Is there any evidence that fusion could be used to produce electricity. and is that a safe form of energy?

Is a box of matches safe?
Is a Mercedes safe? As long as it is nice and clean and driving slowly on a road with schoolchildren crossing you maybe will believe so.

1. some rowdy will break off the Merccedes star for a necklace
2. A sleeping truck drive will crash into it from the side on a wet motorway.
3. A distributed attack such as explosive
4. Someone steals it

Same with NPP- before the incidents many people were inclined to believe and even to promote it is safe, clean and cheap.

There have been a lot of smaller incidents all the time actually.

On Wikipedia, you get a lof of nuclear information. you will see there is not just "NPP", not, but many many different technological approaches such as FBR, Gas cooled, Thorium balls, Sodium (one in Japan pretty much a grave for billions almost never worked).

Submarines Reactors always have been notorious for premature problems etc.

I still believe NPP could be safe and clean, but it would take double of investments to make them REALLY reasonably safe.

Instead a differential equotation is used how to minimize the amounts of specialized and expensive alloy and amalgamate with other, less durable alloys (just one example).

Radiation itself puts a lot big lot of wear on the components no matter what, so it is really hard to make a NPP totally safe.

Most modern technologies such as molten sodium or FBR always had leaks and failures, almost to say, never worked as intended so far.

The french have mothballed Superphenix- too expensive.

Ask your Westighouse Representative if any questions (Yes all newly NPPs built by them will be very safe and use 72% less some kind of concrete and 54% less cabling with expensive non-flammable insulation).

there is no easy yes/no answer at all.

In Japan, a considerable amount of people actually demands "no more nukes". Because it actually failed.

There was one more NPP complex in Japan, which only had one pump system surviving. How comes it is so hard to keep some stupid diesels upto standards? Cust cost too much?

With some good will you can make onsite power backup almost foolproof- but no- open air battery banks.

That burned out at Fukushima- Not a nice photo actually. Not the stuff you want to see at all.

 

Woah, here we go again.

It is hard to keep 'some stupid diesel engines' running when they have been thrown about and buried by a tsunami.

It is very easy to sit back and criticise. How many power plants have you designed?

I implore people to find statistics for the number of dead from direct cause of the Fukushima disaster. Then compare them to the number dead from direct cause of the Tsunami.

 

Woah, here we go again.

It is hard to keep 'some stupid diesel engines' running when they have been thrown about and buried by a tsunami.

It is very easy to sit back and criticise. How many power plants have you designed?

I implore people to find statistics for the number of dead from direct cause of the Fukushima disaster. Then compare them to the number dead from direct cause of the Tsunami.

1. Yes that is correct. However, at the other plants, they were not knocked out by the Tsunami.

If you allow a joking question- why not put these on the roof where the SFP is in these MARK reactors?

2. I don't just criticize. I am actually not against Nuclear because it preserves fossils. Well...one accident every 100000 years, multiply with # of reactors and you see this number is not far off so much. Maths a schoolboy can do. But the isolated and specialized differential maths guy apparently has difficulty seeing the greater picture.

There are some scientists who aren't totally specialized and out-of-this world otherwise but it's the exception, not the rule.
The original design team for the MARK actually uttered concerns to a degree they did not want the design like it was built.

Well well...who can picture the early 1970s now- James Bond and VHS just on the horizon. No internet. People were much much more naive.

2.1 I sleep with ores since recently. And out of curiosity, I have researched a lot of technology websites not just nuclear. One time I ordered a free CDROM from Areva.

I could totally give guidance to improve security. but in reality doing safety tests is not easy- it is a high risk itself, takes time, and is expensive. Tough, most reactors are upgraded a lot during their useful service life.

3. That is like Bill Gates comparig War Deaths with Disease deaths- it is only a small fraction. He is actually right.

That does not justify these conflicts whatshowever.

Radiation also is no instant death but at times, years of trouble with cancers. And it is uncontrolled, invisible, there is no good protection.

3.1 Tell this to people from Ukraine or Mayak actually suffering.

4. As I say, there is no easy yes/no answer or justification. I don't claim a justification pro or against at all.

I only write it as I perceive it.

OT - How long does radiation persist- similar. there is no easy answer. As I wrote, minimize exposure as much as possible. If there is a radiation hotspot it won't be so good for food production for quite a long while.

Maybe superbugs are a threat looming in 20 years with much more impact. Brass doorknobs help but on chrome steel they can survive for days. Simple. No bug can withstand copper oxides.

So, brass door knobs and handles can do a lot- simple approach for improvement here. If there is a smear on a glassdoor or handle visible in a public building, you should be very afraid of that. Carry tissues and handle it with a tissue + dispose it + wash your hands with plain water.

You see I am realist- not extremist or paranoid.

 

with the three cores that went into melt down at fukushima -
1. are these meltdowns similar to atomic bombs going off or slow atomic bombs?
2. If they are similar to a bomb or slow bomb, do they have more or less radio activity than a normal nuclear bomb?
3. How long does it take for them to completely melt down?
4. And when they have melted down are they in the same state as the used rods stored in the pools?

 

What's a "slow bomb"?

No, melt downs are not similar to atomic bombs going off.

Try reading the following -- and studying and following the links in the references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

 

I got the bomb bit from this article -
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-a-global-threat-that-requires-a-global-response/5355480
How dangerous are these fuel rods? Harvey Wasserman explains that the fuel rods are clad in zirconium which can ignite if they lose coolant. They could also ignite or explode if rods break or hit each other. Wasserman reports that some say this could result in a fission explosion like an atomic bomb, others say that is not what would happen, but agree it would be “a reaction like we have never seen before, a nuclear fire releasing incredible amounts of radiation,” says Wasserman.

Does any know if the general content of this article is accurate as I have given it to an feature writer for a high street news paper.

 

Hi, if it's written by a journalist, it is most likely going to have some twist to it, or be untruthful.

Zirconium is highly inflammable as a powder, but as a solid (which cover fuel rods) it is not.

What Mr Wasserman believes, is in fact the result of the reaction of Zirconium with water at high temperatures. The Zirconium and water makes Zirconium oxide (I think) and hydrogen, which is the inflammable part.

A secondary school understanding of nuclear physics would make it perfectly clear that there would not be anything like a nuclear bomb. It is just as probable as farting apples.

Basically, do not believe anything you see in the news. I'm not saying become paranoid, but take it all with a pinch of salt. The only source you can really trust to some degree is academic papers. Even then, mistakes are made.

Remember too that new articles are not there to feed you news, they are there to make money. What headline do you think would sell more papers? The honest:

Breaking News: Zirconium used in Fukushima reacts with heated cooling water to produce Zirconium Oxide and Hydrogen, the latter being the cause of some exothermic reactions.

Or the sensational:

Breaking News: Fukushima's Nuclear Bomb!

It's like a game of Chinese whispers. The facts get more distorted and sensationalised by each person/article that reports it.

 

I got the bomb bit from this article -
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-a-global-threat-that-requires-a-global-response/5355480
How dangerous are these fuel rods? Harvey Wasserman explains that the fuel rods are clad in zirconium which can ignite if they lose coolant. They could also ignite or explode if rods break or hit each other. Wasserman reports that some say this could result in a fission explosion like an atomic bomb, others say that is not what would happen, but agree it would be “a reaction like we have never seen before, a nuclear fire releasing incredible amounts of radiation,” says Wasserman.

Does any know if the general content of this article is accurate as I have given it to an feature writer for a high street news paper.

I would not put much credence in anything spouted by Harvey Wasserman. He is a hard-core anti-nuclear activist with a long history of making dire claims and predictions that don't bear out. In my opinion, he's nothing but a sensationalist and propagandist who neither knows nor cares to know any actual information about the topic he pontificates on.

 

In the article he mentions there are about 11000 used rods on the site. Is this accurate or normal?
I always had thought they were taken off to a more secure location?

 

when the fuel rods in a reactor go nuclear, they just produce a lot of heat, and over the cause of about a week they mely downwards, even making their way through concrete.

A bomb explosion is the immediate release of all the energy. It must be contained in an encasing, and triggered with explosives.

When the explosion are not controlled to some microseconds, the explosion power is reduced to 1/20 or so.

In a bomb the material is also highly concentrated.

 

there is some kind of relationship between the used rods and bombs or nuclear power stations and bombs as many people don't want certain countries to have nuclear power as it enables them to have a bomb?

 

Yes and no.

In order to run a reactor, you need refined fuel. The exact kind of fuel and the level of refinement depends on the reactor.

In order to make a bomb, you need refined fuel. The exact kind of fuel and the level of refinement depends on the bomb.

In general, refining fuel to the point that it is "weapons grade" requires a lot more work using significantly more sophisticated processes and equipment. But that is not always the case. So being able to process fuel for some types of reactors can leave you well short of being able to produce weapons-grade fuel.

But this is not always the case and some reactors, by their nature and design, actually produce weapons-grade (or nearly so) fuel as a byproduct of operation. These are known as "breeder reactors" and those you definitely want to limit the proliferation of.

 

I have some random thoughts about fissionable material.

Why are there two major sources of uranium in the world, one on the east slope of the Cascades in Washington and Oregon, and the other on the north slope of the Himalayas? The fissionable material sneaks up through the 150 miles thick crust of the earth through faults between two tectonic plates at these locations.

Does that mean there's a lot of this stuff down there in the liquid core of the earth? You bet your life it does! Hundreds of millions of tons! It floats on the surface of the iron and nickel core because it is less dense.

Where did it come from? It was created by the giant stars which went supernova and exploded in the early universe. Those stars pushed sub-atomic particles together and created the biggest atoms that would stick together. Those atoms are now spontaneously splitting in an attempt to get all the way down to carbon-14. They release energy when they split. That energy was supplied by the giant early stars.

Does that mean that most of the atoms bigger than carbon and the result of fission? Yep! You and I are nuclear waste. All the salts which we depend on to make our nervous systems work are probably the result of the splitting of bigger atoms.

How can we get rid of this stuff? The only safe way to get rid of it would be to use Dick Tracy's magnetic air car to launch it into a trajectory which would take it into the sun. A less satisfactory way to control it would be to dig it up in Washington, truck it to the middle of a tectonic plate and bury it under a deep salt dome. The people in Nevada object to this.

How dangerous is it really? The radiation is not very dangerous unless you insist on building a house on top of a shallow deposit of the ore. You get more radiation from sunbathing. The real danger is in the fission products. When the trans-uranites split they make all sorts of nasty things, like Arsenic and other poisons. They make enough to kill everyone living in Seattle if it gets into the water supply.

Can a nuclear power plant explode? No way! You need a critical mass, about 1 Kg., of very pure uranium or plutonium to explode in a run away fission reaction. It is very hard to make 1 Kg. of uranium stay together, it gets hot, melts and flows away. To make a bomb you machine it into pie wedges and blast them together at high speed using explosive charges. Fuel rods are manufactured by adding a tiny pebble of uranium then adding a pound of sand, then another pebble of uranium. If the rod gets hot enough the sand will melt around the pebbles of uranium and keep them separated.

So what should we do?

1. Design nuclear power plants so that tsunamis and earthquakes won't disturb the reactor core and so that redundant emergency generators won't get flooded.

2. Re-process the spent fuel rods so they can be used again.

3. Bury the irradiated waste material under a salt dome.

4. Don't go sunbathing.

What is this irradiated material? That's stuff that emits radiation but is not of itself radioactive. It's like a hot cast iron kitchen stove after the fire has gone out. It will burn you but it's not on fire.

Why don't people understand this stuff? Because our failing schools are not teaching it, and because high schoolers won't take Physics because they are afraid it will make their heads hurt. Then some well educated social scientists who never took Physics start fear mongering and make the situation even worse.

Just some random thoughts from a guy with a PhD in Physics.

PaulL

 

Those were great thoughts thank you, very informative.
What is happening at sellafield reprocessing plant?
I had thought the waste material was being made into weapons grade plutonium or uranium? or is it being reprocessed for use in reactors again?

 

...
Does that mean there's a lot of this stuff down there in the liquid core of the earth? You bet your life it does! Hundreds of millions of tons! It floats on the surface of the iron and nickel core because it is less dense.
...
Just some random thoughts from a guy with a PhD in Physics.
...

You're a physics expert?

Why would you think uranium is less dense than iron and nickel when it is one of the heaviest metals?

And if you are talking about the lighter uranium ORE, that is a crust product and will not exist deep inside the earth where the "iron core" resides...

 

You're a physics expert?

Why would you think uranium is less dense than iron and nickel when it is one of the heaviest metals?

And if you are talking about the lighter uranium ORE, that is a crust product and will not exist deep inside the earth where the "iron core" resides...

When you say uranium ore is a crust product - does that mean it is some how created in the crust rather than already being part of the earth when it was still in a molten state?

 

This will be my last post on this matter.

Lotus, there are a lot of things said about nuclear power, radiation, etc, etc which is deliberately intended to scare and which has not scientific basis.

Certain types of Uranium has a half life of about 4.5 billion years - which means that when the earth formed, there was twice as much radiation just from Uranium as there is today. Yet with all the radioactive elements, at higher levels of radioactivity, life still somehow managed to survive. Funny eh?

Yet when man decides to dig it up, it suddenly becomes this deadly hot potato. We have been using refined Uranium for years, yellow cake. Take a look at the picture I attached. That is two guys, and a barrel full of Uranium. Amazed how they aren't dead?

Use google earth to see the site around Chernobyl - the worst nuclear disaster in history. As you can see, all life has been wiped out for hundreds of miles. Oh wait, no it isn't. Indeed, levels are currently no higher than what you'd be exposed to on a plane.

Just seriously use science and common sense.

Sparky

 

Let me say from the out-set that I am a supporter of nuclear power, in fact I have worked on a nuclear power station. However, in response to Sparky49's comments regarding Chernolbyl, I have to point out that there was a significant increase in thyroid cancer as a result of the accident. So yes it was harmful and did kill people many years later. However this was largely due to giving children contaminated milk and if that had not happened then most of these deaths could have been avoided.

What concerns me is that some industries, notably the oil and chemical industries seem to get away with killing people and polluting the environment (Google Bhopal) whilst nuclear is held to a much higher standard and we never seem to forget even small accidents.

I can only suppose this is because the petrol-chemical industries have a huge amount of money to spend on marketing and PR and so can make people forget about their mistakes, whilst nuclear does not have the same resources and influence in government.

 

As uranium is heavier would it tend towards the centre of the earth?
or are there other factors involved in this?
for instance this molten mass could have rivers and flows within it where every thing gets mixed?
or as uranium becomes molten does its mass becomes less?

 

Going off topic for the moment, it is important that one be careful with the use of scientific terminology.

Mass and weight are not the same.

Mass is a measure of the number of atoms (more precisely, number of protons and neutrons). Hence the mass of an object is independent of gravity. The mass of a body is the same in outer space as it is on earth.

Weight is a measure of the effect of gravity on the mass. Hence the weight of an object will differ at different locations on earth.

The question you are asking is "Is the density of molten uranium less than that of solid uranium?". The answer is yes. Density is a measure of mass per unit volume. The mass does not change. Typically when the temperature is increased the volume of the object also increases. There are exceptions of which water below 4°C is the most common.

With regards to the earth's molten core, extreme pressure has to be considered. This will tend to reduce the volume and hence increase the density.