ernokaikkonen 0 #1 October 14, 2002 nacmacfeegle said: >By the way, the UK is in the same sticky future, recent studies indicate >that we need more nuclear power stations, as, believe it or not, they are >actually better for the environment than our hydrocarbon based >generators...wtf???? Depends, of course, on your definition on "good for environment". The hydrocarbon generators produce a lot exhausts, greenhouse gases, harmful particles(the really fine dust stuff), and all that crap. On the other hand, nuclear reactors exhausts are water vapor. And nuclear waste, which, properly stored, is no threat to anyone. Unless terrorists get their hands on some. Finland recently decided, controversially, to build a 5th nuclear power plant. I'm really not sure what to think of it. The best option would have been, of course, to reduce the amount of energy used... but I guess that's not going to happen any time soon. Erno Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #2 October 14, 2002 "The best option would have been, of course, to reduce the amount of energy used..." That's it Erno, in a nutshell. "And nuclear waste, which, properly stored, is no threat to anyone" Stored is the key word here...how much stored where, how and for how long? We in the UK are about to commence the decommissioning on our oldest nuclear installation at Dounreay, estimates currently run at between 50 and 60 years to safely dismantle these experimental reactors. http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/ Its not just the fuel, its all the bits and pieces as well. Currently the plan is to sink a shaft into the local granite, and just bury it....which is cool as long as there is no seismic activity for the foreseeable future, or that the storage facility isn't flooded by some sort of wild weather change...By the way, this plan is so safe, the location for it is about as far away from 'civilisation' as you can get on mainland Britain. Does the acronym NIMBY mean anything here? (not in my back yard) Personally, I favour geothermal generators, there must be an opportunity to develop the drilling technology we have for the petrochemical industry (as used on HP/HT wells) here.... -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #3 October 14, 2002 >We in the UK are about to commence the decommissioning on our >oldest nuclear installation at Dounreay, estimates currently run at >between 50 and 60 years to safely dismantle these experimental >reactors. Just a guess here, but maybe the newer reactors have been designed with dismantling in mind, and they wouldn't take so long to take apart? I don't really know anything about that, it would just seem sensible. Then again, when you build something that's supposed to withstand a hit by a flying plane, it's probably pretty difficult to make it easy to dismantle... >Its not just the fuel, its all the bits and pieces as well. Yeah, all that low and mid-level active waste like protective suits used in the plants. >Currently the plan is to sink a shaft into the local granite, and just >bury it....which is cool as long as there is no seismic activity for the >foreseeable future, Am I on crack again or wasn't there just an earthquake somewhere on Britain? >or that the storage facility isn't flooded by some >sort of wild weather change... ...like the ongoing enhancement of the greenhouse effect? >By the way, this plan is so safe, the location for it is about as far >away from 'civilisation' as you can get on mainland Britain. Does the > acronym NIMBY mean anything here? (not in my back yard) That's just a 'bad vibes' thing. There really is very little threat from RA-waste that is properly stored in whatever you are going to store it in. Here in Finland we just decided on the place where our RA-waste will be stored in the future. The NIMBYs were pretty loud here too... In the end they decided to bury the stuff near one of our reactors. There were a lot of people who actually wanted the storage cave and the waste-processing plant in their community, with the argument that they will create new jobs in the area. >Personally, I favour geothermal generators, there must be an >opportunity to develop the drilling technology we have for the >petrochemical industry (as used on HP/HT wells) here.... Geothermal heat is actually gaining popularity with home-builders here. In the end it's cheaper than oil or electric heating. The initial cost most be higher I suppose, otherwise anyone would use one, right? Erno Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #4 October 14, 2002 >Stored is the key word here...how much stored where, how and for >how long? As long as you like. Uranium ore comes out of the ground; if you dilute it and put it back you end up with soil that's just as contaminated as before you dug it out of the ground. To be safer, of course, it makes more sense to concentrate it in one area so you can keep an eye on it. Everyone always says "how are you gonna keep it safe for ten million years? (or pick some geologic time period)" This seems an odd question to me because: a) it's useful stuff. It is much easier to reprocess spent nuclear fuel than mine new nuclear fuel, but it's illegal in many places. If we do need it someday, we will be able to get it and the disposal problem will go away. b) That's just what happens if you leave it alone. Several natural nuclear reactors started up in Oklo, Gabon, ran for about a million years, then shut down when their fuel was exhausted. The waste hasn't moved much in 2 billion years. c) We seem to have no problem literally living next to bottom-ash dumps from coal power plants, dumps that contain significant amounts of uranium and thorium. No one seems concerned about keeping that safe for any time at all; indeed, it often ends up in streams and rivers when it rains. Nuclear power is certainly not clean, but compared to the alternatives (coal) it's pretty good. >Personally, I favour geothermal generators . . . Geothermal works pretty well, but can be limited in application. California gets 2-3% of its power from geothermal, and it's estimated that we've tapped about half the easily accessible geothermal energy in California. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #5 October 14, 2002 If you watch those little hamsters on wheels, they are turning them just like a dam turns turbines. How about genetically engineering huge hamsters, say 25 feet tall. Putting them inside the turbines to generate electricity? Until this is feasible, I think all gyms should put generators on the bicycles, treadmills, and stairstep machines. These types of business should use not electricity. In fact, they could be given "energy credits". If you start a gym, your members should be given free pork rinds. This is just a theory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #6 October 14, 2002 >Until this is feasible, I think all gyms should put generators on the > bicycles, treadmills, and stairstep machines. These types of > business should use not electricity. It amazes me that many exercise machines have to be _plugged_in_. There are people putting 100-300 watts into these thing, and they still need to use power. What fool designed these things? OTOH I have seen a few that have a generator that powers the cool "calories-burned" display, so they're not all fools. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
