Nuclear is the answer
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2017, 02:50 PM
RE: Nuclear is the answer
Quote: I will produce less than 5% of the waste currently produced and it will go background in about 300 years.

Ahem....Rick Fucking Perry is in charge of the Dept of Energy. We don't have 300 years. I'll be surprised if we survive 3 years.

The US has devolved into a Clusterfuckocracy.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
06-02-2017, 02:58 PM
RE: Nuclear is the answer
(06-02-2017 02:50 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote: I will produce less than 5% of the waste currently produced and it will go background in about 300 years.

Ahem....Rick Fucking Perry is in charge of the Dept of Energy. We don't have 300 years. I'll be surprised if we survive 3 years.

The US has devolved into a Clusterfuckocracy.

I don't really think anybody in government is really in charge of anything. The puppets change but the puppet master is aways in charge. We will never bring about change by asking a bad King to stop being a bad King. Look into the Banking System if you want a real shocker...this is the real danger. Buy some gold and love your friends more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SolutionNuclear's post
06-02-2017, 03:03 PM
RE: Nuclear is the answer
(06-02-2017 02:23 PM)SolutionNuclear Wrote:  I will produce less than 5% of the waste currently produced and it will go background in about 300 years.

Is this the "thorium reactor" I've been hearing about?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 03:09 PM
RE: Nuclear is the answer
(06-02-2017 03:03 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 02:23 PM)SolutionNuclear Wrote:  I will produce less than 5% of the waste currently produced and it will go background in about 300 years.

Is this the "thorium reactor" I've been hearing about?

It starts with Thorium but I have put a spin on it that is quite unique. Although the fuel will be ideal, but the design of the reactor plays a large part towards its overall success.

What people really don't know is that all previous Nuclear Reactor Plants were designed to make weapons, some were not even connected to the grid...all fake. Just know, that science will solve all the issues of Climate Change. It can neve be silenced and never be covered up. The truth will always escape and its time is now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 03:16 PM
RE: Nuclear is the answer
(06-02-2017 03:09 PM)SolutionNuclear Wrote:  What people really don't know is that all previous Nuclear Reactor Plants were designed to make weapons, some were not even connected to the grid...all fake.

Ummm... the Bruce Nuclear Reactor is about a two-hour drive from me, I go by it on a regular basis, and I can assure you that it's connected to the grid. A huge array of ugly steel towers crisscross the landscape, starting at Bruce and fanning out across great swaths to substations all over southern Ontario.

Pickering is similar, just outside of Toronto.

So I don't know what plants you're speaking of, but I can assure you the ones around me are very much connected to the grid.

(For the record, I don't work in the industry and have no connection to either nuclear plant, I just go by them occasionally and notice the grid to which they're attached.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 03:32 PM
RE: Nuclear is the answer
Hello! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 03:45 PM
RE: Nuclear is the answer
(06-02-2017 02:58 PM)SolutionNuclear Wrote:  I don't really think anybody in government is really in charge of anything. The puppets change but the puppet master is aways in charge.

Technology's driving the train, always has. Nuclear power is the answer. We can have it regardless of which new planet under a new sun we eventually colonize. We'll be using fusion by then. Tell me this, how come we can't take the radioactive waste and recycle it by sucking it even drier? Is it just a matter of technology or is there some fundamental reason we can't?

oh, and hi. :wave:

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 04:01 PM
RE: Nuclear is the answer
(06-02-2017 02:23 PM)SolutionNuclear Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 02:15 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Yes... if only not for the nagging little problem.

Good point 'minimalist', however, I did not overlook this point. I will produce less than 5% of the waste currently produced and it will go background in about 300 years. There is no technical reason why nuclear power should not be ideal...and totally green.

Welcome to the forum.

LiFTR or fast neutron "incinerator"?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 04:10 PM
RE: Nuclear is the answer
(06-02-2017 03:45 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Tell me this, how come we can't take the radioactive waste and recycle it by sucking it even drier? Is it just a matter of technology or is there some fundamental reason we can't?

Both.

Reactors make several types of waste. The two big ones are transuranics and fission products.

Transuranics are all the elements heavier than Uranium. Plutonium, Americium, etc. Nasty shit that hangs out for millions of years. Reactors make it because we're lazy/stupid about reactor design and/or want to breed Plutonium for bombs. Some of it burns during the fuel cycle but much of it ends up in the spent fuel. Build your reactor right and you could very well "suck it drier" while upping the efficiency of your reactor.

Fission products are the two halves of the Uranium atom after it splits. You can't realistically split it them any further. They're unstable so they're radioactive. Most are short-lived and burn out in the reactor core. A few notable exceptions persist for a long time. There are solutions to that but you won't get much energy out.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
06-02-2017, 04:14 PM
RE: Nuclear is the answer
(06-02-2017 04:10 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 03:45 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Tell me this, how come we can't take the radioactive waste and recycle it by sucking it even drier? Is it just a matter of technology or is there some fundamental reason we can't?

Both.

Reactors make several types of waste. The two big ones are transuranics and fission products.

Transuranics are all the elements heavier than Uranium. Plutonium, Americium, etc. Nasty shit that hangs out for millions of years. Reactors make it because we're lazy/stupid about reactor design and/or want to breed Plutonium for bombs. Some of it burns during the fuel cycle but much of it ends up in the spent fuel. Build your reactor right and you could very well "suck it drier" while upping the efficiency of your reactor.

Fission products are the two halves of the Uranium atom after it splits. You can't realistically split it them any further. They're unstable so they're radioactive. Most are short-lived and burn out in the reactor core. A few notable exceptions persist for a long time. There are solutions to that but you won't get much energy out.

I see. Interesting.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: