NukeWorker Forum
News and Discussions => History & Trivia => Topic started by: wlrun3@aol.com on May 16, 2008, 07:53
-
...There is no known upper yield limit for a fusion (e.g, hydrogen) bomb. In principle a fusion bomb could be many thousand megatons.
Hiroshima 20 kilotons.
Tsar Bomb 50 megatons (largest thermonuclear weapon ever tested).
If the full payload of 250 metric tons of the Antonov An-225 could be used, the limit would be 250 t × 5.2 Mt/t, or 1,300 megatons of TNT.
...is this the reason why nuclear power is not the world’s primary source of electricity generation?...
-
I dont know what exactly your asking. are you asking if there is a possibility of a reactor exploding like a nuclear weapon, or are you asking why nuclear power is not the main source of electric power?
-
...There is no known upper yield limit for a fusion (e.g, hydrogen) bomb. In principle a fusion bomb could be many thousand megatons.
Hiroshima 20 kilotons.
Tsar Bomb 50 megatons (largest thermonuclear weapon ever tested).
If the full payload of 250 metric tons of the Antonov An-225 could be used, the limit would be 250 t × 5.2 Mt/t, or 1,300 megatons of TNT.
...is this the reason why nuclear power is not the world’s primary source of electricity generation?...
Interesting point, I think the phrase I hear many times to explain why things happen the way they do at many DOE facilities applies...
"Perception is Reality"
Once an idea is run up the flag pole and is saluted it is difficult to change.
-
I dont know what exactly your asking. are you asking if there is a possibility of a reactor exploding like a nuclear weapon, or are you asking why nuclear power is not the main source of electric power?
...is the fear of the enormity of the potential misuse of nuclear technology preventing the production of most of the world's electricity by nuclear power?...clear enough?
-
...is the fear of the enormity of the potential misuse of nuclear technology preventing the production of most of the world's electricity by nuclear power?...clear enough?
I don't think the potential misuse of nuclear technology is the #1 reason preventing nuclear energy from powering the world. I think it is more the fear of three eyed frogs, 20lb cancerous tumors, green glowing goo, and etc. In a word, ignorance.......or stupidity. My vote is for stupidity.
-
I don't think the potential misuse of nuclear technology is the #1 reason preventing nuclear energy from powering the world. I think it is more the fear of three eyed frogs, 20lb cancerous tumors, green glowing goo, and etc. In a word, ignorance.......or stupidity. My vote is for stupidity.
Which came first, ignorance or stupidity?? I bet the chicken knows.
-
I don't think the potential misuse of nuclear technology is the #1 reason preventing nuclear energy from powering the world. I think it is more the fear of three eyed frogs, 20lb cancerous tumors, green glowing goo, and etc. In a word, ignorance.......or stupidity. My vote is for stupidity.
The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that ignorance is curable. I think there are a lot of people that would change their minds if they were presented with convincing evidence and the source of the misinformation was removed.
Of course some would not. That is where the stupidity comes in. Given a choice between believing scientists and celebrities, they choose to believe celebrities.
The real root of the problem is finding a champion for the nuclear cause that has deep enough pockets to educate the public properly. The utilities would love to endorse nuclear power (at least those with nuclear plants would) but there is a major problem. These utilities only get 20% of their power from nuclear and the rest from coal (and some oil.) The best argument for nuclear power is the argument against using coal, so in order to promote 20% of their source of electricity they have to expose the other 80% for the monster that it is... not a very enticing prospect. On the hopeful side, the message is starting to get out, even if it is in the misguided fear of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. Right idea, wrong reason.
The fact that 'Atomic' started as a bomb and some very bad B-Movies certainly does not help. Changing to 'Nuclear' was tried but failed because the Atomic Bombs became Nuclear Weapons about the same time that Atomic Power Stations became Nuclear Power Plants. Oh, well.
-
...is the fear of the enormity of the potential misuse of nuclear technology preventing the production of most of the world's electricity by nuclear power?...clear enough?
nope. itza case baby steps. sum countrees produce most of there lectricity from nukes, some produce none, some produce sum. da technology is ~60 yeers old. sum countrys are>1000. itzl all come together. watch 'n sea.
-
...is this the reason why nuclear power is not the world’s primary source of electricity generation?...
No. It's purely economics.
Coal comes right out of the ground, they burn it while it's still dirty. And currently, the law says thats OK. Don't know if you've ever heard this but a Fossil plant of similar power output emits more radioactivity to the atmosphere than an operating Nuclear Unit. Not to mention the Carbon Dioxide wreaking havoc on the Polar Bears.
Uranium also comes out of the ground, but we process the doggins out of it and stuff it in expensive nuclear grade zirconium alloy tubes before it is of any use. Industrial processes add value - and cost.
Then we put it in an extremely expensive plant who pays extremely expensive guys like me.
When Clean Coal Technology requires coal processing prior to ignition - you'll see economic parity between Nuclear and Fossil. And when Al Gore's "pay for pollution" initiatives become law - that $45 a ton for Carbon Dioxide will make Nuclear highly competitive - on both build and fuel costs.
Nuclear's fuel cost is low right now. There are plants generating at $12 a Mw hour. A look at electrical spot prices will tell you the profitability.
That $9 Billion per unit floater in the punch bowl we're about to hear about will look tame compared to the costs of operating a Fossil Plant.
-
when Al Gore's "pay for pollution" initiatives become law - that $45 a ton for Carbon Dioxide
betcha dat gits da baby steps steppen quickly... purty soon they'll turn into a deturmandt run.... 'n da international race will bee on.
-
...from Plan B 3.0 by Lester Brown, 2008...
..."we do not count on a buildup in nuclear power. Our assumption is that new openings of nuclear power plants worldwide will simply offset the closing of aging plants, with no overall growth in capacity. If we use full cost pricing requiring utilities to absorb the costs of disposing of nuclear waste, of decommissioning the plant when it is worn out, and of insuring the reactors against possible accidents and terrorist attacks, building nuclear plants in a competitive electricity market is simply not economical.
Beyond the economic costs are the political questions. If we say that expanding nuclear power is an important part of our energy future, do we mean for all countries or only for some countries. If the latter, who makes the A list and the B list of countries. And who enforces the listings."
-
...from Plan B 3.0 by Lester Brown, 2008...
..."we do not count on a buildup in nuclear power. Our assumption is that new openings of nuclear power plants worldwide will simply offset the closing of aging plants,.....
hare's da problem, dat assumption thing. china opening 50 new plants will offset a lot of old plants. most old u.s.a. plants are getting license extensions, not closing. 'cuse me iffen eye don't wanna be on my half of that saying on assuming..... "ya make an as....
-
I'm not as cataclysmic as Lester Brown, it sells books, as the earth has been coming to an end since man first applied quill and ink to paper or papyrus. Or a stone to a clay tablet.
In the 00's, it is Global Warming.
In the 90's, it was a huge hole in the Ozone Layer.
In the 80's it was Global Cooling - and I'm glad that trend reversed, it was getting nippy.
In the 70's it was DDT and Dioxin (Rachel Carson's Silent Spring).
In the 60's it was Mutually Assured Destruction of US - USSR nuclear war.
In the 50's it was Godless Communists running rampant
In the 40's it was WW2 and the other Axis of evil.
In the 30's it was The Great Depression.
Man, there's ALWAYS an Apocalypse around the corner - it's wonder any of us here are alive - in light of the overwheliming odds against sustained life on this planet.
I don't believe for a minute that Global Warming induced by Greenhouse Gas is based in solid science.
I have seen the ice caps recede, and miraculously the polar caps on Mars also have withered.
My limited (peanut sized) brain may not be able to get wrapped completely around Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth - but I'm guessing approximately ZERO human made Carbon Dioxide is causing the Greenhouse Effect on Mars.
Increased radiant solar energy? I'd buy that. There are Solar Minimums and Maximums in sunspot activity, and these affect solar energy output.
But folks, you can't tax sunshine, yet - so that form of science has no political value.
Check out Ben Stein's "EXPELLED". We have world renowned Meteorologists and Climatologists who have been "expelled" by universities because their academic findings do not support further study of "Global Warming" science which has cost some universities massive government grants.
Politics affects Science. If you don't agree, ask yourself... is Al Gore a Scientist?
Anyway -(stepping down off the soap box)- junk science or not. It's good for our industry.
-
...my retired navy officer sister, now with epa, tells me that within the beltway it is common knowledge that the us and china will actively defend their energy interests by any means necessary...
...it is not a stretch to suggest that the mindset of 1914, projected onto to current logistic realities, would not produce a proportionately analogous outcome...
-
der is knot, has nebber bin, 'n nevar will bee a countree that won't defend its interests wit all available means. sew? yinz going two dat place ware russia gots plenty a energy sources, 'n china duz to, dat dere going to force da u.s.a. two nuke da whirled?
-
Interesting points all, even if some are made in jest. I think there are 3 things at play here that are really holding back the full blown nuke power expansion:
1. Cost, you have to admit it is outrageous.
2. Waste, since we aren't allowed to use Yucka that means onsite storage, and if you follow the candidates each one has harped on this issue as the main deterent.
3. Ignorance, the baby boom generation still holds the power in this country and all those x hippies are still alive and still fighting nuke power as some great evil.
Till those 3 issues are argued successfully in public so that everyone can hear it we my never really see a huge boom in building. We know the media isn't on our side thats for sure.
-
how menny plants gotta get underweigh befour ya tink a nuke boom has started?
-
Those of us that are in the know keep track of this kinda thing, but when is the last time you heard a major news cast about nuclear power making a come back? I read about some things happening in the AJC and in the local paper but its spars at best. I saw a tv show I thought was going to be about nuke power on the weather channel but it was about global warming and its affects on the earth. (I still dont believe global warming is truth, and science hasnt proven it yet either) Where is the major news about nuke power? Its no where to be found. There is still a stigma.
-
b.presgrove...... dere cood be arguements presented dat since itza lection yeer, 'n da leeding dem candidate don't like nukes dat da news ain't reporting dis stuff. or it cood bee sayed dat da bigwigs inna new biz figger der ain't a story dat'll sell advertising. butt eye doubt da secund......
-
I have seen the ice caps recede, and miraculously the polar caps on Mars also have withered.
You forget to mention that the martian polar bears are doing fine ==> NOT Global warming there. If they had a poster animal, we could talk.
I don't know if I should bring this up here, but let's do this. When you look at public sentiment toward nuke power, consider our view of Iranian nukeeler power. Their Uranium distribution contract from Russia includes returning all spent fuel to Russia. Yet we will probably be at war with them within the year. I don't really want to touch this issue with a 10 foot pole, but I do want to ask some of you folks what you think. Are they a threat to us, or are we looking at denying a sovereign nation its right to nuclear power generation?