Breakthrough in battery tech.

[Starelementpoke]

Which nuclear waste?

 

 

High-level waste? Process it, wait a decade or two.

 

Intermediate-level waste? Store it in a shielded facility for a while.

 

Low-level waste? Dump it in mines, just like we do now. 

 

High-level and intermediate-level waste decays really quickly into low-level waste.

 

 

 

You have to understand something, the whole planet is radioactive. Uranium we mine is radioactive already. The only difference is that we dig it up and refine it. 

Is radioactive waste dangerous? Yes. Can it be harmful to the environment? Yes. Do we know about the risks? Yes. Can we prevent them? Yes.

 

 

Also you have to understand that, we don't use that much uranium at all.

 

For example: Germany used 1.8 thousand metric tons (1,800,000kg) of Uranium in 2014.

Germany used about 250 million short tons of coal in 2014 (~225,000,000,000kg)

 

coal makes up about 12% of power in germany, nuclear 8%. Just weigh it in your mind. 

Doing the math, for every 1% of power generated by Uranium, 18,000kg of Uranium was used. For the same 1% power from coal, 2,250,000,000kg of  it is used. This means Uranium is 125,000 times more efficient in power production than coal.

[ZetZet]

Doing the math, for every 1% of power generated by Uranium, 18,000kg of Uranium was used. For the same 1% power from coal, 2,250,000,000kg of  it is used. This means Uranium is 125,000 times more efficient in power production than coal.

well, not quite, since Germany doesn't use all the coal for electricity. They use some of it for heating, some for other things. 

 

 

But still, the amounts are obviously not in favour of coal. Not to mention coal produces TONS of CO2, Nuclear almost none. 

[Starelementpoke]

well, not quite, since Germany doesn't use all the coal for electricity. They use some of it for heating, some for other things. 

Efficient in general. You can use electricity to heat your house.

[Dabombinable]

And yet these "hippies" don't realize that lithium mining is also bad for the environment.

 

That logic...

Considering its better for the environment to not by a hybrid such a Prius.....

 

Coal also releases particulates of uranium into the atmosphere with its smoke. And modern nuclear reactors can reuse fuel to the point the volumes needed to deal with is miniscule, and with future reactors like the pebble bed most of them, after fully used up are premade for the storage they need.

 

I wonder if fully depleted nuclear fuel could be used to make those nuclear thermal batteries and just start pumping those out for homes and cars...

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

 

Title is a bit misleading, coal ash releases more radioactive material than nuclear generation, but I believe the raw radioactivity is still solidly on the side of nuclear.

Countries that are earthquake prone however will still have issues with safely maintaining their reactors though.

[Sauron]

We have reactor tech that produces much less harmful waist. Public opinion of nuclear is bad though so it's hard to implement them. Our current reactors are decades old. If we kept advancing the deployed tech like we have with coal and other sources of energy nuclear would be a very clean source of energy.

 

Still, even in small quantities radioactive waste can do incredible damage to an ecosystem if dispersed - not to mention the catastrophe an accident would cause (however unlikely accidents may be, they have happened and will most likely happen in the future too). When we have fusion, then yeah, nuclear energy will (and should) take over, but fission? I'd stay away for as long as possible.

 

Which nuclear waste?

 

 

High-level waste? Process it, wait a decade or two.

 

Intermediate-level waste? Store it in a shielded facility for a while.

 

Low-level waste? Dump it in mines, just like we do now. 

 

High-level and intermediate-level waste decays really quickly into low-level waste.

 

 

 

You have to understand something, the whole planet is radioactive. Uranium we mine is radioactive already. The only difference is that we dig it up and refine it. 

Is radioactive waste dangerous? Yes. Can it be harmful to the environment? Yes. Do we know about the risks? Yes. Can we prevent them? Yes.

 

 

Also you have to understand that, we don't use that much uranium at all.

 

For example: Germany used 1.8 thousand metric tons (1,800,000kg) of Uranium in 2014.

Germany used about 250 million short tons of coal in 2014 (~225,000,000,000kg)

 

coal makes up about 12% of power in germany, nuclear 8%. Just weigh it in your mind. 

 

Dumping it is not a long term solution. Containers deteriorate, mines aren't infinite.

 

The uranium we mine isn't found in nearly as high concentrations as depleted uranium is in a radioactive waste tomb. I could hold a piece of uranium as big as my hand and not suffer significant damage - a fridge full of them would kill me.

 

8% nuclear and 12% coal? Where did you get those numbers?

 

the uranium cosumption may not be as high in proportion, but that doesn't automatically make it good or sustainable.

 

In other words, fission generated energy may be an acceptable short term solution, but in the long run it will do just as much damage - except that damage will last for way longer.

 

 

Title is a bit misleading, coal ash releases more radioactive material than nuclear generation, but I believe the raw radioactivity is still solidly on the side of nuclear.

 

the problem is concentration more than anything else. coal ash may have more radiactive material in it than what an average nuclear plant produces, but it's spread in a cloud over a huge area whereas nuclear waste tends to be all in the same spot, by the tonnes.

[ZetZet]

Still, even in small quantities radioactive waste can do incredible damage to an ecosystem if dispersed - not to mention the catastrophe an accident would cause (however unlikely accidents may be, they have happened and will most likely happen in the future too). When we have fusion, then yeah, nuclear energy will (and should) take over, but fission? I'd stay away for as long as possible.

 

 

Dumping it is not a long term solution. Containers deteriorate, mines aren't infinite.

 

The uranium we mine isn't found in nearly as high concentrations as depleted uranium is in a radioactive waste tomb. I could hold a piece of uranium as big as my hand and not suffer significant damage - a fridge full of them would kill me.

 

8% nuclear and 12% coal? Where did you get those numbers?

 

 

the uranium cosumption may not be as high in proportion, but that doesn't automatically make it good or sustainable.

 

In other words, fission generated energy may be an acceptable short term solution, but in the long run it will do just as much damage - except that damage will last for way longer.

 

 

the problem is concentration more than anything else. coal ash may have more radiactive material in it than what an average nuclear plant produces, but it's spread in a cloud over a huge area whereas nuclear waste tends to be all in the same spot, by the tonnes.

fossil fuels is coal, gas and other oils.

 

 

Low-level nuclear waste in a fridge would in fact not kill you. Unless you decide to sleep on it for a couple of weeks. 

 

 

You are thinking about High-level nuclear waste, which decays extremely quickly. 

 

 

Also dumping it is actually a great solution, once again, we mine billions of tons of coal, we have billions of tons of coal of space left in the mines which are way below any water supplies, it's ideal. 

 

 

 

 

Also there are reactors in the works which can run on nuclear waste, they just don't get much funding because it's not required yet, we still have a lot of good uranium to go through.

 

Efficient in general. You can use electricity to heat your house.

ehhhh, that's not quite efficient, electricity gets wasted in transferring it and then heaters aren't 100% efficient. 

 

Geothermal energy + electricity however is a brilliant solution. 

[HalGameGuru]

-snip-

Which is why we need more and more modern reactors to be built. More efficient use of fuel, continual recycling of fuel to the point where the end waste is a tiny fraction of current systems. America has NONE of the reactors that can recycle primary reactor waste. We ship all we can to France, the rest we sequester. We need to keep pushing the tech further, we haven't built ANY Gen III reactors for power generation, and Gen IV is already the big new thing for the future.

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

I think the more we advance in battery tech , The sooner we will be away from fossile fuels and the EV car market and other more markets that rely on electricity will have taken a huge step towards advancements in tech.

 

You still need to charge your batteries one way or another. The cheapest way to do it is:

 

Burning fossil fuels... It's not going away any time soon. When we find alternate sources to charge our batteries then your statement may hold meaning.

 

That being said, I appreciate the sentiment.

[Ridska]

You still need to charge your batteries one way or another. The cheapest way to do it is:

 

Burning fossil fuels... It's not going away any time soon. When we find alternate sources to charge our batteries then your statement may hold meaning.

 

That being said, I appreciate the sentiment.

Yes that may be true , But i think if we pour more research power on thorium fission reactor development , The world might have a better chance of surviving.

[Master Disaster]

And yet these "hippies" don't realize that lithium mining is also bad for the environment.

 

That logic...

Boom, someone understands at least.

Also batteries are great until you realise the power your pumping into them every time you recharge comes from either a fossil fuel or nuclear power station, all you are doing is moving the pollution from one place to another.

The only logical step is hydrogen fuel cells but they're a long way from being viable yet.

[HalGameGuru]

-snip-

Nuclear really should be the goto source for power generation until our other options are more effective and our NEEDS are more curtailed.

 

Nuclear got an unfair bum rap. Even the co-founder of Greenpeace has come out and said their militant anti-nuclear activities did more harm than good. They helped keep nuclear from saturating and developing so now we have a major deficit of generation, development, and evolution of nuclear power and fossil fuel use is massively expanded to produce the power needed in the interim.

 

Over time, and with a lot of capital investment, we will slowly expunge the inefficient and wasteful tech from our day to day lives and continue to shrink our footprint, even as we add more people, with developments in generation, storage, efficient use, and proper preservation.

[ZetZet]

Boom, someone understands at least.

Also batteries are great until you realise the power your pumping into them every time you recharge comes from either a fossil fuel or nuclear power station, all you are doing is moving the pollution from one place to another.

The only logical step is hydrogen fuel cells but they're a long way from being viable yet.

Except nuclear or hydro, which are preferred methods of making electricity produce almost no co2. Countries burning fossil fuels are just retarded because they are scared of nuclear for no good reason.

[Master Disaster]

Nuclear really should be the goto source for power generation until our other options are more effective and our NEEDS are more curtailed.

Nuclear got an unfair bum rap. Even the co-founder of Greenpeace has come out and said their militant anti-nuclear activities did more harm than good. They helped keep nuclear from saturating and developing so now we have a major deficit of generation, development, and evolution of nuclear power and fossil fuel use is massively expanded to produce the power needed in the interim.

Over time, and with a lot of capital investment, we will slowly expunge the inefficient and wasteful tech from our day to day lives and continue to shrink our footprint, even as we add more people, with developments in generation, storage, efficient use, and proper preservation.

Except nuclear or hydro, which are preferred methods of making electricity produce almost no co2. Countries burning fossil fuels are just retarded because they are scared of nuclear for no good reason.

Nuclear power is arguably more polluting than any kind of fossil fuel. Fukushima or Chernobyl anybody?

And even when meltdowns don't happen we still have to deal with spent plutonium or uranium which remains radioactive for millions of years after were done with it. Short of turning it into military tank rounds our best solution is to bury it, like that's good for the planet.

Nuclear might not emit greenhouse gases but nuclear waste is much worse than CO2, both for us and for earth in general.

[ShadowCaptain]

Nuclear power is arguably more polluting than any kind of fossil fuel. Fukushima or Chernobyl anybody?

And even when meltdowns don't happen we still have to deal with spent plutonium or uranium which remains radioactive for millions of years after were done with it. Short of turning it into military tank rounds our best solution is to bury it, like that's good for the planet.

Nuclear might not emit greenhouse gases but nuclear waste is much worse than CO2, both for us and for earth in general.

 

 

Yep and apparently we can do it all with solar

 

http://www.techinsider.io/map-shows-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-9

 

[Dabombinable]

Nuclear power is arguably more polluting than any kind of fossil fuel. Fukushima or Chernobyl anybody?

And even when meltdowns don't happen we still have to deal with spent plutonium or uranium which remains radioactive for millions of years after were done with it. Short of turning it into military tank rounds our best solution is to bury it, like that's good for the planet.

Nuclear might not emit greenhouse gases but nuclear waste is much worse than CO2, both for us and for earth in general.

Chernobyl-MK1 Soviet reactor, built and maintained crudely. Fukishima-blown out of proportion by the media.

[ZetZet]

Nuclear power is arguably more polluting than any kind of fossil fuel. Fukushima or Chernobyl anybody?

And even when meltdowns don't happen we still have to deal with spent plutonium or uranium which remains radioactive for millions of years after were done with it. Short of turning it into military tank rounds our best solution is to bury it, like that's good for the planet.

Nuclear might not emit greenhouse gases but nuclear waste is much worse than CO2, both for us and for earth in general.

Fukushima and Chernobyl, two accidents that barely did any damage. Chernobyl killed a couple thousand people because it was dealt with terribly, Fukushima 0, yes, 0 deaths because of Fukushima. Yes the surrounding area is somewhat dangerous to live in, for humans, but you do know that animals flourish in Chernobyl, right? Also not everyone left Chernobyl after the accident and those people STILL live there. 

 

Uranium does remain radioactive even if you don't dig it up, it's radioactive by nature so not much changes. The reason it's more radioactive after fission is because fission creates unstable atoms which split again, however this reaction ends quite quickly and then all you are left with is simple boring uranium which isn't dangerous at all. Plutonium is processed out of nuclear fuel and used in other applications like space exploration.

 

Nuclear waste IS MUCH BETTER than CO2 for us. Earth doesn't care, it will just drive us to extinction if we push CO2 too high, earth doesn't care about radioactivity either, it's radioactive by itself, whenever a vulcano erupts you get more radioactive dust in the air than you got from fukushima and somehow no one is complaining. 

 

Yep and apparently we can do it all with solar

 

http://www.techinsider.io/map-shows-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-9

 

 

 

the problem is that sun does go down and materials used in solar panels are expensive. Unless you suggest we use batteries to store energy from solar, but that is pretty hard too.

[Nineshadow]

all batteries will be volatile, the higher density the more volatile they will be. You know they store ENERGY. I doesn't matter what technology you use they all are volatile. 

Black holes in batteries!

Then the energy won't be able to come out and become dangerous in any way!

/s

[Nineshadow]

Except nuclear or hydro, which are preferred methods of making electricity produce almost no co2. Countries burning fossil fuels are just retarded because they are scared of nuclear for no good reason.

Honestly , they are scared because if they didn't do it properly , it would be much worse than if they did a normal thermal power station. And of course, most people want to get money into their pockets all the time and if the margin of error is smaller , or rather if the consequences of error are bigger , oh well...

[ZetZet]

Honestly , they are scared because if they didn't do it properly , it would be much worse than if they did a normal thermal power station. And of course, most people want to get money into their pockets all the time and if the margin of error is smaller , or rather if the consequences of error are bigger , oh well...

Current gen reactors are really safe in comparison to what Chernobyl was or even Fukushima, not to mention Fukushima had to go through an earthquake and a tsunami, how many places on earth have earthquakes. 

[AresKrieger]

Nuclear power is arguably more polluting than any kind of fossil fuel. Fukushima or Chernobyl anybody?

And even when meltdowns don't happen we still have to deal with spent plutonium or uranium which remains radioactive for millions of years after were done with it. Short of turning it into military tank rounds our best solution is to bury it, like that's good for the planet.

Nuclear might not emit greenhouse gases but nuclear waste is much worse than CO2, both for us and for earth in general.

 

Well then thorium reactors then, though chernobyl isn't much more radioactive than an airplane at 30000 feet in flight (you reach around 70% the amount of radiation when compared to close proximity to the reactors ie across the street), it is still radio active but not nearly as bad as people think, but either way thorium would solve the meltdown issues associated with uranium and plutonium reactors.

[Nineshadow]

Current gen reactors are really safe in comparison to what Chernobyl was or even Fukushima, not to mention Fukushima had to go through an earthquake and a tsunami, how many places on earth have earthquakes. 

ikr

[HalGameGuru]

Nuclear power is arguably more polluting than any kind of fossil fuel. Fukushima or Chernobyl anybody?

And even when meltdowns don't happen we still have to deal with spent plutonium or uranium which remains radioactive for millions of years after were done with it. Short of turning it into military tank rounds our best solution is to bury it, like that's good for the planet.

Nuclear might not emit greenhouse gases but nuclear waste is much worse than CO2, both for us and for earth in general.

Those weren't Gen III reactors. The modern designs are immeasurably safer and nigh incapable of melting down. Not to mention designed specifically for power generation and efficient fuel usage, not for weapons grade fissile material prodution. Most of the newest designs if left to their own devices slowly wind down and go inert. Any nuclear bogeyman is a legacy of Gen I and Gen II designs, where the primary purpose was proof of concept or weapons material. Every new reactor should be a power generation specific design. 

 

Those disasters are a call for improvement, not a call for curtailing. Modern battery tech has blood and environmental disaster attached to it too.

[ZetZet]

Well then thorium reactors then, though chernobyl isn't much more radioactive than an airplane at 30000 feet in flight (you reach around 70% the amount of radiation when compared to close proximity to the reactors ie across the street), it is still radio active but not nearly as bad as people think, but either way thorium would solve the meltdown issues associated with uranium and plutonium reactors.

Chernobyl was the largest tragedy to date and it was dealt with the worst. The only reason Chernobyl is still radioactive is because they could not contain the core, it fully melted down and is still splitting, that's why it will always be radioactive (by always I mean till the end of earth as we know it), however they are building a new sarcophagus for it which will stand for a couple hundred years and the surrounding area already almost decayed to habitable levels. 

You also have to realize that there is no reason to repopulate Chernobyl area even if it clears up pretty soon, Ukraine is not densely populated and Chernobyl was a nuclear reactor city, there is no reactor anymore, there is no need for that city. 

 

 

In other news Fukushima melted down too, but the reactor was newer and they dealt with it so much better. Fukushima exclusion zone will be repopulated pretty soon even though it was second worst incident since Chernobyl and it was caused by a massive natural disaster. It just goes to show how much better new technology is. 

[Inkz]

I wanted to say finally but I am too skeptical. All of it is theoretical and never give an idea of when it can be used. Everyone always claims so much about new batteries but we have yet to see them. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see them FINALLY improve battery capacity, but I feel like this either won't happen or will take a really long time to.

[ZetZet]

I wanted to say finally but I am too skeptical. All of it is theoretical and never give an idea of when it can be used. Everyone always claims so much about new batteries but we have yet to see them. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see them FINALLY improve battery capacity, but I feel like this either won't happen or will take a really long time to.

Battery capacity improves all the time. Xiaomi has 4000mAh batteries in phones that don't weigh much more or are fatter than normal devices. http://www.gsmarena.com/xiaomi_redmi_3-7862.php

http://www.gsmarena.com/xiaomi_redmi_note_3_(mediatek)-7769.php

 

Here is a teardown of Note 3 http://www.technobuffalo.com/2015/12/01/redmi-note-3-hardware-revealed-in-new-teardown/

you can see the battery isn't much larger than a normal 3000mAh one.