Fission

[Zixinus]

Some among this board believe that fission is not worth its cause. This is not true.

Most issues of fission reactors has been dealt with, and so-called problems already have a solution.

Well, discuss.

[JoeStrout]

Some among this board believe that fission is not worth its cause. This is not true.

Most issues of fission reactors has been dealt with, and so-called problems already have a solution.

Well, discuss.

It's fine with me if people want to discuss that here — this is sort of the place for off-topic discussions. As for me, I don't have much interest in it, though. The only relevance fission has to polywell reactors is that, to the extent people accept fission as a solution, there is less urgency to develop fusion.

[Zixinus]

The only relevance fission has to polywell reactors is that, to the extent people accept fission as a solution, there is less urgency to develop fusion.

I think, if people will accepts fission, then they will go nuts over fusion. Fusion IS cleaner and MUCH more powerful overall. If for nothing else, but for more powerful rocket motors.

The topic isn't about Polywell and Fission, its about fission alone. If fusion fails, should fission be pursued instead?

[Nanos]

I remember hearing that fast breeder reactors are the way to go, but in the UK research in that area has I believe ended sometime ago.

I certainly see a connection between more acceptance of fission leading to going the fusion route, simply because the vast majority of the public do not know the difference between the two.

[Zixinus]

I remember hearing that fast breeder reactors are the way to go, but in the UK research in that area has I believe ended sometime ago.

Japan is doing research.

[tonybarry]

I for one would prefer to avoid fission ... it has a bad name among some section of the populace, and certainly has a difficult act to perform with cleanup.

However, when we are facing the imminent demise of regular fuels, it may be that fission is better than freezing.

Regards,
TB

[Nanos]

There was some talk about the fusion technology being used to do away with current nuclear waste, perhaps approach it from that direction, rather than say 'fusion', say 'waste destruction', at least then you might get funding, and profit from a commercial system which could then be applied to develop fusion later on.

Plus it would help tidy up all that mess we left behind the last time we played with atoms

[Zixinus]

Actually that waste can be reprocessed without fusion, fusion would merely do the job best.

Reprocessing would turn about 95% of the waste into usable fuel.

[MSimon]

I for one would prefer to avoid fission ... it has a bad name among some section of the populace, and certainly has a difficult act to perform with cleanup.

However, when we are facing the imminent demise of regular fuels, it may be that fission is better than freezing.

Regards,
TB

Yep we will run out of coal in 300 or 500 years. We are doomed.

[MSimon]

Actually that waste can be reprocessed without fusion, fusion would merely do the job best.

Reprocessing would turn about 95% of the waste into usable fuel.

Plutonium my man. Plutonium.

A plutonium economy is unwise.

I say this as a qualified Naval Nuke.

If it was up to me I'd make nuclear power strictly a military venture.

[Zixinus]

Yep we will run out of coal in 300 or 500 years. We are doomed.

And oil within this century. I won't live to see it. Maybe. But when that hits, it will hit hard. And coal is worse then oil in many respects.

A plutonium economy is unwise.

Why?

If it was up to me I'd make nuclear power strictly a military venture.

That would be contrary to the point.

[Schneibster]

I promised I'd show up; I'm busy, but I've seen this thread, and I'll be here when I have a little time to spend.

Just for starters, my concerns about fission are far more about human factors than they are inherent danger (although fission is dangerous- no question about it). I see the technical hurdles as being mostly cleared, and the dangers mostly handled. I think The China Syndrome and Three Mile Island effectively killed fission politically speaking in the US, and Chernobyl only spat on its grave. I think this is deplorable and has landed us in a hell of a mess, global-warming wise. You can argue about global warming on another thread on this General forum if you like; personally, I don't really care enough to bother here, I fight that battle elsewhere and don't really want to contaminate this site with it. Just suppose it's true; what are we talking about here (I mean this site)? The solution to it, of course. So why bother?

Human factors that worry me about fission include but are not limited to:
1. Greedy utility companies shorting on design or monitoring because government oversight is insufficient to prevent it;
2. Greedy countries using the technology to manufacture nuclear weapons;
3. Countries with a desperate need for energy using nuclear reactors with insufficient safeguards because they can't afford them;
and that'll do for the present.

In short, I'm not firmly against fission; I just think there remain significant hurdles to its implementation. Solutions to some or all of these problems are available. But if it's gonna be done, it's gotta be done right. And what concerns me most is the world-wide record on doing things right, which is not all that good.

[Zixinus]

1. Greedy utility companies shorting on design or monitoring because government oversight is insufficient to prevent it;
2. Greedy countries using the technology to manufacture nuclear weapons;
3. Countries with a desperate need for energy using nuclear reactors with insufficient safeguards because they can't afford them;

1. I don't know about other countries, but in the USA nuclear policy is over-regulated to a fault. And there are international agencies and groups that oversee nuclear plants and technology all over the world.

2. The countries for which fission is available already have a nuclear stockpile. And it is solvable for these countries to operate their plants in other countries, paid by the non-nuclear country in question. My country has a nuclear power plant, but lacks nukes. We buy our fuel from the Russians.

3. Newer designs are much more cheaper, and safeguards cost less. Pebble bed reactors have their safeguards built-in.

[lambda0]

Some among this board believe that fission is not worth its cause. This is not true.

Most issues of fission reactors has been dealt with, and so-called problems already have a solution.

Well, discuss.

It's fine with me if people want to discuss that here — this is sort of the place for off-topic discussions. As for me, I don't have much interest in it, though. The only relevance fission has to polywell reactors is that, to the extent people accept fission as a solution, there is less urgency to develop fusion.

Not so sure that it's off-topics. If the Polywell never reach a break-even and cannot be used directly as a source of energy, I think that it may be an interesting source of neutrons used in a subcritical fission reactor (the ADS, "energy amplifier").

[PMN1]

How about the thorium cycle for fission?

http://www.uic.com.au/nip67.htm

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/ ... c2445e4f76

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/ ... c.php?t=10