Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Repost please: $/watt solar panals. - Page 3

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Rich Grise on October 27, 2009, 7:49 pm
 


On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:34:04 -0400, nospam wrote:

Unless we can somehow miraculously heal the country of its paranoia and
get a viable nuclear power program going.

Copy the reactors from the submarines and aircraft carriers and use them
to power tankers and container ships and cruise ships.

Thanks,
Rich


Posted by Jim Wilkins on October 28, 2009, 12:47 am
 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

jsw

Posted by miso@sushi.com on October 28, 2009, 4:03 am
 


You should investigate how much diesel goes into producing the uranium
to fuel the reactor. Uranium is very plentiful, but the yield is very
low. Eventually you make back the energy in producing the fuel, but
it's not like the fuel is free. Now if we had reprocessing plants, the
math would be more favorable, but reprocessing is very messy.

I used to be pro-nuclear until I read Dr. Helen Caldicot's "Nuclear
Power is not the Answer.". One thing I hadn't realized is nuclear
plants have to release gas periodically. The amount of radiation
released is very small, probably less than that of a coal plant, but
it isn't the closed loop system everyone makes it out to be.

Posted by stu on October 28, 2009, 4:23 am
 



You should investigate how much diesel goes into producing the uranium
to fuel the reactor. Uranium is very plentiful, but the yield is very
low. Eventually you make back the energy in producing the fuel, but
it's not like the fuel is free. Now if we had reprocessing plants, the
math would be more favorable, but reprocessing is very messy.

I used to be pro-nuclear until I read Dr. Helen Caldicot's "Nuclear
Power is not the Answer.". One thing I hadn't realized is nuclear
plants have to release gas periodically. The amount of radiation
released is very small, probably less than that of a coal plant, but
it isn't the closed loop system everyone makes it out to be.

OMG did you manage to read the whole thing?
You might want to read a few other books before you abandon "pro-nuclear"



Posted by miso@sushi.com on October 28, 2009, 7:58 am
 

On Oct 27, 9:23pm, "stu" <no where just yet> wrote:

Yes, I read the whole book. Not sure when you went to college, but "in
the day" the BSEE required a class in thermodynamics. I got the
Babcock and Wilcox indoctrination. I was around for the claim of
nuclear power being so cheap they wouldn't meter it. I was also near
TMI when the accident occurred.. As time passed, much of the cover-up
of the event was declassified. [Shocker: the government lies!] I was
went from pro to neutral to probably negative. There is no solution
for the nuclear waste. Worse yet, there is plenty of nuclear waste
stored at the reactor sites that is not in any containment vessel.
They let the rods cool a bit before even considering transferring them
offsite, and we now know Yucca Mountain will not be opened.

Get the book and read the other side's opinion. Calecott's book is
well documented. It considers the entire "food chain" of nuclear
power. I didn't even bring up the power needed to enrich the fuel. It
is hard to get a number on this since over the years the centrifuge
technology has become more efficient. As you probably know, the
uranium for the WWII nukes was enriched at Oakridge due to the
availability of cheap coal power.

Basically, nuclear power isn't nearly all that it is cracked up to be.
I rather have more wind and solar, plus conservation. Sure, it chops
up little birdies, but hey, you need to break some eggs to make an
omlet.

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread