Want to stop paying for electricity?

Build your own nuclear reactor!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10372284.stm?ls

The first guy they interviewed was a berkeleying tool.

Some have already tried:

http://www.amazon.com/Radioactive-Boy-Scout-Backyard-Nuclear/dp/037550351X

-Rob

Not paying for electricity would be cool, all the cancer and unwanted attention from the CIA would not.

That Radioactive Boy Scout book is effing great, by the way, highly recommended reading!

And yes, I live 3 miles from a very large nuclear reactor (that almost turned the mid-Eastern seaboard into a nuclear wasteland 30 years ago), I have no want for a mini version that I welded together myself in my basement.

Having now operated and maintained 7 reactors from 40MW to 900MW, I can honestly say I could probably do as well in my basement.

Unfortunately critical mass doesn't scale down real well to household power levels.

I'll just wait a few more years for when solar arrays get more affordable. Less fallout...

There's this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

But there is also this:

http://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs/185/Toshiba-nuclear-reactor-hoax.html

One suspects there is more information in the "middle".

rob_lewis wrote: Some have already tried: http://www.amazon.com/Radioactive-Boy-Scout-Backyard-Nuclear/dp/037550351X -Rob

I remember when he was on 60 Minutes back in 2001 or so. In the end they said that he was in the navy and on a Nuke Aircraft Carrier, but NOT in the nuke part

Twin_Cam wrote: That Radioactive Boy Scout book is effing great, by the way, highly recommended reading! And yes, I live 3 miles from a very large nuclear reactor (that almost turned the mid-Eastern seaboard into a nuclear wasteland 30 years ago), I have no want for a mini version that I welded together myself in my basement.

And this is one of the core problems with the nuclear industry. Incorrect preception.

TMI would have never turned anything into a wasteland. Yes, it leaked, which was contained.

But the core assumption that if you uncover a critical mass of uranium that it will bore a hole into the ground is very, very false. The test was actually done at LOFT (Loss Of Fluid Test) in the Idaho desert- and once all of the water was drained out, the core naturally shut down. Vapor is a poor carrier of nuclei material.

Thanks to over reaction and movies like the China Syndrome, the nuclear industry starts with both hands tied behind their backs.

Oddly enough, nuclear plants have been running all over the world without incident, except for Chyernobl (which was a poor design) and TMI- which was basically human error.

Even more oddly enough, the radioactive output of coal plants far, far, far outweighs what nuclear plants do. I'd even harbor a bet that by now, coal plants net output of radioactive material is more than the nuclear bomb test. Ironic that fear of radioactive "stuff" actually helps us produce more radioactive "stuff" that you breathe every day, isn't it?

Eric

Eye heart ewe Eric.

Power To Save The World

Everybody should read this. Extremely well-written and factual book by an author who started out as a dyed-in-the-wool "nuclear is evil" hater and ended up completely convinced of the safety and efficiency of modern nuclear power.

alfadriver wrote:

Twin_Cam wrote: That Radioactive Boy Scout book is effing great, by the way, highly recommended reading! And yes, I live 3 miles from a very large nuclear reactor (that almost turned the mid-Eastern seaboard into a nuclear wasteland 30 years ago), I have no want for a mini version that I welded together myself in my basement.

And this is one of the core problems with the nuclear industry. Incorrect preception. TMI would have never turned anything into a wasteland. Yes, it leaked, which was contained. But the core assumption that if you uncover a critical mass of uranium that it will bore a hole into the ground is very, very false. The test was actually done at LOFT (Loss Of Fluid Test) in the Idaho desert- and once all of the water was drained out, the core naturally shut down. Vapor is a poor carrier of nuclei material. Thanks to over reaction and movies like the China Syndrome, the nuclear industry starts with both hands tied behind their backs. Oddly enough, nuclear plants have been running all over the world without incident, except for Chyernobl (which was a poor design) and TMI- which was basically human error. Even more oddly enough, the radioactive output of coal plants far, far, far outweighs what nuclear plants do. I'd even harbor a bet that by now, coal plants net output of radioactive material is more than the nuclear bomb test. Ironic that fear of radioactive "stuff" actually helps us produce more radioactive "stuff" that you breathe every day, isn't it? Eric

Just think about it- till we get our collective heads out of the ground, every one of those "green" electric cars aren't green at all. The are simply coal powered.

Now Eric, you know darned well there's way too much logic in that thought process to ever be absorbed by the average snope. But meltdowns and big explosions? Now yer talkin'

Ian F wrote: Now Eric, you know darned well there's way too much logic in that thought process to ever be absorbed by the average snope. But meltdowns and big explosions? Now yer talkin'

Hense the problem with President Eric. Alas, I will be ok with that.

alfadriver wrote: And this is one of the core problems with the nuclear industry. Incorrect preception. Even more oddly enough, the radioactive output of coal plants far, far, far outweighs what nuclear plants do. I'd even harbor a bet that by now, coal plants net output of radioactive material is more than the nuclear bomb test. Ironic that fear of radioactive "stuff" actually helps us produce more radioactive "stuff" that you breathe every day, isn't it? Eric

I agree with you on the grounds that there are a lot of faulty perceptions about nuclear energy. But the coal power statement is misleading. Net output of radioactive material might be one thing, but there are different types of radiation and core materials out of a reactor are nasty unlike anything out of a coal power plant.

I personally have no desire to mess with anything nuclear, but its out of personal history. My father was a nuclear criticality safety specialist and ended up getting cancer and passing away from his job (govt assessment is that it was from his job). Not to say it couldnt happen from coal power, separate statement.

The materials off of a reactor DO in fact necessatate being buried in a lead lined box under a mountain for hundreds of years.

Now with proper safety precautions in place and core material disposal out of the picture... yes the background radiation addition from coal power is very likely much greater.

alfadriver wrote: TMI would have never turned anything into a wasteland. Yes, it leaked, which was contained. But the core assumption that if you uncover a critical mass of uranium that it will bore a hole into the ground is very, very false. The test was actually done at LOFT (Loss Of Fluid Test) in the Idaho desert- and once all of the water was drained out, the core naturally shut down. Vapor is a poor carrier of nuclei material. Thanks to over reaction and movies like the China Syndrome, the nuclear industry starts with both hands tied behind their backs. Oddly enough, nuclear plants have been running all over the world without incident, except for Chyernobl (which was a poor design) and TMI- which was basically human error.

   This is just wrong. Chernobyl was caused by human error also. The area there was and still is, a

vast wasteland. (I have relatives that lived there) TMI could have done the same, but they got very lucky. The LOFT test was conducted under strict controls. The real world of nukes, while having multiple layers of controls, still depends on people and people make mistakes. It is also surrounded by all kinds of things for the reaction to "consume" and sustain itself as proven by Chernobyl, although the "experts" said this was impossible to happen. That was a real world example of The China Syndrome and it doesn't matter if the cause was poor engineering, or "human error". The only thing that prevented this disaster from becoming who knows what, was the supreme sacrifices made by a group of men who died horribly." Incidents " are way more common than most people would think. Most are downplayed by the NRC and the utility or corporate owners, and only marginally reported by the press. The plant owners, putting off maintenance, even on shut-downs, don't help with their primary concerns being budget and schedule. I am a proponent of nuclear power and work in the industry, but recognize the hazards are real and the consequences can be devastating. The current practice of extending the operating licenses without having major rework and maintenance done, is playing Russian Roulette.(no pun intended)

Apexcarver wrote:

alfadriver wrote: And this is one of the core problems with the nuclear industry. Incorrect preception. Even more oddly enough, the radioactive output of coal plants far, far, far outweighs what nuclear plants do. I'd even harbor a bet that by now, coal plants net output of radioactive material is more than the nuclear bomb test. Ironic that fear of radioactive "stuff" actually helps us produce more radioactive "stuff" that you breathe every day, isn't it? Eric

I agree with you on the grounds that there are a lot of faulty perceptions about nuclear energy. But the coal power statement is misleading. Net output of radioactive material might be one thing, but there are different types of radiation and core materials out of a reactor are nasty unlike anything out of a coal power plant. I personally have no desire to mess with anything nuclear, but its out of personal history. My father was a nuclear criticality safety specialist and ended up getting cancer and passing away from his job (govt assessment is that it was from his job). Not to say it couldnt happen from coal power, separate statement. The materials off of a reactor DO in fact necessatate being buried in a lead lined box under a mountain for hundreds of years. Now with proper safety precautions in place and core material disposal out of the picture... yes the background radiation addition from coal power is very likely much greater.

Types are indeed different. Which is why there are safety standards and procedures in the first place. All of which have been followed quite closely in the US to the degree that the worst commercial nuclear disaster in the US did nothing but rile up a bunch of opinions.

And the worst of the worst disasters in the US was all contained and only killed 3 people (although there are theories that it was a murder/suicide).

No idea what happened to your dad, but I also know plenty of people who have spent their carrers in the nuclear research industry- my dad, too- and cancer rates are no higher in SE Idaho than anywhere else (one of the larger nuclear resarch labs in the US).

The problem with coal is that the true facts are hidden. The problem with nuclear is that the true facts are embellished.

Eric

It's not background radiation- it's materials that are naturally occurring in coal, that are then burned and released into the air that you breathe. THAT has never occurred in western Nuclear work. Ever.

minimac wrote:

alfadriver wrote: TMI would have never turned anything into a wasteland. Yes, it leaked, which was contained. But the core assumption that if you uncover a critical mass of uranium that it will bore a hole into the ground is very, very false. The test was actually done at LOFT (Loss Of Fluid Test) in the Idaho desert- and once all of the water was drained out, the core naturally shut down. Vapor is a poor carrier of nuclei material. Thanks to over reaction and movies like the China Syndrome, the nuclear industry starts with both hands tied behind their backs. Oddly enough, nuclear plants have been running all over the world without incident, except for Chyernobl (which was a poor design) and TMI- which was basically human error.

This is just wrong. Chernobyl was caused by human error also. The area there was and still is, a vast wasteland. (I have relatives that lived there) TMI could have done the same, but they got very lucky. The LOFT test was conducted under strict controls. The real world of nukes, while having multiple layers of controls, still depends on people and people make mistakes. It is also surrounded by all kinds of things for the reaction to "consume" and sustain itself as proven by Chernobyl, although the "experts" said this was impossible to happen. That was a real world example of The China Syndrome and it doesn't matter if the cause was poor engineering, or "human error". The only thing that prevented this disaster from becoming who knows what, was the supreme sacrifices made by a group of men who died horribly." Incidents " are way more common than most people would think. Most are downplayed by the NRC and the utility or corporate owners, and only marginally reported by the press. The plant owners, putting off maintenance, even on shut-downs, don't help with their primary concerns being budget and schedule. I am a proponent of nuclear power and work in the industry, but recognizance the hazards are real and the consequences can be devastating. The current practice of extending the operating licenses without having major rework and maintenance done, is playing Russian Roulette.(no pun intended)

Cherynobyl and TMI are and were totally different. Mainly in the core design of the reactor. Cherynobyl's core problem was that it was surrounded by a regulating material that burns (carbon), so if an accident happened, not only would it no stop the ongoing reaction, it would burn and cause other problems. OTOH, water reactors, like at TMI, use the water to help regulate the reaction. When the water goes away, reaction stops. But at it's core Chernobyl did NOT go super critucal, it just burned up it's surroundings, which carried the radioactive materials into the atmosphere. It would not have burned a hole into the ground as implied by the China Syndrome.

minimac wrote: the hazards are real and the consequences can be devastating. The current practice of extending the operating licenses without having major rework and maintenance done, is playing Russian Roulette.(no pun intended)

So how about getting rid of all the reactionary laws and regulations that make it impossible to build a new reactor in the US, so we can start constructing modern, high-efficiency, low-waste reactors and shutting down the aging units that are kept operating simply because it's impossible to replace them?

Nah, that makes way too much sense, so it'll never happen.

alfadriver wrote: ..... it's materials that are naturally occurring in coal, that are then burned and released into the air that you breathe. THAT has never occurred in western Nuclear work. Ever.

Again, not quite true.True, nothing is burned at a nuke. BUT there have been many, many releases into the atmosphere of radioactive materials. More of an immediate concern though, is how do you suppose tritium is appearing in the ground and ground water around nuke plants. Braidwood (Exelon) had a big lawsuit filed against them for unauthorized, unreported releases into our breathing air( http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-21-02.asp) and Vermont Yankee is in the midst of a big remediation project. Fitzpatrick too, is investigating the source of "a leak" of tritium. This doesn't even begin to address the issue of radon, which is routinely "vented". Walk through turbine deck when a plant is running with a sweatshirt on, and I'll guarantee you will not make it through the personal contamination monitors(PCMs). If you had that much radon present in your house, you would have to tear it down. Ginna had a release of radioactive steam in 1982. The press now downplays it as minor, but how much radioactive steam do you think was released in a hour and a half? A lot more than I'd like to be breathing.They aren't the only ones. The same has happened at almost every operating plant in the country. I do agree with Alfa that the truth should not be hidden about coal, either. Coal burners are nasty, nasty places.