Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Repost please: $/watt solar panals. - Page 4

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by stu on October 28, 2009, 8:51 am
 



On Oct 27, 9:23 pm, "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.

Oh I have the book, I just haven't finished reading it. But I do have a
"issues" with some of what I have read so far. I also have "the new nuclear
danger" and have a few problems with that as well, although I haven't
finished writing down the problems I have with it.



Posted by newsletters@gmail.com on October 28, 2009, 4:45 pm
 


On Oct 28, 4:51am, "stu" <no where just yet> wrote:

Umm, reprocessing would eliminate 90% of the "waste", including the
water-soluble Actinides and Lanthanides.  Using the the Integral Fast
Reactor, (or an updated version thereof), that was designed
specifically to meet President Carter's request/order for a
proliferation-proof reactor design would perform the reprocessing on-
site.  If I'm not mistaken, the "spent" fuel transfer could be
performed almost entirely by remote control.

But, of course, a Presidential Executive Order forbids reprocessing.
Why? Precisely because it is so cheap already that the United State
uranium mining industry is shutdown.  Fuel in the Integral Fast
Reactor, (solid rods in a design that cannot cause a core meltdown, by
the way), can be reprocessed until 90% of their initial radioactivity
has been "burned up" in the generation of power instead the 9% that is
used in "conventional" light water reactors that throw away the
remaining 91% of the available radioactivity as (only very slightly
considering it very small volume) problematic "waste".

Nuclear power plants do occasionally have to release a tiny amount of
radioactive gas, (usually tritium IIRC), - one day I spent 10 minutes
getting some cleaned off of my new and statically-charged plastic
"bump" cap.  But you're right, it is infinitesimal when compared to
the constant radioactive releases in the smoke from from coal-burning
power plants.

I like hydro-electric and wind power solutions, too.  I especially
like smaller, individual-sized options.  But I agree that those
massive dams could provide equally massive amounts of electricity for
many decades while causing less environmental damage that the coal,
oil, or gas-fired power plants required to provide an equal amount of
electricity.


Posted by stu on October 29, 2009, 3:46 am
 


On Oct 28, 4:51 am, "stu" <no where just yet> wrote:

Umm, reprocessing would eliminate 90% of the "waste", including the
water-soluble Actinides and Lanthanides.  Using the the Integral Fast
Reactor, (or an updated version thereof), that was designed
specifically to meet President Carter's request/order for a
proliferation-proof reactor design would perform the reprocessing on-
site.  If I'm not mistaken, the "spent" fuel transfer could be
performed almost entirely by remote control.

But, of course, a Presidential Executive Order forbids reprocessing.
Why? Precisely because it is so cheap already that the United State
uranium mining industry is shutdown.  Fuel in the Integral Fast
Reactor, (solid rods in a design that cannot cause a core meltdown, by
the way), can be reprocessed until 90% of their initial radioactivity
has been "burned up" in the generation of power instead the 9% that is
used in "conventional" light water reactors that throw away the
remaining 91% of the available radioactivity as (only very slightly
considering it very small volume) problematic "waste".

Well Helen seems a little short on numbers when it doesnt suit her. But
then, she also writes "facts" from unnamed dead people, which makes some of
her "facts" a little hard to check up on. She talks about Depleted uranium
in bombs... I've never heard of a bomb with DU in it (which doesnt mean
there isnt one of course. anyone?). And "Contrary to accepted norms of
wartime behavior, the U.S. attacked colums of retreating Iraqi soldiers-"
accepted?. by who? when? which war was that?

Nuclear power plants do occasionally have to release a tiny amount of
radioactive gas, (usually tritium IIRC), - one day I spent 10 minutes
getting some cleaned off of my new and statically-charged plastic
"bump" cap.  But you're right, it is infinitesimal when compared to
the constant radioactive releases in the smoke from from coal-burning
power plants.

I like hydro-electric and wind power solutions, too.  I especially
like smaller, individual-sized options.  But I agree that those
massive dams could provide equally massive amounts of electricity for
many decades while causing less environmental damage that the coal,
oil, or gas-fired power plants required to provide an equal amount of
electricity.



Posted by Dave Merriman on October 29, 2009, 9:03 pm
 

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:46:25 +1100, stu wrote:


DU in a *bomb* would be pretty pointless, if you stop to think about it.
From Wikipedia: "Depleted uranium is used as a tamper in fission bombs
and as a nuclear explosive in hydrogen bombs. It is a potential
containment material for a Nuclear shaped charge due to its opacity to X-
Rays." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium )

Depleted Uranium _is_ used in some ordnance rounds (most famously tank
rounds), and if the person in question is "relaxed" with her usage of
military terminology, that may be what she was referring to.

--
Encrypted email encouraged and PREFERRED
Thursday, October 29, 2009 @ 1454
** Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. **
----------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by miso@sushi.com on October 30, 2009, 3:27 am
 


I just checked her book. [In my edition, it is pages 51-52.]  No
mention of DU use in a bomb. Just the fact that it is used in ordnance
and stockpiles are leaking. I invite the original poster to cite a
reference or retract the statement.



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