Ask X about Nuclear Power

[Exsubmariner]

Alright, what do you want to know?

This thread will be slow to unfold as it will probably take a long time for me to give detailed answers. I will try to provide sources for every answer I give. Don't get too specific or technical, I do not know everything and it is a deep field.

[iron81]

Would it be a good idea for the US to generate the majority of its electrical power from nuclear energy?

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Would it be a good idea for the US to generate the majority of its electrical power from nuclear energy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is, of course, a matter of opinion based on who you ask. Since you are asking me, I will tell you that the simple answer is yes.

The reasons why are slightly more complicated. Doing things right is of course very integral to making it work and we could learn a lot from the French. A wiki link with a bit of info and resources.

Basically the French have one model reactor which they reproduce again and again. This has several advantages. First, economy. It is easy to produce replacement parts on a large scale for 50 + identical reactors than it is for a single one of a kind plant. In the US, reactors are built on a site by site basis by different companies who use different designs who are overseen by different agencies according to what state they are in.

The second is that with a single design, it is easier to perform trend analysis from an engineering standpoint. This means that as the first reactors age, flaws can be spotted and corrective actions or modifications can be implemented in newer plants. Again, since each is the same, it is economical to do so and makes for a safer industry.

Third, the political infrastructure in France is all for Nuclear Power. Here in America, it is a political football with all kinds of mis and disinformation put out by all kinds of parties with all kinds of interests.

Designs exist today for reactors which can be constructed to last for 100 years which, by design, would be immune to meltdown and could withstand a jumbo jet crashing into them. If the US could standardize the industry, these reactors could provide cheap, clean, and reliable power for many many years.

[MrWookie]

These safe reactors you speak of, how much waste would they put out, and just how harmful is it?

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
These safe reactors you speak of, how much waste would they put out, and just how harmful is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is, as with most things, it depends. One of the reasons that Nuclear waste is such a problem is that the US has an "open" fuel cycle.

This means that basically all the material coming out of used cores has to be disposed of. Again, this could be avoided with proper planning. If the fuel cycle was closed, much of the spent fuel could be reprocessed into plutonium and used again, eventually becoming lead.

Another factor which effects the amount of waste is the specific design of a fuel cell. Once again, with the correct design, a cell could be created to last a very long time. If other options are not practical, the reactor containment area could be filled in with concrete and the spent fuel could simply remain inside its vessel and another reactor could be built right next door.

The reasons for nuclear waste being such a big deal in the US is the roughshod way the Department of Energy has allowed things to develop here, without real centralized control. I point to France, once again, who uses a closed fuel cycle and doesn't have the problems with waste that we do, as they have planned for it and incorporated proper handling and disposal into their program, as an example of how to do things properly.

As for the harmful part, there is much debate on the biological effects of radioactive contamination in the evironment. Radioactive iodine, for instance, will accumulate in the thyroid gland of the human body and will damage it, leading to thyroid cancer. This is why you see everyone swallowing iodine pills in the movies. That is, of course not the only contaminate out there, but one of many, so iodine pills are only useful to a limited degree. Other types of contamination, plutonium, for instance will kill you virtually instantly if injested. Other types, like the polonium that was used on that Russian spy recently will kill you within weeks.

There is a school of thought out there, however, which states that a little radioactivity in the environment is a good thing. People, and life in general, evolved in an environment with much higher levels of radiation. The theory goes that a little damage being constantly done by radiation exposure to the body overall stimulates the regenerative processes in the body, actually making you healthier.

It is important to understand the difference between contamination and the effects of the substances which can constitute it and radiation that results from the decay of contamination.

[MrWookie]

Why will plutonium kill you instantly? How does it do it? I had figured that cancer was the typical bringer of death, and that takes quite a while.

Also, I strongly disagree that a little bit of damage is a good thing. We get enough DNA damage from cosmic rays and UV light, in the neighborhood of 10k damage events per day, IIRC, that we don't need any extra. Our DNA repair machinery is working overtime as is.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Why will plutonium kill you instantly? How does it do it? I had figured that cancer was the typical bringer of death, and that takes quite a while.

Also, I strongly disagree that a little bit of damage is a good thing. We get enough DNA damage from cosmic rays and UV light, in the neighborhood of 10k damage events per day, IIRC, that we don't need any extra. Our DNA repair machinery is working overtime as is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plutonium is a heavy metal poison, like mercury. See the toxicity section here. edit: it appears that I am incorrect about it being instantly fatal. I was going off of what I was taught in school. Also, apparently wrong.

It's ok if you disagree with the a-little-radiation-is-a-good-thing idea. A lot of people do. However, the wildlife around Chernobyl don't seem to mind.

I would like to debate the point with you, but I am multitasking other things at the moment. I will say, however, that 10K damage events to an organism per day is not a lot considering that there are literally trillions of cells in the human body. I have no proof or scientific basis, but even doubling or quadrupling that amount on a percentage basis doesn't seem beyond the capability of an organism as complicated as a human to deal with.

[belgianbeerlover]

When are they going to figure out how to use nuclear power to get space shuttles/rockets into outer space?

[MrWookie]

BTW, I understated the damage/day from cosmic rays. It's about 10k/day per cell, not per organism.

[MuresanForMVP]

what percentage of a nuclear weapon's full destructive power have we been able to unlock so far?