The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste

[Robert W]

Discussions of using nuclear energy always wind up discussing waste. Well waste is not precisely waste. This so called waste still can produce nuclear power. I urge you to educate yourself by watching the Video I am presenting to you all. Good luck.

 

[Darkwind]

Discussions of using nuclear energy always wind up discussing waste. Well waste is not precisely waste. This so called waste still can produce nuclear power. I urge you to educate yourself by watching the Video I am presenting to you all. Good luck.

I watched this when it first came out . Very informative and answer a lot of the unrealistic fears the anti-nukers have.

It's wasted on this forum, as are many things are, because the entrenchment cannot be overcome.

 

[Robert W]

I watched this when it first came out . Very informative and answer a lot of the unrealistic fears the anti-nukers have.

It's wasted on this forum, as are many things are, because the entrenchment cannot be overcome.

I expect that to happen. I also expect to inform others and have them refute that nuclear is this out of world danger to the public in the USA. Other nations do it. Why not get onto the congress and get them going as well? You have managed to take that step. We need to locate others who will also take the stepl

 

[EMH]

The nuke industry sees CO2 FRAUD as an "opportunity."

We should be just as skeptical...

 

[Darkwind]

I expect that to happen. I also expect to inform others and have them refute that nuclear is this out of world danger to the public in the USA. Other nations do it. Why not get onto the congress and get them going as well? You have managed to take that step. We need to locate others who will also take the stepl

You're preaching to the choir.

I think we need to embrace the nuclear energy sector and replace every single carbon burning generation plant with nuclear.

I just haven't really made up My mind on which is best. Molten Salt or Pressurized Water. The later is in widespread use in many places in the world but the Motlen Salt has far better safety features and I can't recall off the top of My head, it better for reprocessing fuel.

 

[elektra]

You're preaching to the choir.

I think we need to embrace the nuclear energy sector and replace every single carbon burning generation plant with nuclear.

I just haven't really made up My mind on which is best. Molten Salt or Pressurized Water. The later is in widespread use in many places in the world but the Motlen Salt has far better safety features and I can't recall off the top of My head, it better for reprocessing fuel.

PWR, pressurized water reator, have a near perfect safety record. Are they better than molten salt. It is hard to compare the two, Molten salt reactors are rare.

Either way, we will have PWR's at least another 50 years

 

[elektra]

I think much of the previous nuclear waste was because the material used to encase the uranium deteriorated hence the useful lifestyle of fuel rods was short.

Today we have much better materials hence the fuel rods last longer.

We have gone from 12, 18, and now to 24 month refueling cycles.

 

[Robert W]

PWR, pressurized water reator, have a near perfect safety record. Are they better than molten salt. It is hard to compare the two, Molten salt reactors are rare.

Either way, we will have PWR's at least another 50 years

I hope to keep reading much more from experts.

 

[elektra]

I hope to keep reading much more from experts.

I worked in pressurized water reactors for over 30 years. In the early years, the 1980's the zirconium incasing the uranium deteriorated resulting in extreme contamination of the primary coolant system. That problem was resolved years ago.

We do need the new designs that are able to use much more of the fuel.

 

[Darkwind]

I worked in pressurized water reactors for over 30 years. In the early years, the 1980's the zirconium incasing the uranium deteriorated resulting in extreme contamination of the primary coolant system. That problem was resolved years ago.

We do need the new designs that are able to use much more of the fuel.

Why do you beleive that the molten salt reactors are not a better choice?

 

[elektra]

Why do you beleive that the molten salt reactors are not a better choice?

I did not intend to imply that. I don't know anything about them. We have over 60 years of experience with pressurized water reactors. Experience that resulted in better metals. I don't think anybody knows the longevity of the metals a molten salt reactor would use.

 

[Darkwind]

I did not intend to imply that. I don't know anything about them. We have over 60 years of experience with pressurized water reactors. Experience that resulted in better metals. I don't think anybody knows the longevity of the metals a molten salt reactor would use.

Thank you.

I thought that most would be against the PWR style after Chernobyl.

The research I've done points to the possibility that the Molten Salt reactor could also be a solution to the spent cores being left to decay.

 

[elektra]

I thought that most would be against the PWR style after Chernobyl.

Chernobyl is not a pressurized water reactor. PWR

It was a graphite moderated BWR. It also lacked basic safety features like a cement and steel containment building

 

[Robert W]

I worked in pressurized water reactors for over 30 years. In the early years, the 1980's the zirconium incasing the uranium deteriorated resulting in extreme contamination of the primary coolant system. That problem was resolved years ago.

We do need the new designs that are able to use much more of the fuel.

I admire experts who show that the fight against nuclear power is just wrong. Besides when do the naysayers attack Nuclear Carriers or Submarines? Both have sailors in very close proximity to the nuclear that we are told to fear.

 

[Robert W]

Chernobyl is not a pressurized water reactor. PWR

It was a graphite moderated BWR. It also lacked basic safety features like a cement and steel containment building

We who promote nuclear never promote danger. We have long believed it can solve this nation's energy problems.

 

[Darkwind]

Chernobyl is not a pressurized water reactor. PWR

It was a graphite moderated BWR. It also lacked basic safety features like a cement and steel containment building

• The four Chernobyl reactors were pressurized water reactors of the Soviet RBMK design, or Reactor BolshoMoshchnosty Kanalny, meaning “high-power channel reactor.” Designed to produce both plutonium and electric power, they were very different from standard commercial designs and employed a unique combination of a graphite moderator and water coolant.

https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/chernobyl-accident-and-its-consequences#:~:text=The%20four%20Chernobyl%20reactors%20were,a%20unique%20combination%20of%20a

 

[elektra]

• The four Chernobyl reactors were pressurized water reactors of the Soviet RBMK design, or Reactor BolshoMoshchnosty Kanalny, meaning “high-power channel reactor.” Designed to produce both plutonium and electric power, they were very different from standard commercial designs and employed a unique combination of a graphite moderator and water coolant.

https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/chernobyl-accident-and-its-consequences#:~:text=The%20four%20Chernobyl%20reactors%20were,a%20unique%20combination%20of%20a

Sorry, but your link is wrong. Chernobyl can not be described as a PWR, pressurized water reactor. At best it is closer to a Boiling Water Reactor, BWR.

PWR, BWR, RBMK, Those letters all mean something.

Chernobyl Accident 1986 - World Nuclear Association

The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel. Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning.

world-nuclear.org

The RBMK-1000 is a Soviet-designed and built graphite moderated pressure tube type reactor, using slightly enriched (2% U-235) uranium dioxide fuel. It is a boiling light water reactor, with two loops feeding steam directly to the turbines, without an intervening heat exchanger

 

[elektra]

 

[Darkwind]

Sorry, but your link is wrong. Chernobyl can not be described as a PWR, pressurized water reactor. At best it is closer to a Boiling Water Reactor, BWR.

PWR, BWR, RBMK, Those letters all mean something.

Chernobyl Accident 1986 - World Nuclear Association

The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel. Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning.

world-nuclear.org

The RBMK-1000 is a Soviet-designed and built graphite moderated pressure tube type reactor, using slightly enriched (2% U-235) uranium dioxide fuel. It is a boiling light water reactor, with two loops feeding steam directly to the turbines, without an intervening heat exchanger

My link is directly from the NEI. I worked in environmental intelligence on Chernobyl when it happened when I was active duty in the Air Force.

 

[elektra]