In a blow to the nuclear power industry, the budget released by President Obama last week eliminates most funding for Yucca Mountain, the Nevada site that for decades has been proposed for the permanent burial of radioactive nuclear waste.
The decision will likely be an expensive one, considering how much money the federal government might end up owing the utility industry, and how much—up to $10.4 billion—has already been spent and will have been wasted on the search for a nuclear waste repository since 1983. The courts have already awarded the companies about $1 billion, because the government signed contracts obligating it to begin taking the waste in 1998, but seems unlikely to do so for years. The nuclear industry says it may demand the return of the $22 billion that it has paid to the Energy Department to establish a repository, but that the government has not yet spent
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/03/06/yucca-mountain-ruled-out-for-storing-nuke-waste-now-what/?utm_campaign=DISCOVER%20Magazine%20Special%20Energy%20Newsletter%2003%2E09%2E09&utm_content=rpw@shaw.ca&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=VerticalResponse&utm_term=80beats%3A%20Yucca%20Mountain%20Ruled%20Out%20for%20Storing%20Nuke%20Waste%2E%20Now%20What%3F
Shades of The World Without Us - http://www.worldwithoutus.com/toc.html !!
And this is what is being touted as the "New Green"? About the only thing green about this is what an exposed person might turn, shortly before expiration. Touting "nu-cu-lar" (thank you, Mr. Bush) energy as the new green is an act of desperation by those who cannot or won't recognize that change is nigh, and an act of folly by the so-called "environmentalists" who subscribe to this.
Stumble It!
They can lift the ban on breeder reactors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
Japan reprocesses fuel using these processes, and has had great success with it. But even if they manage to render tons of waste back into usable fuel, they still are met with disdain.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090305/sc ... 0305165445
"And this is what is being touted as the "New Green"? "
Because it is. It emits less radioactivity than Coal plants, less greenhouse gases than Natural Gas, is available 24/7/365 unlike wind and solar, and fits into the existing infrastructure.
"Touting "nu-cu-lar" (thank you, Mr. Bush) energy as the new green is an act of desperation by those who cannot or won't recognize that change is nigh, and an act of folly by the so-called "environmentalists" who subscribe to this."
So, what would you suggest?
So, what would you suggest?
{sound of crickets chirping}
The sun. More energy hits the planet from the sun than anything we've been able to produce to date. Use that. The cost doesn't matter, and it's all "green".
So, what about at night?
Or places where 'night' is November - April?
Or in places where they have a steel industry, or where they want to have a steel industry and they require large amounts of power 24/7/365 ?
Nuclear is sometimes the best option. And not nearly as scary as some people think it is.
Which means it is also daylight somewhere.
I am sure you can work that one out.............
http://www.lightparty.com/Energy/Hemp5.html
Which means it is also daylight somewhere.
I am sure you can work that one out.............
http://www.lightparty.com/Energy/Hemp5.html
It costs electricity to 'transport' electricity. Eventually you can put a power plant so far away from where the energy would be used that you couldn't light a flashlight from it.
Energy needs to be generated or stored near to where it is used.
And what does nuclear power have to do with industrial hemp?
And to answer your question about steel making, what with such things as carbon fibre composites, traditional steel applications are becoming so yesterday.............
It's a whole package, Dr. C. Up until now, evrything has been compartmentalized, with no collateral cause and effect until (oh gosh) it happens, and usually at great cost.
And to answer your question about steel making, what with such things as carbon fibre composites, traditional steel applications are becoming so yesterday.............
It's a whole package, Dr. C. Up until now, evrything has been compartmentalized, with no collateral cause and effect until (oh gosh) it happens, and usually at great cost.
I ask, as places like Africa who want to enter the developing world will need a steel industry, and steel requires large amounts of constant heat. That can come from coal, or gas or nuclear. But solar and wind are totally inadequate to provide it.
And you can't make a building out of hemp or carbon fiber.
Any idea of the energy stored in a kilo of uranium? When used in a nuclear reactor, it would equal 2000 tonnes of chemical fuels (Coal, Oil, methanol . . ).
That is why Nuclear is greener than most other things.
Which means that, GHGs aside, and considering that virtually ALL forms of energy we use devolve into heat, a kilo of uranium heats up the biosphere at 2,000 times the rate of conventional fuels. That is certainly NOT a "green" application.
Africa, et al, won't have the luxury of stumbling through an industrial revolution the way we did. The earth won't accommodate it. Africa et al, will have to "shortcut" more directly to carbon fibre technologies, etc. - which is where we can be of some practical use with the technolgies we are developing.
I DID say that it's a whole package, Dr. C., and not the compartmentalized bits we're so used to.
As for building with hemp, etc.:
http://www.harbay.net/fibre/hemphouses.html
http://www.hempfarm.org/FordHempmobile.html
Which means that, GHGs aside, and considering that virtually ALL forms of energy we use devolve into heat, a kilo of uranium heats up the biosphere at 2,000 times the rate of conventional fuels. That is certainly NOT a "green" application.
Incorrect. If they hold the same amount of energy, they emit the same amount of heat. First law of thermodynamics.
The Fuels also emit CO2, and water vapour. Two greenhouse gasses. They are not 'greener' than a racquetball sized hunk of uranium.
Africa, et al, won't have the luxury of stumbling through an industrial revolution the way we did. The earth won't accommodate it. Africa et al, will have to "shortcut" more directly to carbon fibre technologies, etc. - which is where we can be of some practical use with the technolgies we are developing.
Damn straight! We won't allow them to develop, ever. That could only give them the advantages we have, and they must be repressed.
I DID say that it's a whole package, Dr. C., and not the compartmentalized bits we're so used to.
As for building with hemp, etc.:
http://www.harbay.net/fibre/hemphouses.html
http://www.hempfarm.org/FordHempmobile.html
You'll find I am a strong supporter of hemp and it's many wonders. But cleaning up the Nuclear waste now in North America because some US Presidents were scared of Breeder reactors isn't a very good use for Hemp. I even checked many sources on that. Hemp is useless against ionizing radiation.
1st law aside, if unlimited use of energy results from the creation and expansion of breeder reactors (or of any nuclear energy source), and if vitually ALL energy devolves into heat, then it simply doesn't matter if pound for pound one is more efficient than the other. It inevitably results in a net increase in heat (which, after all, is what GHG's do). It doesn't matter how we get there -- we get there.
Further, as encouragement of unlimited use of energy, through the use of so-called "green" nuclear energy, leads to a net increase in heat, it also leads to a net increase in water vapour.
As for "development" in Africa, et al, just because they don't go the route we had the luxury (through our own ignorance/avarice) of using, doesn't mean they can't develop. But they can skip the "traditional" road of their particular industrial revolution (having learned from our mistakes), and skip to the next phase. I did not advocate that we "keep them down on the farm". That would be useless and counter-productive, if only because they have all ready "seen gay Paree".
And I did not say that I am against cleaning up the mess left by an avaristic nuclear industry. If I am against anything at all, it would be the government (and hence the people) footing the bill, instead of the business. All this would be is a subsidy, to allow a false bottom line. If the nuclear industry isn't willing to foot the bill entirely to clean up its' waste, then confiscation without remuneration would be in order. That would be where your "breeder reactors" would enter the picture............
Sigh.....where to start....
1st law aside, if unlimited use of energy results from the creation and expansion of breeder reactors (or of any nuclear energy source), and if vitually ALL energy devolves into heat, then it simply doesn't matter if pound for pound one is more efficient than the other. It inevitably results in a net increase in heat (which, after all, is what GHG's do). It doesn't matter how we get there -- we get there.
The first law says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. X number of Joules of potential energy will result in X Joules of heat.
Further, as encouragement of unlimited use of energy, through the use of so-called "green" nuclear energy, leads to a net increase in heat, it also leads to a net increase in water vapour.
And that is where you skip a step. Nuclear does not involve the release of greenhouse gases. Those gases are therefore not released into the atmosphere, where they will trap the sun's energy and contribute to global warming.
You forgot it's not the 2000 tonnes of CO2 and water vapour doing the warming or X Joules of potential energy, it's the sun.
As for "development" in Africa, et al, just because they don't go the route we had the luxury (through our own ignorance/avarice) of using, doesn't mean they can't develop. But they can skip the "traditional" road of their particular industrial revolution (having learned from our mistakes), and skip to the next phase. I did not advocate that we "keep them down on the farm". That would be useless and counter-productive, if only because they have all ready "seen gay Paree".
You said "Africa, et al, won't have the luxury of stumbling through an industrial revolution the way we did." But they will have to have steel industries. Certain things cannot be built from anything other than steel with current technologies. Carbon fiber is fine for a car, if you have a half million dollars. But it's useless for bridges or buildings.
Steel is a step that can't be skipped. Now, they can ethier power it with Coal, Gas, hydro or Nuclear. Solar and Wind are not suitable for Steel making.
And I did not say that I am against cleaning up the mess left by an avaristic nuclear industry. If I am against anything at all, it would be the government (and hence the people) footing the bill, instead of the business. All this would be is a subsidy, to allow a false bottom line. If the nuclear industry isn't willing to foot the bill entirely to clean up its' waste, then confiscation without remuneration would be in order. That would be where your "breeder reactors" would enter the picture............
On that we agree. Something needs to be done. I personally have no problem with a State owned reprocessing facility (security of it should not be left to private corporations) and power companied charged liberally for reprocessing of the waste.
As a side benefit, all those old nuclear warheads from Russia and the US can also be reprocessed into U-238 for use in power reactors as well.
You forgot it's not the 2000 tonnes of CO2 and water vapour doing the warming or X Joules of potential energy, it's the sun.
To stress my point here, I did some calculations back in University. In order to warm the Gulf of Mexico by one half degree Celsius;
{skipping the boring math part}
find the volume of water of the Gulf of Mexico to 3 cm;
Find how many Joules would be required for that amount of water to warm it that temperature;
Find out the Energy released in a nuclear explosion;
Divide the water figure by the warhead figure;
It would take approximately 34 Million Hiroshima sized bombs to raise the temperature of the Gulf of Mexico one half a degree Celsius to a depth of 3 centimetres.
Something like that.
A few nuclear plants isn't going to do jack to the environment, as far as added heat is concerned.