Nuclear Power

Originally posted by Penguin
What I meant was that without having those numbers to hand, meaningful debate is impossible. And I am too lazy to go and research the numbers! I certainly did not intend to imply that I either agreed or disagreed with you.

Thanks for the links. I looked at the results of the Google search and found a number of sites , some saying supplies will run out Rea e relatively plentiful and extraction / processing costs were not prohibitive.

--- Penguin.

…One thing that casts doubt for me on what he says is that his grammar and spelling leave a lot to be desired (I counted 6 typo's in the fist paragraph I have quoted). Why I should consider that to be a reflection on his subject knowledge is probably an interesting psychological question!
..…

I shouldn’t give too much weight to his bad grammar and spelling -lots of people have this problem because they are dyslexic (like myself -my spelling used to be atrocious throughout childhood but isn’t too bad now) but this doesn’t mean they don’t know what they are talking about so he might know what he is talking about in which case I would stand corrected 🙂
I remember in some of the science classes when I was at school I was often the only one that got all the answers to the questions right but ALWAYS answered them with by far the worst spelling and grammar in the class and probably the whole school!

Off topic 🙂 but i know what you mean! I put the case quite simply, as i wanted to be diplomatic 🙂

The only country I can think off which has reliable stats on safety would be France as it already has around 70% nuclear power and it seems safe enough there. Perhaps as the bulk are used for power production only.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
But surely you don’t believe that -all the current estimates suggest that both nuclear fission and fossil fuels will peak and then start to run out well before that!

Not all estimates agree with you. I remembered seeing much larger figures in Scientific American so I looked it up and found this:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last

It seems that fast breeder reactors have mostly been shut down for political reasons though several did run for many years - and some are still running. My guess is that if the costs of electricity and uranium go up more fast breeders will be built.

Originally posted by Black Star Uchess
Off topic 🙂 but i know what you mean! I put the case quite simply, as i wanted to be diplomatic 🙂

The only country I can think off which has reliable stats on safety would be France as it already has around 70% nuclear power and it seems safe enough there. Perhaps as the bulk are used for power production only.

I think the nuclear power of Sweden is quite safe too. We produce approx 50% of our electrical need.

I decided to look into thorium as a nuclear fuel:

tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

“…Thorium may also be used directly as nuclear fuel INSTEAD of uranium, producing less transuranic waste. …” (my emphasis)

This got me interested in this process of producing energy using thorium directly so I looked it up:

http://www.greenhealthwatch.com/newsstories/newslatest/latest0701/thoriumzzz.html

“…
Accelerator-driven systems
In an 'accelerator-driven system' (ADS), a very strong external beam of protons is needed to trigger and maintain the heat-generating reactions. If a reaction appears to be getting out of control, you simply switch the proton beam off. In an ADS, the chain reaction which can become an atomic bomb or melt down a conventional reactor, could only occur through utter negligence or sabotage by an insider. A fault or, for instance, a bomb, would halt the reaction instantly. On the other hand, a terrorist bomb on a conventional reactor could contaminate land and people for hundreds, may be thousands of miles. Professor Egil Lillestol* estimates that the technology would require only 550 million euros and 15 years to develop. One major remaining problem is how to safely contain the molten lead (highly corrosive) used in the ADS process.

Thorium
There is three times as much thorium as uranium in the Earth's crust. It produces 250 times more energy than uranium. Thorium waste loses its radioactivity in hundreds of years rather than tens of thousands.
…”(my emphasis)

This is all news to me. I suddenly have a renewed interest in nuclear fission but specifically using thorium rather than uranium. It may be non-renewable but it could be used to buy us considerable time to develop better renewables.

Can anyone give me more links about this process?

Don't know much about thorium tbh 🙁

There was a good thread about clean coal in the debates section
...and another, long winded thread saying the US are looking at more nuclear power plants but cost is holding them back...

Nuclear power is still mainly a military science. I think the funding, and as importantly resources for new power stations should come millitary budgets. Even if it mean cutting back on other things.

Being able to generate energy and national security seem very similar.
In the UK with trident. I'm not opposed to it but wish half the money went into energy research instead. The US and Russia must spend a fortune by comparison maintaining weapons from the cold war.
Guess with country like Iran still stirring this you can't disarm but in simple terms we probably have way to many weapons and no fusion power station .. I think politics is as bigger obstacle as the science.