Nuclear fission

my ass just chernobled a few minutes ago

the devils spit burger from famous daves gets me everytime

 

[jai6638]

hmm ok edited my original post and included the additional disadvantages and advantages that the people above posted.... thanks a lot

need to do more research and explore what homersapien said about nuclear fissoin being used in xraymachines,etc,...

Please list any other advantages/disadvantages you guys can think of...

 

[Kevin1211]

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

map of plants near the coast:
http://www.nukepills.com/contentbuilder.../00/01/08/65/98/userdirectory6.content

 

[HomerSapien]

xray machines are nuclear technology, not nuclear fission. I wasnt to clear in my post.. My bad.

yeah, it is a shame lise smitner didnt win the nobel prize as she really was the pioneer in the whole field. She did win the very first fermi award for excellence in physics.

Oh yeah, low level radioactive waste is defined by what it is not, not what it actually is. Its primarily a political term. It is not fuel from reactors, highlevel waste, transuranic, uranium milling tailings, naturally occurring radioactive material. It is what has been exposed to radiation, such as concrete.

High level waste is from reactors. This is pretty much stored on site in the caskets. Transuranic waste is from the DOE and the DOD.

Kevin: here is where that website got their map from.nrc nuclear regulatory commission

Nuke pills...BUWUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....Yes, lets load our systems with iodine.

 

[DorkBoy]

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.

So compare Nuclear to any other kind of power generation plant and water, what do you have?

Maybe we will all go solar? Maybe give up internet?


What?s my strategy now?

 

[DorkBoy]

Originally posted by: 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.

So give up electricity is your answer?

 

[DorkBoy]

Originally posted by: Kevin1211

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

Disproved!
We all know that 24 has 104 Nuke Plants!!

map of plants near the coast:
http://www.nukepills.com/contentbuilder.../00/01/08/65/98/userdirectory6.content

Disproved!
We all know that ?24? had 104 Nuke Plants!!

 

[jagec]

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

yes, both types of plants HAVE to create lots of thermal pollution, since they are heat engines and need a low-temperature sink.
Incidentally, coal/gas/oil plants are usually more thermally efficient than nuclear, because they tend to be run at a higher temperature (the effects of a nuclear plant overheating would be worse than a coal plant).

The real problem with nuclear power is the radioactive waste. We haven't come up with a good way of storing it, and there's a LOT of it to store even with only our current nuclear plants.

 

[DorkBoy]

Originally posted by: jagec

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

yes, both types of plants HAVE to create lots of thermal pollution, since they are heat engines and need a low-temperature sink.
Incidentally, coal/gas/oil plants are usually more thermally efficient than nuclear, because they tend to be run at a higher temperature (the effects of a nuclear plant overheating would be worse than a coal plant).

The real problem with nuclear power is the radioactive waste. We haven't come up with a good way of storing it, and there's a LOT of it to store even with only our current nuclear plants.

Each site maintains its own waste fuel, and I have been to many sites.

The problem is the government not the industry

Within the industry we all believe it should be shipped to California (the waste).

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: jagec
The real problem with nuclear power is the radioactive waste. We haven't come up with a good way of storing it, and there's a LOT of it to store even with only our current nuclear plants.

Don't coal plants produce huge amounts of radioactive waste as well?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: jagec
The real problem with nuclear power is the radioactive waste. We haven't come up with a good way of storing it, and there's a LOT of it to store even with only our current nuclear plants.

Don't coal plants produce huge amounts of radioactive waste as well?

their "radioactive waste" is dispersed in the air when they burn the coal.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: jagec
their "radioactive waste" is dispersed in the air when they burn the coal.

Right, well isn't that a problem? I mean, wouldn't you want it all to be in one place so that you can manage it?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: jagec
their "radioactive waste" is dispersed in the air when they burn the coal.

Right, well isn't that a problem? I mean, wouldn't you want it all to be in one place so that you can manage it?

Part of the reason I don't like coal power.

Unfortunately, engineering's dirty little secret is that "dilution is the solution to pollution":Q

 

[Goosemaster]

When it comes down to it, Nuclear power Plants are not perfect.

As we strive to find better ways to actuate a better heat engine, we definitely improve our technique, slowly approaching the Carnot engine in terms of efficiency

The question posed concerned the advantages and disadvantages of Nuclear fission, not how it comapred to other technologies.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: jagec
their "radioactive waste" is dispersed in the air when they burn the coal.

Right, well isn't that a problem? I mean, wouldn't you want it all to be in one place so that you can manage it?

Part of the reason I don't like coal power.

Unfortunately, engineering's dirty little secret is that "dilution is the solution to pollution":Q

Just try remembering that before you ruin a good bowl of punch....:|

 

[Goosemaster]

as for Fusion versus Fission, I will quote princeton:

The sources of radioactive waste in the fission energy cycle are numerous: From low-level mine-tailings to the high level waste from the burnt out fuel rods, the problem of waste disposal in in the fission cycle is grave and has yet to be solved. The fusion fuel cycle has none of these problems, as the source of fuel doen't require mining. D is found to a small percentage in sea water and can be separated and T is bred on-site in a reaction with Lithium. The waste product is an intert gas, Helium, which is completely harmless.

As for the dangers of a nuclear accident, this a real concern with fission reactors, meltdowns and runaway reactors are a reality for which Tschernobyl serves as an example. This danger is not present in fusion reactions, as fuel is only inserted as needed, in other words, should the reaction become uncontrolled, all it does is go out with no other negative impact than a loss of power.

http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/

The inherent problem is inevitability, or specifically, the inevitability of finding failure in the imperfect. Humans run these plants. Robots might one day run these plants. These robots will be built by humans.

It will be quite difficult to asure perfection. THat said, there are a variety of safeguards to protect the populace, but there are thigns preventing such technologies fro mthriving

1) General incompetance and socail gravitation - society as a whole undergoes ritualistic and episodic times of idiocy. They believe what they wnat to believe and damn everything else to hell. This resutls in an occult trademark associated with Nuclear power, ala the green slime in 'Tse Simpsons." Fusion is quite interesting however, as it somehow gravitates away from this mentality, or rather, doesn't suffer by it.

2) Human error - Percent error is a crucial part of any experiment. With such mammoth reactions, only time will allow people to gain faith in preventative and emergency safeguards precautions.


And yes, I am talking out of my ass.

And yes, Fusion is de sh!t.

And yes, Fission Pants > Coal plants

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Kevin1211

map of plants near the coast:
http://www.nukepills.com/contentbuilder.../00/01/08/65/98/userdirectory6.content

I dont believe that map lists small private reactors, nor does it list some of the DoD reactors, nor does it account for "porta-actors" such as those found in large military ships which may be found right outside your window in the harbor, or 1000's of miles out to see.
In others words, dont go packin your bags to move based on that map.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: jagec
Part of the reason I don't like coal power.

Unfortunately, engineering's dirty little secret is that "dilution is the solution to pollution":Q

Power is such an enormous problem...

Nuclear is unpopular and expensive
Oil is dirty
Coal is exceptionally dirty
Hydrogen is impractical
Solar is too inefficient
Wind is too unpredictable...

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Power is such an enormous problem...

Nuclear is unpopular and expensive
Oil is dirty
Coal is exceptionally dirty
Hydrogen is impractical
Solar is too inefficient
Wind is too unpredictable...

gg hydroelectric/geothermal

Unfortunately, you have to live in the right sort of area for those...

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: jagec
Part of the reason I don't like coal power.

Unfortunately, engineering's dirty little secret is that "dilution is the solution to pollution":Q

Power is such an enormous problem...

Nuclear is unpopular and expensive
Oil is dirty
Coal is exceptionally dirty
Hydrogen is impractical
Solar is too inefficient
Wind is too unpredictable...

Why the hell do you think I am racking my brain trying to solve these fvking engineering problems that I have for Homework...because nothing is handed to us on a silver platter...except the land bridge...that was nature's way of giving us a "hint"

Energy, in the end, is a very simplistic thing. The problem is finding it and then controlling it. The earth is so vast and the energy it recieves from the sun is so much greater than we have ever been able to concievably control.

Nature didn't make it easy...because that isn't in its nature..(see entropy)

That is why no energy source is perfect, and why we have to work so hard to find and claim get every last joule....

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Power is such an enormous problem...

Nuclear is unpopular and expensive
Oil is dirty
Coal is exceptionally dirty
Hydrogen is impractical
Solar is too inefficient
Wind is too unpredictable...

gg hydroelectric/geothermal

Unfortunately, you have to live in the right sort of area for those...

In the end, we have gravity and the sun. Gravity is just a force, and the Sun is Thermal Evergy. I am starting to get to the end of what i know on the subject, but what I do have in mind is that we have to look to the sun, or at least where the energy it has released has gone. detronium is pretty neat, and I hope the development of Fusion prospers

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: DorkBoy
So give up electricity is your answer?

Originally posted by: DorkBoy
So compare Nuclear to any other kind of power generation plant and water, what do you have?
Maybe we will all go solar? Maybe give up internet?
What?s my strategy now?

Mr. Black & White and offering nothing to the discussion besides idoicy. Obviously, we should switch to 100% nuke power since it is perfect. I will use your strategy. Prove to me that it is perfect. Whatever you say I can disprove easily. Come on Mr. Dork, I can take you easily.

My personal stance to the others in this thread that actually contribute: I believe that coal should be dumped as a power source as soon as feasable. Billions should be spent on making fusion a reality. Hell, my state has put over 2B into the find for waste disposal from fusion. Very little radation and disposal hazzard (only the torus and related components) with fusion, whie fission creates literaly tons of material that can kill just by being to close to it for a few thousand years. Not exactly an ideal power source. Same with coal, but it spreads the radiation out in the air, and there is less of it in a concetrated space.

Interesting side note: my state has the most nuke plants in it. I have no plans for moving.

 

[Goosemaster]

Evadman,

Sometimes throwing money at isn't the answer. Some of these things just take time and luck.

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Evadman,

Sometimes throwing money at isn't the answer. Some of these things just take time and luck.

True. Absolutely true. But do you know how many studies there are in the world going on right now with actual equipment? (really, because I don't know. I have been out of it for about a year). I do of 2 ideas right now, one is the magnetic constriction of plasma in a torus, the other using lasers to add energy in a pulsed fassion to generate "pulses" of fusion instead of a running reaction.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Evadman
True. Absolutely true. But do you know how many studies there are in the world going on right now with actual equipment? (really, because I don't know. I have been out of it for about a year). I do of 2 ideas right now, one is the magnetic constriction of plasma in a torus, the other using lasers to add energy in a pulsed fassion to generate "pulses" of fusion instead of a running reaction.

the tokamak reactor has been around forever...we actually have one at my university. We also have an interesting double-loop design that they think will work even better.