Nuclear Power Good or Bad?

[Grognan]

What does everyone feel about using fission as a source of energy? Why should or shouldn't it be used?

[Verrin]

It would be swell if there was an effective waste management system, that actually does something with it.

[Mac_Bug]

I asked a real nuclear physicist who worked at a nuclear power plant whether he would move his family down there, and he said well, I already have.

[Homdax]

Let me see, 20 words or 2000?

Most who knows some of this, would say that the nuclear waste is a big problem. Then comes the issue of nuclear power meaning Fusion or meaning Fission. Fusion is still experimental and generates no waste (AFAIK), but if we assume that "Nuclear Power" will evolve in to Fusion based power generation, Yes I am all for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
Fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Fission is the current technology and generates waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

Even with the waste problem, it is still, while securely handled, much less of an issue than other power sources like oil or coal.

So considering this I vote yes. But it will be debated.

[Grognan]

Hmmm that's what I was thinking but I am interested in hearing what everyone has to say about the issue.

[Koki]

I'm all for it. Clean. Efficient. Safe.

[General Nuke Em]

nuclear power = chernobyl = end of world /sarcasm

[Beelzebuddy]

Let me see, 20 words or 2000?Two. Yes.

[Benjamin]

I think you should incule a few links...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4483002.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4482872.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/C1824

list of a few more (http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=nuclear&tab=news&scope=newsukfs&suggest=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2Fnol%2Fukfs_news%2Fhi%2Fnewsid_4480000%2Fnewsid_4482800%2F4482872.stm)

[troff]

I don't think we need a thread on a common topic like this, as there's too many already. Other topics include:

- Animal testing - good or bad?
- Abortion - yes or no?
- Execution - good or trial?
- yada yada

No offense but it's quite common don't you think?

Btw nuclear power = good when managed properly.

[Nurizeko]

Provided we deal with the waste effectively then i say yes, the remote risk of nuclear fallout < the assured enviromental catastrophe caused by burnnig fossil feuls in the future.


Anyway, it will give us a chance to discover this fussion fission or whatever that doesnt make waste (too early sorry..) or other wasteless energy sources.

I think greenies who oppose it passionately are simply caught up more in the excitement of their crusading argument then actual logic and common sense.

Yes nuclear waste is a factor, no it isnt worse then how we gain our energy needs now, yes it will give us some breathing space and no, the waste wont be dumped in your back yard.

[Retroboy]

Good.

Particularly if built using the Candu design. Heavy water may be more expensive, but it's less problematic than enriching uranium fuel and finding out how to get rid of the more toxic waste.

-- Retro

[Elixir]

I'd have to say good cause quite frankly the UK is going to run out of power pretty soon and I don't think any of the other proposed methods are viable for the immediate future. They need a lot more time, money and public interest invested in them before they can hold their own in the power sector.

[Starblade]

I said depends, just because I don't know enough about it to say yes for sure.

[Moe]

With the possible exception of a few whoopsies...

http://www.mandys-web.de/images/Simpsons/Episoden/Staffel2/fish1.jpg

..it's probably the best bet we currently have, but some of the older reactors really ought to be shut down.

[Nurizeko]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y233/mmiliard/mr_burns.gif

Bah humbug!.

[Ammon Ra]

Depends. And btw, we've gone through several 'nuclear-related thread' in the past 2 months or so.

Nuclear power, when used properly, should be allowed, but properly controlled. So all the people that voted "YES" are for allowing iran and Nkorea to develop their nuclear programs uncontroled and unmonitored...? the initial question was very vague, not specifying any international constraints or anything, so the discussion is wide open.

As for nuclear power itself, It is not a bad thing. The only "bad" thing is human nature to dicotomize everything into two sides, and i thank the op for adding "depends". nuclear power is a source of non-[co2]-polutive source of energy, and will be essential in our transition away from fossil fuels. In that sense it is "good". It is "bad" when the power is released instintaneously, and is also "bad" when the waste products aren't under enough security, allowing the "bad" T's to steal it and do other "bad" things.

'Good' or 'bad', it depends entirely on how people use it. People are "good" and "bad", not nuclear power.

[Tiberius Nero]

I don't think that anyone who voted "yes" agrees to uncontroled development of nuclear projects, Ammon; otherwise I truly see little point in this poll, everyone in one's right mind has to vote "depends" if "yes" means "oh yeah, I was thinking of setting up a nuclear plant in my basement actually".

[Ammon Ra]

well, the original poster (http://forums.relicnews.com/showpost.php?p=1259553&postcount=1) never specified, never indicated what the poll options mean, never restricted it to national [i.e. us] boundaries, or other stuff. it's completly open to interpretation and the poll is worthless. That's my point. :)

all the op asks is for pros and cons for using fissionable energy, and depending on who you ask, a radiation spill might be a "good" thing...Yes i am being nitpicky. :-/ :frog:

[Lazerguy]

We aren't talkiing about nuclear weapons here. I vote yes.

[Tiberius Nero]

the poll is worthless

I agree. Also:

Posted by Retroboy in "How to start a Non-Annoying GD Thread" sticky thread:


Always include an "other - see below" option, for those people that don't agree with any of your answers.

The option "other" would have been much appreciated in a discussion about the utilization of nuclear power.

[Lixpraki]

I vote yes. One of this nights I saw a tv show about the use of hidrogen on the future as a replacement for our current oil usage and so ending our dependecy of it. Well guess what, they are thinking of using the oil to get the hydrogen so we will continue to stay dependent on it. My solution build a nuclear power plant and through a process of electrolisis you could split the hydrogen from the oxygen which can be found in water.

[Noir]

At the very least, Nuclear power is the best interim solution we have until we can find something more sustainable(like Fusion and the like). The waste is a problem, but at least measures like nuclear fuel reprocessing will cut down on that.

[Benjamin]

I'm pritty much a laman on this issue, but from what I've seen & heard, that we are pritty far off from where we were at the time of the chernobyl dissaster.

Im for it, since it seems the best way to go, but I don't think we should rely entirly on nuclear power. We do need to use it more it seems, but we should also have a good mix of hydro, wind, solor power in addition.

[DemonTalons]

Just ask the swedes. They voted to shut down their nuclear power plants but now with the electric prices going up the people want to get back their plants. The government is still shutting them down but it will probably be an issue in the next election.

[severijn]

Nuclear fusion does create waste, however, it's only low-level waste, meaning that it'll only take a "meager" 100 years instead of all eternity to return back to accepted levels of radiation.

Untill we have found an alternative to nuclear fission, I'll have to live with it. Quite pointless saying that it should go, since that is not realistic, unless we were to abandon most of todays luxuries.

[CrimsonAngel]

Well as long as you dont build them close to the danishe border.

Barse beck was clossed down becus of the danishe goverment more then any thing.

[SquidDNA]

I have difficulty shaking the feeling that in the next 100 years we'll have to abandon most of our luxuries.

[Alliance]

why would we have to give up our luxuries exactly?

Im for nuclear fussion/fission/balloons.

I think its the cleanest way (relativly) to creat large amounts of power without building huge wind/sun farms, which while enviromently friendly, take huge amounts of space, making them not soo friendly to the enviroment. unless you need a tan that is.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

if the feds could clean up Hanford successfully maybe nuclear power would have some support. BUt for Christ's sake they've had 4 tries at building a clean up plant and they've all been miserable failures.

also: power isn't going to be the big problem in coming years. the big problem is going to be heat. I dunno about everywhere else but north america is going to run out of natural gas for all practical purposes in the next few years. And it's too dangerous and impractical to import....

[severijn]

Luxuries as in power demanding luxuries, because there is no realistic alternative that would provide us the amount of power we use nowadays.

By the way, nuclear fission isn't something we can use for all eternity, since enriched uranium is also a limited resource.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

there isn't anything that we know of that we can use for eternity. that would require dimension hopping or something that draws power essentially magically...

of course that's not worthh worrying about compared to heat.

(if you are investing in suburban real estate, I suggest you get out.)

[severijn]

water, deuterium and tritium are eternal. well, practically eternal.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

'practically eternal' will be of small comfort to the men of ten billion a.d.

[Tiresias]

when the oil runs out of course everything goes to hell...

Anyway frankly in the UK Nuclear power is neccessary in order to meet rising power requirements and reducing fossil fuel supply. while Enriched Urainum is a rare resorce as I understand it It'll power a station for a long time. Green forms of energy won't cut it unfortunately.

[Stripe7]

actually, certain reactors can also use thorium as fuel. so we do not have to worry about running out of fissiles.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Green forms of energy won't cut it unfortunately

That's a nice assertion. Is it based on anything?

[Harmanoff]

Yeah it's based on fossile and nuclear fuel being much cheaper and thus green forms of energy won't be used until the shit hits the fan when it's too late anyway and/or if someone makes it more cost effective.

Given the choises today i'd vote nuclear. That's not a good choise but the least bad one. Paying more for renewable enery source would be fine with me but i'm a poor student and as such i have no importance.

[Tiberius Nero]

Well, obviously I barely know that chemistry is spelled with a "ch"; I thought deuterium and thorium were Master of Orion fiction :/

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Converting entirely to nuclear would produce an extremely large amount of nuclear waste, unfortunately.

and its very hard to get rid of.

not to forget, the more of it you have, the more likely an accident is.

[Stripe7]

No problem, we just turn the moon into a huge nuclear waste storage facility. :D

Lets see picks up on this referernce first. :nana:

[severijn]

I thought thorium was an end-product of nuclear fission?

[Retroboy]

Stripe7 - Space 1999?

-- Retro

[Magus]

Well, lets just say I feel strongly enough about nuclear power and its prospects that my planned major is either Nuclear Engineering or Engineering Physics (emphasis Nuclear).

[Dan Van Crone]

Nuclear power should by no means considered the solution to our energy needs, but it's a hell of a lot better than coal and oil and should at least be used in place of fossils until we finally do get a handle on renewable energy sources.

[Caesar]

Nuclear power is excellent.

[Busby]

I think we should go for cleaner and safer froms of energy rather then Nuclear, its not worth the risks of meltdowns and areas being iradated.

[Tails]

"Nuclear power is safe, clean, and efficient. Efforts to drown in gill people in the nearby rivers have been met with mixed success."

- America, the Book

[Tiresias]

green energy I meant simply doesn't produce enough as of ye, we need to invest heavily in it but unless people are willing to sacrifice energy consumption, which I suspect people as a whole are not we have to build nuclear as a stop gap until more efficient green energy is generated and even possibly fusion a long time down the line.

[hiddensmoke]

nuclear power is a answer for the moment. its better then any of the other power sources even if it has some drawbacks. Coal power plants waste most (70% i think) of the energy produced, it simply escapes. hydroelectric power plants dont produce enough either to cover the worlds power needs. and well wind power takes too much space but is relitively cheap and if you live in say the great plains its a good choice. and solar plants are getting more expensive with the amount of oil going down.

[Moe]

We have hydrogen power plants? And why would solar power get more expensive when there is less oil?

[hiddensmoke]

i read it up and it stated as oil gets more expensive so does solar power, the hydroelectric power plants are the big dams.

ill snoop around a little more about the oil thing.

edit well i found this

advantages

Solar energy is free - it needs no fuel and produces no waste or pollution.

In sunny countries, solar power can be used where there is no easy way to get electricity to a remote place.

Handy for low-power uses such as solar powered garden lights and battery chargers

disadvantages

Doesn't work at night.

Very expensive to build solar power stations.
Solar cells cost a great deal compared to the amount of electricity they'll produce in their lifetime.

Can be unreliable unless you're in a very sunny climate. In the United Kingdom, solar power isn't much use except for low-power applications, as you need a very large area of solar panels to get a decent amount of power.

well maybe it was some quack talking about oil, ill keep looking

[Tails]

hiddensmoke, I believe you mean hydroelectric plants. Hydro- means water.

Another disadvantage about solar energy is where to put the cells. We'd need to put them on every rooftop, car, buildling, or otherwise.

[hiddensmoke]

oops my bad there similar in name tho. ill correct it now

[Tiresias]

Not quite true, pollution caused in making them is quite large, and environmental impact of getting rid of them is similar to computer parts and such, not much possibility for recycling.

[SquidDNA]

Why get rid of them? Do they wear out?

[Ammon Ra]

<<Another disadvantage about solar energy is where to put the cells. We'd need to put them on every rooftop, car, buildling, or otherwise.>>

What's wrong with that? It's a completly decentralized power grid and allows people to make money by selling electricity. It's practically immune to attack, of all kinds. yes it would take alot of capitol to convert everything, but you don't have to worry about energy again for a long time. minimal maintenance, sure low effficiency, but that's counterd by surface area, and possibly improved technology.

Regarding nuclear waste, it IS NOT WORTHLESS. Create aradiation-powered stirling plant [yes, centralized, but people would never want these boxes in their houses. ever.], and you can generate more electricity from the thermal energy. why burry it? use it ffs.

lastly, geothermal power Pwns j00 411. do some research.

[Tails]

Ammon Ra, are you prepared to protect and maintain your rooftop of expensive-ass solar cells from rain, snow, bird droppings, and other things that crash? Would you like to experience blackouts on cloudy days, or to allay those blackouts, maintain a gigantic battery in your basement that's made of God-knows what? Are you prepared to deal with the absolute ugliness of your abode (your roof would have to be flat) in the interest of unreliable utility?

Until then, we'll bury our nuclear waste 90 miles from Las Vegas. (http://www.lasvegassun.com/dossier/nuke/) We may finally see the evolution of the 3-boobed hooker from Total Recall!

[ShpEagleEye]

The difficult part with nuclear power plants is the waste. It is the product of decay of heavy elements. But these heavy elements are natural, in fact are processed from soil. They are decaying anyway, so why not collect them to heat some water in the procress, because this is how a reactor works. Pro nuclear power.

[Tiresias]

Squid they do break...

[Gyokuran]

Nuclear fission is a good energy source, its not that hard to deal with the waste in a clean and safe manner if people actually put their minds and budgets on it. Dams are also a good existing energy source, we have a good number of them built around here. Personally I'm not too fond of windfarms, but offshore ones sound like a good idea.

[Tails]

Why would making them offshore any better? If it's anything to do with environmental concern, seagulls would get caught in them, just as birds on land would.

[Gyokuran]

Because they take up a lot of space, and I'd guess that there would be a better constant wind source offshore. They're also talking about making them a lot larger then they are now, and they're already pretty massive.

[Grognan]

Did ya know France uses its old fuel rods as structural support in pillars for parking garages? Its harder than steel and when incased in concrete it blocks radiation.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

In my opinion:

Solar/Wind/Hydro Power > Nuclear Power > Fossil Fuel Based Power

If a country can't run itself effectively off of the first category then yes nuclear power is a good move. If it can, then no.

[Gyokuran]

Did ya know France uses its old fuel rods as structural support in pillars for parking garages? Its harder than steel and when incased in concrete it blocks radiation.

There's a difference between hardness and strength. Since uranium is very dense I wouldn't be surprised if it had a very high compression strength, however the reason they add steel to concrete is because steel has high tensile strength where as concrete does not.

[Ammon Ra]

Ammon Ra, are you prepared to protect and maintain your rooftop of expensive-ass solar cells from rain, snow, bird droppings, and other things that crash? Would you like to experience blackouts on cloudy days, or to allay those blackouts, maintain a gigantic battery in your basement that's made of God-knows what? Are you prepared to deal with the absolute ugliness of your abode (your roof would have to be flat) in the interest of unreliable utility?

expensive is relative. It's only expensive when compared to therediculously cheap prices of non-renewable energy sources. It is expensive, i agree, but not for long.

As for protection, there IS something called class and nano-protected glass that simply cleanthemselves whenever it rains. Not much maintenance. Again pricy.

You don't need direct sunlinght to be able to use the photoelectric effect. it can be overcast and still be enough sunlight to create some power. It does effect the performance, but then you have the batteries. As for "giant battaries made of god knows what", you don't need to ask god, the most efficient batteries are litium ion or lition plymer ions. Yes they would be bulky, but it's not like every house needs 5 cubic meters of batteries. the decentralized form of the power grid allows energy to flow from house to house. IF you generate more electricity than you produce after your battaries are full, you sell it. if you require energy, you drain other people's surpluses, and have to pay for that. This system is already operational in belgium: place pvc on your roof, and when you generate more electricity than you produce, your counter goes backwards, and the electricity company pays you, or reduces your energy bills.

as for the "uglyness of a flat roof" who the hell ever said that pvc's need to be flat? Oh right, you did. Take a house with slanted roof. it has 4 sides, in the most basic cube house. they're slanted, and placing pvc's on them will allow one side to always be pointed in the general direction of the sun. again, it's not the most effective of means. The most effective and expensive means would be to have them constantly orient themselves at the sun, i.e. sunflowers. And pvc's aren't ugly, you might find them boring, which is fair enough.
http://www.h2nation.com/silicon.jpg
http://www.hvce.com/images/140watt.jpg

for comparison, 40m^2 [10m*4m] produces around 1Kwh anually, in belgium, which i agree is not that much, but that's enough to reduce energy bills considerably.


Puttingthe above post in laymen's terms, concrete breaks when pulled very easily, but can suport large compressive forces. which is why steel rods are put in, they take the bulk of the "pulling apart" forces.

edit: let's not forget wave-powered electricity generation (http://www.wavedragon.net/), or Geothermal energy (http://www.soultz.net/).

[Cash_Fish]

A lot of homes in Denmark have a few solar panels on their roof which are used to heat water and to supplement their electricity supply. From what I have gathered, they are not exactly too cheap, though they should pay for themselves over a few years and then start saving you lots of money. I think solar energy can only really see relatively smaller scale use like this due to the maintenence of them and the cloudy days.

[spacewolflord]

I personally think nuclear power is a good idea that got a whole lot of bad press.
They should replace old reactors with newer and a HELL LOT more efficent ones that are out there. I mean why not, in the end you would be taking up just as much space but increasing out put. And making a good number of jobs for people with the building of the new and taking down of the old.
Well some have said they don't know that much about how all the reactors work and whats out there so I thought I post THIS LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant)

We should try and make Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_Thermoelectric_Generator) work better. All you do is put the radiological materials in the thing and let it do its job until they are spent. Few moving parts and can be quite small.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

A little discussed aspect of nuclear power is all the warm water they generate. I haven't looked into it in detail, but lots of nuclear plants could have a tremendous effect on the environment simply by heating the rivers and oceans.

[Cash_Fish]

Yeah, a lot of nuclear plants built near rivers, lakes, or the oceans use the water as a cooling system. By having the pipes run throught the water in order to cool the coolant in them, they casue the surrounding water to raise to very high temperatures. Almost even to a boil. Lets just say that it produces pre-cooked fish, etc... The heating of the water also forces the oxygen and other gases out of the water so as you can see that is a huge problem for marine life.

[Tails]

Also, I believe I've read that the increased heat from nuclear plants facilitates H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) production, so if you swim in that water, your hair will bleach.

[A176]

lets dump all our nuclear waste on venus

[Tiresias]

hat seems ineffient, you could use that to drive turbines and produce more power...

[Koki]

Hey, I think that large windfarms are a great thing to watch.

[Nurizeko]

Build wave+wind turbines all over the pacific, that'll sort out our energy problems.

Though it will probably mess with weather patterns, ocean wildlife, and generally be unfeesable because humans dont get along well enough for real global projects.

I'll stick with nuclear.

[Busby]

hat seems ineffient, you could use that to drive turbines and produce more power...
Thats how most reactors make power; they use steam to turn a turbine.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The heated water is for cooling the parts of the reactor not designed to heat water.. or something like that.

[Tails]

Build wave+wind turbines all over the pacific, that'll sort out our energy problems.
I'm sure you won't mind paying taxes for all that expensive coastal real estate.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Huh?

[Tails]

Coastal regions have expensive real estate! Even beach houses in the middle of nowhere can cost something in the millions!

[TheDeadlyShoe]

But... the government doesn't pay taxes.

[Tails]

No, but the government collects property tax.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

~ the generators are off the coast not on it anyways

[Tails]

Oh. That certainly does make a difference.

[Busby]

In international waters?

[Tails]

Anything within 12 miles of a nation's coastline is considered the national border.

[Ammon Ra]

and at that distance the ocean is too deep for wind farms, or too expensive to build pylons down to several hundred meeters below seal evel. Thena gain i doubt that the us would ever go into this: "OH NoeZ! teh windmills are poluting my viewzorz!!"

Build wave+wind turbines all over the pacific, that'll sort out our energy problems.
Not really, wave/tidal generators are only effective in certain areas. i posted a link a few pages ago indicating the potential energy sources off the european coasts, and it was frankly huge. up to 79M (or something) per meter above average. nodic regions had goldmines, and this is only using a small model. tidal/wage generators also don't have to break your oceanic view, it doesn't have to decrease property value. imo it should icnrease it. also they can only be placed near the shore, unless you want some long cabels connecting megaton constructions, if they're meant for the midle of the ocean.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

internationaaaaaaal waters!

*breaks into song*

[spacewolflord]

Well to get rid of the waste I found this little method Beta voltaic (http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Beta_voltaic)
Basicly it captures the radiation and uses it as a battery and why not? You could make all that waste give you even more energy or let it sit and do nothing more for 10000 years or so.

[ceejayoz]

spacewolflord, that site also claims the Nazis invented anti-gravity devices.

Not by any stretch of the imagination reliable. In the comments is a detailed rebuttal (http://www.phact.org/e/z/betavolt.htm).

[Fiirks]

Uh oh.... Somebody mentioned Nazi's....


Nuclear power is a good thing, we just need to get the waste sequestered somewhere (Yucca Mountain) and have people not worry about it so much.

[Moe]

Well to get rid of the waste I found this little method Beta voltaic
Basicly it captures the radiation and uses it as a battery and why not? You could make all that waste give you even more energy or let it sit and do nothing more for 10000 years or so.

Ahahaha, not those idiots again. Let me sum up the rebuttal that CJ linked to for all you non-physicists out there:
The method advertised on that web page is pure, copper-bottomed bullshit. The paper they refer to doesn't support their theory, in fact it flat out contradicts it. The website demonstrates that those people don't even know basic nuclear physics, not to mention the fact that they don't know their asses from their elbows as far as particle physics are concerned.

Finally, allow me to quote the last part of the rebuttal:
First take a look at Betavoltaic Industries' address: Betavoltaic Industries Inc. 5147 S. Harvard, Suite 187 Tulsa OK 74135 It just so happens that "Betavoltaic Industries" is located at the same address as the Mail Emporium of Tulsa, which specializes in shipping and mailing services. In other words, BVI is a rental mail box. Next, do a name search for "Betavoltaic Industries" under the Oklahoma Secretary of State web page, which allows you to search for all corporate entities registered to do business in Oklahoma. There is no such registered corporation in Oklahoma as "Betavoltaic Industries, Inc." The word "Betavoltaic" is only listed as a tradename for the Beaver True Value Lumber Company in Clinton, OK. Unless Mr. McDonnough is also in the lumber business, I doubt there's a connection. In short, here is no Betavoltaic Industries beyond a web page, a rental mail box, and a lot of bluster. I doubt very much that Eric Krieg is going to be hearing from BVI's "legal council" (sic) anytime soon. WTH

[Grognan]

I always thought the most final way to get rid of nuclear waste was to construct a magnetic rail gun based on earth that could loft waste at the sun, orbit, or deep space.

[Tails]

You'd need one hell of a magnet to toss random objects through the atmosphere to breach Earth's escape velocity. Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to operate those magnets?

[hiddensmoke]

probly more then affordablly possible.

[Grognan]

True but the rail gun would be nuclear powered as well :). Think of it..the end-all of nuclear waste storage...

[Ammon Ra]

I always thought the most final way to get rid of nuclear waste was to construct a magnetic rail gun based on earth that could loft waste at the sun, orbit, or deep space.

Oh ffs, just spend the money on stirling engines and use the radiation as a heat source. These exist. Voyager I and II have these powerplants on them, allowing them to function at the distances they are currently at: outside pluto's orbit, which is variable... To build a giant rail gun you must first get enough financial suport. By convincing every multi bilionair that your little project is worth the cost. Then you start building your big-ass railgun. And you need to power it. with the energy that it'll drain, you'r cost triples. Since the rails and the interior gets destoyed-pretty much- after each launch, the maintenance cost explodes. All that money down the drain when you could just as well use the stuff to generate energy. Although you could argue now that you can catapult stuff into the sun's general direction, you can send stuff into orbit. Yeah sure, at a higher cost than using chemical rockets...

short version: BAD, stupid idea, in a long series of bad and stupid ideas. NO.

[Grognan]

You could also sell it to the military... Why would the rails be destroyed after each launch? you can build them out of non-ferrous materials. I also didn't tout this method as the cheapest way to do either. Personally I would be ok living in Las Vegas with the proposed waste dump in the mountain 30 some odd miles away.

Spent fuel rods aren't explosive... though some chemicals involved in the refining process might be. I still don't think that they can contaminate the ground water under the mountain unless you are terminally stupid in you handling of them. They are safe if ya put them in a steel barrel, pour concrete around it, put it in a bigger steel container, put it in a big hole in the ground (with concrete underneath), and poured concrete on the top of it.

Even better yet why don't you put the waste underneath a new road while you're building it? 5+ plus feet of asphalt and rock will block radiation. The road will also protect it from having rain fall on it and carry radioactivity to the ground water.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Why would the rails be destroyed after each launch

chunks of metal moving at ludicrously high speeds.

[Grognan]

Fine... I'll add some grease to the rail gun specifications that I have.

[Ammon Ra]

you don't understand grog. the method of acceleration melts the steel "rails". And putting a non-ferous metal in place won't help. the rails need to conduct electricity, at HUGE currents.even if you cool down the rails with liquid nitrogen, the scaaring of the shpysical contact between the slug and rail would eventually destroy the rails. THe principle is fundamently, well, useless at accelerating stuff at high speeds. Unlike in quake series. it's a high-tech toy.
Coil guns, on the other hand are more promising than railguns, as there is no need for physical contact. You could have a rail gun without physical contact and use the magnetic fields to generate a current in the projectile, but the magnetic resistance of the airgap would make it worthless. LIMs and LSMs are more likly to be a possible solution to sending stuff into orbit. "maglev" basicly.

i wouldn't mind if there was waste beneathe my house, as long as it was shielded by 5m lead walls and emersed in water.

[Grognan]

Can you link some info about the coil gun I'm pretty curious about it. It seems like a neat idea. :)

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Build a space elevator.

[General Nuke Em]

Ammon - physical contact between the barrel of a gun and the bullet eventually destroys the barrel as well, you realize.

[spacewolflord]

I don't see why those beta batteries wont work. They are just collecting radiation (Radio, microwave, light, X-ray, gamma) and transfroming it in to usable energy one way or another. To me the basic conscept is a good one it just that the radiation would trash most of the materials the device would be used to make them.

[Moe]

spacewolflord, I strongly suggest you read both CJs and my post. What they proposed doesn't work and is, simply put, physical bullshit. End of story.

[Starfisher]

GNE: Yeah, but you don't have to change out the barrel on a gun after every five shots.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

GNE: Yeah, but you don't have to change out the barrel on a gun after every five shots.Big Bertha needed changing every 11 shots.

[Koki]

And that's why only 4 of them were ever built.

[hiddensmoke]

big weapons like that are expensive and impracticle. hell changing the barrel so much would just make it more impracticle and expensive.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

But you can brag about them. Seriously no-one messes with a country whose ammunition is bigger than your tanks.