Map of electricity generation mix in United States

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Precisely, which speeds up the half-life of naturally occurring U235, which speeds up the amount of time that the radioactive substance is radioactive.

No, it doesn't. The normal decay chain has a half-life, which is a series of alpha & beta decays taking place over hundreds of millions of years. Fission is an entirely different process, which basically doesn't happen in nature. (At least these days: see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura...ission_reactor for an example in the distant past.)

Fission doesn't have a half-life: it happens when you hit the U-235 nucleus with the right sort of neutrons. The fission products are far more radioactive than the U-235. That's just a fact.

[oil pan 4]

Your uraniums are barely radioactive, plutonium is slightly radioactive, but are nothing compared to their fission byproducts.
But because these byproducts are furiously radioactive, they don't stay that way for very long.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I agree that "dead zone" is misleading - that's where I came in. What I disagree on is the claim that it's an area of vastly increased risk of cancers, birth defects, &c. AFAIK, that claim is simply not supported by evidence.

Thanks for clarification .. That makes more sense.

As it is off topic for this thread .. I created another thread for it , if you wish to discuss that topic in more depth.

Link

[Hersbird]

Chernobyl is the anti-nukes best argument at the same time not a good one. Worst case scenario on a old design from a country known for cutting every corner is an example how not to do something, not a reason to never try to do it.

The problem here is somehow big environmental lobbies bought into big oil's propaganda. So they will get to sell oil until ever drop is gone thanks to environmentalists blocking the only truly feasible replacement for electricity generation on a large scale.

Make no mistake we will end up a nuclear powered world sooner or later. Should we do it now or wait until we have burned every drop of fossil fuel on the planet?

[darcane]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Coal and wind power here.

By comparison texas generates more than enough wind power to power the entire state of New Mexico.

From the article:
"There are 99 reactors at 63 nuclear electric plants in the U.S. They have generated 20 percent of the nation’s electricity this year."

Seems like we should look into this one a little more.

Your quote missed the most interesting thing about this whole article, on the next line:

Five new nuclear plants are under construction following decades of pause after the initial push in the 1970s and 1980s driven by the first oil shock.

This is a big deal. We haven't built new plants in decades.


Also related:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...015/15-067.pdf

Watts Bar #2 was mostly built in the 80's but not approved to produce and has been in stasis ever since. It was just approved to start producing and is the first new nuke plant in 19 years to be allowed to begin producing power.

I think we need to be moving towards Thorium plants, but adding a few "normal" nuclear plants is a good thing in my book.

[darcane]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Vermont:

Hydro: 493GWh
Wind: 159GWh
Solar: 28GWh
Natural Gas: 1GWh

Are there any other states with 99.8% clean energy?

EDIT: The US Energy Information Administration disagrees with these numbers:

Not sure how you get 99.8% green or even what you consider green...

But Washington produces about 75% from hydro, plus about 18% from Wind, natural gas, and nuclear combined.

I don't really see that as our state being more environmentally conscious than other states. It's more that we won the location-lottery and have access to a lot of hydro power.

[oil pan 4]

Oak Ridge 1969 MSRE nuclear reactor movie.
I am astonished at how far this was developed and then went no where.
It is a travesty that this video only has 68k views.

https://youtu.be/tyDbq5HRs0o