The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes

Major nuclear power breakthrough

(1/2) > >>

Giancarlo:
This could bring us one step closer to nuclear fusion. This is huge. Lets hope environmentalists actually support this, because it makes nuclear power far more safer and more powerful.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060929/sc_nm/utilities_nuclear_fuel_dc

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. researchers have designed a reactor fuel that they believe can make nuclear power plants 50 percent more powerful and safer, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said.

Researchers say their new technology should be ready for commercial use in existing reactors in about 10 years.

In a nuclear reactor, the fission of uranium atoms provides heat used to produce steam for generating electricity.

Already, one pickup truck full of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor can supply a city with enough electricity for a year. The MIT scientists believe they have found a way to make the fuel go even further, boosting output by about 50 percent.

Uranium fuel typically is formed into cylindrical ceramic pellets about half-inch in diameter. The pellets look like a smooth, black version of food pellets for small animals.

Pavel Hejzlar and Mujid Kazimi of MIT recently completed a three-year project for the U.S.
Department of Energy, along with scientists from Westinghouse and other companies. The researchers looked at how to make fuel for pressurized water reactors more efficient while maintaining safety margins.

About two-thirds of the 103 reactors operating in the United States are pressurized, using high pressure to prevent the water from boiling.

The scientists changed the shape of the fuel from solid cylinders to hollow tubes, adding surface area that allowed water to flow inside and outside the pellets, increasing heat transfer.

The new fuel design also is much safer because it reaches an operating temperature of about 700 degrees Celsius, much lower than 1,800 degrees for conventional fuel and further from the 2,840 degrees melting point for uranium fuel.

delalluvia:
*sigh*  Deals with the devil.  50% is still horrible for the environment and having to deal with nuclear power by-products.

But I will keep my fingers crossed.  The world-wide oil industry/economy would be turned ass over teakettle if this came to fruition.

delalluvia:

--- Quote from: Giancarlo on September 29, 2006, 10:38:15 pm ---50% is still horrible for the environment? Excuse me... 50% more relates to the amount of power this generates. 50% has nothing to do with pollution. And lets face it, this is one of the cleanest energies. France runs nearly its entire power grid on it, and turns the by-products into glass.

I'm sadden that people can be ignorant about this energy, and anything nuclear frightens them. Sadly, they don't know that nuclear power has a far better record in the environment than oil or coal.

Deals with the devil huh? Really? This power is not the devil. SHEESH. Just delete this thread. Why did I even post here if people can't think with an open mind?

--- End quote ---

Jeez, get a grip and try not to overreact.  I did my microbiology term paper in college on biomedical remediation of nuclear waste.  Yes, I know what I'm talking about.  Go read this thread:

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php?topic=1024.0

50% more power means more use of nuclear materiale, especially if it runs cleaner and becomes a more popular energy sourc.e

injest:
EASY there!!

You post here because you want to discuss the issue....some people have different views. That doesn't mean they are not open to talk.

I am interested in learning more. Anything that would get us off oil is a good thing.

they say we have enough oil to fuel us through the next century...but then what? are they saying we should just squander resourses and let the future generations deal with the consequences? Do they think a solution will fall from the sky? We have to explore alternate resources...

injest:

--- Quote from: Giancarlo on September 29, 2006, 11:26:27 pm ---Not at all. You cannot translate 50% into inefficency. If anything, this article shows that more waste is not a fact when they are using the same amount of material (if less) because of increased efficency. Learn the difference.

And that thread is a little bit of a scare tactic. Nice try.

I also love the logic that some use. If we use more nuclear power then we will have incidents like that mentioned in the thread... sheesh. Why don't you get a grip on reality?

I didn't say people weren't allowed to talk. I'm just sick and tired of people running amock when they hear the words "nuclear power". France doesn't have the problems we do because they convert nuclear waste into glass.

This is an excellent step, and some people as I expect are afraid of it. Well some people are afraid of progress I guess.

"are they saying we should just squander resourses and let the future generations deal with the consequences? Do they think a solution will fall from the sky? We have to explore alternate resources..."

And nuclear power isn't one of these?

Can any of you explain to me why the French power grid is nearly 70-80% nuclear and they do not have a problem with waste?

--- End quote ---

Absolutely, nuclear power is one....reread my post...I meant it to be supportive of your original post...I admit I am not as good at making points as some of you guys.

I was not aware that France used so much nuclear power. and I have never heard of converting nuclear waste into glass. that is very cool....I wonder what it looks like..is it like reg glass?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page