Using reactor grade materials for weapons is typically much more complicated up to close to impossible (spent fuel), therefore it is illogical to consite proliferation threat. Not only for simplicity but also due to concealment reasons is it preferable to keep the weapon related activities separate.

Most of the countries who have nuclear power plants do not (wish to) have nuclear weapons, those who have weapons them developed before or independently off their civilian program.

Therefore nuclear proliferation is a political problem – solve the desire of nations to obtain nuclear weapons, a powerful invasion deterrent.

Concerning advanced closed nuclear fuel cycles, necessary for such an expansion, see http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html

Closed cycle fissions down all the heavy metal nuclei, uran and transurans including Np, Pu, Am, Cm,.. Waste from thee cycles are much less short lived, rare materials most of them quite valuable and each usable in industry& medicine.

See also thorium cycle, which produces practically no Pu -

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/08/two-four-six-eight-we-dont-want-to.html

Second, we know quite something about long term effects of radiation, natural BG radiation is orders magnitude above man-man doses.

Last, if we hope to replace fossil fuels with something else, and also provide enough energy for emerging nations, we need to increase the nuclear generation by .85/0.06 *(2~4) = 30 ~ 60 times.

Using reactor grade materials for weapons is typically much more complicated up to close to impossible (spent fuel), therefore it is illogical to consite proliferation threat. Not only for simplicity but also due to concealment reasons is it preferable to keep the weapon related activities separate.

Most of the countries who have nuclear power plants do not (wish to) have nuclear weapons, those who have weapons them developed before or independently off their civilian program.

Therefore nuclear proliferation is a political problem – solve the desire of nations to obtain nuclear weapons, a powerful invasion deterrent.

Concerning advanced closed nuclear fuel cycles, necessary for such an expansion, see http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html

Closed cycle fissions down all the heavy metal nuclei, uran and transurans including Np, Pu, Am, Cm,.. Waste from thee cycles are much less short lived, rare materials most of them quite valuable and each usable in industry& medicine.

See also thorium cycle, which produces practically no Pu -

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/08/two-four-six-eight-we-dont-want-to.html

Second, we know quite something about long term effects of radiation, natural BG radiation is orders magnitude above man-man doses.

Last, if we hope to replace fossil fuels with something else, and also provide enough energy for emerging nations, we need to increase the nuclear generation by .85/0.06 *(2~4) = 30 ~ 60 times.

Using reactor grade materials for weapons is typically much more complicated up to close to impossible (spent fuel), therefore it is illogical to consite proliferation threat. Not only for simplicity but also due to concealment reasons is it preferable to keep the weapon related activities separate.

Most of the countries who have nuclear power plants do not (wish to) have nuclear weapons, those who have weapons them developed before or independently off their civilian program.

Therefore nuclear proliferation is a political problem – solve the desire of nations to obtain nuclear weapons, a powerful invasion deterrent.

Concerning advanced closed nuclear fuel cycles, necessary for such an expansion, see http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html

Closed cycle fissions down all the heavy metal nuclei, uran and transurans including Np, Pu, Am, Cm,.. Waste from thee cycles are much less short lived, rare materials most of them quite valuable and each usable in industry& medicine.

See also thorium cycle, which produces practically no Pu -

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/08/two-four-six-eight-we-dont-want-to.html

Second, we know quite something about long term effects of radiation, natural BG radiation is orders magnitude above man-man doses.

Last, if we hope to replace fossil fuels with something else, and also provide enough energy for emerging nations, we need to increase the nuclear generation by .85/0.06 *(2~4) = 30 ~ 60 times.

Though trash will always be with us, the quantity is insufficient to provide much of our energy needs.

I once lived in a county (Pinellas County Florida) with about 3 million residents. We had a modern waste to energy plant that took in all of the burnable trash that the entire county produced. The plant produced less than 50 MW of electricity.

Correction: posted 9/12/2008 9:09 pm I should have done the search. The Pinellas County Waste To Energy plant produces 75 MWe with 15 used for internal power and 60 available for the grid.

Though trash will always be with us, the quantity is insufficient to provide much of our energy needs.

I once lived in a county (Pinellas County Florida) with about 3 million residents. We had a modern waste to energy plant that took in all of the burnable trash that the entire county produced. The plant produced less than 50 MW of electricity.

Correction: posted 9/12/2008 9:09 pm I should have done the search. The Pinellas County Waste To Energy plant produces 75 MWe with 15 used for internal power and 60 available for the grid.

Though trash will always be with us, the quantity is insufficient to provide much of our energy needs.

I once lived in a county (Pinellas County Florida) with about 3 million residents. We had a modern waste to energy plant that took in all of the burnable trash that the entire county produced. The plant produced less than 50 MW of electricity.

Correction: posted 9/12/2008 9:09 pm I should have done the search. The Pinellas County Waste To Energy plant produces 75 MWe with 15 used for internal power and 60 available for the grid.

The concept for the Hyperion Power Module – and other small reactors – is that they would be fueled in a factory and sealed up with no access to the active material for the end user.

The reports that you have read about radioisotopes in steam produced in nuclear plants are not accurate. I have spent many months inside a sealed submarine that contained a steam power plant where the steam was indirectly created by nuclear heat. We had some very sensitive instruments and would have recognized any contamination. Didn’t happen. The well publicized “leaks” have often been of material that is less contaminated than the water in a hot spring.

Finally, the “waste issue” is greatly overblown. We have been safely handling the byproducts of nuclear fission power plants for more than 50 years. The total volume would not even make a small hill inside a single football stadium.

In contrast to the fossil fuel competition, nuclear fission is safe, clean, abundant and reliable. Other alternatives have some of those characteristics, but none have all of them.

The concept for the Hyperion Power Module – and other small reactors – is that they would be fueled in a factory and sealed up with no access to the active material for the end user.

The reports that you have read about radioisotopes in steam produced in nuclear plants are not accurate. I have spent many months inside a sealed submarine that contained a steam power plant where the steam was indirectly created by nuclear heat. We had some very sensitive instruments and would have recognized any contamination. Didn’t happen. The well publicized “leaks” have often been of material that is less contaminated than the water in a hot spring.

Finally, the “waste issue” is greatly overblown. We have been safely handling the byproducts of nuclear fission power plants for more than 50 years. The total volume would not even make a small hill inside a single football stadium.

In contrast to the fossil fuel competition, nuclear fission is safe, clean, abundant and reliable. Other alternatives have some of those characteristics, but none have all of them.

First, this technology would effectively expand nuclear proliferation on an emormous scale. The transport, storage and distribution of fissionble-grade uranium would have inherent dangers that I instinctively feel would outweigh the benefits.

Second, I’ve read reports that the steam from nuclear plants has radioactive isotopes in it, and no one is sure what long-term effects these isotopes might have.

Finally, the nuclear waste issue would be also made far greater by this distributed nuclear energy scheme. It doesn’t seem feasible to me to expand the use of nuclear in this manner when we are having trouble disposing of the waste we have now.

As a footnote, I do recognize that nuclear power will have to be a major part of the energy mix for many years to come. I just think we have to be very cautious about how big of a percentage it is.

First, this technology would effectively expand nuclear proliferation on an emormous scale. The transport, storage and distribution of fissionble-grade uranium would have inherent dangers that I instinctively feel would outweigh the benefits.

Second, I’ve read reports that the steam from nuclear plants has radioactive isotopes in it, and no one is sure what long-term effects these isotopes might have.

Finally, the nuclear waste issue would be also made far greater by this distributed nuclear energy scheme. It doesn’t seem feasible to me to expand the use of nuclear in this manner when we are having trouble disposing of the waste we have now.

As a footnote, I do recognize that nuclear power will have to be a major part of the energy mix for many years to come. I just think we have to be very cautious about how big of a percentage it is.

First, this technology would effectively expand nuclear proliferation on an emormous scale. The transport, storage and distribution of fissionble-grade uranium would have inherent dangers that I instinctively feel would outweigh the benefits.

Second, I’ve read reports that the steam from nuclear plants has radioactive isotopes in it, and no one is sure what long-term effects these isotopes might have.

Finally, the nuclear waste issue would be also made far greater by this distributed nuclear energy scheme. It doesn’t seem feasible to me to expand the use of nuclear in this manner when we are having trouble disposing of the waste we have now.

As a footnote, I do recognize that nuclear power will have to be a major part of the energy mix for many years to come. I just think we have to be very cautious about how big of a percentage it is.

I think you may be a little confused about terminology. A nuclear power plant doesn’t produce any net power until after it’s gone critical. Going critical just means that enough fuel is packed together for a chain reaction to occur. If you don’t do that, no power can be generated. I suspect what you mean is that reactors should be guaranteed meltdown-proof.

This can be achieved with the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor design. If you build the reactors below a certain size, they cannot ever generate enough power for a meltdown. Another solution is to a reactor which uses molten fuel to begin with. ‘Meltdown’ is then the normal mode of operation, and they can be designed so that any deviation from normal operation reduces the nuclear reaction.

Of course, there’s very little risk of meltdown in modern reactors anyway, and multiple safeguards even if it does happen, but there are safer designs still, and we will probably have them in operation one day.

As for dirty bombs, they are possible, but the risk from them is exaggerated. Radiological weapons are not very effective (military studies were done back in the 1950s which concluded that they were militarily useless). I’m not sure what terrorist objective would be met by threatening people with a 10% increased likelihood of cancer over a period of 30 years, but if there is one, it could be much more easily met by raiding a cancer clinic for radioactive medical isotopes than a nuclear power plant or waste repository.

The trouble with burning waste to generate energy is that all that waste took energy to produce in the first place (back when it was food, or plastic wrap, or cooking oil), and its energy content has been dropping all the way down the path of becoming waste. You would soon run out of burnable waste, and then your fuel stream would rapidly run dry. Then you would discover the connection between ‘biowaste’ being depleted’ and ‘as long as humans are alive’.

No organism in nature survives entirely by consuming its own wastes. People familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics appreciate this.

Regarding solar and wind, it’s true that some places are better for them than others, but that does not necessarily mean that any places would be better off using those sources rather than nuclear. The evidence is rather in the opposite direction, that nuclear solutions superior to any alternative exist for most, if not all, circumstances.

I think you may be a little confused about terminology. A nuclear power plant doesn’t produce any net power until after it’s gone critical. Going critical just means that enough fuel is packed together for a chain reaction to occur. If you don’t do that, no power can be generated. I suspect what you mean is that reactors should be guaranteed meltdown-proof.

This can be achieved with the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor design. If you build the reactors below a certain size, they cannot ever generate enough power for a meltdown. Another solution is to a reactor which uses molten fuel to begin with. ‘Meltdown’ is then the normal mode of operation, and they can be designed so that any deviation from normal operation reduces the nuclear reaction.

Of course, there’s very little risk of meltdown in modern reactors anyway, and multiple safeguards even if it does happen, but there are safer designs still, and we will probably have them in operation one day.

As for dirty bombs, they are possible, but the risk from them is exaggerated. Radiological weapons are not very effective (military studies were done back in the 1950s which concluded that they were militarily useless). I’m not sure what terrorist objective would be met by threatening people with a 10% increased likelihood of cancer over a period of 30 years, but if there is one, it could be much more easily met by raiding a cancer clinic for radioactive medical isotopes than a nuclear power plant or waste repository.

The trouble with burning waste to generate energy is that all that waste took energy to produce in the first place (back when it was food, or plastic wrap, or cooking oil), and its energy content has been dropping all the way down the path of becoming waste. You would soon run out of burnable waste, and then your fuel stream would rapidly run dry. Then you would discover the connection between ‘biowaste’ being depleted’ and ‘as long as humans are alive’.

No organism in nature survives entirely by consuming its own wastes. People familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics appreciate this.

Regarding solar and wind, it’s true that some places are better for them than others, but that does not necessarily mean that any places would be better off using those sources rather than nuclear. The evidence is rather in the opposite direction, that nuclear solutions superior to any alternative exist for most, if not all, circumstances.

1) setting up a safe way to recharge these plants, dispose of waste, and eventually decommission the plants.

2) ensuring that said plants cannot be made to go critical or have parts that could be easily used to construct a dirty bomb.

My sugestion for an alternatives would trash and biowaste plants. While some remote areas would still be bettery off with a nuclear plant, we are continually having to alocate more space to the trash we create and it could be turned into power. Granted it is pobably dirtier than coal, but CO2 emissions can be regulated and even used in combination with a algae fuel farm to produce useful products. As the number of people grow, the demand for food and the waste from consuming the food will grow. what we flush can be useful to us.

Okay, yes, dirty technologies, but is burial of trash any cleaner? On the biowaste side I suspect, but aI could be wrong, that our biowaste is already used as fertilizer and therefore using it as power may actually take a vital resource for farms away.

But really, do you see biowaste or trash itself being depleted as long as people are alive?

as far as solar and wind, there are places better suited to that technology and while they can only generate eletricity when the sun is out or win blowing, energy can be stored. the critical question is, will we upgrade the power lines to move it to where it is needed, or will people move to where the cheap solar and wind is first?

Datacenters use up a lot of power. one of the things companys look for then they setup shop is where cheap power is. I wouldn’t be surprized if there was a good sized population shift either due to: cost of food, cost of electricity, cost of clean water, or a little bit of everything.

1) setting up a safe way to recharge these plants, dispose of waste, and eventually decommission the plants.

2) ensuring that said plants cannot be made to go critical or have parts that could be easily used to construct a dirty bomb.

My sugestion for an alternatives would trash and biowaste plants. While some remote areas would still be bettery off with a nuclear plant, we are continually having to alocate more space to the trash we create and it could be turned into power. Granted it is pobably dirtier than coal, but CO2 emissions can be regulated and even used in combination with a algae fuel farm to produce useful products. As the number of people grow, the demand for food and the waste from consuming the food will grow. what we flush can be useful to us.

Okay, yes, dirty technologies, but is burial of trash any cleaner? On the biowaste side I suspect, but aI could be wrong, that our biowaste is already used as fertilizer and therefore using it as power may actually take a vital resource for farms away.

But really, do you see biowaste or trash itself being depleted as long as people are alive?

as far as solar and wind, there are places better suited to that technology and while they can only generate eletricity when the sun is out or win blowing, energy can be stored. the critical question is, will we upgrade the power lines to move it to where it is needed, or will people move to where the cheap solar and wind is first?

Datacenters use up a lot of power. one of the things companys look for then they setup shop is where cheap power is. I wouldn’t be surprized if there was a good sized population shift either due to: cost of food, cost of electricity, cost of clean water, or a little bit of everything.