Re: OT: Global cooling 34 million years ago

On Mar 6, 6:49 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 06:12:59 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:37 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:23:24 -0600, "Tim Williams"

<tmoran...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:63e0231f-dfad-4c3c-9844-d2d690166bdf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Perhaps warmingists know enough physicis to be aware that nuclear
fission produces radioactive nuclear waste, which emits alpha, beta
and gamma rays. An ignorant savage like Rich may not appreciate that
these constitute emissions

Actually, they don't, since they don't emit beyond their container.  There
are a few exceptions, like krypton and xenon, which are only freed when the
fuel is exposed to atmosphere (such as opening the zirconium-clad fuel
bundles, or especially breaking down the fuel by careless reprocessing), and
the tritium (as tritiated H2 gas, H2O, etc.) that is produced by all
water-based reactors, but CANDU reactors in particular (being heavy-water
moderated).  Levels of both are an order of magnitude below regulatory
standards at currently operational facilities, and those standards are a
further order of magnitude or two below any potential health effects.
Nuclear is indeed a very clean technology today.

Tritium, krypton and xenon aren't a big concern because they spread out
fairly well.  Gaseous, they are quickly diluted by the atmosphere to
negligible levels.  Tritium in the groundwater is a bit more concentrated,
which is why it's monitored.

Probably of a bigger concern is the ~1% of CO2 still produced by nuclear
processing.  This includes (as far as I know) mining, transport, fabrication
and etc.  Considering coal is approximately 100% CO2 per electrical output,
it can be said that nuclear has negligible carbon emissions.

but the more sophisticated may understand
that nobody has yet worked out an entirely satisfactory way of
disposing of this waste in a way that can be guaranteed not to foul
the world we leave to our children.

France and Japan seem to have some ideas.  Right now, they both reprocess
their spent fuel; the U.S. doesn't.  The heavy stuff (thorium and up) can be
burned again (MOX fuel), getting rid of those pesky actinides, which are the
main reason spent fuel needs to sit under North America for 10kya by the
current regulatory standards here.  If the byproducts are seperated, it's
safe after just a couple of centuries encased in glass, a much easier
storage time, concievable even that the government that produced it will see
it become safe again.  And with rhodium as expensive as it is (especially
2003-2006), it's even economical to extract PGMs from the stuff after just
half a century.

Even without reprocessing, nuclear is still safe with low emissions.  Pebble
bed technology isn't very mature, but there's no reason not to use it..
Germany, of all places, even experimented with the stuff, successfully
operating a reactor for a decade or so.  It's hard to reprocess, so it's not
a proliferation threat either.  The pebbles are self-contained and ready for
disposal.

And speaking of disposal, I don't see why we don't just heap all the waste
into a deep hard-rock mine shaft (below the water table) with some sacks of
graphite, heap concrete on top and let it soak.  With a couple thousand tons
of waste in one place, it should get hot enough to melt and sink deeper into
the Earth's crust, never to be seen again for millions of years, in which
time there will be little more than depleted uranium leftover.  With
concrete on top, the byproducts will be fairly well contained, and it's deep
enough that it won't be a big deal for the water table, either.  It's going
to be deep enough, fast enough, that there isn't any concern of future
miners touching the stuff with their drill rigs.  And it's better than
dumping it deep in the ocean where it's still accessible for a few thousand
years.  I don't know, I've never heard this proposed, maybe the water table
doesn't work quite the way I think.  But it sounds good to me, at least if
you're not reprocessing the stuff, which sounds better to me.

Tim

Without political opposition, nuclear power would be perfectly safe
and fairly cheap, and very, very clean. Again, there are lots of
people who don't want a solution to the energy problem.

For a start, all those people living in Northern Europe when the
radioactive cloud let loose by Chernobyl passed overhead. I was living
in Cambridge at the time, and the radioactivity went over Scotland and
Northern England, but that was too close for comfort.

You must know nothing about the Chernobyl accident; read up on it. It
was an inherently unstable reactor,

You don't seem to know what you are talking about. The reactor wasn't
"inherently unstable" alhtough it doesn't seem to have been well-
designed The idiots had to do something quite dramatically stupidn to
get it to blow up

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

without containment, being run by idiots.

Three Mile Island seems to have been run by the same kind of idiot,
but at least that reactor did have decent containment.

There are lots of modern reactor designs that could be run by
idiots and that could not ever breach containment. TMI didn't. No US
or Japanese or French commercial reactor ever has.

Yet.

It just takes good engineering.

And a certain amount of luck.

Your idea of "perfectly safe" doesn't give enough credit to the
creative power of human stupidity. There are qute a few safer
solutions to the energy problem.

Thousands of coal miners, oil/gas rig roughnecks, oil truck drivers,
electrical linesmen, and home workshop guys are killed by electric
power production every year.

A few at a time. Of course, if you really want to kill a lot of people
- say half the population of Europe - drop a nuclear bomb on a nuclear
reactor and thoroughly dipserse the tons of radiactive material
involved.

Not to mention those killed by
particulates. Energy is dangerous. Switching from, say, coal to nukes
would save a lot of lives, clean up the planet (less particulates on
the snow!), far less CO2 (if that matters.)

If the AGWers were sincere, they would be wildly pro-nuke. But they
aren't sincere: they have entirely another agenda, no less than the
choking off of human development by all available means.

Even for you, that's a remarkably silly claim. There are plenty of
people who do know enough science to know that anthropogenic global
warming is a real problem, and have looked at the potential solutions
in detail, and - quite reasonably - think that we can maintain and
eventually increase our energy consumption without putting the planet
at risk, even if we do have to give up venting carbon dioxide directly
into the atmosphere

Thomas L. Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded" ISBN 978-1-846-14129-4
would tell you about it, if you were remotely interested in finding
out what rational people think about the subject.

Sadly, you prefer to concentrate your attention on the demented claims
of the lunatic fringe of the ecology movement - the arguments that
they present are sufficiently unsophisticated for you to follow, and
absurd enough that you don't have to put any effort into showing that
they are dumb.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CANDU reactor questions
    ... plutonium from elsewhere (such as dismantled nuclear weapons) they ... energy needs using various fuel sources in which a U-235-only fuel cycle ... These aren't *all* uranium reserves, because they consider, as usual, only ... doesn't happen in reactors using fast neutron reactor ...
    (sci.energy)
  • A New Vision for Nuclear Waste
    ... A New Vision for Nuclear Waste ... Without that cooling water, the fuel cladding might overheat, melt, ... about two dozen operating reactors have them already. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Al Gore Gets Global Warming Science Right According To Experts
    ... Nuclear reactors cannot explode. ... This is true given proper operation of the reactor. ... I provide quotes below that show bomb material and nuclear fuel are ... nonetheless what's needed for an atomic bomb is there. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Global cooling 34 million years ago
    ... fission produces radioactive nuclear waste, which emits alpha, beta ... fuel is exposed to atmosphere (such as opening the zirconium-clad fuel ... Nuclear is indeed a very clean technology today. ... operating a reactor for a decade or so. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • `Fast breeder reactor projects put on fast track
    ... `Fast breeder reactor projects put on fast track' ... INDIANS are now the world masters of the Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor ... in a nuclear project's implementation, ... nuclear fuel. ...
    (sci.energy)