Nuclear fuel will last us for 4 billion years

zippy

Executive Member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
9,975
Nuclear will only power advanced industrial economies, and even then will not be only means of power production. The majority of the human race will be powered by other technologies.
 

Gnome

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
6,075
It requires specific actions and conditions do so and none of those conditions have ever been met since since the formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago, and never will, nuclear fission is extremely difficult which is why nuclear bombs are extremely wasteful only a handful of material in a nuclear bomb actually has a fission reaction.
Fission does happen naturally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

However while both nuclear bombs and a nuclear plant have nuclear fission in common, there are differences for example nuclear bombs compact the fissionable material as where in a uranium core rod isn't compacted the casing, the rods even water slow down the neutron reaction with the uranium nucleus, in a controlled chain reaction you will never get a nuclear bomb type fission reaction as the fuel rods have been designed as such which simply doesn't allow for a runaway fission reaction like that.
To add a bit to what you said.

It really depends on the design of the bomb. The two very simplest are implosion (platonium) and gun type. Plutonium requires compaction that is so precise that in WW2 they tested it (trinity) because they weren't sure it would work. Uranium bombs (gun type) require 90+% enriched uranium. Thermonuclear bombs are so complex it isn't even worth talking about.

Nuclear bombs are a consequence of exponential nuclear fission generating enormous amounts of energy. The reason that a nuclear bomb is so hard to build is even simpler than rods or anything like that.

When you release a bunch of energy in a small space, it causes things to blow apart. Everyone should know this, we see this everywhere. With a nuclear bomb they need it to fission as quickly as possible before the energy rips it apart. You keep it together as long as possible to increase the amount of energy. To do that you need the reaction to happen insanely quickly. If the reaction isn't fast enough you get an explosion that is small, like a chemical explosion, smaller than Chernobyl explosion (Chernobyl was a steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion)

Nuclear reactors can't explode because
a) Uranium is 5% enriched at most, far lower than the 90% required for the simplest type of gun type bomb. (other designs aren't worth discussing; too complex to happen in nature)
b) Even if you have 90+% enriched uranium, next you need to surround the fuel in a neutron reflector that is perfectly shaped so it reflects perfectly (ie. tight fit). And you need a way to push the fuel into that reflector quickly so that it doesn't blow itself apart too quickly (ie. small explosion akin to chemical explosion). All of this isn't by chance. The simplest design uses a uranium slug that is shot, like a bullet, down a pipe into a neutron reflector. They are perfect shaped to each other. The bullet and reflector are machined perfectly to each other.

The design above is the simplest. Any other designs are so complex that most countries like Iran aren't yet even able to build them. It can't happen by chance. That is why it took Manhattan project years to do the math, design, etc. on the second simplest design they weren't sure was going to work. (They knew the simple uranium 90+% would work)

So overall getting this to happen in a nuclear reactor is like saying you are scared a piece of metal will turn into a car and run you over. The idea is so ludicrous, but explaining it to a layman, even in the simple terms above just goes over the head of 99% of our population.

As such the myth of nuclear like explosion from a nuclear reactor persists.
 
Last edited:

wizardofid

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
7,135
Fission does happen naturally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor


To add a bit to what you said.

It really depends on the design of the bomb. The two very simplest are implosion (platonium) and gun type. Plutonium requires compaction that is so precise that in WW2 they tested it (trinity) because they weren't sure it would work. Uranium bombs (gun type) require 90+% enriched uranium. Thermonuclear bombs are so complex it isn't even worth talking about.

Nuclear bombs are a consequence of exponential nuclear fission generating enormous amounts of energy. The reason that a nuclear bomb is so hard to build is even simpler than rods or anything like that.

When you release a bunch of energy in a small space, it causes things to blow apart. Everyone should know this, we see this everywhere. With a nuclear bomb they need it to fission as quickly as possible before the energy rips it apart. You keep it together as long as possible to increase the amount of energy. To do that you need the reaction to happen insanely quickly. If the reaction isn't fast enough you get an explosion that is small, like a chemical explosion, smaller than Chernobyl explosion (Chernobyl was a steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion)

Nuclear reactors can't explode because
a) Uranium is 5% enriched at most, far lower than the 90% required for the simplest type of gun type bomb. (other designs aren't worth discussing; too complex to happen in nature)
b) Even if you have 90+% enriched uranium, next you need to surround the fuel in a neutron reflector that is perfectly shaped so it reflects perfectly (ie. tight fit). And you need a way to push the fuel into that reflector quickly so that it doesn't blow itself apart too quickly (ie. small explosion akin to chemical explosion). All of this isn't by chance. The simplest design uses a uranium slug that is shot, like a bullet, down a pipe into a neutron reflector. They are perfect shaped to each other. The bullet and reflector are machined perfectly to each other.

The design above is the simplest. Any other designs are so complex that most countries like Iran aren't yet even able to build them. It can't happen by chance. That is why it took Manhattan project years to do the math, design, etc. on the second simplest design they weren't sure was going to work. (They knew the simple uranium 90+% would work)

So overall getting this to happen in a nuclear reactor is like saying you are scared a piece of metal will turn into a car and run you over. The idea is so ludicrous, but explaining it to a layman, even in the simple terms above just goes over the head of 99% of our population.

As such the myth of nuclear like explosion from a nuclear reactor persists.
What I meant was you won't get an actual nuclear explosion naturally, fission sure it is hot and under a lot of pressure however the ore isn't exactly clean and concentrated enough and with the radioactive decay, much of it has already depleted.

it isn't like a gold, coal, diamond deposit, seam, a bolder the size of a house may contain as little as 5% uranium scatter throughout the bolder, so probably true that at one time there were large seams/deposit that would have allowed for easier fission reaction to take place but we haven't found any thing like that in modern times up to now at least.

And like we said conditions and such needs to be pretty spot on, it isn't like sticking a detonator into c4 placing it on top of a uranium core will result in fission , you will cause some serious issue spreading the radioactive material a life threatening hazard but that is all you going end up with.

Nuclear plants has been designed to have one neutron reaction at any give time, it pretty precise and engineered the hell out of it.In operation probably safer then a coal power station lol. A core meltdown not so much as raidioactive material is spread every where as result of fire or steam explosion and what not else.
 

Doom5003

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
279
Well with a ship that size you will have artificial gravity, so the g forces would be insane, even at half the speed of light would probably be enough to liquefy the human body even if you need that much. can't remember the exact science behind it, but not dampening the forces experienced will kill quickly the closer you travel to the speed of light the more mass you have the more energy you need to expend the more mass you will gain whether with or without gravity isnt good the vibration of wave lengths and those interactions isn't good either.

either way you will never move faster then the speed of light or close to it unless you can solve the problem of gaining mass while travelling at those speeds whether with or without gravity.

Basically imagine you are in space inside a empty can there is no appreciable gravity however as you move closer to the speed of light the more mass the can will gain creating artificial gravity these gravitational forces will give you more mass and you will probably as a result be pulled to the middle of the can and be squashed into a little ball and eventually as the mass increases the closer you move to speed of light be squashed into a little puddle of nothingness, so whether you have gravity at the start or not you will eventually gain so much mass you will die.Whether you slowly increase to the speed of light or instantly the faster you travel the more energy you need to expend and mass you will gain.

tldr: special theory of relatively says you are screwed should you ever wish you travel at the speed of light or faster without countering the forces. Essentially you will need to cancel out gravity entirely and that isn't possible, basically the science behind the big ship in the interstellar movie.Take gravity out of the equation, if you don't have gravity you won't gain mass and you won't need to expend energy you will need to break or bend the special theory of relatively.
The Flash begs to differ /s
My money is on being struck by lightning whilst drinking an energy drink.
 

wizardofid

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
7,135
The Flash begs to differ /s
My money is on being struck by lightning whilst drinking an energy drink.
The odds been struck by lightning is 1 in 500 000, odds been struck while drinking an energy drink probably 1 in 5 million, chances of gaining super powers 1 in 500 trillion.

The flash doesn't have zero mass nor does he have infinite energy the fastest the flash can run is mach 3.3 in other words 3.3 times the speed of sound.


Nice try :) My bet is finding or creating a wormhole :p. the odds is theoretically better finding a wormhole then gain super powers. Theoretically you can take two black holes on opposite sides of the universe and connect them to form a wormhole by means of quantum entanglement, it gets super complex and the supporting math that I would never understand in a billion years.

Yes scientists are looking for wormholes as well, there has been plenty of math done on the subject matter, however since the discovery of black holes, scientists are pretty optimistic and speculative that wormholes are probably real.

You are literally better off trying to find a wormhole then trying to travel at the speed of light, and even if you could travel at the speed of light the closest star system likely to have sun star like system is million of years away closest star would still take a 100 years to get to.

The further you look into the universe the longer the light had taken to travel here quite a few of the stars has probably long since depleted their fuel.The closest star being a 100 years away could explode into nothingness and we won't know about it for a 100 years.When looking at the universe we are looking at what has already happened considering some of the processes in the universe takes a couple of billion years a pretty good idea of what is going to happen.

The distance between the sun and earth is still so vast we won't know about the sun disappearing for an entire 7 minutes.So even if you could travel at the speed of light the vast distances between stars and galaxies make it physically impossible and impractical lol
 

Gnome

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
6,075
Re faster than light travel:

The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition

- Carl Sagan

Ditto for clean energy. People something think the universe needs to play by our rules. I don't think they fully appreciate that there is nothing that requires the universe to play our game. We are playing its game.

We'll never see the whole universe because it is expanding faster than the speed of light, there just isn't anything that can be done to change that.

The only observable force we don't yet know much about is gravity and we've observed even it moves at the speed of light. Pretty compelling evidence that you will never travel faster than that speed.

Wormholes are IMO like warp drives, nice plot device but ultimately with everything we've observed, especially in the early 21st century, it doesn't make sense that it exists.
 
Last edited:

wizardofid

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
7,135
Re faster than light travel:



- Carl Sagan


Ditto for clean energy. People something think the universe needs to play by our rules. I don't think they fully appreciate that there is nothing that requires the universe to play our game. We are playing its game.

We'll never see the whole universe because it is expanding, by all accounts faster than light can travel the same distance.

The only observable force we don't yet know much about is gravity and we've observed even it moves at the speed of light. Pretty compelling evidence that you will never travel faster than that speed.

Wormholes are IMO like warp drives, nice plot device but ultimately with everything we've observed, especially in the early 21st century, it doesn't make sense that it exists.

Well that is the realm of general relativity, put it this way the further away the Galaxy is, the more it ''appears'' to be moving faster then the speed of light. A galaxy 1 million light years away is traveling at 68km/s a galaxy at 2 million light years away moves at 134km/s basically for every 1 million light years you add 68km/s second.

As that is the rate the universe is expanding at give or take a few, so if you were to look back at the universe as far as you can go it will appear to be moving away at faster than the speed of light and faster the observed rate of expansion is.

If you could jump instantly to the point where you observed faster than speed of light and look back at us we would appear to be moving faster then the speed of light by either blueshift away from you and red shift towards you.However the point you jump to would be moving no faster or slower then the point you just jump from it is observed to moving faster but doesn't actually mean it is.

Example if you have a cloth and you could stretch it out infinitely with 3 objects one in the middle and one on either side the more you stretch out the cloth the middle object will appear stationary while the two objects on either side of the cloth will appear to pick up speed the further away it moves.

So is it really moving at the speed of light or faster than the speed of light, generally relativity says who cares about the laws of physics on the other side of the universe, special relativity on local physics say no you can't move faster then the speed of light.

Observed the expansion is speeding up. Takes quite a bit to wrap your head around that lol.

oh and wormholes fold space not warp it :) There is nothing in either special relativity or general relativity that says wormholes can't exist nor disproves them, so it isn't so science fiction as you would seem to believe.
 
Last edited:

wizardofid

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
7,135
I’m peachy ;)

If think I’m wrong, tell me why. I’m open to discussion if you are :)

Although thread has already been derailed by sci-if fantasy

You were told you were wrong people chipped in to tell you, you are wrong with simple facts, there was no need for him to post more.

scifi what now? It's either scifi or fantasy not both.

Science is rooted in science fiction, while quite a few science fiction ideas have become a reality, not every thing would be a reality, but the fact that several devices deemed absurd have come to pass, it is definitely not some thing to frown on, as science fiction or speculative science has had a greater influence on science then you would like to believe.

 

zippy

Executive Member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
9,975
You were told you were wrong people chipped in to tell you, you are wrong with simple facts, there was no need for him to post more.

scifi what now? It's either scifi or fantasy not both.

Science is rooted in science fiction, while quite a few science fiction ideas have become a reality, not every thing would be a reality, but the fact that several devices deemed absurd have come to pass, it is definitely not some thing to frown on, as science fiction or speculative science has had a greater influence on science then you would like to believe.


Apologies, I missed I was told I was wrong. Only picked up on that response. Was I just told I was wrong or was some evidence based arguments provided, or is there a link to a sci-if movie provided as proof ?
 

Sollie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
9,077
So have you bought a bit of land around Chernobyl to relocate your family to?

Julius & Co? :p
Well that is how long the sun will last more or less before that nuclear engine runs out of fuel however long before that we will be dead, I would give it another million years before life as we know ends. We are overdue for quite a few things, yellow stone, san andreas fault, massive asteroids, sharknados at least that is what the movies promises. :D

Honestly the biggest issue is probably going to be sun as it expands and starts heating up. Additionally the moon also helps drive the earths magnetic fields and that is slowly spinning away from us as it does so will the magnetic sphere grow weaker and have less protection from solar flares ect.

We will be long dead before we are able to advance our sciences enough. :D
You guys watch too much syte and/or have been subjected to too many DSTV repeats! Nvm, #Me2 :)
 

SAguy

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2013
Messages
5,495
Just build a space elevator to the moon and put all nuclear reactors there... If we blow up the moon we'd have major problems, but at least we wouldn't all be wiped out....
 

wizardofid

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
7,135
Julius & Co? :p

You guys watch too much syte and/or have been subjected to too many DSTV repeats! Nvm, #Me2 :)

I don't watch DSTV. Youtube has a wealth of interesting doccies from various perspectives.
Yellow stone is quite scary as it will have a global impact.

San Andreas fault, will cause estimated 300 billion in damage, kill millions and displace millions, serious risk to dams like the hoover dam, 4 million hectares, 30 centimeters deep.

Asteroids will always be a risk, considering tons of asteroids hit us every year some the size of a tennis ball some the size of a small car, we get hit daily by 17 or a total of 6100 a year. Apophis is 370 meters across will pass by in 2029 closer then GPS satellites orbits at 31000 km's +-. Even at 370 meters should it hit will be equal to 80-90 billion tons of TNT.

the tzar bomb test equals 57 million tons of TNT more then WWI and WWII combined and then some more, this single asteroid will have more power then the entire worlds nuclear arsenal, 1.6billion tons. All wars fought and nuclear testing from the 1940's till today, equals half a billion of TNT. Last eruption of yellow stone equaled 875 million tons of TNT.

In fact we have thousands of near earth asteroids in total 19 000 with about 30 added each week.So yeah we are going to be smacked by one of them eventually. lol impact by a 370 meter asteroid is enough to set off earth quake faults and volcano's.

Sharknado, enough said doesn't need to be explained. :D

Just some interesting facts, that make you go holy shyte :D
 
Last edited:
Top