Chart Wondering what those radiation numbers mean on
TV? What is your actual risk and danger from radioactive
fallout? Check out this chart from XKCD.
Radioactive Orchestra Making Music With Radiation ,
posted by KSUinformation (YouTube link) Nuclear radiation
can make catchy music.
Network shows current radiation levels in North
America, updated every minute.
Black Gold, Hot Gold,
by Marshall Douglas Smith (2001). Is it really true that
the fuel for nuclear reactors can be recycled, and that
Europe has no "nuclear waste" problem? And that the current
scare about nuclear waste is due to the Oil Industry? This
article was convincing enough to convert Ralph Rene, a
life-long foe of nuclear power!
Great Global Warming Swindle (BBC Video
Documentary,2007)Was the whole global warming scare a
counter-strike by the Nuclear industry to fight back
against the Oil industry? Or was it just a Big Government
play to crush the power of the Coal Miners unions by
boosting Nuclear? Watch this video and decide for yourself.
But read "Black Gold, Hot Gold" first!
NUKALERT 24/7 Radiation
Monitor and Alarm is a geiger counter that WORKS really
well. It can even survive a nuclear blast. And it is VERY
reasonably priced. . Set your mind at ease by KNOWING what
is going on around you. Don't worry about invisible nuclear
Toshiba 4S Nuclear Reactor There were stories about a
Toshiba nuclear reactor small (and cheap) enough to power a
city block. Sadly, this isn't true. It is a nice idea being
able to helicopter such power generators into remote
communities. However, Toshiba is designing a very small,
safe, efficient reactor, the 4S. 4S stands for Super-Small,
Safe, Simple. It looks like a great product!
The Forgotten Promise of Thorium, by Karl Denninger. Via
We experimented with Thorium as a nuclear fuel in the 1950s and 1960s. Carried in a molten salt there are a number of significant advantages to this fuel cycle. Chief among them is that the reactors operate at atmospheric pressure, have a strongly-negative temperature coefficient (that is, reactivity drops as temperature increases) and because they operate with their fuel dispersed in the coolant and rely on a fixed moderator in the reaction vessel shutting them down is simply a matter of draining the working fuel into a tank with sufficient surface area to dissipate decay heat. This can be accomplished passively; active cooling of a freeze plug in the bottom of the reactor vessel can be employed during normal operation and if for any reason that cooling is lost the plug melts, the coolant and working fluid drains to tanks and the reactor shuts down. In addition thorium is about as abundant in the environment as is lead, making its supply effectively infinite.
Finally, these reactors operate at a much higher temperature; the units we have run (yes, we've built them experimentally in the 1950s - 1970s!) run in the neighborhood of 650C. This allows closed-cycle turbine systems that are more efficient than the conventional turbines in existing designs, making practical the location of reactors in places that don't have large amounts of water available. That in turn means that the risk of geological and other similar accidents (e.g. tsunamis!) is greatly reduced or eliminated. Finally, the fuel cycle is mostly-closed internally; that is, rather than requiring both fast-breeder reactors and external large-scale reprocessing plants to be practical, along with a way to store a lot of high-level waste these units burn up most of their high-level waste internally and produce their own fuel internally as well as an inherent part of their operation.
So why didn't we pursue this path for nuclear power?
That's simple: It is entirely-unsuitable for production of nuclear bombs as it produces negligible amounts of plutonium.
I've seen similar information on the Internet before. But I haven't posted it here before, because of counter-arguments like this, found in the comments section of Karl's article:
The reason the US (and other countries) has a large stockpile of U-233 is the same reason (one of several) as to why enriched U-235 was used for nuclear power instead of the Thorium cycle.
The process of creating U-233, when produced from Th-232, creates an impurity in a nasty isotope of Uranium, U-232. U-232 is a very nasty isotope, and is the cause why U-233 was not used for weapons or power plants in the first place.
Overcoming the problem of U-232 is going to be one of the more expensive scaling costs of LFTR technology. It is possible to get rid of the continuum of U-232 impurities, but I'm afraid it isn't going to be cheap or easy. LFTR enthusiasts keep overlooking this problem as a minor fuel production issue, but the day has come for someone to come up with a valid, scaled up and tested production answer or the LFTR cycle will not be a viable process.
Age sometimes is an advantage in understanding. Although it is journalistically interesting and certainly exciting for those who find joy in discovering a long held US secret, the fact is that the adoption of enriched uranium light water reactors was never about creating a source for nuclear weapons material. It was just a statement of the limitation of our knowledge and computation capabilities at the time combined with the primary intended use of nuclear power.
The fact is that in the course of the Manhattan project effort one of the technical by-products was the scientific and engineering detailed data of enriched U-235 plus the basics for a design of a light water reactor. In addition, the primary initial use of nuclear power plants was to be for US Navy submarine use, and in those days it was expected that dumping at sea the refuse of a light water enriched U-235 reactor would be just fine (which BTW the Russians did).
WW2 had just ended, we knew the costs of the Manhattan project, knowledge of radiation protection and its effects was in its infancy and materials science and computing were really still nascent when it came to nuclear science and engineering. Going for a new technology like the Thorium cycle would have been arguably a huge cost that the nation, just finishing up with the Manhattan project, couldn't afford, and we also didn't know the true cost radiation effects and disposal with the U-235 cycle.
After the Navy work at ORNL and Idaho Falls, we had a prototype. As far as the power industry was concerned, why pay for an investment in a new process like the Thorium cycle which still has problems like U-232 when you could just do an extrapolation of the current Navy light water propulsion reactors and just build that instead?
The answer was it was cheaper to extrapolate what you knew than invest in inventing something new, not something nefarious as some would propose. In any case, the Hydrogen bomb made the question of the need for uranium except for triggers a mute question. Uranium and Plutonium did come back into vogue in weapons design in the late 70's at the height of nuclear battlefield weapons, but even then the yields of those weapons were never that good and the neutronic bomb (more publicly known as the neutron bomb took us back full circle, so to speak.
In 1972, the American Nuclear Society has a long frank and private (secret) discussion on this very subject. I, as a student of Al Sesonske and Sam Glasstone, two of the premiere early power plant designers, attended the event. I can remember very clearly first hand that everyone was surprised when someone brought up the fact that light water enriched uranium power plants would be a source for nuclear weapons. Even Admiral Rickover stated in the meeting as I recall in his famed acidic way: "Nice by-product, but we already had too much weapons material. Why get additional commercial sources that could be unreliable? That's stupid. All I wanted was the Nautilus and we got it quickly after we proved the plant would work at Shippingport and all you guys in the power industry wanted was the cheapest already tested design!"....and I heard that personally, folks. End of story as far as I'm concerned.
I am in favor of the Thorium cycle, but I believe it is not yet technical ready for prime time because of scaling issues and issues like U-232.
I don't know which side is right. Only a few people in the world have enough specialized knowledge of nuclear technology to say one way or the other. It sure would be exciting if the Thorium people are right. A few months ago, a fellow named Jim Stone was saying that the Thorium cycle can combine with the regular nuclear reactor technology to completely eliminate nuclear waste. Who knows.
Feature: Small modular nuclear reactors - the future of
energy?, by David Szondy.
"This year is a historic one for nuclear power, with
the first reactors winning U.S. government approval for
construction since 1978. Some have seen the green
lighting of two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors to be built
in Georgia as the start of a revival of nuclear power in
the West, but this may be a false dawn because of the
problems besetting conventional reactors. It may be that
when a new boom in nuclear power comes, it won't be led
by giant gigawatt installations, but by batteries of
small modular reactors (SMRs) with very different
principles from those of previous generations. However,
while it's a technology of great diversity and potential,
many obstacles stand in its path. This article takes an
in-depth look at the many forms of SMRs, their
advantages, and the challenges they must overcome."
Interesting article. Did you know that Russian
light-houses are powered by RTFs? (Radio-thermal
generators) The radio thermal generator is a type of
nuclear reactor that uses natural radioactive decay to
power a simple thermoelectric generator. It can produce at
most, two kilowatts.
There are a lot of different Small Modular Reactors in
production, use, and development. The future is very bright
and exciting for safe and cheap nuclear power. My favorite,
the salt reactor, is discussed:
In this type of SMR, the coolant and the fuel are one
in the same. The coolant is a mixture of lithium and
beryllium fluoride salts. In this is dissolved a fuel,
which can be enriched uranium, thorium or U-233. This
molten salt solution passes at relatively low pressure
and a temperature of 1,300 degrees F (700 degrees C)
through a graphite moderator core. As the fuel burns, the
waste products are removed from the solution and fresh
fuel is added.
One of the commenters had this to say:
VoiceofReason - February 16, 2012 @ 08:21 am
One thing you didn't mention about Flibe's molten salt
reactor is that it runs at atmospheric pressure
(basically). That is a huge improvement in safety. Also,
there is no hydrogen buildup possible or any other
combustibles so explosions leading to the dispersion of
radioactive particles is eliminated.
Since the fuel is in a molten salt, if the core did
rupture, the salt would leak out and solidify (possibly
even plugging the hole and stopping the leak).