| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
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???
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Mango
Senior Nomad
Posts: 685
Registered: 4-11-2006
Location: Alta California &/or Mexicali
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bajatastic
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
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. 
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
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
|
|
|
Pescador
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3587
Registered: 10-17-2002
Location: Baja California Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Don Alley
Super Nomad
Posts: 1997
Registered: 12-4-2003
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
| 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.
|
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]
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
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...
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
| 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... |
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]
|
|
|
CaboRon
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3401
Registered: 3-24-2007
Location: The Valley of the Moon
Member Is Offline
Mood: Peacefull
|
|
| 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
|
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
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
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" ???
|
|
|
CaboRon
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3401
Registered: 3-24-2007
Location: The Valley of the Moon
Member Is Offline
Mood: Peacefull
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
jerry
Super Nomad
Posts: 1354
Registered: 10-10-2003
Location: loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
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]
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
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.
|
|
|
bacquito
Super Nomad
Posts: 1615
Registered: 3-6-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: jubilado
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
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]
|
|
|
Mango
Senior Nomad
Posts: 685
Registered: 4-11-2006
Location: Alta California &/or Mexicali
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bajatastic
|
|
| 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.
|
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.
|
|
|
neilmac
Nomad
Posts: 127
Registered: 1-3-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
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.   |
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] |
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
