Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:10:19 GMT, "hanson" wrote:

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote:
hanson wrote:
"Sir Frederick" wrote:

"Sir Frederick"
A classical science fiction method of getting rid of
radioactive waste [1] has been to dump it into the sun.

hanson wrote:
... but wouldn't the solar radiation bake, vaporize
and ionize such incoming loads [1]... and wouldn't the
solar wind blow that gossamer stuff then right back
into the direction it came from?
... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

"Sir Frederick" wrote:
I have no idea.... ahahahaha... ahahamartin

Dirk wrote:
Worse yet, it could contaminate the sun with radiation.
You irresponsible fool!

hanson wrote:
Martin, [1] becomes a plasma long, long before it hits
the sun's corona or any of the sun's atmospheric layers
So, now you know.... ahahahaha... And don't plagiarize...
In your case the analog is: fafafafa... fafafafartin Martin.
Being a plasma, I plagiarize all the time...
hafahafahafa... hafahafahafasirfrederick... phoomb!

On Aug 13, 11:15*pm, Immortalist wrote:
SNIP

The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce
resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60
years depending on the actual demand.

END SNIP

As another poster remarked, that is factually incorrect. There is
enough Thorium and U238 to last MILLIONS of years at current rates of
total energy consumption for the entire planet, if used in breeder
reactors. Thorium is more abundant than tin, for God's sake, and U238
almost as abundant.

Immortalist wrote:

Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred
targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world
could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a
terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.

That's actually wrong. Airliner impact is one of the design
considerations when designing the main reactor containment building.
An airliner is basically a molotov cocktail with a pair of heavy
engines. So you build the containment vessel strong enough to survive
the engine impact and then watch the kerosene burn on the outside of
the dome. Afterwards you'll need to rebuild much of the site, but the
reactor itself probably doesn't even need to quit operating.

The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce
resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60
years depending on the actual demand.

Uranium is quite water soluble. Thus a lot of it ends up in the
oceans. Supposedly it can be pulled from seawater at about four times
the current price. We have a lot of ocean.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:15:54 -0700, Immortalist wrote:

Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable
energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy
security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.

There is a over arching base issue here. Ugly but still a issue.

The ugly issue is not energy itself but the how the human system treats
whatever form of energy under discussion.

Until this human, let's call it for now, reality is discussed with the
same amount of attention given to the energy form itself, many of the
same problems will continue to come up again and again and again with
each human generation. This is already the case and has been since the
first human need for energy existed. Starting with food energy.

Treating this human system as if it does not need to be discussed, as if
it possessed a unspoken self-evident virtue of perfect utility makes it
seem that the only thing needed is to plug whatever energy form into it,
then all will be well. This is 'what's wrong' and will continue to be
wrong with all forms of energy.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Wayne Throop wrote:
Rod Speed wrote
Wayne Throop wrote:
Sir Frederick wrote

A classical science fiction method of getting rid of
radioactive waste has been to dump it into the sun.

( Of course, in real life, it's an extraordinarily silly and stupid
method, even if the space infrastructure existed to do it. )

No it isnt.

You'd spend 30 kps delta-v just to drop something on the sun that
would be perfectly safe to dispose of with less than 10kps delta-v?

It does get rid of any argument the anti nuke fools
would have about disposing of the used fuel rods.

Or, for that matter, none?

Pfft. Sure. Go ahead. It's your money to throw down a rat-hole.

Peanuts in the total cost of the nuke.

Oh really? I'd love to see you actually run the numbers on it. Keep in
mind that getting the stuff into the Sun is worse than a trip to the
outer planets, so you'll have to count on significantly greater than the
standard $10,000/pound rate to LEO.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Zerkon, which "human system" and/or "human reality" are you talking
about here? Biological? Psychological? Social? In a thread where
people are discussing nuclear reactor design and launch velocities, it
helps to be more specific than this.

"Sir Frederick" wrote:

*A classical science fiction method of getting rid of
radioactive waste has been to dump it into the sun.

hanson the environmentalist wrote:

... but wouldn't the solar radiation bake, vaporize and
ionize such incoming loads... * and wouldn't the solar
wind blow that gossamer stuff then right back into the
direction it came from? ... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

gaby wrote:

Thankfully we have you always watching out for us. ;-)

Here is the good laugh Hanson:

http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wil..._nuclear_waste

Note:

The most commonly seen tektite is a green,
near transparent type found in the Moldau
River Valley in Eastern Europe, known as
Moldavite. An intriguing light yellow form of
natural glass has been found in several
areas within the Libyan Desert, and, to
date, has not been associated with a
meteor impact, so its origin remains
uncertain.
source: http://www.bwsmigel.info/Lesson3/DEP...roperties.html

So the technology is at least 8000 years old but likely much older.

Jewelery & glass beads. Seem just up your canal. hahahaha

funny

In 1826 Thomas Drummond discovered that an intense illumination is
created when an Oxyhydrogen flame is directed at a cylinder of calcium
oxide, which can be raised to white heat without melting.

Freakin crazy people talk about "limelight" not knowing whatis.

Will say it is A focus of public attention. hahaha

The reason they don't breakdown nuclear waist is because they want to
make ammunition points out of it. To kill people industrially.

:-(

___
http://blog.go-here.nl

On Aug 13, 6:15*pm, Immortalist wrote:
Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a
sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases
energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.

Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small
and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer
reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world
is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants.

Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous energy
source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in production,
and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology.

Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no
air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil
fuel combustion.

Proponents also point out that nuclear power is the only viable course
to achieve energy independence for most Western countries.

Critics point to the issue of storing radioactive waste, the history
of and continuing potential for radioactive contamination by accident
or sabotage, the continuing possibility of nuclear proliferation, and
the disadvantages of centralized electricity production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate

The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste
from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully
looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to
United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).

High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can
still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100%
security. A small probability of failure will always last. The
consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for
human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more
nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built,
the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the
world.

Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred
targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world
could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a
terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.

During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is
produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear
weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power
plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons
(nuclear proliferation).

The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce
resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60
years depending on the actual demand.

The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new
nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in
the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build
new nuclear power plants in a short time.

http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-co...-and-sustainab...

And most of all, latex will solve the problem a lot cheaper and
quicker. Imagine building these giant silly things and then
discovering that the population is sensibly reducing itself. Put all
the money into motivating people to have fewer kids, and the need for
energy plummets. Reduce enough population, and we will be able to
burn coal for thousands of years.

-tg

gabydewilde wrote:

"Sir Frederick" wrote:

A classical science fiction method of getting rid of
radioactive waste has been to dump it into the sun.
[snip rest of crap]

Energetically cheaper to boost it out of the solar system.

idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

tg wrote:
On Aug 13, 6:15 pm, Immortalist wrote:
Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a
sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases
energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.

Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small
and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer
reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world
is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants.

Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous energy
source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in production,
and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology.

Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually
no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of
fossil fuel combustion.

Proponents also point out that nuclear power is the only viable
course to achieve energy independence for most Western countries.

Critics point to the issue of storing radioactive waste, the history
of and continuing potential for radioactive contamination by accident
or sabotage, the continuing possibility of nuclear proliferation, and
the disadvantages of centralized electricity production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate

The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste
from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully
looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to
United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).

High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can
still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100%
security. A small probability of failure will always last. The
consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for
human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more
nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built,
the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in
the world.

Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred
targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world
could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a
terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.

During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is
produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear
weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power
plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons
(nuclear proliferation).

The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce
resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60
years depending on the actual demand.

The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new
nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in
the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build
new nuclear power plants in a short time.

http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-co...-and-sustainab...

And most of all, latex will solve the problem a lot cheaper and quicker.

Like hell it will. **** all in the third world bother to use
them and that wont be changing any time soon, you watch.

Imagine building these giant silly things and then
discovering that the population is sensibly reducing itself.

The entire modern first world already is. Not one modern first world country
is even self replacing on population now if you take out immigration.

We need nukes anyway, primarily to reduce dependance on foreign
oil by not wasting natural gas on heating, using electricity from nukes
to heat with, and using the natural gas in cars and trucks. And also to
fix the CO2 problem if you believe it is a problem.

Put all the money into motivating people to have fewer kids,

The problem with that aint money.

and the need for energy plummets.

How odd that it didn't when the entire modern first world isnt even
self replacing on population now if you take out immigration.

Reduce enough population, and we will be able to burn coal for thousands of years.

Or use nukes and we dont need to.