Nuclear Energy

[Turtlesoup]

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.

It's a bomb waiting to go off------especially with so many terrorists running around.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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?

One might even suspect Pythagoras just waltzed in here on Christmas Eve fishing for local support from trolls like Andy. Appears long gone now.. Moved on, I'm afraid.. A flash in the pan, A stupor spreader.

Sure, Andy, "Government screws everything up." Only, without government there could obviously be no nuclear programs, no national power grid, no highway system, no standing army, no food or education standards, no weights, measures, clock standards,... Nah, in Andy's delusional existence, all that's superfluous, for shit, disposable. What we really need is armies of rugged individualists, stupidly and ceaselessly going blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,..!! That'll surely fix everything. Listen to me! NO, YOU LISTEN TO ME!!.. (fact free!)

 

[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.

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

Not sure what you want to have explained. From a citizen perspective, Three Mile Island, was like Fukushimu, a non-event.

The entire reason we have containment facilities over western reactors, is specifically to.... (as the name implies) contain any possible release of radioactive material. The containment system worked perfectly at Three Mile Island. Why do you think that Three Mile Island was still running, and safely, until last year? (or the year before, since it's 2021 now).

Nothing like the ridiculous release of radioactive material wide spread by the UK's Windscale incident, and of course nothing like Chernobyl.

Most people who research nuclear accidents find comparing either of those major invents run by the government, to the nothing burgers like Three Mile Island, to be basically saying the Titanic capsized, and this canoe capsized, so since the same thing can happen to both, we should just ban all boats.

It's ridiculous. Silly people made a really big deal, out of what was really nothing.

Now again, as I mentioned before, Three Mile Island is still using the same design that was pioneered in 1956. The pressurized water reactor.

Why are they using a 1950s design for a reactor, in 2020? (or in Three Mile Island's case) the 1970s?

Because of government. There are many other tested, safe designs, that do not have pressurized water, or have to worry about being cooled after an emergency shut down. Many designs.

Government is the reason we are still using such ridiculously outdated technology.

 

[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.

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

One might even suspect Pythagoras just waltzed in here on Christmas Eve fishing for local support from trolls like Andy. Appears long gone now.. Moved on, I'm afraid.. A flash in the pan, A stupor spreader.

Sure, Andy, "Government screws everything up." Only, without government there could obviously be no nuclear programs, no national power grid, no highway system, no standing army, no food or education standards, no weights, measures, clock standards,... Nah, in Andy's delusional existence, all that's superfluous, for shit, disposable. What we really need is armies of rugged individualists, stupidly and ceaselessly going blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,..!! That'll surely fix everything. Listen to me! NO, YOU LISTEN TO ME!!.. (fact free!)

No I don't want you to listen to me at all. I want you to leave, because you are disgusting pathetic sub-human, who came on here to just insult people, instead of debating.

You call me a troll... but who wrote this, to an honest discussion of the topic....

"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.."

Did I write that like a troll? Or did you?

You did. Because you are not an adult that can discuss things. You are pathetic child, and this is a forum for adults.

So just do everyone a favor, and remove yourself from the forum. It's the only thing you can do to improve the world. Your existence is nothing but a burden to good intelligent people, so please fix that.

 

[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.

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.

I am not a nuclear scientist, but from what I read, the plutonium isotope that is a byproduct of normal power plant operation is also the source material for nuclear bomb manufacturing, as soon as 10 % of the fuel is used. That is why those treaties are so interfering. France is a nuclear military power. I doubt that given its controlling leadership of the European Union plus that you point out the 7th largest world economy, France would care about international proliferation treaties.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I am not a nuclear scientist,

No worries. Andy is no sort of scientist. He's a pontificator. An air poking expert. Carnival barker. Charlatan. Fake. Phony. Full of beans.

 

[anotherlife]

I am not a nuclear scientist,

No worries. Andy is no sort of scientist. He's a pontificator. An air poking expert. Carnival barker. Charlatan. Fake. Phony. Full of beans.

 

[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.

I am not a nuclear scientist, but from what I read, the plutonium isotope that is a byproduct of normal power plant operation is also the source material for nuclear bomb manufacturing, as soon as 10 % of the fuel is used. That is why those treaties are so interfering. France is a nuclear military power. I doubt that given its controlling leadership of the European Union plus that you point out the 7th largest world economy, France would care about international proliferation treaties.

True, and the nitrogen in plant fertilizer can be used to blow up the world trade center in 1993, and Oklahoma city in 1995. In fact sugar can be used to make an explosive too.

Now I know that came across sarcastic, but that is not my intention. My point is that everything you say is entirely true, but not exactly important.

Yes, Plutonium is a natural byproduct of normal civil power plant operation.
Yes, Plutonium can be used in to make a bomb.

However, there are two problems.

First, the plutonium in spent fuel is extremely difficult to separate from the rest of the spent fuel. While it does exist in the spent fuel rods, it is barely 1% of the total mass. Further, the fuel is 'polluted' with other fission by products, that all must be removed in order to create a pure supply of Plutonium to use.

In short... it would be far easier, and far cheaper, to simply design a reactor to process raw Uranium into plutonium, rather than to try and separate out Plutonium from fuel rods used in domestic electricity production.

Second, Plutonium like Uranium, has different isotopes. Uranium has fissile Ur-235, and stable 238. Similarly, Plutonium has Fissile Pu-239, and largely stable Pu-240.

In order to create more of the fissile Pu-239, a special type of reactor has to be built, which has a low-fuel burn, which the fuel is in the reactor for a short time.

The reason is actually quite logical if you think about it. The longer the fuel is in the reactor, the more the created fissile plutonium is burnt in the reactor. After all, you have a fissile material in a reactor engaged in....... fission.

In other words, in a normal power plant reactor, the fissile Plutonium is not just created, but also used up in the reactor. If you think about it, logically if the amount of fissile plutonium was very high, then they wouldn't need to remove the fuel rods for lack of fission, right?

The plutonium from a power plant reactor, is not really all that useful in making a bomb. Now obviously you could go through the difficulty of once again, trying to filter out the Pu-240 to make it weapons grade, but just as before, it would be easier, and cheaper, to just get fresh Uranium and run it through a reactor designed to make weapons grade plutonium.

In conclusion... in all honesty, if you want to prevent the use of Uranium to make weapons, the safest thing you could do, is put it in a power plant, because what comes out is far too difficult, and too expensive to make into a weapon.

And lastly, if you really are concerned about the plutonium from spent fuel rods being used in making a weapon, then the best possible option, is to reprocess those fuel rods, and burn the plutonium to make power. Problem solved. (not perfectly solved, but just about). There are no perfect solutions, I get that. But this is by far the best solution we have today.

All that said... this again is one of the reasons we should be open to new technology. My understanding of thorium reactors is that they produce no plutonium at all. Why don't we try that? Too much government regulation.

 

[Andylusion]

I am not a nuclear scientist,

No worries. Andy is no sort of scientist. He's a pontificator. An air poking expert. Carnival barker. Charlatan. Fake. Phony. Full of beans.

Coming from the guy that couldn't come up with a single response to what I said, and resorted to trolling, and then accused me of trolling the way he was. Can't take the heat? Get out of the kitchen, lady.

 

[Pythagoras]

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.

It's a bomb waiting to go off------especially with so many terrorists running around.

Do you believe there are security measures to prevent attacks like the one you forsee being an issue?

 

[Pythagoras]

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?

I am not from Greece. I present the name Pythagoras for my own reasons and my location is where he was born. I spend my time discussing. Not selling. Mind you, on a PUBLIC forum designed for DISCUSSING. So, while your comments are greatly appreciated in terms of discussing nuclear energy of other nations, your desire to brand me as some promoter and not someone of inquiry is unwelcomed. Personally, I'd find better evidence to assert your point gumdrop I'm not here to debate your opinion on the term dickhead clearly you've mastered the art form yourself with, might I add, mathematical precision.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well, again sparky, discuss it or quit pretending to be interested in discussing the subject. Shit or get off the pot. Otherwise expect to be shit(shat?) upon.

List your general reasoning, conclusions, and convictions regarding the subject so that others may address your views about it.

 

[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

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.

the only reason some countries are running plants on re-processed fuel is because they are "socialist" and they like to bend the market backwards against its will with tons of regulations and mandates, arguing the environmental gains outweigh the extra operational costs...

if running these plants were any profitable, they would already be operating in the US.,..

 

[Blues Man]

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

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

of course it was.

It was proven that a reactor design can be self limiting, that a reactor need not operate at high pressure among other things

 

[Blues Man]

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?

human error

 

[Grumblenuts]

Luckily, they're all gone now.

 

[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.

the only reason some countries are running plants on re-processed fuel is because they are "socialist" and they like to bend the market backwards against its will with tons of regulations and mandates, arguing the environmental gains outweigh the extra operational costs...

if running these plants were any profitable, they would already be operating in the US.,..

Debatable. We actually had plans to build a power plants based on reprocessing spent fuel. They were canceled in the 1970s, when Carter banned reprocessing.

In the 1990s, they attempted to restart the project, but due to the cost of regulations, were unable to do it.

So my question to you is... what changed between the late 60s early 70s, that private companies were going to make a reprocessing facility and reactor to use that fuel... that in the 1990s, no one is willing to build it?

Is it possible.... I'm just asking... Is it possible that regulations passed from Carter to Bill Clinton's time in office, have made it impossible to reprocess fuel profitably?

I think that is a real possibility.

No I'm not opposed to what you are saying. Could be true. I don't know.

But quite often you levy hard regulations on companies, and then say "see? It's not profitable!".

Well yeah... if you pass a regulation that makes it unprofitable to do something, no one will do it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

the only reason some countries are running plants on re-processed fuel is because they are "socialist" and they like to bend the market backwards against its will with tons of regulations and mandates, arguing the environmental gains outweigh the extra operational costs...

if running these plants were any profitable, they would already be operating in the US.,..

Debatable. We actually had plans to build a power plants based on reprocessing spent fuel. They were canceled in the 1970s, when Carter banned reprocessing.

In the 1990s, they attempted to restart the project, but due to the cost of regulations, were unable to do it.

So my question to you is... what changed between the late 60s early 70s, that private companies were going to make a reprocessing facility and reactor to use that fuel... that in the 1990s, no one is willing to build it?

Is it possible.... I'm just asking... Is it possible that regulations passed from Carter to Bill Clinton's time in office, have made it impossible to reprocess fuel profitably?

I think that is a real possibility.

No I'm not opposed to what you are saying. Could be true. I don't know.

But quite often you levy hard regulations on companies, and then say "see? It's not profitable!".

Well yeah... if you pass a regulation that makes it unprofitable to do something, no one will do it.

Maybe part of the problem was that the government decided to listen to Adm Rickover (who ran the Navy nuclear program), and he showed them where there were possible pitfalls. By the way, the U.S. Navy has the safest nuclear program ever developed.

 

[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.

the only reason some countries are running plants on re-processed fuel is because they are "socialist" and they like to bend the market backwards against its will with tons of regulations and mandates, arguing the environmental gains outweigh the extra operational costs...

if running these plants were any profitable, they would already be operating in the US.,..

Debatable. We actually had plans to build a power plants based on reprocessing spent fuel. They were canceled in the 1970s, when Carter banned reprocessing.

In the 1990s, they attempted to restart the project, but due to the cost of regulations, were unable to do it.

So my question to you is... what changed between the late 60s early 70s, that private companies were going to make a reprocessing facility and reactor to use that fuel... that in the 1990s, no one is willing to build it?

Is it possible.... I'm just asking... Is it possible that regulations passed from Carter to Bill Clinton's time in office, have made it impossible to reprocess fuel profitably?

I think that is a real possibility.

No I'm not opposed to what you are saying. Could be true. I don't know.

But quite often you levy hard regulations on companies, and then say "see? It's not profitable!".

Well yeah... if you pass a regulation that makes it unprofitable to do something, no one will do it.

Maybe part of the problem was that the government decided to listen to Adm Rickover (who ran the Navy nuclear program), and he showed them where there were possible pitfalls. By the way, the U.S. Navy has the safest nuclear program ever developed.

Well yes and no. There is an automatic assumption by left-wing people, that all people in business are automatically evil, and actually think they want people to die. At the same time, they automatically assume people in government are divine and looking out for the best interest of the public.

Which is ironic since we have about 4,000 years of history showing the reverse of that. For every one bad person business, there are millions who are doing the best for themselves and everyone around them.

And for every one good politician, there are tens of thousands that could not possibly careless about the public, actually belittle and denigrate the public, but fake enough to convince idiots they really care.... just as long as you vote for them.

Pretty accurate picture if you ask me.

So yes, the politicians trusted Hyman G. Rickover. And possibly that was the right move at that time.

But now life has moved forward, technology is vastly different, and we need to allow nuclear technology to move forward too.

Yes, Rickover did in fact run the safest nuclear program in the world has ever seen. Part of that is because he had dictator powers over the program. Now that isn't a negative. That is not an insult. I'm saying he could do literally anything he wanted, and have nearly unlimited resources to do it.

Power companies do not have that ability. They have a half dozens different regulatory agencies making demands on them, and of course limited by what funds they have, and how much they can sell the power for.

Little different when you can just go to Congress, and say "we need more", than a business that naturally has to make ends meet. Companies (contrary to left-wing claims), can't just come and demand more money from you the consumer, unlike government which has police and the IRS, and the ability to just confiscate your property if you don't pay up.

That isn't to minimize what Hyman G. Rickover did, but I remember in the 1990s, we had people standing around saying "We can send a spaceship to the moon, but we can't make a car that gets 100 miles on a gallon of gas".... as if companies have billions of dollars from the tax payers through government, to make 100 mpg cars.

So I'm not entirely sure how comparable the two are.

 

[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

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.

the only reason some countries are running plants on re-processed fuel is because they are "socialist" and they like to bend the market backwards against its will with tons of regulations and mandates, arguing the environmental gains outweigh the extra operational costs...

if running these plants were any profitable, they would already be operating in the US.,..

Debatable. We actually had plans to build a power plants based on reprocessing spent fuel. They were canceled in the 1970s, when Carter banned reprocessing.

In the 1990s, they attempted to restart the project, but due to the cost of regulations, were unable to do it.

So my question to you is... what changed between the late 60s early 70s, that private companies were going to make a reprocessing facility and reactor to use that fuel... that in the 1990s, no one is willing to build it?

Is it possible.... I'm just asking... Is it possible that regulations passed from Carter to Bill Clinton's time in office, have made it impossible to reprocess fuel profitably?

I think that is a real possibility.

No I'm not opposed to what you are saying. Could be true. I don't know.

But quite often you levy hard regulations on companies, and then say "see? It's not profitable!".

Well yeah... if you pass a regulation that makes it unprofitable to do something, no one will do it.

Maybe part of the problem was that the government decided to listen to Adm Rickover (who ran the Navy nuclear program), and he showed them where there were possible pitfalls. By the way, the U.S. Navy has the safest nuclear program ever developed.

Well yes and no. There is an automatic assumption by left-wing people, that all people in business are automatically evil, and actually think they want people to die. At the same time, they automatically assume people in government are divine and looking out for the best interest of the public.

Which is ironic since we have about 4,000 years of history showing the reverse of that. For every one bad person business, there are millions who are doing the best for themselves and everyone around them.

And for every one good politician, there are tens of thousands that could not possibly careless about the public, actually belittle and denigrate the public, but fake enough to convince idiots they really care.... just as long as you vote for them.

View attachment 437468

Pretty accurate picture if you ask me.

So yes, the politicians trusted Hyman G. Rickover. And possibly that was the right move at that time.

But now life has moved forward, technology is vastly different, and we need to allow nuclear technology to move forward too.

Yes, Rickover did in fact run the safest nuclear program in the world has ever seen. Part of that is because he had dictator powers over the program. Now that isn't a negative. That is not an insult. I'm saying he could do literally anything he wanted, and have nearly unlimited resources to do it.

Power companies do not have that ability. They have a half dozens different regulatory agencies making demands on them, and of course limited by what funds they have, and how much they can sell the power for.

Little different when you can just go to Congress, and say "we need more", than a business that naturally has to make ends meet. Companies (contrary to left-wing claims), can't just come and demand more money from you the consumer, unlike government which has police and the IRS, and the ability to just confiscate your property if you don't pay up.

That isn't to minimize what Hyman G. Rickover did, but I remember in the 1990s, we had people standing around saying "We can send a spaceship to the moon, but we can't make a car that gets 100 miles on a gallon of gas".... as if companies have billions of dollars from the tax payers through government, to make 100 mpg cars.

So I'm not entirely sure how comparable the two are.

all people in business are automatically evil, and actually think they want people to die

not evil and want people to die, but i think we are safe to assume they are in for profits alone...

because otherwise they would not be called a "business"...

they would be called a "charity"...

and i think thats where people on the right are confused...
they think "businesses" are just some "charities" that are obligated to watch out for them and hand out those wages so they can keep up with their comfortable living standards...