PDA

View Full Version : Lets Go Nuclear



Paul Pless
04-10-2007, 06:37 AM
Clearly harnessing the power of the atom is the way to go.

Its clean.
Its cheap.
Its capable of providing a lot of energy with a relatively small environmental impact.
Its proven quite safe if managed well.

Thoughts?

Phillip Allen
04-10-2007, 06:39 AM
it ain't clean

huisjen
04-10-2007, 06:41 AM
Sure it is. Chernobyl cleaned all the humans out of that region. The ones who stayed seem to be getting heart attacks for no particular reason. (Funny: I'd have thought they'd get cancer.)

Dan

Paul Pless
04-10-2007, 06:42 AM
Its clean in the sense that that it would greatly reduce the impact on global warming.

Popeye
04-10-2007, 06:47 AM
yup

Phillip Allen
04-10-2007, 06:48 AM
decaying waste gets hot...

Popeye
04-10-2007, 06:51 AM
so ?

huisjen
04-10-2007, 06:51 AM
It also supplies potential terrorists with targets and the makings of dirty bombs. And there's the waste disposal issue.

And if we have them, why shouldn't North Korea have them?

The reason that George Washington was considered so great is that he had the chance to be King, and instead, he chose to not be seduced by power. It's a good lesson: Don't be seduced by power. Power corrupts. Nuclear power corrupts absolutely.

Dan

Popeye
04-10-2007, 06:53 AM
And there's the waste disposal issue.

.. ? ..

PeterSibley
04-10-2007, 06:55 AM
I've spent a lot of my life opposing nuclear , mainly because of the waste .If it could be demonstrated that the waste could be dealt with in a way that would not come back to haunt our decendants I would support it as one of a variety of ways to reduce CO2 emmissions .If it would still be economically competitive if done properly and without huge government subsidies is something I can't answer .

By the way I thought the US was nuclear already .You sure have a lot of warheads .

Rational Root
04-10-2007, 07:00 AM
And is also prepared to buy a house and bring up their children 5 miles from where they store the waste......:eek:

Volunteers ?

Anyone ?

S.V. Airlie
04-10-2007, 07:02 AM
Naw.. Rational. We don't bury that stuff here. We bury it Iran.

Popeye
04-10-2007, 07:03 AM
the top ten worst places to store nuclear waste

salmon streams
meadows filled with lillies
baby nurseries
pristine wilderness areas
rain forests
zoo's
parks
playgrounds
poltically unstable regions
neighbourhood mosques

Paul Pless
04-10-2007, 07:04 AM
The fact of the matter is that global energy consumption is going to continue to increase not decrease despite all the lamentations of the environmentalists that think they can cause it do otherwise. If global warming is the 'A' number one crisis facing the human population on our earth, as the 'environmentalist' (and 99.3876%of the world's scientists) claim, then we should immediately embrace alternative sources of energy.

Chris Coose
04-10-2007, 07:04 AM
There was and always has been a large impediment to nuclear and that is the waste.
This problem would have been solved a long time ago if it could have been solved.

Then let's never mind that plants get closed prematurely because of the ware, safety and contamination.

Then since 9/11 we will not talk a lot about if Atta had driven his jet into Indian Point instead of down river a few miles.

I'm in for the stuff when they safely remove the spent fuel pond sitting all by itself on the Sheepscott River.

JimD
04-10-2007, 07:05 AM
.. ? ..


The U.S. will also be paying the costs of stabilizing North Korea's 8,000 spent fuel rods -- rods that have enough plutonium for perhaps five or six nuclear weapons, according to the official

http://www.fas.org/news/dprk/1995/950105-dprk-usia.htm

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-10-2007, 07:07 AM
The current "impediment to nuclear" is cheap coal and oil.

Come the hour.

Paul Pless
04-10-2007, 07:09 AM
Ahhh yes, I think PI has nailed it.

Popeye
04-10-2007, 07:10 AM
easy enough to find 100's acres of land for testing ..

http://www.dcnr.nv.gov/graphic/nts0702.jpg


but strangely nobody can identify an area suitable to bury a few tons of waste material

S.V. Airlie
04-10-2007, 07:10 AM
Paul
I used to ask my students this.. " What is pollution?" I would hold up a glass of hot/warm water and drink it.. Then I would ask, "Was that water polluted?" Many would sit there and say "No!, you drank it!"
"Right!" I'd resond. " I did!". Then I would say, "okay, put a fish in it. Would it die?" Umm.. " Yes, guess so, it's hot water."
"Well, then, the water is polluted right?"

Well, it got their attention anyway...and certainly the water used to cool these plants that is dumped back in the watershed has a neg. effect... A lot of work was done on bloodworms, what used to be a major industry in central coastal Maine...showing the efrfects of what 2-3 degrees in water temp could do.

PeterSibley
04-10-2007, 07:11 AM
I would think that finding a stable peice of geology digging the kind of hole NORAD seems good at and backfilling with concrete would be a start .Certainly better than storing the stuff in drums in barb wire enclosures ...which seems to be current practice .Anything would be better than the current mess .

Phillip Allen
04-10-2007, 07:20 AM
I do not believe there is a "reasonable" way to contain the waste and there is certainly no way to dispose of it. Use of nuclear heat to create (government controlled and dispensed) electricity on the scale that fossil fuels are presently used will use up such a vast amount of our earth for containment that we'll finding some future Al Gore saving us from ourselves while sitting on his own waste producing reactor while his apologists and followers/acolytes rail at the rest of the world excusing the new Gore as a necessary exception!

huisjen
04-10-2007, 07:22 AM
Waste disposal is simple. Put it in a torpedo shaped can and drop it overboard into deep ocean mud. The can will be traveling fast enough when it hits bottom (if properly designed and weighted) that it will bury itself in the ooze deep enough that it won't bother anything. Long after it's become cool and safe, it will get sucked down a deep ocean trench. Land erodes, but sea floor accumulates sediment, and there are large areas with no danger of earthquake faults. Even if (when) the cans leak, the sediments would trap the radioactive particles.

The political problem with this solution is that treaties don't differentiate between dumping at sea and sub-ocean burial.

But the rest is still a problem. Paul says:


Its clean.
Its cheap.
Its capable of providing a lot of energy with a relatively small environmental impact.
Its proven quite safe if managed well.

But to do it right isn't cheap. Chernobyl was cheap. Three Mile Island was mid-priced and still had a very near miss. And the environmental impact is not small if there's a slip-up. And eventually, somewhere, somehow, either accidentally or by sinister plan, there will be a slip-up. The history is that it's managed well until it isn't. And then there's hell to pay.

If we'd put as much funding into renewables such as wind and solar as we have put into nukes for the last 50 years, we'd be home free.

Dan

S.V. Airlie
04-10-2007, 07:23 AM
Phillip.. it is not only the waste... The rods in a powerplant ( nuclear ) have to be cooled. The method most widely used is to take an outside source of cold water, run it through the rods and return it to the watershed. That water is not the same temp. returning as it was going into the plant.
Now some plants have a cascade system but not all.
Certainly the one at Indian Point didn't.

Popeye
04-10-2007, 07:25 AM
..there is certainly no way to dispose of it ..

how do you know this ?

Nicholas Scheuer
04-10-2007, 07:25 AM
60 Minutes had a egment Sunday about the French having the cleanest air, as well as the cheapest Electric Power in Europe, due to 80% of their electric power being generated by Nuclear Reactors.

The RECYCLE their waste at a large facility on the Coast of Normandy. (OK, someone make a point of how many people died at Normandy, from causes OTHER than Nuclear Reactors). One thing to think about, however, it that the recycling process also generated Plutonium, which of course can be used for BOMBS.

When Nuclear Generators once again are built in the US, the French will be hired to build them, because we don't have folks who can do it as efficiently.

Moby Nick

PeterSibley
04-10-2007, 07:28 AM
Phil....what do you do with the existing waste ?

Phillip Allen
04-10-2007, 07:28 AM
I understand that Jamie...I am being general and not specific. However, we still need to cool coal fired generators as well (condensers) so I left that out

Paul Pless
04-10-2007, 07:29 AM
Use of nuclear heat to create (government controlled and dispensed) electricity on the scale that fossil fuels are presently used will use up such a vast amount of our earth for containment...

Are you sure about that, we already produce nearly 25% of our electricity throughthe use of nuclear power. That from plants that are on the average nearly 40 years old.

Phillip Allen
04-10-2007, 07:30 AM
how do you know this ?


Phillip Allen
Machinistís Mate (Steam plant mechanic)
USS Daniel Webster SSBN 626B

S.V. Airlie
04-10-2007, 07:31 AM
That from plants that are on the average nearly 40 years old.:eek:

Now that really scares me.. I know of buildings that are not that old that have been condemned

Phillip Allen
04-10-2007, 07:31 AM
Are you sure about that, we already produce nearly 25% of our electricity throughthe use of nuclear power. That from plants that are on the average nearly 40 years old.


Paul, think world scale

Paul Pless
04-10-2007, 07:31 AM
If we'd put as much funding into renewables such as wind and solar as we have put into nukes for the last 50 years, we'd be home free.

Dan

Oooooh! More environmentalist's lamentations. How's that help us now.

huisjen
04-10-2007, 07:31 AM
And it takes about ten years to get a nuke plant on line. It takes about a year to get a wind farm on line. Considering the pressures of global warming and peak oil, we don't have time to mess around with nuke plants.

Dan

Paul Pless
04-10-2007, 07:34 AM
Dan regarding that timeline for when plants can be brought online, is that for comparable plants as measured by output?

PeterSibley
04-10-2007, 07:35 AM
Oooooh! More environmentalist's lamentations. How's that help us now.

It helps cos they're a damnsight faster to build than nucs or even coal power stations .

huisjen
04-10-2007, 07:35 AM
Oooooh! More environmentalist's lamentations. How's that help us now.

You flunked history, huh Paul? The subject has it's uses. It encourages wisdom in current decision making.

Dan

huisjen
04-10-2007, 07:37 AM
Dan regarding that timeline for when plants can be brought online, is that for comparable plants as measured by output?

Do I have to do all your thinking for you?

Dan

Phillip Allen
04-10-2007, 07:38 AM
I think he is wrong Paul but what he is wrong about is not particularly important...the industrial energy needed to produce that many fans must be astounding. Further, the world is better geared to producing steam equipment (nuclear) than the fans. Futher, the wind is much less reliable than is bering sold to us by the folks in line to capitalize on their use.

Paul Pless
04-10-2007, 07:39 AM
You flunked history, huh Paul?

Got a minor in it actually.:p

Listening to people say "I told you so", from people who weren't part of the decision making process at the time has always been a little laughable to me.

huisjen
04-10-2007, 07:40 AM
About seven years ago, there was the power crunch in the Pacific Northwest. There came to be tax incentives for wind power. Within a year, there were new plants on line, and still more in the manufacturing pipeline. Wind power is dispersed. It's not one big turbine visable for 100 miles. It comes on line quickly, but incrementally. Unlike nukes, it starts generating power while the rest of the system is still being added to.

Dan

paladin
04-10-2007, 07:42 AM
Dan....(Huisjen).......you are absolutely wrong about Chernobyl.......

huisjen
04-10-2007, 07:43 AM
Educate me, Chuck.

Edit: The cardiac death rate I heard about (TV documentary, years ago) was only among those doing research inside the exclusion zone. Cancer does indeed seem to be the major effect of the reactor explosion in the countries downwind of the plant. Birth defects are also a major issue.

Dan

Popeye
04-10-2007, 07:45 AM
canada has a massive hydroelectric power production capacity which we could easily export to the us , but it is illegal to do so

PeterSibley
04-10-2007, 07:45 AM
I think he is wrong Paul but what he is wrong about is not particularly important...the industrial energy needed to produce that many fans must be astounding. Further, the world is better geared to producing steam equipment (nuclear) than the fans. Futher, the wind is much less reliable than is bering sold to us by the folks in line to capitalize on their use.

You have references for that Phil ?

huisjen
04-10-2007, 07:46 AM
I've seen a solar steam plant.

Dan

S/V Laura Ellen
04-10-2007, 07:50 AM
And it takes about ten years to get a nuke plant on line. It takes about a year to get a wind farm on line. Considering the pressures of global warming and peak oil, we don't have time to mess around with nuke plants.

Dan

And I assume that it would take 10 or more wind farms to equal the output of a single nuke plant?

Phillip Allen
04-10-2007, 07:51 AM
You have references for that Phil ?

the same ones everyone else has...

PeterSibley
04-10-2007, 07:53 AM
just pulling numbers out of the air ....time for bed .

Popeye
04-10-2007, 07:54 AM
refined uranium fuel comes from canada
not the middle east

Brian Palmer
04-10-2007, 08:03 AM
I live within sight of Three Mile Island. My power comes from it. I have some pottasium iodide in the medicine cabinet.

I also live within a half-hour drive of streams still polluted from old coal mines (like, over 100 years old), and also some new ones. If anything is to live in these streams, crushed limestone needs to be added once a week, forever.

I also live within a few hours drive of waste culm piles and strip-mined landscapes from past and present coal production. They are very scenic from the highway.

Down in West Virginia, the coal mining companies are cutting the tops off mountains and pushing them into the valleys so they can get at the coal.

Yes. Let's talk about the "waste" disposal issues with nuclear power. They are really significant and are far worse than any other waste disposal issue we have to deal with from anything associated with coal energy sources.

Get real.

-- Brian

hansp77
04-10-2007, 08:03 AM
Ahh... Nuclear?

No thanks.

One of the most little discussed aspects of this issue is that, besides all the (some say insurmountable) problems inherent to nuclear power, as a substitute for fossil fueled power it is at best a temporary solution (with long-term problems).
Depending on who you listen to, if we were to imediately change the worlds power plants over to nuclear our known Uranium supplies would only last for, under 10- to up to 20 years, give or take...

from http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm

There is doubtless some rich uranium ore still to be discovered, and yet exhaustive worldwide exploration has been done, and the evaluation by Storm van Leeuwen and Smith of the energy balances at every stage of the nuclear cycle has given us a summary. There is enough usable uranium ore in the ground to sustain the present trivial rate of consumption - a mere 2 1/2 percent of all the world's final energy demand - and to fulfil its waste-management obligations, for around 45 years. However, to make a difference - to make a real contribution to postponing or mitigating the coming energy winter - nuclear energy would have to supply the energy needed for (say) the whole of the world's electricity supply. It could do so - but there are deep uncertainties as to how long this could be sustained. The best estimate (pretending for a moment that all the needed nuclear power stations could be built at the same time and without delay) is that the global demand for electricity could be supplied from nuclear power for about six years, with margins for error of about two years either way.


for Storm van Leeuwen and Smith
http://www.stormsmith.nl/

Phillip Allen
04-10-2007, 08:09 AM
I live within sight of Three Mile Island. My power comes from it. I have some pottasium iodide in the medicine cabinet.

I also live within a half-hour drive of streams still polluted from old coal mines (like, over 100 years old), and also some new ones. If anything is to live in these streams, crushed limestone needs to be added once a week, forever.

I also live within a few hours drive of waste culm piles and strip-mined landscapes from past and present coal production. They are very scenic from the highway.

Down in West Virginia, the coal mining companies are cutting the tops off mountains and pushing them into the valleys so they can get at the coal.

Yes. Let's talk about the "waste" disposal issues with nuclear power. They are really significant and are far worse than any other waste disposal issue we have to deal with from anything associated with coal energy sources.

Get real.

-- Brian

I've seen the results of strip mining...in fact I've stood on it. Now say that for standing on the results of nuclear power. Neither is desirable but one is approachable and the other is not

JimD
04-10-2007, 08:10 AM
refined uranium fuel comes from canada
not the middle east

So does the largest part of America's imported oil. We also have the most fresh water in the world. Things are looking pretty good up here.

Popeye
04-10-2007, 08:14 AM
if we were to imediately change the worlds power plants over to nuclear ..

this is however , impossible

but let the false assumptions and extrapolation continue , please

Mrleft8
04-10-2007, 08:16 AM
How about that nuke proponent last week who degraded wind and solar power by saying that they are not sustainable..... "If it's a cloudy day, or if the wind drops, you have no power"....

JimD
04-10-2007, 08:18 AM
I hear the Chinese are planning a system of elastic rubber band wind up windmills so they will not be dependant on the vargaries of the wind. They will have to be wound up by hand of course but as part of China's economic miracle there will also be full employment.

S.V. Airlie
04-10-2007, 08:18 AM
Damn.. does this mean the pub light will go out...? Can't have that ya know..:eek:

Popeye
04-10-2007, 08:20 AM
ya know , a large part of the problem is energy waste , you could produce a lot less if you needed a lot less

hansp77
04-10-2007, 08:29 AM
this is however , impossible

but let the false assumptions and extrapolation continue , please

did you miss this bit?


(pretending for a moment that all the needed nuclear power stations could be built at the same time and without delay)

care to address the actual issue?

The fact that by the time we have actually built enough nuclear power plants to take over the worlds power supply, we will already be running out of uranium?
Peak Uranium might be good for Australia's economic position, but its hardly something I would advocate as a worthy purpose for our global efforts.

Paul Girouard
04-10-2007, 08:32 AM
Clearly harnessing the power of the atom is the way to go.

Its clean.
Its cheap.
Its capable of providing a lot of energy with a relatively small environmental impact.
Its proven quite safe if managed well.

Thoughts?

Wasahington State tryed a nuke program back in the 70's, it never got on line , cost millions , if not billions . We still have a few towers to remind us about WOOP's or some such acryonm , that it was named . No thanks :(

Popeye
04-10-2007, 08:32 AM
did you miss this bit?

do you mean the pretending bit ?

i can pretend a lot too

let the pretending begin

Brian Palmer
04-10-2007, 08:58 AM
I've seen the results of strip mining...in fact I've stood on it. Now say that for standing on the results of nuclear power. Neither is desirable but one is approachable and the other is not

Phillip,

If you are more concerned about your personal safety than overall environmental impact, then you, personally, can simply stay away from where nuclear waste is stored. In fact, I do not think you would be allowed near the waste, anyway.

Now, as for the animals and plants that used to live on top of or downstream from where that coal was located underground, they don't have that option. That waste is not approachable, in a sustainable way, for them either.

The fact is, air pollution related to coal-fired power plants kills people every day. The causes are indirect, so you don't hear about it in the news, but there are clear links between pollution levels and the incidence of heart and asthma attacks, even here in the U.S. where power plants are relatively clean. In Asia and Eastern Europe, it is clearly worse.

-- Brian

Popeye
04-10-2007, 09:02 AM
there are vast regions of the earths natural surface where nothing lives or grows

http://rmackall.home.mindspring.com/Canada/tablelands.jpg

this is normal

hansp77
04-10-2007, 09:04 AM
care to address the actual issue?


do you mean the pretending bit ?

i can pretend a lot too

let the pretending begin

didn't think so.
Carry on pretending (as it wasn't me who started;) ) that Nuclear Power currently offers any potential other than a very brief and dangerous alternative to fossil fuel power.

as you well know,
the purpose of calculating the time it would take to use up all of our known Uranium supplies through the assumption that all the reactors would be built and ready at the same time was presented for one reason-
to understand the scale of the proposed solution in comparison to the present situation- to cut out some of the unkown eventualities so as best to understand what potential energy Uranium offers the world as an alternative power source.

The reality is, that if we started switching over to nuclear plants on a global scale, depending on a lot of variables, such as how many and when plant construction was started, we could get any range of time before it would run out, such as 15 to 45 years...
the reality also is that (so long as the estimations of Storm van Leeuwen and Smith are correct) the amount of energy actually provided by nuclear power in the hypothetical situation I presented first would be exactly the same as the 15 to 45 year hypothetical.

So understanding this potential of power in terms of what it would provide today, if all our plants were nuclear, is a vital calculation.

If you think 6yrs (+or- 2) is a good amount of energy and time, then say so.

If you wanto keep assing around as you have done this entire thread,
then I will leave it to you.
Have fun (pretending).

No offence intended of course.:)

Popeye
04-10-2007, 09:12 AM
hasp , if you begin with false assumptions , the modelling will be incorrect , most likely

if for example you plan on 10% reduction in energy consumption in the us , and say start on replacing some of you power generation infrastrucure and begin to develop alternate power supplies thus loosing the grip of foreign oil dependency .. what does the model then predict?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-10-2007, 09:45 AM
The certain way to utilise the power of the atom so as to reduce the atmospheric carbon Load and at the same time America's need for foreign oil, is to nuke all the cities with a population above one million.

hansp77
04-10-2007, 09:52 AM
what does the model then predict?

Popeye,
if you read the first of two links I provided, the article is quite clear.

There is not very much known Uranium for our potential use.
Thus, for this alone (discounting for the moment its other problems) Nuclear Power cannot be a major energy source.

It attempted to illustrate this with an example, that if our power needs could at present be met with imaginary nuclear plants, then we would run out of known Uranium in 6 years (+or- 2). This isn't trying to say that the imaginary power plants are real, nor that the models predictions for the future of energy requirements are bound to be correct, but rather, that in todays terms, the amount of energy that our known Uranium reserves would proved would satisy our needs for that amount of time. (EDIT- this is a very simplified summary of the article)

pretty simple really,
you could choose to challenge the claims,
as I am awair others are doing (thus I said under 10 and up to 20 yrs)
It also says a lot of other stuff...

But that is my main point,
which leads into my secondary point.

As far as I can tell the relative scarcity of Uranium is an issue rarely addressed in this debate.

Hans.

Phillip Allen
04-10-2007, 10:06 AM
wanna reduce electric consumption? outlaw hair dryers and miacrowave ovens...just how far do you think that is gonna fly?

Popeye
04-10-2007, 10:07 AM
haps , of the two scenarios presented , a partial change over to nuclear and alternative energy sources Vs a complete overnight change to uranium fuel only , which scenario seems more realistic ?

Phillip Allen
04-10-2007, 10:16 AM
Nuclear power is a bad idea for a number of reasons. The one I am thinking of at this particular moment is that of energy sources being tightly controlled and dispensed through politics (governments).

Here is a red flag example:

I know of a local man who had a number of chicken houses on his own farm. Chicken houses must be heated at great cost. Around here, that means either natural gas or propane. This man had a gas well drilled on his own property and brought up gas to heat those houses. The government found out about it and together with the gas company sued to have him plug the well and return to purchasing gas from the gas company.

If that doesn’t raise a red flag for you then you ARE the red flag.

hansp77
04-10-2007, 10:17 AM
haps , of the two scenarios presented , a partial change over to nuclear and alternative energy sources Vs a complete overnight change to uranium fuel only , which scenario seems more realistic ?


time to eat some spinach mate,

it is not about the scenario.

It is about the amount of Uranium.

which scenario?

well if you actually need me to tell you that- the partial change.
A complete overnight change is of course impossible.
A complete commitment to starting this change is most likely also impossible.
If you have gotten the idea that I have ever implied anything else here then something is going wrong.

Now tell me,
does this change in any way the amount of Uranium that is available to us?


anyway,
this is boring, and it is late here.
Goodnight.

P.S. my name is Hans.

Popeye
04-10-2007, 10:19 AM
there are also some excellent 'how to' books on performing your own dentistry

Popeye
04-10-2007, 10:22 AM
Now tell me, does this change in any way the amount of Uranium that is available to us?

hands , the rate of consumption is extremely important to your model , yes it is

John of Phoenix
04-10-2007, 10:27 AM
Presented for your consideration...

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/home

Hydro, solar, wind, fuel cells, geothermal, biological, and ocean energy ideas.

TimH
04-10-2007, 11:45 AM
Read this, then decide:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html


http://www.kiddofspeed.com/367img/image8.2.jpg

John of Phoenix
04-10-2007, 12:06 PM
This old man lives in the Chernobyl area. He is one of 3.500 people that either refused to leave or returned to their villages after the meltdown in 1986. I admire those people, because each of them is a philosopher in their own way. When you ask if they are afraid, they say that they would rather die at home from radiation, than die in an unfamiliar place of home-sickness. They eat food from their own gardens, drink the milk of their cows and claim that they are healthy.....but the old man is one of only 400 that have survived this long. He may soon join his 3,100 neighbors that rest eternally in the earth of their beloved homes. It appears that the people with the most courage were the first to die here. Maybe that is true everywhere.
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/367img/image3.3.jpg

An interesting observation. Courage?

Popeye
04-10-2007, 12:12 PM
http://manufacturedenvironments.com/fotos/los_angeles_2003/images/20westwoodfromgettycenter.jpg

TimH
04-10-2007, 12:14 PM
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/367img/image22.3.jpg

Popeye
04-10-2007, 12:14 PM
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a145/scarlet76/hazydays009.jpg

paladin
04-10-2007, 01:46 PM
Dan...apologies...I just came on line today......
Unofficially.......
Since the Chernobyl incident the former Soviet Union and Ukraine have played down the problems at Chernobyl, and have forbidden doctors to discuss any radiation sickness or related illnesses, and list other causes on death certificates. Rough estimates of roughly 10 million people had "larger than very dangerous levels" of radiation exposure against perhaps half that in official estimates. Local inhabitants were dispersed throughout the country and relocated. The farmers that stayed behind sell their produce and animals to the government. The government then ships the foodstuffs/meat/vegetables all over Ukraine and imports products from other areas for the local farmers, to minimize the consumption of contaminated goods. One of my last "assignments" was to gather as much data as possible, which was obtained piecemeal from nurses and caregivers.

Three Cedars
04-10-2007, 02:08 PM
The problem is too many people.

Remember the movie "Logan's Run "?

Phillip Allen
04-10-2007, 02:36 PM
we will all get our ride on the carasell(sp)

seanz
04-10-2007, 03:44 PM
Clearly harnessing the power of the atom is the way to go.

Its clean.
Its cheap.
Its capable of providing a lot of energy with a relatively small environmental impact.
Its proven quite safe if managed well.

Thoughts?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0e/Blinky.gif

And it isn't cheap either.
Not sure if a 30km exclusion zone (Chernobyl) can be called a small environmental impact.
Safe when managed well?
I want something that's safe when it's managed by the usual bunch of idiots.
I'm with Hans on this one.
Replacing a non-renewable power source with another non-renewable power source just doesn't make sense.

S/V Laura Ellen
04-10-2007, 05:02 PM
http://www.thesimpsons.com/bios/images/bios_family_homer.gif


C&P from http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=758412002




Homer's powerful nuclear lesson for Scots

MURDO MacLEOD POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
DíOH! Bumbling cartoon character Homer Simpson is more likely to influence peopleís thinking on the nuclear industry than the government, a new study has revealed.
Rather than turn to official sources, Scots are more likely to rely for information on the exploits of the beer-guzzling cartoon dad - best known for his catastrophic blunders while working as a safety inspector at a nuclear power plant.
The startling finding, which would no doubt cause Homer to smack his forehead in disbelief, is revealed in a study commissioned by the Scottish Executive examining public attitudes towards nuclear dumping.
Last night environmentalists and opposition MSPs ridiculed the government and the nuclear industry, claiming their Homer Simpson image has been earned by a record of gaffes and secrecy.
The report, by independent think-tank the Scottish Council Foundation, said: "Participants... identified the US television cartoon series The Simpsons, where Homer Simpson (the father character) works in a dangerously ill-managed nuclear power plant, as a source of information."
The majority of people in the studyís focus groups said they received their information on the nuclear industry from the media - television or newspapers.
Only a tiny minority said they regarded the government, the nuclear industry, or agencies which manage nuclear waste as sources of information.
Deirdre Elrick, one of the team who compiled the study, said: "We found two or three people in most of the focus groups cited Homer Simpson as an example of how they hear about the nuclear industry. In all cases they were unprompted.
"I think this is indicative of people feeling that they do not have enough information about the nuclear industry."
Yesterday Kevin Dunion, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, claimed the association between The Simpsons and the real-life nuclear industry was justified.
He said: "Nuclear power is no stranger to accidents, explosions, pollution and contamination. So it is hardly surprising that people should associate Scotlandís nuclear industry with the accident-prone Homer Simpson."
Robin Harper, the Green Party member of the Scottish parliament, said: "The Homer Simpson comparison is more accurate that people may think. This is an industry which has made mistakes and which we should be sceptical of."
Last night a spokeswoman for Fox TV in Los Angeles, which makes The Simpsons, said: "That is, like, so sad."
She added: "I would hope your people might have some more faith in your governmentís own information."
A spokesman for British Nuclear Fuels Limited said: "We do make every effort to inform the public about our activities, and get as much information out as possible."
A Scottish Executive spokesman said: " We need to tackle the perception of secrecy about radioactive waste and its management.

seanz
04-10-2007, 05:28 PM
Last night a spokeswoman for Fox TV in Los Angeles, which makes The Simpsons, said: "That is, like, so sad."
.
:D :D :D
Don't quite know what to say.(except thank-you very much)
Something about using the power of satire for niceness and not evil?
ROTFLMAO.
Too funny
A laugh is a good start to the day
:)

WX
04-10-2007, 08:03 PM
Reasons for not using nuclear:
1 Mining uranium is hazardous, it causes lung cancer.
2 When things go wrong, they go very wrong eg. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island.
3 Waste disposal, uranium takes a very long time to breakdown...to become safe to handle eg. uranium 234 has a half life of 245,000 years. Nuclear power maybe cheap to produce, but how much will it cost to store and guard radioactive waste for 245, 000 years! Think about that figure, roll it off your tongue, that's about 238,000 longer than our entire recorded history.
4 Where to store it, have you heard the expression Not In My Back Yard...NIMBY.

Phillip Allen
04-10-2007, 08:10 PM
agreed

paladin
04-10-2007, 09:11 PM
Nuke Tehran, use the place for a nuke klear waste dump.

WX
04-10-2007, 09:56 PM
Paladin, I will assume you are being funny...but a good reason not to is the fact that Iran is geologically unstable. there are not many places on the Earth that are for the amount of time we are talking about here.
We could always fire it into the Sun but given the safety record of the shuttle, do you really want several tonnes of radioactive waste aerosoled into the atmosphere?

Phillip Allen
04-11-2007, 05:52 AM
That what I have been talking about...though it may work on a limited scale, that is the practical limit

paladin
04-11-2007, 06:08 AM
The sun might be the only place to "store" it...move it about 22000 miles out, then put a couple of boosters on it and aim it at the sun. Once accelerated it would keep going until within the gravitational pull then be sucked in......the only problem that I see is a load going up and we have another disaster and it comes back down...

Phillip Allen
04-11-2007, 06:33 AM
I'll bet ian's right ...

Popeye
04-11-2007, 07:01 AM
if nuclear energy provides the entire world's electricity , then we will run out of uranium

is this correct ?

Phillip Allen
04-11-2007, 07:02 AM
I doubt it would even take that scale

Phillip Allen
04-11-2007, 07:03 AM
no one has mentioned breeder reactors yet...

Popeye
04-11-2007, 07:03 AM
ok then , what scale and how long to run out ?

Phillip Allen
04-11-2007, 07:06 AM
I don't know, it was not my premise...but I accept it in general

Popeye
04-11-2007, 07:10 AM
I don't know, it was not my premise...but I accept it in general

if you are willing to accept conjecture , how do you feel about facts ,, before you go to cigar lake , take a guess at how much uranium ore there is at this one single deposit and then take a guess at the average grade ore, .. go ahead , guess ..

cigar lake (http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1997/jamieson.htm)

Paul Pless
04-11-2007, 07:12 AM
Regarding the finite amount of fissible material. My cursory research on the web yesterday and today provided estimates ranging from 10 years to 1000 years. Who do listen to? Several sources did mention that all reactors currently use a 'throw-away' cycle where the fuel was used once for a relatively short period of time then was diposed of (or stored rather) even though thousands upon thousands of years of heat producing radioactivity remained in the material. Many sources mentioned that there's no reason other than the fact that raw uranium is so cheap that this so called 'waste' material couldn't be recycled and reused, continuously many times over.

huisjen
04-11-2007, 07:20 AM
They say a fine cure for a headache is to drop a file cabinet on your toes.

Dan

Popeye
04-11-2007, 07:26 AM
we almost ran out of oil in the 70's
and then again 35 years later

ask anybody who knows , we are really nearly almost out of oil , that's why it's so expensive , because we are almost out of oil

Popeye
04-11-2007, 07:59 AM
the blip hams posted states clearly , if nuclear energy provides the entire world's electricity , then we will run out of uranium

RyanGillnet
04-11-2007, 08:44 AM
By definition, any non-renewable resource will eventually run out, be it tomorrow or 10,000 years from now. If we as a species expect to exist beyond the capacity of these resources, then technology must evolve to sustain us, or society must change to relieve our reliance upon these increasingly scarce sources of energy.

It is important to understand that any form of energy production has an impact on our planet. Some of these are as yet unknown, some are simply overlooked as we sing the praises of the current 'answer' to clean, sustainable energy.

As for nuclear power, uranium is a non-renewable resource. There are advantages to nuclear power as well as serious problems, but it is vital to remember that eventually nuclear power will need to be replaced with something else, if for no other reason than we have exhausted our supply of fuel.

If we, as a species, are ever to really get a handle on supplying this planet's need for energy, we need to extend our vision well into the future. Most thinking is put in terms of at most a few generations into the future. If we take the leap and start thinking in terms of centuries and millennium, maybe we will skip over our typical band-aid solutions to the energy crisis and find a feasible, sustainable answer.

Here ends the sermon. :)

Bob Adams
04-11-2007, 09:08 AM
Given a solution to the disposal problem and not using Soviet style reactors, nuclear could be fine bridge to the next energy technology.

Popeye
04-11-2007, 09:09 AM
thanks ryan for pointing out about how resources will run out if we use 'em all up

RyanGillnet
04-11-2007, 09:26 AM
Ya know, I'm new to the bilge, so until I figure out the personalities down here, I'll just assume that Popeye isn't trying to make an a$$ out of me.

As for the disposal issue with nuclear power, I haven't researched extensively but it would seem that a finite amount of fuel would produce a finite amount of waste. Here in Pennsylvania, they have been 'reclaiming' old strip mines by filling them back in with fly ash, one of the waste materials of coal power generation. I wonder if it would be feasible to use uranium mines as waste storage? Seems that you then use an already disrupted area to store the waste. Anyone know the ins and outs of the possibility of this?

Popeye
04-11-2007, 09:37 AM
good day ryan , not trying to make you look bad , i think the discussion is lacking content , that is all , nuclear is cheap, clean and abundant and then they say .. but that's not good enough .. then it seems like an agenda emerges

over

Chris Coose
04-11-2007, 09:42 AM
I wonder if it would be feasible to use uranium mines as waste storage?

One of the larger criteria is the place has to be dry, as in has'nt seen a drop of water in a gazillion years. Of course the list goes on.

After 50 years ya'd think they'd have found it.

There is a big pile of it off San Diego where the Navy threw if off in 55 Gal. drums for a couple of decades. Course that was in the day when it wasn't considered not so hot and electric nuclear energy would be so cheap we wouldn't need meters anymore.

When the first discussions about closing Maine Yankee where coming about. I had a buddy who was jumping from plant to plant to help restack fuel rods. A the end of the day they'd take his dive gear and throw it into a drum into the pond he came out of and hand him a massive check.
The designers were in Ellsworth to speak about the upcoming referendum and I got up and asked them about his safety. They said the water he was working in was a safe as the glass of water in front of the guy as he took a drink. The audience moaned.
My friend also told me how they would recruit terminal cancer guys who would dive into the containment when there were problems. Widows got big checks.

The fuel pond is sitting there loaded to its gills with big pumps running forever or at least till they find this elusive dumping ground.

RyanGillnet
04-11-2007, 10:00 AM
Thanks Chris, guess that answers that question... and yet the bigger question remains.

Popeye, good to know you meant no harm. Still feeling out personalities down here. I do believe that this thread is producing some good content and interesting discussion. I don't believe, however, that nuclear energy is a viable answer to clean power, precisely because (in my view) it isn't cheap, clean, or abundant.

As for agendas emerging, there are agendas no matter what your oppinion on this (or any) topic is. Just the way it is. But it's through open and fair discussion that we often find the answers, and in that way, agendas as a motivator are a good thing.

The answers here aren't clear and certainly aren't simple. But the fact that they are discussed at all (on a wooden boat forum of all places) shows that these issues are important to your everyday American. (and Aussie, and Kiwi, and Brit, and Frenchman, and Iranian, and Korean, and Italian...)

Popeye
04-11-2007, 10:30 AM
dunno ryan , compared to fossil fuel it seems attractive to me , dealing with air dispersion issues alone , the waste oil produces is pretty nasty

uranium fuel comes from places friendly towards the us , think about the social cost of oil from the mid-east and it makes sense

TimH
04-11-2007, 11:09 AM
Given our track record of safety with everything else Nuclear would be safe also. For instance, oil tankers never run aground. Planes never crash, etc. Good thing wee are so safe cause a nuclear accident renders large areas unusable for thousands of years. Of course that doesnt matter because humans only have a short memory span.
The Chernobyl catastrophe released 100 times more radiation than the atom bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet many seem to just dismiss the accident as a part of history and forget what large doses of radiation actually do to human lives. The effects of Chernobyl touched millions of people and thousands still endure very visible and painful effects.



http://glen.utdallas.edu/chernobyl.jpg


http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay_chernobyl/

http://www.blainekendall.com/uploads/blog/chernobyl.jpg

http://www.ki4u.com/chernobyl.gif

Popeye
04-11-2007, 11:15 AM
timh, total up the catastrophes directly linked to 'oil' and lets do a comparison

TimH
04-11-2007, 11:22 AM
timh, total up the catastrophes directly linked to 'oil' and lets do a comparison


Oil castrophies dont last for thousands of years.

Ross M
04-11-2007, 06:17 PM
Oil castrophies dont last for thousands of years.


Says who?

George Roberts
04-11-2007, 07:07 PM
"Oil castrophies dont last for thousands of years."

This seems to be a claim that global warming will not last very long.