Democrats angry without a reason?

[Silent_One]

Fred wrote:

Nuclear waste in terms of area is not that large, maybe a few meters down covering roughly a football field in terms of what the US has outputed.

Well, there's considerably more than what most people seem to think. A lot more (in terms of area). In a previous post I wrote:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7233&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

According to National Geographic's July 2002 issue the United States has 52,000 tons of spent fuel from commercial, military, and research reactors, as well as 91 million gallons of radioactive waste from plutonium processing. This waste is considered "High Level" waste. "Transuranic" waste is waste that includes clothing, tools, and amterials contaminated with plutonium, neptunium, and other man-made elements , of which there is about 11.3 million cubic feet of waste. "Low level" waste from hospitals and research institutions, including decommissioned power plants, air filters, ect., total 472 million cubic feet. Finally, uranium mill tailings, left over from extraction of uranium form ore, total 265 million tons, but has the lowest radioactivity.

Yucca Mountain could hold 77,000 tons of waste. With over 2,000 tons a year of high level waste, and yucca scheduled to open in 2010, the site will be nearly full from the start, and Yucca 2 will have to be prepared.

Other than that I agree with Fred....

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

zidane1strife,

No massively env disrupting plants. Solar panels

I have always liked the idea of solar energy, but I was told by a few engineer friends that it takes more energy to make them than they will produce in their average lifetime. For example, if it takes 10,000kW to make a solar panel, it will only output 9,000kW of power in its lifetime.

If this is true, then current solar panels are not an answer to our energy needs and pollution concerns. Does anyone know about this?

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Fred]

Silent I don't agree with those numbers, I did a little googling..

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=197

(edit.. sorry If I seem beligerent about these issues, but of all topics on this forum that I could be completely 100% wrong about, certain of these science issues I would actually bet my entire life earnings on. I am that sure and confident about the obviousness of the solution. Many in my field would be right there with me)

snip from the link above


"
Concern: The nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain as planned is not large enough to store all off the used nuclear fuel and defense-related waste that has been and is being produced.

Answer:



The capacity of a repository at the Yucca Mountain site has been determined politically, not scientifically. Congress limited the capacity of the Yucca Mountain repository to 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal or equivalent in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
As of 2002, there is about 44,000 metric tons of commercial used nuclear fuel and about 12,000 metric tons of defense high-level radioactive waste awaiting disposal at Yucca Mountain. An additional 2,000 metric tons is generated each year. Given that DOE expects to begin receiving up to 3,000 metric tons a year of used fuel beginning in 2010, the 70,000 metric ton political limit will not be reached until at least 2036.
Scientific analysis demonstrates that the Yucca Mountain site is physically capable of holding much more used fuel. DOE's Environmental Impact Statement showed that the site could safely dispose of 120,000 metric tons. Some scientists believe that repository capacity could be as high as 200,000 metric tons.

Congress has plenty of time to decide whether it wants to authorize a second repository or increase the capacity at Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act directed DOE to report to Congress between 2007 and 2010 on the need for a second national repository.

 

[epicstruggle]

First off I never said I was against Nuclear Power. I stated that there are issues with waste storage, which there are. Leaking into the surrounding environment is still a very present danger. Second is the fact that finding suitable sites to store hundreds of tons of nuclear waste is not easy at all. There are problems with it, which is all I stated. Epic stated that Nuclear Power was zero pollution, which is not true.

having nuclear waste does not imply nuclear pollution. Lets get that straight first. Having centralized storage facilities is a HELL of a lot better than storing them at the nuclear plants themselves.

later
epic

 

[pax]

Geo therm is still quite a buzz up here in Canada. And not talking hot springs or anything... dig down 50 feet and its always 52 F year round. Heat that can be easily extracted and cut into your power bill by about 2\3rds. Also can be used to cool in summer... its pricey to setup at about 30g for average sized house but its still a novelty but even at that price still worth it in the long run.

Get the mass market adoption in new home construction and setup costs should drop quite a bit... this is the kind of thing ripe for very positive gov social engineering.

 

[zidane1strife]

And I would argue that wind farms and hydroelectric power are more massivle disruptive to the environment than fission is, for the same amount of electricity generated.

BS, the fission waste, could if any prob(human error, terrorist obtain the waste and use it to build a dirty... etc.) arise, f@ck the env for 1000s of yrs, if it gets near any pop. area.... the dmg to the genes will make many a family and their descendants suffer.

Do you have one on your roof? Why not?

Too inneficient(thus I need lots of'em, and thus takes too much space.), building fission pwr plants all over the country will take many a yrs(probably more than a decade.), so invsting a little in R&D to get either more efficient solar panels or fusion reactions in a few yrs, would be a viable alternative.

And I don't think anyone here is suggesting nuclear fission alone either. But it certainly has a part to play in energy generation.

Indeed, it is an example of what not to do.

Take a straw poll of Physics proffessors in Universities around the world, I guarentee you 95% of them will be in favor of Nuclear Power as the most no brainer environmentally friendly solution to Energy problems. Waste is not a problem, it never has been, contrary to popular leftist rhetoric.

50yrs, pwring say 40-60% of the world...(remember enrgy consumption is increasing not decreasing.). TONS upon tons of waste... ALL OF THAT WASTE WILL BE AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.

If this is true, then current solar panels are not an answer to our energy needs and pollution concerns. Does anyone know about this?

Many an advance that could double or triple their efficiency have been shown, all we need is more R&D $$$...

having nuclear waste does not imply nuclear pollution. Lets get that straight first. Having centralized storage facilities is a HELL of a lot better than storing them at the nuclear plants themselves.

IT does, I ain't talking US only, I'm talking about the whole world. and there are going to be mistakes, and there are gonna be those that will go to any lengths to obtain it, and with the nature of the waste, the consequences would be....


EDITED

 

[Silent_One]

Scientific analysis demonstrates that the Yucca Mountain site is physically capable of holding much more used fuel. DOE's Environmental Impact Statement showed that the site could safely dispose of 120,000 metric tons. Some scientists believe that repository capacity could be as high as 200,000 metric tons.

Interesting. Thanks for the link fred.

 

[zidane1strife]

From that link...

Concern: Yucca will not be as dry 1000's of years in the future as it is today.

Answer:

Past climate change patterns have been evaluated, if Yucca gets wetter, it won't get that much wetter.
DOE conservatively assumes a wetter climate in its performance assessment.

BS-o-METER skyrocketing!!! Well, we still have not reached a consensus on what is the long term env. impact of current human activity...
So basing our expectations of what will happen on what happened on the past is FAR FAR from reliable.

 

[Silent_One]

BS-o-METER skyrocketing!!!

What study of Yucca do you base your statement on? Any link?

 

[Sxotty]

Zid you should know that hydroelectric plants are horribly disruptive to the environment. They have decimated our salmon fishery in the norhtwest for example.


I support Solar panels myself though, here is why
Solar panels like nuclear stuff is not really polluting, but of course solar panels do not have the nuclear waste . Solar panels would cool the earth down by taking radiation and converting it to electricity.

the problems with solar panels are efficiency
This is not a problem b/c the sunlight is free

Recycleability: When they wear out the are hard to deal with if they could be easily recycled it would help

Night?
Well obviously take a machine that drill subway tunnels drill a tunnel in a hill will it with water in the day and then at night let the water drain out thru generators.

So basically although it would be a massive investment it would pay for itself eventually b/c sunlight is free. In alaska the power company is required to pay consumers for electricty they add to the grid, many states do not as yet do this but it would certainly encourage people to get solar cells if they could not only get free electricty in the day but also get paid for the excess.


As follows below a quote saying typically in 10years a solar system pays for itself. Of course this is in ridiculous california...

So a key feature of the new BP customer site is a savings calculator, allowing customers to plug in their area codes and monthly electricity bills for a calculation of how long it would take for the system to pay for itself.

Those paybacks typically extend more than 10 years, but BP and other manufacturers say their systems should last twice that long. They say that means dividends for years on a photovoltaic investment. And Postles notes BP calculations assume utility power prices remain flat

http://www.powertothepeople.org/newswire/020703.shtml

Less obvious than solar panels are photovoltaic roof shingles. The shingles are indistinguishable from normal roof shingles. By performing double duty, they make the cost of solar cells competitive over the life of the shingles, according to the National Renewable Energy Lab, an arm of the Energy Department. The shingles produce about five watts per square foot, based on the average sun hours per day.

http://www.irecusa.org/articles/static/1/1010741387_987100817.html

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And I would argue that wind farms and hydroelectric power are more massivle disruptive to the environment than fission is, for the same amount of electricity generated.

BS, the fission waste, could if any prob(human error, terrorist obtain the waste and use it to build a dirty... etc.) arise, f@ck the env for 1000s of yrs, if it gets near any pop. area.... the dmg to the genes will make many a family and their descendants suffer.

Gee, and one conventional terrorist bomb could ruin the "downstream from the damn" population.

Give me a break. Hydroelectic power upon its installation causes a massive environmental disruption locally, the long term effects are god-knows what.

Do you have one on your roof? Why not?

Too inneficient(thus I need lots of'em, and thus takes too much space.), building fission pwr plants all over the country will take many a yrs(probably more than a decade.), so invsting a little in R&D to get either more efficient solar panels or fusion reactions in a few yrs, would be a viable alternative.

So in other words, solar power is NOT a solution today. Thanks for agreeing with me.

No one is against more R&D toward alternative power generation. I asked you a simple question. What, right now is a viable alternative to nuclear fission reactors.

The "right" choice for power generation depends highly on localized demand, available environmental recources, cost, and a host of other things.

And I don't think anyone here is suggesting nuclear fission alone either. But it certainly has a part to play in energy generation.

Indeed, it is an example of what not to do.

Then disconnect your house from the power grid, and supply your own energy. Good luck.

 

[zidane1strife]

What, right now is a viable alternative to nuclear fission reactors.

Well, as I said, many a technology that could cut sol panels costs down, make'em more efficient, and far easier to dispose off, have been shown in da news...

The time it would take to bring all those nukes into action would be comparable to what it would likely take to bring out better sol panels...

So, I'd say it's as 'right now' as the 'nuking the nation' alternative.

The "right" choice for power generation depends highly on localized demand, available environmental recources, cost, and a host of other things.

I concur.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well, as I said, many a technology that could cut sol panels costs down, make'em more efficient, and far easier to dispose off, have been shown in da news...[/quoe]

How 'bout some o 'dem sources?

The time it would take to bring all those nukes into action would be comparable to what it would likely take to bring out better sol panels...

Really? So, we'll be solar in a few years?

 

[zidane1strife]

How 'bout some o 'dem sources?

What, links? I don't have'em, got news from, nature.com, sciam mag, discover mag, newscientist, cnn, etc...

Again, lotsa articles about different good techs..

Really? So, we'll be solar in a few years?

No, different companies, with different techs.... and no I've not heard of any massive sol panels R&D $$$ from anyone...

PS talking about the future, someone recently saved me 100M$ by doing exactly what I was planning on doing

 

[Fred]

Zidane, while it may feel comfortable for you to demonize Nuclear Power and that DOE link's findings, know that the people who do those studies have worked in the field for 20 years... Prolly have multiple PhDs and are amongst the most respected scientists in the world.

You mentioned SciAm, Nature etc etc. Why don't you actually read their energy articles, they are pro nuclear.

Containement science is nearly 50 years old, and all the major results are public sector and well established.

 

[zidane1strife]

Zidane, while it may feel comfortable for you to demonize Nuclear Power and that DOE link's findings, know that the people who do those studies have worked in the field for 20 years... Prolly have multiple PhDs and are amongst the most respected scientists in the world.

Look, I just dislike waste, tons of waste, even reg. waste/garbage... it has to be produced, and it'll take space while it degrades for decades.

Locally we've nearly run out of space, and soon(about 5-10yrs) will have to begin exporting garbage... that is sad.

Using nukes generates bad waste, and they're not even dealing with the possibility of massive climate changes... So if anything f#cks the earth env... the nukes will likely leak and provide even more probs.

Even if they could offer a way to contain it for 1000s of years under any env condition( ), it's still some of the worst stuff we can keep around.

It's akin to filling your toilet with radioactive cr@p and not being able to flush for thousands of years... It's just not worth it.

As I've said in the past, reduce consumption, reduce the amount of consumers, and use the least polluting tech, and again there are many different ways to obtain energy from different sources, and saying that obtaining it from one natural (non-nuke)source has to be env. harmful is not always the case, for there alternative ways of implementing those.

 

[Mike_I]

Waste and Energy

Hello folks,

I'm a new user here but have been visiting for a few weeks now. Please allow me to contribute a bit to this discussion. A few months ago I read an article in Discover magazine about a method to obtain oil by killing two birds with one stone.

keep in mind this is not theoretical, it's in operation as I write this. I haven't heard about it on any of the major news media outlets yet which is strange.

Anyway, here is the link to the article I read.

http://www.discover.com/may_03/featoil.html

Adding a link to Changing World Technologies, which built the thing if I'm not mistaken.

http://www.changingworldtech.com/home.html

 

[jandar]

Mike_I that is pretty cool.

 

[Silent_One]

Mike_I,
Nice contribution- If I recall that very same article was posted at this site some time ago. Anyway, welcome aboard!

 

[Sxotty]

reduce the amount of consumers

Are you volunteering for something there?