ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade Non-US Electrical Systems & Trades UK: More nuclear power or.......?

Part of the problem is IMO, that in some peoples minds they cant get over the fact nuclear power was used as a weapon in wartime.

Nuclear is not necessarily the perfect answer. But it is a very viable one for the next 100+ years.

Disclaimer: I use to operate nuclear plants in the Navy, and I have worked for a couple of companies that provide reactor related services to nuclear power plants.

There is alot of misinformation out there, and there has been (in hindsight) alot of silly statements made by both Pro and Anti nuclear activists.

1) Nuclear Reactors can not blow up like nuclear bombs. Those pesky laws of physics get in the way.

2) Nuclear Reactors, like most industrial processes, can have "Industrial Accidents". Obviously proper planning, construction, training, and maintenance go a long way to minimizing the chances of something nasty happening.

3) From what I hear, the next generation of power plants will actually use the spent fuel from the current generation of reactors. So the issue of long term storage, greater than 300 years, MAY become moot!

4) Current plants are, and next generation plants can, use the fissionable materials from military weapons. So there is another waste stream being taken care of.

5) We can measure levels of radiation down to the tiniest amount, but the amount of radiation require to cause biological changes, as best we can determine, is in the order of a thousand to a million times greater!!!!!

In general, people will get upset that a power plant might give them 0.001 mRem of exposure over 1 year, but ignore the fact that smoking 1 cigarette will give them 5 mRem in 1 minute.

I think the keys are education, education, and education. (And killing 99% of the lawyers )

LarryC

C-H:


Is "Torium" just a misspelling, which should actually be "Thorium", or is there a newly added Element, which postdates my current version of the Periodic Table (1994)???

If it is Thorium, then:
Looking at the Periodic Table, it's Atomic Number is 90, and weight is 232 (and some change...).
Would be nearly as large and bulky as U 235 / 238, along with being totally unstable too.

Questions:

1: Does this Element (one of it's Isotopes) "swallow up" Electrons in a Reactor and become highly Radioactive - similar to the way U 238 will catch a free flying Electron, turning into the highly Radioactive / sllloooowwww decaying (1/2 life) Isotope U239?
If this doesn't occur, or at least not to the degree which Uranium does, that's a heck of a great step forward, as far as spent fuel disposal + Management.

2: Does this Element create any "Fissionable new Elements" during a typical reaction - similar to how Uranium 235 will create a percentage of Plutonium, which will also be split (fission), and contribute to the complete heat volume generated in the reactor?

3: How much usable fuel is available per Mole of "Raw Material" - like how Uranium base fuel contains mostly unusable U238, with... what is it, something like 30% U235 usable fuel?

4: As compared to the total _Gross_ heat energy generated by Fission of Uranium 235 + Plutonium, what would the percentage be for Thorium?

5: How long are Thorium's "Dirtiest Half-Lives" (half life events with higher Radiation emission than the Element would have naturally before Fission, or higher than Radium in its natural state)?

6: Is Thorium very abundant, or will it need to be obtained from mines in "Difficult" areas (deep mining, minimal ore vs. overburden).

Please excuse my lack of solid Nuclear Physics knowledge! Feel free to de-bunk any and all totally lame description I have made!

Only covered the "Basic Basics" of Atomic Fission and Fusion Reactions in my Science Studies - with very little math involved!
Part of my lessons were from High School Physical Sciences courses, with the remainders being part self studies and part from Electrical Engineering (as would be covered / required for BSEE).

I am really interested in new, more "Modern" ideas for Generating Electricity via Nuclear Energy sources... or as "Reno" said:

It's Pronounced "New-Que-Lure"

Peter Griffin - of "the Family Guy" pulled a great one, on the "Y2K" episode!

Lois said "New-Clear" (referring to a Nuclear Holocaust), and Peter "corrected" her by saying:

"It's Nuke-U-Lure, dummy, not New-Clear; the "S" is silent"
Nearly died laughing!

Lastly, per Alan's post:


This would be great news!!!

Plentiful fuel, much less of a headache to deal with the spent (used) fuel .. doesn't a Hydrogen Fusion complete reaction end up with Helium as the newly created Element?
Seem to remember:
1: 2 Hydrogens get fused together, resulting in a new element + output energy,

2: One of these "Dual Hydrogens" get fused to another Hydrogen, resulting in "Heavy Hydrogen" (Deuterium) + additional output energy,

3: Heavy Hydrogen gets fused to either another Hydrogen, or is it two Heavy Hydrogens get fused together, resulting in the new element Helium + output energy.

Nevertheless, the "Fallout" which would linger around, should a Fusion Reactor become uncontrollable (then go "Melt"!) would be Helium.
The heat would be hellish, but afterwards everyone would be talking like "Mickey Mouse"

As far as Generating Electricity via Steam (water boiled by heat from a Nuke-U-Lure reaction), I have always been in favor of it - once I knew what the heck was going on inside (thank my 9th grade physics teacher for this!).
The only real drawbacks are the disposal of spent fuel (fission), and the "Tiny Bit Of Energy" that may render most materials useless (fusion).
As far as I know, the crucial issue keeping Hydrogen Fusion from being used in place of Uranium Fission, is containing the extreme heat energy of the reactions.

As to the Technology vs. Political issues of Hydrogen Fusion, I just say "The Stars + The Sun have been doing it for a few hundred years - at least (humor regarding time), seems like it works for them!"
(like I could constrain the intensity of a star's mass!...hee hee hee).

Ok, what was it that i wanted to say??? - Oh ya, More Fossil Fuel-based Power Generation for me!!! (not serious at all!)

The "natural" options are becoming more productive now.
Besides Hydro-Electric sites - which have a high upfront investment, yet are almost "free-endless energy" from the water cycle; Wind, Solar and Geothermal generation is really taking off in my area of the Planet (South Western United States).
There are still a lot of Fuel Burning Generating plants, but they have advantages too.

Another source for fueling the Prime Movers of Electric Power Generation comes from the Methane released at Land Fills (Refuse, or trash fills).
All the Land Fills in Orange County are recovering the Methane Gas (which is a byproduct of the garbage breaking down), and driving Generators that are connected in a "Co-Generation" fashion with that Methane Gas.
This provides power for the land fill electrical needs, and also "flows" out to the utility grid.

This is a great topic for discussion!!! Glad it was brought up.
Would like to discuss these items more, but maybe a new thread would be a good idea?

Let me know.

Scott35

[This message has been edited by Scott35 (edited 07-15-2006).]

The problem I see is that so many of the people who are opposed to nuclear power (however it's pronounced! ) are just riding on the media hype and misinformation. That media coverage doesn't help when almost any incident at a nuclear pwoer plant is blown out of proportion. A harmless steam leak (which probably happens hundreds of times a day at conventional stations and goes unreported) becomes "Nuclear accident narrowly averted" on the six o'clock news.

Some of these people also seem totally unwilling to face the facts and accept that we (society as a whole) either need to reduce the amount of power we use or find ways to keep up with the demand.

I've heard complaints about the windfarm which is located a few miles away from me. Yet when questioned, those same people are horrified at the suggestion that they reduce their electrical consumption but are equally opposed to nuclear power, coal/oil/gas power, or almost anything else. Do they think we can just snap our fingers and "magic up" extra power out of thin air?

Given the choice between living with a nuclear station or a coal-fired station in my backyard, I know which one I'd choose.

Fusion is the sun's energy process. The principle is to get a deuterium and a tritium atom, [ both of which are isotopes of hydrogen], to fuse into a helium atom with the release of energy and a neutron. That's it. So far, the necessary temperatures and conditions within experimental reactors have been produced for very brief periods, and energy production is still less than the amount put in. ITER is an ambitious project, but if it succeeds the results for humanity are reassuring.

1. There are from the above reaction, no fissile or long half-life isotopes produced - and thus no long term storage problems.
2. From that, it becomes evident that bombs can't be made from by-products.
3. Greenhouse gasses are not produced, nor dioxins, CO, ash or sulfur. Good.
4. THERE IS NO MELT-DOWN SCENARIO. Sorry, that's strictly 'green propaganda' crap. If the magnetic constraints in the reactor are disrupted for any reason, the plasma will cool and the reaction will stop.
New Fission Reactors can only be a stop-gap measure. I spent 5 years cowering in an atomic energy plant as a young buck engineer and the idea that we are now about to fall back to building more horrid polluting, totally uneconomic and frighteningly dangerous plants appals me totally. If we Brits had simply thatched all our houses with straw in 1950, we would have saved more energy that the entire UK atomic energy programs have ever produced!
The real answer is for us all to stop wasting the world's resouces and use less energy!
Turn that light out!

Alan

ps Paul. If we won't use less, put the price up to £100 a kwh after we have used a sensible allocation. By jiminy, we would all use less then!




[This message has been edited by Alan Belson (edited 07-16-2006).]

Yes they do actually, for the domestic power and lighting sockets are seen as an endless source of power by most consumers, totally ignorant of where it comes from. Not only that, it is their right to consume as much as they wish and it's up to governments to supply more with the condition that the generating plant is located in someone else's backyard.
If only these ignorant individuals had some idea of what's involved in actually generating the supply, and the enormity of the infrastructure that gets it to the socket on the wall, there might be less opposition to new plants or better still, more thoughtful use of the supply.
Up until recently wind farms have been built here which are working very well. Now, as the US president says that nuclear is the way to go, our prime minister does the same. Australia may well get its first nuclear power station.


[This message has been edited by aussie240 (edited 07-16-2006).]

I would have thought that the eco-people, if given a choice between two kinds of power plants: a) one that produces huge quantities of mildly posionous pollution that cannot be contained and gets all over the place, or b) a kind of plant that produces small quantities of highly dangerous waste which can be safely contained and handled and doesn't normally get loose, that they'd opt for b).

Our (USA) worst nuclear accident resulted in the loss of the plant, but nothing got outside (Three Mile Island). That's what the containment building was for.

aussie,
At one time, I'm sure, it used to be looked upon as a priviledge to have an electricity supply into your home.
That has all gone out the window these days with all our modern conveniences and the like.
During the recent snow-storm here, it became apparent just how much people can get wound-up when thier beloved electricity isn't there at the flick of a switch.
I have to agree with your comments, aussie, but if people don't like it, maybe they should consider becoming independant from the grid.
Let them see how hard it is to maintain a reliable supply 24/7.
A mate of mine, had his Power Company service dropped last week, he is now independant of the Grid and the Solar gear he is using has paid for itself.
A few whiners here in NZ could take a leaf out of his book.
And of course aussie, the Government and the National Grid owners must be blamed, they are the ones at fault for not keeping up with any upgrades or new lines, regardless of renegade land owners or environmentalists and thier lawyers.

Sorry that I've been so late in responding.



Thorium is named after the scandinavian god Thor. We spell him Tor in Swedish. You guess the rest...


It's almost as heavy as uranium, but more plentiful on earth.


Yes, it catches neutrons and becomes something else instead: U233 and some U232. (I gloss over the two intermediate steps that take place by themselves) Because U232 emits lots of nasty gamma rays it's hard to make a bomb of the mixture.

There aren't enough neutrons emitted to keep the atom splitting going. The chain reaction stops after some time.


Yes.


Thorium only comes naturally as TH-232, which is the isotope that you use. So in effect 100% percent.


I haven't the faintest idea, I'm afraid. What I know is that the process requires a neutron source to keep the chain reaction going. It can be a fuel like plutonium, uranium etc. or it can be a neutron emitting machine (an accelerator). The decay of a U233 atom releases 30 to 60 times as much energy as was needed to initiate the transformation. A few small test reactors where a fuel is used have been built or are under construction. As far as I know, there are still no accelerators near the size needed to run a full size reactor.


Thorium (the naturally occuring isotope) has a half life of 14 billion years, but the waste isotopes from the reactor (Uranium, Thorium and others) have half lives of less than a hundred years. This means the waste is "harmless" in a few hundred years. The ground doesn't need to be stable for 100 000 years, only 1 000 years, which makes it easier to predict. This means that in some cases, such the nuclear plant closest to me, the waste could be deposited on site.


About three times as abundant as uranium, but the isotope is also more useful. (Like you pointed out in question 3, not all uranium is easily used in a reactor.)

This guy in Chicago built a thorium reactor in a shed in 1999, so it is doable. A teenager built a thorium/uranium breeder reactor in his mothers back yard a few years earlier as a scout project. (Don't you wish she had been a NIMBY?) I never thought you had to include the "Don't try this at home"-disclaimer when talking about nuclear reactors!!!

[This message has been edited by C-H (edited 07-24-2006).]

Since thorium ores all contain uranium, [thorianite 26%U, thorite 0.45%U], there will be, in the metal or carbide refining process, U decay products including the isotopes U235, U238, Radium A, RaB, RaC, RaD, RaE, RaF, RaG [lead], Ionium, Polonium and probably the Actinium series too. These will appear as waste products either before or after the reactor, [ in which latter case our dear old friend plutonium might make an appearance and rain on the parade just for good measure!].

So, not 1000 years after all, me dear Earthmates!

Suddenly, wind turbines seem very attractive. Especially if spotty youths are allowed to build reactors in their backyards! HELP!!!

Alan