PDA

View Full Version : Obama for nucular power?



yermom
2/17/2010, 02:54 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/16/obama-nuclear-loan.html

i just hope Homer isn't the safety manager

Partial Qualifier
2/17/2010, 04:09 PM
Attempting to address the problem with nuclear waste is none other than your boy, Bill Gates ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/17/bill.gates.nuclear/index.html?hpt=C1



Gates has invested tens of millions of dollars in a Bellevue, Washington, company called TerraPower, according to TerraPower CEO John Gilleland.
TerraPower is working to create nuclear reactors that generate hyper-fast nuclear reactions able to eat away at the dangerous nuclear waste.
This has a number of potential benefits, Gilleland said. Among them:

• The Uranium isotope that's food for the new nuclear reactors doesn't have to be enriched, which means it's less likely to be used in atomic weapons.

• The fission reaction in the new process burns through the nuclear waste slowly, which makes the process safer. One supply of spent uranium could burn for 60 years.

• The process creates a large amount of energy from relatively small amounts of uranium, which is important as global supplies run short.

• The process generates uranium that can be burned again to create "effectively an infinite fuel supply."

yermom
2/17/2010, 04:18 PM
he is most certainly NOT my boy :D

i've heard lately that Uranium supplies are running short... non enriched Uranium sounds interesting

Partial Qualifier
2/17/2010, 04:48 PM
yeah that whole thing sounds interesting, but who the hell knows if it's hair-brained or not. I certainly wouldn't bank on Gates' knowledge of nuclear reactors.

Anything that can deal with the waste problem would be part of a sound, clean nuclear energy solution.

I say we simply rocket that **** into the Sun. ;)

rwryne
2/17/2010, 06:17 PM
yeah that whole thing sounds interesting, but who the hell knows if it's hair-brained or not. I certainly wouldn't bank on Gates' knowledge of nuclear reactors.

Anything that can deal with the waste problem would be part of a sound, clean nuclear energy solution.

I say we simply rocket that **** into the Sun. ;)

I know you are joking/half serious but it is against some treaties we signed to put "nuclear materials" into space. that is why we do not have nuclear powered space ships.

Boarder
2/17/2010, 08:35 PM
They have a nice waste facility all ready to go in Nevada, but, among other things, states don't want the waste shipped across their land. If it isn't one thing it's another. There's a really good article I read on the new-style nucular power plant. Much smaller, way more efficient, and far-far less waste.


Yes, I spelled nucular that way on purpose. It makes me chuckel.

Boarder
2/17/2010, 08:43 PM
Here:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

Thorium reactors

Stitch Face
2/17/2010, 08:44 PM
• The process generates uranium that can be burned again to create "effectively an infinite fuel supply."

I've been out of school for a few years now but I'm pretty sure that breaks some law of thermodynamics.

Harry Beanbag
2/18/2010, 01:59 AM
I've been out of school for a few years now but I'm pretty sure that breaks some law of thermodynamics.

The first thing you need to understand is that the uranium isn't actually "burned". Nuclear plants are designed to prevent that sort of thing.

Other than that, with no details at all in the Gates article, it's difficult to know what kind of new process they're talking about.

Tulsa_Fireman
2/18/2010, 02:10 AM
The Uranium isotope that's food for the new nuclear reactors doesn't have to be enriched, which means it's less likely to be used in atomic weapons.

I'm just a dumb ol' fireman, but the thought of potentially safer, more plentiful nuclear fuel and the hope of near limitless power to drive the train of our US economic horsepower piqued my interest. So I read a few articles on thorium reactors, which apparently converts the thorium to U-233 (not the german submarine), which in turn is a very simple, easily used fissionable material in a very rudimentary "gun-style" nuclear weapon.

Which means that if I read the number of articles, papers, and whatnot on thorium reactors and variants of correctly, while having all the benefits listed above, said technology actually puts easily weaponized nuclear material in the hands of whoever uses this technology.

If I didn't understand it correctly, can anyone help a brother out and help me get my head around it?

Crucifax Autumn
2/18/2010, 02:22 AM
They have a nice waste facility all ready to go in Nevada.

No thanks. It's radioactive enough out here.

Boarder
2/18/2010, 07:54 PM
Yeah, like you ever get north of Mount Charleston.