BajaNomad
Not logged in [Login - Register]

Go To Bottom
Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2    4
Author: Subject: split thead--nukes in Mexico
Al G
Ultra Nomad
*****




Posts: 2647
Registered: 12-19-2004
Location: Todos Santos/Full time for now...
Member Is Offline

Mood: Wondering what is next???

[*] posted on 7-25-2007 at 10:38 PM


The disposal question needs to be answered...and I have for sometime believed it would be possible to use the cheap power to manufacture nitrogen as a cheap fuel to send the waste to a depository on the back side of the sun....or maybe someone else's sun. Maybe a transport tax on the cheap power? I don't know...just what is rattling around up there now.



Albert G
Remember, if you haven\'t got a smile on your face and laughter in your heart, then you are just a sour old fart!....


The most precious thing we have is life, yet it has absolutely no trade-in value.
View user's profile
Mango
Senior Nomad
***


Avatar


Posts: 685
Registered: 4-11-2006
Location: Alta California &/or Mexicali
Member Is Offline

Mood: Bajatastic

[*] posted on 7-25-2007 at 11:09 PM


While I have no inherent problem with Nuclear power in theroy; but, the disposal issue in reality is a huge problem.

The quake in Japan worries me too. Mistakes do and have happened with every human creation. Sure, the Titanic was a very safe boat; but, I'd rather have a shattered solar panel than a meltdown.

In my opinion, we should work on improving the efficiency of the powered devices we use. I also think a de-centralized power grid would be more redundant in the event of a terrorist attack or large scale natural disaster.

What would be easier for a terrorist to attack? A few mega-power plants or millions of passive solar houses with solar power running ultra-efficient appliances?

Solar produced hydrogen is the future. If you don't have any sun where you live I'm sure somebody will be willing to transport some hydrogen to you in ship or truck that is powered by hydrogen.

:light:
View user's profile
Dave
Elite Nomad
******




Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline


lol.gif posted on 7-25-2007 at 11:21 PM
WOW


Quote:
Originally posted by oldhippie
However you all might be surprised by the number of reactors around the world. Mexico has two.


I'm both impressed...and nervous. :rolleyes:




View user's profile
oldhippie
Banned





Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: muted

[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 07:15 AM
Nuclear waste disposal


This is a huge topic and I'd have to do a lot of reading and writing to even attempt to inform the nomads. If you're interested in the topic, I recommend you start at the Environmental Protection Agency. After that, do a Google search on nuclear waste disposal. There's tons of information.

One thing you don't want to do is read a single editorial opinion in a Sunday newspaper and assume the writer knows what he's talking about.

I will say this though, highly radioactive nuclei reach stability quickly, a result of being highly radioactive. Radioactive nuclei that have half-lives of 1000s of years are barely radioactive; that is, almost stable, much less dangerous, and easily handled.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/radwaste/index.html




View user's profile
Pescador
Ultra Nomad
*****


Avatar


Posts: 3587
Registered: 10-17-2002
Location: Baja California Sur
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 07:22 AM


I am not smart enough to scientifically figure out whether or not nuclear power is safe or not, and the scientists who should be figuring out this stuff are usually so predisposed to either be flaming liberals or given to radical ideology that I find it hard to trust or agree with their flawed reasoning, but, I do know that to continue to use coal, fuel oil, and diesel to generate electricity verges on the edge of stupidity.

As an aside note, I talked to several geologists who were working on exploration of the Geothermal Electic Plant between Santa Rosalia and Vizcaino, and they claim that there is enough geothermal power to easily provide all of the power needed for the whole baja by simply drilling a few new holes and setting up the generators. Of course the distribution lines would present some challenge but it seems less expensive than building new plants.
View user's profile
Don Alley
Super Nomad
****


Avatar


Posts: 1997
Registered: 12-4-2003
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 07:22 AM


Building nuclear reactors assumes that the builders will maintain (or improve) their social, political and economic position, for a LONG time, perhaps thousands of years.

We make certain tradeoffs of safety and security for electricity the plants will produce. Should economies falter as plants age, perhaps we will take more risks, defering maintenance or pushing plants beyond their designed lifetimes. Well, we'll see.

I don't see any nuke plants coming soon to BCS, though.

I always thought they should be built in highly populated areas, so that if they do mess up, at least they take a lot of the demand for electricity with them so there will be no problem with replacement costs.:biggrin:




View user's profile
oldhippie
Banned





Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: muted

[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 07:28 AM


Quote:
Originally posted by Mango
While I have no inherent problem with Nuclear power in theroy; but, the disposal issue in reality is a huge problem.

The quake in Japan worries me too. Mistakes do and have happened with every human creation. Sure, the Titanic was a very safe boat; but, I'd rather have a shattered solar panel than a meltdown.

In my opinion, we should work on improving the efficiency of the powered devices we use. I also think a de-centralized power grid would be more redundant in the event of a terrorist attack or large scale natural disaster.

What would be easier for a terrorist to attack? A few mega-power plants or millions of passive solar houses with solar power running ultra-efficient appliances?

Solar produced hydrogen is the future. If you don't have any sun where you live I'm sure somebody will be willing to transport some hydrogen to you in ship or truck that is powered by hydrogen.

:light:


Everything you say is true except the implication that solar power should be used instead of other sources ("I'd rather have a shattered solar panel than a meltdown").

The energy density needed to run manufacturing facilities and large data centers such as Wall Street isn't there with solar panels. But go ahead, buy a solar system and light up your patio at night.

All sources of energy should be made available and the different technologies applied appropriately.

It's not an either/or situation.

[Edited on 7-26-2007 by oldhippie]

[Edited on 7-26-2007 by oldhippie]




View user's profile
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
*****




Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline

Mood: Happy!

[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 07:30 AM


Nuclear waste takes up little land area for the amount of energy it produces(or in the case of Yucca Mountain--no land space). I would imagine that in a hundred years aor so our understanding of physics would be such that we can figure out how to deal with it...or perhaps burn it up in fusion reactors(old hippie--is that possible? Someone mentioned that in an article a while back and I couldn't figure out if it was possible or not).

Fusion would be nice but we're still a couple decades away, at present rate of funding.

I've always worried about Mexico putting a nuke on the Central Baja coast--not because I don't think they can handle it but because it is precisely the answer for getting water and jugo for new development. Unless of course that salt water radio wave thing works...:wow:
View user's profile
oldhippie
Banned





Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: muted

[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 08:20 AM


Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
Nuclear waste takes up little land area for the amount of energy it produces(or in the case of Yucca Mountain--no land space). I would imagine that in a hundred years aor so our understanding of physics would be such that we can figure out how to deal with it...or perhaps burn it up in fusion reactors(old hippie--is that possible? Someone mentioned that in an article a while back and I couldn't figure out if it was possible or not).

Fusion would be nice but we're still a couple decades away, at present rate of funding.

I've always worried about Mexico putting a nuke on the Central Baja coast--not because I don't think they can handle it but because it is precisely the answer for getting water and jugo for new development. Unless of course that salt water radio wave thing works...:wow:


All true.

"or perhaps burn it up in fusion reactors(old hippie--is that possible?"

The transmutation (changing proton/neutron numbers) of the bad stuff to something safe is the holy grail. But, alchemists have been around a long time (Newton was one). Today's alchemists make safe things radioactive. It hasn't gone the other way yet. Want a Nobel Prize? Get to work.

"I've always worried about Mexico putting a nuke on the Central Baja coast"

In the vicinity of the new cargo shipping facility at Colonet would be a perfect spot. A money maker for sure, close enough to connect to the US distribution grid.

[Edited on 7-26-2007 by oldhippie]




View user's profile
CaboRon
Ultra Nomad
*****




Posts: 3401
Registered: 3-24-2007
Location: The Valley of the Moon
Member Is Offline

Mood: Peacefull

[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 08:34 AM


Quote:
Originally posted by oldhippie
Quote:
Originally posted by Mango

In my opinion, we should work on improving the efficiency of the powered devices we use. I also think a de-centralized power grid would be more redundant

:light:


All sources of energy should be made available and the different technologies applied appropriately.


Mango, I have always felt that the path to rely entirely on the "grid" was a mistake. So I'm in agreement with the concept of small nuclear or hydrogen power sources to supply high density manufacturing or population centers ..... however most homes would rely , as Oldhippie suggested, on a combination of power cells, solar, and photovoltaic .......
Of course, the disposal issue remains the Achellies Heal of nuclear generation .... an issue that could have truly dark implications for our living planet "Gaia" .
CaboRon




View user's profile
oldhippie
Banned





Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: muted

[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 08:44 AM


CaboRon,

"truly dark implications for our living planet "Gaia"

Let's try ot keep hyperbole out of this (that will be tough for me too).

"truly dark implications" ???




View user's profile
CaboRon
Ultra Nomad
*****




Posts: 3401
Registered: 3-24-2007
Location: The Valley of the Moon
Member Is Offline

Mood: Peacefull

lol.gif posted on 7-26-2007 at 08:53 AM


Quote:
Originally posted by oldhippie
CaboRon,

"truly dark implications for our living planet "Gaia"

Let's try ot keep hyperbole out of this (that will be tough for me too).

"truly dark implications" ???


I may have read "Lord of the Rings" one too many times, however I do feel the decisions made now will affect generations to come. CaboRon




View user's profile
jerry
Super Nomad
****




Posts: 1354
Registered: 10-10-2003
Location: loreto
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 09:12 AM


old hippie isnt it true that the spent fuel rods materal can be reinritched and reused leaving only a small amount of waist to deal with?



jerry and judi
View user's profile
oldhippie
Banned





Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: muted

[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 09:47 AM


The reprocessing of spent fuel rods is a nasty business. I worked for the DOE Environmental Laboratory at what was then the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (reactor experiments) and the reprocessing plant there had a smokestack a mile high.

Why, because all sorts of radioactive particles and gases were coming out of it. The unusal height was due to the old solution to pollution is dilution method.

They even had pickup trucks with geiger tubes on a boom in the front close to the roadway looking for hotspots. The reason the place is so huge is because EPA regs for environmental contamination were enforced only outside the facility.

It's true that there is unused fissile material in spent rods, even small amounts plutonium I think.

I don't think reprocessing plants should be built. Highly radioactive transuranic chemistry is messy and dangerous. Just start with uranium ore for fuel fabrication.

[Edited on 7-26-2007 by oldhippie]




View user's profile
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
*****




Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline

Mood: Happy!

[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 10:20 AM


The old/new "Pebble Plant" design does away with the control rods entirely and makes meltdowns an impossibility...South Africa is building a prototype of this plant that was designed some time ago, I think in Germany. They are also designing the power plants to use the vast amount of unused but not quite warm enough cooling water to aid in co-generating power for hydrolysis.
View user's profile
bacquito
Super Nomad
****




Posts: 1615
Registered: 3-6-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: jubilado

[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 10:28 AM


Quote:
Originally posted by comitan
Oldhippie

I'm not against nuclear power plants I was just bringing this up since some people were saying they were safe.


Nothing is safe-oilrigs, refineries, ships carring fuel explode causing death and pollution. Our dependency on foreign fuel causes us alot of grief and affects our politics and our economy.

We should have been developing nuclear power plants sometime ago. Hopefully we can catch up.




bacquito
View user's profile
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
********




Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline

Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day

[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 10:47 AM
Nuts about Nukes


Nuclear Power Generation IS the most rational course for the U.S. to follow. In second place would be Advanced Coal-Fired systems.

I'm not too sure about Mexico. I once joked that the only thing scarier than Iran having Nuclear Weapons would be if Mexico did. The theft years ago of used Radioactive device by a technician in Baja comes to mind among other things.

Political Fear-Mongering has been the sole reason that the U.S. hasn't built more Nuclear Power Stations.

The United States Navy is proof that we can safely operate Nuclear Reactors. They are also proof that a tightly-regulated and monitored system is a necessity. Reading "The Warning" which discussed the failure of the Three Mile Island reactor, it is pointed out that the American "Ideal" of a free-market system contributed greatly to the accident. Competing manufacturers building dissimilar equipment control and safety systems, along with operator error, doomed that facility. Even so, the aftereffects of the failure were minimal considering the potential disaster.

Waste disposal is the one valid point of contention, however, none of the current methods have been a problem and our progressive research for more advanced methods make it likely that the disposal problem will be resolved.
View user's profile
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
*****




Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline

Mood: Happy!

[*] posted on 7-26-2007 at 11:51 AM


Yes, coal too, if they can work out the bugs(scrubbing it enough to satisfy pollution standards--they tried to build 11 new plants here in Texas but they got shot down in part because the claims of "clean coal power" were dubious)...here's a press release from 2003 on an interesting design:



http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2003/tl_futuregen...

The government will ask the industrial consortium to design a plant that will turn coal into a hydrogen-rich gas, rather than burning it directly. The hydrogen could then be combusted in a turbine or used in a fuel cell to produce clean electricity, or it could be fed to a refinery to help upgrade petroleum products. In the future, the plant could become a model hydrogen-production facility for President Bush's initiative to develop a new fleet of hydrogen-powered cars and trucks. Common air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides would be cleaned from the coal gases and converted to useable byproducts such as fertilizers and soil enhancers. Mercury pollutants would also be removed. Carbon dioxide would be captured and sequestered in deep underground geologic formations.Carbon sequestration will be one of the primary features that will set the prototype plant apart from other electric power projects. Engineers will design into the plant advanced capabilities to capture the carbon dioxide in a form that can be sequestered. No other plant in the world has been built with this capability. The initial goal will be to capture at least 90 percent of the plant's carbon dioxide, but with advanced technologies, it may be possible to achieve nearly 100 percent capture. Once captured, the carbon dioxide will be injected deep underground, perhaps into the brackish reservoirs that lie thousands of feet below the surface of much of the United States, or potentially into oil or gas reservoirs, or into unmineable coal seams or basalt formations. Once entrapped in these formations, the greenhouse gas would be permanently isolated from the atmosphere. The plant would be sized to generate approximately 275 megawatts of electricity, roughly equivalent to an average mid-size coal-fired power plant. Finally, the department said, the prototype plant would be a stepping stone toward a future coal-fired power plant that not only would be emission-free but would operate at unprecedented fuel efficiencies. Technologies that could be future candidates for testing at the prototype plant could push electric power generating efficiencies to 60 percent or more – nearly double the efficiencies of today's conventional coal-burning plants.Coal is the workhorse of the United States' electric power sector, supplying more than half the electricity the nation consumes. It is also the most abundant fossil fuel in the United States with supplies projected to last 250 years or more. The ultimate goal for the prototype plant, the Energy Department said, is to show how new technology can eliminate environmental concerns over the future use of coal and allow the nation to tap the full potential of its massive coal deposits.

[Edited on 7-26-2007 by Mexitron]
View user's profile
Mango
Senior Nomad
***


Avatar


Posts: 685
Registered: 4-11-2006
Location: Alta California &/or Mexicali
Member Is Offline

Mood: Bajatastic

[*] posted on 7-27-2007 at 08:16 AM


Quote:
Originally posted by oldhippie
Quote:
Originally posted by Mango
While I have no inherent problem with Nuclear power in theroy; but, the disposal issue in reality is a huge problem.

The quake in Japan worries me too. Mistakes do and have happened with every human creation. Sure, the Titanic was a very safe boat; but, I'd rather have a shattered solar panel than a meltdown.

In my opinion, we should work on improving the efficiency of the powered devices we use. I also think a de-centralized power grid would be more redundant in the event of a terrorist attack or large scale natural disaster.

What would be easier for a terrorist to attack? A few mega-power plants or millions of passive solar houses with solar power running ultra-efficient appliances?

Solar produced hydrogen is the future. If you don't have any sun where you live I'm sure somebody will be willing to transport some hydrogen to you in ship or truck that is powered by hydrogen.

:light:


Everything you say is true except the implication that solar power should be used instead of other sources ("I'd rather have a shattered solar panel than a meltdown").

The energy density needed to run manufacturing facilities and large data centers such as Wall Street isn't there with solar panels. But go ahead, buy a solar system and light up your patio at night.

All sources of energy should be made available and the different technologies applied appropriately.

It's not an either/or situation.

[Edited on 7-26-2007 by oldhippie]

[Edited on 7-26-2007 by oldhippie]


I agree with you. Solar is not the only answer. As I mentioned in my previous post, solar power can be used to create hydrogen. We could use hydrogen powered generators for the more energy intensive tasks such as factories, mining, and running computer databases.

There has been much progress in producing hydrogen via solar power. That is where I believe we would be best to invest our time and money.
View user's profile
neilmac
Nomad
**




Posts: 127
Registered: 1-3-2005
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 7-27-2007 at 08:45 AM
Oh, yeah...


The big one in Japan just did really well..... they don't know when it'll start up again, or how much radioactive material was released... and that was from a 6.8 quake.

Neil

Oh, and just beacause they do something in Cal, doesn't mean it makes sense.


Quote:
Originally posted by oldhippie
Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by elizabeth
nuclear power plants are a great idea in earthquake prone areas...


They do it all the time in California. :lol::?:


If there is anything that can withstand an earthquake it's a reactor. And they don't build them ON fault lines. Their numbers will be increasing. But I don't want to get into a nuclear debate.

Now, Loreto Bay mud (oh, excuse me, adobe) houses will probably disintegrate at the slightest rumble. Is there any rebar in those things?

[Edited on 7-25-2007 by oldhippie]
View user's profile
 Pages:  1  2    4

  Go To Top

 






All Content Copyright 1997- Q87 International; All Rights Reserved.
Powered by XMB; XMB Forum Software © 2001-2014 The XMB Group






"If it were lush and rich, one could understand the pull, but it is fierce and hostile and sullen. The stone mountains pile up to the sky and there is little fresh water. But we know we must go back if we live, and we don't know why." - Steinbeck, Log from the Sea of Cortez

 

"People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care." - Theodore Roosevelt

 

"You can easily judge the character of others by how they treat those who they think can do nothing for them or to them." - Malcolm Forbes

 

"Let others lead small lives, but not you. Let others argue over small things, but not you. Let others cry over small hurts, but not you. Let others leave their future in someone else's hands, but not you." - Jim Rohn

 

"The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." - Cunningham's Law







Thank you to Baja Bound Mexico Insurance Services for your long-term support of the BajaNomad.com Forums site.







Emergency Baja Contacts Include:

Desert Hawks; El Rosario-based ambulance transport; Emergency #: (616) 103-0262