Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [NYT] U.S. Pushes for Nuclear Power, Regulators Lagging
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[NYT] U.S. Pushes for Nuclear Power, Regulators Lagging - Page 9

post #81 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthjoe229 View Post
Most things people are scared of have been turned irrelevant. I think the only issue we have is the disposal of waste.
Traveling Wave Nuclear Technology: Allows the use of already spent nuclear fuel (depleted uranium) to power traveling wave reactors for potentially hundreds of years.

Wiki
Edited by Greg121986 - 2/11/11 at 8:59pm
post #82 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShamrockMan View Post
We actually have a reactor in the US that can "recycle" nuclear waste and for the bits that it cant recycle are very short lived. Currently, its in cold standby. France had a few, but they were shut down for political reasons. China and India are currently building ones. (Mainly Greenpeace-types cant stand the idea of recycling nuclear waste since the largest objection to using nuclear power is the waste)
Can you point to some proof for us? Unless its an extremely limited experimental reactor, there isn't one that exists. There ARE reators that can reuse spent nuclear fuel, but they still stay radioactive for hundreds of years.

I highly doubt your conspiracy theory about politics or greenpeace getting in the way of a reactor that can completely eliminate radioactivity without any major side-effects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShamrockMan View Post
Its not. All of those "studies" are bogus, and generally require insane levels of gov subsidies to even pass get the bogus study to say they are better.

Solar only slightly makes since if you are in the southern US, even then its $0.30-40 kW/hr (gets as low as $0.12 with subsidies), which is very expensive power. Nuclear is $0.03-$0.06 kW/hr depending on reactor type, age and location. So tell me how solar is cheaper than nuclear?
That's an insane amount of assumption.

How about this, why don't you read the article, break it down for us and show us that you're more right than the University that wrote it.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
post #83 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by scyy View Post
Gotta love when people that have no actual understanding of a subject talk as if they know it by heart. The only downsides are waste(which coal/oil makes far more of and it is expelled into the atmosphere rather than into something we can store and keep from being any real issue till we perfect ways to reuse it) and large initial cost to build the plant itself. The actual upkeep is lower than coal and oil, it puts out a constant amount of power instead of wind/solar which can fluctuate quite a bit depending on weather. The power output is far more than anything else we have at this time. And the overall safety is amazing in modern plants.(People need to realize the safety measures at chernobyl and other incidents was a joke compared to what we are doing now.)

Really the biggest down side as of now is the fact that it is expected that we only have about 100 more years worth of uranium on earth(It's something like that, don't remember the exact figure) however thorium is likely to be replacing it as a fuel for nuclear plants soon. Which is far more abundant on earth along with having superior properties for use as a fuel and would produce less waste compared to uranium. All in all nuclear is the only power source that could possibly replace coal/oil in the near future aside from any major breakthroughs in fusion happening. Wind and solar are nice but they are incapable of supplying sufficient power for any major city unless we make some sort of major breakthrough in storing power.




Because we don't need to blow anyone up right now.
Just wanted to point out that still saying the security in Chernobyl was a joke is wrong. The problem with Chernobyl was that somebody forgot to run proper tests, the rods weren't pulled out in time because of human error. This has been debated and gone over TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

Though you are right, it is completely safe. It is even less likely to happen due to most of that now being run by a machine, less human error.

And honestly, we don't have that bad of a waste problem. I mean, we could bury it for all we care. It's been thrown around many times that if we buried it in high sediment areas (sub sea burial in dense materials for example) that it would be completely safe. By the time leaking would occur it would most likely be so far down that it wouldn't effect the ecosystem above. Might kill off a bunch of micro organisms in the ground, but I'm not really THAT worried. That research was cut off and abandoned even though it had promise, because people wanted above ground solutions.

And it's not THAT hard to guard a dump site, you just have to put it into a good location. Put a dump site in a mountain, like we did, and just give it a good front door. Leave it there for a couple hundred years, by then we will have a solution. lol Or just leave it, doubt we will care about it in the next 100+ years.
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #84 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
Can you point to some proof for us? Unless its an extremely limited experimental reactor, there isn't one that exists. There ARE reators that can reuse spent nuclear fuel, but they still stay radioactive for hundreds of years.
I thought the high level waste from those things lasted thousands of years before it was "safe".
post #85 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by T3h_Ch33z_Muncha View Post
@ all the "OMG NUCLEAR WASTE ASPLODING IN TEH ATMOSPHERE" comments, i have two words.

Space Elevator.
And I have two words - Not possible.

Not anytime in the near future that is.
Yes, we've all seen articles talking about "How" it could be done via carbon nanotubes, but that's way, way off before we can engineer them to that scale.
i7 930
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 [4.0@1.23v] [4.2@1.32v] ASUS P6T-Deluxe [v1] EVGA GTX 480 SC+ [850/2000@1.100v] OCZ Gold DDR3 [3x2GB] [1600@8-8-8-24-1N] 
Hard Drive
OCZ Vertex 2e (120GB) SSD 
  hide details  
Reply
i7 930
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 [4.0@1.23v] [4.2@1.32v] ASUS P6T-Deluxe [v1] EVGA GTX 480 SC+ [850/2000@1.100v] OCZ Gold DDR3 [3x2GB] [1600@8-8-8-24-1N] 
Hard Drive
OCZ Vertex 2e (120GB) SSD 
  hide details  
Reply
post #86 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaxel View Post
I thought the high level waste from those things lasted thousands of years before it was "safe".
You're right. My bad. It's like anywhere from 10k-100k.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
Almost every construction project will have unforeseen costs. If that was cause to abandon an idea then we would all be living in tents.
Rofl what?! Comparing routine construction project issues to going BILLIONS and YEARS over budget isn't gonna fly. The price of building a nuclear plant is being undersold in order to compete with solar. Once nuclear wins out, then the REAL price comes out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
Storing the material would be a relatively short term solution. Until they start building reactors that can use this waste for fuel, there are plenty of safe places to put it. The total impact on the environment will be much less then if we continue to burn obscene amounts of coal.
I already addressed these issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
Call me when they have a device 100% built and working that can remove the pollution from burning coal and other petroleum products.
They have, it's called SOLAR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFrost View Post
There are many variables that need to be taken into account when you determine the total cost. The spacial requirements for solar are huge. If you have a city like New York where will you put all of these solar panels? The plant would need to be built far from town. Are there power lines out in the middle of nowhere? How long do the panels last? Night time? Hail damage? etc.
In NYC? Rent out the tops of roofs. Done deal.

How long do solar planes last? Most panels now have about a 25 yr warranty.

Night time? I never said for us to switch to 100% solar, only that we could make it the majority of our power consumption and then maybe rely on nuclear for the remaining 25% or so.

Hail Damage? Man, I'm not an engineer, I don't know, but it sounds like you don't either and are just throwing random obstacles in the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg121986 View Post
Traveling Wave Nuclear Technology: Allows the use of already spent nuclear fuel (depleted uranium) to power traveling wave reactors for potentially hundreds of years.

Wiki
TWRs are as science fiction as Fusion reactors are. Until a TWR is built and working, you can't assume that they'll be there in time to clean up a mess you're making now.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
post #87 of 126
To the hail damage stuff, it's really bogus. They've created solar panels you can cut, tear, punch holes in, and they will still produce electricity. The downside is that they aren't as efficient, but could greatly reduce costs. =)
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #88 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigunflame View Post
I see that mentioned alot.
So, what happens when the rocket propelled "barge" goes kaboom and radioactive waste is littered all throughout the atmosphere?

Great times are soon to follow I'm sure!
At thousands of light years I'm sure we will be fine with all the gamma rays all over the Universe I'm sure no one would notice. By that time we may even have magical radiation blockers.

RadAway ftw!
post #89 of 126
I want faster internet not nuclear power....
post #90 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdvanSuper View Post
I want faster internet not nuclear power....
good luck using your japanese internet without power
T3h_Fap_Machine
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @ 3.2GHz FFFFF Gigabyte EP45-UD3P HD5770 1GB 2x2GB Corsair Dominator 1066MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung F3 1TB + WD 3200AAKS LG Super multi something Windows 7 Home Premium x64 BenQ 22" 1080p 40000DCR 5ms 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
crappy gigabyte 430W Antec Truepower Trio CM 690 (modded) Razer Diamondback 3G Flame Red 
Mouse Pad
Razer Goliathus Omega Speed Edition 
  hide details  
Reply
T3h_Fap_Machine
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @ 3.2GHz FFFFF Gigabyte EP45-UD3P HD5770 1GB 2x2GB Corsair Dominator 1066MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung F3 1TB + WD 3200AAKS LG Super multi something Windows 7 Home Premium x64 BenQ 22" 1080p 40000DCR 5ms 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
crappy gigabyte 430W Antec Truepower Trio CM 690 (modded) Razer Diamondback 3G Flame Red 
Mouse Pad
Razer Goliathus Omega Speed Edition 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [NYT] U.S. Pushes for Nuclear Power, Regulators Lagging