How to make Nuclear Power safer

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Yes Bert, the complete proportional mix of actinides and fission products can be readily calculated, and as the half lives (and energies of the decay particles/rays, be they alpha, beta or gamma) of all of these radioisotopes are known precisely, the integrated radiotoxicity for any future time period can be calculated. Fuel recycling separates the actinides (in a hot mixed batch of Pu, U and the MA), and this is used to create fresh metal fuel. The residual batch of FP has a short aggregate HL/radiotoxicity.

Your 3rd paragraph is again one without substance, so is by default inarguable.

[avandonk]

I am aware of all other pollution sources. The nuclear industry will leave it's legacy around for hundreds thousands of years. People in the future will have no way of knowing what poisons are in their environment. At least chemical pollution will no longer be there.

If you really want to get scared. Small particle pollution (>2 micron) is the major cause of Autism and many other brain dysfunctions. It affects embryo growth after being ingested by the mother.


Where does this pollution come from? Diesel and petrol driven vehicles. You can make up the rest.

Bert

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Yes Bert, the complete proportional mix of actinides and fission products can be readily calculated, and as the half lives (and energies of the decay particles/rays, be they alpha, beta or gamma) of all of these radioisotopes are known precisely, the integrated radiotoxicity for any future time period can be calculated. Fuel recycling separates the actinides (in a hot mixed batch of Pu, U and the MA), and this is used to create fresh metal fuel. The residual batch of FP has a short aggregate HL/radiotoxicity.

Your 3rd paragraph is again one without substance, so is by default inarguable.

Sounds really good to me. So you know exactly what radio nucleotides you are playing with. That is really reassuring!

Just do not spill the pudding!

Bert

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Recycled fuel leaves only fission products that decay to below background radiation levels in a few centuries, not hundreds of thousands of years.

Yes, one can measure and calculate precisely the composition of fuel that comes out of a reactor. I suggest you read the book "Plentiful Energy" by Till & Chang to find out more, including a detailed description of the pyro processing constituents (chemical composition and radioisotope mix)

If you want a broader overview, maybe watch this video I did recently in Canberra at the National Library - I'm the panelist on the far right:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/0...a-has-to-have/

[avandonk]

A few centuries is really reassuring. That means if JC had used your technology his waste would now be safe.


I will quantify this statement by showing you the many people who have died due to pollution that does not last this long in the environment.

Not enough room!


Bert

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

And so the evidence ceases and the insults begin. Enough for this thread

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

And so the evidence ceases and the insults begin. Enough for this thread

You did not answer the fact that the neutron flux makes any reactor vessel radioactive for thousands of years.

Run away by all means.

Maybe I should have said that you were talking gibberish. My comment was because you believe the drivel that you propound.

It was a totally justified value judgment.

I believe in evidence based argument. Not drivel that has no basis in reality.

Bert

[avandonk]

Before some person complains can I just say I am so sorry for being a really bad person. I just do not know why I do this. I must be insane when other idiots disagree with me. Again I am so sorry for being me!

Bert :-)

[PeterEde (Peter)]

This is all good reading. From what I read recently this has all been hushed up since Carter was president. "They" didn't want the world to know they had cured the issue of radioactive decay. Using the 2 types of reactors again "They" say by the end of the cycle the spent fuel rods will have negligible (by what measure?) residual radiation and you could sleep on them. What I've read from a "nuclear physicist" involved.

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Why is it one person is allowed an opinion and all others with differing opinions are deemed idiots? Vote Green or Labor?

[clive milne]

Barry, in the lecture you posted one of your opening statements was that Australia has several hundred years of coal reserves. Was that assuming consumption at current rates?

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Australia also has 1/4 of the worlds known uranium reserves.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

This is based on forecast future domestic coal consumption rates and even expanding export markets. In short, there is a LOT of coal left to extract, especially given improved recover methods and open-cut mining -- it just depends on what we are willing to pay for it. However, most of it, I hope, we will choose to leave in the ground due to better options...

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

However, most of it, I hope, we will choose to leave in the ground due to better options...

I hope so too, it would be a shame to scar the Australian countryside with large pits when we can cover it with solar panels (I'm serious!)

But when it comes to being "green" the solution is to stop eating beef...cow farting causes much more damage to our atmosphere than using a sensibly economical car

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

It's actually the belching, mostly, Dunk - another 'rural' myth

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

It's actually the belching, mostly, Dunk - another 'rural' myth

Well, I'm pretty certain I don't want to be near either end

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

I value your opinions Bert as much as I value Barry's, but your insults belittle your integrity and have no place here.

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Originally Posted by Camelopardalis

I hope so too, it would be a shame to scar the Australian countryside with large pits when we can cover it with solar panels (I'm serious!)

But when it comes to being "green" the solution is to stop eating beef...cow farting causes much more damage to our atmosphere than using a sensibly economical car

Have you seen the foot print difference for equivalent terrawatts power generation between Solar and Nuclear?
I'd much rather a few hectare of nuke plant over the eyesore hundreds of hectares for solar or wind.
I hate with a passion the eyesores that are wind turbines. Blight on the great Australian landscape.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a...0555b6d970b-pi

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Each to their own...I don't mind windmills

But I'm not against nuclear either... the footprint issue is much less of a problem here, compared with more densely populated countries

For example, if we say consumption is 250TWh, then going by the figures in the linked article this requires:

• 16.73 km2 for nuclear (2 millionths of the land area)
• 5059 km2 for solar (6-7 10,000ths of land area)
• 9728 km2 for wind (1.2 thousandths of land area)

Wanted: 70 x 70 km plot of spare desert, sunny clime preferred

[sn1987a (Barry)]

What about solar updraft towers or geothermal hot rocks?.