I may not entirely agree with you, but I have great respect for this opinion, and hope — perhaps against hope — that it prevails eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Printable View
I may not entirely agree with you, but I have great respect for this opinion, and hope — perhaps against hope — that it prevails eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Nukes are fine, if a war never startsQuote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Of course no reasonable enemy would take away its foes power supply, they will just let those nuke plants keep on humming.
We clearly have differing ideas of what an adequate underground storage facility is. I'm not talking about a subsurface bunker.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
There are shafts of up to 1km deep being dug with chambers for plutonium storage. If there is an earthquake or some other disaster then the shaft may become unusable for further disposal but the plutonium already dumped there will not come up to the surface.
If some untoward event happens strong enough to push the plutonium to the surface from that depth then I suggest that it would be of such magnitude that radioactive contamination would be pretty far down the list of what you should be worried about.
As others have said though, the volume of plutonium waste can be reduced via recycling fuel rods. That too can help.
I have no problem with the anti-nuclear brigade but I do believe that they should use real arguments with a scientific basis behind them, something they are too often lacking in.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Ummm yeah, it is too sensationalist. We have plenty of ways of dealing with the waste. Storing the spent fuel in on-site pools seems to work fairly well in all cases except where you have a 10meter wall of water come and wash away all power to the cooling pumps. But things could be done to prevent that as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Here's some Wiki links (ie simple) for you to get some background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_M...ste_repository
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
Are they fool-proof? No, but what in this world is? Are you going to make me go dig up cases of deaths/injuries related to wind-mills and the like?
If humanity comes up with a better safer and cheaper way to produce energy, I'm on board. I'll be the first one there pushing for it's adoption. But until then I want my fridge to stay on, and the lights to work when I flip the switch. And that includes times when it's dark out and the wind isn't blowing. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
No Chuck, no need to google more stuff and I don't want to be made a fool of when I am shown the amount of beheaded creatures due to loose wind mills. :dozey:Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Looking at your links where storage plans are shown, I, me, myself . . . . shudder with the thought of nuclear waste stored in a place where it will take 241,000 years - scientifically speaking - to no longer be a deadly threat to any living creature in this planet of ours.
let's agree to disagree.
:s mokin:
Ok let's just say for a second that tomorrow we perfect cold fusion, rendering fission reactors obsolete over-night. Now, what do we do with all the "deadly threats"?Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
I agree that we don't see eye to eye on this. But I'm here for a bit of a diversion from my "everyday" life. Therefore I like to debate people with different views on things. I learn quite a bit by doing that actually. I know I'm a geek, I find fun in learning. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
I'm glad you mentioned that. The first time I read your signature I knew you were a nerd.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
And by the almighty there is nothing wrong with that! I think chicks dig it BTW
How long has the debate been going on over Yucca mountain? That still isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
I'm not against nuclear energy, but I'm not necessisarily an outright advocate either. Either way, it's a way of life around here. It certainly has very real undisputable potential dangers. I've got a large hydroelectric facility 5 miles upstream and another about 20 or so but it only supplies a small fraction of the electricity. We've got two gas fired turbine plants within 10 miles, but most signigicantly, by my count just off of the top of my head, I have 18 active nuclear reactors within a 100 mile radius of my home, 10 of those are within 30 miles, 6 of them are active and directly upstream on the susquehanna river with two them just 10 miles up-stream in our primary and only drinking water supply. We were evacuated and under watch for a long time after TMI, and we have regular warnings and alerts from Peach Bottom as part of our regular emergency warning systems. It's simply a part of life around here. We're absolutely aware of the dangers, but the fact is, I don't live my life in fear of another nuclear accident, and I've actually lived through the only major incident in US history. We're not in an area with any sort of significant earthquake danger, hurricane damage while fairly common, is generally only a cat 1 threat. River flooding is a potential issue but that doesn't truly pose any risk of catastrophic flooding. Tsunamis could possibly be an issue at 8 of them since those are close to the atlantic or the Chesapeake or Delaware Bays.
I accept the risk, but I'm also a strong advocate of clean power options like hydroelectric and wind energy. It may be more expensive absent government subsidies, but every power decision can't be exclusively financial. The lack of potential risk far outweighs the potential for even a partial release of radiation from a nuclear plant, but it simply isn't a viable option everywhere. To be honest, we worry more about a dam collapse than a nuclear incident, and the nuclear plant is on the lake behind the dam.
Yep, statistically speaking, there is more to be worried about from a hydroelectric dam collapse than a nuclear incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
OK then. Please tell me the danger posed by Pu239. Do you know what it is, what it does and what threat it poses?Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
No? I thought not otherwise you wouldn't have quoted some irrelevant statistic about a half life of a product that is so dangerous that the US Navy chuck a load of it in a sealed, preasurised compartment and then chuck in a crew of their finest Submariners ;)
Then we have Pu244 which has a half life of 80 Million Years. That's a much more interesting statistic but I guess we can't go back to the dawn of creation ;)
Seeing as everyone is a fan on cutting and pasting, I though I would paste a little bit about the toxicity on Plutonium. I'm sure everyone read at least the background of what the dangers are before posting on here so this should be nothing new :D
I think the things you are worried about are things like radio-iodine (8 day half life), Strontium (28 Years) and Caesium (30 Years). These are pretty nasty when exposed like Chenybol but again, are used in many medical, scientific and commercial applications.Quote:
Toxicity
Isotopes and compounds of plutonium are dangerous due to their radioactivity. Contamination by plutonium oxide (spontaneously oxidized plutonium) has resulted from a number of military nuclear accidents where nuclear weapons have burned.[85]
The alpha radiation plutonium emits does not penetrate the skin but can irradiate internal organs when plutonium is inhaled or ingested.[32] The skeleton, where plutonium is absorbed by the bone surface, and the liver, where it collects and becomes concentrated, are at risk.[31] Plutonium is not absorbed into the body efficiently when ingested; only 0.04% of plutonium oxide is absorbed after ingestion.[32] What plutonium is absorbed into the body is excreted very slowly, with a biological half-life of 200 years.[86] Plutonium passes only slowly through cell membranes and intestinal boundaries, so absorption by ingestion and incorporation into bone structure proceeds very slowly.[87][88]
Plutonium is more dangerous when inhaled than when ingested. The risk of lung cancer increases once the total dose equivalent of inhaled radiation exceeds 400 mSv.[89] The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the lifetime cancer risk for inhaling 5,000 plutonium particles, each about 3 microns wide, to be 1% over the background U.S. average.[90] Ingestion or inhalation of large amounts may cause acute radiation poisoning and death; no human is known to have died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium, and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies.[76]
The "hot particle" theory in which a particle of plutonium dust radiates a localized spot of lung tissue has been tested and found false – such particles are more mobile than originally thought and toxicity is not measurably increased due to particulate form.[87]
However, when inhaled, plutonium can pass into the bloodstream. Once in the bloodstream, plutonium moves throughout the body and into the bones, liver, or other body organs. Plutonium that reaches body organs generally stays in the body for decades and continues to expose the surrounding tissue to radiation and thus may cause cancer.[91]
Several populations of people who have been exposed to plutonium dust (e.g. people living down-wind of Nevada test sites, Hiroshima survivors, nuclear facility workers, and "terminally ill" patients injected with Pu in 1945–46 to study Pu metabolism) have been carefully followed and analyzed.
These studies generally do not show especially high plutonium toxicity or plutonium-induced cancer results.[87] "There were about 25 workers from Los Alamos National Laboratory who inhaled a considerable amount of plutonium dust during the 1940's; according to the hot-particle theory, each of them has a 99.5% chance of being dead from lung cancer by now, but there has not been a single lung cancer among them."[92][93]
Plutonium has a metallic taste.[94]
Criticality potential
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...um-sphere.jpeg http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17...gnify-clip.png
A sphere of simulated plutonium surrounded by neutron-reflecting tungsten carbide blocks in a re-enactment of Harry Daghlian's 1945 experiment
Toxicity issues aside, care must be taken to avoid the accumulation of amounts of plutonium which approach critical mass, particularly because plutonium's critical mass is only a third of that of uranium-235.[7] A critical mass of plutonium emits lethal amounts of neutrons and gamma rays.[95] Plutonium in solution is more likely to form a critical mass than the solid form due to moderation by the hydrogen in water.[13]
Criticality accidents have occurred in the past, some of them with lethal consequences. Careless handling of tungsten carbide bricks around a 6.2 kg plutonium sphere resulted in a fatal dose of radiation at Los Alamos on August 21, 1945, when scientist Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. received a dose estimated to be 5.1 Sievert (510 rems) and died 28 days later.[96] Nine months later, another Los Alamos scientist, Louis Slotin, died from a similar accident involving a beryllium reflector and the same plutonium core (the so-called "demon core") that had previously claimed the life of Daghlian.[97] These incidents were fictionalized in the 1989 film Fat Man and Little Boy.
In December 1958, during a process of purifying plutonium at Los Alamos, a critical mass was formed in a mixing vessel, which resulted in the death of a crane operator named Cecil Kelley.[98] Other nuclear accidents have occurred in the Soviet Union, Japan, and many other countries.[98]
This might not mean much to our US friends, but if the Japanese reactor were a car, it would be exempt from road tax, have no requirement to fit seatbelts and display a silver on black numberplate. Yes, it's that old! So to say we shouldn't have new plants based upon a 'failure' of an extremely old plant during extreme conditions is foolish indeed.
Shhhhhhhh. Don't wake them up. I've just got them off to sleep. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
My point is that we are consuming a non-renewable energy resource at an exponential rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Coal is by far the dirtiest source of energy and likely the highest contributor to deaths and human health issues.
When figures for cost per kilowatt-hour include the disposal and maintenance of spend rods, nuclear is still comparable with fossil fuel energy production.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
:?: Please re-read my post :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
A few more facts to put the world’s energy demands in context:
The USA, with 10% of the world’s population consumes approximately 25% of the world’s oil.
Approximately 30% of which is used to fuel passenger vehicles.
Sadly North Americans are fixated on the use of the passenger vehicle as their primary means of transportation.
If North Americans could reduce the numbers of vehicles on the road during weekday rush hour periods by half, the world’s energy problems would be solved. What is required during rush hours is a means of transporting masses of people from their homes to either a downtown core, or central work district. The passenger vehicle is the most inefficient mode of mass transportation to accomplish this. Next time you’re stuck in rush hour traffic, look around you and count the number of vehicles in which there is more than one person, yet the vehicle is easily capable of transporting 4 :mark: .
A major step to solving the world’s energy problem is that we (specifically western countries) must drastically consume fewer resources. To do that requires radical lifestyle changes. Until we acknowledge that, we can forget about alternate fuel sources such as solar or wind.
So are you the first one to sign up for not being able to turn on a light at night when the wind isn't blowing? Tung only half in cheek.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
I see wind as only being useful if it's tied up with electricity storage. Currently the only cost effective way to store electricity cheap(ish) and efficiently is to use hydro electric power stations.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
All power generation has it's downsides, e.g. conventional coal and nuclear stations have long lead times to power up and down, so responding to changes in demand is not possible. In the UK we have coal stations on 'spinning reserve' i.e. burning coal but not generating power as it isn't needed! And nuclear it makes little difference if you're running at full speed or not.
Wind and wave and to a point tidal, has the opposite issue that it only gives you power intermittantly. Which is why you need hydro in there too.
Currently the only solution which gives you cheap power station construction costs, an ability to quickly adjust for demand is gas. However most of that gas comes from Russia and could be cut off at any moment, and that isn't going to last forever in any case.
Managed to find an interesting artical with pretty pictures.
http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/polluti...ioactivity.htm
Also, I found this lovely little quote but cannot substantiate the source.
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/safe_radiation.htmlQuote:
While it is true that there is a slight increase in radiation does due to living close to a nuclear power plant, typically on the order of 0.01 mrem a year (insignificant), the average dose from living near a coal fired power plant is three times as high! This is due to the release of uranium/etc naturally mixed in with the coal.
I’m not saying that at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
What I am trying to say is that energy output from alternate sources such as wind, solar and tidal are grossly over estimated, not to mention have practical limitations as pointed out by Mark. I for one do not want my tax dollar invested in exploring these as long-term options to replace conventional energy production. Specifically, living in Canada where we need a reliable and consistent source to hear our homes 9 months out of the year!
I guess the point that I’m trying to make is that the only way to ensure global energy sources for the future is to accept serious lifestyle changes and consume less now. If we don’t want to do accept this then there are only two viable options:
1. Start to exploit the vast reserves of petroleum resources in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Arctic and South America (I recently read one report that estimated the oil reserves in the rain forest region alone is close to 1 trillion barrels); or,
2. Go nuclear.
I guess from where I'm sitting, the state of physics/engineering being what they are, barring some future technical enhancement that I am unaware of right now, the only viable option is a combination of your #1 and #2. We need to exploit our resources in the short term while we ramp up our nuclear capability.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Consuming less now (or at any time in the future), and/or radically changing our lifestyles are not viable options. Like I said, who is going to be the first one to sign up for not having their lights come on at night when the wind isn't blowing? Do you know anyone that would sign on for that?
Yes they are. Much of our current energy demands are for luxuries that most of the rest of the world goes without. Like I mentioned, transportation consumes much of our natural resources. If we can cut back on that we are well on our way to a sustainable future.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The lights are the least of our worries.
There was a time when the West's high standard of living was something people strived for. Apparently now we are supposed to strive for the low standard of living the rest of the world "enjoys"? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Obama wants to live like his brother who he ignores.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
You must live in a metropolitan area, as do the majority of politicians and all ranking Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
other wise you would not make that silly statement about North Americans relying on passenger vehicles.
The people who like their life styles is in the majority; the majority of people who think others should change are either politicians or educators who live off of the publics money.
I think tar and feathering should be made legal.
So there is no happy medium somewhere in between?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Why oh why, have the Democrats not suggested fueling power plants with their favorite- ethanol?
After all The Obama was just in Brazil kissing their buttocks, and the Brazilians have plenty of ethanol.
Actually, no. Not from my perspective. I would like for society to progress forward, not take steps back.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
What are you willing to give up?
Ethanol? We don't need no stinking Ethanol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/p...ulf-of-mexico/
Tell that to the Democrats, thousands of farmers who raise animals would applaud you.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Did you actually read my link? It has more to do with Obama's trip than any animal farmer I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Although I do agree with you, and I'm not an animal farmer, but I do like to eat the ocasional animal now and then.
From my perspective sustainability is progressing forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I do believe "sustainability" is related to the number of people on the face of the earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
When it comes to land for people and land for food who do you kill?
I have already more or less given up flying unless I can help it, admittedly in part because I enjoy travelling by rail immensely, but also for environmental reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
And why does progressing forward automatically mean more energy consumption? I don't think it does at all. There is some very exciting technological progress being made in terms of saving energy.
If you can make technological progress to save engergy, but I still get to do the things I want to do, when I want to do them ... I'm all for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
And for you to say that you've "given up" flying but only because you enjoy rail more is a bit silly, honestly. You haven't given up anything, you are enjoying one form of transportation over another. What if I like flying more, should I be forced to give it up? What if I like driving my car, just for the hell of it, are you going to tell me I can't now? What if I just want to be able to turn a light on because it's dark out? Are you the one who decides what I can and can not do now? Why? On who's authority?
Another point, progressing forward pretty much does automatically mean more energy consumption. Take the most extreme example, someone living in poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. How do you propose to improve that person's quality of life without that person consuming more energy? A less extreme example, I want to enhance my quality of life this evening by watching a movie. How do I do that without consuming energy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Sure......You go live in a cave and I will continue to improve my lifestyle. There. Happy?
Re-read what I wrote. I said that enjoyment is a part of it, but that the environmental impact of my travel is another impact. If you're suggesting I'm lying about the latter aspect, I ask you to take it back. And where have I suggested that you should change your behaviour? Again, re-read what I said. The answer is nowhere. Stop putting words into my mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
One would hope that, in the future, they may be able to purchase items that both enhance the quality of their life while consuming less energy than do those items now. That, in my book, would be progress.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I'd have to turf you out of the cave first, judging by your views on most subjects.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
So enjoyment is part of it, as well as energy. Fine, the point was/is that YOU made that choice. No one made it for you. Perhaps you have not said that I should change my behaviour. But many in the "green" movement are saying just that, we MUST change our ways. And they are more than willing to force us, through schemes like Cap and Trade, taxes, excessive regulations, and the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Yes I hope that they are able to get the things they need at less energy than it takes today. But they will still be consuming more energy than they are today. In order for someone to have clean water, adaquate shelter, access to jobs and all the rest that we would consider "standard", one MUST consume some form of energy. There is just no way around that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
There's no 'perhaps' about it. I didn't say it. Like I said, you should stop putting words into my mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
How is that different to Bush who pushed for mandatory bioethanol content in US petrol to rise substantially?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news...anol/index.htm
Your obsession with railing against anyone with power is really revealing. Spoken to your father about that?