Peaceful atom smashing. Not at all limited to -- policy (economics, regulation, spent fuel, weapons proliferation, diplomacy); tech (thorium, reprocessing, 4th generation reactors); applications (synthetic chemical fuels, desalination, marine propulsion, medical and industrial isotopes, spacecraft).
So, let me first say that I'm not exactly against nuclear power. I used to live about 30 miles from a nuclear reactor in Ohio, and I felt reasonably safe. I never really worried that the reactor was going to melt down.
That said, I've become kind of concerned that in the last 5-10 years I've seen a lot of bizarrely pro-nuclear people saying things that seem patently false. In particular, I've been told that the risk of nuclear waste is essentially zero. One Redditor told me that nuclear waste is so safe and low-radiation that I could literally eat it for breakfast and be perfectly fine. He linked me to some video where a guy kisses a barrel of nuclear waste to prove that it's completely safe to be around.
This feels like a stunt, and I'm skeptical that it really proves anything.
That said, other people have given me more theoretical arguments for why nuclear waste is perfectly safe. This is one I'm paraphrasing that I've been told a few times:
"The thing about radiation is, you have to remember that it's measured in half-lives. That means that after a half-time time, half of that radioactive material is gone. It's decayed into something else. So when people tell you that Chernobyl will be radioactive for the next 50,000 years, that's a GOOD thing. You WANT it to be radioactive for as long as it can be, because that means it's safe because it decays so slowly. The longer it's going to be radioactive, the safer it is. If you have a half-life that's 1 second, that's dangerous. But the good thing is, it's only dangerous for like, 1 minute. After that, so much has decayed that it's broken down into stuff with a half-life of 50,000 years and now it's harmless.
So, radioactive materials are completely safe by the laws of physics. If they're dangerous enough to hurt you, they decay too fast to be a danger. Just wait like a week, and the radiation is gone. And if they have a half-life of 50,000 years, then you're totally safe because they emit so little radiation that you would need to live to be 5,000 years old to get even a mild dose of radiation. Any way you look at it, you're going to be fine."
As evidence, they point out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities where people live, work, raise kids, etc., and you would never know there were nuclear weapons detonated. They also point out that Chernobyl is now a thriving nature preserve, ironically with more wildlife and a stronger ecology than any other area in Ukraine or Belarus. They say that if you measure by the number of wild plants and animals living in the area, the Chernobyl disaster was actually the best possible thing that could've happened to the area.
Further, Redditors often tell me things that storage of nuclear waste is a non-issue that's only caused by tree-hugging liberals, and the truth is that if we just straight up dumped it into the ocean, it would be perfectly safe because water absorbs radiation so well that you could dump all of the nuclear waste of a reactor into the nearest lake, ocean, etc., and nobody could even tell it was there. There would be no biological effect, no radiation, literally nothing.
This all feels like... somewhere between hyperbole and outright lies. I just want to know, what's the truth? Is nuclear waste dangerous if improperly stored? Could I actually eat it for breakfast? Could I make bricks out of it and build a house and live my entire life inside a nuclear waste house, and never get sick? Could we just dump it in the ocean with no detrimental side-effects to marine life? Is Chernobyl actually a wilderness paradise now?
I can't seem to get a straight answer about this in other subreddits, so I'm hoping somebody can help me. Is it true that nuclear waste is harmless for all practical purposes?
Is it possible? I’ve been a chemical operator for the past 9 years, with a very short stint in a ethanol plant.
My local nuke plant is hiring for equipment operator to go through their schooling. I know a couple electricians at this place and they said I should apply.
Any advice for becoming an equipment operator?
Mostly looking for ideas on fusion and cold fusion.
Marking a major inflection point amidst the nuclear resurgence and high spot prices, the US and UK will be leading a pledge at the COP28 climate summit to triple nuclear power by 2050. Calling on the World Bank and other financial institutions to include nuclear energy in their lending policies, the aim is to increase the amount of installed nuclear power globally: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-14/us-uk-to-push-pledge-to-triple-nuclear-power-by-2050-at-cop28
Poised for significant growth as the nuclear energy market develops, Kraken Energy (UUSA.c UUSAF) has commenced the inaugural drill program at its 100% owned, past-producing flagship Apex Uranium Property!
Apex was Nevada's largest past-producing uranium mine with a 17.5km mineralized trend which produced over 100,000 pounds of U3O8 in the 1950s at an average mining grade of ~0.25% U3O8. Historic drilling results include results of up to 3.1 m (10 ft) at 1.33% U3O8, 34.1 m (112 ft) at 0.37% U3O8 and 15.2 m (50 ft) at 0.51% U3O8
The 2,200m drilling program is targeting a mineralized area over 2km in strike length and will consist of 24 holes from 8 pads to test the high-priority targets immediately northwest and along trend of the historic mine, coinciding with geophysical signatures outlining the mineralized contact.
UUSA CEO Matthew Schwab commented:
"With radon anomalies now over 5 times larger than the footprint of the Apex Mine, our team is confident in the priority targets outlined for this maiden drilling program on the property."
This news follows UUSA's significant expansion of the Apex Property on Nevada Bureau of Land Management ground that covers the potential northwest extension of uranium mineralization from the mine, as well as the identification of multiple high-priority drill targets comprising coincident geophysical and radon anomalies along a 2.0km trend northwest of the Apex Mine and within the newly expanded BLM ground
Posted on behalf of Kraken Energy Corp
I'm writing an essay on nuclear power and im just wondering how credible WNA is, I am reading an article from them and there seems to be no author or studies cited for the claims they are making, has there ever been an issue with their credibility before?
Even though Nuclear Power is more expensive compared to other sources, why do you think there hasn’t been much innovation to bring prices down? As a mechanical engineer, It’s only normal to assume that over decades nuclear power would become cheaper but has proved to be literally the opposite. Do you think this has been purposely orchestrated by the big fossil fuel companies so they keep on churning?
It would roughly take 450 GW Reactors to power the whole US, which when you come to think it seems achievable since we have around 90 operating.
Any suggestions on how to fund (raise money) building new npp both full size (1500MW) and SMR. My suggestion would be stockmarket and a discount on energyprice. Remember a npp will run for 60y. Thus the expected powerprice is of interest. But today to my knowledge all power sources are treated equal incl. Wind & solar. There should be a differentation as to baseload and 24/7 availability.
I've been reading about the DOEs project to downblend their U233 stockpile and I have a couple questions for anyone who may know.
What long term format is the U233 in? Solid? Liquid? What molecule? I always assumed it was solid but the DOE videos suggest maybe its all liquid drums, ehich surprised me. But maybe that's after an interim step...?
What was the original source(s) of this vast U233 stockpile? I know Thorium's cycle, when bred, leads to U233 but I don't think the limited US use of Thorium breeding can account for the large U233 stockpile... So is it just a significant part of the fissionable waste coming off Hanford style Plutonium production? If so, how did/does that work? Since it's uranium, one would be faced with separating it from the other isotopes and I can't imagine they wanted to do isotope sorting on waste grade uranium. So where did it come from, and how was it got?
Hoping someone has any real info on this. Thanks!
So I understand nuclear power is just steam power with fission suplying the heat, but I noticed they were almost always on the coast. I learned that they use the ocean as a heat sink esentially to cool everything after the power is gemerated. My question is, would it be possible to build a massive system of like sewage sized pipes to use as a kind of closed water cooling heat sink that also heats the town above it?
From the recent Australian ANA conference on the economics of nuclear power
Mainly focused on Australian flawed CSIRO report with some really good talking points and slides
I was just offered a job from a company that travels the US working on motor operated valves. I would be working 4-6 months out of the year at different nuclear plants with about a week between stints. It's a full time position, not contracted, so I would be receiving benefits regardless of whether or not I was working.
Everything about it interests me, but I am just unsure about the schedule as I have never worked like that before. The idea of having winters and summers off is intriguing though I must say.
Since I am a bit clueless on the topic, I was hoping someone could provide some insight as to what it's like working outages.
How does the schedule affect your relationships? Family, friends, partners, etc.
Is working in a nuclear power plant really as cool as it sounds? (It's always interested me)
For when you're gone working, how is life 'on the road'? What does it entail for someone who doesn't own a camper?
Any insight is greatly appreciated :)
Will there ever be another large LWR build in the United States after the massive cost and schedule overruns at Vogtle 3&4 and the cancellation of Summer 2&3? With AP1000 builds planned for countries such as Poland, Bulgaria, and Ukraine, why does it not make sense to build in the U.S. as well?
While most every country with current nuclear power generation is looking at SMR’s, they all seem to also be pursuing large builds as well. What will it take for this to happen in the U.S. again?
In my mind, the economies of scale large light water reactors bring to the table can’t be ignored. But then, I don’t know a whole lot so that’s why I hope some of you all with more experience can comment on this.