Safe Nuclear energy?

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 46
--> @Ramshutu
To clarify, you are saying that salt is used as the primary medium of heat transfer between the reactor and the steam boiler?
--> @Snoopy

..."But sodium has significant disadvantages, too. On contact with air, it burns; plunged into water, it explodes.

...The use of sodium, which occurs naturally only as a compound in other minerals, presents huge challenges, however.

...The Nikkei business daily reported that France had informed Japan it would halt research into the ASTRID (Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration) project in 2019, with no plans to allocate a budget from 2020."....

..."Japan has finally pulled the plug on Monju, an experimental fast breeder nuclear reactor that has been plagued by accidents, cover-ups and cost overruns. But why did Monju fail and is there still a future for fast breeder technology? Molly Lempriere finds out."....

And the list goes on, and the list goes, FBR's pounding rythms to the brain, la de da de, la de da de da...sung to Sonny and Cher tune


--> @mustardness
meanwhile...50 years operating 57 nuclear reactors in France and not a single death.

90 USA reactors and not a single death.
--> @Greyparrot
meanwhile...50 years operating 57 nuclear reactors in France and not a single death....90 USA reactors and not a single death.
You can believe and state all kinds of non-truths all day long.  Hot air.

We dont know how many people have been exposed to ionizing radiation from and nuclear power plant and subsequently had damage done to their RNA-DNA with resultant malformities in their children or death of the individual.

Nuclear industry just like the coal industry do a cost-benifit-analysls{?} that takes into consideration the number of possible deaths associated with producing energy to see if the benifits out-wigh the risks to population.

Not to mention, that, once again, you short-sighted mind-set can only see that data and not the great picture that has so many more factors involved in a comprehensive set of considerations for what possible pathways forward are best for  humanity in long term not just the short term.

1} population { reasonable amount in consideration of following set },

2} standard of living,

3} cost-benifit-analysis,

4} fossil fuel based technology, { fracking, coal, uranium, gas etc }

5} renewable sources { wind, solar, hydro },

6} world energy grid that connects day and night sides of planet and doubles amount of available energy

7} nuclear byproducts balanced against many factors ex unforseen terrosim or acts of nature { ex  tusnami that hit Fukashima }, these byproducts existence on Earth greatly enhance potential detriment to humanity and the ecological environment that sustains them,

8}  more I cant think of off top of my head, and I have to run and errand,

9} a united humanity under one global flag vs division/splintering into more and more factions pitting against each other with some trying to gain rich wealth over the others.  This is no best way forward




--> @mustardness
a united humanity under one global flag vs division/splintering into more and more factions pitting against each other with some trying to gain rich wealth over the others.  This is no best way forward
I'm curious about your time frame.  How long do you think it will take the people of every country to join the United States?  

--> @mustardness
- Low pressure coolant reactors are much safer due to lack of possible steam explosions.
- The higher heat reservoir for higher temperature afforded by molten sodium or molten salt mean cooling mechanisms of spraying water on the reactor are less necessary.
- No hydrogen explosions either.
- Many thorium breeding cores can’t be used for proliferation as U233 is a hard gamma emitter.
- The extra plutonium generated is not a problem, it’s what breeders do. Breed new fuel.
- Sodium is more dangerous when exposed to air, but is less problematic than dealing with super high pressure radioactive steam and water at super high temperature.
- Positive void coefficients are only one part of the equation as long as the reactivity of the core as a whole is negative, it’s not a problem. It’s certainly not large enough to be able to cause an uncontrolled steam explosion due to thermal runaway.

I have taken the liberty of bolding the parts of my previous post that you don’t seem to be interested in addressing.

Pressurized water reactors must operate at very high steam pressures and have major issues with hydrogen explosions in emergency scenarios as the zirconium cladding of fuel rods at high temperature  reacts with water.

Sodium is dangerous due to its reactivity - but must of the issues you’ve mentioned about it are untrue, or not really issues: the PVC isn’t an issue when the reactivity of the core is taken as a whole. You don’t need to spray water on the core.

There is limited amount of uranium reserves in the world and despite your claims to the contrary, while the worlds remaining supply is measured at the scale of centuries - this is based on current consumption. Increase and scaling up of generation is necessarily going to drop this down - and as more convenient, and more prevelant nuclear power may get - the more need there is for higher efficiency reactors.

Saying this, I would prefer to see more research into LFTR reactors - they are by far and away the most interesting of the Gen 4 designs.
--> @Snoopy
I'm curious about your time frame.  How long do you think it will take the people of every country to join the United States?
First off you error in saying United States when you should say United Countries aka United Nations and not United Corporations unless the 1st priorty of those corporations is the longest term sustaining of humans on Earth with the least amount of detriment to the ecological environement that sustains all biologial life on Earth.

2nd the time frame depends on the integrity of every human. It took 1000s of peoples marching in the streets to create environment for civil rights and stop and unnecessary war by USA.

3rd, humans are so dumb { short sided }, greedy and barbaric that historically it took a violent leader and group to unite the disparate groups of barbaric peoples to create a united group, Ex Yugolslavia, or Islam, or civil war in US and civil wars in other countries { China } to unite behind a common good for all.

4th if humans ever get smart then we could be a long term United Nations.  My guess is to do that without violence we will need some catastrohic set of events to unite humanity behind a common goal.  Erratic Climate Change Extreme's could be just such of events headed this way.  I dunno.




--> @Ramshutu
Sodium is dangerous due to its reactivity - but must of the issues you’ve mentioned about it are untrue, or not really issues
Ive given many articles that disagree with your assesment that FBRs are safer than other nukes. I'm not an expert on FBR so I have to consider both sides but in so doing there is obvious historical problems with FBR;'s that have not yet been solve --and will not be solved anyhtime soon--  and if not solved have potential to lead to very severe explosions and the spewing of lots of ionizing radiation, if not specifically radiation from plutonium.  YIKES!

Humans ---except for the French---  are inherently scared of ionizing radiation, and specifically plutonium, for good reasona.  This is a minimal brainer.

Solar, wind and hydrogen inherently do not appear threatening to our basic RNA-DNA coding.  YOu dont seem to grasp that humans are dumb but for the most part their not stupid when it comes to understanding these not so subtle differrence in scale or what is  the word,...uhh, oh yea, DANGEROUS!





--> @mustardness
You've given many articles that you’ve either subtly not understood, or haven’t presented in their full context. The truth of the matter is actually much more subtle than is being presented.

FBRs have been running since the 1960s, without any major events - and while they are technically challenging, your portrayal of the issues and safety is inherently flawed and misrepresenting the facts.

People are afraid of ionizing radiation mainly as humans are incapable of apprioriately weighing abstract risks.

Even before the NSC was built, you’d get a higher dose of radiation travelling to Brazil and sitting on the beach at Guarapari than you would standing outside reactor 4 at Chernobyl.

Nuclear power has dangers to it, but the risks are ridiculously overhyped and over stated. Nuclear accidents are just big scary and sexy, so everyone is irrationally frightened of them happening everywhere.


Look at it this way. A nuclear power station was subjected to mag 9 earthquake, was then flooded by a massive Tsunami, it lost all power for several days, lost all cooling, and all ability to manage the shutdown the damaged reactors and suffered 3 hydrogen explosions. The meltdown of three reactors still caused less radiation than a single reactor at Chernobyl: and the total number of actual deaths attributed to radiation at Fukushma is 1 death from lung cancer.

The fear of Nuclear power is absurd and irrational - given that falling out of bed kills more people.



--> @Ramshutu
Ram is correct.

The Cuban missile crisis did more to halt nuclear power than Chernobyl.

The public sees a potential mushroomcloud over every nuclear power plant.
--> @Greyparrot
@Ramshutu

just like Ram and others have said...

how the fear of nuclear power was created by people who had ideological fears or sought to exploit it for political gain




--> @Greyparrot
The public sees a potential mushroomcloud over every nuclear power plant.
1} Only the more simple minded see that, however, that image --tho mostly associated with hydrogen bombs-- a Fast Breeder Reactor may be next in line to creation of such actual phenomena of true ionizing "mushroom cloud" occurring.

2} here is one actual photo of the poorly defined cloud emitted from Fukushima, See LINK, and they go on to say, that,
....'More than 80 per cent of the radiation was deposited in the ocean and poles, so I think the global population got the least exposure.'....
...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CHuj34Aen8....this vidieo has a differren slant than the one above....


Who do we trust, nuclear industry data or other?

3} what humans  very briefly saw  visually on tv is that of seemingly perfect expanding hydrogen sphere  emitted over Fukushima reactor when it exploded.  Hard to find slow vidieo of that image
--> @mustardness
The Hydrogen explosions at Fukushima were combusting Hydrogen, not fusing Hydrogen in a fusion reaction. The Hydrogen was produced as a reaction between the zirconium cladding of fuel assemblies (poor neutron absorbing material), and steam at high temperatures. Not the same thing at all.

Due to the nature of nuclear reactors - it’s not possible for hydrogen to be created by a Sodium cooled FBR - as there is no water in the core. It is also next to impossible to make a reactor go prompt critical (exponential chain reaction) - by design. 

SL-1 in the 60s went prompt critical - no one is quite sure of Chernobyl did - and thus far there is no indication any other reactor ever has.

even the most catastrophic reactor accidents haven’t killed many people - comparatively speaking. 

Literally more people have died in cars between your post and my post than have died as a result of nuclear power generation.

--> @Ramshutu
Literally more people have died in cars between your post and my post than have died as a result of nuclear power generation.
If we put aside nuclear bombs that USA unnecessarily dropped on Japan, then the above is also true. So does that make having more and more hydrogen bombs floating around in submarines and elsewhere a smart concept for humanities short and long term survival?

Ive already made clear with many references how dumb it is to add more nuclear based sources of energy on Earth with all of the potential hazadous consequences and much ionizing radiation that has is in our enviroement with varying half-lives of years to get eventually be a detriment to any all biological life on Earth.

I'm sorry Ramshutu, I think it is short-sighted to consider nukes other than for medical uses. Once again we already stockpiling nuclear waste on site at my nukes plants because humans have found no safe place to store them for thousands of years. Do you understand the words coming off my keystrokes?

◆ Breeder reactors use highly enriched fuels, which pose the danger of critical accidents. They also work at a very high temperature and a fast pace.

◆ Plutonium persists for a long time in the environment, with a half-life of 24,000 years, and is highly toxic, causing lung cancer even if a small amount is inhaled.

◆ The construction and operation is very costly. Between $4 to $8 billion is required in the construction alone.
◆ The byproducts formed during the fission of plutonium have to be removed by reprocessing, as they slow down the neutrons and reduce efficiency. However, this step of reprocessing produces a very pure strain of plutonium, which is ideal for use in nuclear weapons. This poses a risk, as in, terrorists may attempt to sabotage or steal the plutonium.

◆ Till date, not a single breeder reactor has been economically feasible. Every year, billions of dollars worldwide are spent for the safe storage of the plutonium produced, which is then useless, as few reactors use it as fuel.

◆ In practice, a breeder reactor requires 30 years to produce as much plutonium as it utilizes in its operation.

◆ It requires liquefied sodium or potassium metal as a coolant, as water would slow down the neutrons. These metals can cause a mishap, as they react violently when exposed to water or air.

◆ These reactors are complex to operate. Moreover, even minor malfunctions can cause prolonged shutdowns. Their repair is tedious and expensive too.

◆ Breeder reactors have had several accidents. For example, in the US, the Experimental Breeder Reactor I suffered a meltdown in 1955. Similarly, Reactor Fermi I suffered a partial meltdown in 1966, and was closed down after a series of sodium explosions. Currently, only Russia, China, India, and Japan have operational breeder reactors.

--> @Ramshutu

--> @Greyparrot
It's a hell of a lot safer then what we are doing!




Nuclear power kills less people then all other forms of electricity except wind.  It doesn't pollute.  Any time it melts down, a new one can be built that's better then previously.  Trial and error.
--> @Alec
Any time it melts down, a new one can be built that's better then previously
Uh, what?

--> @Alec
I think you’re talking about wax sculptures; not nuclear reactors.
--> @Ramshutu
A new one can be built somewhere else.  In the meantime, the area that was destroyed can be bioremediated.
--> @Alec
Right now, bioremediation technology isn’t sufficient - and mostly only reduces the mobility of radionucleotides (it doesn’t remove them)