Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

Nuclear power also includes nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is super-awesome power that doesn't seem to generate any waste.

 

Nor does it work (Atm).

Oh, and nuclear fusion does generate waste. However, it's effects are limited to speaking with a highpitched voice*

*Helium. Also, a bunch of free neutrons and other high energy particles, but those shouldn't leave the reactor.

[MonkeyHead]

According to my brother (who works in the nuclear waste disposal industry), the bits of a tokamak are quite radioactive after prolonged use. He is currently dismantling one at the JET lab for what its worth.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There is waste generated by nuclear fusion, but it is an order of magnitude less than the waste generated by fission and remains above background radiation for 60 years, as opposed to fission waste's 600 years.

[10ebbor10]

There is waste generated by nuclear fusion, but it is an order of magnitude less than the waste generated by fission and remains above background radiation for 60 years, as opposed to fission waste's 600 years.

Thorium's only a small hundred though.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There is waste generated by nuclear fusion, but it is an order of magnitude less than the waste generated by fission and remains above background radiation for 60 years, as opposed to fission waste's 600 years.

Thorium's only a small hundred though.

That will be good to know if they ever get the thorium reactors working.

[10ebbor10]

There is waste generated by nuclear fusion, but it is an order of magnitude less than the waste generated by fission and remains above background radiation for 60 years, as opposed to fission waste's 600 years.

Thorium's only a small hundred though.

That will be good to know if they ever get the thorium reactors working.

So, approximatelly 30 years ago.

Because the first 100% thorium reactor was build 1985. It was a smallish 300 MW pebble bed reactor.

[palsch]

For nuclear fusion, the waste is mostly the materials making up the containment vessel being activated by being bombarded by high energy neutrons. There is a considerable amount of research going into suitable materials for such purposes, as well as methods of both energy capture and lithium to tritium breeding using those same neutrons. Any such reactor will likely be activated, but saying up front how radioactive it will be is hard right now. But probably not a major problem. Certainly not compared to some of the Greenpeace releases about it.



Regarding any energy discussion, I'd recommend starting with Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. The chapter on nuclear starts here and is worth reading. It focuses entirely on the UK, but most of the general points apply globally. From the author there is also this great energy pathway calculator and this TEDx talk which may be of some interest, although less specific to the nuclear question.

[Culise]

According to my brother (who works in the nuclear waste disposal industry), the bits of a tokamak are quite radioactive after prolonged use. He is currently dismantling one at the JET lab for what its worth.

Yep.  if I recall it properly, a tiny fraction of those aforementioned high-energy particles hit the containment walls and convert a portion of the material into relatively unstable isotopes.
(EDIT: Ah, as noted more accurately above)

Oh, and here's another fun fact about nuclear power in general - fossil fuel power plants can actually release more radiation into the environment than self-contained nuclear reactors.  Thorium and uranium occur in trace amounts in coal in varying amounts, but it is not actually burned in the production of power.  It therefore ends up concentrated in the fly ash, not all of which is successfully captured before release.  Mind you, the radiation still isn't all that harmful (even if we're talking a factor of ten, it's still comparing something like one in a million odds to one in ten-million odds), but it's always fun to use on people afraid of the nuclear bogeyman being unchained.  Certainly, the radioactive waste from nuclear reactors is greater by far, but it's all contained in the course of normal operations. 

[10ebbor10]

Yeah, it was mentioned before, a lot actually.

Often as the following fact:
The coal industry releases more radiation yearly than all nuclear plants and accidents combined in the entire lifetime of nuclear engineering.

[Culise]

Yeah, it was mentioned before, a lot actually.

Often as the following fact:
The coal industry releases more radiation yearly than all nuclear plants and accidents combined in the entire lifetime of nuclear engineering.

Ah, whoops.  I must have missed it.  Sorry about that. 

[kaenneth]

On PV cells, I saw an article about a method to improve their efficiency, one interesting fact I learned is that the cell does not absorb all the energy from the photons that hit it; only enough energy to turn it from the visible light range into the infrared range...

does that mean basically, more heat to be trapped by greenhouse gasses?

[kilakan]

On PV cells, I saw an article about a method to improve their efficiency, one interesting fact I learned is that the cell does not absorb all the energy from the photons that hit it; only enough energy to turn it from the visible light range into the infrared range...

does that mean basically, more heat to be trapped by greenhouse gasses?

Infared=/= heat.  Though infared is what tends to be trapped, however anything hit by visible light will tend to re-emit it as infared spectrum.  Generally pavement (the black kind) tends to emit massive amounts of infared due to how black absorbs light and thus I would imagine that creating more roads would contribute more to greenhouse warming effects than building solar panels ever could. 

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i once read something about creating solar pannel roads...

yeah, ptw.

[10ebbor10]

i once read something about creating solar pannel roads...

yeah, ptw.

It was interesting, though not really that viable. I think it was still cheaper to build them separatly.

Unless you replaced entire interstates by them, because you then have the benefit of an integrated High voltage line.

[mainiac]

Solar panels don't like it when you shade part of them but leave other parts in full sunlight.  It tends to lead to heat buildup in the unshaded parts (due to the uneven voltage of parts designed to be at roughly the same voltage.)  So if there was even a traffic jam due to say a car crash you'd end up ruining a lot of good cells.