Welcome to Nuclear Power 101

Jan 28, 2017 4:27 PM

b2kelloy

Views

232280

Likes

4916

Dislikes

116

So last night I made a post showing Nuclear fuel rods glowing, people commenting wanted more so here we are.

This post will cover the basics of the life cycle of Uranium- most Power plants utilize Uranium-235. Are there other types- yes... but U-235 is by far the heavyweight.

So this is uranium. A block of stone- literally. Uranium is found all over the globe- it is found in small amounts in most rock.

This is a breakdown of the uranium deposits in the US. You will notice this is almost an overlay of the granite deposits. That's right- if your house has granite- you own some uranium already!

Yellow cake Uranium. Movies have made this form of Uranium well known. This is simply Uranium in powdered form. Pure in the sense that it is only Uranium. However, Uranium comes in several isotopes. U-235, U-236, U-238. U-235 is the one that is used to maintain a chain reaction in power plants.

These are centrifuges and Iranian scientists. These pictures became famous after the US destroyed their centrifuges via a cyber attack.

Centrifuges work by spinning the yellowcake and causing on a molecular level the isotopes of Uranium to stratify. Allowing U-235 to be isolated and collected in higher quantities, also known as enrichment.

So- most US plants utilize around 4% enriched Uranium- meaning 4% U-235. With that enrichment, the fuel can be used for approximately 6 years before being completely depleted.

While I have a soap box- this is the reason from a technical perspective why the Iranian deal was so poor. We limit them to 30% enrichment and their claim is "it's only for peaceful means". There is ZERO reason to need anything near that high... unless you want to make bombs!

But I digress...

Once fuel has reached the proper enrichment it is formed into fuel pellets.

The fuel pellets are then stacked inside a fuel pin, usually made of zirconium alloys. The pins are housed into a bundle- pictures on the right.

Once in the core, rods are aligned into assemblies. The red center X is a control rod- this can be removed and inserted as needed to control reactivity, which in turn can control reactor power.

Are there more things that are involved with controlling reactor power... yes... am I getting into them right now... no.

This is a fuel rod (already activated, not new) being moved into the fuel pool during refueling. As I said fuel lasts 6 years, refueling occurs every 2 (at my plant- cycles can vary). Fuel that is not totally spent gets repositioned in the core almost every outage.

This is a flooded reactor core. The "cattle shoot" is used to move fuel from the core to the fuel pool while keeping it under water- radiation purposes.

Fuel being put back into the core. The blue glow is called the Cherenkov effect. Note it is not green as shown in many movies.

Once the fuel is spent- it will stay in the fuel pool for several years until its radioactivity lowers a few half lives.

Then the dry fuel cask shown above is lowered into the fuel pool and filled with fuel bundles. It is then lifted out, drained and sealed.

Many sites have utilized a horizontal storage system to store full casks. They are designed to be air cooled and safe... forever.

So what is the long term storage plan. Well here in the USA we had one. We spent Billions to complete it. It is called Yucca Mountain- fully ready to store spent fuel under a mountain for the next 10,000 years. Designed with warnings in the top 10 most spoken languages of earth engraved everywhere.

Why aren't we using it you ask. Simple answer is political reasons. Unfortunately Nuclear power is not and has never been a bi-partisan issue. Dems don't like it, Republicans do. And when Obama was first starting to make his political debut, Harry Reid said he would back him (one of the first to do so) it he vowed to never let Yucca Mountain be used if he made it to office. The rest is history.

So about me- I am a mechanical engineer. I worked for the US navy right out of school and was qualified (via a multi-year training program) to operate the nuclear reactors of aircraft carriers (I was a civilian). After I left I took a job as a system engineer at a nuclear power plant. Then a few years later switched back to operations where I have a SRO license.

I am willing to post about anything people ask about- just need a high enough response- to gauge interest.

**edit: link to Nuclear power 102 - http://imgur.com/a/yaMw0
it answers the #1 comment from this post.

**edit: link to Nuclear Power 103 - Fun facts http://imgur.com/a/TOuHz

**edit: link to Nuclear Power 201 - PWR vs BWR http://imgur.com/a/mjIHJ

**edit: link to Nuclear power 202- chernobyl http://imgur.com/a/lGVxj

So if you're not using the mountain what DO you do with spent fuel? Leave it in barrels? What's the plan here?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm certain that pic #5 is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad getting a tour of the facility.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

"and safe forever" is a very questionable statement...

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

I love me some nuclear energy!

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Quick comment on the yellowcake: it isn't "pure" uranium, but a name for a general compound containing uranium. (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

And the centrifuges usually spin Uranium Hexaflouride in gas form, not the yellow cake itself.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

IIRC, 30% U235 is useless for bombs but useful in breeder reactors, so I don't think that makes the Iran deal poor. Otherwise cool post.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

My BRIEF googling suggests bombs could THEORETICALLY be possible with as low as 20% enriched but would require impractical amounts of it.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

There are other reasons to use highly enriched Uranium besides nuclear weapons. Some research reactors need it (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forschungsreaktor_M%C3%BCnchen_II and IIRC the one at the ILL in Grenoble. (2/2)

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Is half life the correct terminology? I Googled uranium half life and it's on the scale of thousands if not millions of years.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It's not Uranium that your waiting to decay- its its daughter products after fission- look up fission yield curve

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Honest question to someone in the industry... how do you feel about Thorium? I've read it's super safe.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I was going to ask the same thing.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

A lot of the other types of plants are only in their infancy- i.e. Thorium. I don't have much experience or knowledge on it.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

The pic of the scientists is actually a pic of mahmoud ahmenjiad (or w/e), the ex president of Iran.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

"Iran's uranium stockpile will also be reduced by 98% to 300kg (660lbs) for 15 years. It must also keep its level of enrichment at 3.67%."

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655 @OP Why do you say that we are allowing 30% enrichment?

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

#AlternativeFacts

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Neat!

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Can you please talk about the thorium alternative to traditional nuclear, the history there if possible? Love having science form opinions

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm fairly left politically, and the fact that Bernie Sanders was anti-nuclear was my big issue with him/

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Same here. He's not nearly as bad as Jill Stein on nuclear though.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This would be a great post if it wasn't factually inaccurate on multiple topics. Jesus, do your research first. For example:

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

I stopped reading after these. There may or may not be further issues here.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

He says uranium half life is a less than a few years... It's 25,000...

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Centrifuges do not use yellowcake. Yellowcake is reacted with fluorine to form UF6, which is what is actually enriched in a centrifuge.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

The Iran deal limits enrichment to 3.67%, not 30% as you claim.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Yellow cake is not pure uranium. It is about 80% uranium oxide. Pure uranium is a metal.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

There are many errors in this post. Yellow cake is not pure uranium, It's uranate like (NH4)2U2O7. The centrifugation is not done on YC

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

But on uranium hexafluoride UF6, which is a gas above 57°C. ( I teach this)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Storage of nuclear wastes for 10000 years would be quite dangerous, since several highly radioactive wastes have half lives of million years

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The post is still interesting, don't get me wrong, but please, if you write it as a fact, please check it.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The thing about the Iranian nuclear deal is also bullshit, they're limited to 3.67% enrichment, not 30%.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

my two cents as a matl scientist. the storage is great. if the gov listened to scientists about the corrosion resistance in storage.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

they used the cheaper 314 stainless steel instead of a higher chromium content steel. now there's a bunch in Florida leaking.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

nuclear power is the future. but it has to be done in a way that spares no expense. these things will effect us for thousands of lifetimes

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Not really. The effects of the leaks do literally nothing, especially compared to any actual industrial pollution.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Infact, almost all of the radiation from nuclear disasters will be gone in a hundred or so years anyway since the dangerous stuff

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Drinking vaguely contaminated water MIGHT increase your RISK of cancer by 10%, but pollution from fossil fuels *DOES* kill MILLIONS of

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

decays with a half life of only a decade or so.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

people. Nuclear pollution is completely and utterly insignificant; fuck, nuclear disasters are insignificant!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Enrichment capped at 3.67%, source: http://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1-15-Implementation-Day-Factsheet.pdf.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I remembered the same thing and checked, but you had this already handled! upvote!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I love this post, never got to learn about this, but makes me sad when a falsehood is thrown in, makes me question everything else in it :(

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

@WoodbroWilson pointed out OP got the half life wrong too.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That top picture is Watts Bar nuclear plant in Spring City TN. I worked there for several years. Never seen this picture of it! Thanks :)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

This picture was before we finished Unit 2, which is why there's no steam coming out of the closest stack. It's one of 3 TVA nuclear plants

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I work there now :)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Have we met? I was a pipefitter/welder during Unit 2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Doubtful. I am an engineer that came in December of 2015. I didn't meet many Unit 2 folks. I spent most of the first year away training.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ahh, gotcha. How is life there? Any big projects going on?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No nothing out of ordinary. Just prepping for two outages this year.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Dem here, love Nuclear. It's gotten a bad rap from pop culture as being dangerous. Just needs better education.

9 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 0

And vigilant oversight, as underscored by events like the Davis-Besse corrosion incident. You can't let corner-cutting be profitable.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

As a nuke in the Navy I find the civilian plants really interesting.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

In terms of nuclear history, the relationship between naval and civil reactor designs in the US has always interested me. Its analogous 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

to civilian spaceflight (to this day) just using adapted ICBM technology. Especially vis a vis totally civilian developments like CANDU. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Read a biography on Admiral Rickover, and the relation between the navy and civilian reactors will become more clear

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I am quite familiar with him already; I was referencing that in my previous post, in fact.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nobody actually knows who committed the cyber attack. But speculation suggests the Israel or the US. https://youtu.be/7g0pi4J8auQ enjoy

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Well whoever did it was in the right. Theres no reason Iran needs weapons grade enrichment.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Or Israel with US backing. I think that's the most probable.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yeah. Agreed. Though I don't know the ins and outs of the virus. :/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What's your point?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Did you look at the article? That's the virus you're talking about.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Would higher enrichment % increase power output? If yes why limited to 4%?

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

Power output is limited by the amount of heat you can remove from the core. Because if you can't, the fuel gets too hot and melts.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Fun fact: the largest nuclear power plant in the world uses 'natural' uranium, 0.7%. Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in Canada, 6.3 GW.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

6.3GW?? I didnt know they made plants with that kind of output!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Eight reactors, each between 700 and 850MW. There are on-and-off talks of adding two more ACRs at 1000-1200 MW each.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's the CANDU's selling point. While you can fuel it with richer fuel, it can be used with natural fuel, reducing proliferation concerns.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

(Obviously not straight-from-the-ground 'natural', but not enriched beyond naturally-occurring deposits)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not power output, length of fuel life. Naval reactors utilize more- they last 25 years before refueling.

9 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Aug 27, 2020 3:08 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Higher fuel life is always desirable but there are complications with long term fuels. High heat and radiation does shit to the fuel casing.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

$... higher enrichment means more life- but also more fission product poisons, longer storage after use times etc

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Aug 27, 2020 3:08 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Plus the decay chain creates more plutonium at higher enrichments, so it's a non proliferation thing.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Does it affect the containment vessel? Erode the concrete faster?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

No, any erosion to steel or concrete would be due to chemical reactions or drastic thermal changes. Damn BFPL.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not sure- that's getting more theoretical than my knowledge base.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

People think the cooling towers are polluting. It's the miseducation that hurts nuclear power.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That people who live near coal and natural gas plants are afraid of pollution from nuclear power always struck me as amusing/disappointing.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 263 Dislikes 0

I knew Adam was on imgur. Now we have Jamie too?!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Flattered to be even slightly considered in their league... but no.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So... how is this answered in 102?

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 0

Could you talk more about what modern reactors we could build? CanDu with auto shut off for safety, thorium, ect. Is it safe now?

9 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 0

Are reactors also safe against attacks from lets say terrorists ?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Candu's existing, operational reactors are actually already suitable for thorium cycles. They wouldn't be as efficient as a clean-sheet 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

thorium design, but it's a cool factoid anyway. Canada's marketing them to China for that purpose, due to China's thorium deposits. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Google Gen IV reactors. Safety depends on design, but some concepts are intrinsically safe. I.e. a spike in heat will cause power reduction.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I realize i can google. I was just hoping @op would do a summary

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There are only a handful of companies in the US that are researching new reactor design atm. NuScale, TerraPower, X-Energy, and Transatomic

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

They are researching about 5-6 different designs between them. Sodium cooled, pebble bed, liquid salt to name a few.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That's a hard question to answer though. The safety of a reactor depends on how much money you invest in it, not which technology you choose

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

But they can be quite safe if the investment is made?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yeah, the NRC has tightened up safety requirements for new reactor designs a lot since Fukushima. They will be way safer, but expensive.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well over their life time likely not more expensive that other options when the environment is considered

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

True, I meant mostly upfront costs in the way of research and development. Designing new reactors is EXPENSIVE.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Its a bit too simple to say Dems blocked it, and GOP likes it. Specifically, Nevada dislikes it, and Harry Reid was from Nevada.

9 years ago | Likes 147 Dislikes 9

Well considering the Yucca Mountain program was dubbed "Screw Nevada", there's a reason.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Sure he was happy to get all the funding and jobs for his state but when it's time to use it "no we never wanted it here!" No take backs!

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

NV dweller here, I believe our biggest resistance isn't even the storage, it's the transport across rail lines or highways to get there.

9 years ago | Likes 42 Dislikes 1

Another NV dweller here, Most people here hate Harry Reid with a fiery passion.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

They didn't want to store everyone elses waste, while not producing any of it

9 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 3

But yet they probably use some nuclear energy from other states.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Not really. We had coal plants and the fucking Hoover Dam.

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

Like they never even played new Vegas or something

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I destroyed Hoover dam

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Well how about we store it in your state or county.... See if you'll like that idea..

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 8

I live in a county with 1M people. You're welcome to the edge of the state were nobody lives though. Either way, I wasnt criticizing NV

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Pennsylvania here. Not overly concerned.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Store it in Ohio. I know the risks it's not the end of the world

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

WA has Hanford already. Just sayin.....

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Have you ever been to Nevada? It ain't exactly teeming with life as it is.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I was born here.. And it's obvious you haven't spent time here.. It's a very beautiful place.. "With a diversity of life.."

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Everyone wants a thing. Nobody wants it next to them. Someone has to get the short straw in the end. Might as well be a logical place

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Well, your reasoning requires common sense. That shit doesn't grow on trees.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Any place where modern medicine is practiced already stores nuclear waste. But plants store it on site. I live 1mile from my plant. No worry

9 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 0

Most people would be terrified if they realized or had knowledge of everything that put off radiation, mainly because of bad press

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Some places you need radon mitigation.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If nothing bad happens, there are no ill effects. As opposed to all the factories and mines an whatnot we have that harm us on a normal day

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Because of lack of education*. ftfy.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Don't those go hand in hand

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I would love that idea because "nuclear fuel" isn't scary to me because I'm not a pansy ass

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Solid reasoning

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It really is. Fear of Nuclear energy is irrational and not creating a permanent storage for the entire country in a location that 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

has zero chance of exposure to the population is straight idiotic

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Easy to say when it's not your state they want to dump their garbage... And why don't you ask Fukushima if they want another plant?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

It's in a controlled facility in mountain. what's gonna happen? secret volcano??

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Nice post, but looks like your politics are wrong. Just scanned the Iran agreement and they are barred from producing highly enriched U

9 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 2

He made several factual errors. I honestly doubt his credentials as a result.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Further, I know a number of scientists who are involved with the nonproliferation side of the deal and they are unanimously in favor of it.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Correct me if I'm wrong.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

You may have been right- 30% may have been the peer paper I saw when it was out for review.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

"Iran will not produce, seek, or acquire separated plutonium, highly enriched uranium (defined as 20% or greater uranium235), or uranium233,

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

After reading the agreement itself, this part seems to be referring only to small amounts for as it says "laboratory standards." Not 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

large amounts for energy production 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A quote from the actual deal: " “Iran will reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by nearly 98 percent from 12,000 kilograms to

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

only 300 kilograms, and will keep its level of uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent or below.”

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

"It must also keep its level of enrichment at 3.67%." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

3,67%, source: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2165399/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf pg. 7, pg. 27, pg. 35 and pg. 48

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Search word: Enrichment. Why ya gotta lie, man? :(

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

or neptunium-237 (except for use as laboratory standards or in instruments using neptunium-237) for 15 years."

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

What's your source?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

The actual text of the agreement

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Discuss global warming and which energy solution you think is the cleanest as well as the best solution for the planet going forward.

9 years ago | Likes 328 Dislikes 14

And ad a source please

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Nuclear seems pretty potent. Geothermal's a good option as well, and Hydro-electric has promise.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Google Thorium Reactor

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It's Nuclear. It's fucking Nuclear.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Posted : nuclear power 102

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Tartex

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

fusion nearly limitless game changer

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's been a potential game changer for the last 20 years .... so yea lets keep investing in it but I won't expect anything any time soon.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Thorium molten salt reactors?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nuclear seems pretty potent. Geothermal's a good option as well, and Hydro-electric has promise.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's the only reliable, safe, and viable option for clean renewable energy. And no one wants to talk about it because of"nuclear"oh so scary

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

My stepdad is the director of a nuclear power plant and from my limited knowledge i can assure its what we need to fulfill our energy needs

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Or don't. Enough corporate advocates posting pro-fission-plant views as condescending edicts on Imgur. +1 for just giving interesting info.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

I've encountered almost no one who is pro-fission power. Most people are all "Nucyalr power is SCARY!" and stop thinking right there.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Usually we get some on Imgur when nuclear power is brought up, talking about how clean it is and we shouldn't worry about rads or waste...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

... or the possibility of any kind of accidents or people making dirty bombs and/or how short half-lifes are.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It would have to be a combination of nuclear, solar, wind, and natural gas. Coal is still very cheap power, it will be around still a while.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

And natural gas

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

An excellent documentary on this subject is Pandoras Promise. CNN film on Netflix.

9 years ago | Likes 137 Dislikes 8

Such a great documentary.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Dot

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I have already see it .. it's good.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Or I can rematch it's always sunny

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Another great documentary on why renewable's aren't enough alone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFosQtEqzSE

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's a rather one-sided pro-nuclear, anti-renewable advocacy.

9 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 6

No, it was not anti renewable at all. It's a shame they didn't cover using nuclear to create solar panels though.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I feel like that is the case because it is the best way to cut down on emissions at a cost effective rate.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

That's because renewables are old technology that only get pushed by rich people who make them. Like Boon Pickens. Fusion is the future.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Also - James Hansen features in the movie. You know he was anti nuclear for years right? His books are great if you want references.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

In short the only real clean, long-term energy source that we could use forever would be helium-3, but that requires mining from the moon

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Feb 5, 2017 7:59 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Watched what video? Sorry I mainly just learned about this through classes

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I believe the dense plasma focus technology, and LPPFusion would interest you.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Thorium - can't be used for bombs and could work in very small reactors which could be much safer. Needs more research.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

The main appeal of fusing helium-3 over thorium is no radioactive waste to deal with

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It doesn't need more research. It just requires money and political will. (Nuclear is scaaaary.) We had working Thorium reactors in the 60s.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah but they went with Uranium & Plutonium back then specifically because they were easier to make bombs with. Decades of lost research.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Harness the hot air from political debates.

9 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 1

Woah, do you think we'll need that much power?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Haha. Wit. Good.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Harness the zero point energy of popular website comment sections

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Woah, do you think we'll need that much power?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I can make a post about this, but it would require a lot of research into things that are not my expertise.

9 years ago | Likes 171 Dislikes 2

Thorium ftw?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Could you make a post on the ecological impacts other than just radiation caused by nuclear energy

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Mass genocide is probably the most effective

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

What would happen if we disposed of the nuclear waste via rockets on a one-way ticket to the Sun?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We'd need so much rocket fuel for that, nuclear power would drop to 0 economic feasibility, methinks.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Story changes if we can use metallic hydrogen as rocket fuel, though. :)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Unfortunately, like every other new wonder-material, the hype is writing cheques that the science can't cash.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Probably be wiser using it instead of nuke stations and yes they do use nuke grade fuels at power plants.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

the real issue with that is rocket failure, imagine one exploding

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

They can house the waste in a container resistant to the explosion - so that's not an issue.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

now you're to heavy to lift.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0