Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-18-2022, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Wilkes-Barre, PA
2,014 posts, read 3,900,765 times
Reputation: 1725

Advertisements

To all Pro Nuclear Energy Pundits, it's time to start realizing the still unproven ways to safely neutralize waste.


https://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/14503708
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2022, 07:29 PM
 
4,195 posts, read 1,602,668 times
Reputation: 2183
liquid thorium reactors is current tech...building medium size to small liquid reactors solves the problems of 50plus year old junk...i think the waste is disposable when mixed in with thorium if need be.....at any rate both china and india have them under construction we shall soon see
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2022, 07:30 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,500,230 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefkey View Post
To all Pro Nuclear Energy Pundits, it's time to start realizing the still unproven ways to safely neutralize waste.


https://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/14503708
number one...revoke the Carter era rule that says we can NOT recycle the nuclear rods




if we would reverse the Carter era law that says we can NOT recycle the nuclear rods


unfortunately due to the liberal idiot President Carter we just store them, not recycle/reprocess them


From its inception in the 1940's, nuclear power as conceived by the United States had a closed fuel cycle. Uranium would be mined and milled, enriched
in its fissionable isotope U-235 from the 0.7% found in nature, manufactured into fuel and burned in reactors to generate electricity. As it burned, some of the uranium would be converted to plutonium. Then the spent fuel would be removed and shipped to a central plant where it would be dissolved and reprocessed chemically. The unburned uranium and plutonium would be separated and could be recycled in new fuel. The radioactive fission products would be buried as waste.


Ideally, the plutonium would be saved to use as fuel for breeder reactors, which could burn it more efficiently and also make more new plutonium fuel than they would consume. Recycling of fuel containing plutonium in conventional reactors was regarded as an essential steppingstone before commercial breeder reactors.




On April 7, 1977, the liberal idiot President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would defer indefinitely the reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor fuel. He stated that after extensive examination of the issues, he had reached the conclusion that this action was necessary to reduce the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, and that by setting this example, the U. S. would encourage other nations to follow its lead. (which it did not( France has almost as many nuclear power plants as the USA(although smaller ones) and recycles/reprocesses almost all of the "spent" fuel)) In fact, other nations wanted their fuel reprocessed in order to use, save or barter their plutonium, and so that they could dispose of their nuclear waste and thereby satisfy environmental concerns


and not one POTUS since has changed it.......


U. S. policy is solidly in opposition to reprocessing. The phrase used is that "reprocessing is inconsistent with the Government's nonproliferation policies." The Clinton administration has accepted the reasoning of the Carter years. This rigidity wasted several years and undermined our ability to work effectively with other nations toward disposition of excess nuclear weapons. If we were reprocessing commercially, and had MOX fabrication plants in routine operation, burning the excess weapons plutonium could be almost half completed by now.
But more important, our policy against reprocessing also holds hostage the rebirth of nuclear energy.
source: Dr. A. David Rossin




nuclear is safe

in fact there are less mishaps with nuclear than with steam, coal, liquid fuel, or even the production of solar/wind equipment


France is the size of Texas, yet has almost as many nuclear power plants as the USA (not counting the floating military reactors)


Sweden is one twentieth the size of the USA (1/20th) yet has TWICE the nuclear power plants per sq km
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2022, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Wilkes-Barre, PA
2,014 posts, read 3,900,765 times
Reputation: 1725
Vitrification is the only viable solution but 30 years since the idea began we still haven't produced one glass block out of the billions of gallons of waste we have. Yet, let's keep making more reactors and more waste with no viable solution.

Last edited by Chefkey; 01-18-2022 at 07:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2022, 07:55 PM
 
4,195 posts, read 1,602,668 times
Reputation: 2183
France is the size of Texas, yet has almost as many nuclear power plants as the USA (not counting the floating military reactors)
i have heard the cooling tower water has actually done harm to Frances water supply (rivers) could be wrong, because i usually stick to thorium reactor reading...but nuclear is safer than coal, coal power plants throw out radon and are more radioactivre, i hear
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2022, 07:58 PM
 
Location: Wilkes-Barre, PA
2,014 posts, read 3,900,765 times
Reputation: 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvis44102 View Post
France is the size of Texas, yet has almost as many nuclear power plants as the USA (not counting the floating military reactors)
i have heard the cooling tower water has actually done harm to Frances water supply (rivers) could be wrong, because i usually stick to thorium reactor reading...but nuclear is safer than coal, coal power plants throw out radon and are more radioactivre, i hear
notice how no one talks about the mutations downstream of a coolant tower in amphibians
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2022, 08:19 PM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,775 posts, read 18,840,914 times
Reputation: 22625
As a resident of a state that has been a nuclear dumping ground for other states for years (not to mention military radiation experiment state), I'm not a fan of nuclear energy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2022, 08:23 PM
 
Location: USA
18,502 posts, read 9,172,720 times
Reputation: 8532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefkey View Post
notice how no one talks about the mutations downstream of a coolant tower in amphibians
I didn’t even know amphibians had cooling towers.

I know some animals cool themselves by evaporation (aka sweating), but I have never seen an animal with a cooling tower. That’d be a real miracle of evolution!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2022, 08:26 PM
 
78,444 posts, read 60,652,129 times
Reputation: 49750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefkey View Post
To all Pro Nuclear Energy Pundits, it's time to start realizing the still unproven ways to safely neutralize waste.


https://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/14503708
This has already been solved, just too many anti-science types out there that turn their brains off the minute they hear "nuclear".

If you don't understand the concept of half-life then that's a good place to start.

P.S. Solar is nuclear energy powered lmao.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2022, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
7,360 posts, read 6,534,071 times
Reputation: 5187
Bury it in Yucca Mountain, reprocess it, or start using breeder reactors. The solutions aren't unknown, they're just unimplemented for stupid reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
As a resident of a state that has been a nuclear dumping ground for other states for years (not to mention military radiation experiment state), I'm not a fan of nuclear energy.
Why? Has it harmed you in any ways?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:29 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top