When I think of Homer Simpson, I think of donuts. D-O-O-NUTS!

Yeti wrote:

SpiderSavage wrote:
Solar rooftops in cities would handle most of the residential power requirements and save the desert..

Incorrect. Ignoring that it takes more than a rooftop to run a home, the actual environmental impact of a full, or even 50%, conversion to wind power would be devastating.

Not only do you have consume resources to produce the cells (the budget forms of which contain mercury), but you have to refit every single f'kin thing to run on DC rather than AC.

I'd rather go with the nuclear option until Fusion comes around. With added focus on 99.9% reliable space transport to fire the leftovers into the sun.

A lot of good ideas are good until you actually implement them. Like the Prius; there has never been a more environmentally unfreindly FAD than the Toyota Prius.

billisfree wrote:I feel nuclear power is about the "greenest" power available - relatively few animals get harmed and it is small and compact to not be an eyesore. Unfortunately lots of people disagree for other reason.

This is because we all think of Love Canal, Chernoby, 3 Mile Island, and Homer Simpson whenever we think of Nuclear. The technology has advanced so far since the last plat was built in the states, people really have no idea what they're arguing against anymore.

Sorry, Yeti, but could you enlighten me; I know about the faddishness of the Prius, but, "environmentally unfriendly?" Why?

Yeti wrote:This is because we all think of Love Canal, Chernoby, 3 Mile Island, and Homer Simpson whenever we think of Nuclear. The technology has advanced so far since the last plat was built in the states, people really have no idea what they're arguing against anymore.

OK....

You can answer the question.

Where do you dispose of all the thousands and thousands of tons of radio active waste????

The Chief wrote:

Yeti wrote:This is because we all think of Love Canal, Chernoby, 3 Mile Island, and Homer Simpson whenever we think of Nuclear. The technology has advanced so far since the last plat was built in the states, people really have no idea what they're arguing against anymore.

OK....

You can answer the question.

Where do you dispose of all the thousands and thousands of tons of radio active waste????

Your question is based on the assumption that future nuclear energy plants would be based on the same weapons-oriented schemes that our existing ones are.

Newer technology and research says we can produce a liquid fluoride thorium reactor which will not produce much waste at all (0.1ton waste per GW-year vs 33ton waste per GW-year for old-tech) and have little to no danger because the failsafe is a freeze-plug that would drain the fissile material from the reactor upon catastrophe into a safe containment basin. Also, thorium fission is self-limiting, meaning no cobalt rods are required to control the reaction. Even better, the waste products would have a half-life of 300 years vs the 10,000yr half life of waste materials produced in U-235 reactors.

Educate yourself and then vote accordingly. I would GLADLY have LFTR nuclear plants in my back yard AND a storage container of the waste products that I consume through my lifetime.

Here's a 16min redux of the tech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk

dskoon wrote:Sorry, Yeti, but could you enlighten me; I know about the faddishness of the Prius, but, "environmentally unfriendly?" Why?

Primarily the massive energy consumption associated with PRODUCTION of the car's batteries (including mining the raw materials, the extremely energy-intensive process of refining said ores, and producing the final products). If you look at total lifetime energy consumption, a Prius is quite a bit worse than a diesel Jetta or a gas-powered Civic.

nhluhr wrote:

The Chief wrote:

Yeti wrote:This is because we all think of Love Canal, Chernoby, 3 Mile Island, and Homer Simpson whenever we think of Nuclear. The technology has advanced so far since the last plat was built in the states, people really have no idea what they're arguing against anymore.

OK....

You can answer the question.

Where do you dispose of all the thousands and thousands of tons of radio active waste????

Your question is based on the assumption that future nuclear energy plants would be based on the same weapons-oriented schemes that our existing ones are.

Newer technology and research says we can produce a liquid fluoride thorium reactor which will not produce much waste at all (0.1ton waste per GW-year vs 33ton waste per GW-year for old-tech) and have little to no danger because the failsafe is a freeze-plug that would drain the fissile material from the reactor upon catastrophe into a safe containment basin. Also, thorium fission is self-limiting, meaning no cobalt rods are required to control the reaction. Even better, the waste products would have a half-life of 300 years vs the 10,000yr half life of waste materials produced in U-235 reactors.

Educate yourself and then vote accordingly. I would GLADLY have LFTR nuclear plants in my back yard.

Good on you.

Here is something to educate yurself on.



Another group of these guys get in do the same, except target the NPP in your backyard, you and the surrounding 50 square miles becomes contaminated and dead in less than 1 minute.

And please do not even try to educate me on the security that can stop that from EVER happening.

Sorry, Chief, but bringing up those 19 jerks does not an argument make for not using nuclear energy as a power source.

Klenke wrote:Sorry, Chief, but bringing up those 19 jerks does not an argument make for not using nuclear energy as a power source.

Those 19 jerks have many thousands of "brothers" that are dying to do the same as they did and make even more of a destructive mess.

Until attitudes in this country change and we can cease being the target for these guys, any NPP is a target and tens of thousands of people will be at risk.

But, Americans think that they are infallible and that 9/11 will never happen again.

Wrong...

Now that is some pure absurdity, Chief. The whole point of LFTR is that it can be tiny, it can be underground, and the reaction is self-limiting and non-volatile. The raw thorium fuel itself is already drastically less radioactive than uranium-based fuel so even if abu-hasad does blow up the plant, it's not much more dangerous than if he blew up the local refinery. In fact, throium is pyrophoric and will literally incinerate itself into safe thorium-oxide when in contact with air. You can safely handle thorium (in an argon or helium atmosphere) because it only produces alpha particle radiation, which do not penetrate skin.

A single thorium mine in idaho could produce 4500MT of fuel per year. The current US energy load could be supplied by 400MT. We also ALREADY have 3200 MT of it stored underground from past efforts.

Some numbers:
For a U-235 Fast-breeder reactor (current tech), 800,000MT of ore produces 35 tons of enriched uranium and 215tons of depleted uranium and this 35t of enriched fuel produces 1 gigawatt for a year and then you have 35tons of waste which won't be safe for over 10,000 years. This waste consists of 33.4t of U-238, 0.3t of U-235, 0.3t of Plutonium, and 1 ton of fission products. This is the current situation we are dealing with constantly.

For a LFTR (new tech), 200 tons of ore produces 1 ton of thorium, which then produces 1 gigawatt for a year and you end up with 1 ton of waste, 83% of which is stable after 10 years and the remaining 17% is stable after just 300 years. Oh, and also, this waste contains NO uranium, NO plutonium, and NO actinides, JUST fission products.

A single cubic meter of average earth crust (because thorium is present at a fairly average density across the earth... no more natural resource battles) contains enough thorium (12 grams) to power an American's lifestyle for 10-15 years.

From that 12 grams of virgin thorium, I end up with 12grams of fission products that is completely storable. Hell, 1kg of the stuff would power my family's entire life and could be stored underground extremely safely (because there's no Uranium, Plutonium, or actinides!)

In other words, with LFTR, THERE IS NO WASTE PROBLEM!!!!!!

And if you're still not sold, a thorium-based reactor can actually CONSUME old nuclear waste if configured to do so.

nhluhr wrote:Now that is some pure absurdity, Chief.

Of course it is.

That is what many said for years till this happened...




It will never happen again...right?

By your logic, Chief, we should not build airplanes because terrorists might use them to kill people. We should not build skyscrapers because terrorists might use them to kill people.

Your logic is flawed.

The Chief wrote:Another group of these guys get in do the same, except target the NPP in your backyard, you and the surrounding 50 square miles becomes contaminated and dead in less than 1 minute.

And please do not even try to educate me on the security that can stop that from EVER happening.

Containment buildings have long been designed to take a direct hit from a plane; really. There is a lot of difference between a very thick reinforced concrete and steel dome, and the "Kenner girder and panel" construction of the typical skyscraper.

And we wouldn't be dead in an minute; look at Chernobyl, with an RBMK construction that wouldn't pass muster outside the old USSR. The main fatalities were for the firemen who were ordered to spray water directly on burning graphite from the core complex, and many of the rest were due to the USSR's refusal to acknowledge the problem and pass out KI to an already goiterous public. By last reckoning, the vast majority of injuries were going to be from displacement and worry.

I can't say I'm a fan of nuke power; I believe too much in the "Bubba" effect. But I'm also not a fan of the vast misinformation campaign against it.

NO..my logic is move on and come up with CLEAN ENERGY that will not have any, no, none ill after effects if anything were to fail with the system.

Stop generating fuels that can and will have ANY toxic effect on the environment, period.

Leave absolutely NO room for endangering any part of this planet.

If you are going to say it is GREEN, than make it so.

MoapaPk wrote:And we wouldn't be dead in an minute; look at Chernobyl, with an RBMK construction that wouldn't pass muster outside the old USSR. The main fatalities were for the firemen who were ordered to spray water directly on burning graphite from the core complex, and many of the rest were due to the USSR's refusal to acknowledge the problem and pass out KI to an already goiterous public. By last reckoning, the vast majority of injuries were going to be from displacement and worry.

Oh really...

THE DEAD ZONE


The entire area is toast for 600 years.

The Chief wrote:
Oh really...

THE DEAD ZONE


The entire area is toast for 600 years.

From your citation,
"This sort of radiation level can not be found in Chernobyl now"

The city is very close to background levels. I wouldn't call the author of that article an expert on radiation measurements.

You probably won't like this source, but you can verify the claims independently in peer-reviewed work:
http://www.me.sc.edu/nuclear/faqs.html

34 people have died from Chernobyl since 1986. Many more deaths are "attributed" but are very hard to confirm. For example, there was a special school for children who were dying from leukemia from Chernobyl; when visited by Dr Gale from the US, it was found that none of the children actually had leukemia.

The US would never allow anything like the RBMK design, with a positive void coefficient, and control rods that had to be driven into place over 20 seconds, vs fall in place from gravity in 3 seconds. The RBMK was typical of the old USSR "man will dominate" philosophy.

As I said, I still fear the "Bubba effect."

I've had many interesting jobs; one of them involved walking over areas (ground zero) where above-ground nuclear tests were conducted up through the early 1960s. I was allowed to verify independently what was on my shoes after... and it was essentially background. My dosimeters registered just a bit above background. The actinides and 90Sr were highly sorbed by the soil cms below the surface.

What are the ultimate effects that CAN NOT be determined in the soil and underground environments? Ground Water and underground water sources that can not be measured are affected, right.

All the other natural issues that we as man have no way of determining that have been affected by our misuse of nuclear fuels.

Many can song and dance their way around this issue. But the bottom line is that there will be and can be some major damage to the environment. Anyone that claims that there won't be, is one that we should not listen to.

Remember, anything of this sort can be compromised. The after affects and long term issues damage the environment, regardless of what anyone claims.

No one can guarantee that there will never be another major failure with catastrophic affects within this nuclear power system, regardless of cause...NO ONE!

Far too many variables that can not be controlled with this system.

The Chief wrote:No one can guarantee that there will never be another major failure with catastrophic affects within this nuclear power system, regardless of cause...NO ONE!

Far too many variables that can not be controlled with this system.

Chief, when you find something significant that can be guaranteed with absolute certainty against catastrophic effects, you will be a very lucky man. I could substitute "anthropogenic global warming" for "nuclear power system" above. What is fairly clear is that whatever the US does, Europe and Asia will do what they want with nukes.

For the third time, my main concern is with the most unpredictable component of all: Bubba. I've seen a lot of technically "fool-proof" systems fail because of one idiot human, who intentionally violated multiple redundant safeguards.