| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
lencho,
The NRC wouldn’t issue a permit to operate the sun cause it kills lots of people every year and emits lots of radiation too! Solar panels are
wonderful we’ve lived off of them for over 12 years. But there’s that darn dark and cold problem! All the current solutions except Hydro emit CO2!
Nuclear generates the same amount of heat true but no CO2! The problem with waste disposal are the NIMBYS who want the power but don’t want to see
it generated!
By the way, solar electric is about 20% efficient, where do you imagine the other 80% of the sun’s energy goes to?
|
|
|
John Harper
Super Nomad
Posts: 2289
Registered: 3-9-2017
Location: SoCal
Member Is Offline
|
|
I never said any or all technologies are perfect. There are always tradeoffs. Sun and wind can be inconsistent. gravity is constant. But, hydro
opportunities are limited or pretty much tapped out.
I have no problem with nuclear power, as long as the waste issue is solved, like with long promised fusion power. Like the flying car in my garage.
There's two dead "ta taas" just north of me to show me the risks of nuclear fission. The radioactive cores are still a problem to be solved. As are
the fuel rods. IDK what the solution is, does anyone?
But, until then, why not pursue alternative paths of energy technology?
If they're a dead end, then so be it. We've subsidized gas and oil to the likely trillions of dollars by now (Iraq1 and Iraq2?). And it's seemingly
forced us to pursue other options due to the risk of an increasingly unstable climate.
John
[Edited on 2-18-2021 by John Harper]
|
|
|
John Harper
Super Nomad
Posts: 2289
Registered: 3-9-2017
Location: SoCal
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by RFClark  | All the current solutions except Hydro emit CO2! Nuclear generates the same amount of heat true but no CO2! The problem with waste disposal are the
NIMBYS who want the power but don’t want to see it generated!
By the way, solar electric is about 20% efficient, where do you imagine the other 80% of the sun’s energy goes to? |
Where do you live? Why don't you and your neighbors volunteer to have nuclear waste dump in your neighborhood? Is there a problem with taking time
with burying a poison that lasts hundreds of thousands of years?
Also, solar efficiency will obviously increase in the future. Most the sun's energy is just radiated out into space, and what hits the Earth is used
just a bit more effectively. Move to Mars and tell us how you like it, even less solar energy.
John
|
|
|
pauldavidmena
Super Nomad
Posts: 1717
Registered: 5-23-2013
Location: Centerville, MA, USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
According to this article in the NY Times, Ford is now committing to phasing out gas-powered vehicles in Europe.
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
I heard a guy on talk radio a couple of years ago say that all the nuclear waste in the US would fit in a 12x12 ft room if that's so why not put it in
rockets and shoot it to the sun.
He also said that the US doesn't recycle the waste like other countries which would reduce the amount there is.
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
There has been a concerted effort to resist nuclear power in the US dating back to the early ‘50s. Those against nuclear power have used the waste
reprocessing and disposal issue as a justification for not building or using nuclear power. They are th same people responsible for creating the
disposal problem by opposing movement, repressing and off site storage of nuclear waste! The Northeast of the US buys electricity from Canada because
they have a large number of nuclear power plants right across Lake Ontario from the US which can’t build those plants because of delays caused by
NIMBYs!
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18438
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by TMW | | I heard a guy on talk radio a couple of years ago say that all the nuclear waste in the US would fit in a 12x12 ft room if that's so why not put it in
rockets and shoot it to the sun. |
Somebody pulling your leg.
The USA stockpile of highly enriched uranium alone is over 600 tons. World stockpile of HEU is probably over 2000 tons.
If you looks at all of the enriched fuels, and all of the associated contact-contaminated wastes, the volume is immense.
Regarding Low level wastes, there are many landfills with many 10,000 tons in each landfill....
Med wastes alone probably fill your 12x12 room each day....
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18438
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RFClark | | There has been a concerted effort to resist nuclear power in the US dating back to the early ‘50s. Those against nuclear power have used the waste
reprocessing and disposal issue as a justification for not building or using nuclear power. They are th same people responsible for creating the
disposal problem by opposing movement, repressing and off site storage of nuclear waste! The Northeast of the US buys electricity from Canada because
they have a large number of nuclear power plants right across Lake Ontario from the US which can’t build those plants because of delays caused by
NIMBYs! |
I would never trust any government, let alone a corporation, to run a nuke facility in my neighborhood.
Can you Imagine trump or his thieving children (or any GOPer) being in charge of a nuke facility? Or corporate America where money trumps morals?
You can’t trust humans with doing the right thing, and long term waste problems require someone to do the right thing.
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
I’m sure that you don’t!
Probably don’t drink water with fluoride in it. Might not have had any vaccinations since you were 16. Do you drive a car? If you do where do you
get the tires? One of the things about the US that used to be great was as long as you didn’t bother anyone else you could believe whatever you
wanted to believe and live however you wanted to!
That’s coming to an end! It time to find another place to call home!
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
Mars beckons! Imagine the off-roading possibilities, a whole planet with no roads! That said there are people back here who will still be annoyed by
what you do 11 light minutes away! Some of them post here!
|
|
|
PaulW
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3078
Registered: 5-21-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Well -- I don't prefer Nuke, wind, petro, nat gas, or photovoltaic, but I do like hydro power. Unlimited power from water with anything over 2' of
head.
The sea of Cortez has as much a 20' of water level change twice a day. A source of energy that is totally untapped.
The problem is it is intermittent just like other green sources.
So my suggestion only works with a source of power to maintain consistent power. From my list above we will be stuck with a polluting source for a
long time.
|
|
|
PaulW
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3078
Registered: 5-21-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yup a bad political decision by all the car builders. At some point they will find out that there is a limited (large ?) market for a vehicle that
requires a long wait to be refueled.
IMO they need to produce a mix if hybrid and EVs - not all EVs. The reason is not all folks need/want a commuter car. Some want a vehicle that does
not have a limited range
| Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666 | Todays news:
General Motors plans to completely phase out vehicles using internal combustion engines by 2035, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra
announced Thursday. The automaker will go completely carbon neutral at all facilities worldwide by 2035.
Since nomads mostly drive toyotas and Suzukis (and 1%ers g-wagons), perhaps the GM plan is irrelevant for nomads, eh?
Still waiting for my cyber truck,....
|
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
From the Office of Nuclear Energy:
2. The U.S. generates about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel each year
This number may sound like a lot, but it’s actually quite small. In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the
1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.
Goat is right it won't fit in a 12x12 room.
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
Another Fact from the Office of Nuclear Energy:
5. Used fuel can be recycled
That’s right!
Used nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts.
More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor.
The United States does not currently recycle used nuclear fuel but foreign countries, such as France, do.
There are also some advanced reactor designs in development that could consume or run on used nuclear fuel in the future.
Learn more about our work with spent nuclear fuel.
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
Reusing Nuclear: A Way our Nuclear Output and Decrease Radioactive Waste
Angel Rubio
April 30, 2018
Submitted as coursework for PH241, Stanford University, Winter 2018
Introduction
Fig. 1: La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant in France. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
While fracking and offshore drilling have substantially decreased the price of oil, it is in our best interest to move to a cleaner, fewer pollutant
means of energy. One way of producing large amounts of energy with a low environmental impact is by harnessing nuclear energy. In using nuclear
energy, we are splitting the nucleus of an atom in a process called fission. [1] This then creates heat, which boils water, creates steam, and spins a
turbine in order to create electricity. [1] Basically, the process is identical to how coal power plants work but instead of burning coal, we are
splitting the nucleus of an atom. Nuclear energy is sometimes perceived as creating significant air pollution, but this is not the case. [1] There
also now exist ways to reuse nuclear waste that its environmental impact is minimized.
Reusing Nuclear Fuel
During World War II, the United States developed a way to chemically separate and recover fissionable Plutonium material from spent fuel rods. [2]
However, because the high cost and also the fear that nuclear materials could end up in the wrong hands and be used to build nuclear weapons,
President Carter chose to ban nuclear reprocessing. [2] As a result, the United States buries its spent nuclear fuel underground. [3]
The standard and a most widely used process is currently PUREX (Plutonium and Uranium Recovery by Extraction). [4] In this process, the spent fuel is
divided into small pieces and then dissolved in nitric acid. [4] Using tributyl phosphate, a surfactant, the uranium and plutonium are taken up and
separated from the rest of the waste. [4] This process leaves behind a smaller volume of radioactive waste - fission products and neutron-activated
isotopes - that must be disposed of. In France and Japan, the nuclear material that is not reused is embedded in glass. [5]
In France Great Britain and Japan, the PUREX technology is greatly used. In addition, they have started to develop alternative versions of PUREX. In
France, in particular, nuclear energy accounts for about 80% of the energy production. [6] A large amount of this nuclear energy comes from fuel that
is reprocessed in plants such as the La Hague Reprocessing Plant shown in Fig. 1. In the end, repossession on a ton of nuclear waste is equivalent to
saving 100,000 barrels of oil. [5]
Conclusion
In the United States, nuclear reprocessing was banned for the fear of nuclear proliferation. Additionally, twelve states have also banned nuclear
plants completely, due to the fact that they produce radioactive waste. [7] If we were to lift the ban on nuclear reprocessing, we could reuse this
waste and be now have the ability to create nuclear power plants in the United States without increasing the mass of waste produced. The example of
other countries shows that nuclear proliferation is not as great a problem as once thought, as the nuclear fuel are highly guarded and nuclear
materials can be transported safely. [7] In the end, nuclear reprocessing is a sure way to increase the amount of nuclear energy that our country
produces while reducing the mass of nuclear waste.
© Angel Rubio. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and
referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for
noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
References
[1] A. M. Weinberg, "Social Institutions and Nuclear Energy," Science 177, 27 (1972).
[2] A. Andrews, "Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: U.S. Policy Development," Congressional Research Service, RS22542, March 2008.
[3] "Backgrounder on Dry Cask Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 2016.
[4] J. M. McKibben, "Chemistry of the Purex Process," Radiochim. Acta 36, 3 (1984).
[5] "What Is Nuclear Reprocessing?," BBC News, 19 Feb 00.
[6] "Heatwave Hits French Power Production.," The Guardian, 12 Aug 03.
[7] W. F. Shughart II, "Why Doesn't U.S. Recycle Nuclear Fuel?," Forbes, 1 Oct 14.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
