Nuclear "waste"
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
If the Planters Prez did this it must have been by Executive Order? I'm guessing here!
Can't an Executive Order be countered by our new Executive Bush?
And if this MOX stuff works.....WHooooohooooooo! We've got "more power!" ARrrrgh! ARrrrgh! ARrrrgh! ARrrrgh!
Can't an Executive Order be countered by our new Executive Bush?
And if this MOX stuff works.....WHooooohooooooo! We've got "more power!" ARrrrgh! ARrrrgh! ARrrrgh! ARrrrgh!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Kyle,
I'm looking for what Carter actually did. The issue, from what I've found so far, is that this stuff becomes usuable nuclear weapon juice.
I'm looking for what Carter actually did. The issue, from what I've found so far, is that this stuff becomes usuable nuclear weapon juice.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Exec order by Carter, rescinded by Reagan, reinstated by...Bill.
Literature:
http://www.npri.org/mgraphs/Spare the Rods.pdf
Makes the case for Carter/Clinton being wrong, Yucca being a terrible idea and reuse being much better than single use.
Anti nuke stuff:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/eventsResist.html
Nuclear Regulatory Commish stuff:
http://www.nuke-energy.com/data/usa.html
Literature:
http://www.npri.org/mgraphs/Spare the Rods.pdf
Makes the case for Carter/Clinton being wrong, Yucca being a terrible idea and reuse being much better than single use.
Anti nuke stuff:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/eventsResist.html
Nuclear Regulatory Commish stuff:
http://www.nuke-energy.com/data/usa.html
After reading this site's information http://www.antenna.nl/wise/469-470/index.html I would say I don't think it is that good of an idea to use MOX. Read the Safety section.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Kenbo,
I would love to be able to say I understand even 10% of what the site is talking about but I don't. I'd love to read what experts think of the pros and cons. Any suggestions? I've seen the guys name who wrote Times editorial in a number of places, for what that's worth.
What I am saying is that we already have nuclear power and we have a big issue in what to do with the waste. It appears there are options that have been thrown out by politics and that always is moronic.
It seems reasonable that the science and technology is/has advanced a good bit from the 50's and 60's and to say that we should be able to come up with better (safer, effective) solutions.
Supposedly, the spent rods we have now are more dangerous as weapons than MOX and non-proliferation was apparently the reason to ban it.
How yah feelin these days?
I would love to be able to say I understand even 10% of what the site is talking about but I don't. I'd love to read what experts think of the pros and cons. Any suggestions? I've seen the guys name who wrote Times editorial in a number of places, for what that's worth.
What I am saying is that we already have nuclear power and we have a big issue in what to do with the waste. It appears there are options that have been thrown out by politics and that always is moronic.
It seems reasonable that the science and technology is/has advanced a good bit from the 50's and 60's and to say that we should be able to come up with better (safer, effective) solutions.
Supposedly, the spent rods we have now are more dangerous as weapons than MOX and non-proliferation was apparently the reason to ban it.
How yah feelin these days?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Also, I must have missed their suggestions on what is a good idea about nuclear power and managment...excpet for one on their summary page...
"It is of the utmost importance to stop nuclear power!"
Hmm...
"It is of the utmost importance to stop nuclear power!"
Hmm...
The spent rods are an issue as well as the dangers created from utilizing MOX as a fuel. Which is the more evil I don't know as I too only fully grasp a small portion of what these brain swollen folk are talking about. The point that caught my biggest concern deals with the dangers from plutonium if there is even a minor event where there is a release. Not to mention that it seems plutonium is always at weapons grade and proliferation becomes a bigger issue.
Why can't we make power-generating plants run on vaporized alcohol? Lots of power and it is a fuel that we can replenish.
Feeling better, have gone back to work as of Tuesday for half-days, today will be my first full day due to others being on leave. I am just a little stiff and some soreness but nothing I can't manage. I’d say overall that I am about 60 to 70% back to normal. Can’t lift anything yet but that will come soon enough and it is a good excuse to get out of some of the chores. Thanks for asking.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ken,
Don't know nothing bout that nither but I'm ALL for anything that is cheaper, cleaner more available (domestically) and DON'T send NO money to no middle east!
Glad you're getting moving again! Susan ain't rid of you yet!
Don't know nothing bout that nither but I'm ALL for anything that is cheaper, cleaner more available (domestically) and DON'T send NO money to no middle east!
Glad you're getting moving again! Susan ain't rid of you yet!
...despite her best efforts.
(Just kidding, Ken!
)
(Just kidding, Ken!
)
H
Heretic
Guest
alcohol fuel
I did a project in college where I had to investigate the validity of alcohol fuel. Turns out to just change the coal burning power plants in the US over to alcohol fuel we would have to cultivate a planet the size of venus with the alcohol producing plants.
THe issue is energy density, how much energy is packed into a set volume of fuel.
I did a project in college where I had to investigate the validity of alcohol fuel. Turns out to just change the coal burning power plants in the US over to alcohol fuel we would have to cultivate a planet the size of venus with the alcohol producing plants.
THe issue is energy density, how much energy is packed into a set volume of fuel.
Originally posted by vraiblonde
...despite her best efforts.
(Just kidding, Ken!
She missed a good opportunity to get the $300K I have in insurance, 55% of my salary for life and the $100K currently in my 401K. I'm glad she loves me more than money.
Re: alcohol fuel
Besides density there are also technology issues. Some time around 1975-76 a project at a California University achieved 170+ mpg from a 1974 Pontiac Grand Safari wagon (400ci powerplant). They used a propane carberator and a venturi pre-heat system to vaporize the alcohol to achieve the results. All with no performance problems (i.e. power developed in horsepower). I just think it is an undeveloped potential that the money grubbing oil companies are keeping us from.
Besides density there are also technology issues. Some time around 1975-76 a project at a California University achieved 170+ mpg from a 1974 Pontiac Grand Safari wagon (400ci powerplant). They used a propane carberator and a venturi pre-heat system to vaporize the alcohol to achieve the results. All with no performance problems (i.e. power developed in horsepower). I just think it is an undeveloped potential that the money grubbing oil companies are keeping us from.
H
Heretic
Guest
Ken, Id really like to see more info on that. Alot of what you read about so called miracle cars is total BS. If you calculate the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline and the energy required to drive the automobile you will see that the numbers don't match at all. This isn't even taking efficiency into account. A spark ignition engine can only achieve about 34% thermodynamic efficiency (no friction isnt the reason for the loss either) and a diesel engine can achieve about 45% thermodynamic efficiency.
Most of the pie in the sky stuff out there is spouted by enviromental activists that know nothing about thermodynamics. Believe me if it were possible there would be people on it like white on rice to because the possibility to get rich would be enormous. There is no big conspiracy of the man keeping anyone down.
Most of my undergraduate years in college involved alternative fuels and Hybrid Electric Vehicle projects.
Most of the pie in the sky stuff out there is spouted by enviromental activists that know nothing about thermodynamics. Believe me if it were possible there would be people on it like white on rice to because the possibility to get rich would be enormous. There is no big conspiracy of the man keeping anyone down.
Most of my undergraduate years in college involved alternative fuels and Hybrid Electric Vehicle projects.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ken,
Let's not say "she missed a chance". Let's just say you must have been nice yesterday! Besides, women are patient. They all know "there's always tomorrow"!
And what the hell are you thinking letting her know how much you're worth dead? I'd never let Deej know about the $50,000,000 she get's if I slip on a bar of soap!
I keep telling her that she gets more money for every day I live past 90 and NOTHING before then! Stupid broads. So gullible. Yah gotta love 'em!
Let's not say "she missed a chance". Let's just say you must have been nice yesterday! Besides, women are patient. They all know "there's always tomorrow"!
And what the hell are you thinking letting her know how much you're worth dead? I'd never let Deej know about the $50,000,000 she get's if I slip on a bar of soap!
I keep telling her that she gets more money for every day I live past 90 and NOTHING before then! Stupid broads. So gullible. Yah gotta love 'em!
>>All we have to do in order to have unlimited, pollution-free electrical energy for the next several centuries is to (a) chemically process the fuel elements we take out of our light-water and breeder reactors<<
One of the major reasons against fuel reprocessing that I was taught during my time as a nuclear plant operator in the navy has to do with producing a waste hundreds of times greater than that from normal processing. The location in South Carolina that used to be a fuel reprocessing plant is the most radioactive site in the US.
>>He probably isn't really worried about you soccer moms getting run over by a mobile Chernobyl.<<
This is nothing but a scare tactic. How do you think the fuel got to the nuclear plant (including the hundreds of military nuck plants) in the first place. They have specially designed containers to ship this stuff in that have been put through massive testing programs. I read an article on it a couple weeks ago (wish I could remember where), but anyway it talked about dropping bombs on the containers from military aircraft as one test.
This storage plan has been in the works for 20+ years, with billions of dollars spent already. It seems like a little late to cancel it now and start over.
One of the major reasons against fuel reprocessing that I was taught during my time as a nuclear plant operator in the navy has to do with producing a waste hundreds of times greater than that from normal processing. The location in South Carolina that used to be a fuel reprocessing plant is the most radioactive site in the US.
>>He probably isn't really worried about you soccer moms getting run over by a mobile Chernobyl.<<
This is nothing but a scare tactic. How do you think the fuel got to the nuclear plant (including the hundreds of military nuck plants) in the first place. They have specially designed containers to ship this stuff in that have been put through massive testing programs. I read an article on it a couple weeks ago (wish I could remember where), but anyway it talked about dropping bombs on the containers from military aircraft as one test.
This storage plan has been in the works for 20+ years, with billions of dollars spent already. It seems like a little late to cancel it now and start over.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
First of all, I think that soccer moms in SUVs getting run over is not necessarily a bad thing. Removing them from the roads probably makes things safer than eliminating nuclear fuels.
Second, do we really want to send weapons-grade nuclea rwaster to Russia... the country that can't seem to keep a handle on their own nuclear materials?
Lastly, if there is a possibility to develop a clean, waste-free, source of nuclear power, the US should be at the forefront, not supporting some other country's efforts.
Second, do we really want to send weapons-grade nuclea rwaster to Russia... the country that can't seem to keep a handle on their own nuclear materials?
Lastly, if there is a possibility to develop a clean, waste-free, source of nuclear power, the US should be at the forefront, not supporting some other country's efforts.