Fast Nuclear Reactors: An Inexhaustible Source of Energy?

[Lars77]

Run time: 04:02 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXmHrC7kpis   Posted on YouTube: March 09, 2011 By YouTube Member: ForaTv Views on YouTube: 201   Posted on DU: March 09, 2011 By DU Member: Lars77 Views on DU: 1312

 

[Zoeisright]

1. So let's see. That's 7 billion golf balls, and 7 billion coke cans.

And that number increases exponentially every day. And the waste (which adds up to BILLIONS of pounds, since each coke can holds 12 ounces) lasts for 300 years, about 10 generations.

Epic. FAIL.

[AlbertCat]

2. An Inexhaustible Source of Energy?

No.

[Lars77]

3. Dubious title

I guess what he's saying is that he can make them more efficient. But it's not a final solution.

[JDPriestly]

4. Solar energy is far safer.

I worry about the changes that might happen to society during the time period that it would take for the uranium, even from these new, improved reactors, to become safe.

Imagine a society a hundred years from now that has fallen into disorder, in which science is no longer understood. How would the people remaining on the earth be able to deal with the hot spots containing nuclear waste?

We owe it to our descendants generations, hundreds of years from now (and they may be very few) to avoid poisoning the earth with even small amounts of nuclear waste.

Coal is horrible too.

Solar is the best solution along with some wind for certain uses.

We have no right to inflict the dangers of nuclear waste on our descendants one or two hundred years from now.

We have problems with lead contamination dating back to our Revolutionary War.

The problem with nuclear waste could be far worse for people who may have fewer resources than we do. Nuclear energy is a great toy for nuclear physicists, but for most of human kind, it is a silent, unseen, lurking killer.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Solar Power is Nuclear Power ;)

[humbled_opinion]

6. True

I also prefer fission to take place 93 million miles away from the planet earth, where it belongs.

[JDPriestly]

9. Without the afterlife of radium.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Ah, but someday it will destroy our entire planet.

Not quickly though, our sun isn't massive enough to nova, if I recall correctly. Our fate is a slow purge by a swelling red giant. As the sun loses mass, the planets will spiral outward a bit, but not fast enough before the outer shell of the expanding sun catches it, and collision with the sun's particles slows the earth's orbit, and it falls into the sun's core.

Personally, I prefer the fate of the reactors within a 50 mile radius of Seattle. When we're done, we bury it. Done. Can't bury the sun, yo.

[JDPriestly]

13. The sun will do what it will do. We can't stop the damage it will

cause to the earth. We can stop the damage that nuclear material does to the earth, and I favor stopping nuclear reactors.

Solar energy will not affect the rate at which the sun loses mass.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. The earth IS radioactive molten rock..

There are practical storage solutions for nuclear waste. This is a silly debate.

[JDPriestly]

15. What are the practical storage solutions for nuclear waste?

I haven't heard of any.

[swilton]

7. It's not just the waste with nuclear energy

It's also the issue of security - necessitating high centralization of power structures and control -

Solar power is just the opposite - can be decentralized and ownership is diffused - which is why solar (as well as wind power) as sources of energy are so unpopular with the empowered elites in control of our planet.

[Mybrokenchains]

8. solar, wind and hydropower....fission always gonna be a slow poison

it would be great if we could get enough money into fusion programs to get them to work.......
better yet lets get skip a few technologic magnitudes ahead and sap energy direct from the void between alternate realities! gah!

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. True enough, but

we can run a lot of our residential crap on solar and wind. There's no magic/downside there. But for industry, ah yes, for that we need much much more. Nuclear and hydro can carry most of the load in the US if we get serious. Both generate significant carbon during construction, but run relatively clean after that, given the stockpiles of nuclear fuel available.

[Crowman1979]

16. Well once they get this mirror solution figured out, then solar power will be generating a lot more.

[Charleston Chew]

17. Japan Declares "Nuclear Emergency Situation" 11.03.11

Nuclear plant unable to cool itself, situation critical.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x561766

[forty6]

18. SO SAFE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YEAH !!!! And the proponents of Nuke energy

go merrily on their lobbying way, promoting something that has been shown to fail catastrophically AT LEAST THREE TIMES in 50 years!

[Crowman1979]

19. Well if that doesn't kill the pro-nuclear power arguments, I don't know what will.

Now if it had been a solar power plant with reflecting mirrors or wind towers, all you would have to worry about is a few people going blind or getting a limb severed.