Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

Using a controlled nuclear explosion as a source of energy

Which isn’t really how it works.

Problem is that all the other ideas are also crap.

Which isn’t really how it works.

Really ? I thought it was the exactly the same process. What’s the difference?

Really Molgrips – name me one other generation process that can put this amount of stuff as poisonous into the ecosphere and have the effects last for millenia.

What’s the difference between a gas explosion and a hob for cooking on?

Really Molgrips – name me one other generation process that can put this amount of stuff as poisonous into the ecosphere and have the effects last for millenia

Burning fossil fuels. Actually no, that’s way worse.

What’s the difference between a gas explosion and a hob for cooking on?

Uncontrolled / Controlled oxidation of ethane. Same process, differing levels of control.

Molgrips – get a grip. Read up on how toxic plutonium and the transuranic elements are.

Gas hob is not an explosion. Explosion is a rapid expansion of something.

Nuclear fission reactors are a very slow controlled reacting. In the same way that you control a wood stove with the damper, you control a nuclear reaction with control rods, the nuclear equivalent of cold water. Risky yes, explosion no.

Fusion technology IS a controlled explosion tho imo.

Molgrips – get a grip. Read up on how toxic plutonium and the transuranic elements are.

Well aware of that mate. However, anthropogenic climate change is STILL way worse than that imo.

So fusion is a controlled explosion, but fission isn’t?

Jeremy; read up on how many people are dying now as a result of climate change.

(just to play devils advocate).

TandemJeremy – Member

Really Molgrips – name me one other generation process that can put this amount of stuff as poisonous into the ecosphere and have the effects last for millenia.

So fusion is a controlled explosion, but fission isn’t?

Correct.

TJ how long do you think the effects of catastrophic climate change would last then?

If a substance causes damage then it’s effectively a posion, arguing otherwise is splitting hairs. The effects of our profligate use of fossil fuels are worse than the current record of nuclear incidents imo. And whilst people are up in arms about nuclear no-one seems to give much of a crap about CO2.

So fusion is a controlled explosion, but fission isn’t?
Correct.

Help me out here, I’m struggling.

Uranium atoms spontaneously decay on their own. When they do they release a neutron that can knock into another atom and cause that to decay, releasing another neutron and so on. If there are enough atoms (critical mass) then enough of the neutrons hit other atoms, and it triggers an avalanche of decays ie an explosion.

However if not enough of the neutrons hit other atoms then an explosion won’t happen. To make a bomb, you set it up so that there will be an explosion. To make a reactor, you set it up so that there won’t. It’s why reactors catch fire, leak, melt down etc but they don’t explode Hiroshima style.

A controlled explosion would be like in a car engine. Each spark triggers an actual explosion, but a small one contained in a cylinder. In fusion you have to pressurise and heat the gaseous fuel to the point where it would be exploding if you weren’t containing it somehow – either with a magnetic field, or by some other trickery.

put this amount of stuff as poisonous into the ecosphere and have the effects last for millenia

Completely irrelevant straw man – the stuff released form Fukushima and causing the “disaster” is I-131, half life about nine days!

Plutonium has been released as well due to the containment being breached

Oh dear TJ – the sky still isn’t falling!

Reports that plutonium had been detected at five locations inside the grounds of the stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant set off a flurry of activity on blogs and twitter accounts today. But the truth is that plutonium around the facility was to be expected–and the levels found do not pose a threat to human health.
Indeed, TEPCO officials believe that three of the five samples found on March 21 and 22 were actually deposited on the site many years ago following the testing of nuclear weapons by various countries in the atmosphere, which left trace amounts of plutonium in the soil of locations around the world. The other two traces of plutonium came from fuel of reactor No. 3, a MOX fuel that contains roughly 5% plutonium. These samples of escaped plutonium were of similar concentrations to the decades-old plutonium, and therefore do not pose a threat to human health.

It’s a reaction not an explosion, in the same way that normal combustion is burning rather than an explosion.

I had to check the definition of “explosion”. It turns out it means :

ex·plo·sion (k-splzhn)
n.
1.
a. A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.

A ‘sudden realise of nuclear energy which generates very high temperatures’ works for me.

Of course I could be wrong – my knowledge of the English language and science tends to be somewhat limited. But both tend to be very much in line with what is average for the population, so I reserve the right to use English in a manner which is acceptable to the average person.

Indeed, TEPCO officials believe

Yes, TEPCO has a much vaunted reputation for telling the truth and keeping it’s own government infomred. 🙄

I had to check the definition of “explosion”. It turns out it means :

ex·plo·sion (k-splzhn)
n.
1.
a. A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.

A ‘sudden realise of nuclear energy which generates very high temperatures’ works for me.

Of course I could be wrong – my knowledge of the English language and science tends to be somewhat limited. But both tend to be very much in line with what is average for the population, so I reserve the right to use English in a manner which is acceptable to the average person.

The reason it doesn’t fit that definition of an explosion is that it is not ‘sudden’ – the release of energy is controlled, ramped up, held stable/continuous and ramped down when required. There is nothing ‘sudden’ about it.

Not that whether something is or isn’t an explosion does much to address the bigger picture here.

Not that whether something is or isn’t an explosion does much to address the bigger picture here.

You wouldn’t thought so would you ?

nb, you did see my use of the word “controlled” btw ?

TJ how long do you think the effects of catastrophic climate change would last then?

Seems to me that the nuclear bods like to have it both ways. Apparently Fukishima is old technology, so therefore this disaster doesn’t count, because new stations wouldn’t fail like that, yet on the other hand its prefectly reasonable to then drone on about global warming due to the consumption of fossil fuels over the past 300 years or so. Guys you can’t have it both ways, either old stuff counts or it doesn’t.

If a substance causes damage then it’s effectively a posion, arguing otherwise is splitting hairs. The effects of our profligate use of fossil fuels are worse than the current record of nuclear incidents imo. And whilst people are up in arms about nuclear no-one seems to give much of a crap about CO2.

Utter crap. Did you not notice the absence of pea souper type smog and the fact that air quality in the Western world was improved consistently year on year for the last 50 years or so? The problem is that when they started out with industrial consumption of fossil fuels they were unaware of the issues, so they carried on without concern. Once we were aware we have acted to change, and the nuclear industry is in fact evidence of that change. In respect of nuclear energy we are already aware of the issues, and furthermore the scale of them when something goes wrong is of an entirely different order to that which happens with any other single station source of energy failing. So reverting back to the double standards point, if the argument is that we should simply accept the dangers associated with nuclear energy, then it is surely disingenuous to suggest that there is any problem with the continuing use of fossil fuels. Alternatively if you believe as I do that it is criminal to pretend that everything in the garden is rosy when self evidently it isn’t, we should be having an open discussion about the reality of generating energy in this way, and the reality is that in return for Jam today we are taking a very substantial risk with our futures, Fukishima is just the latest evidence of that fact.

A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases

Nuclear fission reactors do not run on a sudden release of energy. Therefore not an explosion.

The accident at Fukushima was an explosion (not a nuclear one), but that’s not what we were talking about.

Not that whether something is or isn’t an explosion does much to address the bigger picture here

No, that was just for j_me’s background information.

So reverting back to the double standards point, if the argument is that we should simply accept the dangers associated with nuclear energy, then it is surely disingenuous to suggest that there is any problem with the continuing use of fossil fuels

I disagree (with that bit – didn’t really understand the rest of your post or why you thought my bit was crap). My point is that the consequences of future nuclear accidents will not be anything like as bad (imo) as the consequences of continued fossil fuel usage.

Did you not notice the absence of pea souper type smog

no smog != no pollution (you do realise you can’t actually see CO2?) Fossil fuels might produce a lot less pollution than they used to, but a typical coal fired power station not only emits lots of conventional pollution, it also emits more radiation than a nuclear power station.

I presume this picture must be really old:

So reverting back to the double standards point, if the argument is that we should simply accept the dangers associated with nuclear energy, then it is surely disingenuous to suggest that there is any problem with the continuing use of fossil fuels.

Double standards you say? So the very small dangers associated with nuclear power means we should accept the much higher dangers of conventional power? You do realise that if it’s been an average year, more people have died in coal mines since the tsunami than will ever die due to the damage to the nuclear power station caused by the tsunami?

Anyone seen this? linked on from the ENTSCHWINDET & VERGEHT[/url] blog.
Interesting viewing.

Isn’t arguing about the pros and cons of nuclear power a bit pointless anyway?

The fossil fuels will run out. Fact.

There is enough nuclear fuel on this planet for it not to be an issue. Fact.

We need energy. Fact.

Humans are not going to cut down on their energy use. If anything, they will want more. Fact.

Really, what we want is fusion. No pollution, tons of energy, plenty of fuel. Just it’s hard to optimize at the moment – we don’t have the tech, or the funding.

Wind, solar, tidal, burning logs, etc. etc. is never going to cut it. If you covered the entire Sahara desert in solar panels, you would provide more then enough energy for the world. But that’s completely infeasible of course, for a hundred reasons. Wind is pretty useless, even when it is windy. Tidal destroys coast lines and is very expensive for what it gives. It also means that countries without large coastlines are dependent on other countries.

So the obviously conclusion is we need something to give us energy in the gap between the fossil fuels running out, and fusion being perfected. Nuclear. Doesn’t matter if you don’t like it. There’s nothing you can do about it. Unless you’re a fusion specialist.

Care to post the number of coal miners that have died since the tsunami, Aracer.

So the very small dangers associated with nuclear power

no sorry you’ve got that back to front they are very large dangers with a low frequency, although that too is a moot point and is dependant on how you measure them, and over what period of time. That is entirely my point the debate is neither open nor truthful.

Try going to an enquiry for the building of a nuclear power station and asking why its being built so far away from the population centre that needs the power. Be insistent on a proper answer and you’ll get escorted out. The simple reason is they are **** dangerous and its not politically acceptable to stick them in or close to a city.

Dangerous more locally. That’s why they are in remote places.

However coal is dangerous GLOBALLY.

Hurrah! so we’ve crossed the rubicon and agreed that they are dangerous then?

Of course there’s a risk.

However it’s small, and preferable to fossil fuels imo.

However it’s small, and preferable to fossil fuels imo.

And James Lovelock’s (the guy who came up with the Gaia Hypothosis). The Revenge of Gaia is a very good read. You’d think he’d be a tree-hugging hippy. Well he is, but he’s a a pro-nuclear anti-pointless-crap tree-hugging hippy.

Oh, and we’re all screwed anyway according to Lovelock so no point arguing. 😉

My point is that the consequences of future nuclear accidents will not be anything like as bad (imo) as the consequences of continued fossil fuel usage.

Oh I like this guessing game I disagree it will be worse – can we at least keep the argument away from utter conjecture? Think the point is everyone expects both of these are bad some think we can avoid the former by just not having nukes some think the risk is so small /controlled it is safe. Lets at least stick to facts rather than speculation.
if it is so small and unlikely to be bad why are they not built in the middle of town centres ?
when you say preferabale [re risk]what risks do you mean? The carbon costs or something else [health risks]?

Gaia is nonesense of the highest order.

Molgrips – the risk is large – the frequency may be small but the severity is huge

Even the frequency is not that low – there are around 500 nuclear reactors in the world, in 50 years we have had half a dozen loss of life incidents with releases from reactors. Increase the number of reactors significantly as the pro nukes want and we will be having a fukushima every couple of years and a Chernobyl every decade – then we will get a really big incident at some point

And its a Global risk as well- look how far the plume from chernobyl went and note that 20 years on there are still farms in the UK where levels are above safe.

How many people have died in car accidents in the same period?

Cars seem safe enough to most people.

Molgrips – the risk is large – the frequency may be small but the severity is huge

No
Its
Not

As proven the the actual, researched, validated, accepted death figures, which show that only a very, very small number of people have actually been killed, either cumulatively or in any individual one of the “disasters” that have taken place. The truth is that the frequency is small, and the severity is small.

Its like saying that you should ban aeroplanes, on the basis that one might fly into a skyscraper!

Molgrips – the risk is large – the frequency may be small but the severity is huge

Overall net risk to population then is small COMARED WITH GW.

we will be having a fukushima every couple of years

Ooooh, that’s flawed reasoning! The more we do it, the better we’ll get at it, surely to goodness?

a Chernobyl every decade – then we will get a really big incident at some point

Too right – as I pointed out earlier:

There’s almost certainly another Chernobyl (or something far worse) lurking round the corner because the people in charge there were actually the best trained and most cautious in the world, and Chernobyl had lots of failsafes other reactors don’t have.

Bearing that in mind I’m surprised you’re only extrapolating based on the number of reactors, TJ. Though I’m slightly unsure who it is suggesting the massive expansion you seem so concerned about.

Chernobyl had lots of failsafes other reactors don’t have.

Hang on – I thought it was inherently risky? Gravity fed?

sarcasm detector: fail.

8P

1000!

I missed a bit that might help you out, molgrips:

we will be having a fukushima every couple of years

Or worse, given just how many nuclear power stations are situated in locations where they’re vulnerable to tsunamis, and just how small that earthquake was – I mean it’s quite shocking how many people got killed by the nuclear power station compared to the numbers killed by the earthquake.