Tyler Ludens wrote:I would like to see nuclear discussed without comparing it to coal. Comparing a bad thing to another bad thing is not a great endorsement of the thing, in my opinion.
Except for the express purpose of deactivating existing nuclear waste, I see no benefit in atomic power, at this point in my life.
Eric Hanson wrote: As I stated earlier, I grew up not far from a PWR and regularly went canoeing on the lake and streams that provided coolant to the reactor. This was a most welcome bit of natural "wilderness" in the middle of the Central Illinois prairie now turned into corn forests. Wilderness basically does not exist in Central Illinois except for a pocket here and there. The waterways around the local nuclear plant were one of these few, precious patches of "wilderness" and were not contaminated or radioactive. I thoroughly enjoyed them and have wonderful childhood memories of canoeing up a creek that looked like pristine nature (though of course it was surrounded by corn fields--I am sure that the pesticides on those corn fields did more damage than any of the fuel at the power plant).
Chris Kott wrote:And sorry, Bob. I should have specified what I meant by post-steam.
I would like to know if there's a fuel cell analogue in the future for nuclear, wherein a fission-specific material absorbs the radiation directly and produces electricity, like solar energy hitting a solar panel. I want to know if it will be possible to eliminate the heat cycle. Does fission require the release of heat, or is that a detectible and easily-used byproduct? Consequently, could fission generate electricity without heat, and wouldn't that be more efficient and safer, requiring reactions on a much smaller scale?
Largely just spitballing, but I would genuinely like to know.
frank li wrote:A fun exercise for sure......... but, we have a perfectly perfected reactor design already, with the very best sheilding and safety record in existance.
Economical to operate, as in absolutely free for billions of years past and into the future, safe as it gets for such titanic energy flow and guilt free...... we didnt put it on line or cause its failure in any way and so are quite removed from the responsibility for it, just as it should be. (Read as ' squirrels plant trees so what the heck are we doing exactly?')
The only tech required to hook into it it to bask in it and plant seeds in its rays, and scoop up the water distributed by it and cool ourselves in the winds provided by it and sometimes put rocks (photovoltaics) or refined metal ore out exposed to it if air conditioning, communications, transport and lights or most any other work are desired.... although that may not give you every bit and more on demand "dammit here and i said right now!", as you "deserve". Ok nothings perfect.
The sun is a perfect nuclear reactor, is 90 some million miles away and costs us absolutely nothing to make use of.
Problems start from a point of " sure theres running water in that river over there, but i really just have this unstoppable ambition to get it to run right here instead"
Devolvements cascade into cascades of failure and it is what we see before us currently and at an exponetial rate.
Stop hitting your selves in the head with hammers or paying others to, and your head will surely stop hurting.