How to make Nuclear Power safer

[squeak (Andrew)]

i am disappointed ,but not surprised ,that the reduction of energy consumption is not addressed at any level. our children are learning about shogunate japan, but not a peep about reducing consumption so our species has the best chance of survival. not from federal , state , or local govt. the3 mantra seems to be , " more energy cheaper " . i suspect that if we used the energy that we need, as opposed to wasting energy hand over fist and whingeing about the bill ,then coal and renewables could co-exist with reduced co2 output. but the job figures would look shocking. so , no surprises there. im not against nuclear power ,just old tech ,built by the lowest bidder , with humans as part of emergency failsafe shutdown procedures . the new gen reactors appear much better all round.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Again, the issue isn't really the amount of power generated its the growth in population. We generate huge amounts of power but it will NEVER be enough while population and demand continue to increase.

There is ONE MP who has been challenging conventional stupidity in the twit pit for some time. His name is Kelvin Thomson. Attached, the response from Hunt to a question about population growth today in the twit pit. In summary, "dont have brain capacity to answer your question so I'll B.S. my head off"

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Again, the issue isn't really the amount of power generated its the growth in population. We generate huge amounts of power but it will NEVER be enough while population and demand continue to increase.

There is ONE MP who has been challenging conventional stupidity in the twit pit for some time. His name is Kelvin Thomson. Attached, the response from Hunt to a question about population growth today in the twit pit. In summary, "dont have brain capacity to answer your question so I'll B.S. my head off"

Both those guys were probably on their lunch break when the primary school teacher was reviewing additions.

[TrevorW]

Put a copper coil around the earth

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Again, the issue isn't really the amount of power generated its the growth in population. We generate huge amounts of power but it will NEVER be enough while population and demand continue to increase.

There is ONE MP who has been challenging conventional stupidity in the twit pit for some time. His name is Kelvin Thomson. Attached, the response from Hunt to a question about population growth today in the twit pit. In summary, "dont have brain capacity to answer your question so I'll B.S. my head off"

Even Bindy Irwin gets it. People want a clean environment. That's a great goal and one we should strive for but not at the cost of our economy.
Seems no government wants to tackle the biggest problem the planet and humanity faces and that is over population.
We live on a planet with finite resources. Fortunately for Australia we have them in abundance. Unfortunately for us one day someone else is going to want them.
Power consumption is directly related to population growth. Solar is obviously the most abundant source of free energy. Molten salt solar does seem the way to go but along side nuclear for the dark days when the sun don't shine.
Country's look at power requirements with a narrow POV. Solar fails when a country is networked. Why not network the planet. Then no matter what time of day some plants some where are generating power.
But again it comes down to spending money.
Now I'd be happy to have the government hand over 10 billion if every country chipped in to create a global SOLAR power grid.
Stop the fanciful wind turbines that create an eyesore on our great landscape and cost more to build and operate then they will ever generate.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Power consumption is directly related to population growth

Correct, provide you mean inversely related. The greater the access to electricity (or primary energy), the lower the birth rate (and population growth rate). The data, across country after country, do not lie, as GapMinder can easily reveal: http://goo.gl/e0r2YM

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Correct, provide you mean inversely related. The greater the access to electricity (or primary energy), the lower the birth rate (and population growth rate). The data, across country after country, do not lie, as GapMinder can easily reveal: http://goo.gl/e0r2YM

That's a really interesting graph and supports your statement but I wonder whether there are underlying factors, like the cost of power increasing with affluence, Decrease in fertility linked to increased toxicity in the environment in affluent countries, (lots of data on that) and some other potential candidates as well. For instance, I reckon West African power consumption will fall in line with the spread of Ebola; fewer people and they'll all be saying, "Don't you come within 20m of me"; hence, lower birth rate

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

It's selection pressure. Those of us with electricity don't feel like our existence and thus ability to procreate is as threatened, and therefore we're not as inclined to constantly reproduce to ensure we have a future lineage. We rest easy on a sunny Saturday morning with our cup of coffee on the knowledge that, if necessary, we can be reproducing on Sunday morning

[avandonk]

Correlation is not causation!

The single real factor in birth rate control is the education level of women. The higher the education level the lower the birth rate.

Nuclear Power is a total furphy. It is even more polluting than fossil fuel power.

If all the Earth's electricity power needs were supplied by nuclear power the U235 fuel would barely last thirty years.

All the other hair brained 'breeder reactors' etc are just that hare brained.

The real truth is if we do not leave 80% of the current fossil fuel reserves in the ground where they belong the Earth will stop sustaining us due to catastrophic climate change.

I honestly do not care what you all do as I will be dead soon. But like all of you I have children and grandchildren.

Bert

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Camelopardalis

It's selection pressure. Those of us with electricity don't feel like our existence and thus ability to procreate is as threatened, and therefore we're not as inclined to constantly reproduce to ensure we have a future lineage. We rest easy on a sunny Saturday morning with our cup of coffee on the knowledge that, if necessary, we can be reproducing on Sunday morning

Scary concept..... One I most definitely DO NOT subscribe to...

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

The real truth is if we do not leave 80% of the current fossil fuel reserves in the ground where they belong the Earth will stop sustaining us due to catastrophic climate change.

I honestly do not care what you all do as I will be dead soon. But like all of you I have children and grandchildren.

Bert

Well said Bert, Hopefully the later will not occur to soon, (I admire your imaging immensely ), but your statement is the blunt truth that few seem to acknowledge and even fewer are prepared to act on... at the moment.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Hardly a logically compelling argument against nuclear fuel recycling, Bert.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Correlation is not causation

Correct... and I am surprised more people didn't see the specious nature of the correlation that Barry referenced. To put it concisely; it is true that societies with high population growth use less energy per capita than developed countries. However, the growth in their energy consumption is directly proportional to their population growth which is the opposite of what was implicit in his post.

I also agree with your statements with respect to nuclear power. Thorium cycle reactors cannot address the underlying issues that face us. Irrespective of the hype surrounding the idea, they offer marginal benefits in exchange for a new raft of (significant) reprocessing challenges which make them as dangerous as the old technology. They are easily reconfigured to enable the production of fissile material and the thorium fuel cycle is immature. Estimates from the UK’s National*Nuclear Laboratory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences suggest that 10-15 years of research will be needed before thorium fuels are ready to be deployed in existing reactor designs. Production LFTRs will not be deployable on any significant scale for 40-70 years.*
The bottom line is that it is almost a certainty that we will reach the point where natural climate feedback loops will be of a magnitude greater than a gain of 1x, at which time it doesn't matter what we do. We collectively abdicate from the position of drivers seat to a passenger in a train wreck.

The talk of managing a viable economy in such a circumstance is laughable. If we reach the point where the biosphere of this planet collapses, there won't be anything left resembling an economy.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Clive

If we reach the point where the biosphere of this planet collapses, there won't be anything left resembling an economy.

Yes there will,
and Mr Cohagen will be at the top of it.

Andrew

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Hardly a logically compelling argument against nuclear fuel recycling, Bert.

If you want the full argument I am willing to post it here. I am only a lowly physicist.

Nuclear fuel recycling is about as valid a concept as clean coal.

It is a load of drivel promulgated by vested interests.

One simple question. Would you like to live near a nuclear fuel recycling plant?

The simple reality is nearly all nuclear power stations are there to produce Plutonium for Nuclear weapons.


Bert

[avandonk]

The real reason why both the US and the USSR got rid of thousands of nuclear warheads was that they could not maintain them!

Tritium has a short half-life. This is needed for the trigger that makes the bomb have more yield! IE killing power. They are not the good guys. They are insane!

Bert

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Then surely the best way to rid the planet of harmful radioactive materials like plutonium is to burn in a reactor. 97% of a spent fuel rod is still usable fuel. Why not burn it in a 2nd reactor until it's spent?
There's quiet a bit online worth reading about nuclear fuel cycle. Saving up spent fuel for later use is why Australia will never be a dumping gnd.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Fuel recycling in metal-fueled fast reactors like the IFR is ready now - MSR reactors with fluid fuels (e.g. dissolved thorium) needs more R&D.

I'd be happy to entertain your arguments about this Bert - I've likely heard them all before, on numerous occasions. Your view sounds rather shallow on this matter (no offense intended).

[PeterEde (Peter)]

I find a lot of anti nuclear people have a limited view. Not to take anything from Berts qualifications and I'm by no means a physicist. The old throw away line of look at chernobyl and Fukushima are tired and irrelevant.
As for living next to a reactor? I grew up in a heavily industrialised part of Adelaide. People in the area already have high instances of cancer or other medical issues. Living next door to a nuclear plant would have me exposed to no more radiation than sitting in front of a CRT tv. Which we all did for 30 plus years. I worked at Roxby Downs for 5 years (above gnd) but in the nuclear cycle. So not a complete numpty when it comes to nuclear issues.
Unlike many anti nuclear people who just keep rolling out the same 2 arguments and nothing more, I do actually research the issues.
Hence the nuclear fuel cycle kills .04 people per terrawatt the lowest death rate of any fuel cycle. There is no argument when stats like this are out there.

[avandonk]

Can you show me the full conversion of fuel to by products including all radioactive by products and neutron emission with energies.

Even the so called clean fusion reactors have a major problem. High energy high neutron flux. This not only makes the reactor vessel weaken over time it also makes it highly radioactive. Even the exotic metals will fail!

No offense intended but I find this all specious as you are defending the indefensible.


Bert