have a life span. Every nuclear powerplant that is in operation today will eventually become decommissioned. New ones will have to built in other areas to replace the decommissioned ones. And, so far, those decommissioned plants wind up being unusable for other purposes because nuclear waste is being stored on these sites for an indefinite period of time untill certain socio/political issues get rectified. (Not likely in the near future)

Decommisioning a power plant also produces quite a bit of unrecycleable material that is radioactively hot.

A busted down wind turbine can be refurbished or repaired or upgraded and kept running indefinitely.

 

[uruk]

The biggest issue I can see with RF harvesting is that it's really only a trickle reclamation of power already generated elsewhere.

Sure, it can be used to charge your iPod, but that's maybe about as far as I can see it going. And you'd still have to provide the initial power generation for the RF towers.

If we're talking large scale RF harvesting, then yes, there would be RF shadowing issues. Along with returning to the point that it's an extremely lossy way of reclaiming power already produced elsewhere. RF power (of the kind being targeted for harvesting) doesn't just exist, it's generated somewhere.

Aepervis:
That is downright wrong. the energy emitted by the RF source is limited. The energy required for normal reception at a certain distance will also be set. Add your battery RF loader in high quantity enough, and there won't be enough photon/energy available anymore reducing the distance at which the source is usable , aka , lowering the reception distance or quality.

You can get away with a *few* of them, because due to the volume involved and the energy captured it does not make a difference. Make them too popular and you won#t sing the same tune.

A radio transmitter is like a very bright lamp post. It blasts RF in a sphere radiating away from the transmitting antenna.

RF recievers are like little solar cells which capture the light and converts it to electricity. The energy you extract comes from the little area your antenna occupies in that RF field. The energy you extract from your area does not affect the energy someone extracts from the opposite side of the antenna.

The "RF shadow" is not that much of an issue as RF refracts around objects just as light does. if you place a solar cell far enough behind an shadow casting object it will recieve some of light that is refracting around the edges of the shadow casting object. Try it out.

 

[one666]

I guess nothing is 100% safe but I believe Nuclear energy is byfar still the best way to produce power for large populations

 

[uruk]

Calling plutonium "weapons grade" is redundant, and is most often used as a scare tactic. The ratio of fissile isotopes of plutonium to non-fissile ones are the reverse of what it is for uranium. Any plutonium produced is automatically "weapons grade".

The stigma that plutonium has is the source of the political issue. The political issue is what creates the problems concerning nuclear power plants. We still forbid certain countries from building nuclear power plants because of this.

Remember what Israel did to the nuclear reactor Syria tried to build back in 2007?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

and the one in Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

Any country that has one or more active reactors already has either an existing weapons program or the capability to produce them. For these nations the issue of plutonium production is irrelevant as those decisions have already been made decades in the past.

And the majority of these countries are either our allies or we have some sort of treaty with them. The others, like China, are too powerful for us to make an issue of it. We restrict any other country that tries.

Here in Alberta Canada, we produce millions of gallons of "napalm grade" gasoline every day. Our neighbors next door don't seem to have a problem with it.

Canada isn't known for starting too many wars or calling for Jihads. Things may change if you guys start taking up napalming as a national pastime.

 

[Aepervius]

A radio transmitter is like a very bright lamp post. It blasts RF in a sphere radiating away from the transmitting antenna.

RF recievers are like little solar cells which capture the light and converts it to electricity. The energy you extract comes from the little area your antenna occupies in that RF field. The energy you extract from your area does not affect the energy someone extracts from the opposite side of the antenna.

The "RF shadow" is not that much of an issue as RF refracts around objects just as light does. if you place a solar cell far enough behind an shadow casting object it will recieve some of light that is refracting around the edges of the shadow casting object. Try it out.

Again, it is a question on how much you emit and how much you catch. No matter how much you want to justify it, a 1 KW emitter, with a few person catching 1/10 of a watt will have only negligible effect, but make that number 1000 of persons and you *seriously* limit the effectiveness of the emitter, *or* this type of energy catching decrease seriously in effectiveness.

There is no free lunch.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Again, it is a question on how much you emit and how much you catch. No matter how much you want to justify it, a 1 KW emitter, with a few person catching 1/10 of a watt will have only negligible effect, but make that number 1000 of persons and you *seriously* limit the effectiveness of the emitter, *or* this type of energy catching decrease seriously in effectiveness.

There is no free lunch.

Yup.

To reclaim a sufficient amount of RF energy, there would be a shadow (or at least a severely weak area). And that results in less functionality (which, ironically perhaps, requires cell phones to work harder, draining their battery faster and requiring a more frequent recharge thus wasting whatever power was reclaimed via the RF).




(I've worked with RF...for many, many years. I think I understand how RF generally works. I also recognize that there are limitations to this idea of yours and while I appreciate new and ingenuous ideas, to argue that this one is viable is, well, a dead end.)

 

[Belz...]

Yes, most if not all of human endeavours results in waste being produced. Some are just worse than others.

And you believe that nuclear waste is worse because it's radioactive ?

 

[r-j]

So the earthquake and tsunami hits. The oil refineries go up in huge balls of fire, the dams break and add to the flooding, various other plants spew toxins everywhere, and people are worried about the safety of the nuclear power plants which haven't even melted down and will not explode?

Yep, and as it turned out, for damn good reasons. Melting nuclear fuel, exploding reactor buildings, vast areas contaminated by nuclear materials, a continuous cloud of radioactivity spewing from multiple melted reactor cores, huge amounts of damaged fuel rods, hundreds of thousands of people evacuated, vast economic devestation, fear and uncertainty, and a problem with no solution in sight, much less any point where anyone can say it will be safe again.

Sometimes fear is the right response to great danger.

Those plants got hit by a huge earthquake, and aftershocks, and all the other effects. If this isn't a great case for the safety of nuclear power plants, what is?

No, it is exactly what scientists had predicted would happen at some point. We know now that reactor one, the first to blow up, was not from the tsunami at all. It was the earthquake, which was nowhere near full strength at the plant. The earthquake caused it to start melting down before the tsunami even hit.

It's an alarming wake up call to the entire world. There are spent fuel rods all over the world, and most of them are at risk from any failure of the reactor they are right next to. This is unacceptable.