Nuclear Energy

[Grumblenuts]

What are you, a paid shill or just writing a stupid paper? Here's an idea, sparky. If you want to declare something good or a goal, declare first what you're comparing it to. Acknowledge at least one other viable alternative and admit to at least one serious problem or flaw with your favorite puppy. "The Left" says, Merry Xmas all you pansy assed, Trump promoting, victim flakes!

Every decent conversation starts with a question. I prefer to discuss a topic and let it engage in a debate if necessary. While there are several opinions most of them I agree with except for your assessment of the question. It is not based on "if it is better than oil", it is simply engaging in theories and realities of the energy production itself. However, if you feel the need to come in and need any other explanations about the usage of the English language just ask away and I will gladly explain the intent of my vocabulary exchanges to you. We all have to slow down for someone.

You present yourself as being from Greece and have the nerve to call yourself Pythagoras. Here then is your local "realities of the energy production itself":

Natural gas is the greatest source of energy used for electricity production in Greece. Between January and June 2020, some eight terawatt hours of electricity were generated using the fossil fuel. This was followed by renewables, such as wind and solar, which accounted for 6.4 terawatt hours of electricity produced. Renewables also had the greatest share of installed capacity in Greece.

What?? No coal?? No nukes??? Your nation has come a long way, baby. Why not present and "engage" that reality if you dare, Dr. Shill?

 

[Andylusion]

I am curious to know people's views on nuclear energy.
How do people feel about worldwide efforts to achieve nuclear fusion? How do people feel about our current state of fission? Do you believe that nuclear has no place in certain areas? ( I.E. naval vessels/aircrafts/ trains/ shuttles and space stations/ etc.) Are there any reactors or materials you take issue with? What causes any reservations if you have any? How do people feel about waste disposal?
I will be doing another one of these posts on other forms of energy.
I am curious to see what people think. This is specifically on nuclear energies and is not limited to problems but extends to any offered solutions, theories, or inquiries.

I think nukes are the future and fusion is the goal. New designs for fission will take us there in the meantime. The waste issue is a NIMBY thing, there are plenty of safe economical options.

What options do you believe are the best in nuclear waste disposal? I also Completely agree with the future of energy sitting in nuclear fusion.

"What options do you believe are the best in nuclear waste disposal?"

send it out to the sun for recycling as solar power...

but that would be economically too expensive...
much cheaper to dig a hole in a 3rd world country and just forget bout it...

So something that was kind of a mind blowing moment for me, was someone who explained how nuclear waste... if it is dangerous.... by definition that means it has usable fuel in it.

It's like this. If you have fire pit, and you pick up a log, and it's still red and hot under it.... by definition it has fuel that can still be burning. That's why it is red and hot.

Ash doesn't burn. And Ash is not hot.

If nuclear waste is emitting enough radiation to harm you, it by definition, has enough radio active material to be used in a reactor.

You follow?

The reason that fuel rods are removed from the reactor, is because the ratio of fuel material to non-fissile material is too low. It's so low, that it can't produce enough reaction to continue producing power.

This is like the fire pit example I mentioned above, where the ash build up around the wood, has prevented enough oxygen to maintain a flame.

This is why you move the logs around, shake off the ash, and then it starts burning again.

Same thing with nuclear fuel rods. The amount of non-burnable material (so to speak) is too high, preventing the burnable nuclear material from burning.

Now some might point out, well that's the whole problem, thus it is waste.

But wait..... Uranium itself is that way when you dig it out of the ground. This is why you have 'enrich' the Uranium.

People think that "enriching" Uranium means we are doing something to the Uranium to make it radioactive, but in reality, all we are doing is filtering out the non-burnable material from the burnable material. This is actually all 'enrichment' is.

You take some Uranium that contains mostly inactive material, and some reactive material. You remove a bunch of inactive material, resulting in a higher concentration of reactive material.

In short, they remove the ash from the burnable wood.

Well the same can be true of nuclear waste. All you have to do, is remove the inactive material from the nuclear waste... and.... you have a usable fuel rod again, and some waste that is non-active. That non-active waste, is largely safe.

Again, if you actually used up all of the burnable nuclear fuel in a nuclear reactor... then by definition, it wouldn't be radioactive, and a hazard for humans or anything else, when it was removed.

We need to start mass reprocessing of nuclear fuel. Most of the nuclear waste that exists, can all be reprocessed into usable nuclear fuel.

 

[Andylusion]

I am curious to know people's views on nuclear energy.
How do people feel about worldwide efforts to achieve nuclear fusion? How do people feel about our current state of fission? Do you believe that nuclear has no place in certain areas? ( I.E. naval vessels/aircrafts/ trains/ shuttles and space stations/ etc.) Are there any reactors or materials you take issue with? What causes any reservations if you have any? How do people feel about waste disposal?
I will be doing another one of these posts on other forms of energy.
I am curious to see what people think. This is specifically on nuclear energies and is not limited to problems but extends to any offered solutions, theories, or inquiries.

There is no other future to energy production in the world, currently, other than nuclear power. There is no other source of energy that is as clean, as cheap, and as scale-able as nuclear.

View attachment 433442

This is the solar park in Bhadla India.

View attachment 433445
This is the Perry Nuclear plant in Ohio.

Let's compare the two.

The solar park takes 14,000 acres of land.

The Nuclear plant takes 1,100 acres of land.

That's a huge difference. That's 14,000 acres of land that can't be used for farming, or building housing, or anything.

Comparing production is problematic, because a solar farm requires sun obviously, just like a wind farm requires wind obviously, neither of which are entirely predictable. A nuclear power plant can run non-stop no matter what.

So the Solar park has a 'name plate' value of 2.2 Gigwatts.

The nuclear plant produces 3.75 Gigwatts. But unlike the solar park, that's 3.75 Gigwatts year round, 24/7. And by the way, that's only 3.75 Gigwatts because the idiotic government stepped in and canceled the second reactor (which is why in the photo only one cooling tower is on). It would have been up to 7 Gigwatts 24/7 if the idiots in government hadn't screwed the public.

A solar park on the other hand, produces nothing at night, and if there is a storm, or clouds, the production drops.

By the way, one of the reasons when you see any renewable power, you see it as having a "name plate" capacity. There's a reason for this. It's because none of them actually produce that much power, even in ideal situations.

Nuclear on the other hand, is entirely different. If the production capacity is 3.75 GigWatts, then that plant can produce..... 3.75 Gigwatts.

Now you might be complaining that I'm just attacking renewable power. No, I'm not. In order to see the advantages of nuclear, you have to compare it to something.

That said, pollution wise, nuclear has a clear advantage over all other forms of energy production, in that all pollution is captured.

When you look at spent fuel rods, they are contained, and safe, and stored. People complain, what do we do with the fuel rods? Well there are a million things we can do with them, but at least we can do something with them. What can you do about the smoke coming out of the power plant stack? Nothing, it's in the air and dispersed into the environment.

View attachment 433452

Even solar panels wear out in a matter of years, and are tossed into landfills. Thousands of tons of solar panels are dumped into waste piles like this one.

View attachment 433453

That's a nuclear fuel rod, that will function for years before being replaced. It will produce massive amounts of power, and then can be safely stored after it is spent. (fyi, yes you can hold, and handle nuclear fuel rods).

Contrary to urban myth, spent nuclear fuel is not a gas, that can escape into the environment, and contaminate the planet. Nor is it a liquid that will get into the ground water, and turn all your kids into green glowing monsters.

In fact, they found in a uranium deposit, that a natural nuclear reaction had taken place in nature. They researched this event, and found that the nuclear waste products didn't even contaminate the area far from the reaction.

Point being, it's not like something you see in a cartoon with green glowing ooze that gets into the environment and starts turning everything into monsters. Even if the containment caskets that spent fuel rods are placed in, were somehow to be broken open, the fuel rods are solid. They are not going to 'ooze out' and start contaminating the world.

However, even this is a contrived problem. Nuclear fuel rods can simply be reprocessed. France has been doing this for decades.

You take a spent fuel rod, and you reprocess the fuel. By filtering out the un-usable material, you end up with a new ready to use fuel rod. The remaining material, will be roughly 10% of what you had before. Meaning for every 100 fuel rods, you would end up with 90 ready to use, and 10 waste.

Why don't we do this? Because ignorant people voted for ignorant politicians, that prevent us from using technology.

But you might ask, what can we do with the remaining 10 fuel rods of waste? We can actually use those as well.

There are reactors called MOX, or mixed oxide fuel reactors. We can use that waste, in MOX fuel rods, and create power with them as well.

My understanding is that barely 10% of the waste from reprocessed fuel rods, would be unusable in MOX reactors.

So all the 'nuclear waste' that we have today could be reprocessed, reducing it by 90%, and then that 10% could be processed again reducing that waste by another 90%.

And what is left, that is waste.... can safely be stored in casks until it is no longer radio active.

Now all of that, is to deal with current day in-use nuclear technology.

We have technology that we haven't used, that is safer, and produces even less waste. Such as molten salt reactors, or Thorium reactors, both of which far better.

But regardless of which future tech we use, there is really no alternative to nuclear power. There simply isn't any other fuel source for energy, that provides the most power, for the lowest cost, with the least amount of pollution. It's that simple. There just isn't.

You said the nuclear plant only takes 1100 acres of land. But thats not true. You forgot to add the acreage for the storage of nuclear waste.

You also call it clean energy. But there is nothing clean about areas like Chernobyl. Fukushima. Or the INEL waste site in Idaho where outlying well water showed contamination from leaking barrels infiltrating clean underground aquifer lakes
Nuclear is not clean. That is deliberate mislabling
Perhaps your just still hoping for a return on that uranium mining stock that tanked after fukushima?

You said the nuclear plant only takes 1100 acres of land. But thats not true. You forgot to add the acreage for the storage of nuclear waste.

No, that is true. The spent fuel rods are being stored on the 1100 plot of land. Of course if you read my argument, it is that we should be reprocessing those fuel rods into usable fuel, thus negating the need to store them.

You also call it clean energy. But there is nothing clean about areas like Chernobyl.

Well obviously if you design a Soviet nuclear reactor, with known massive safety risks, and then refuse to tell any of the people operating that nuclear reactor about those dangers (because government is perfect and doesn't make risky power plants), so that they end up blowing up the entire reactor from the inside out, turning it into a massive fire bomb...........

All.... to save money..... then yeah, nuclear power is the most dangerous power on earth... just like any other power can be that dangerous and spread contaminates across millions of square miles, when you intentionally make it with safety risks.

Any power plant can blow up, if you intentionally make it risky, like the Soviets did. Any power plant. Gas power plants can explode. Oil power plants can explode. Geothermal plants can explode, and cause massive Earthquakes. Even solar power plants can explode.

China Solar Plant Explosion Repairs May Cause Global Price Hikes

Rising costs are threatening to ripple through the solar supply chain as workers race to repair damage from an explosion that shut down a Chinese plant that supplies a key material for the industry.

www.bloomberg.com

Which by the way, is one of the things I laugh about with people who support socialism over capitalism. The biggest man made disaster in the world, was caused by a socialist government, because they cut corners to save money.... did you catch that? The socialist government.... cut corners.... to save money.... and Chernobyl was the result.

Difference between that, and say a private energy company is, the government covered everything up, when it was their butts on the line.

Fukushima

...is a nothing burger. The danger from radioactivity is almost zero. In fact, it really is zero. More people where harmed by Japan's government forcing people out, than from the nuclear reactor. In fact, as far as I know, only one person actually died from radioactive exposure. More people died from being forced out of their homes after a tsunami.

Fukushima is nothing. Absolutely nothing.

INEL waste site in Idaho where outlying well water showed contamination from leaking barrels infiltrating clean underground aquifer lakes.

A: INEL is not a nuclear power plant, nor involved with nuclear power plants.
B: INEL is a government run facility.
C: INEL was running experiments with other nuclear materials.

Point being that normal power plants do not have any nuclear plutonium liquids, or similar materials. Nuclear fuel rods are solid. They don't leak. They are not stored in barrels.

D: The amount of radioactive material that actually escaped was hardly a health hazard.

This is another aspect of radioactive waste that people seem to fail to understand. Radioactivity is all around us, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, all year long. People get hit with radioactivity, when they sleep next to their spouse, when they fly on an airplane, and when they look at a computer screen.

The amount of radioactivity that is allowed under law, to be released from a normally operating nuclear power plant, is lower than that of the amount of radioactivity that you will be exposed to... if you walk through Grand Central Terminal in New York City.

This is the reality. You are more likely to get higher doses of radiation from the normal world around you, than any nuclear accident or power plant in the US. And most of the world for that matter. Russia and former soviet bloc countries, maybe the risk is higher, because if I remember right, they are still operating the same nuclear reactors today, that Chernobyl was. In fact, I think the Chernobyl plant itself was still operating up till 1999, as insane as that sounds. But that's what you get when you trust government.

Lastly:

All of the nuclear accidents from around the world, excluding Chernobyl, are a tiny fraction of the dangers from other things.

I know of towns that were completely abandoned when a material sprayed on the roads, was found to be toxic.

I know of a town that was abandoned when the local city government set a coal vein on fire (still burning to this day).

I know of a town where a slurry from a mine, flooded the town, ruined the town, killed a bunch of people.

I know a town here in ohio, that was bought up by the power company, because their coal power plant made it unbearable to live there.

Where has any of that happened with nuclear? It hasn't. Even Three Mile Island was a nothing burger. More hype and freak out, over practically nothing.

Nuclear is the only option. There is no other energy source that produces the least amount of waste, and the most amount of power, in the safest possible manor.

 

[alpine]

I am curious to know people's views on nuclear energy.
How do people feel about worldwide efforts to achieve nuclear fusion? How do people feel about our current state of fission? Do you believe that nuclear has no place in certain areas? ( I.E. naval vessels/aircrafts/ trains/ shuttles and space stations/ etc.) Are there any reactors or materials you take issue with? What causes any reservations if you have any? How do people feel about waste disposal?
I will be doing another one of these posts on other forms of energy.
I am curious to see what people think. This is specifically on nuclear energies and is not limited to problems but extends to any offered solutions, theories, or inquiries.

I think nukes are the future and fusion is the goal. New designs for fission will take us there in the meantime. The waste issue is a NIMBY thing, there are plenty of safe economical options.

What options do you believe are the best in nuclear waste disposal? I also Completely agree with the future of energy sitting in nuclear fusion.

"What options do you believe are the best in nuclear waste disposal?"

send it out to the sun for recycling as solar power...

but that would be economically too expensive...
much cheaper to dig a hole in a 3rd world country and just forget bout it...

So something that was kind of a mind blowing moment for me, was someone who explained how nuclear waste... if it is dangerous.... by definition that means it has usable fuel in it.

It's like this. If you have fire pit, and you pick up a log, and it's still red and hot under it.... by definition it has fuel that can still be burning. That's why it is red and hot.

Ash doesn't burn. And Ash is not hot.

If nuclear waste is emitting enough radiation to harm you, it by definition, has enough radio active material to be used in a reactor.

You follow?

The reason that fuel rods are removed from the reactor, is because the ratio of fuel material to non-fissile material is too low. It's so low, that it can't produce enough reaction to continue producing power.

This is like the fire pit example I mentioned above, where the ash build up around the wood, has prevented enough oxygen to maintain a flame.

This is why you move the logs around, shake off the ash, and then it starts burning again.

Same thing with nuclear fuel rods. The amount of non-burnable material (so to speak) is too high, preventing the burnable nuclear material from burning.

Now some might point out, well that's the whole problem, thus it is waste.

But wait..... Uranium itself is that way when you dig it out of the ground. This is why you have 'enrich' the Uranium.

People think that "enriching" Uranium means we are doing something to the Uranium to make it radioactive, but in reality, all we are doing is filtering out the non-burnable material from the burnable material. This is actually all 'enrichment' is.

You take some Uranium that contains mostly inactive material, and some reactive material. You remove a bunch of inactive material, resulting in a higher concentration of reactive material.

In short, they remove the ash from the burnable wood.

Well the same can be true of nuclear waste. All you have to do, is remove the inactive material from the nuclear waste... and.... you have a usable fuel rod again, and some waste that is non-active. That non-active waste, is largely safe.

Again, if you actually used up all of the burnable nuclear fuel in a nuclear reactor... then by definition, it wouldn't be radioactive, and a hazard for humans or anything else, when it was removed.

We need to start mass reprocessing of nuclear fuel. Most of the nuclear waste that exists, can all be reprocessed into usable nuclear fuel.

" You follow? "

yes i do andy...
i really do...

i follow your enthusiasms and excitement...
i once was sharing every bit of it...
that was when i was as young...

then the reality did set in...

i was hoping to see humans achieve things beyond my imagination...
dont get me wrong, they have and i still find them remarkable...
but they also failed... miserably at times...
and this particular subject, so far, has been one of those...

nuclear energy was such a prominent achievement for humans that could have changed the whole planet...
yet it has been such a disappointment ended up rather changing more of us deep inside...

when you start your paragraph with "All you have to do", i also share the assumption of the simplicity of the task at hand, which is reusing spent fuel...
because first of all we have the technology to be ale to do that..
so it really is as simple as "All you have to do"...

but at the same time, it is not...

hence you dont see it being scaled...
hence why you still see the gigantic market for fresh uranium when world has plenty amount of waste to reprocess...
because of the economics of it all...
because the fantasies some people (like your signature suggests) still believe in where ceos (for some reason) prioritize interest of the people rather than their profit margins, is simply not true...
and there have been plenty of attempts to make use of spent fuel economical, which is all what matters to make it feasible...

i dont know any success stories as of yet but plenty failures...
and maybe you know some that already succeeded that i am not aware...
i think at some point it will be possible...

but appears to me we will need to dig a lot of holes in 3rd world countries before that happens...

A nuclear startup will fold after failing to deliver reactors that run on spent fuel

Transatomic Power, an MIT spinout that drew wide attention and millions in funding, is shutting down almost two years after the firm backtracked on bold claims for its design of a molten-salt reactor. High hopes: The company, founded in 2011, plans to announce later today that it’s winding down...

www.technologyreview.com

 

[Andylusion]

I am curious to know people's views on nuclear energy.
How do people feel about worldwide efforts to achieve nuclear fusion? How do people feel about our current state of fission? Do you believe that nuclear has no place in certain areas? ( I.E. naval vessels/aircrafts/ trains/ shuttles and space stations/ etc.) Are there any reactors or materials you take issue with? What causes any reservations if you have any? How do people feel about waste disposal?
I will be doing another one of these posts on other forms of energy.
I am curious to see what people think. This is specifically on nuclear energies and is not limited to problems but extends to any offered solutions, theories, or inquiries.

I think nukes are the future and fusion is the goal. New designs for fission will take us there in the meantime. The waste issue is a NIMBY thing, there are plenty of safe economical options.

What options do you believe are the best in nuclear waste disposal? I also Completely agree with the future of energy sitting in nuclear fusion.

"What options do you believe are the best in nuclear waste disposal?"

send it out to the sun for recycling as solar power...

but that would be economically too expensive...
much cheaper to dig a hole in a 3rd world country and just forget bout it...

So something that was kind of a mind blowing moment for me, was someone who explained how nuclear waste... if it is dangerous.... by definition that means it has usable fuel in it.

It's like this. If you have fire pit, and you pick up a log, and it's still red and hot under it.... by definition it has fuel that can still be burning. That's why it is red and hot.

Ash doesn't burn. And Ash is not hot.

If nuclear waste is emitting enough radiation to harm you, it by definition, has enough radio active material to be used in a reactor.

You follow?

The reason that fuel rods are removed from the reactor, is because the ratio of fuel material to non-fissile material is too low. It's so low, that it can't produce enough reaction to continue producing power.

This is like the fire pit example I mentioned above, where the ash build up around the wood, has prevented enough oxygen to maintain a flame.

This is why you move the logs around, shake off the ash, and then it starts burning again.

Same thing with nuclear fuel rods. The amount of non-burnable material (so to speak) is too high, preventing the burnable nuclear material from burning.

Now some might point out, well that's the whole problem, thus it is waste.

But wait..... Uranium itself is that way when you dig it out of the ground. This is why you have 'enrich' the Uranium.

People think that "enriching" Uranium means we are doing something to the Uranium to make it radioactive, but in reality, all we are doing is filtering out the non-burnable material from the burnable material. This is actually all 'enrichment' is.

You take some Uranium that contains mostly inactive material, and some reactive material. You remove a bunch of inactive material, resulting in a higher concentration of reactive material.

In short, they remove the ash from the burnable wood.

Well the same can be true of nuclear waste. All you have to do, is remove the inactive material from the nuclear waste... and.... you have a usable fuel rod again, and some waste that is non-active. That non-active waste, is largely safe.

Again, if you actually used up all of the burnable nuclear fuel in a nuclear reactor... then by definition, it wouldn't be radioactive, and a hazard for humans or anything else, when it was removed.

We need to start mass reprocessing of nuclear fuel. Most of the nuclear waste that exists, can all be reprocessed into usable nuclear fuel.

" You follow? "

yes i do andy...
i really do...

i follow your enthusiasms and excitement...
i once was sharing every bit of it...
that was when i was as young...

then the reality did set in...

i was hoping to see humans achieve things beyond my imagination...
dont get me wrong, they have and i still find them remarkable...
but they also failed... miserably at times...
and this particular subject, so far, has been one of those...

nuclear energy was such a prominent achievement for humans that could have changed the whole planet...
yet it has been such a disappointment ended up rather changing more of us deep inside...

when you start your paragraph with "All you have to do", i also share the assumption of the simplicity of the task at hand, which is reusing spent fuel...
because first of all we have the technology to be ale to do that..
so it really is as simple as "All you have to do"...

but at the same time, it is not...

hence you dont see it being scaled...
hence why you still see the gigantic market for fresh uranium when world has plenty amount of waste to reprocess...
because of the economics of it all...
because the fantasies some people (like your signature suggests) still believe in where ceos (for some reason) prioritize interest of the people rather than their profit margins, is simply not true...
and there have been plenty of attempts to make use of spent fuel economical, which is all what matters to make it feasible...

i dont know any success stories as of yet but plenty failures...
and maybe you know some that already succeeded that i am not aware...
i think at some point it will be possible...

but appears to me we will need to dig a lot of holes in 3rd world countries before that happens...

A nuclear startup will fold after failing to deliver reactors that run on spent fuel

Transatomic Power, an MIT spinout that drew wide attention and millions in funding, is shutting down almost two years after the firm backtracked on bold claims for its design of a molten-salt reactor. High hopes: The company, founded in 2011, plans to announce later today that it’s winding down...

www.technologyreview.com

So here's the problem.... reactors that run on MOX fuel, already exist. They have existed for decades on end. The UK has one, France has one, pretty sure India has one, and so does Russia.

We're not talking about some mythical future tech, risky venture.... we're talking about things that already exist in the world today, and have been operating safely for 50 years plus.

So why don't we have one in the US? Again, just covered all that. Regulations and government restrictions have made starting up a reprocessing and MOX power plant, horribly expensive with their burdensome controls and hindrances.

This is what drives me crazy talking with some people......

I say "Government is the reason technology has not advanced, and we can't do cool things"

Someone says "Like what things?"

I say "(insert something cool here like reprocessing nuclear waste into usable fuel)"

Someone says "That will never work, because look no one has been able to do it"

I say ".......... did I not just say the reason we can't do cool things, is because of government?"

Yeah, I said that.

By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by digging a hole in a 3rd world country. That would be the absolute worst possible idea. You want to dig a hole, in unstable 3rd world countries, where known terrorist organizations could get hold of radioactive waste and make a dirty bomb out of it?

We should leave it in the Yucca mountains as planned. There is zero reason not to, until such a time as we stop being stupid about nuclear power, and reprocess the spent fuel into usable fuel, and start making power with it.

 

[alang1216]

I am curious to know people's views on nuclear energy.
How do people feel about worldwide efforts to achieve nuclear fusion? How do people feel about our current state of fission? Do you believe that nuclear has no place in certain areas? ( I.E. naval vessels/aircrafts/ trains/ shuttles and space stations/ etc.) Are there any reactors or materials you take issue with? What causes any reservations if you have any? How do people feel about waste disposal?
I will be doing another one of these posts on other forms of energy.
I am curious to see what people think. This is specifically on nuclear energies and is not limited to problems but extends to any offered solutions, theories, or inquiries.

I think nukes are the future and fusion is the goal. New designs for fission will take us there in the meantime. The waste issue is a NIMBY thing, there are plenty of safe economical options.

What options do you believe are the best in nuclear waste disposal? I also Completely agree with the future of energy sitting in nuclear fusion.

"What options do you believe are the best in nuclear waste disposal?"

send it out to the sun for recycling as solar power...

but that would be economically too expensive...
much cheaper to dig a hole in a 3rd world country and just forget bout it...

So something that was kind of a mind blowing moment for me, was someone who explained how nuclear waste... if it is dangerous.... by definition that means it has usable fuel in it.

It's like this. If you have fire pit, and you pick up a log, and it's still red and hot under it.... by definition it has fuel that can still be burning. That's why it is red and hot.

Ash doesn't burn. And Ash is not hot.

If nuclear waste is emitting enough radiation to harm you, it by definition, has enough radio active material to be used in a reactor.

You follow?

The reason that fuel rods are removed from the reactor, is because the ratio of fuel material to non-fissile material is too low. It's so low, that it can't produce enough reaction to continue producing power.

This is like the fire pit example I mentioned above, where the ash build up around the wood, has prevented enough oxygen to maintain a flame.

This is why you move the logs around, shake off the ash, and then it starts burning again.

Same thing with nuclear fuel rods. The amount of non-burnable material (so to speak) is too high, preventing the burnable nuclear material from burning.

Now some might point out, well that's the whole problem, thus it is waste.

But wait..... Uranium itself is that way when you dig it out of the ground. This is why you have 'enrich' the Uranium.

People think that "enriching" Uranium means we are doing something to the Uranium to make it radioactive, but in reality, all we are doing is filtering out the non-burnable material from the burnable material. This is actually all 'enrichment' is.

You take some Uranium that contains mostly inactive material, and some reactive material. You remove a bunch of inactive material, resulting in a higher concentration of reactive material.

In short, they remove the ash from the burnable wood.

Well the same can be true of nuclear waste. All you have to do, is remove the inactive material from the nuclear waste... and.... you have a usable fuel rod again, and some waste that is non-active. That non-active waste, is largely safe.

Again, if you actually used up all of the burnable nuclear fuel in a nuclear reactor... then by definition, it wouldn't be radioactive, and a hazard for humans or anything else, when it was removed.

We need to start mass reprocessing of nuclear fuel. Most of the nuclear waste that exists, can all be reprocessed into usable nuclear fuel.

" You follow? "

yes i do andy...
i really do...

i follow your enthusiasms and excitement...
i once was sharing every bit of it...
that was when i was as young...

then the reality did set in...

i was hoping to see humans achieve things beyond my imagination...
dont get me wrong, they have and i still find them remarkable...
but they also failed... miserably at times...
and this particular subject, so far, has been one of those...

nuclear energy was such a prominent achievement for humans that could have changed the whole planet...
yet it has been such a disappointment ended up rather changing more of us deep inside...

when you start your paragraph with "All you have to do", i also share the assumption of the simplicity of the task at hand, which is reusing spent fuel...
because first of all we have the technology to be ale to do that..
so it really is as simple as "All you have to do"...

but at the same time, it is not...

hence you dont see it being scaled...
hence why you still see the gigantic market for fresh uranium when world has plenty amount of waste to reprocess...
because of the economics of it all...
because the fantasies some people (like your signature suggests) still believe in where ceos (for some reason) prioritize interest of the people rather than their profit margins, is simply not true...
and there have been plenty of attempts to make use of spent fuel economical, which is all what matters to make it feasible...

i dont know any success stories as of yet but plenty failures...
and maybe you know some that already succeeded that i am not aware...
i think at some point it will be possible...

but appears to me we will need to dig a lot of holes in 3rd world countries before that happens...

A nuclear startup will fold after failing to deliver reactors that run on spent fuel

Transatomic Power, an MIT spinout that drew wide attention and millions in funding, is shutting down almost two years after the firm backtracked on bold claims for its design of a molten-salt reactor. High hopes: The company, founded in 2011, plans to announce later today that it’s winding down...

www.technologyreview.com

So here's the problem.... reactors that run on MOX fuel, already exist. They have existed for decades on end. The UK has one, France has one, pretty sure India has one, and so does Russia.

We're not talking about some mythical future tech, risky venture.... we're talking about things that already exist in the world today, and have been operating safely for 50 years plus.

So why don't we have one in the US? Again, just covered all that. Regulations and government restrictions have made starting up a reprocessing and MOX power plant, horribly expensive with their burdensome controls and hindrances.

This is what drives me crazy talking with some people......

I say "Government is the reason technology has not advanced, and we can't do cool things"

Someone says "Like what things?"

I say "(insert something cool here like reprocessing nuclear waste into usable fuel)"

Someone says "That will never work, because look no one has been able to do it"

I say ".......... did I not just say the reason we can't do cool things, is because of government?"

Yeah, I said that.

By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by digging a hole in a 3rd world country. That would be the absolute worst possible idea. You want to dig a hole, in unstable 3rd world countries, where known terrorist organizations could get hold of radioactive waste and make a dirty bomb out of it?

We should leave it in the Yucca mountains as planned. There is zero reason not to, until such a time as we stop being stupid about nuclear power, and reprocess the spent fuel into usable fuel, and start making power with it.

It's not the government, it is Americans and our NIMBY mindset. We're scared by what we don't understand and our level of education about things like nuclear power is an inch deep at best. The information is out there, we're just too lazy to do our homework so instead we listen to people who know nothing but just want to get our attention.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There is no other energy source that produces the least amount of waste, and the most amount of power, in the safest possible manor.

man·or
/ˈmanər/

noun

1. a large country house with lands; the principal house of a landed estate.
   • HISTORICAL
     (especially in England and Wales) a unit of land, originally a feudal lordship, consisting of a lord's demesne and lands rented to tenants.
   • HISTORICAL
     (in North America) an estate or district leased to tenants, especially one granted by royal charter in a British colony or by the Dutch governors of what is now New York State.

Ya know, if you were better compensated I'm sure you could do an even better job of catapulting the horrible crap you regularly, "safely" promote here
Happy New Year.. SSDY..

 

[Blues Man]

most people who are anti nuclear power think that the only reactor designs we have are the old and obsolete light water reactors.

The fact is there are reactor designs that don't need gigantic concrete and steel containment domes and don't need to be near large bodies of water and that don't need to run at hundreds of atmospheres of pressure.

 

[Grumblenuts]

most people who are anti nuclear power think that the only reactor designs we have are the old and obsolete light water reactors.

The fact is there are reactor designs that don't need gigantic concrete and steel containment domes and don't need to be near large bodies of water and that don't need to run at hundreds of atmospheres of pressure.

Emphasis on "designs." Thus all this singing of the blues. They busied themselves paving a road to Hell.. But, but, they had only the best of intentions!

 

[Blues Man]

most people who are anti nuclear power think that the only reactor designs we have are the old and obsolete light water reactors.

The fact is there are reactor designs that don't need gigantic concrete and steel containment domes and don't need to be near large bodies of water and that don't need to run at hundreds of atmospheres of pressure.

Emphasis on "designs." Thus all this singing of the blues. They busied themselves paving a road to Hell.. But, but, they had only the best of intentions!

we have had working models of other reactor designs at Oakridge before the government stopped all research on nuclear power.

so these reactors don't just exist on paper

 

[Grumblenuts]

most people who are anti nuclear power think that the only reactor designs we have are the old and obsolete light water reactors.

The fact is there are reactor designs that don't need gigantic concrete and steel containment domes and don't need to be near large bodies of water and that don't need to run at hundreds of atmospheres of pressure.

Emphasis on "designs." Thus all this singing of the blues. They busied themselves paving a road to Hell.. But, but, they had only the best of intentions!

we have had working models of other reactor designs at Oakridge before the government stopped all research on nuclear power.

so these reactors don't just exist on paper

So it's "designs" plus "working models" now. Got it. And, OMG, who knew? "the government stopped all research on nuclear power"!

 

[Grumblenuts]

boon·dog·gle

noun
work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.
"writing off the cold fusion phenomenon as a boondoggle best buried in literature"

verb
waste money or time on unnecessary or questionable projects.
"the only guarantees are higher taxes and bureaucratic boondoggling"

Definitions from Oxford Languages

 

[Blues Man]

most people who are anti nuclear power think that the only reactor designs we have are the old and obsolete light water reactors.

The fact is there are reactor designs that don't need gigantic concrete and steel containment domes and don't need to be near large bodies of water and that don't need to run at hundreds of atmospheres of pressure.

Emphasis on "designs." Thus all this singing of the blues. They busied themselves paving a road to Hell.. But, but, they had only the best of intentions!

we have had working models of other reactor designs at Oakridge before the government stopped all research on nuclear power.

so these reactors don't just exist on paper

So it's "designs" plus "working models" now. Got it. And, OMG, who knew? "the government stopped all research on nuclear power"!

we haven't had a viable nuclear power research program since Oakridge was shut down.

 

[Grumblenuts]

we haven't had a viable nuclear power research program since Oakridge was shut down.

Seems it weren't none too viable either, huh.

 

[the other mike]

Nuclear is productive if it's containable, but we still have to wonder
when the next Chernobyl or Fukushima will happen. I would go with all of the above first and save the plutonium for space travel.

 

[anotherlife]

The worldwide nuclear weapon non proliferation has made the nuclear industry a joke. As a result we need to discard 90 % of radioactive source material, restricting ourselves to a ridiculous 10 % usage. So we create more nuclear contamination in the world than the total energy we extract. So all nuclear plants should be phased out and shut down. In space, the treaties don't apply so let's use nuclear there. It makes good rocket propulsion too.

 

[Andylusion]

There is no other energy source that produces the least amount of waste, and the most amount of power, in the safest possible manor.

man·or
/ˈmanər/

noun

1. a large country house with lands; the principal house of a landed estate.
   • HISTORICAL
     (especially in England and Wales) a unit of land, originally a feudal lordship, consisting of a lord's demesne and lands rented to tenants.
   • HISTORICAL
     (in North America) an estate or district leased to tenants, especially one granted by royal charter in a British colony or by the Dutch governors of what is now New York State.

Ya know, if you were better compensated I'm sure you could do an even better job of catapulting the horrible crap you regularly, "safely" promote here
Happy New Year.. SSDY..

So you can't argue with anything I said, but you are going to try and mock me? That makes you a worthless pile of disgusting trash. If you are not going to debate anything... get off the forum. I deal with enough pathetic whiny toddlers, without dealing with a poor excuse for an adult.

Find someone else to bother, if you can't even debate with civil decency. Have nothing to say? Consider it a public service, for you to close the septic tank that is your mouth.

 

[Andylusion]

The worldwide nuclear weapon non proliferation has made the nuclear industry a joke. As a result we need to discard 90 % of radioactive source material, restricting ourselves to a ridiculous 10 % usage. So we create more nuclear contamination in the world than the total energy we extract. So all nuclear plants should be phased out and shut down. In space, the treaties don't apply so let's use nuclear there. It makes good rocket propulsion too.

Um.... That seems like a rather difficult claim to support. You are suggesting that 2.6 Million Gigwatts of power world wide, is smaller than the total nuclear waste created? You realize that 70% of all power generation in France, is nuclear? The 7th largest economy in the world, is built on nuclear power.

And, you are suggesting that this is less than the total nuclear waste created by nuclear power in France? I don't think so.

The only way you could even attempt to make such a claim, is to suggest that somehow nuclear weapons technology, and nuclear power technology, are somehow connected, and that simply is not true.

Uranium refinement for nuclear power, does not contribute to nuclear weapons. Nuclear fuel for power plants, can not be used in nuclear weapons. Nuclear waste from weapons programs, is entirely different and unconnected to power generation programs.

Shutting down a nuclear power plant will never stop, hinder, or prevent nuclear weapons creation or the waste that weapons programs create.

The two have nothing to do with each other.

Now you might look at Iran, and ask whats the big deal there. Well, it's real simple. Iran was building Uranium processing facilities that could be used to make weapons, under the disguise of being for power generation.

We don't have that in the US or any other 1st world country.

 

[Andylusion]

Nuclear is productive if it's containable, but we still have to wonder
when the next Chernobyl or Fukushima will happen. I would go with all of the above first and save the plutonium for space travel.

Fukushima was nothing. Chernobyl was the only true serious nuclear catastrophe, and it was exclusively because of a socialist government, building risky reactors with known flaws, and then not only doing that, but hiding the dangers of the reactor from the very people operating the reactor (and everyone else), because the state never makes mistakes.

Unsurprisingly to a right-winger like me, the next real nuclear disaster was caused by the UK government. Once again a reactor with known flaws, run by the government, caused the Windscale fire.

Government should be your biggest concern. Which by the way, is another reason right-wing people like myself, don't want government involved in our health care or housing or education. Government screws everything up.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Nuclear is productive if it's containable, but we still have to wonder
when the next Chernobyl or Fukushima will happen. I would go with all of the above first and save the plutonium for space travel.

Fukushima was nothing. Chernobyl was the only true serious nuclear catastrophe, and it was exclusively because of a socialist government, building risky reactors with known flaws, and then not only doing that, but hiding the dangers of the reactor from the very people operating the reactor (and everyone else), because the state never makes mistakes.

Unsurprisingly to a right-winger like me, the next real nuclear disaster was caused by the UK government. Once again a reactor with known flaws, run by the government, caused the Windscale fire.

Government should be your biggest concern. Which by the way, is another reason right-wing people like myself, don't want government involved in our health care or housing or education. Government screws everything up.

Cool........................since you know so much, can you explain 3 Mile Island?