The Scientific Nuclear Power Debate.

[Falcon02]

To my knowledge, the closest anyone has come to thinking of actually sending a Nuclear Reactor on a space probe is still just a Nuclear Battery.

Currently, we have utilized Radioisotopic Thermoelectric Generators, but that is just the decay of radiative material, not a full on nuclear reaction.

Yes, RTG's are really the only "nuclear" power plant we've used in space, to my knowledge. That however doesn't mean that there haven't been designs for full fledge reactors to go into space, attempting to take into account a catastrophic failure during launch.

The SP-100 Reactor is a reactor designed to be used for space applications and the JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) mission design called for the use of a Nuclear Reactor.

Autonomous Space Nuclear Reactor Control for Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter

However, most missions that try to use a Nuclear Reactor are either forced to change or get canceled, due to how unpopular Nuclear Power is and fears of what would happen if the Launch Vehicle Catastrophically Failed. That was the fate of JIMO which got canceled, among the reasons was it's Nuclear Power plant.

Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter - Wikipedia

 

[Echse]

I want to know how many of the people here that are pro nuclear power actually do remember 1986.
And would you intentionally move to a house near a power plant although it´s a fact that people living close to a nuclear power plant have a significant higher chance for cancer.

 

[GenMarshall]

With the use of Breader Reactors along with safe reactor designs and top notch quality control to ensure that no melt down or other radioactive nasties. That Nuclear Power can be a safe form of energy for the future.

Though sadly, with reminders of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island kind of made the Atomic Age take a back burner.

although it´s a fact that people living close to a nuclear power plant have a significant higher chance for cancer.

A Coal Power Plant generates far more radioactivity than a Nuclear Power Plant.

 

[aaglo]

And would you intentionally move to a house near a power plant although it´s a fact that people living close to a nuclear power plant have a significant higher chance for cancer.

I don't believe your statement to be correct. It's actually this:

Scientists in Germany say young children living near nuclear power plants have a significantly higher risk of developing leukemia and other forms of cancer.
According to reports a study by researchers at the University of Mainz has found a connection between the distance between a child's home and the nearest nuclear power plant and the risk of developing cancer, such as leukemia, before their fifth birthday.

The study was conducted at the request of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BFS) in regions near 21 reactors or former reactors.

In those areas, 77 cases of cancer were found among children under five and 37 children living within a 5-kilometer (3-mile) radius of nuclear power plants had developed leukemia between 1980 and 2003; a 60-percent increase over the national average of 17.

The risk was apparently 117 percent higher when only leukemia was considered.

The report suggests other radiation experts believe the study understates the issue and say there is an increased cancer risk for children living within 50 kilometers of a reactor.

The German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel is said to be looking closely at the study but Germany already has plans to prematurely shut down all of its nuclear power plants by the early 2020s.

Link.

That study does not say anything about the parent's of their children - and what do they do.
Heck, they might be working inside the power plant and screw up their testies & overies - and the resulting children might get leukemia that way.

... would you intentionally smoke cigars although it´s a fact that it significantly inrceases the risk to have cancer.

... would you intentionally have active sex lifre although it´s a fact that it significantly inrceases the risk to have STD's - including babies .

... would you intentionally drive car although it´s a fact that it significantly inrceases the risk to be killed in a car crash.

I bet many people do.

 

[Echse]

Yes thats what i meant. I just forgot that the study was about children, sorry.
But this makes it even worse. You can´t compare it with smoking because most of the time smokers only harm themselves.
This is like intentionally harm your children and I personally wouldn´t do that.

Although i have to admit that i am not living in a dreamworld like many of my fellow citizen that we can live without nuclear power.
We just should reduce it over time and the governments should put some pressure on the companies that run these plants to research for an alternative.

 

[xienwolf]

I want to know how many of the people here that are pro nuclear power actually do remember 1986.
And would you intentionally move to a house near a power plant although it´s a fact that people living close to a nuclear power plant have a significant higher chance for cancer.

Having only been 5 at the time, I do not recall 1986, and having little interest in History in general (beyond learning from the major mistakes), coupled with a poor memory, I don't think I have a clue what you are referring to.

HOWEVER, having worked in the Navy on nuclear reactors for 6 years, I can tell you that you could stand as close to our operating reactor as you are physically capable of (ie - pressed up against the wall) for 12 hours and just BARELY recieve as much radiation as you will recieve from 30 minutes of sunbathing. If you worked & slept in one of our plants for a month solid you would recieve about as much radiation as you would recieve from sitting in a brick basement for 2 days.

And yes, the Naval program tends to have some very stringent requirements for our shielding and whatnot, but having been the primary funding for any Nuclear Power research in the US for the past couple decades, it has set the standard that people are following now.

If you want to talk about potential increase in Cancer rates due to living position, why not revive the old debate about living underneath Power Cables? That one was fun enough to spark a movie even as I recall.

Anyway, to actually contribute to the discussion, I must appologize for not having a link to their work, but I will search for one when I get time later. I just got back from a Colloquium discussing a potential energy gaining Fusion Reaction as early as 2011 in California. The laser setup to trigger the reaction is quite impressive, so if I find a decent link for information I'll probably start a new thread to discuss it. But, Fussion as a power source would be decades away. Till then, the improvements in transparent conductors will make Solar Power more viable, and numerous small advances in alternative power will continue to develop, but for a long-term, full scale replacement to fossil fuels... Nuclear Power is the only real option.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I want to know how many of the people here that are pro nuclear power actually do remember 1986.
And would you intentionally move to a house near a power plant although it´s a fact that people living close to a nuclear power plant have a significant higher chance for cancer.

Living near anything carries a risk; it's more dangerous to travel by airplane than live near a reactor, as far as receiving radiation goes. How deeply have you studied nuclear power and radiation in general?

For what it's worth, yes, I intend to live near experimental reactors.

Having only been 5 at the time, I do not recall 1986, and having little interest in History in general (beyond learning from the major mistakes), coupled with a poor memory, I don't think I have a clue what you are referring to.

He's referring to Chernobyl, which happened before I was born.

 

[peter grimes]

1986 refers to the Chernobyl catastrophe.

It irks me when people invoke Chernobyl as evidence that nuclear power plants are dangerous. It all depends on the design. In that out-dated soviet design, there is no containment structure and it didn't have a failsafe coolant system, and the rods are inserted from above, not up from below. I'm sure there are other design flaws that I'm forgetting.

Engineers and designers have long known that particular design to be risky - that's why the design is no longer implemented.

I came across an article about Fusion a couple of months ago - maybe this is related to the Colloquim?

 

[xienwolf]

No, I believe that one is one of the older models. We HAVE done fusion reactions, the problem is getting more energy OUT than you had to put IN. For us Scientists, that doesn't matter, because we want to know about what is happening with the Fusion reaction and the results from it. But for power generation, you sorta have to see a net gain for it to be worthwhile

The proposal for a viable power-source version of Fusion deals with the Petawatt Lasers. Overall the facility is gargantuan and the laser is formed in 2 seperate chambers, oscillating to build up the neccessary power and shape the actual yields appropriately to trigger the Fusion in the method desired. End result when they get to the target is that they have split the beam up into something like 240 seperate beams, all of which will strike the target simultaneously and with equal energy, causing it to compress evenly to the point of Fusion.

Very complicated mathematically and whatnot, but incredibly interesting to look at now that they are so close to completion of designing

 

[peter grimes]

End result when they get to the target is that they have split the beam up into something like 240 seperate beams, all of which will strike the target simultaneously and with equal energy, causing it to compress evenly to the point of Fusion.

Interesting! But what is the target, and how would the energy be captured and put to work?

 

[Masquerouge]

I want to know how many of the people here that are pro nuclear power actually do remember 1986.
And would you intentionally move to a house near a power plant although it´s a fact that people living close to a nuclear power plant have a significant higher chance for cancer.

Do you you how many people die EACH YEAR in coal mine accidents?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Coal_mine_disasters

Do you realize how bad for the environment a coal plant is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining#Environmental_impacts_and_mitigation

Would you live near a coal plant?

Although i have to admit that i am not living in a dreamworld like many of my fellow citizen that we can live without nuclear power.
We just should reduce it over time and the governments should put some pressure on the companies that run these plants to research for an alternative.

If you really have mankind's best interest at heart your first priority should be to find an alternative to coal. Coal energy kills more people and pollutes more than nuclear energy.

 

[wicshade]

Do you realize how bad for the environment a coal plant is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mi...and_mitigation

Today mining in a first world country is much less hazorudous then it would of been 40+ years ago. And 2nd 3rd world countries don't have the resources to own/opperate nuclear plants.

I do remeber reading how coal mining is going to have to undergo a massive overhaul, because majority of the easy to access coal is depleted.
not to mention the massive uderground coal fires that have occured from mining.

just the mercury released from burning coal has probably already caused more health problems then nuclear power ever would. radiation only effects a radius (pun intended). Mercury from a coal plant in ohio could end up in an Austalian's brain.

 

[peter grimes]

And 2nd 3rd world countries don't have the resources to own/opperate nuclear plants.

I'm not sure about this - or, maybe I'm wrong about what a 2nd and 3rd world country is

I found a paper on Nuclear Reactors in the world.

I was surprised by some of the countries that have power generating reactors, as opposed to research reactors:

[alphabetically, for no good reason]
Argentina
Armenia
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
China
Czech Republic
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
India
Japan
Lithuania
Mexico
Netherlands
Pakistan
Romania
Russia
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States of America

In my mind, once you exclude former Soviet Bloc and Warsaw Pact nations, there are still some 2nd world (developing) nations on the list:
Pakistan
India
Brazil

But those nations do have a claim on 1st world status at this point.

 

[Masquerouge]

Today mining in a first world country is much less hazorudous then it would of been 40+ years ago. And 2nd 3rd world countries don't have the resources to own/opperate nuclear plants.

That is completely true, by my point was more to say that it's silly to fear nuclear plants because you think they're unsafe. Coal mining is unsafe. IIRC there was a lethal accident in the US a couple of months ago. Where were the protesters then? Why did nobody ask for coal mining to be stopped?

 

[Serutan]

just the mercury released from burning coal has probably already caused more health problems then nuclear power ever would. radiation only effects a radius (pun intended). Mercury from a coal plant in ohio could end up in an Austalian's brain.

And burning coal also releases radiation, because a lot of coal has small
quantities of uranium in it.

 

[Serutan]

I want to know how many of the people here that are pro nuclear power actually do remember 1986.
And would you intentionally move to a house near a power plant although it´s a fact that people living close to a nuclear power plant have a significant higher chance for cancer.

I was 26 in 1986, and I remember it well. I also remember 1979 (3 Mile Island) well, also. The containment structure at TMI did its job (very little radiation released). As has been noted, Chernobyl had no such containment features, and
had a much more hazardous graphite moderated design. And neither has affected my pro-nuclear stance
. As a professor of mine once put it, the
chief problems with nuclear power are political, not techical.

 

[Irish Caesar]

It irks me when people invoke Chernobyl as evidence that nuclear power plants are dangerous. It all depends on the design. In that out-dated soviet design, there is no containment structure and it didn't have a failsafe coolant system, and the rods are inserted from above, not up from below. I'm sure there are other design flaws that I'm forgetting.

Most notably, graphite leads on the control rods. When the operators tried to put in the control rods, the graphite went it first... so they were adding positive reactivity before the control rods. This led to a steam explosion.

Today mining in a first world country is much less hazorudous then it would of been 40+ years ago. And 2nd 3rd world countries don't have the resources to own/opperate nuclear plants.

There seems to be a major news story every year where some American miners get trapped in a coal mine and die; I'm sure the same happens in every other coal mining country as well.

And burning coal also releases radiation, because a lot of coal has small
quantities of uranium in it.

Thorium, too.

A nuclear reactor does not release any radioactive material into the environment, while a coal plant does. Inhaling thorium or uranium will screw you up really badly; touching it basically won't do a thing.

 

[Speedo]

I want to know how many of the people here that are pro nuclear power actually do remember 1986.
And would you intentionally move to a house near a power plant although it´s a fact that people living close to a nuclear power plant have a significant higher chance for cancer.

I would build my own freakin' nuclear power plant in my basement if the FBI wouldn't come and make me vanish for doing so.

No offense, but in my experience most people who rant and rave about Chernobyl are in fact very ignorant about what happened there and the plant's background.

If you really want to learn I'd suggest starting with "The Legacy of Chernobyl", by Zhores Medvedev, ISBN 0-393-30814-6

 

[brennan]

I want to know how many of the people here that are pro nuclear power actually do remember 1986.
And would you intentionally move to a house near a power plant although it´s a fact that people living close to a nuclear power plant have a significant higher chance for cancer.

Chernobyl used an obsolete design that is fundamentally unsafe. Reactors can be designed so that a run-away reaction shuts the reaction down rather than continuing. This is how UK reactors are designed.

Nuclear is only a stop-gap to Fusion power anyway.

The waste issue is solved by temporary storage and then shooting the stuff at the sun when we've advanced enough.

 

[Masquerouge]

The waste issue is solved by temporary storage and then shooting the stuff at the sun when we've advanced enough.

We're not? It's not really hard to sling some stuff at the Sun, methinks.