Quake3World

http://www.exile.ru/2007-May-04/radioac ... otsam.html

Rosatom openly began marketing the idea of FNPPs more than a decade ago as the only viable solution to the energy crunch plaguing Russia's hard-to-reach northern and eastern territories, where harsh weather and a lack of roads make deliveries of coal and oil inefficient if not impossible.

The best model the agency could come up with was a gutted and expanded version of a Soviet-era nuclear icebreaker ship. There is no new technology involved, just an extra nuclear reactor that brings the barge's power output to 70MW, roughly enough for a settlement of up to 200,000 people.

Besides highly classified naval nuclear technology, the ship's most prized possession is also the biggest cause for concern: roughly a ton of uranium-235, enriched anywhere from 20 to 60 percent.

Why. that sounds like a complete and utter disaster in the making :icon14:

I think it's awesome, I'm a big fan of nuclear technology and I'm not even kidding or anything.

Yeah I guess Tchernobyl was bad and everything, but that was 20 years ago. Using western security standards, it wouldn't even have happened.

Nuclear power is the only viable answer to global warming.

In the words of the great Sam Kinison: "YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT!!!!!! MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS!!!!!!"

wind power is pretty good no?

for ex i use wind on wang

SplishSplash wrote: Nuclear power (since cold fusion won't work) is the only viable answer to our future energy needs.

Fixed.

I'm verrrrrrry wary of anything the Rooskies want to do involving nuclear power, but Splish is right, it's the way to go. Coal plants are the biggest sources of carbon emissions and they've got to go. Right before I graduated I attended a few presentations given by executives in the nuclear power and nuclear power services industry and the whole sector is really taking off. Now if we could just get the US government to ignore the fucking hippies and let us start recycling fuel rods we'd be off to the races.
For those that don't know, pretty much every other nuclear power on the planet recycles their fuel rods and gets loads more use out of them. The US doesn't because of completely ignorant tree huggers bitching about nuclear waste disposal. The irony is that recycling reduces the waste produced by a huge factor, both in volume and radiation hazard level.

*hugs Palo Verde nuclear generating station*

nuclear fuel only needs to be enriched to about 3-4%, so why is this stuff enriched to 20-60%? it's not enough for weapons-grade (that's nearer 90%) but still...

I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.

*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

SplishSplash wrote: Nuclear power (since cold fusion won't work) is the only viable answer to our future energy needs.

Fixed.

hot fusion, i.e. ITER project?

werldhed wrote:I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.

*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*

eh? water vapour isn't a gas, greenhouse or otherwise

werldhed wrote:I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.

*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*

The water vapor thing aside, given the energy densities of wind and solar power sources, I don't believe it's possible to rely primarily on them for the world's energy needs.

i'm not anti-nuclear power, but i think i might be anti-soviet budget nuclear lilo.

Nightshade wrote:

werldhed wrote:I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.

*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*

The water vapor thing aside, given the energy densities of wind and solar power sources, I don't believe it's possible to rely primarily on them for the world's energy needs.

Yeah, I meant to include that point in my post. In terms of global warming, they are better options, but we're a long way off from being able to rely completely on them.

seremtan wrote:

werldhed wrote:I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.

*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*

eh? water vapour isn't a gas, greenhouse or otherwise

Uh... yes...
Steam is the gas phase of water. And it has more heat-trapping potential than methane or CO2.

Nightshade wrote:

werldhed wrote:I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.

*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*

The water vapor thing aside, given the energy densities of wind and solar power sources, I don't believe it's possible to rely primarily on them for the world's energy needs.

then shouldnt we develop solartech more than it is now?
we could use the money we put aside to build more nuclears !

The different technologies have different applications. Nuclear power is good for industrial centers and cities, and solar/wind power is a better fit for isolated rural areas.

If you ask me it's about time for the nuclear car.

werldhed wrote:

seremtan wrote:

werldhed wrote:I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't think Splish is quite right. Excessive use of nuclear power generates a lot of water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The best power source to combat global climate change would be wind or solar, of course, but if nuclear reduces the use of coal, go for it.

*hugs Monticello nuclear plant*

eh? water vapour isn't a gas, greenhouse or otherwise

Uh... yes...
Steam is the gas phase of water. And it has more heat-trapping potential than methane or CO2.

well, ok, then we condense the steam back to water again? i dunno

Grudge wrote:The different technologies have different applications. Nuclear power is good for industrial centers and cities, and solar/wind power is a better fit for isolated rural areas.

why is that? we build nuke plants in isolated rural areas

SplishSplash wrote:If you ask me it's about time for the nuclear car.

An article in the Scientific American mentioned the ALMR-reactor which uses liquid Na, sounds very promising.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.ht ... nservation and the Environment


What are the environmental considerations?

We already mentioned waste management. In addition, it can be argued that the major environmental problems with nuclear power are the consequen-ces of the mining and milling operations. Because IFRs can use, not only the surplus plutonium, but also the uranium (including U-238) that has already been mined and milled, they can eliminate for centuries any further need for mining or milling.

And of course, in common with all nuclear reactors, IFRs emit no carbon dioxide.



Do they put out any atmospheric pollutants?

None worth mentioning.



Then there some that aren't worth mentioning?

Extremely small amounts of radioactive gas.



How small?

So small that there's a lot more radioactivity from coal-burning plants.



You're pulling my leg.

No I'm not. In coal there are trace amounts of radium and uranium, for instance, that come out of the smokestacks.



Then there's dangerous radiation from coal plants?

No, there isn't. It's far below natural background levels. But nuclear plants put out even less.



Then I won't worry. How do IFRs help conserve natural resources?

Thermal reactors are incredibly profligate with the earth's endowment of potential nuclear fuel. The once-through, "throw-away" cycle in favor in the U.S. uses less than a hundredth of the energy potential of the mined uranium. Even with recycle, less than 2% can be extracted. IFRs can use over 99%.



Wait a minute - less than 2% with recycle? I thought you could get almost all of the energy that way.

Sorry, but you can't. After two or three passes through a reactor, the fuel has gotten so contaminated with isotopes heavier than Pu-239 that reactor performance is seriously degraded. The only way to consume all of it is in a flux of fast neutrons.



I'll be darned! Well anyway, with uranium so cheap, why do we care about conservation?

For the same reason we care (or should) about conserving petroleum, even though oil is now cheap. The current world-wide glut of reactor fuel is strictly temporary. Particularly with the U.S. throw-away cycle, the economically available U-235 is not predicted to last much longer than the petroleum reserves - a few decades.
[/quote]