nuclear power stations:

[billy]

since the trouble with the japanese reactors in a few of their nuclear power plants it seems the world is having different ideas about how clever it is to have them.
germany who extend the life span of their reactors by a considerable amount of time are now looking into whether or not they did the right thing in doing so.

why did japan which is in the rim of fire and prone to large earthquakes, build nuclear plants near the coastline? how stupid was that? but that isn't my question. the questions are;
what effect will the japanese disaster play in building of new plants worldwide?
will it make people more prone to go with solar, or wind powered turbines?
will they build more fossil fuel plants? and finally; what do you think they should do building-wise

[thethingy]

^^you need to have them on the coastline for the vast amount of water needed to cool the things, but yeh in Japan where there has always and will always be earthquakes then its just dumb.

I don't think it will have any real effect in changing any countries minds, even if a meltdown happens, as the power is needed and fossil fuels are running out and wind and solar just aren't available 24/7.

I don't mind the UK plants as there is no real danger from natural disasters and I think that wave power should be the next thing as its a constant source unlike wind/sun

[srijantje]

politicians just go with the wind,vote count is important to them,nothing else,the germans changed their minds [again]because of the current mood following the japan disaster,they did that with chernobyl,until things calmed down and it was business as usual,coming back on their promises,this will happen now also

[billy]

most countries have areas where wind is common and constant.
and many have coastal area where wave power can used such as tide power etc. most have daylight for solar power which could power plant and machinery during the daylight hours.
while some do not most do. in many third world countries a wind turbine would suffice for basic needs such as light and refs in smaller rural areas. in desert areas smaller solar panels could supply enough power for lights refs and the recharge of a battery to give minimal power at night.

i personally think the benifits of nuke energy are good but i'd like to see alternative energy embraced with wider arms.

[billy]

norway looks busy with it.

[billy]

i see facetiousness was lost in the translation.

they use a lot of underground heating and oil don't they?
still if others have meltdowns they'll be just as affected should the wind blow their way.

[srijantje]

the fact is,there's a huge amount of money invested in nuclear power,lots of lobbying going on,they're not going to give up on that,despite the fact there are lots of alternatives,here's one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Tho...clear_fuel

[srijantje]

yes,for me that was also the most interesting part,a friend of mine phoned me yesterday with info on some staggering sums of money invested in the nuclear bizz and the money flowing to election campaigns ,lobby groups etc.
can't find a reliable source right now.anybody?

[addy]

Odd that though there's supposedly a lot of interest/desperation to find clean energy alternatives to oil, I haven't heard talk of this option. Very interesting. Then again, I'm no expert so...

I think if a nuclear power plant can be made that has no potential to be a radioactive hazard, then nuclear power remains a good option. Here in the philippines for instance, we couldn't even keep our trains from breaking down what with all the lowball bidding/cutting corners/bribery going on, so I shudder to imagine how "well-maintained" a nuclear plant would be. I'd be more comfortable with a safe option.

(as an aside, I agree that the Japanese built the power plant next to the sea to help cool the reactors, not to mention that they obviously put several failsafes in anticipation of disasters... they just never expected an earthquake that big with a tsunami that strong taking down all the failsafes)

[billy]

i'm not sure but i think salt water corrodes the jets that spray cool water onto the rods.
and while flooding the rods with sea water in an emergency could help it isn't the reason why some are built on the coast. (i think , though i could be wrong)

and same here i#ve never heard of a thorium plant. surely if one could be built without fear of poisoning or meltdown it would have been done by now?

[srijantje]

why should it ?vested interest want to milk the nuclear option as much they can.I personally think that's the downfall of western economic systems,specially american.bi g business has things so nicely tied up,why try something new when the old isn't milked dry yet?any way, if they fail they get bailed out by their compatriots in congres,senate,washington,look at nuclear,oil,monetary system ,etc.
it's shortsighted,fuelled by greed,they're gonna kill of all their prey[taxpayers]in the end which is not a clever thing to do for a predator.
maybe a system like china is better in the end,where the government decides where the money is going to be invested,if they go for thorium and it works,the rest can say byby.pfff,bac.k to the sewer.by the way,thorium is Not a conspiracy idea,have a look around,i'm not surprised it's not widely discussed however.another one is sun mirrors in deserts focussed on water to make steam,like in all conventional and nuclear systems,only sun comes freely from the sky,bypassing big business infrastructure like oiltankers,pipelines ,etc

[billy]

one of the reasons would be to make money, whoever builds a so called thorium plant would be rolling in it.

they build windfarms, why not thorium plants. i've heard of the sun converter, it's a simlar principal to solar farms which make steam to turn turbines.
wind is also free
as is wave power and thermal energy from the ground. like i say, i haven't heard of thorium plants before but i like the sound of them on what i've heard so far.

[srijantje]

one wonders,the idea has been around for quite a long time,and it can be done

[thethingy]

one wonders,the idea has been around for quite a long time,and it can be done

No doubt, first though I would assume that you would have to find all of the worlds supplies of thorium then install puppet governments in them states..................

[billy]

Excellent point!

From the thorium reactor Wiki article:

A 2005 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency discusses potential benefits along with the challenges of thorium reactors. According to Australian science writer Tim Dean, "thorium promises what uranium never delivered: abundant, safe and clean energy - and a way to burn up old radioactive waste." With a thorium nuclear reactor, Dean stresses a number of added benefits: there is no possibility of a meltdown, it generates power inexpensively, it does not produce weapons-grade by-products, and will burn up existing high-level waste as well as nuclear weapon stockpiles. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, of the British Daily Telegraph, suggests that "Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium," and could put "an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years." He also points out that "China is leading the way" with its own "dash for thorium," which it announced in March 2011.

who ever wrote the 2005 report seems to be talking out of his bottom.

here's some quotes from a 2010 source witch i'll give as well.

Health effects

As with all radioactive materials, thorium is dangerous to the health of humans and other animals. It must be handled with great caution. Living cells that absorb radiation are damaged or killed. Inhaling a radioactive element is especially dangerous because it exposes fragile internal tissues.

Scientists would like to find a way to use this process to make uranium-233 economically. Thorium is much more abundant than uranium. It would be far cheaper to make nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants with thorium than with uranium.

Unfortunately, no one has figured how to make the process work on a large scale. One nuclear reactor using thorium was built near Platteville, Colorado, in 1979. However, a number of economic and technical problems developed. After only ten years of operation, the plant was shut down. The promise of thorium fission plants has yet to become reality.

The trick is to start with an isotope of thorium, thorium-232. Thorium-232 has a very long half life of 14 billion years. If thorium-232 is bombarded with neutrons, it goes through a series of nuclear changes, first to thorium-233, then to protactinium-233, and finally to uranium-233. The whole process only takes about a month. At the end of the month, a supply of uranium-233 has been produced. This isotope of uranium has a fairly long half life, about 163,000 years. So once it has been made, it stays around for a long time. It can then be used for nuclear fission.

Scientists would like to find a way to use this process to make uranium-233 economically. Thorium is much more abundant than uranium. It would be far cheaper to make nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants with thorium than with uranium.

just the quotes above scare me, if it can make nukes cheaper then thats what it would be used for. it is radioactive and would kill just like any other radioactive material once the 233 isotope was made.
basically if they succed in using thorium the worlds weapons arsnels will expand exponentially and it will be almost impossible to monitor.

source:

[srijantje]

very conflicting info,wikipedia says quite the opposite

[billy]

not really, this is from the wiki page of the
thorium reactor page.

The thorium fuel cycle creates 233U, which, if separated from the reactor's fuel, can be used for making nuclear weapons. This is why a liquid-fuel cycle (e.g., MSR or Molten Salt Reactor) is preferred — only a limited amount of 233U ever exists in the reactor and its heat-transfer systems, preventing any access to weapons material; however the neutrons produced by the reactor can be absorbed by a thorium or uranium blanket and fissile 233U or 239Pu produced. Also, the 233U could be continuously extracted from the molten fuel as the reactor is running.

Since there are no neutrons from spontaneous fission of U-233, solid U-233 can be used easily in a simple gun-type nuclear bomb design.[30] In 1977, a light-water reactor at the Shippingport Atomic Power Station was used to establish a Th232-U233 fuel cycle. The reactor worked until its decommissioning in 1982.[31][32][33] Thorium can be and has been used to power nuclear energy plants using both the modified traditional Generation III reactor design and prototype Generation IV reactor designs. The use of thorium as an alternative fuel is one innovation being explored by the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO),[34] conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

while the page has lots of stuff as to how good it could be it doesn't get away from the fact it' can be used to create nukes. and a more prolific amount because thorium is much more prolific a material from which to derive 233 th. in fact if the above is true thorium can create a continuous stream of u233 which can be harvested for weapons .

considering they had a reactor up and running decades ago and nothing really came of it i'd say there has to be a reason for it.
it shouldn't be hard to upgrade a uranium reactor to a thorium reactor. i personally think it's because the material is so abundant those in the know steered clear from it. jmo

[srijantje]

nuclear weopons are made anyway,the interesting part is that you can't have meltdowns aparently
A 2005 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency discusses potential benefits along with the challenges of thorium reactors.[22] According to Australian science writer Tim Dean, "thorium promises what uranium never delivered: abundant, safe and clean energy - and a way to burn up old radioactive waste."[23] With a thorium nuclear reactor, Dean stresses a number of added benefits: there is no possibility of a meltdown, it generates power inexpensively, it does not produce weapons-grade by-products, and will burn up existing high-level waste as well as nuclear weapon stockpiles.[23] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, of the British Daily Telegraph, suggests that "Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium," and could put "an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years."[15] He also points out that "China is leading the way" with its own "dash for thorium," which it announced in March 2011.[24]
Turkish nuclear expert Ayhan Demirbas has summarized some of the benefits of thorium when compared with uranium as fuel:[25]
Weapons-grade fissionable material (U-233) is harder to retrieve safely and clandestinely from a thorium reactor;
Thorium produces 10 to 10,000 times less long-lived radioactive waste;
Thorium comes out of the ground as a 100% pure, usable isotope, which does not require enrichment, whereas natural uranium contains only 0.7% fissionable U-235;
Thorium can not sustain a nuclear chain reaction without priming[26], so fission stops by default.
However, unlike uranium-based breeder reactors, thorium requires a start-up by neutrons from a uranium reactor. But experts note that "the second thorium reactor may activate a third thorium reactor. This could continue in a chain of reactors for a millennium if we so choose." They add that because of thorium's abundance, it will not be exhaused in 1,000 years.[27]
The Thorium Energy Alliance (TEA), an educational advocacy organization, emphasizes that "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years." [28] Reducing coal as an energy source, according to science expert Lester R. Brown of The Earth Policy Institute in Washington DC, would significantly reduce medical costs from breathing coal pollutants. Brown estimates that coal-related deaths and diseases are currently costing the U.S. up to $160 billion annually."[29]
[edit]

[billy]

so why haven't they done it?

the reason is it's not a proven idea as such. most of the 2005 report as been disproved. thorium in it's raw state isn't radioactive but once it's altered to 233U then it's as radioactive as uranium and as such is as poisonous should it leak into the atmosphere.
thorium as it comes out of the ground cannot run a reactor. it's like the water fueled car, everyone talks about it but no one has ever proven it existed. maybe one day in the near future thorium reactors will be used but they'll still be dagerous should they blow and still be functional as makers of weapons grade materials.

the 2005 report has been quoted many times
china is trying to build a thorium reactor, as of yet they haven't succeeded in building one thats proven safe or efficient enough.
and as far as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, of the British Daily Telegraph, saying; he suggests that "Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium," and could put "an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years."[15] He also points out that "China is leading the way" with its own "dash for thorium," which it announced in March 2011.[24]

he works for a news paper, he probably has no idea what building a thorium reactor entails. journalist, even scientific ones often and usually write shite without fresh sources or proof. his knowledge (and that is circumspect) tell us china are leading the way with it's own dash for thorium; china also wants to win all the golds at the olympics as well, whats new, china has it's fingers in every pot gooing

[srijantje]

yes i agree with your last paragraph

what about solar mirrors to heat up water?

http://www.all-energy.com.au/userfiles/f...tation.pdf