biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
That's another technology that hasn't been invented yet. Don't rely on it.michael said:‘Nuclear Fusion’ is the golden nugget we should be looking for not ‘Nuclear Fission’
That's another technology that hasn't been invented yet. Don't rely on it.michael said:‘Nuclear Fusion’ is the golden nugget we should be looking for not ‘Nuclear Fission’
biffvernon said:No we haven't. We've just built a couple of reprocessing plants that don't actually work. At best it could be called a work in progress.wobs said:We have invented reprocessing,
Indeed. Jevron's paradox keeps getting in the way.Isn't the 'green' movement relying on something unproven to achieve their view of the world, i.e. how to persuade the developed world to significantly reduce their energy addiction while simultaneously preventing the developing world increasing theirs? I'm not too confident about relying on that.
As I have already written, we have the technology and know how to dispose of nuclear fuel, and the UK has a number of sites earmarked for just such a method.Even if we do invent/build cleaner reactors we still have over 250,000 tons of highly dangerous radioactive waste that we don't know how to store safely long term.
And lets face it , it may well easily end up at the bottom of the ocean to keep costs down if we cannot afford to keep it.
Radio active waste isn't just for Christmas.
We're not, but we do need to build more nuclear (fission) plants sooner rather than later.Wouldn’t it be sad if we threw all our eggs (and finances) into the nuclear fission basket only to find that our investment quickly becomes old technology?
wobs said:biffvernon said:No we haven't. We've just built a couple of reprocessing plants that don't actually work. At best it could be called a work in progress.wobs said:We have invented reprocessing,
I'll try to remember that the next time I read of how many 1000 tons have already been reprocessed, including fuel for other countries.
Similar tales of woe are available for other reprocessing plants.On 9 May 2005 it was announced that THORP suffered a large leak of a highly radioactive solution, which first started in July 2004. British Nuclear Group's board of inquiry determined that a design error led to the leak, while a complacent culture at the plant delayed detection for nine months. Operations staff did not discover the leak until safeguards staff reported major fluid accountancy discrepancies.
Altogether 83 cubic metres (18,250 imperial gallons) of nitric acid solution leaked from a small fractured feedpipe, which was discovered when a remote camera was sent in to examine THORP's Feed Clarification Cell on 19 April 2005. All the fluids collected under gravity into the secondary containment, which is a stainless steel tub embedded in 2 metre thick reinforced concrete, capable of holding 250 cubic metres of fluids.
The solution from the spill was estimated to contain 20 metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium. The leaked solution was safely recovered into primary containment using originally installed steam ejectors. Radiation levels in the cell preclude entry of humans and robotic repair of the fractured pipe is expected to be difficult. Officials are considering bypassing the faulty tank to resume operations.
The pipe fractured due to lateral motion of an accountancy tank, which measures volume by weight and moves horizontally and vertically in the process. The tank's original design had restraint blocks to prevent lateral motion, but these were later removed from the design for seismic uncoupling. However it appears this design change was not evaluated for fatigue, and it is inconceivable a proper review would have permitted this change.
The incident was classified as Level 3 out of 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), a "serious incident", due to the amount of radioactive inventory that leaked from primary to secondary containment without discovery over a number of months.[1] This was initially considered by BNFL to be surprisingly high, but the specifications of the scale required it.
No radiation leaked to the environment and no one was injured.
Return to service will be dependent on appropriate modification proposals and any further regulatory requirements resulting from the ongoing investigations. As of March 2006 various restart and closure options were still being considered.[2]
The British Nuclear Group was convicted for breaches of health and safety regulations following the accident, and fined £500,000.[3]
Production eventually restarted at the plant in early 2008 but almost immediately had to be put on hold again, for the repair of an underwater lift that moves fuel for reprocessing.[4]
We've been 30 years away for the last 50 years. It's like saying we've invented the wheel but haven't perfected the axle so it doesn't actually go round. Just give us another 30 years and we'll be on the move.michael said:Nuclear fusion has been invented but just not perfected and it is estimated that we are about 30 years away from achieving that perfection for commercial use.
Schoolmarm said:I thought the whole problem was not just HOW we produce the energy, but also how much warmth is produced running the appliances fuelled by the energy.
Shouldn't we all be trying to use less no matter how it is made? :?
robgil said:If we could reprocess safely without waste why in the video are they spending all that money and hundreds of years building a storage facility? Seems a bit of a waste when they can simply build a reprocessing plant.
I would guess there is a lot of secrets within the nuclear industry and a whole lot of false truths, whether they be good or bad.
You'd think it would be rather difficult to keep that particular elephant-in-the-room hidden away, but it doesn;t seem to be a widely espoused view. Still, I suppose "we're doomed" is not a particularly attractive campaigning position. Better, it would seem, to keep the elephant hidden by talking about wind turbines and solar panels instead.biffvernon said:. . . don't expect practical alternatives to prop up business as usual when there are none.