 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
panamared5(at)brier.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:13 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy |
 |
|
At 09:31 AM 3/14/08, you wrote:
| Quote: | >Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and off this forum.
PLEASE NOT YET!!! I'm learning a lot here! My knowledge is really
dated and this data dump is kinda reinforcing my position on nuke power.
|
I too am learning a lot. Over the last 15 years on this list, I can
not believe some of the things I have learned that are not directly
RV related. I am on other building lists and we may have 2-3
messages a week (all building related)! The other lists are no fun at all.
One of the interesting things about this list is the diversity of
opinion, thought and experience and I for one enjoy the input. Yes,
some of the debate can get tiresome, but where else could you take
some of these issues and get the response that comes from an RV
builder/flyer/fanatic?
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sreynard13(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:42 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy |
|
|
I agree Bob. it isn't every day you get to hear from a specialist that actually works in the nuke industry. Of course, if I didn't find it interesting, I would have deleted them from my email unread. . . .
It seems pretty clear that avgas is going to keep going up with other energy costs. Our current crop of politicians have made it perfectly clear that they aren't going to do anything about it. There doesn't look to be much hope from the next crop either. I had better really enjoy building because at the current pace, I'm not sure how long I'll be able to afford to fly the thing.
If they could ever design really efficient, high power density, quick-charge batteries I would love to see electric planes charged by practically free nuclear power. Hm, reminds me of old SF novels I read as a kid.
Steve
do not archive
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Watson
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 290
Location: Seattle, WA USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:28 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy |
|
|
Use the delete key. You don't have to read what you aren't interested in.
Others might be interested. Let them pursue the thread.
Terry
--
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bubblehead
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 48
Location: N. Richland Hills, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:00 am Post subject: Re: Nuclear Energy |
|
|
Nice bunch of guys here. I politely ask that you take non-RV stuff else where and get flamed.
Someone responded, although I cannot find his post, only a quote from his post, "Ah, so you already know all about it..."
What's with that? I did not claim to be any kind of an expert, only to let people know I have some experience in it and did not ask for the discussion to end because I am anti-nuclear.
I come to forums like this to read/hear/learn about RV's. I get the postings in an email daily that I used to look forward to. Now I have to wade through postings on nuclear power, ethanol et al. They're all great subjects but I deal with great subjects all day long and at night school. When I get online to read about RVs I want to leave most or all that other stuff behind. A little extraneous discussion is fine, but it dominates the postings.
So that's my rant. I will now take the advice offered by several people and "hit the delete key."
Enjoy!
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
_________________
John
Keller, TX
RV-8 N247TD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matronics(at)cencula.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:31 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy |
|
|
I don't understand why we're not doing more to pursue IEC (inertial
electrostatic confinement) fusion. It's got the potential to be free of
neutron radiation (or any other radioactive byproduct for that matter),
relatively inexpensive (the leader in the research area believed a
prototype powerplant could be built for $125M...unfortunately he's
passed away), produce electricity directly from reaction byproducts
making it >90% efficient, and could be used for space travel. Let's
divert some of the DOE money to this research.
Do some google searches on Robert Bussard, IEC fusion, and Farnsworth
Fusor to see for yourself.
do not archive
Mike Cencula
Chuck Jensen wrote:
| Quote: |
Hi, Glen,
As Jerry Isler pointed out...don't confuse commercial nuclear power with Government weapons programs. The weapons programs (DOE/DOD) have been a mess and environmental-pig virtually since day one, though they are doing much better recently.
In contrast, the Commercial Nuclear program is run to an altogether different standard. Though every industrial process is subject to environmental mishaps, they are few and far between for the commercial nuclear industry. Nuclear power plants, particularly pressurized water reactors (PWR) all produce tritium (hydrogen atom with extra proton) that you mentioned. However, to call tritium permanent and highly toxic is mistaken on all accounts. With a half-life of 12 years, tritium decays away rapidly which is the reason the Government keeps wanting to replenish its supply for warheads.
As to it being highly toxic, this is simply not so. The beta radiation given off by tritium will not penetrate a piece of paper or your skin. It is only of interest when ingested. Even then, being water based, it is rapidly excreted from the body...especially if you help it along with a six-pack.
As far as hydrogen embrittlement, it was thought to be a problem but turned out to be only a "theoretical" problem. A plant in the U.S. and two in Wales (Trawsfynydd) were shut down and the reactor vessel side walls in the vicinity of the highest flux area of the reactor, was cored and the stainless steel tested. There was no embrittlement, at least none that affected the integrity of reactor vessel. The piping in a nuclear plant will not become embrittled from neutron bombardment because there are no neutrons anywhere but in the reactor vessel.
So, reactor embrittlement, like tritium, sound pretty ominous, but neither are of consequence to the safety of the plant or public. Now, if you would like to discuss the environmental safety of the DOE sites (Oak Ridge, Hanford, Savannah River, et al), that's an altogether different animal, but has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power used to produce electricity, so please don't confuse the two.
If given the choice to live 10 miles down wind of a coal fired plant or a nuclear plant, the nuclear plant is the choice by a landslide. The coal fired plant actually emits more radiation than a nuclear plant because of the natural radioisotopes in coal that are continuously emitted into the air, along with sulfur, particulates and a potpourri of other chemicals. Nuclear is represented to be clean for a reason!
Chuck Jensen
|
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:09 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy |
|
|
Mike,
I assume you were quoting the late Bussard when you noted that the prototype power plant could be built for $125M? If I recall correctly (LOL), he was the brother of the guy that said, and I quote, "nuclear power will be so cheap that it won't be worth metering." 
If I recollect correctly, about 30 years and 10 billion dollars ago, nuclear fusion was just 10 years away. Interestingly, the more work we do the further the payday is pushed off into the future. There are technical and materials problems that are perhaps not insurmountable forever (which is a very long time), but the science and materials do not exist to make fusion a reality in the near future--that being the next 20-30 years. Saying that fusion is >20 years in the future is another way of saying that we don't have a clue how to do it, but if we keep throwing money at it and the nuclear-fairy is kind to us, who knows?
The only fusion we've been able to effect, other than for brief seconds in a laboratory setting, such as the Tomahawk facility (which absorbs more energy than it emits before it destroys the plasma necessary to keep the reaction going) is in nuclear weapons. Obviously, the means of harvesting the heat/energy from a nuclear weapons is problematic.
In sum, as attractive as fusion is on paper, the reality is daunting and discourage. Unfortunately, we'll be flying electric planes with a range of 1000 miles and there'll be peace in the Middle East before we get the first electron of energy from nuclear fusion.
William Dean,
What to do with spent nuclear fuel? This is a novel idea and not politically popular....put it Yucca Mountain where it belongs. At some point in the not too distant future, the spent fuel can be processed in the U.S. to recover the unspent Uranium (this is already done in Europe). While this process is effective at greatly reducing the volume of spent fuel, like every good deed, it has collateral consequences, such as a large facility, cost and secondary waste of its own, even if small compared to the volume of spent fuel presently generated. In short, spent fuel disposal is a political problem, not a technical one.
Chuck Jensen
--
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vanremog(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:32 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy |
|
|
In a message dated 3/15/2008 12:10:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cjensen(at)dts9000.com writes:
| Quote: | | Saying that fusion is >20 years in the future is another way of saying that we don't have a clue how to do it, but if we keep throwing money at it and the nuclear-fairy is kind to us, who knows? |
==============================================
But just imagine if Julius Frontinius Sextus had played more on the beach he might have invented the semiconductor.
-GV
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matronics(at)cencula.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: Nuclear Energy |
|
|
IEC fusion is fundamentally different than the tokamak concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostatic_confinement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
There are people building IEC reactors in their basement. Seriously.
Of course they're no where near break even, but only since Bussard's
research was completed a couple years ago was the physics knowledge
available to design an IEC reactor that didn't have a central grid.
Even if his estimate is off by a factor of 100, it'd still be a good
investment to spend $12 billion to develop a model of a working power plant.
I'm just suggesting that we divert some of the money that's being spent
on tokamak development towards IEC development. After all, the results
couldn't possibly be any worse than they've gotten to date.
Yet again, do not archive.
Mike
Chuck Jensen wrote:
| Quote: |
Mike,
I assume you were quoting the late Bussard when you noted that the prototype power plant could be built for $125M? If I recall correctly (LOL), he was the brother of the guy that said, and I quote, "nuclear power will be so cheap that it won't be worth metering."
If I recollect correctly, about 30 years and 10 billion dollars ago, nuclear fusion was just 10 years away. Interestingly, the more work we do the further the payday is pushed off into the future. There are technical and materials problems that are perhaps not insurmountable forever (which is a very long time), but the science and materials do not exist to make fusion a reality in the near future--that being the next 20-30 years. Saying that fusion is >20 years in the future is another way of saying that we don't have a clue how to do it, but if we keep throwing money at it and the nuclear-fairy is kind to us, who knows?
The only fusion we've been able to effect, other than for brief seconds in a laboratory setting, such as the Tomahawk facility (which absorbs more energy than it emits before it destroys the plasma necessary to keep the reaction going) is in nuclear weapons. Obviously, the means of harvesting the heat/energy from a nuclear weapons is problematic.
In sum, as attractive as fusion is on paper, the reality is daunting and discourage. Unfortunately, we'll be flying electric planes with a range of 1000 miles and there'll be peace in the Middle East before we get the first electron of energy from nuclear fusion.
William Dean,
What to do with spent nuclear fuel? This is a novel idea and not politically popular....put it Yucca Mountain where it belongs. At some point in the not too distant future, the spent fuel can be processed in the U.S. to recover the unspent Uranium (this is already done in Europe). While this process is effective at greatly reducing the volume of spent fuel, like every good deed, it has collateral consequences, such as a large facility, cost and secondary waste of its own, even if small compared to the volume of spent fuel presently generated. In short, spent fuel disposal is a political problem, not a technical one.
Chuck Jensen
|
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tedd(at)vansairforce.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:05 am Post subject: Nuclear Energy |
|
|
| Quote: | After Chernobyl, the US party line was that 'nothing like that could
ever happen here'.
|
As an engineer in the nuclear industry at the time, I have a good idea what the
"party line" was. The "party line" was that what happened at Chernobyl could
not happen to a PWR reactor of the kind used in the U.S. (and most of what was,
at the time, Western Europe). And that is true. The Chernobyl accident
occured, among other reasons, because of an effect called negative void
coefficient, which does not exist in U.S.- and European-style PWRs. (The other
reasons were mainly operational, and it's a very subjective judgement how
likely they are to happen at western plant.)
However, nobody in the industry ever claimed that accidents couldn't happen at
a western nuclear plant. Such a claim would have been absurd given that Three
Mile Island had already happened. The many reactor-centuries of experience
with PWRs suggests, though, that the odds of such accidents are fairly low.
But, as always, the failure of something to happen isn't proof that it can't.
Incidentally, negative void coefficient does exist in Canadian CANDU reactors
and certain reactors used in the UK. That is one reason that these reactors
use somewhat different safety systems than PWRs.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
do not archive
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
