Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!
From: Mike (erazmus_at_iinet.net.au)
Date: 09/26/04
- Next message: Mike: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Previous message: FEerguy9: "eer"
- In reply to: Tkalbfus1: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Next in thread: Fred B. McGalliard: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Reply: Fred B. McGalliard: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Reply: saict: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 26 Sep 2004 14:27:54 GMT
In article <20040926000841.19398.00004698@mb-m17.aol.com>, tkalbfus1@aol.com says...
>I'm not avoiding the question. Nuclear energy is probably the best source.
>Nuclear reactors are small and generate lots of power. Nuclear plants don't
>produce greenhouse gases and don't contribute to global warming.
They do contribute to global warming by generating a lot of heat which
is not that efficiently extracted, well at least not in terms of
the true amortisation that put it there in the first place.
> Nuclear
>by-products are dangeous, but only if a large population lives nearby.
Your definition of 'nearby' might need revision, Chernobyl is nearby
to me and I am in Perth, Western Australia. Thanks to Chernobyl and
three mile island and I think one other major accident in Japan
we have raised the background radiation level worldwide by about 1%.
> Safety
>considerations are what make nuclear energy expensive, but suppose you just
>built a very basic nuclear reactor dedicated to making hydrogen from water.
So you want to produce tritium and deuterium instead then ?
Safety means, in terms of radiation, not imparting radiation to
the intended product, cant see how you can produce hydrogen
without imparting some contact - Unless you rely on electrolysis
which is way way too inefficient, better to use the power (if
its electricity) for something else.
> The
>reactor is shielded of course to keep in the radiation so plant workers can
>work there, but very little safeguards as there is no population nearby to
>worry about. hydrogen is produced and shipped where needed.
So its ok for you to irradiate the 'nearby' region for several
generations or even thousands of years if you are 'unlucky',
Do you gamble with your childrens lives at the casino ?
Ever heard of diffusion, things like wind and rain, or
movement in ground water, evaporation, or even insects, birds, bacteria
carrying radiation to the four winds all over the earth
across continents.
"nearby" in your book needs some actual thought and not
propoganda or hope.
-- Regards Mike Commodore VL, VLT FuseRails that wont warp or melt http://niche.iinet.net.au
- Next message: Mike: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Previous message: FEerguy9: "eer"
- In reply to: Tkalbfus1: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Next in thread: Fred B. McGalliard: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Reply: Fred B. McGalliard: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Reply: saict: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]