Posted on 04/13/2011 10:30:59 AM PDT by kathsua
The recent nuclear meltdown in Japan again reminds the world why current nuclear technology is unacceptable for future power generation. In the past, that technology has demonstrated its danger clearly in accidents, the worst of which was the catastrophe at Chernobyl. And yet I am a major proponent of nuclear-based electricity generation. Our world absolutely requires energy sources that have none of the problems inherent in all forms of fossil fuel and that can be produced in large reliable quantities for generations to come. How can I possibly be both for and against nuclear power? Because what we know as "nuclear energy" today is but a single path among many different nuclear reactions capable of producing power. We have far better options on which to base our nuclear choices.
Current nuclear energy production is rooted in technology developed in the wartime 1940s to power submarines and produce plutonium for Cold War bombs. It involves highly inefficient reaction sequences resulting in huge amounts of long-lived toxic nuclear waste. If cooling of the nuclear core or spent fuel rods is impaired, the reaction can spin rapidly out of control. Unchecked, the reactor core gets hotter and hotter with faster and faster nuclear reactions. The unthinkable end result could be the "China syndrome" where the reacting mass reaches temperatures that simply melt its containment and it sinks unshielded into the earth. High-pressure coolant is required to carry away heat from the reactor core to spin electric power turbines. Operator error, machine failure, or natural disaster can result in rapid loss of coolant with associated release of radioactivity. First atmospheric and then general environmental contamination is the result. Nuclear rod waste contains plutonium and other fissionable material, which in the wrong hands could be fashioned into nuclear weaponry.
Such nuclear power plant characteristics are completely unacceptable today. It is quite possible to design satisfactory nuclear power reactors that progressively slow at higher temperatures, require only low pressure coolant circuits, and consume fuel partly derived from our current nuclear waste. The much smaller waste stream from such plants has a greatly reduced chance of being diverted into any nuclear weapon. Reputable nuclear scientists have been proposing, designing and actually building these kinds of safer reactors for years. An excellent example of such a plant and my favorite candidate can be found at http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/multiMissionMSR.html.
Our political leadership must provide full disclosure and discussion of available safe nuclear technology as well as initiate aggressive action to spur research and development leading to clean, safe, commercially viable power plants. We deserve no less and cannot tolerate the consequences of inevitable failures in current nuclear technology.
This idiot calls 1950s and 1960’s designs as being current technology.
That was based upon 50 year old technology.
How do you propose to deal with the containment of noble gas isotopes?
Stopped reading right there. But for fun, let's change a few words around:
The recent nuclear meltdown car crash in Japan (your town) again reminds the world why current nuclear technology automobile design is unacceptable for future power generation transportation needs.
These anti-nuclear libs are so funny, they are against the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power but there is no other practical way to generate plentiful, reliable power of consistent quality. Without fossil fuels or nuclear power, where will they plug their electric cars into, candles?
Actually, I agree with him. He’s not anti-nuclear...he’s anti-water reactor.
He’s pro-MSR, which is a proven technology.
Furthermore, Alvin Weinberg felt the same.
Also, a properly designed LFTR will fail safe.
What we dont need is big multi-megawatt nuclear plants.
Smeller ones that you can keep buried in the ground will do.
Yes they are less efficient in an ‘economy of scale’ sort of way, EXCEPT when you factor in the incredible costs of a large-scale nuclear disaster.
There is a company in Texas that makes a self-contained reactor you bury in the ground. When the fuel runs out in 20 years you dig it up and replace it.
If there is ever a problem you leave it buried...
dammit dammit dammit - why can’t I see typos until AFTER I hit ‘post’????
smeller = smaller
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.