Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

SOLAR, NOT NUCLEAR - Page 15

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Solar Flare on January 18, 2007, 5:00 am
 
It would be measured in GB for sure.

You know what a GB is?  10^10 dB



Posted by dezakin on January 17, 2007, 10:43 pm
 
anthony.dunk@gmail.com wrote:

Well, Australia doesnt have the luxury of being able to import all of
its electricity from France.


Why do people constantly assume that nuclear power will cause problems
for thousands of years?


Posted by anthony.dunk on January 18, 2007, 11:37 pm
 
dezakin@usa.net wrote:

Yeah, but we have HEAPS of solar. I worked out the other day that the
medium sized office block I work in has 1.8 MW of solar energy beating
down on its roof all day, every day! Even if you could only tap into
10% of that you'd be able to run all the lighting and computers in the
entire office block, maybe even the aircon.


Ummm, maybe because it will !! If we use breeder reactors (which we
would need to so that our uranium reserves can be stretched out to
provide power for more than 20 years), then the resulting Plutonium has
an extremely long half-life and is dangerous for 1000s of years. So how
do you keep a pile of hot, and dangerously radioactive stuff out of
harms way for thousands of years ?

Anthony.


Posted by Solar Flare on January 19, 2007, 1:10 am
 Sounds like a suntan will become very expensive some day.



Posted by dezakin on January 19, 2007, 3:53 pm
 anthony.dunk@gmail.com wrote:

Great, so get to finding out how to make it price competitive with
coal. Every time nuclear is blocked, the coal lobby cheers.


Hoo boy, here it comes...


First, we have enough uranium to run all of the planet at US energy
consumption leves for the next quarter million years on light water
reactors alone:

http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistribution

"The total abundance of Uranium in the Earth's crust is estimated to be
approximately 40 trillian tonnes. The Rossing mine in Nambia mines
Uranium at an Ore concentration of 300 ppm at an energy cost 500 times
less than the energy it delivers with current thermal-spectrum
reactors. If the energy cost increases in inverse proportion to the Ore
concentration, shales and phosphates, with a Uranium abundance of 10 -
20 ppm, could be mined with an energy gain of 16 - 32. The total amount
of Uranium in these rocks is estimated to be 8000 times greater than
the deposits currently being exploited."

Theres about 1 trillion tons of recoverable uranium recoverable from
orebodies of 10-20ppm. With light water reactors consuming about 200
tons of unenriched uranium per GW/year, we can run 20000 1GW reactors
for 250000 years.

Second, radioactivity is inversly proportional to half life. We solved
the problem of storing waste decades ago. You let it cool in a pool for
several years, then stick it in a giant concrete cask. You revisit the
issue in a century or two. It might even have market value by then, and
all but the actinides and a small percentage of fission products will
have decayed by then anyways.


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