Nuclear fission

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Disadvantage:
-physical waste

breeder reactors reuse nuclear waste as fissionable fuel.

nevermind that 51% of US energy comes from coal, which is more polluting than nuclear energy (and it releases more radioactive particles into the air than a properly operating reactor).

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Ignorance and baseless fear is the reason why nuclear power isn't used more now than it is.

**cough**CHERNOBYL**cough**

An outdated reactor design ran by sub standard employees. A RARE circumstance. I also dont believe we have any Ch. designs in America. Plus the redundant systems in place in plants make any serious failures almost impossible.

 

[DorkBoy]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: DorkBoy
"Another negative is that the discharge of cooling water can cause thermal pollution."

Explain this

Some plants are placed on the coast, and discharge hot water into the ocean. That heating of the surrounding waters can affect the local ecosystem.

How many plants? and show the research

What are you, his professor and this is his thesis? We're not doing disserations here. If you don't agree with him give some at least mildly believable counter point, or search the net for an answer. This is informal

I am a Nuke Eng (6yrs)/also (more importantly) an Operator, I work in the Control Room of 2 Nuke plants near Charlotte, NC.

I can argue anything he posts

:Q

Are you like homer simpson?

I like beer and doughnuts, but I am not sure what you are asking?

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Disadvantage:
-physical waste

breeder reactors reuse nuclear waste as fissionable fuel.

nevermind that 51% of US energy comes from coal, which is more polluting than nuclear energy (and it releases more radioactive particles into the air than a properly operating reactor).

Wait, so at teh very end there is not waste or the waste is harmless?

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: DorkBoy
"Another negative is that the discharge of cooling water can cause thermal pollution."

Explain this

Some plants are placed on the coast, and discharge hot water into the ocean. That heating of the surrounding waters can affect the local ecosystem.

How many plants? and show the research

What are you, his professor and this is his thesis? We're not doing disserations here. If you don't agree with him give some at least mildly believable counter point, or search the net for an answer. This is informal

I am a Nuke Eng (6yrs)/also (more importantly) an Operator, I work in the Control Room of 2 Nuke plants near Charlotte, NC.

I can argue anything he posts

:Q

Are you like homer simpson?

I like beer and doughnuts, but I am not sure what you are asking?

Do you have his job?

 

[DorkBoy]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: DorkBoy
"Another negative is that the discharge of cooling water can cause thermal pollution."

Explain this

Some plants are placed on the coast, and discharge hot water into the ocean. That heating of the surrounding waters can affect the local ecosystem.

How many plants? and show the research

What are you, his professor and this is his thesis? We're not doing disserations here. If you don't agree with him give some at least mildly believable counter point, or search the net for an answer. This is informal

I am a Nuke Eng (6yrs)/also (more importantly) an Operator, I work in the Control Room of 2 Nuke plants near Charlotte, NC.

I can argue anything he posts

:Q

Are you like homer simpson?

I like beer and doughnuts, but I am not sure what you are asking?

Do you have his job?

umm, yes

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: DorkBoy
"Another negative is that the discharge of cooling water can cause thermal pollution."

Explain this

Some plants are placed on the coast, and discharge hot water into the ocean. That heating of the surrounding waters can affect the local ecosystem.

How many plants? and show the research

What are you, his professor and this is his thesis? We're not doing disserations here. If you don't agree with him give some at least mildly believable counter point, or search the net for an answer. This is informal

I am a Nuke Eng (6yrs)/also (more importantly) an Operator, I work in the Control Room of 2 Nuke plants near Charlotte, NC.

I can argue anything he posts

:Q

Are you like homer simpson?

I like beer and doughnuts, but I am not sure what you are asking?

Do you have his job?

umm, yes

Nads glow?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: jai6638
hey... was curious to know what are the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear fission? the following is what i came up with..

Advantages:

1) Nuclear Power: efficient and a good alternative to coal which is exhaustible..

Disadvantages:

1) It resulted in the development of atomic bombs which were dropped in hiroshima and nagasaki.
2) Nuclear reactors can spread radioactivity if proper precautions are not taken thus harming the environment to a certain extent.

are there any other advantages/disadvantages that i am missing?

thanks

I thought nuclear power came after the bomb technology was developed.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Ignorance and baseless fear is the reason why nuclear power isn't used more now than it is.

**cough**CHERNOBYL**cough**

That concern is analogous to terrorism. People consider terrorism such a huge threat, but it consitently kills a small fraction of the numbers that cancer, heart disease, and other preventable or semi-preventable illnesses do. The reason is that people would rather die en masse slowly than in small numbers quickly. Similarly people don't like the idea of being around a chernobyl, so instead they'd rather orchestrate a larger scale destruction of their environment, the benefit of which is they can pretend nothing is happening.

As mentioned above any power source has with it problems. If a single problem killing a bunch of commies a couple of decades ago is the biggest with nuclear power, sign me up!

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: DorkBoy
"Another negative is that the discharge of cooling water can cause thermal pollution."

Explain this

Some plants are placed on the coast, and discharge hot water into the ocean. That heating of the surrounding waters can affect the local ecosystem.

How many plants? and show the research

Just do a google search on "Nuclear Powerplants" and "Thermal Pollution". You'll find limitless references to the subject.

The reason I'm not doing the work for you is that I can tell that you have no HONEST intellectual interest. I could cite twenty studies, but I know your strategy would be to dispute them and ask for more.

I've had similar situations occur with anti natural selection zeolots. They cite objections, but the truth is they really are not open to having their minds changed. Your tone tells me you're in the same boat.

By the way, thermal pollution occurs just about anywhere nuclear plants dischage cooling water: rivers, lakes, the ocearn. The artificial raising of the temperature of the surrounding area selects for or against a different mix of creatures than if the powerplant were absent. Also, when plants are shut down for maintenance, the water can undergo rapid cooling of several degrees for a period a days, and this can kill wildlife that are adapted to the higher temperature.

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: DorkBoy
"Another negative is that the discharge of cooling water can cause thermal pollution."

Explain this

Some plants are placed on the coast, and discharge hot water into the ocean. That heating of the surrounding waters can affect the local ecosystem.

How many plants? and show the research

What are you, his professor and this is his thesis? We're not doing disserations here. If you don't agree with him give some at least mildly believable counter point, or search the net for an answer. This is informal

I am a Nuke Eng (6yrs)/also (more importantly) an Operator, I work in the Control Room of 2 Nuke plants near Charlotte, NC.

I can argue anything he posts

:Q

Are you like homer simpson?

I like beer and doughnuts, but I am not sure what you are asking?

Do you have his job?

umm, yes

Nads glow?

can I make this quote look any more rediculous by neffing?

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Ignorance and baseless fear is the reason why nuclear power isn't used more now than it is.

**cough**CHERNOBYL**cough**

An outdated reactor design ran by sub standard employees. A RARE circumstance. I also dont believe we have any Ch. designs in America. Plus the redundant systems in place in plants make any serious failures almost impossible.

Wrong...Chernobyl was caused by human error which can ALWAYS occur.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Ignorance and baseless fear is the reason why nuclear power isn't used more now than it is.

**cough**CHERNOBYL**cough**

An outdated reactor design ran by sub standard employees. A RARE circumstance. I also dont believe we have any Ch. designs in America. Plus the redundant systems in place in plants make any serious failures almost impossible.

Wrong...Chernobyl was caused by human error which can ALWAYS occur.

That's not true. Human error can be eliminated.

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: DorkBoy
"Another negative is that the discharge of cooling water can cause thermal pollution."

Explain this

Some plants are placed on the coast, and discharge hot water into the ocean. That heating of the surrounding waters can affect the local ecosystem.

How many plants? and show the research

Just do a google search on "Nuclear Powerplants" and "Thermal Pollution". You'll find limitless references to the subject.

The reason I'm not doing the work for you is that I can tell that you have no HONEST intellectual interest. I could cite twenty studies, but I know your strategy would be to dispute them and ask for more.

I've had similar situations occur with anti natural selection zeolots. They cite objections, but the truth is they really are not open to having their minds changed. Your tone tells me you're in the same boat.

By the way, thermal pollution occurs just about anywhere nuclear plants dischage cooling water: rivers, lakes, the ocearn. The artificial raising of the temperature of the surrounding area selects for or against a different mix of creatures than if the powerplant were absent. Also, when plants are shut down for maintenance, the water can undergo rapid cooling of several degrees for a period a days, and this can kill wildlife that are adapted to the higher temperature.

Thermal pollution occurs with any type of fossil fuel fired power plant, as well as nuke plants. Both types of plants operate on the same basic principles, using some fuel to heat water and turn it into high pressure steam which can be used to do work. This cycle requires a "cold" reservoir (lake, river, ocean) in which to dump the heat necessary to turn the low pressure steam effulent from the turbine into low pressure water. The colder this reservoir the better.

R

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: DorkBoy

I am a Nuke Eng (6yrs)/also (more importantly) an Operator, I work in the Control Room of 2 Nuke plants near Charlotte, NC.

I can argue anything he posts

No. All you can argue is your area of expertise, which is the operation of nuclear power plants. You are not qualified as an environmentalist. And especially BECAUSE your livelihood depends upon the existence of nuclear power plants, you are hardly a disinterested party. You opinions will almost certainly reflect self-interest. Hardly an objective frame of mind.

 

[FoBoT]

DorkBoy wins!! :thumbsup:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Ignorance and baseless fear is the reason why nuclear power isn't used more now than it is.

There's also the problem of what to do with ever growing tons of stuff that glows for thousands of years. Ask the folks in Hanford, Washington, Three Mile Island or Chernobyl how they feel about government assurances of safety.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Pebble Bed reactors > *

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Ignorance and baseless fear is the reason why nuclear power isn't used more now than it is.

**cough**CHERNOBYL**cough**

An outdated reactor design ran by sub standard employees. A RARE circumstance. I also dont believe we have any Ch. designs in America. Plus the redundant systems in place in plants make any serious failures almost impossible.

Wrong...Chernobyl was caused by human error which can ALWAYS occur.

That's not true. Human error can be eliminated.

Uh, no.

 

[HomerSapien]

Coal power plants release more radiation into the enviroment than nuclear plants. Main reason is they are not regulated for it. Uranium is the 5th most abundant element on earth. It is in everything, but itmight only be in very,very,very tiny amounts. Coal is not 100% pure carbon when it goes into the furnaces, so it will burn uranium and carry it in its soot. Cigarettes are one of the highest contributors to dose that people receive, radon and natural radiation is #1 by far. I would gladly have a reactor in my backyard as i know for a fact that it is being closely watched for any kind of danger.

Shira: Powerplants pump water back into the enviroment close to the natural temperature of that lake/ocean/whatever. They are required to do this.

Saber Dicer: Fusion has already been achieved. The break even point has not. The break even point is the reaction produces as much or more energy as it takes to make fusion happen. It has been 20 years off for the last 50 years, but it is closer.

Edro: It is not as expensive as you are lead to believe. It is .2 -.4 cents per kW hr. The plants cost alot, but they built to last 30+ years. Coal and natural gas are higher than that. If we used breeder reactors, our energy supply would almost be on the ~10,000 year scale as opposed to running out within 200.

jai6638: #2 on disadvantages doesnt make much sense in the U.S's perspect. They are the highest regulated industry in the U.S. It has paid off because we have had the lowest workers comp claim and that goes for any type of injury. Workers are badged and closely watched. I think proper measures are taking place. People driving cars is more dangerous to our environment. As for transporting waste, there are thousands of trips made each year and you do not hear anything about any of them causing problems.

One thing to think about. Nuclear fission lead to advances in almost every field. Smoke alarms, peta scans, cat scans, xray machines, cancer treatment,etc has uses for nuclear tech. I could go on with every day products. The benfits far outweigh the negatives.

Im not going to respond much in this thread as i have to get back to hw.. I will try to post some useful links for those willing to research it on their own.

edit: wow..i started this post before the thread exploded....hehehe..sorry if i reposted anything mentioned.

 

[msparish]

I always find the extreme fear of radiation a little funny. Sure it needs to be respected, but the threat it is has been blown way out of proportion. Plus people selectivley choose what they are afraid of. I was taking a physics course last semester taught by an MD/PhD (it was physics of the human body), and he informed us that one of the (if not the) largest storage of radioactive marterials in the western US is in the middle of Salt Lake City. Naturally everyone is concerned where the low level nuclear waste is being stored about 80 miles out of town. Anyway, he was concerned that the public would find out about this other source of radiation...it's a hub/storage of radioactive medical materials. Anyway, the biggest place of release of radiation near hear is the coal power plant, not the storage facilities.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Thermal pollution occurs with any type of fossil fuel fired power plant, as well as nuke plants. Both types of plants operate on the same basic principles, using some fuel to heat water and turn it into high pressure steam which can be used to do work. This cycle requires a "cold" reservoir (lake, river, ocean) in which to dump the heat necessary to turn the low pressure steam effulent from the turbine into low pressure water. The colder this reservoir the better.

R

Agreed. The original question was, "What are the negatives associated with nuclear fission?", which I think was more broadly interpreted as the disadvantages of nuclear power plants. The question did not ask for the unique disadvantages of nuclear power plants.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Nebor

That's not true. Human error can be eliminated.

If a human being is involved in ANY step of a process, human error is possible. If you want to argue that machines will be placed in control, then the question is, who programmed the machines? You can't escape it, human error is unavoidable.

 

[HomerSapien]

Originally posted by: Howard

I thought nuclear power came after the bomb technology was developed.

heres your correction. 1942. First chain reaction under the squash field at the University of Chicago. First atmoic weapon was in 1945.. They knew research that it "could" be used for a weapon, but they also saw the potential it had in other fields.

To be even more precise, Hahn and Straussman observed nuclear fission in 1938. They did not realize what it was until Lise Smitner (yes, a woman) told them what they had observed. She was Hahn's lab partner until she had to flee Germany and went to Switzerland when WW2 started. They communicated back and forth by letter and Lise and her nephew discovered what it actually was.

 

[msparish]

Originally posted by: HomerSapien

Originally posted by: Howard

I thought nuclear power came after the bomb technology was developed.

heres your correction. 1942. First chain reaction under the squash field at the University of Chicago. First atmoic weapon was in 1945.. They knew research that it "could" be used for a weapon, but they also saw the potential it had in other fields.

To be even more precise, Hahn and Straussman observed nuclear fission in 1938. They did not realize what it was until Lise Smitner (yes, a woman) told them what they had observed. She was Hahn's lab partner until she had to flee Germany and went to Switzerland when WW2 started. They communicated back and forth by letter and Lise and her nephew discovered what it actually was.

I think it's pretty bogus that she didn't win the Nobel prize while I believe that Hahn did.