Author Topic: Major nuclear power breakthrough  (Read 4007 times)

Giancarlo

  • Guest
Major nuclear power breakthrough
« on: September 29, 2006, 09:02:59 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2006, 10:52:33 pm by Phillip »

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Major nuclear power breakthrough
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2006, 10:35:50 pm »
*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.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Major nuclear power breakthrough
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2006, 10:53:48 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?

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

  • Guest
Re: Major nuclear power breakthrough
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2006, 10:58:27 pm »
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

  • Guest
Re: Major nuclear power breakthrough
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2006, 11:37:34 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?

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?


Offline David In Indy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,447
  • You've Got Male
Re: Major nuclear power breakthrough
« Reply #5 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.
Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.

Giancarlo

  • Guest
Re: Major nuclear power breakthrough
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2006, 01:46:11 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.

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.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2006, 01:48:19 am by Giancarlo »

Offline David In Indy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,447
  • You've Got Male
Re: Major nuclear power breakthrough
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2006, 01:53:57 am »
Like I said Giancarlo, I'll just sit back and listen.... or read.... or whatever the appropriate word might be.  :)
Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Major nuclear power breakthrough
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2006, 01:10:50 pm »
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.)

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

  • Guest
Re: Major nuclear power breakthrough
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2006, 03:25:51 pm »
SHEESH. Just delete this thread. Why did I even post here if people can't think with an open mind?

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.