Nuclear fission

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: jagec
We also have an interesting double-loop design that they think will work even better.

Linky to more information? As I said, I have been out of it for a while, and I have some catching up to do

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: 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).

I live here. No.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh SOOOOO verly slowly , that sometimes i wonder if we just kinda sit in place
A single phosolipid could probably diffuse across the united states faster us "approaching" the Carnot Engine

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: jagec
We also have an interesting double-loop design that they think will work even better.

Linky to more information? As I said, I have been out of it for a while, and I have some catching up to do

Unfortunately I can't find anything about their new reactor, but here's their tokamak.

 

[DrPizza]

Personally, I'm planning on installing a coal stove in the near future Incredibly efficient and cost effective (over 90% efficient for heating)
They said nuclear was out of the question... probably some sort of stupid building code or something.

On the other hand, didn't some high school student build his own fusion reactor a few years ago? He won 2nd place in a science fair, beat out by some bimbo with an apple pie study.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: jagec
We also have an interesting double-loop design that they think will work even better.

Linky to more information? As I said, I have been out of it for a while, and I have some catching up to do

Unfortunately I can't find anything about their new reactor, but here's their tokamak.

wow..I don't know what that is but it is amazing:Q

 

[cirthix]

fission!=fusion

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: cirthix
fission!=fusion

I don't recall seeing anyone make that particular mistake....

 

[mk52]

Anyone remember the show SeaQuest DSV. Didn't they have huge underwater power plants that harvested the energy of oceanic currents? I always thought that to be such an interesting idea. Abundant power, without any waste. Anyone know why that's never mentioned anywhere, is 21st century tech just not there yet??

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: MelikK
Anyone remember the show SeaQuest DSV. Didn't they have huge underwater power plants that harvested the energy of oceanic currents? I always thought that to be such an interesting idea. Abundant power, without any waste. Anyone know why that's never mentioned anywhere, is 21st century tech just not there yet??

I'm certain there would be an environmental protest beyond all imagination. (Sea life getting killed in the blades of the turbines.)

Also, I?d be willing to bet it would be hideously expensive to design, build, and maintain.

 

[jai6638]

umm can we stick to the topic please as opposed to going into nuclear fusion...

 

[mk52]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: MelikK
Anyone remember the show SeaQuest DSV. Didn't they have huge underwater power plants that harvested the energy of oceanic currents? I always thought that to be such an interesting idea. Abundant power, without any waste. Anyone know why that's never mentioned anywhere, is 21st century tech just not there yet??

I'm certain there would be an environmental protest beyond all imagination. (Sea life getting killed in the blades of the turbines.)

Also, I?d be willing to bet it would be hideously expensive to design, build, and maintain.

I would think that expense is relative, as the costs of a nuclear power plant or a water power plant are astronomical as well. Regarding wild life I m sure engineers could think of something.
In general I just thought the idea to harvest the immense power of the oceans to be intriguing.

 

[djNickb]

I read something a while back about the reason we have so much nuclear waste is because the US has banned reprocessing spent fuel. IIRC reprocessing spent fuel rods would eliminate a large amount of the nuclear waste that is generated from fission plants.

 

[jai6638]

for my paper, would i be correct if i said that nuclear fission was discovered by Otto Hahn and Strassman ( sp?) ?

My paper is due tomorrow and i have written about Otto Hahn as the discoverer along with strassman although a look at a book on physics says that Lisa Mietner discovered it along with Otto Freich.. not sure if i should redo my paper ( since a major chunk is about the discoverer who, in my paper, is otto hahn as opposed to mietner )

thanks!

 

[Veramocor]

I would argue that thermal pollution occurs with fossil fuel plants to.

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.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Veramocor
I would argue that thermal pollution occurs with fossil fuel plants to.

And you'd be right, I posted about it earlier. Anytime you have a heat engine, you have thermal pollution.

 

[Pantoot]

Originally posted by: Veramocor
I would argue that thermal pollution occurs with fossil fuel plants to.

Of course it does, but with nuclear power you have the 'heat island' effect. The difference is in three 1300MW generators (like Palo Verde) being in one place, as opposed to the ~400 MW average coal plant.

edit: I guess 200 MW is pretty small, corrected.