PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Jim Hansen on nuclear power
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18609
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevecook172001 wrote:


Plutonium is precisely the kind of nuclear material that falls between the two stools I mentioned. It does not exist in nature (or at least, it exists in infinitesimally small amounts) because it would have long since decayed to nothing. The only kind of nuclear material we find in nature is far longer lived and so far less radioactive than plutonium. That's the point

On the other hand, very short lived material that would exist after several processing iterations would be far more radioactive than plutonium, but far shorter lived..

for someone who so often chooses to employ the cheap rhetorical tactic of claiming that other posters do not understand how "complex" a given topic is (as you have already done here), your lack of understanding of basic nuclear physics is laughable. Either that, or you just can't help responding Pavlovian-style to any arguments about nuclear power that do not strictly comply with your own a-priori irrationally based conclusions about it.


So maybe we should define just which isotope of plutonium we are talking about before using phrases such as short-lived or long-lived.

There are 15 isotopes of plutonium. Pu233 has a half-life of 20 minutes. Pu244 is 80 million years while Pu239, which features a lot in the nuclear industry, has a half-life of 24000 years. And therein lies one of the many problems. And then there are all the other radioactive elements. Sorry Steve but it really is all a bit complicated.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5312
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:


Plutonium is precisely the kind of nuclear material that falls between the two stools I mentioned. It does not exist in nature (or at least, it exists in infinitesimally small amounts) because it would have long since decayed to nothing. The only kind of nuclear material we find in nature is far longer lived and so far less radioactive than plutonium. That's the point

On the other hand, very short lived material that would exist after several processing iterations would be far more radioactive than plutonium, but far shorter lived..

for someone who so often chooses to employ the cheap rhetorical tactic of claiming that other posters do not understand how "complex" a given topic is (as you have already done here), your lack of understanding of basic nuclear physics is laughable. Either that, or you just can't help responding Pavlovian-style to any arguments about nuclear power that do not strictly comply with your own a-priori irrationally based conclusions about it.


So maybe we should define just which isotope of plutonium we are talking about before using phrases such as short-lived or long-lived.

There are 15 isotopes of plutonium. Pu233 has a half-life of 20 minutes. Pu244 is 80 million years while Pu239, which features a lot in the nuclear industry, has a half-life of 24000 years. And therein lies one of the many problems. And then there are all the other radioactive elements. Sorry Steve but it really is all a bit complicated.
I am well aware that plutonium has a number of isotopes. You really are quite tiresomely smug without any foundation whatsoever. Do you actually realize how egotistically fragile this makes you look Biffernon?

Apart from minuscule quantities in the crust, all plutonium is man made. The extremely short lived variety, despite being highly radioactive, is of no long term concern because it is short lived. The relatively long lived variety is of great concern because is is not so long lived as to have a concomitantly low level of radioactivity but is sufficiently long lived to not be able to forget about after burying it given its relatively high level of radioactivity. As I have repeated numerous times, this is precisely the kind of nuclear waste that falls between those two stools I mentioned.

Until you can actually engage like a grown up on this topic, were done B.


Last edited by Little John on Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7404

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevecook172001 wrote:
You do realise that presentation is an argument for the feasibility of fast reactors (in particular, the molten salt fast reactor), don't you?

Only technically. There's lot going for them, except that they are more complex and more expensive than the thermal reactors which are already looking too complex and expensive.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
There's lot going for them, except that they are more complex and more expensive than the thermal reactors which are already looking too complex and expensive.

Even compared to a power station, and waste storage that no one seems to any sort of long term solution to?
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group