Tiny Nuclear Reactors Can Save American Energy

[docj]

2 hours ago, bruce t said:

Where will the waste go is a 'strange' question. The waste is currently 'somewhere'. Is 'somewhere' safe? Was it purpose designed at 'somewhere'? What the Greens forget is that a purpose designed and built facility is better than the temporary facilities at 'somewhere'.

Many of the fuel rods for which there is no permanent storage facility are stored in "pools" around operating reactors.   I'm not a safety expert so I can't speak to the safety aspects of that arrangement.

[podwerkz]

In 2014 there was an explosion and fire deep inside the WIPP containment caves....clouds of radioactive smoke poured out, workers were exposed, downwind residents were evacuated, nearby roads were closed...I bet NO ONE...ZILCH...ZIP...reading this knows what the hell I'm talking about UNTIL they google it. It was not well covered by the mass media at the time. And unlike others here, I don't copy and paste a wall of text knowing everyone will scroll past it anyway. But I knew about this event (and was in the area) as it was happening. 

This is one of the troubling aspects of nuclear energy and weapons production and waste containment:...the fact that we don't know what we don't know.

Example: Do you know what a TRUPACT is without using google or another search engine?

I'm only trying to make a point.....did it work?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by podwerkz

[agesilaus]

Somewhere is in pools at the various nuke plants around the country

[bigjim]

2 hours ago, podwerkz said:

In 2014 there was an explosion and fire deep inside the WIPP containment caves.

I am aware of it.  I am aware of a low level shipment headed there that fell off a truck on an unpaved mountain rd and rolled and slide about 20yards down hill.  I know it was never reported in public and it disappeared over night.  I know we evidently can't maintain and contain that resevoir  in Fla and more hazardous materiels than  I will ever know about.  I would expect that anyone that thinks there is no danger from the chemicals and radioactivity should build right next to it and use it for a swimming pool and their drinking water.  If we can't or won't maintain or process something so low level then why  should anyone trust that we will do any better  with anything more dangerous.  I  have no issue with nuclear if we can and will solve the issues but until I can believe anyone that that will happen I guess I will have to be an evil greeny or lefty in that regard. It would just tickle the hell out of me if it could be worked out.  BTW greenies and leftys are all citizens and get a voice and a vote. 

Where have I heard this before, Trust me, I know what I'm doing.  And I'm from the government and I am here to help you.

[bruce t]

We can all find examples that suite our opinions. Heck how many workers have died in coal mines over the years? But there's a double standard here. If you are afraid of any radioactive material then you will avoid the medical help that folks use every day to save lives. Yes it's low risk. Isn't it? That's why hospital staff leave the room while they x-ray YOU. Not them. And where is that medical radio active waste stored? You're happy to stand in front of your microwave while you are heating something!

Life is full of risks. Calculated risks. Heck even driving to the hospital to get an x-ray is a risk. The danger on the road is greater than the risk from the x-ray. We accept that risk. Some folks still smoke while protesting all sorts of things.

There are problems with coal, wind, solar, nuclear you name it. But a problem is something that is just waiting for a solution. The sad thing is that some folks don't want a solution because they don't want the problem solved.

 

 

 

[agesilaus]

Low level 'radioactive waste' mostly is not radioactive. Wear gloves or a paper suit in a lab or a hospital section that handles radioactive material? Take the gloves and suit off and they go into the 'low level waste barrel' even tho 99.9% is not even slightly hot.

[docj]

9 hours ago, bruce t said:

You're happy to stand in front of your microwave while you are heating something!

I assume you know that there's no relationship between the electromagnetic radiation used in a microwave oven and the kind of "radiation" associated with nuclear energy.  Your statement is a non sequitur.

[agesilaus]

2 hours ago, docj said:

I assume you know that there's no relationship between the electromagnetic radiation used in a microwave oven and the kind of "radiation" associated with nuclear energy. 

Sure there is a relationship between gamma radiation and microwaves, it's just a mater of frequency and wavelength. Gamma has a shorter wavelength than microwaves.

[Chalkie]

4 hours ago, agesilaus said:

Sure there is a relationship between gamma radiation and microwaves, it's just a mater of frequency and wavelength. Gamma has a shorter wavelength than microwaves.

And a matter of power. A leaking home microwave can cause physical damage over time. A military radar operating at full power can cause physical damage almost immediately. Gamma radiation is at about 1% of the speed of light and it doesn't take much to start damaging living tissue. All these examples are in the electromagnetic spectrum and indeed are defined by the frequency, wavelength and power.

[agesilaus]

So what a tree limb falling on you in the woods can cause damage too, or a drunk driver. So what does that prove other than being a straw man argument?

[bruce t]

Folks I used the microwave as an example of "risk". We make calculated risks all our lives. Often without thinking about the risk. My point is that what ever path you go down someone will fine a negative point. But for every negative point there is a solution. You just have to have the will to find the solution. If you're risk adverse then stop driving. Stop eating the wrong foods. I know, I know, that doesn't suit hey! But we take those risks and accept them but find excuses not to take other risks based on nothing more than ideology.

 

[docj]

8 hours ago, agesilaus said:

Sure there is a relationship between gamma radiation and microwaves, it's just a mater of frequency and wavelength. Gamma has a shorter wavelength than microwaves.

Gamma rays have a wavelength of a couple of Angstroms; microwaves have wavelengths of a couple of centimeters.  There's no comparison and humans can't create gamma rays.  But other than that, yes, they are both electromagnetic radiation.

[agesilaus]

1 hour ago, docj said:

Gamma rays have a wavelength of a couple of Angstroms; microwaves have wavelengths of a couple of centimeters.  There's no comparison and humans can't create gamma rays.  But other than that, yes, they are both electromagnetic radiation.

Humans cannot create gamma radiation? That's news to us, who is creating it then. BTW every time you are around a lightning strike you can be blasted by a burst of gamma, yes lightning can be a gamma generator. That was a big surprise to scientists a few years ago.

Quote

A terrestrial gamma-ray flash (TGF) is a burst of gamma rays produced in Earth's atmosphere. TGFs have been recorded to last 0.2 to 3.5 milliseconds, and have energies of up to 20 million electronvolts. It is speculated that TGFs are caused by intense electric fields produced above or inside thunderstorms. Scientists have also detected energetic positrons and electrons produced by terrestrial gamma-ray flashes.[

Wiki

[docj]

18 minutes ago, agesilaus said:

Humans cannot create gamma radiation? That's news to us, who is creating it then.

Gamma rays are created by nuclear interactions such as are found in radioactive elements, nuclear weapons explosions, nuclear reactors, neutron stars,  etc.  One of the most common gamma ray sources is Cobalt-60 which is a man-made isotope used for cancer treatment.

If you want to contend that humans can "create" gamma radiation because we can build and explode a nuclear weapon, or because he can synthesize Co-60, then you're welcome to say that.  But, in reality, humans aren't "making" the gamma ray.

Yes, relatively recently it was discovered that terrestrial gamma ray flashes exist, but that's not where how the majority of gamma rays are generated.

[agesilaus]

And your point?

[docj]

25 minutes ago, agesilaus said:

And your point?

You're the one who took issue when I said that humans can't make gamma rays because they are created by nuclear processes (or lightning).  There simply is no human-created process that can generate electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths that short.

Edited April 7, 2021 by docj

[agesilaus]

Humans on 'make' three things in large quantities, one yellow liquid, one brown semisolid and the other colorless CO2 gas. So I should have asked you what your point was when you made the first strange comment.

 

Tho I supposed you should include long wave IR radiation in that list above.

 

Edited April 7, 2021 by agesilaus

[Kevin H]

I've wondered why we cannot put the waste on rockets and send them to the sun?  I know there is a risk during launch but after that, outta sight - outta mind.
I see eyes rolling and heads shaking but I would like to hear why this is not a viable option.

[GlennWest]

I may be wrong but we start messing with the sun and upset it working we would go extinct.

[bigjim]

I am wondering what physical size a "tiny" nuclear power set up would be.  What would it take to protect it from theft or vandalism.   I know only and idiot would mess with one but lets face it we have a lot of idiots out there. There are dumb ones and some highly intelligent ones.  Should we think about stuff like this before we just start building and put them out there. If a giant nuclear plant can fail or be breeched surely the "tiny" ones can suffer the same.

 

[Chalkie]

11 hours ago, docj said:

There simply is no human-created process that can generate electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths that short.

 Yet. All electromagnetic emissions are found in nature. As man's curiosity has lead to the discovery of these, that same curiosity has lead to theorized usages and then to for ways to produce them at will. We don't yet produce gamma radiation like we do radio, but we do produce x-rays which are almost as short in wavelength as gamma rays. We also utilize gamma rays in medical treatments and smoke detectors. Now in the progression of things it is theorized and computer modeling shows that laser light projected at a carbon rich plastic will generate gamma rays but we do not have any lasers of sufficient power. Research at UT Austin has found a way of doing it with less power, again theorized, and now it is up to someone to build it. 

So again I say yet. Like all other elements of the electromagnetic spectrum man will find a way to produce gamma radiation at will. 

[Chalkie]

7 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I've wondered why we cannot put the waste on rockets and send them to the sun?  I know there is a risk during launch but after that, outta sight - outta mind.
I see eyes rolling and heads shaking but I would like to hear why this is not a viable option.

 

3 hours ago, GlennWest said:

I may be wrong but we start messing with the sun and upset it working we would go extinct.

From what I have read the amount of nuclear waste that we have on Earth would be kind of like spit in the ocean as far as the sun is concerned.

The very real danger would be trying to launch it from the surface. Storage containers are very heavy to keep the radiation in and so you would have to use smaller payloads (more launches) or create some lighter safe storage for fewer launches but all it would take is one "oops" to cause irreparable harm to the planet. We all know that rocket launches are not 100% so it is highly probable we would have an "oops". 

[agesilaus]

1 hour ago, bigjim said:

What would it take to protect it from theft or vandalism. 

 

Once the reactor has been un operation there is zero theft problem. The fuel would be virtually instant death to hold or be near. Vandalism is a different matter.

[bigjim]

They die instantly but it is now"open" to where someone approaching for some reason like to see if the person is dead or what ever. Plus no solution to vandalism.  Again I would be tickled to death to  use nuclear if we could solve these problems in a way I could really trust and not just more of the trust me I know what I am doing and I know what  is best for everyone. You obviously know a lot but at this point you are not selling me on your product.  Still listening and watching though.

[agesilaus]

Actually I see lots of problems with neighborhood nukes, I prefer utility scale reactors. They have proper maintenance crews and security. I would never leave a reactor without 24X7 operators