Yes.. but Yucca Mountain isn't operational yet. And, if there was enough storage on site it wouldn't be necessary. And it still doesn't help with giant tanks of *liquid* radioactive material at sites like Hanford, WA that happen to be rusting away, and no one is quite sure how to transfer or what to do with the ooze to keep it safe.
posted
I found a pretty good article about the French and nuclear power. PBS French
I'm not sure when it was written, but basically it does come down to what to do with the waste. They recycle a lot of it but they still don't know what to do with leftover waste
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Yucca is a really bad idea. There was a Richter 4.3 earthquake there a few years ago, IIRC. In fact, I think land-based storage in general is a bad idea. Deep seabed burial is the way to go -- cheap, safe, and effective.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Tatiana told me about it, she referred me to this Wikipedia link. Maybe I can get her to post here on it.
That Wikipedia info is very interesting. I didn't see that it mentioned any Nuclear plants using this technology, yet, but it certainly looks like a positive alternative to Fission plants.
Thanks for sharing the info.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky my problem with seabed burial is the same as with space "burial" and strapping it to the back of the rocket. I think the technological risks of burying it that far undersea are pretty high. How would you propose doing it?
posted
There was a proposal way back in 2000 or 2001 that used the same technology currently used to drill oil wells. It's quite cheap in comparison to land-based or space-based solutions. After 24,000 years only about one cubic metre around each waste barrel is projected to be contaminated; at those depths there isn't much living in the seabed itself since the pressure is so great. So we'd kill some microbes, but apart from that it's safe.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: But really, the simple fact is that comparing solar and wind power to nuclear power is like comparing a battery to a power plant. The only thing that could come close to replacing fossil fuels is nuclear power. Yes, it produces waste, but it's the only viable alternative to fossil fuels that we have.
At least in part you are comparing Macro to Micro systems. With Nuclear Energy, a large expenditure will produce public energy which you will pay for with a monthly bill. Solar Systems, for example, can be effectively used to power a 'normal' home, with moderate economy in electricity usage and no loss of lifestyle. Once the system is paid for, you get "free" energy, for the cost of maintenance. You even get paid by the utility company for any excess energy that your system creates.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gah! So much to respond to! I going to post this, even though it probably has all been addressed!
The only hybrid that looks really funky is the latest Prius (and the complete curiosity of the Insight, which was never anything more than a test vehicle here in the States)... But then, there are a bunch of conventional cars that are funky too (the Aztek anyone?). The Honda Civic (I'm a proud owner of a 2004 Civic Hybrid), the Ford Escape, First generation Prius (looked like an Echo), a couple of pickup trucks, the Lexus RX400h, Honda Accord... They all look pretty conventional.
The Civic and Prius (first-gen) have been around for 5 years, the Insight an extra year or two ahead of that. So your argument about hybrids seems largely without merit. There are plenty (mostly) hybrids that look like their conventional counterparts, and they've been out just about as long as the "weird" vehicles.
And the thing is, there is something to being distinctive, both from the manufacturer (free advertising) and consumer (you bought a green car, why wouldn't you want to show off any more than that guy with the mustang and bad-a.. spoiler? I don't get peeved because the Hummer looks like a monstrosity... I get annoyed because it IS a monstrosity, and most people buying one have no need specifically for a Hummer; that any number of other vehicles could suffice.
Just so you know, I bought the hybrid for several reasons:
1) Improved mileage over my 20-year-old Volvo 240. Of course, just about any newer car (including the non-hybrid Civic) would have beaten it. 2) Better emissions. Some other cars come close, and it is diminishing returns, since even polluters of today are much more friendly than those 20-30 years ago. 3) Geekiness. It's new technology. I could have gone with the newer Prius, but the wife didn't like it. Felt clausterphobic in it. The Prius was also a bit pricey. 4) I could afford to make a small statement. I have a good job. I could have gotten a really nice conventional Civic, but I want hybrid technology to succeed, even if it is a stepping stone to a more long lived platform. I support transitional fossils Even if it means I can't have folding back seats.
So yeah, I wanted to make a statement... But it also had to be one that could make sense. The Insight was out at the start (2-seater). The Prius was out due to ergonomic concerns (both the first and second generations). I want people to know that I'm willing to put my money were my mouth is, even as I recognize that the purchase is a net loss from a strictly economic viewpoint. But someone has to take the first, always expensive, step... And if I get excited and want to show it off to people, because it is geeky cool, and it WORKS! is that really something that should be denigrated?
-Bok, Hybrid zealot that knows they aren't for everyone...
--- Ic, the New Urbanist idea is pretty cool. Boston, and vicinity, in many ways holds to it. We have lots of commercial Squares around which neighborhoods are created. It looks like old-fashioned is coming back Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Lately, I've been considering tethering toddlers to treadmills. Depending on the cost of candy, this could be very efficient.
I think there might still be a law against exploiting children like that. Though if you get the right lobbyists, exceptions to all sorts of situations have been made. Just make sure you don't use the unborn. Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, the other problem with nuclear power is that it is another finite (on human scales) fuel source. We'd be buying ourselves another half a millienia, but if we were to pat our backs by changing over, that isn't exactly a good forward thinking precedent for the people who will need to deal with "peak uranium".
quote:No one spends that much money on something that useless because they think it's nifty.
People spend their money on useless crap all the time because they think it's nifty and will give them pleasure.
Lyrhawn,
quote:That's beside the point though. You're right, in the sense that I don't know for sure, and I never said that my opinion or assumption was a FACT, just a guess, or an ovservation.
That was my whole point, thanks for acknowledging it. You're still dodging around though, because you don't want to let go of this assumption you have that Hummer drivers are conspicuously consumptive blowhard jackasses. It's not an observation, it's a prejudice. Your reasons for coming to that conclusion are basically the same as a racist would have for despising black people, because all the black people he's interacted with have mistreated him.
If you don't like tern doing it, don't do it yourself. What you think about someone just because of what they drive says more for certain, until you've met and interacted with them, about you than it possibly could about them. Unless for instance the Hummer is one of those political or religious cars plastered with placards and slogans.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I was only suggesting that solar power on houses mighr reduce energy consumption by that much, to say nothing of actual solar plants, or wind, geothermal etc etc all the other possible energy sources. But, no, you're probably right it couldn't totally replace it, but then, it really doesn't have to. If we could cut fossil fuel usage down to say 15% of what it currently is, and halted deforestation so we had some stable carbon sinks, the air would be much cleaner, the environment better off, and we'd have enough oil to sustain a 15% usage for a long, long time. Maybe long enough until Fusion generators make it all a moot point.
dan-
Of course you also have to consider the fact that "global warming" doesn't just mean that everything gets hotter. It also means that a lot of places, like China, northern Europe and elsewhere will basically turn into Siberia. The western US will go through a horrible drought, so on and so forth, things get bad. Some nations will profit, some will have extremely bad reprecussions. Drought is part of why we should be aggressively researching and implementing desalinazation technology today, and not waiting until we really have a dire need for it.
bananaoj-
There is much potential, as I posted earlier in this thread, for nuclear energy without the worry about waste products. Also, these new reactors work with Thorium, which is much more abundant than Uranium. After 500 years, the waste basically has the same radioactive content as coal ash. It has yet to be implemented, but then, no one is really putting forth an effort to try. With some research and funding, it could be a reality in 10 years.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Of course you also have to consider the fact that "global warming" doesn't just mean that everything gets hotter. It also means that a lot of places, like China, northern Europe and elsewhere will basically turn into Siberia. The western US will go through a horrible drought, so on and so forth, things get bad. Some nations will profit, some will have extremely bad reprecussions. Drought is part of why we should be aggressively researching and implementing desalinazation technology today, and not waiting until we really have a dire need for it.
Yes, Global warming is much more complex than having the thermometer go up a couple of degrees. The global weather patterns and Ocean currents will change. There are regular PBS specials updating us about the most recent science about this. The next time you see one listed ... watch it. Or research the effects yourself on the Internet.
Places that were warm because of moderating effects will get much colder - like what Lyrhawn mentions: the Gulf Stream's moderating effect on British and European weather will disappear as the Gulf Stream disappears. Once in a Hundred Year floods, and Once in a Hundred Year storms are expected to become commonplace. We saw this happen this year with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, and with the record number of Hurricanes that happened in the Caribbean. The waters of the Caribbean and the Gulf were so warm that moderate storms were turned into monster storms virtually overnight. Droughts are forecast for the Plains, our bread basket.
For many people the jury is still out on whether this is "just" a weather cycle, or global Warming, or a weather cycle AND Global Warming. The most recent update that I saw showed research of Carbon Dioxide levels contained in bubbles of air from Ice Cores (from the Antarctic) going back 100,000 years. The more research that is done, the more the research verifies the fact that what we are experiencing is exceptional in the history of our planet. These scientists are sure that our future on Earth depends on us getting a handle on the human contribution to this climate change.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn... I actually think nuclear energy is the way to go, even though I have reservations about the waste disposal. But the U.S. regulations are so counter-productive to increasing the number of nuclear reactors in this country right now that I don't believe it will happen in this country short of a true peak oil cricies.
I'm not talking about safety regulations. I'm entirely *for* the safety regulations. I'm talking about locations etc. and overriding the NIMBY paranoia.
posted
There was a main article in the weekly Science Times section of The New York Times a while ago that talked about nuclear power plants, when they were last built, and what plans for new ones are.
quote: More than 150 nations, including nearly every industrialized country except the United States, agreed Saturday to negotiate a second phase of mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
I find stuff like that disgusting and embarrassing.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Me too. Why wouldn't the US want to go to a conference where everyone talks about how much the United States needs to cut back.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bah. It's a conference where everyone talks about how much EVERYONE should cut back. They aren't all sitting around tables trying to find ways to get the US to cut back. I think mostly they think we're a lost cause, and are trying to figure out ways to solve their own problems.
Regardless, it's in our best inrerests to go along with conferences like these. We could use the international image boost, and, as stated many times before, the long term economic, defense and energy interests of the nation hinge upon us going along with this.
There's more at stake than just climate change. Even if it came down to us holding fast to saying that there isn't anything we can do to stop it, climate change is just ONE of the issues involved with getting rid of energy production dependent on fossil fuels. And if it's true that we can't stop climate change anyway, then it becomes the least important.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:BMWs announcement of the new technology is somewhat of a technological bombshell as it adds yet another form of hybrid automobile a turbosteamer. The concept uses energy from the exhaust gasses of the traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to power a steam engine which also contributes power to the automobile an overall 15 per cent improvement for the combined drive system. Even bigger news is that the drive has been designed so that it can be installed in existing model series meaning that every model in the BMW range could become 15% more efficient overnight if the company chose to make the reduced consumption accessible to as many people as possible.
Combining the innovative assistance drive with a 1.8 litre BMW four-cylinder engine on the test rig reduced consumption by up to 15 percent and generated 10 kilowatts more power and 20 Nm more torque. This increased power and efficiency comes for, well, nothing. The energy is extracted exclusively from the heat in the exhaust gases and cooling water so it is essentially a quantum leap in efficiency.
The Turbosteamer is based on the same principle of the steam engine: liquid is heated to form steam in two circuits and this is used to power the engine. The primary energy supplier is the high-temperature circuit which uses exhaust heat from the internal combustion engine as an energy source via heat exchangers. More than 80 percent of the heat energy contained in the exhaust gases is recycled using this technology. The steam is then conducted directly into an expansion unit linked to the crankshaft of the internal combustion engine. Most of the remaining residual heat is absorbed by the cooling circuit of the engine, which acts as the second energy supply for the Turbosteamer.
The development of the assistance drive has reached the phase involving comprehensive tests on the test rig. The components for this drive have been designed so that they are capable of being installed in existing model series. Tests have been carried out on a number of sample packages to ensure that the BMW 3 Series provides adequate space. The engine compartment of a four-cylinder model offers enough space to allow the expansion units to be accommodated.
OK, clearly not the solution. But it's pretty cool, no?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Even if it means I can't have folding back seats.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
