Re: Using nuclear power to make renewables and a hydrogen economy cost effective

From: Alex Terrell (alexterrell_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: 2 Nov 2004 01:40:21 -0800

dragmit@adelphia.net (Tum Gard) wrote in message news:<8a3547e5.0411011047.767684d@posting.google.com>...
> I don't understand how someone who is so educated can accept the
> circumstances involved with the use of nuclear fission science. If
> the Romans were heating their bath water using nuclear fission, we
> would still have about 150,000 years plus to babysit their waste. And
> if we fail to keep this stuff under control, who knows how many people
> would die? Just how smart is that??
>
> Nuclear fission energy is not the answer to our energy problems, only
> an awful, horrendous, ridiculous response akin to a knee jerk
> reaction.
>
> Think people, this stuff is dangerous! Some scientists pretend there
> is no problem because it serves their own selfish missions!
>
Yes, it's dangerous, but not as dangerous as its made out to be. If
Osama Bin Laden took over a nuclear reactor, or a waste depot, he
could make a dirty bomb, not an atom bomb. If he took over a 2,000
year old waste site, he might harm people if he forced them to drink
the waste (if he could even open it up).

But if the Romans had been spewing out CO2 at the same rate as are
today, and had stopped when their empire fell, our climate would still
be screwed up, and Londinium and Washingtium would be under water.

So before you say "Nuclear fission energy is not the answer to our
energy problems, only an awful, horrendous, ridiculous response akin
to a knee jerk reaction" please provide an alternative. Global warming
is going to kill more people than nuclear power, despite what George
Bush might believe.

Besides, we in the West can't stop nuclear power. The critical
question is how do you manage nuclear power when irresponsible regimes
such as Iran see it as a stepping stone to nuclear weapons. If america
decided tomorrow to build 100 nuclear reactors, the slight increase in
risk they pose would be more than offset by a reduction in dependence
on Middle East oil.

I'm actually doing work to reduce the cost of offshore wind farms, and
they certainly have a role to play. However, we can't overcome the
intermitancy problem. This discusion thread was to test a hypothesis
enabling a future which is a mix of renewables and nulclear, and using
nuclear to make the renewables more viable.

Long term, the answer is Satellite Solar Power.

> Alex ... do you have some magical solution to this waste disposal I
> haven't heard of yet? Cause if you do, I will gladly accept a science
> that produces a 150,000 year life poison that is the primary element
> for a dirty bomb, in a political atmosphere that allows extremists to
> plow two civilian airplanes into a building in a major city. Damn!
>
The best solution seems to be
1. Reactor designs that increase the amount of energy extraced from
the fuel above 100 GW days / ton.
2. To extract the plutonium and put it back into the reactor as MOX
(along with old weapons). Without the plutonium, the waste has a much
shorter half life.

Relevant Pages