The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes

Major nuclear power breakthrough

<< < (2/2)

David In Indy:
Wow!

You all are talking WAY over my head. It's interesting, but I'll just keep my mouth shut and "listen" to the rest of you.

I do think it is an awful shame some countries can't have nuclear energy when other countries can.

But this is just my opinion.

Giancarlo:

--- Quote from: David925 on September 30, 2006, 01:33:04 am ---Wow!

You all are talking WAY over my head. It's interesting, but I'll just keep my mouth shut and "listen" to the rest of you.

I do think it is an awful shame some countries can't have nuclear energy when other countries can.

But this is just my opinion.

--- End quote ---

Argentina has nuclear power. Brazil has nuclear power. Are these countries developing nuclear weapons? No (at least not anymore, Argentina at one point had a few dozen nuclear weapons, but destroyed them). If you're referring to Iran... I think the fears are well founded. The US offered to even share nuclear energy with Iran (with careful monitoring of course). So far the Iranian regime has been very hostile.

Also keep in mind the US hasn't developed a new nuclear weapon since the end of the 1980s.

David In Indy:
Like I said Giancarlo, I'll just sit back and listen.... or read.... or whatever the appropriate word might be.  :)

delalluvia:

--- Quote ---4) The second process, discussed on one of the links from the Free Energy News site (http://pacenet.homestead.com/Nucwaste.html, is transmutation: conversion of one radioactive isotope (or nuclide) to another isotope. This can be accomplished by bombarding one nuclide with either fast or slow neutrons in a nuclear reactor. I'm familiar with using this process to create radioactive isotopes from stable isotopes (done for some geologic rock dating techniques). It sounds as if they have developed techniques to 1) separate all the nuclides (which has to be done to make nuclear fuel, too), and 2) bombard each individual nuclide in exactly the right way to make a less radioactive nuclide. Apparently this process is expensive and not very efficient.

5) I need to spend some more time reading the stuff about Brown's Gas, which I believe is the transmutation technique that Giancarlo's sources are describing. One of the linked sites talked about a conspiracy to suppress this research -- that kind of statement always makes me a bit suspicious. I need to dig a bit more before I can decide what I think about the process. A quick look at the links worries me -- they cite names of scientists, but not published scientific articles. That could be a sign of a site aimed at the general public, but it can also be a sign of either misunderstandings of the science or of fraud science.

It's important to separate the bogus science from the reliable stuff, because if there is a good technique for transforming radioactive isotopes into stable ones, and if the technology and safety features of fission reactors continue to improve so that it becomes even more unlikely that the nuclear fuel will melt down (see Chernobyl), then, yeah, it becomes an option that we should explore. But it's only a good option if the science is reliable.

(As for whether I understand this stuff: I'm going to be a real jerk and pull out my credentials on this one. I have a PhD in geology. My research dealt, in passing, with radioactive materials. I'm not a nuclear physicist or a nuclear chemist or an engineer, so I'm not familiar with all the research that has gone on, but I do have a pretty good grasp of the basics. So, please, do not tell me that I do not understand what I am talking about -- at least in this case.)

--- End quote ---

What nak said.

Yes, the link to free energy also headlined a consipiracy theorist type statement, which also made it a little suspicious sounding to me too.  Banner headlines read 'Brown's Gas Works!'.  One of the first articles I went to before the link crashed my computer started off by saying 'This is our thesis and...with further investigation..." and then went on to talk about storage and transmutation.  That does not sound like a group of scientists who are ready to market a process.

I'm going to read up on your other links, but that particular one did not start off promising and is not compatible with my computer.

mvansand76:

--- Quote from: Giancarlo on September 29, 2006, 10:38:15 pm --- SHEESH. Just delete this thread. Why did I even post here if people can't think with an open mind?

--- End quote ---

Don't delete this Giancarlo, this is a great discussion point and an interesting article you posted. I used to work for the PR department of a nuclear research reactor where they made isotopes for use in nuclear medicine. I found out that there's not a lot of people who know that while 'nuclear' might be a dangerous branch of science, the science surrounding nuclear medicines can also cure for instance cancer patients.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page