I'd love more modern reactors but try telling that to the ignorant hippies that man the solar company I work at. Solar power is a joke by the way. So is wind. Hydroelectric, Geothermal and Nuclear are the only ways to go in the foreseeable future.
Japan has just green lighted couple of their Hokkaido U223 reactors like a boss.
If hippies or OPEC politicians act up in Japan just show them LFTR so they shut up. A country with 0 natural resources would make good use of LFTR I reckon.
>>7 lol if the reactors went up in flames because the manufactures designed a sticky lever feel free to parade that fact through the Diet. Until then decades of cash saving corner cutting and outright ignoring of regulatory bodies allowed the melt down to happen.
Whatever, It's no use crying over spilt milk. TEPCO is not able to handle a nuclear technology in the first place. I will not vote to a party that promotes a nuclear power. Pig disgusting.
>>9 The problem is that even when you take the occasional Fukushima into account, nuclear power is still better than fossil fuel, even when you consider radiation pollution alone. And of course, fossil fuel plants just pump the atmosphere full of CO₂. It would be nice if we could get by on wind, solar, &c. but we cannot do that just yet.
Nuclear power haters: destroying the planet while feeling good about themselves for being so green.
>> 9 問題も時折福島を考慮するときも、放射線汚染だけで考えると原子力化石燃料よりまだよいです。そしてもちろん、化石燃料の植物は大気中の co ₂、おにおけるポンプします。 それは風力、太陽光、＆ 年頃になるかもしれないが、我々 はまだそれを行うことはできませんといいでしょう。
Isn't there a consortium comprising AREVA (France) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for a 1100 megawatt reactor in Jordan ?
>>9 >>10 Not only fossil fuel, every other source of energy has a lot more drawbacks than nuclear energy when you look at it carefully. Wood is already a huge problem because it is so limited, sea-related sources of energy can't work properly because of the salt and sand, water-related sources of energy are really bad for the environments (eg dams) and needs an alternative source of energy to pump water back into the lakes, solar panels have a positive energy balance after the 18th year and can be used no more than 20 years (also, there is no way to recycle them right now), geothermal power and wind can be used only in very specific places, and they cannot grant energy independance. I'm not an advocate of nuclear power but if the plants are properly taken care of, not like in Russia and Japan, there is no problem with it. I hate how all the people who are against nuclear power and greenpeace-minded just use in conveniently when they come back from their demonstrations. If you are against nuclear power, boycott it and THEN we'll talk about it.
>>13 Overdrijven is ook een kunst. Solar cells do take a long of time to pay back for themselves, but in areas with a lot of cloud cover you're looking at 3½ years or so. Most solar cells nowadays come with a guarantee of 25 years but it is thought at the moment that on average they'll last 30 years.
Enjoy nuclear waste with a half life of several thousand year. Tidal power plant have been around for about 50 years and work just fine. Nowaday material can handle sea water with ease. You'd be surprised. Though, My opinion might be biased because the nearby powerplant hasn't been up to standart for over 15 years, and should've been shut down some 10 years ago, but it generates so much money they're pushing it to the limit.
In one hand France had tidal power plant for about 50 years, in the other their research on nuclear fusion(ITER)have been fruitless for over 10 years. Go figure. That LFTR process looks fine, but I doubt it will manage any technical failure that well. IIRC underwater turbins have also been around for some years now, but i don't know much about them.
>Enjoy nuclear waste with a half life of several thousand year. Not a big deal since there isn't going to be that much of it. We aren't going to be drowning in it, and nuclear may very well be a stopgap solution anyway.
We cannot provide our current energy needs with renewable energy alone. You are saying ‘no to nuclear because we have tidal’ but what it actually means is ‘no to nuclear, build more coal plants’. And those actually pollute the environment with a lot more radioactivity, about which we cannot do anything at present (in contrast with nuclear waste which we can store away safely), and they release CO₂ into the atmosphere which nuclear plants don't.
>>19 Matter is destroyed in nuclear reactions. Try again. Also 18 is referring to how much radioactive material is left over not the total mass of spent fuel.
>>20 Irrelevant. A tonne is a tonne, regardless of what it is, and furthermore there's a difference between weight and mass. Try again. As for your own assertions, we aren't talking about matter-antimatter reactions just yet. Thorium reactors use a regular uranium fission process; like in all fission reactions only a tiny amount of matter is converted to energy, and the thought that the resulting waste won't be hazardous is bizarre.
>irrelevant lol >like in all lol >Thorium reactors use a regular uranium fission process >LFTR lol >A tonne is a tonne, regardless of what it is >seriously implying that if 99% of spent fuel left over is less radioactive than an orange it doesn't matter lol
>>22 >99% of spent fuel left over is less radioactive than an orange That is bullshit. Thorium cycle waste is very similar to ordinary (uranium fission) waste, which isn't surprising since it *is* in essence an ordinary uranium fission process. >lol I'm glad you're having fun; unfortunately the joke's on you.
>>22 >>Thorium reactors use a regular uranium fission process >>LFTR >lol It does. Next time use science as a reference.
Since the radioactive waste have a relatively short half life, they will be more radioactively active during that time compared to those with longer half lives. And as said, not even 1/10000 of the mass actually disapears, so one ton of product, equal one ton of waste. Though, with a shorter half life, storage becomes easier. But in most cases, LTFR yield is lower than regular nuclear core, in term of energy per mass. Cost wise, though, it's far more advantageous. I still wouldn't want the job of those going to handle the waste. Oh and I hope you wouldn't expect a complete reaction, esp in this case.
Even if the pollution risk are diminished, risk is still present, and in fact, the process is more dangerous than regular nuclear fission.
>>23 >if 99% of spent fuel left over is less radioactive than an orange >if ftfy >>24 >holy grail of passive cooling in the event failure >more dangerous lol
-(89 KB)