Nuclear Fusion

[Irace86.2.0]

400K gallons of radioactive water leaked from Minnesota nuclear power plant; cleanup underway

https://abc7ny.com/minnesota-water-l...tive/12970179/

Just when more nuclear fission seems like a green option the public seems to be reconsidering, these type of things happen.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

400K gallons of radioactive water leaked from Minnesota nuclear power plant; cleanup underway

https://abc7ny.com/minnesota-water-l...tive/12970179/

Just when more nuclear fission seems like a green option the public seems to be reconsidering, these type of things happen.

According to link and and second link it is tritium. Which according to my in depth study of about 3 & 1/2 minutes does not pose much of a health risk. Sure, it is a lot of radioactive water (it's even more water when measured in liters) but the radioactivity is very weak and tritium has a half life (Is that you Dr Freeman?) of 12 years.
I am rating this this not very high on the disaster scale.

[soundman98]

i keep a tritium light on my keys to find them in the dark, many people use them for gun sights as well

[Capt Spaulding]

I’m not sure fission has ever been a “green” energy source source. Its hazardous byproducts are just able to be temporarily contained. Those materials still require storage and/or disposal - Neither of which have a generally accepted solution. It’s a pay now or pay later situation unless you have a Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima event, then the bill becomes due and payable immediately.

Is it worth the risk? We’ve put ourselves in a box. Unfortunately, it seems Schrödinger’s cat is with us.

Tritium isn’t the worst thing that could get loose. Certainly not great. But not as bad as some.

[alex87f]

Well if you look at the average failure rate, it is a pretty green technology. No local CO2 emissions, silent, incredibly powerful, low reliance on imported fuel (I mean uranium has to come from somewhere, but the value added in refining it is local), it's a pretty great solution.

However, it creates the illusion that it is better to just increase power generation rather than look at lowering consumption, as is the problem with any cheap energy with limited externalities.

On paper, it seems molten salt reactors are a much better solution as they are said to be more stable, use widely available fuel that requires littles refinement, can run on the spent fuel of uranium fission reactors (and make it a lot less radioactive), do not create weapons-grade material byproducts, etc.
It does make you wonder why they're not everywhere yet. The theory is those were ditched in the 50s-60s as they didn't create the plutonium needed for military applications (which uranium fission reactors do), but I wonder how much of it is true. Sounds a little too tinfoil-hat-y.

[Capt Spaulding]

Until reliable fusion power comes along (maybe) and we find ways to reduce our energy consumption we, and the cat, are passengers in the box. Regardless of what we do, there will be accidents. Some minor, a few severe, a very few catastrophic. Of all the natural laws, probability is the most unrelenting. Distributions have tails for a reason. Unlikely things happen.

I know I’m a Debbie Downer on a lot of these issues.

As an unknown IBM engineer said years ago, “if you want a secure system, disconnect all the users.” Humans’ MTBFU (mean time between fuck ups) has a lot variation. But we can be sure that, if it’s fuckupable, some enterprising souls will find a way to do so. That, the inherent flaws in our species, and years of studying us have made me very pessimistic.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

According to link and and second link it is tritium. Which according to my in depth study of about 3 & 1/2 minutes does not pose much of a health risk. Sure, it is a lot of radioactive water (it's even more water when measured in liters) but the radioactivity is very weak and tritium has a half life (Is that you Dr Freeman?) of 12 years.
I am rating this this not very high on the disaster scale.

My statements were more about the impact on public perception more than the actual risk. Sounds like the concentrations were in the millions, but that probably means we will only get some mutant frogs before things dilute out. It is just bad PR for nuclear.


https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/175261.pdf

EPA has established a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 millirems per year for beta particle and photon radioactivity from man- made radionuclides in drinking water. The average concentration of tritium that is assumed to yield 4 millirems per year is 20,000 picoCuries (pCi/L).

https://phys.org/news/2023-03-xcel-r...minnesota.html

"We are well above the 20,000 picocuries per liter EPA standard," Clark said. In water directly below the plant, the picocurie-per-liter count was in the millions.

However, those high levels are quickly reduced as tritium dilutes in groundwater. "This does not present a public health or drinking water issue," Clark said. The company is monitoring the plume in two dozen wells.

Tritiated water can't harm someone just by proximity, said Daniel Huff, assistant commissioner for health protection at the Minnesota Department of Health. The only way a person could be exposed to radiation is by drinking or breathing it, he said.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

I’m not sure fission has ever been a “green” energy source source. Its hazardous byproducts are just able to be temporarily contained. Those materials still require storage and/or disposal - Neither of which have a generally accepted solution. It’s a pay now or pay later situation unless you have a Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima event, then the bill becomes due and payable immediately.

Is it worth the risk? We’ve put ourselves in a box. Unfortunately, it seems Schrödinger’s cat is with us.

Tritium isn’t the worst thing that could get loose. Certainly not great. But not as bad as some.

Technically nothing is perfectly green or free from emissions, so it is a matter of semantics. There is going to be emissions released in the process of building the nuclear power plants. Nuclear waste is much easier to contain, even if it is a much more volatile product than CO2. Maybe we could blast the products into space or into the sun on one of Elon’s rockets. Like alex87f said, molten salt reactors produce byproducts that break down in thousands instead of millions of years, but this is still unacceptable.

Nuclear fusion has some radioactive waste too, and most reactors require reactants that are rare and expensive. I don’t know if fusion will ever be feasible from a technical perspective, but also from a cost-benefit perspective. Solar and wind are cheaper and far faster to build, so we will have to see if nuclear has a real future. Japan seems to think so, and so does India and China.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Technically nothing is perfectly green or free from emissions, so it is a matter of semantics. There is going to be emissions released in the process of building the nuclear power plants. Nuclear waste is much easier to contain, even if it is a much more volatile product than CO2. Maybe we could blast the products into space or into the sun on one of Elon’s rockets. Like alex87f said, molten salt reactors produce byproducts that break down in thousands instead of millions of years, but this is still unacceptable.

Nuclear fusion has some radioactive waste too, and most reactors require reactants that are rare and expensive. I don’t know if fusion will ever be feasible from a technical perspective, but also from a cost-benefit perspective. Solar and wind are cheaper and far faster to build, so we will have to see if nuclear has a real future. Japan seems to think so, and so does India and China.

To dismiss the problems of posed by high level reactor waste products as semantics is, I think, Pollyannaish. The threat they pose is all too real. Japan may or may not renew its bet on fission as an energy source, but make no mistake, it is a bet. It may pay off in the short run. It may backfire and bite them on the ass - again. China and India, too. Fission is an expedient answer to a problem that it may temporarily alleviate. But, at best, that solution will be short term. Fusion is?? As most have figured out, there is no "free" lunch.

Wind and solar are in their infancy. Time will be the judge of their impact. For now, they and carbon capture are where I'm putting (some) money. Ultimately, everything has risks of one sort or another. Sometimes, the long term risks are not apparent for a long time. My persistent concern is humans collectively are not very good at making even short term cost-benefit calculations. We are even worse as the term and the stakes increase. Like the prisoners in Plato's cave our vision is, at best, vague. At worst, we too often willfully distort it in the name of expediency and short term profit. Are we in the "first world" willing to accept a longer term reduction n our standard of living and to devote resources to equalizing the burden of climate preservation on the developing world? I wouldn't bet on that. So, so many rabbit holes beckon. So few contain rabbits.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

To dismiss the problems of posed by high level reactor waste products as semantics is, I think, Pollyannaish. The threat they pose is all too real. Japan may or may not renew its bet on fission as an energy source, but make no mistake, it is a bet. It may pay off in the short run. It may backfire and bite them on the ass - again. China and India, too. Fission is an expedient answer to a problem that it may temporarily alleviate. But, at best, that solution will be short term. Fusion is?? As most have figured out, there is no "free" lunch.

Wind and solar are in their infancy. Time will be the judge of their impact. For now, they and carbon capture are where I'm putting (some) money. Ultimately, everything has risks of one sort or another. Sometimes, the long term risks are not apparent for a long time. My persistent concern is humans collectively are not very good at making even short term cost-benefit calculations. We are even worse as the term and the stakes increase. Like the prisoners in Plato's cave our vision is, at best, vague. At worst, we too often willfully distort it in the name of expediency and short term profit. Are we in the "first world" willing to accept a longer term reduction n our standard of living and to devote resources to equalizing the burden of climate preservation on the developing world? I wouldn't bet on that. So, so many rabbit holes beckon. So few contain rabbits.

For clarification, I wasn’t dismissing the risks; I was saying that nothing is technically green in the same vein that people say, nothing is truly free. All green sources have emissions and consumes products. It is more a matter of things being greener or more sustainable. Being sustainable and being a net carbon-neutral process is what makes something truly green, I suppose, or we can reasonably offset the carbon emissions with capture and planting trees or something. That’s where we get into the semantics of calling nuclear green. Some people try to argue solar isn’t green because of the waste too. If we could burn coal and poop out…coal—a very minuscule radioactive block—then most would be celebrating that and calling it green. We put 1.4 metric tons per person per year into the air, so billions of tons, so the volume of nuclear waste is far more manageable, even if it is radioactive. Obviously if there is an accident like Three Mile Island or Chernobyle then it becomes a different issue.



I posted a video of Japan using nuclear for Red Hydrogen, as an alternative to Green Hydrogen. I don’t think they plan to slowdown. China and India have some molten salt reactors in the works.

https://www.greencars.com/news/is-re...en-waiting-for

Most people don’t want to sacrifice their quality of life, so we will need to reduce the population of the world or move to more sustainable ways of living. Wind and solar with energy sinks like hydro-batteries, Li-Ion/alternative batteries, Rondo brick batteries, etc. are my go to for solutions because they are cheaper than nuclear and don’t have the problems of nuclear waste and nuclear proliferation. With that said, I still consider nuclear a green source of energy that we should continue pursuing and may ultimately need.

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

Until reliable fusion power comes along (maybe) and we find ways to reduce our energy consumption we, and the cat, are passengers in the box. Regardless of what we do, there will be accidents. Some minor, a few severe, a very few catastrophic. Of all the natural laws, probability is the most unrelenting. Distributions have tails for a reason. Unlikely things happen.

I know I’m a Debbie Downer on a lot of these issues.

As an unknown IBM engineer said years ago, “if you want a secure system, disconnect all the users.” Humans’ MTBFU (mean time between fuck ups) has a lot variation. But we can be sure that, if it’s fuckupable, some enterprising souls will find a way to do so. That, the inherent flaws in our species, and years of studying us have made me very pessimistic.

I don't think we need fusion, really.

Looks like renewables are more than able to provide us with anything we need, and there are some storage solutions that do not require large amounts of batteries (gravity).

If we took reducing our footprint seriously, I'm confident we could rely on simpler renewable solutions.

Fusion, like carbon capture, sells us the illusion that our over-consuming, energy-intensive frenzy can keep going, thanks to a future technological solution that may or may not work, and is decades away at best. There is a carbon capture solution that absolutely f*cking works, and is called trees, but we're too busy tearing those down to notice.

Significant reductions in our energy consumption can be achieved through simple solutions (accept being hot and turning the AC off, wearing a jumper when it's cold, eating meat 1x a month, buying smaller cars and commuting with public transportation / bicycles, etc.). But we're not willing to implement even these. Try convincing anyone to buy a smaller truck, or keep their phone for 6-7 years..

Like you said, we're not good at making short-term decisions, let alone long-term ones. Enter enlightened absolutism, though the search for fitting candidates goes on..

[Capt Spaulding]

I’ve been on the lookout for qualified philosopher-kings since 1976. No luck yet. Let me know if you find a prospect.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by alex87f

I don't think we need fusion, really.

Looks like renewables are more than able to provide us with anything we need, and there are some storage solutions that do not require large amounts of batteries (gravity).

I don't know that we need fusion, but the theoretical possibilities of alluring:

Fusing atoms together in a controlled way releases nearly four million times more energy than a chemical reaction such as the burning of coal, oil or gas and four times as much as nuclear fission reactions (at equal mass).

We may not need nuclear fission either, but when you start to consider the complications of powering electric arc furnaces for heavy metal smelting from the grid (1, 2), and you compare green hydrogen being not cost effective to the costs of the more feasible red hydrogen (3) then nuclear seems like a necessary part of the future to efficiently supply direct heat for industries and to produce large quantities of hydrogen, which can be used for transportation, aviation, ammonia/fertilizer production, etc. There is a lot to consider, including current infrastructure, feasibility, costs, flexibility. The Red/Pink Hydrogen reactor Japan built is promising.

Originally Posted by alex87f

If we took reducing our footprint seriously, I'm confident we could rely on simpler renewable solutions.

Fusion, like carbon capture, sells us the illusion that our over-consuming, energy-intensive frenzy can keep going, thanks to a future technological solution that may or may not work, and is decades away at best. There is a carbon capture solution that absolutely f*cking works, and is called trees, but we're too busy tearing those down to notice.

Significant reductions in our energy consumption can be achieved through simple solutions (accept being hot and turning the AC off, wearing a jumper when it's cold, eating meat 1x a month, buying smaller cars and commuting with public transportation / bicycles, etc.). But we're not willing to implement even these. Try convincing anyone to buy a smaller truck, or keep their phone for 6-7 years..

Like you said, we're not good at making short-term decisions, let alone long-term ones. Enter enlightened absolutism, though the search for fitting candidates goes on..

I agree that the aggregate of a lot of small, but significant, changes can add to a big different like when Obama (like him or not) said that people should inflate their tires appropriately because it would save 4 billion gallons of gas per year in the US or 3.3% improved efficiency. There is a lot everyone could do, but you are also right that we are hard to change and motivated, which is why we can't really count on people to willfully change their opinions.

I wouldn't say we haven't been planting trees. Quite the contrary.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/...s-than-losing/

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...ls-off-forests

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

which is why we can't really count on people to willfully change their opinions.

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

........"This suggests that humanity is on a path to having limits imposed on itself, rather than consciously choosing its own."

.