Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: nuclear power, titles of topics:



I remember 50 years ago or so, at the dawn of the nuclear age, someone
published a paper in some journal about the hazards of coal-fired reactors.
It was written from the perspective of living in a society in which safe,
clean, efficient fission reactors supplied all of mankind's energy needs.

It pointed out half-dozen or so major problems with the "recently
discovered" coal-fired reactor:
It was based on combustion which depleted the available oxygen,
If the combustion was incomplete (a fairly frequent occurrence) it gave off
highly toxic and insidious (odorless) CO,
The fuel usually contained contaminants such as sulfur that made the gaseous
waste products even more hazardous, Combustion occurred at a fairly low
temperature which made the reactor inefficient,
The solid waste products were voluminous and required cleaning out the
reactor on a daily basis,
And on and on.

I saved the paper for a number of years but now I can't find it in my files.
Does anyone else remember that paper?

poj

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ludwik Kowalski" <kowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: nuclear power, titles of topics:


I also think that, for the next 50 to 100 years, nuclear fission
option is worth supporting (as opposed to coal option described
by Mike Edmiston). Nothing is ideal, what we choose should
be based on relative merits. I hope that solar option, nuclear
fusion option, or something totally unexpected, will be shown
to be practical, and better, in the future.

Would it be worth our time to develop o list of advantages
and disadvantages of nuclear fission option. I suggest we
use A and D to quickly identify advantages and disadvantages.
Also Q to identify a question worth addressing. Keep labeling
items in the same way (see below) and I will be appending
your inputs to the grownig list. The sorted list (according to
A, D and Q) will be periodically posted to reflect new
contributions.

The items should be as short as possible for the purpose of
this list; we can have parallel threads to discuss the issues.
Let me begin.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A1) No production of CO2.
D1) Accumulation of long-lived radioactive waste.
D2) Production of Pu which can be used to build weapons.
A2) Large supplies of fuel are available.
D3) Possibility of highly devastating accidents, like
Chernobyl.
Q1) Should nuclear energy topics be part of general physics?
D4) Costly fuel enrichment process.
Q2) What is wrong with breeding Pu-239 (from common U)
or U-233 (from common Th)?
Q3) Should the development of nuclear waste "burning"
technology be supported at present time?
Q4) How many Yucca mountains would be needed if 100%
of electricity was nuclear, all over the world?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep adding. Next item should be A3, D5 or Q5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ludwik Kowalski