Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 84

Thread: Fukushima

  1. #31
    Thomas Gray said it best in his "Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College"

    Here's a partial quote from the last verse:

    "Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
    Since sorrow never comes too late,
    And happiness too swiftly flies.
    Thought would destroy their paradise.
    No more; where ignorance is bliss,
    'Tis folly to be wise."



    Thomas Gray, 1716 - 1771


  2. #32
    Its on tepcos site but it isnt any sort of wide/long angle. Not much to see.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Coastal Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Edgerton View Post
    My big concern is, "Is my Tunafish sandwich safe?"Larry
    Tuna is pretty far up the food chain.
    Maybe sardines, herring or mackerel, instead?

  4. #34
    All round the world we as a society build PWR's and FBR's to satisfy the desire for power, both produce some pretty nasty by-products (that just happen to be bomb making material) by processing an element that is rarer than gold! (wanna start burning gold to get power?)

    Of the 3 natural occurring fissile or fertile materials the one we don't use is Thorium, why? because the decay chain doesn't produce workable bomb material instead it produces Thallium - 208 in the decay chain that makes bomb production close to impossible (208Th is a hard Gamma emitter that destroys electronics in any kind of bomb) (thermal to electric efficiency can be above 50% in a Thorium reactor)

    Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors can't melt down in the way Hard nuclear systems do, the hotter the core gets the more Neutrons the material will uptake and current stocks of nuclear waste can be reused (destroyed) by processing in a Thorium reactor. Oak Ridge had a functional LFTR 1965 to 1969 and had no problems at all.

    Developed in the US but dropped and now undergoing development in China (from documents given away by Oak Ridge) to provide clean efficient energy.

    What do we do in the west? keep making Hard Nuclear systems that present a multitude of problems in control and waste disposal (as well as security of by products)

    Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Windscale, Chernobyl .... how long before it all goes badly wrong and all of us pay the price of governmental arrogance.

    cheers

    Dave
    You did what !

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Lewiston, Idaho
    Posts
    28,504
    Dave,

    I will caution everybody that politics, even international politics are not a subject allowed at SMC.

    That being said, I find it difficult to believe that governments are preventing the research and development of LFTRs just to continue making nuclear bomb materials. In as much as only a couple bombs have ever been used, I doubt there is a shortage of materials.

    Since the politics of storing spent rods is so sensitive, I can't imagine that governments wouldn't be encouraging research along the lines of LFTRs.

    What are the drawbacks LFTRs? There has to be drawbacks.

    Is the LFTR technology as economical as the current technology?

    What percentage of your collueges agree with your opinion?

    I bring this up only because it's also important for people to realize that even among scientists and engineers, there are often strong disagreements about different technologies. For example, I was shocked to learn not too long ago, that physicists are still arguing what the field strength of the earth's magnetic field is.

    I can't imagine the whole scientific community would not be causing a major uproar if LFTR technology is totally superior to the technology currently being used.

    It's my nature to want to believe in the overall good nature of mankind.
    Ken

    So much to learn, so little time.....

  6. #36
    The bomb materials degrade, Ken. There's a real possibility that some of the bombs we have right now won't actually work, though we think they will. There was also a program that was just recently killed to make a more reliable and stable bomb. To build such a thing, you need to have more material. It's not just the radioactive substance that can degrade. Explosives, tampers, etc have had definite degradation problems over the years.

    Anyhow, I think LFTRs do have drawbacks, but I think the major drawback is it has "nuclear" somewhere in the cycle
    Last edited by John Coloccia; 12-31-2013 at 4:02 PM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne IN
    Posts
    1,210
    Nuclear power has certainly been good for the world's power consumption. I find it sad that there is not some way to shut it down in a disaster situation. If this was a requirement for all facilities, people could rest easier. I have read that cancer rates in Japan are rising; this is really sad. There is so much mis-information with media trying to "get a good story", it is sometimes hard to evaluate the real risk of disasters like this. Hopefully, it will never get worse for us.

  8. #38
    Cancer rates are probably rising everywhere in the world. If the cancers are due to iodine, I think the spike is supposed to come a little bit later. post-chernobyl, there was a serious spike in thyroid cancer, but at a duration that hasn't occurred yet with japan.

    It could very well be that japan's cancer rate is rising because:
    1) they're adopting westernized cultural habits
    2) they're old on average and have better longevity than we do.

  9. #39
    Hi Ken,

    Apologies, I didn't intend to get political

    A lot of the problem is many of the Green advocates that object to Nuclear object based on evidence of Hard Nuclear and the potential for problems that it causes. The big money isn't in building reactors (even at several billion $$'s a shot) the big money is in supplying fuel for those and existing reactors. The suppliers of hard nuclear materials are very limited worldwide so the prices the fuel commands is HUGE. Thorium on the other hand is already considered a waste product (from Rare Earth mining) and is most often stored above ground with minimal security (it doesn't fission as such, it's fertile but not fissionable) , in the US at the moment there are current stocks of low level mining waste (Monasite) that if converted at even 20% efficiency in a LFTR would provide the entire worlds electrical needs for the next decade.Typically fluoride reactors work at 45% efficiency to electricity and 90+% conversion from atomic weight. (uranium is around 0.7% conversion by weight)

    The problem:

    Thorium salt cooled reactors are expensive to build, VERY, the salts used in the reactor are highly corrosive leading to high quality requirements for the materials to build them (50 years ago it was a problem, these days with Hastaloys it's not really an issue)

    50 years ago Alvin Weinberg created the first MSR (Dr Weinberg was the father of the FBR) but because the by products of the system cannot be weaponised and at the time weapons grade nuclear material was needed by the crate load, so the entire project was dropped.

    Quite a few in the Nuclear Physics community are looking very closely at LFTR's now, there are drawbacks but it seems to be the biggest one is the one John mentions....it has "Nuclear" in the name, that and the fact the by products are no good for making bombs.

    China is not so limited by outside factors and has plans to build 4 MSR's over the next 20 years culminating in 2030 with a 100MW plant in Shanghai.

    Australia and the Czech Republic are building a 60MW MSR in Prague that started ground working late last year (2012)

    Some conversion figures:

    Thorium conversion potential 3.5 million Kw hours per Kg
    Uranium conversion potential 50,000 Kw hours per Kg
    Coal/Oil fire conversion potential 350 Kw hours per Kg

    (conversion potential is how much energy can be obtained using the mean efficient method currently available)

    The biggest benefit?

    If an MSR gets too hot, it turns off, as in cold shut down....click no more problem. Hard Nuclear systems even if all the control rods are used take many months to achieve cold shutdown

    cheers

    Dave
    You did what !

  10. #40
    If the cancers are due to iodine, I think the spike is supposed to come a little bit later.
    15 years later apparently David (Dr Helen Caldicott Md/NPP)

    cheers

    Dave
    You did what !

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fitzgerald View Post
    It's my nature to want to believe in the overall good nature of mankind.
    Ken,
    Not to sound rude, as you have far more years and experience on the planet than I, but it's my opinion that this, what some might say, blind faith.. Is your Achilles heel.

    As has been already stated, there are far more factors than "the greater good" that go into everything from the free flow or silencing of information to whether a great and novel innovation which would be welcomed by the masses even gets to see the light of day.

    Again, you can choose, or choose not to, listen to hundreds of accounts from numerous sources of information and technology being stiffled or extinguished all together by major corporate and political interests.

    The petroleum revolutions in Brazil are a perfect example. The innovators have recounted in the open, numerous times, global petroleum executives telling them point blank to watch themselves because they will simply drop the price of oil and render them insolvent. It matters not whether it's better or profitable. The only matter is who gets the profit.

    It's not conspiracy or paranoia, it's merely the capitalist system at work. It is of course sick that it operates even in disastrous situations but we Can see it does over and over.

    Sadly, those with power often lose sight of doing good. Google a TED talk about "does money make you mean" or something to that effect. Easily found. It's the tip of the iceburg.

    I am a capitalist. Self employed. My focus is profit and money. My blind faith is that in the face of great success and millions or billions at my feet I would be more like bill gates and warren buffet as opposed to Lee Raymond, Dennis Koslowsky, Ken Lay, and the like.

    Devils advocacy and faith in the greater good only goes so far when money is involved.

  12. #42
    The irony is that MSR technology is American designed and made, by some of the greatest minds on the planet in the world of Physics and yet the way things are going the US will end up licensing the technology from China in the mid term future

    cheers

    Dave
    You did what !

  13. #43
    Unrelated to any of this but interesting: There was a rumor going around the machinery manufacturing industry about ten years ago that a good portion of the machinery coming out of the Eastern Bloc countries could be found to have traces of radioactivity. The chain of logic being that the ores being use to cast components out of was either processed in factories which manufactured radioactive munitions or were possibly even smelted out of decommissioned radioactive munitions metals. I never saw any facts to substantiate this nor ever really pursued it but if I happened to end up in the same room with someone who worked at one of those plants. LOL....

    Erik Loza
    Minimax USA

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Lewiston, Idaho
    Posts
    28,504
    Mark,

    I don't mean to be rude either. I disagree. I think it is paranoia to believe so many things are being controlled by secret groups and meetings to control things. Sorry. I believe that there are enough good in people, regardless of faith or lack of faith, that these things would be making headlines, not in small biased websites or newsletters but in major newspapers and news reports.

    Too may people in the fields of science, politics and society have predisposed ideas and perform research only to the level necessary to support the ideas they had coming into the study. This holds true in the research beliefs of men.

    Sorry. I have faith in man. Yes there are a few crazies out there that skew the group but for the most part, I have faith in man and his ability to want to do and do good.
    Ken

    So much to learn, so little time.....

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Lewiston, Idaho
    Posts
    28,504
    Dave,

    You indicate the research was done over 50 years ago and it was extremely expensive to build the reactors at that time. I suggest the cost at that time was the reason the research was cancelled.

    Today, the Cold War is over. In fact, the number of nuclear warheads has been decreasing and frankly, I believe the need for nuclear warheads is decreasing. Even in this country, our leaders have been changing the designed purpose of our military due to the expected change in what will be needed to defend this country in the future.

    The need for weapons grade radioactive materials is declining. The cost of building the LFT reactors would be less today and physicists are once again considering it. One has to understand that a great expense would have to be incurred or committed to construct such a reactor. It's a long term commitment for a new technology that would be a great liability for a public corporation.

    There has to be enough interest, knowledge, technological understanding and profit to warrant a substantial investment in the LFTR field but I think you could see it in the future.
    Ken

    So much to learn, so little time.....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •