EU members want more subsidies for nuclear power

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Niri Te

I am a fan of fusion power, one reason, is that you FEED THEM the spent fission fuel rods that we have buried all over the place. It's emissions are even cleaner that fission reactors.
The ONLY problem with them, and the one thing that the anti fission protestors constantly bring up, is that there is a, by comparison to a fission reactor, Miniscule amount of nuclear waste left behind, the problem with it is, that it is Weapons Grade Plutonium.
Niri Te

Not really. Fusion is nonviable past iron (which is the worst element for both fission and fusion), and commercially so past helium. Fusion also produces ZERO harmful waste; in a deuterium-tritium reaction, the resultant nucleus is helium-4 (and a free neutron), deuterium being hydrogen-2 and tritium hydrogen-3.

Older nuclear reactors produce plutonium; modern designs produce far less in the way of fissile isotopes as they are themselves consumed as a component of the fuel cycle.

Originally Posted by The Silver Stag

I can only be fearful of nuclear power. There will ALWAYS be a bigger natural disaster than we've seen so far that we haven't prepared for that WILL manage to break through the defences of the station, that much is certain. I worry about terrorists getting hold of them as it is essentially a government paid for nuclear bomb. Also, how does one deconstruct somethign like a nuclear power plant? Humans aren't going to be around forever and leaving all the other animals to deal with the consequences of a meltdown would be so selfish it makes me want to bring up my stomach contents

Ah, the old appeal to probability (aka "It could happen, so it will happen").

A reactor and a bomb are nothing alike, to believe to is a misunderstanding of physics on the most fundamental levels.
I worry about terrorists anyway; but does it mean fear dictates how I live? No. Nobody wants to ban aircraft, trains or skyscrapers just because terrorists attack them.

I personally still don't see humans spontaneously disappearing.The question is that even if they DID, what would happen? Not much. It would take a complete inversion of the laws of physics for a reactor to fail from lack of operators; it will shut down or run itself out first. New designs are actually designed to shut down even if gravity itself stops working (also meaning they will do so if in deep space). Can't get more belt-and-braces that that.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Not really. Fusion is nonviable past iron (which is the worst element for both fission and fusion), and commercially so past helium. Fusion also produces ZERO harmful waste; in a deuterium-tritium reaction, the resultant nucleus is helium-4 (and a free neutron), deuterium being hydrogen-2 and tritium hydrogen-3.

Those free neutrons have a tendency to irradiate the reactor housing, though.

[Niri Te]

Clarke said:
You're thinking of the advanced end of fission reactors. (which do not produce weapons-grade anything, AFAIK) You feed fusion reactors hydrogen, and the best place to find that is seawater. There happens to be a lot of seawater available.

If you pay attention to what I said, it was (Paraphrased, that while the Fusion reactors were very clean, and produced (by comparison to fission reactors) far less radioactive waste, AND were FED the old fuel rods from the fission reactors, the anti fission reactor crowd would ALSO jump down the throats of the Fusion reactor supporters, because the small amount of radioactive waste left over from the FUSION REACTORS, was weapons grade plutonium.

I said NOTHING about the plutonium coming from a fission reactor.
Niri Te

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Niri Te

Clarke said:
You're thinking of the advanced end of fission reactors. (which do not produce weapons-grade anything, AFAIK) You feed fusion reactors hydrogen, and the best place to find that is seawater. There happens to be a lot of seawater available.

If you pay attention to what I said, it was (Paraphrased, that while the Fusion reactors were very clean, and produced (by comparison to fission reactors) far less radioactive waste, AND were FED the old fuel rods from the fission reactors, the anti fission reactor crowd would ALSO jump down the throats of the Fusion reactor supporters, because the small amount of radioactive waste left over from the FUSION REACTORS, was weapons grade plutonium.

I said NOTHING about the plutonium coming from a fission reactor.
Niri Te

You're mistaken. It's impossible for a fusion reactor to either produce or process anything heavier than iron - the physics involved simply don't let it happen. The binding energy gets larger, not smaller, as the elements get heavier once you've past iron.

[Niri Te]

I remember a debate back in the early eighties, where these two allegedly knowledgable people who had ties to the nuclear power industry were fighting over weather or not Fusion reactors were a good idea, and those were the two sides of the argument that the two were bringing up.
The one said that you could feed the reactor the old fuel rods, and the other said that the last thing that we needed, was more weapons grade Plutonium floating around for someone to steal.
Now I don't know who had their info right, and who had it wrong, all that I know, it that those were the two points that these two supposed "Experts in the field" were fighting about on the radio.
I don't know everything about everything. I am one of the best at flying, shooting, and blowing stuff yup for "Uncle Sam". Most everything else, if someone is introduced as an expert, I figure that they know what they are talking about.
Niri Te