Funny you ask. They fly in Biologists from around the U.S to supervise each jobsite. They actually stand around wih a clipboard all day and make sure that the wildlife is not disturbed. Basically it's the "you are in THEIR habitat, they are not in your's" theory.
Hint: There's a reason it's called radioactive waste. It's not a byproduct. It's wasted. As in, the radioactivity is the fuel, not the material that's producing the radioactivity. The only reason it has a harmful byproduct is because people think of old-style reactors that waste over 50% of the fuel they "consume." New-style reactors utilize more than 90% of the fuel before the rods are considered spent and shipped off for storage. There was work, as recently as January of this year, to figure out how to recombine spent rods into higher-concentrated radioactive rods for increased utilization to minimize "waste." Seriously, with old-style reactors, it'd be as if I drove my car 10 miles and dumped the rest of the tank down the storm drain to fill up again because the fuel pump used gravity instead of the pump to push fuel to the engine, and after only 10 miles, there wasn't enough pressure to feed the injector. And with new-style reactors, it's more like what we do with cars now: Run to 1/4 tank and just fill on top of that.
That doesn't quell the "0mG! Meltdernz!" crowd though. The other issue is, indeed, meltdowns. However, pebble-bed reactors and other inherently-safe designs have not yet been allowed to be constructed because of a general lack of education on the part of the general populous whose minds immediately turn off the moment someone mentions "Nuke-you-lar" power. If done right, nuclear can be the safest, cleanest source of power next to fusion this world has seen. The problem is, nobody will let the experts do it right because building a nuclear power plant is politically incorrect, and yields protests because nobody wants Chernobyl in their back yard. Rightfully so, but new plants won't become Chernobyl. Even the plants in Fukushima were 4 decades, as in 40 years old. Fukushima was considered "State of the Art" before the Heimlich maneuver was a thing and before Lyme Disease was discovered in medicine, before the UPC, computer mouse, UNIX, or first handheld mobile phone were invented, before the Rubik's Cube was invented and even before we knew what the f**k the Ebolavirus was. I wouldn't try to run today's stock market on 1970's computers, nor would anyone expect me to.
So this fear-based rejection of nuclear power because of meltdowns of comparatively ancient, older-than-dirt technology in half-asssed implementations by lowest-bidder government entities is literally just that: rejection based on FUD spread by people with more bank than brains. Build newer, safer plants based on properly up-to-date research and current technologies, and you won't have much to worry about.
Nevermind that coal has produced more radioactive waste and has been more radioactively harmful than the whole of every nuclear incident since the 1900's COMBINED. (Each link provides supporting evidence.) Hell, this chart alone shows how bad coal plants are. As in, sleeping next to someone for one night exposes you to more ionizing radiation than living within 50 miles of a new nuclear plant for a year would. Think about that.
Edited to add supporting links for the argument.
[This message has been edited by Ravant (edited 04-14-2014).]
Hint: There's a reason it's called radioactive waste. It's not a byproduct. It's wasted. As in, the radioactivity is the fuel, not the material that's producing the radioactivity. The only reason it has a harmful byproduct is because people think of old-style reactors that waste over 50% of the fuel they "consume." New-style reactors utilize more than 90% of the fuel before the rods are considered spent and shipped off for storage. There was work, as recently as January of this year, to figure out how to recombine spent rods into higher-concentrated radioactive rods for increased utilization to minimize "waste." Seriously, with old-style reactors, it'd be as if I drove my car 10 miles and dumped the rest of the tank down the storm drain to fill up again because the fuel pump used gravity instead of the pump to push fuel to the engine, and after only 10 miles, there wasn't enough pressure to feed the injector. And with new-style reactors, it's more like what we do with cars now: Run to 1/4 tank and just fill on top of that.
That doesn't quell the "0mG! Meltdernz!" crowd though. The other issue is, indeed, meltdowns. However, pebble-bed reactors and other inherently-safe designs have not yet been allowed to be constructed because of a general lack of education on the part of the general populous whose minds immediately turn off the moment someone mentions "Nuke-you-lar" power. If done right, nuclear can be the safest, cleanest source of power next to fusion this world has seen. The problem is, nobody will let the experts do it right because building a nuclear power plant is politically incorrect, and yields protests because nobody wants Chernobyl in their back yard. Rightfully so, but new plants won't become Chernobyl. Even the plants in Fukushima were 4 decades, as in 40 years old. Fukushima was considered "State of the Art" before the Heimlich maneuver was a thing and before Lyme Disease was discovered in medicine, before the UPC, computer mouse, UNIX, or first handheld mobile phone were invented, before the Rubik's Cube was invented and even before we knew what the f**k the Ebolavirus was. I wouldn't try to run today's stock market on 1970's computers, nor would anyone expect me to.
So this fear-based rejection of nuclear power because of meltdowns of comparatively ancient, older-than-dirt technology in half-asssed implementations by lowest-bidder government entities is literally just that: rejection based on FUD spread by people with more bank than brains. Build newer, safer plants based on properly up-to-date research and current technologies, and you won't have much to worry about.
Nevermind that coal has produced more radioactive waste and has been more radioactively harmful than the whole of every nuclear incident since the 1900's COMBINED. (Each link provides supporting evidence.) Hell, this chart alone shows how bad coal plants are.
I understand, and trust me, I'm very pro nuclear power.
The conversation is about controversy however, and not necessarily facts.
Oh, no, that post isn't at you. It's at the thread. As far as controversy, the reason for controversy with nuclear power is misinformation and general lack of education on the subject. It just downright shouldn't be controversial at this point. To answer the question in the thread title, assuming the general populous wasn't too busy watching the latest mind-sucking reality series to actually understand what's going on, "Yes. Nuclear."
[This message has been edited by Ravant (edited 04-14-2014).]
Artificial photosynthesis. If we could do this we would solve all of our energy, pollution, and "climate" problems.
Lots of studies on artificial photosynthesis. I wouldn't write anything off. That includes nuclear, but I've been lied to so much by the industry that I really don't trust them. You know, "It will be so cheap that you won't need a meter", "You can trust us, we have so many safety measures in force that nothing can go wrong" The first thing they would have to do is revoke the Price-Anderson act. If they can get an insurance company to write a policy I would be a lot more ready to come on board with nuclear. I have no idea if the new technology is fool proof, but until private business is willing to invest without an artificial liability cap I'm thinking that they might know some reasons to hold back. That's just my gut feeling. I'm not a nuclear expert but I read the news and I'm aware of nuclear energies history. I tried to find some solid information on the toxicity of solar cell manufacture and couldn't find out anything definitive. There are toxic metals involved in the manufacture just as in integrated circuits, but I was unable to come up with hard figures. There is however ongoing research in eliminating the toxic materials and moores law is still working as far as making them cheaper and more efficient. I've had cells offered to me at 44 cents a watt and one of the reasons I'm afraid to invest is that they might be available for 1/5 that amount in the near future if progress continues at the current rate. I would hate to spend $10,000 on a system and then find out 5 years later that I could purchase the same system for $2,000.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 04-14-2014).]
Nuclear may not be what you think it is. I would submit that you read up on what we're doing, with and what is possible with nuclear power. For starters, check out a documentary called Pandora's Promise. It's as decent a place to start as any. I think that there's no ultimate single solution, but many small things that add up to a greater whole. I'm also not sure why we never looked closer at Tesla's work. I mean, he was right about AC current, but I've never read about or heard about anyone trying to continue his research. The man had fluorescent lights when Edison was still experimenting with bamboo. I'm kinda biased though..
Gas is the best we have ever had for cars and will be the best we we will ever see. Other applications for energy will depend on many different factors.
How clean (green?) is Human Power? Put millions of humans on treadmills hooked to the grid. Electric trucks bring them food. What are the treadmills & trucks made out of...
Geo thermal is of course location limited and so has a limited application. I used to live not too far from the geysers geo thermal installation in Northern Ca. The issues I am aware of are that they were running out of water for reinjection into the field and they were going to pipe in Santa Rosa's waste water, a plus for both of them. There was also an issue with air quality from the sulfur that came out with the steam. I've been gone for a few years and I don't have current information.
Im sure they could filter it out. In the Hocking Hills area of Ohio, all the wells for drinking water have sulfur...I can taste it easily...even turns stuff yellow. Ive never heard of a health warning to the SE quarter of Ohio to stop drinking it. Ill have to guess sulfur is relatively harmless unless your eating it. In fact it seems beneficial to life on the planet.
" Sulfur is an essential element for all life, and is widely used in biochemical processes. In metabolic reactions, sulfur compounds serve as both fuels (electron donors) and respiratory (oxygen-alternative) materials (electron acceptors). Sulfur in organic form is present in the vitamins biotin and thiamine, the latter being named for the Greek word for sulfur. Sulfur is an important part of many enzymes and in antioxidant molecules like glutathione and thioredoxin. Organically bonded sulfur is a component of all proteins, as the amino acids cysteine and methionine. Disulfide bonds are largely responsible for the mechanical strength and insolubility of the protein keratin, found in outer skin, hair, and feathers
Nuclear may not be what you think it is. I would submit that you read up on what we're doing, with and what is possible with nuclear power. For starters, check out a documentary called Pandora's Promise. It's as decent a place to start as any. I think that there's no ultimate single solution, but many small things that add up to a greater whole. I'm also not sure why we never looked closer at Tesla's work. I mean, he was right about AC current, but I've never read about or heard about anyone trying to continue his research. The man had fluorescent lights when Edison was still experimenting with bamboo. I'm kinda biased though..
There is talk about Tesla's work here: Pandora's secret was a lie
[This message has been edited by Purple86GT (edited 04-15-2014).]
Im sure they could filter it out. In the Hocking Hills area of Ohio, all the wells for drinking water have sulfur...I can taste it easily...even turns stuff yellow. Ive never heard of a health warning to the SE quarter of Ohio to stop drinking it. Ill have to guess sulfur is relatively harmless unless your eating it. In fact it seems beneficial to life on the planet.
" Sulfur is an essential element for all life, and is widely used in biochemical processes. In metabolic reactions, sulfur compounds serve as both fuels (electron donors) and respiratory (oxygen-alternative) materials (electron acceptors). Sulfur in organic form is present in the vitamins biotin and thiamine, the latter being named for the Greek word for sulfur. Sulfur is an important part of many enzymes and in antioxidant molecules like glutathione and thioredoxin. Organically bonded sulfur is a component of all proteins, as the amino acids cysteine and methionine. Disulfide bonds are largely responsible for the mechanical strength and insolubility of the protein keratin, found in outer skin, hair, and feathers
You are 100% right! I should have researched it instead of relying on my memory. The geysers geo thermal unit was producing hydrogen sulfide way more than normal. I was right, but they managed to filter it out and now have a great air quality rating. Thank you for pointing that out. I should have done more recent research before posting.
Nevermind that coal has produced more radioactive waste and has been more radioactively harmful than the whole of every nuclear incident since the 1900's COMBINED. (Each link provides supporting evidence.) Hell, this chart alone shows how bad coal plants are. As in, sleeping next to someone for one night exposes you to more ionizing radiation than living within 50 miles of a new nuclear plant for a year would. Think about that.
Edited to add supporting links for the argument.
I've heard all the deceptive comparisons to nuclear waste and contamination. I'm surprised there was no mention of bananas...
Here is how your "sleeping next to someone" is debunked pretty quick.. We can both do the experiment together and report back with our findings over a few months. Cool?
We can both go to the local hardware store and buy your typical smoke alarm with a radioactive americium source inside. I will sleep with it next to me for a few days and expose myself to that big bad ionizing radiation. (the things I do for science!). You can crush the americium source into a fine powder and snort it. (heck, you can snort half and just eat the other half). This would represent a radioactive contaminant in the air and in the food chain.
Let me know when you are ready.
Cheers!
PS: Just to point out, I don't endorse coal neither. As far as I'm concerned, I think natural gas, hydro and wind are the least evasive forms of energy we have that are economically viable. Yes they all have their drawbacks...
[This message has been edited by Purple86GT (edited 04-15-2014).]
Let's see: Coal = dirty. Oil = dirty. Nuclear = meltdowns and waste. Solar = panels take up too much room. Hydro = kills off land and animals when dams are built. LPG = fraking "causes earthquakes." Wind = kills endangered birds flying too close, visually polluting, and noisy. Every time an energy source is pursued, someone raises a stink about it and tries to/ends up shutting it down. I'd say we could go back to living in caves. But if we do that, we'd have to build fires to cook our food and that's not allowed anymore because it pollutes the air and we can't kill animals for food anymore because, well, killing Bambi for your own survival is just wrong. Is there anything left that everyone agrees on at all? Or are we, because of our quest for being perfectly PC, condemning ourselves to our own extinction?
My vote would be to use whatever the current power plant is in your area, and then combine that with cost-saving and energy reduction, along with an array of solar cells that would be appropriate for the home. Many states, like Florida, offer a buy-back guarantee for the power you generate during the day. If you work all day, your solar cells will be likely contributing power BACK to the grid. At the very least, you'll not be actually USING any power from the grid during that time.
Some power companies also offer a power-off control unit. I've got one in my house. When the power company experiences heavy demand, they can shut off my water heater and/or my A/C unit. It's a voluntary program, mind you... but it saves me $12 dollars on my power bill every month, so I'm totally cool with that... and they've never HAD to shut off my A/C.
As for solar arrays, many single family homes can have a full array of solar panels that won't affect the aesthetics of the home... either in the back, etc... I suspect that technology will improve in the next decade, though there seems to be a theoretical limit... but like King Henry (?) said back in the day... "We've invented everything that could possibly be invented."
On a side note, I'd really like to see homes being offered with 12-volt power. It would be neat if new homes could come with 120 and 12 volt outlets. I'm not entirely sure how the power works, but if the neutral and ground could be shared between the 12 volt and 120 volt wires, then that would be pretty cool. I know there's a lot of stuff that doesn't really need 120 volts... like LED lights and stuff.
They could create a type of new standard light socket that still took normal incandescent bulbs, but then have a separate ring outside the bulb tip that does 12 or something.
My vote would be to use whatever the current power plant is in your area, and then combine that with cost-saving and energy reduction, along with an array of solar cells that would be appropriate for the home. Many states, like Florida, offer a buy-back guarantee for the power you generate during the day. If you work all day, your solar cells will be likely contributing power BACK to the grid. At the very least, you'll not be actually USING any power from the grid during that time.
Some power companies also offer a power-off control unit. I've got one in my house. When the power company experiences heavy demand, they can shut off my water heater and/or my A/C unit. It's a voluntary program, mind you... but it saves me $12 dollars on my power bill every month, so I'm totally cool with that... and they've never HAD to shut off my A/C.
As for solar arrays, many single family homes can have a full array of solar panels that won't affect the aesthetics of the home... either in the back, etc... I suspect that technology will improve in the next decade, though there seems to be a theoretical limit... but like King Henry (?) said back in the day... "We've invented everything that could possibly be invented."
A coworker of mine has a $10K solar setup on his house that is 100% for the grid. He sells power for more than he buys it so to him it was not worth using his own power. More cost effective to feed the grid and buy back the power for less than he sold it to the grid for. Seems to make sense. I would say it's almost to good to be true.
On a side note, I'd really like to see homes being offered with 12-volt power. It would be neat if new homes could come with 120 and 12 volt outlets. I'm not entirely sure how the power works, but if the neutral and ground could be shared between the 12 volt and 120 volt wires, then that would be pretty cool. I know there's a lot of stuff that doesn't really need 120 volts... like LED lights and stuff.
They could create a type of new standard light socket that still took normal incandescent bulbs, but then have a separate ring outside the bulb tip that does 12 or something.
12V is not very efficient for transportation. High voltage with low amperage is more efficient for transport than low volt high amperage. (this is why your starter has such a heavy gauge of cable).
My vote would be to use whatever the current power plant is in your area, and then combine that with cost-saving and energy reduction, along with an array of solar cells that would be appropriate for the home. Many states, like Florida, offer a buy-back guarantee for the power you generate during the day. If you work all day, your solar cells will be likely contributing power BACK to the grid. At the very least, you'll not be actually USING any power from the grid during that time.
Some power companies also offer a power-off control unit. I've got one in my house. When the power company experiences heavy demand, they can shut off my water heater and/or my A/C unit. It's a voluntary program, mind you... but it saves me $12 dollars on my power bill every month, so I'm totally cool with that... and they've never HAD to shut off my A/C.
As for solar arrays, many single family homes can have a full array of solar panels that won't affect the aesthetics of the home... either in the back, etc... I suspect that technology will improve in the next decade, though there seems to be a theoretical limit... but like King Henry (?) said back in the day... "We've invented everything that could possibly be invented."
I like the power off control unit, as long as it's voluntary it's a great idea.
I like the power off control unit, as long as it's voluntary it's a great idea.
Brad
Yeah, it's totally voluntary. It's basically a little box in my laundry / AC handler room. They give me $12 a month for the ability to shut off power to the A/C or water heater if there is a brown-out. In the past decade, I don't think I've actually ever had the power shut off to either of them... if they did, it was during the day while I was at work anyway so I didn't notice.
I can disconnect it at any time, but they'll stop giving me the $12 credit.
Just got an email from Sun Electronics that they are selling their present supply of cells for 52 cents a watt and they anticipate that when tariffs go into effect this July the price will be 90 cents a watt. I still believe that Moores law will prevail and that this will be a temporary upswing in the prices. Sun has sold them for as low as 44 cents a watt.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 04-15-2014).]
Several years ago a big box store (Wal*Mart) wanted to build in St. George, Utah. First thing they did was to fence the construction site and certify that there were no desert tortoises present. Guards monitored the site to make sure no one brought in turtles. There was much opposition to the store being built and the presence of one desert tortoise might delay or destroy the construction plan.
They built our Wal-Mart on top of what used to be an indian settlement with the remains of deceased indians (burial grounds). I guess the tortoise has more backers.
On a side note, I'd really like to see homes being offered with 12-volt power. It would be neat if new homes could come with 120 and 12 volt outlets. I'm not entirely sure how the power works, but if the neutral and ground could be shared between the 12 volt and 120 volt wires, then that would be pretty cool. I know there's a lot of stuff that doesn't really need 120 volts... like LED lights and stuff.
They could create a type of new standard light socket that still took normal incandescent bulbs, but then have a separate ring outside the bulb tip that does 12 or something.
Most of the stuff in my house that uses electric, can use 12v power...even the furnace. You can buy a gas or 12v refrigerator. I dont use AC myself. Power outages dont really bother me. I can / have lived in a motorhome/ travel trailer...everything in it is dual powered from fridge to tvs...and if it dont use 12v, it will use gas. For any item that is only 120v...IF you have to have it, use an inverter.
On a side note, I'd really like to see homes being offered with 12-volt power. It would be neat if new homes could come with 120 and 12 volt outlets. I'm not entirely sure how the power works, but if the neutral and ground could be shared between the 12 volt and 120 volt wires, then that would be pretty cool. I know there's a lot of stuff that doesn't really need 120 volts... like LED lights and stuff.
They could create a type of new standard light socket that still took normal incandescent bulbs, but then have a separate ring outside the bulb tip that does 12 or something.
One of the biggest problem with a 12v system is line loss. As the power requirements increase then the lines (cables) need to be a larger gauge to reduce the loss in power. 12V is great for short wires or low power. This is why power transmission is done with extremely high voltages, which (based on Ohms Law) means that there is a lower current transmitted through the lines. Reduced current means less heat, less line loss and smaller (cheaper) cables.
To be clear, you dont have to have 12v power supplied to you thru a network. You can use your own solar cells or batteries and supply your own 12 volt source. I can buy a 1800 watt system for under $900. You can pair it up to get more, like $2700 for 3 complete systems in parallel for a total of 5400 watts. Each system is complete ready to use with mono-crystaline solar panel, sealed deep cycle battery, 1800 watt inverter, 5 amp charger/controller and 8 amp internal controller. Plug n go installation. With 3, you will have 3 batteries and you can add as many more as you like. 2 batteries last me a weekend in the motorhome running lights, tv, water pump, ect. With a couple of these systems, I could run all that plus AC, washer and dryer, microwave. I do have to run the generator to operate those now, because the batteries only runs a 400 watt inverter along with the other things that are straight 12v.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 04-16-2014).]
To be clear, you dont have to have 12v power supplied to you thru a network. You can use your own solar cells or batteries and supply your own 12 volt source. I can buy a 1800 watt system for under $900. You can pair it up to get more, like $2700 for 3 complete systems in parallel for a total of 5400 watts. Each system is complete ready to use with mono-crystaline solar panel, sealed deep cycle battery, 1800 watt inverter, 5 amp charger/controller and 8 amp internal controller. Plug n go installation. With 3, you will have 3 batteries and you can add as many more as you like. 2 batteries last me a weekend in the motorhome running lights, tv, water pump, ect. With a couple of these systems, I could run all that plus AC, washer and dryer, microwave. I do have to run the generator to operate those now, because the batteries only runs a 400 watt inverter along with the other things that are straight 12v.
I would be extremely impressed if you were able to run an AC unit (especially an RV unit) off a 12V system. The cable gauge would be insane and the run time would be very minimal.
Guys, you're overthinking this, I'm talking about 12 volts being supplied at the outlets... you would still have the basic 240 coming into your house. I think it would be neat to have a 12-volt / 120-volt outlet combo...
Guys, you're overthinking this, I'm talking about 12 volts being supplied at the outlets... you would still have the basic 240 coming into your house. I think it would be neat to have a 12-volt / 120-volt outlet combo...
I don't really see the point. In that case you have a transformer converting 120 or 240VAC to 12VDC. That would be very inefficient and would cost you more in power consumption.
I've heard all the deceptive comparisons to nuclear waste and contamination.
You didn't click a single one of those links. This statement alone proves it. There is nothing deceptive about it. Coal ash, during normal operations, releases almost twenty times the ionizing radiation than nuclear power plants release during normal operations. A coal ash spill has been repeatedly proven (in Virginia, 2008, and NC, 2012) to be nearly twice as devastating to affected areas than a nuclear meltdown. (Compare the VA and NC incidents to 3-Mile Island, for example.) You want a fish to fry, go fry one. Stop coal from destroying our planet.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT: Here is how your "sleeping next to someone" is debunked pretty quick.. We can both do the experiment together and report back with our findings over a few months. Cool?
It's called scientific fact. Sleeping next to someone in one night exposes you to 0.05 microsieverts of ionizing radiation. That's 18.25 microsieverts of radiation per year. Shearon Harris Unit I releases 12.00 microsieverts of radiation per year to its 10-mile-surrounding areas at its maximum output, and less on average because it isn't producing maximum year-round. That's 6.25 less than sleeping next to someone per year. Debunk what? Your experiment has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Those numbers are provided by independent researchers who, contrary to popular belief, actually get paid to do real science and publish real journals with real numbers based in real facts. Who'da thunk?
Nuclear power, when properly operating, exposes you to less ionizing radiation per year than a single cross-country airline flight does. (Maximum EPA-offered release target for a nuke plant in the US is 30 microsieverts. Most smaller plants won't peak 15. You're exposed to 40 on a single flight from NY to LA. Absolute maximum emissions for a nuclear power plant before it gets shut down by the EPA is still only 250 microsieverts per year. By comparison, coal produces 330 on average, with an EPA maximum of 1 millisievert, or 1000 microsieverts. Natural gas is around 280 average with an EPA maximum of 500 microsieverts.)
Nuclear power, when run in an ancient, old as dirt, poorly, cheaply implemented 1970's lowest-bidder-contract manner, is dangerous as hell. You're essentially sitting atop a low-grade nuclear bomb, and throwing out half your fuel every time you refuel. This is the kind of plant everyone assumes when they think "nuke-you-lar" power. It's like saying we should ban all cars because leaded fuel is throwing lead into the air and causing pollution. It's an old way of thinking, and it's a broken way of thinking. Those who latch onto this way of thinking have an irrational fear based on misinformation and should likely seek mental help to correct their phobia.
Nuclear power, when properly operating in a pebble-bed reactor in smaller, more distributed units instead of larger, centralized units, runs zero risk of going nuclear/melting down because there simply isn't enough radioactive material to breach the containment vessel (it is literally physically impossible), and you use between 90 and 97 percent of the ionizing radiation of the material (plutonium, uranium, thorium) in question before it needs to be sent to an enrichment facility to be recycled into usable fuel rods again and again and again, until it won't take a charge. At which point, you have something known as a depleted element. (Depleted uranium, for example, produces zero ionizing radiation, while only producing minimal heat radiation.) It's safer, cleaner, doesn't cut endangered birds in half like windmills, doesn't ruin coral reefs like wave harnessing technology, doesn't displace endangered desert species like solar. The "waste" is recycled back into fuel. And the remaining radiation after it can't take a charge is less than that of background radiation. If you have a problem with the subsequent storage of the graphite pebbles, you can go with any other GenIV reactor, like gas-cooled fast reactors, lead-cooled fast reactors, molten salt reactors and supercritical water reactors which are all equally as safe with less storage issues.
Lemme guess, you're one of those people that think WiFi and cell phones also produce ionizing radiation and give you cancer? This isn't meant to be offensive, it's an honest question.
Edit to clarify a statement and add other GenIV reactor types. Left out GenV types because those are still 5-10 years from production.
[This message has been edited by Ravant (edited 04-16-2014).]
It's called scientific fact. Sleeping next to someone in one night exposes you to 0.05 microsieverts of ionizing radiation. That's 18.25 microsieverts of radiation per year. Shearon Harris Unit I releases 12.00 microsieverts of radiation per year to its 10-mile-surrounding areas at its maximum output, and less on average because it isn't producing maximum year-round. That's 6.25 less than sleeping next to someone per year. Debunk what? Your experiment has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Those numbers are provided by independent researchers who, contrary to popular belief, actually get paid to do real science and publish real journals with real numbers based in real facts. Who'da thunk?
Nuclear power, when properly operating, exposes you to less ionizing radiation per year than a single cross-country airline flight does. (Maximum EPA-offered release target for a nuke plant in the US is 30 microsieverts. Most smaller plants won't peak 15. You're exposed to 40 on a single flight from NY to LA. Absolute maximum emissions for a nuclear power plant before it gets shut down by the EPA is still only 250 microsieverts per year. By comparison, coal produces 330 on average, with an EPA maximum of 1 millisievert, or 1000 microsieverts. Natural gas is around 280 average with an EPA maximum of 500 microsieverts.)
Nuclear power, when run in an ancient, old as dirt, poorly, cheaply implemented 1970's lowest-bidder-contract manner, is dangerous as hell. You're essentially sitting atop a low-grade nuclear bomb, and throwing out half your fuel every time you refuel. This is the kind of plant everyone assumes when they think "nuke-you-lar" power. It's like saying we should ban all cars because leaded fuel is throwing lead into the air and causing pollution. It's an old way of thinking, and it's a broken way of thinking. Those who latch onto this way of thinking have an irrational fear based on misinformation and should likely seek mental help to correct their phobia.
Nuclear power, when properly operating in a pebble-bed reactor in smaller, more distributed units instead of larger, centralized units, runs zero risk of going nuclear/melting down because there simply isn't enough radioactive material to breach the containment vessel (it is literally physically impossible), and you use between 90 and 97 percent of the ionizing radiation of the material (plutonium, uranium, thorium) in question before it needs to be sent to an enrichment facility to be recycled into usable fuel rods again and again and again, until it won't take a charge. At which point, you have something known as a depleted element. (Depleted uranium, for example, produces zero ionizing radiation, while only producing minimal heat radiation.) It's safer, cleaner, doesn't cut endangered birds in half like windmills, doesn't ruin coral reefs like wave harnessing technology, doesn't displace endangered desert species like solar. The "waste" is recycled back into fuel. And the remaining radiation after it can't take a charge is less than that of background radiation.
Lemme guess, you're one of those people that think WiFi and cell phones also produce ionizing radiation and give you cancer?
No problem. And just to put something in context, the normal yearly background ionizing radiation we're exposed to per year is still four times that of what even a filthy coal plant releases in that same year at EPA maximum. So despite said ionizing radiation, the radon naturally occurring in the Earth and the stuff that gets through Earth's magnetic field from the sun /still/ do significantly more radioactive 'damage' to the world than properly-operating nuclear reactors.
It's called scientific fact. Sleeping next to someone in one night exposes you to 0.05 microsieverts of ionizing radiation. That's 18.25 microsieverts of radiation per year. Shearon Harris Unit I releases 12.00 microsieverts of radiation per year to its 10-mile-surrounding areas at its maximum output, and less on average because it isn't producing maximum year-round. That's 6.25 less than sleeping next to someone per year. Debunk what? Your experiment has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Those numbers are provided by independent researchers who, contrary to popular belief, actually get paid to do real science and publish real journals with real numbers based in real facts. Who'da thunk?
Nuclear power, when properly operating, exposes you to less ionizing radiation per year than a single cross-country airline flight does. (Maximum EPA-offered release target for a nuke plant in the US is 30 microsieverts. Most smaller plants won't peak 15. You're exposed to 40 on a single flight from NY to LA. Absolute maximum emissions for a nuclear power plant before it gets shut down by the EPA is still only 250 microsieverts per year. By comparison, coal produces 330 on average, with an EPA maximum of 1 millisievert, or 1000 microsieverts. Natural gas is around 280 average with an EPA maximum of 500 microsieverts.)
Nuclear power, when run in an ancient, old as dirt, poorly, cheaply implemented 1970's lowest-bidder-contract manner, is dangerous as hell. You're essentially sitting atop a low-grade nuclear bomb, and throwing out half your fuel every time you refuel. This is the kind of plant everyone assumes when they think "nuke-you-lar" power. It's like saying we should ban all cars because leaded fuel is throwing lead into the air and causing pollution. It's an old way of thinking, and it's a broken way of thinking. Those who latch onto this way of thinking have an irrational fear based on misinformation and should likely seek mental help to correct their phobia.
Nuclear power, when properly operating in a pebble-bed reactor in smaller, more distributed units instead of larger, centralized units, runs zero risk of going nuclear/melting down because there simply isn't enough radioactive material to breach the containment vessel (it is literally physically impossible), and you use between 90 and 97 percent of the ionizing radiation of the material (plutonium, uranium, thorium) in question before it needs to be sent to an enrichment facility to be recycled into usable fuel rods again and again and again, until it won't take a charge. At which point, you have something known as a depleted element. (Depleted uranium, for example, produces zero ionizing radiation, while only producing minimal heat radiation.) It's safer, cleaner, doesn't cut endangered birds in half like windmills, doesn't ruin coral reefs like wave harnessing technology, doesn't displace endangered desert species like solar. The "waste" is recycled back into fuel. And the remaining radiation after it can't take a charge is less than that of background radiation. If you have a problem with the subsequent storage of the graphite pebbles, you can go with any other GenIV reactor, like gas-cooled fast reactors, lead-cooled fast reactors, molten salt reactors and supercritical water reactors which are all equally as safe with less storage issues.
Lemme guess, you're one of those people that think WiFi and cell phones also produce ionizing radiation and give you cancer? This isn't meant to be offensive, it's an honest question.
Edit to clarify a statement and add other GenIV reactor types. Left out GenV types because those are still 5-10 years from production.
You missed the point of the experiment. Ionizing radiation is one thing. Ionizing radiation producing contaminants that escaped into the environment is a whole other ball game! (also, cell phones and WiFi do not produce ionizing radiation...
Your new NPP technology is not in use, instead old reactors are being patched up and "modernized" to operate way beyond their intended lifespan.
Contamination releasing ionizing radiation is released into the environment much more than you think. The pro nuclear crowd always use the same excuses and comparisons. #1 They always compare CONTAINED ionizing radiation to other harmless objects that produce background radiation (bananas and sleeping next to someone for example). #2 The fancy new NPPs will be much better, just give us several trillion to prove it to you! Yeah.. right. Remember, all the NPPs in the list bellow were cutting edge tech in their day...
So to conclude, I assume you do not want to ingest any Americium? What about Tritium? Tritium is safe right? After all nuclear reactors are allowed to dump a "safe" amount into lakes and rivers used for drinking water. How do you filter out Tritium from water by the way? Have we found a way yet?
LIST OF NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS IN USA ALONE
November 29, 1955 Idaho Falls, Idaho, US Power excursion with partial core meltdown at National Reactor Testing Station's EBR-1 Experimental Breeder Reactor I
July 26, 1959 Simi Valley, California, USA Partial core meltdown at Santa Susana Field Laboratory’s Sodium Reactor Experiment
January 3, 1961 Idaho Falls, Idaho, US Explosion at National Reactor Testing Station's SL-1 Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One
October 5, 1966 Monroe, Michigan, USA Sodium cooling system malfunctions at Enrico Fermi demonstration breeder reactor causing partial core meltdown
August 11, 1973 Palisades, Michigan, USA Steam generator leak causes manual shutdown of pressurized water reactor
March 22, 1975 Browns Ferry, Alabama, USA Fire burns for seven hours and damages more than 1600 control cables for three nuclear reactors at Browns Ferry, disabling core cooling systems
November 5, 1975 Brownsville, Nebraska, USA Hydrogen gas explosion damages the Cooper Nuclear Facility’s Boiling Water Reactor and an auxiliary building
June 10, 1977 Waterford, Connecticut, USA Hydrogen gas explosion damages three buildings and forces shutdown of Millstone-1 Pressurized Water Reactor
February 4, 1979 Surry, Virginia, USA Surry Unit 2 shut down in response to failing tube bundles in steam generators
March 28, 1979 Middletown, Pennsylvania, US Loss of coolant and partial core meltdown
October 17, 1981 Buchanan, New York, USA 100,000 gallons of Hudson River water leaked into the Indian Point Energy Center Unit 2 containment building from the fan cooling unit, undetected by a safety device designed to detect hot water. The flooding, covering the first 9 feet of the reactor vessel, was discovered when technicians entered the building. Two pumps which should have removed the water were found to be inoperative. NRC proposed a $210,000 fine for the incident.
March 20, 1982 Lycoming, New York, USA Recirculation system piping fails at Nine Mile Point Unit 1, forcing two year shutdown
March 25, 1982 Buchanan, New York, USA Damage to steam generator tubes and main generator resulting in a shut down Indian Point Energy Center Unit 3 for more than a year
June 18, 1982 Senaca, South Carolina, USA Feedwater heat extraction line fails at Oconee 2 Pressurised Water Reactor, damaging thermal cooling system
February 12, 1983 Fork River, New Jersey, USA Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant fails safety inspection, forced to shut down for repairs
February 26, 1983 Fort Pierce, Florida, USA Damaged thermal shield and core barrel support at St Lucie Unit 1, necessitating 13-month shutdown
September 15, 1984 Athens, Alabama, US Safety violations, operator error, and design problems force six year outage at Browns Ferry Unit 2
March 9, 1985 Athens, Alabama, US Instrumentation systems malfunction during start-up, which led to suspension of operations at all three Browns Ferry Units
April 11, 1986 Plymouth, Massachusetts, US Recurring equipment problems force emergency shutdown of Boston Edison’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant
March 31, 1987 Delta, Pennsylvania, US Peach Bottom units 2 and 3 shutdown due to cooling malfunctions and unexplained equipment problems
December 19, 1987 Lycoming, New York, US Malfunctions force Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to shut down Nine Mile Point Unit 1
September 10, 1988 Surry, Virginia, USA Refuelling cavity seal fails and destroys internal pipe system at Surry Unit 2, forcing 12-month outage
March 5, 1989 Tonopah, Arizona, USA Atmospheric dump valves fail at Palo Verde Unit 1, leading to main transformer fire and emergency shutdown
March 17, 1989 Lusby, Maryland, US Inspections at Calvert Cliff Units 1 and 2 reveal cracks at pressurized heater sleeves, forcing extended shutdowns
November 17, 1991 Scriba, New York, USA Safety and fire problems force shut down of the FitzPatrick nuclear reactor for 13 months
April 21, 1992 Southport, North Carolina, USA NRC forces shut down of Brunswick Units 1 and 2 after emergency diesel generators fail
February 3, 1993 Bay City, Texas, USA Auxiliary feed-water pumps fail at South Texas Project Units 1 and 2, prompting rapid shutdown of both reactors
February 27, 1993 Buchanan, New York, USA New York Power Authority shuts down Indian Point Energy Center Unit 3 after AMSAC system fails
March 2, 1993 Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee, USA Equipment failures and broken pipes cause shut down of Sequoyah Unit 1
December 25, 1993 Newport, Michigan, USA Shut down of Fermi Unit 2 after main turbine experienced major failure due to improper maintenance
14 January 1995 Wiscasset, Maine, USA Steam generator tubes unexpectedly crack at Maine Yankee nuclear reactor; shut down of the facility for a year
May 16, 1995 Salem, New Jersey, USA Ventilation systems fail at Salem Units 1 and 2
February 20, 1996 , Connecticut, US Leaking valve forces shutdown Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2, multiple equipment failures found
September 2, 1996 Crystal River, Florida, US Balance-of-plant equipment malfunction forces shutdown and extensive repairs at Crystal River Unit 3
September 5, 1996 Clinton, Illinois, USA Reactor recirculation pump fails, prompting shut down of Clinton boiling water reactor
September 20, 1996 Senaca, Illinois, USA Service water system fails and results in closure of LaSalle Units 1 and 2 for more than 2 years
September 9, 1997 Bridgman, Michigan, USA Ice condenser containment systems fail at Cook Units 1 and 2
May 25, 1999 Waterford, Connecticut, USA Steam leak in feed-water heater causes manual shutdown and damage to control board annunicator at the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant
September 29, 1999 Lower Alloways Creek, New Jersey, USA Major Freon leak at Hope Creek Nuclear Facility causes ventilation train chiller to trip, releasing toxic gas and damaging the colling system
February 16, 2002 Oak Harbor, Ohio, US Severe corrosion of control rod forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor
January 15, 2003 Bridgman, Michigan, USA A fault in the main transformer at the Donald C. Cook nuclear power plant causes a fire that damages the main generator and back-up turbines
June 16, 2005 Braidwood, Illinois, USA Exelon’s Braidwood nuclear station leaks tritium and contaminates local water supplies
August 4, 2005 Buchanan, New York, USA Entergy’s Indian Point Energy Center Nuclear Plant leaks tritium and strontium into underground lakes from 1974 to 2005
March 6, 2006 Erwin, Tennessee, USA Nuclear fuel services plant spills 35 litres of highly enriched uranium, necessitating 7-month shutdown
January 7, 2010 Buchanan, New York, USA NRC inspectors reported that an estimated 600,000 gallons of mildly radioactive steam was intentionally vented after an automatic shutdown of Indian Point Energy Center Unit 2. The levels of tritium in the steam were below those allowable by NRC safety standards.
February 1, 2010 Montpelier, Vermont, US Deteriorating underground pipes from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant leak radioactive tritium into groundwater supplies
June 24, 2013 Hanford, Washington, US Deteriorating storage tanks leak 1 million gallons of reactor byproducts into the Columbia River
[This message has been edited by Purple86GT (edited 04-18-2014).]
\. At which point, you have something known as a depleted element. (Depleted uranium, for example, produces zero ionizing radiation, while only producing minimal heat radiation.
WHOA!! That is a huge false statement! Depleted Uranium (and other depleted nuclear fuel) is still HIGHLY radioactive! as a matter of fact, fresh unused fuel is barely radioactive and becomes high level nuclear waster after it has been fissioned. The heat decay of a nuclear fuel is caused by Beta decay created by nuclear fission. By definition it is radioactive.
I have zero doubt that new nuclear plants would be more efficient and extract more power from the fuel it uses. More profit right? I also have no doubt that more cost cutting corners will be taken in the building of such plants.
Being an engineer I understand risk management. EVERYTHING that is engineered has a risk management formula applied to it. Cost of a failure VS probability of a failure = worth the risk or not.
There is a reason why no insurance company will cover a nuclear power plant and all home insurance policies in the USA does NOT cover damages to property from radiation.
You missed the point of the experiment. Ionizing radiation is one thing. Ionizing radiation producing contaminants that escaped into the environment is a whole other ball game!
Ionizing radiation is ionizing radiation. It does not care its source. Alpha and beta particles, gamma waves, it doesn't matter. It all has the same effect. It strips an atom of some electrons. That's why it's called ionizing. It's creating an ion. The most common way for ionizing radiation to reach a location is through gamma sources. By living within 50 miles of most nuclear facilities, you are subjected to less than 30 microseiverts per year (some facilities like the afforementioned one in my post produce 12 or less in that radius.) Alpha and beta contaminates DO NOT LEAVE properly working reactors. That's the point of a containment vessel. When allowed to construct newer reactors, as repeatedly mentioned, the breach of that containment vessel is NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE, by design. As in, it would require almost double the nuclear fuel utilized to actually melt down.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT: (also, cell phones and WiFi do not produce ionizing radiation...
You're the first person who is against research and use of new nuclear reactors that I've conversed with that admitted this.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT: Your new NPP technology is not in use, instead old reactors are being patched up and "modernized" to operate way beyond their intended lifespan.
It isn't in use because of fear-based witch-trially mentalities of people who automatically shut off their brain the moment the term Nuclear is used. New reactors are safe, reliable, efficient, and fully deplete their fuel before that gets sent off.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT: Contamination releasing ionizing radiation is released into the environment much more than you think. The pro nuclear crowd always use the same excuses and comparisons. #1 They always compare CONTAINED ionizing radiation to other harmless objects that produce background radiation (bananas and sleeping next to someone for example).
Because a properly operating nuclear reactor contains said radiation in this thing called a "containment vessel" designed to "contain" the radiation and harness it to generate electricity either by heating water to turn steam generators or via other methods. Using a newer system designed to fail gracefully without a breach of containment will produce less externally ionizing radiation than the potassium in bananas, than sleeping next to someone, than a flight across the country. It's a scientific fact. It's not some opinion or excuse.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT: #2 The fancy new NPPs will be much better, just give us several trillion to prove it to you! Yeah.. right. Remember, all the NPPs in the list bellow were cutting edge tech in their day...
Don't need a trillion. Just the existing science that uses the laws of physics. Older reactors weren't really cutting edge except for the fact that they utilized nuclear. There were very unsafe practices and they knew it. They just ignored safety because they didn't have 1) regulation around them, 2) had to cut costs because of government interference (Chernobyl), or 3) were built with the understanding that they'd only be running for a decade and would be replaced soon with newer technology, then were subsequently run way past their "use by" date. This is not a failure of the technology, this is a failure of the implementation. That'd be like saying pressure cookers shouldn't be used anywhere because they kill and maim when used improperly.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT: So to conclude, I assume you do not want to ingest any Americium? What about Tritium? Tritium is safe right? After all nuclear reactors are allowed to dump a "safe" amount into lakes and rivers used for drinking water. How do you filter out Tritium from water by the way? Have we found a way yet?
Ahh, FUD. When you can't use facts, you try to incite fear. This is exactly what I was talking about. New reactors don't use heavy water, so they don't replace the hydrogen atoms in the coolant. There's no tritium oxide to release to the environment because it simply doesn't exist in the new systems. Gen IV and V use graphite, lead and molten salt. None of which leaves the containment vessel as a radioactive entity.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
February 20, 1996 , Connecticut, US Leaking valve forces shutdown Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2, multiple equipment failures found
Zero radiation above background was registered.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
September 2, 1996 Crystal River, Florida, US Balance-of-plant equipment malfunction forces shutdown and extensive repairs at Crystal River Unit 3
Zero radiation above background was registered.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
September 5, 1996 Clinton, Illinois, USA Reactor recirculation pump fails, prompting shut down of Clinton boiling water reactor
By nature of the pump failing, nothing left the containment vessel. No extra ionizing radiation was released to the environment.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
September 20, 1996 Senaca, Illinois, USA Service water system fails and results in closure of LaSalle Units 1 and 2 for more than 2 years
Service water system fails, thus leaving the ionizing radiation in the containment vessel. Nothing leaked out.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
September 9, 1997 Bridgman, Michigan, USA Ice condenser containment systems fail at Cook Units 1 and 2
That's a condenser failure, not a containment breach or a leak of heavy water. Therefore no ionizing radiation above background was released.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
May 25, 1999 Waterford, Connecticut, USA Steam leak in feed-water heater causes manual shutdown and damage to control board annunicator at the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant
Irrelevant as well.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
September 29, 1999 Lower Alloways Creek, New Jersey, USA Major Freon leak at Hope Creek Nuclear Facility causes ventilation train chiller to trip, releasing toxic gas and damaging the colling system
That's a freon leak and, surprise surprise, has nothing to do with nuclear energy except the system coexisted with nuclear. Freon itself is toxic and was released. That isn't a nuclear incident. I'm starting to sense a pattern in your FUD, in that you are grasping for straws at this point.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
February 16, 2002 Oak Harbor, Ohio, US Severe corrosion of control rod forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor
Which remained within the containment vessel for 18 of those 24 months to reduce radiation within the vessel to live-able levels before being properly and safely maintained by an employee. Once again, nothing released to the environment around beyond normal.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
January 15, 2003 Bridgman, Michigan, USA A fault in the main transformer at the Donald C. Cook nuclear power plant causes a fire that damages the main generator and back-up turbines
Has nothing to do with ionizing radiation as the generators and turbines exist away from the containment vessel by nature. Again, more FUD.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
June 16, 2005 Braidwood, Illinois, USA Exelon’s Braidwood nuclear station leaks tritium and contaminates local water supplies
To quote the 2006 lawsuit: "The Illinois EPA has also said all tests have confirmed releases are below the action levels of 20,000 picoCuries per liter, currently set by the EPA." And - according to the same court case, it only affected water supplies within 1500 feet of the leaking blowdown line, which means you basically have to be on-site and drinking puddles found on the nuke plant's grounds. More fud. Even the anti-nuclear NRC has said the response to this event was based on "emotion, not risk." Their quote, not mine. If you're going to pull events, pull ones that actually support your argument, please?
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
August 4, 2005 Buchanan, New York, USA Entergy’s Indian Point Energy Center Nuclear Plant leaks tritium and strontium into underground lakes from 1974 to 2005
Old-style reactor built in 1962 with government subsidies that was required to utilize up to 70% government-appointed employees and subcontractors. Goes back to my original statement about under-funded, under-engineered lowest-bidder crap that shouldn't exist when referring to nuclear power. This is the kind that I have specifically rallied against in my previous posts, in case you were actually reading.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
March 6, 2006 Erwin, Tennessee, USA Nuclear fuel services plant spills 35 litres of highly enriched uranium, necessitating 7-month shutdown
Spilled locally, on-site, alpha and beta cleanup completed within first month, gamma scrub completed by third. Zero ionizing above background registered outside the grounds of the facility according to the NRC.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
January 7, 2010 Buchanan, New York, USA NRC inspectors reported that an estimated 600,000 gallons of mildly radioactive steam was intentionally vented after an automatic shutdown of Indian Point Energy Center Unit 2. The levels of tritium in the steam were below those allowable by NRC safety standards.
1) Below allowable by NRC. Which puts it below what you'd get from background or the sun. 2) See my point about Indian Point above.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
WHOA!! That is a huge false statement! Depleted Uranium (and other depleted nuclear fuel) is still HIGHLY radioactive! as a matter of fact, fresh unused fuel is barely radioactive and becomes high level nuclear waster after it has been fissioned. The heat decay of a nuclear fuel is caused by Beta decay created by nuclear fission. By definition it is radioactive.
Nope. By definition, it is depleted and inert. Its alloy is D-38. It's currently used as counterweights in aircraft, radiation SHIELDING in medical radiation therapy, and containers to transport radioactive materials. It's also used as armor plating and armor-piercing projectiles. It's the byproduct you get when you re-enrich spent fuel. (You remove the depleted isotope, set it aside, and add enriched isotopes to the remaining matter.) Depleted uranium coming from reactors have an even further reduced content of U235. Because of this, alpha and beta particles are absorbed by the high density inert particles and as it normalizes, it produces less gamma than potassium would in natural sources. But way to go, there, chief.
Unless, in fact, you are purposely conflating spent fuel rods with depleted alloys, at which point, that's just downright dishonest. Spent fuel rods go through a re-enrichment process to make them useful again and so we can extract more radioactivity from them. Depleted uranium (and other depleted elements) that come out of the re-enrichment process are absolutely inert. Toxic as hell if ingested, but inert and produce zero ionizing radiation in any form (alpha, beta, gamma). They usually come out in large ingots. So if you somehow manage to ingest a 30-pound ingot of depleted uranium, well, my friend, here's your sign.
Once more proving my point that anti-nuclear sentiments are simply fear campaigns centered around misinformation or out-dated information recycled and purposely re-used to further a political or emotion-based agenda with no basis in real science. Thanks.
At this point, it's become a thread hijack and is off-topic from the initial point of the thread, and is rude to whaleduck. Hey, whaleduck, I apologize, by the way. Didn't mean to get into this argument in your thread. On that note, I'm out. If you want to continue this discussion, Purple86GT, please, take it to PM's.
Edited to add conflation paragraph.
[This message has been edited by Ravant (edited 04-17-2014).]
Hint: There's a reason it's called radioactive waste. It's not a byproduct. It's wasted. As in, the radioactivity is the fuel, not the material that's producing the radioactivity. The only reason it has a harmful byproduct is because people think of old-style reactors that waste over 50% of the fuel they "consume." New-style reactors utilize more than 90% of the fuel before the rods are considered spent and shipped off for storage. There was work, as recently as January of this year, to figure out how to recombine spent rods into higher-concentrated radioactive rods for increased utilization to minimize "waste." Seriously, with old-style reactors, it'd be as if I drove my car 10 miles and dumped the rest of the tank down the storm drain to fill up again because the fuel pump used gravity instead of the pump to push fuel to the engine, and after only 10 miles, there wasn't enough pressure to feed the injector. And with new-style reactors, it's more like what we do with cars now: Run to 1/4 tank and just fill on top of that.
That doesn't quell the "0mG! Meltdernz!" crowd though. The other issue is, indeed, meltdowns. However, pebble-bed reactors and other inherently-safe designs have not yet been allowed to be constructed because of a general lack of education on the part of the general populous whose minds immediately turn off the moment someone mentions "Nuke-you-lar" power. If done right, nuclear can be the safest, cleanest source of power next to fusion this world has seen. The problem is, nobody will let the experts do it right because building a nuclear power plant is politically incorrect, and yields protests because nobody wants Chernobyl in their back yard. Rightfully so, but new plants won't become Chernobyl. Even the plants in Fukushima were 4 decades, as in 40 years old. Fukushima was considered "State of the Art" before the Heimlich maneuver was a thing and before Lyme Disease was discovered in medicine, before the UPC, computer mouse, UNIX, or first handheld mobile phone were invented, before the Rubik's Cube was invented and even before we knew what the f**k the Ebolavirus was. I wouldn't try to run today's stock market on 1970's computers, nor would anyone expect me to.
So this fear-based rejection of nuclear power because of meltdowns of comparatively ancient, older-than-dirt technology in half-asssed implementations by lowest-bidder government entities is literally just that: rejection based on FUD spread by people with more bank than brains. Build newer, safer plants based on properly up-to-date research and current technologies, and you won't have much to worry about.
Nevermind that coal has produced more radioactive waste and has been more radioactively harmful than the whole of every nuclear incident since the 1900's COMBINED. (Each link provides supporting evidence.) Hell, this chart alone shows how bad coal plants are. As in, sleeping next to someone for one night exposes you to more ionizing radiation than living within 50 miles of a new nuclear plant for a year would. Think about that.
Edited to add supporting links for the argument.
^ This, if people wouldn't be ignorant on the issue they might not oppose nuclear power so much. I get sick of hearing about how a nuclear plant is essentially a nuclear bomb waiting to go off.
Yes, generating power will disrupt something, somewhere, no matter what kind is used. Nuclear provides the most power, at the best economics, and is by far the safest method of generation of anything humans have come up with.
