Nuclear power

[sailaway21]

The article below is somewhat long but well worth the perseverence taken for the reward received. It's basically an article on nuclear power, soup to nuts. After the first few paragraphs I'd thought it just another screed against nukes but the full article reveals an objective and favorable view of nuclear power. While you may know quite a bit about the subject, I'll warrant that you'll find out something new in the reading of the article, I know I did so. By the way, my favorite quote in the article is, "when you start asking for proof of what's going to happen in a million years, you're not a serious scientist". If you're at all like me, you'll conclude the article with a silent prayer that, yes, democracy is better than all the other forms of government but, somedays....

MELTDOWN: GQ Features on men.style.com

[Giulietta]

This is something I will not discuss as you may gather.

[sailingdog]

There's one way to generate electricity fairly cheaply, using current resources and fairly cleanly... but the idea is very controversial and involves an unusual use of nuclear weapons, so I'm not going to post it here.

[teshannon]

Having worked as an engineer in the nuclear power industry all my life I will tell you that it is by far the safest, cleanest, cheapest and most reliable energy source we have, period. I hope it will see a reemergence in the US soon. I

[sailingdog]

apparently, the oil and coal interests have gotten to TEshannon.

Originally Posted by teshannon

Having worked as an engineer in the nuclear power industry all my life I will tell you that it is by far the safest, cleanest, cheapest and most reliable energy source we have, period. I hope it will see a reemergence in the US soon. I

[uspirate]

I agree with teshannon. a very efficient means of energy, how you think an aircraft carrier can pull 50 years of service before refueling? one of the major drawbacks to reactors is metal fatigue.

[sailingdog]

That and long-lived radioactive waste.

Originally Posted by uspirate

I agree with teshannon. a very efficient means of energy, how you think an aircraft carrier can pull 50 years of service before refueling? one of the major drawbacks to reactors is metal fatigue.

[camaraderie]

Long article but well worth the read...thanks Sway.

[Stillraining]

How fast do you guys read any way...I made it 2/3 the way through...I'll finish latter...

Sway could you subscribe to a few short story news services? good info but geezzzs...

[sailingdog]

One problem is the design of most nuclear reactors.

Back in the late 1960's, there was a paper written about using an air-cooled, pebble bed reactor design to generate electricity, by the same individual who wrote about using nuclear weapons to generate electricity.

Most current plants are water-cooled designs, and have serious problems due to the complexity of the water cooling systems. Also, much of the exorbinant cost of a water-cooled nuclear reactor is the cost of the building the cooling systems, which also require fairly complete redundancy. A pebble-bed reactor avoids many of the problems of a light-water reactor, but has a lower energy generation capacity as a drawback.

Most PBR designs have a reduced energy output as the temperature increases, making the possibility of a meltdown fairly low. The lack of a water-based cooling system means the steam explosion that can occur in a water-cooled reactor is not a risk with a PBR system, many of which can use air or helium gas as the coolant.

Another drawback of the pebble bed designs is that they require fairly regular re-fueling... rather than being able to run on a single load of radioactive materials for an extended period of time, and due to the nature of the fuel, radioactive material encased in a graphite sphere, the amount of radioactive waste generated is generally higher than an comparable water-cooled reactor would create. However, the waste is generally less dangerous and easier to handle than the waste from a water cooled reactor.

One final plus is that the fuel materials and waste products of a pebble-bed reactor are more difficult to re-use and would be more resistant to being turned into nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, the waste or fuel would still work quite well in making a "dirty" bomb, which is just an explosive device spreading radioactive contamination via an conventional explosion, rather than an actual fission or fusion-induced blast.