Re: OT Proven Alternative Energy

Dear CBFalconer:
" snipped-for-privacy@bid.nes" wrote:
>> CBFalc>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>>> Note that the raw physics hasn't changed appreciably
>>> in the last 60 odd years. This has to do with energy
>>> extracted from various fission reactions. Reversal of
>>> such requires reinsertion of the energy.
>>
>> Why would anyone _want_ to reverse those reactions?
>
> Because, without so doing, you still have the radioactive
> elements radiating. This is not chemistry. The materials
> remain dangerous for at least several half-lives of the
> substance.
Well, there are some alternatives to rewinding the materials back
to their original state (which was also radioactive).
- Grind it all to dust, bin sort each atom (like they do to get
U235) to get materials of interest.
- Toss it all into a pocket-sized black hole, which will let it
all evaporate out as something more mundane (while likely
spraying the area with hard radiation at infall).
- Bombard it with thermal neutrons until it gets really hot (make
it into something with a shorter half-life).
- Grind it and bake it into big ceramic cakes, insert
thermopiles, and generate electricity
- Let it sit and hope our children are smarter than we have been
in the last 50 or so years.
- More?
David A. Smith
Reply to
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Loading thread data ...
Yeah - swallow our national false pride and ask somebody that's been running them safely for decades, like France, Japan, Germany, India, etc.
Cheers! Rich
Reply to
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
formatting link
Residents in Bollene in the Vaucluse, a tourist area, have been told not to drink water or eat fish from nearby rivers, after 74kg of liquid uranium were spilled on July 7 at the Tricastin nuclear plant.
formatting link
I'm still for it, though. Actually thousands die each year due to coal mining, mostly in coal mines in China.
M
Reply to
TheM
Dear jim:
Coal-fired plants go up in months, while nuclear reactors take years.
Yes, because it makes profit sooner, many fewer permits, its radioactive waste is allowed to blow downwind, and the anti-nuke crowd doesn't seem to care.
Nah, its the "birth certificates" for every component and triple+ redundancy that carry the cost.
Some. More would go to wind, solar, and power generation from waste too.
No need. Cite the coal fired plants for releasing radioactive materials and arsenic. That will shut them down.
David A. Smith
Reply to
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Areva of France is going to make a fortune with their 1.6GWe EPR design. Several in build already and confirmed orders from China plus 4 likely in the UK and that's just the beginning.
Love the change of name for the US market - LOL !
formatting link
" The Union of Concerned Scientists has referred to the EPR as the only new reactor design under consideration in the United States that "...appears to have the potential to be significantly safer and more secure against attack than today's reactors." "
Graham
Reply to
Eeyore
formatting link
>
formatting link
"In 2006, Business Week magazine stated, "...,the [US] industry is aiming to build new plants for $1,500 to $2,000 per kilowatt of capacity,...". However, they also added, "Trouble is, the cheapest plants built recently, all outside the U.S., have cost more than $2,000 per kilowatt."[11]
2007 estimates have considerable uncertainty in overnight cost, and vary widely from $2,950/kWe (overnight cost) to a Moody's Investors Service conservative estimate of between $5,000 and $6,000/kWe (final or "all-in" cost).[12]
However, commodity prices have shot up recently, and so all types of plants will be more expensive than previously calculated[13] In June, 2008, Moody's estimated that the cost of installing new nuclear capacity in the U.S. might possibly exceed $7,000/kWe in final cost.[14]" _____________
Makes every kind of Solar look good from a cost POV.
Reply to
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Coal kills thousands of people, mostly miners.
Nuclear reactors only take so long because of the bureaucrat foot-dragging.
If you know where to shop, and if the Gov't weren't wallowing in paranoia, you could buy one off the shelf, and have it set up in DAYS.
Cheers! Rich
Reply to
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
How much of this goes to line the pockets of the bureaucrats?
Thanks, Rich
Reply to
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
Dear Richard The Dreaded Libertarian:
Same can be said for mining and refining operations for any nuclear fuel. Not selling, just point out...
... inclusive of the "not in my backyard" syndrome of local residents.
David A. Smith
Reply to
dlzc
Copper is down to 1/3rd of what it was on the LME (London Metals Exchange) two months ago. Oil, Iron etc all the same.
Reply to
eunometic
Dear qrus19:
...
What were the last seven years then?
His mantra is and has been he would seek consensus. If there were facilities to process the waste, rather than bury it, then he'd have a positive option and his advisors (whoever they'd be) would know about it. But no telling where this will go with him.
Burying it in non-solid form is not "the best we can do".
Plenty of room out here in Arridzona. Bring your own water though...
David A. Smith
Reply to
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Rec.Puzzles group trimmed to get under the 4 group crosspost limit - and besides...
Sounds about right - very long payback before the investment starts earning you benefits. Solar cell generation is still only truly practical for "Off Grid" uses, repeater sites on remote mountain tops and people living waaaaaaay out in the hinterlands, where the power lines don't even think about going.
You can cover the roof of an industrial building with solar cells, or plant large expanses of them on a swath of open land outside town, but it's more of a Feel Good "Green" gesture than huge savings.
And once built, would stay essentially untouched for decades.
Just a note - the 'one visit per month from the fuel truck' sounds suspiciously like they don't want to carry too much fissile material in any one truckload at any one time. So they spread it out to keep the shipments small.
Last I heard they only have to shut down Nuke Plants for refueling every 18 months to three years, depending.
-->--
Reply to
Bruce L. Bergman

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.