Re: Can hydrogen deliver?
From: Tim O'Flaherty (pinwheels_Fudge__at_gwi.net)
Date: 10/31/04
- Next message: Tim O'Flaherty: "Re: Can hydrogen deliver?"
- Previous message: Alex Terrell: "Disruptive Plug in Hybrids (Was nuclear power to produce hydrogen"
- Maybe in reply to: Tim O'Flaherty: "Re: Can hydrogen deliver?"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: Can hydrogen deliver?"
- Reply: Franz Heymann: "Re: Can hydrogen deliver?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:10:18 -0500
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:clved8$oab$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
> "Tim O'Flaherty" <pinwheels_Fudge_@gwi.net> wrote in message
> news:_q2dnTaqTYAXeR3cRVn-pw@gwi.net...
> >
> > "Franz Heymann" wrote
> >
> > <Snip>
> >
> > ..... without reprocessing we have an
> > > ever
> > > > growing pile of spent fuel, 2000 tons per year currently, 25,000
> > > tons per
> > > > year for the 100 quads energy the US currently uses if we go all
> > > nuke, as
> > > > has been suggested to wean us from carbon fuel.
> > >
> > > That is only a few boat loads per annum to deliver the stuff to a
> > > suitable subduction zone. That's mere chicken feed.
> >
> > In a century that's a quarter million tons from the US alone, and
> only spent
> > fuel. Once you open the door we can expect this solution to be used
> for
> > other classes of rad waste.
>
> And why not?
>
> > This conveyer belt to the mantle isn't moving all that fast so
> merely
> > dumping it and forgetting it seems shortsighted to me.
>
> It may not move very fast, but it moves inexorably, What you dump
> into its maws will be sucked into the mantle and redistributed over a
> geologically long time scale.
>
> > Every year the pile
> > waiting at the "entrance" will be more.
>
> In due course, a dynamic equilibrium will be set up.
>
>
"In due course"? That's a fudgy phrase. Perhaps a thousand years of waste?
10K ? 10M ?
Perhaps you could provide a time scale more meaningful than "in due course".
Some links, references would be useful to bolster your assertion.
> > Rather than getting rid of it we end
> > up with a deep sea repository that we can't access or, if we can
> access it,
> > one that will require constant monitoring
>
> Why? It is unlikely that your monitors will succeed in ever finding
> the pieces of radioactive glass distributed in the region of a
> subduction zone.
So now you are including reprocessing and vitrification ,added $/kWh of
course, to this scheme? From the thread above it seems you proposed this as
an alternative to reprocessing. So back to reprocessing and it's exorbitant
costs, bankrupt BNFL and Japan's debacle, $17 billion (1997, closer to
$20billion in 2003 dollars) just to build it and it won't meet the demand
placed upon it.
http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-2/takagi.html
[Given the limited capacity of the Tokai plant together with Japan's
policy
> > that no new contracts be made with overseas reprocessors, Japan cannot
> > reprocess all of its accumulated spent fuel. Even if the Rokkasho plant
> > starts full commercial operation in the mid-2000s as planned, the
plant's
> > reprocessing capacity of 800 metric tons and storage capacity of 3000
metric
> > tons of heavy metal will absorb only a small portion of the accumulated
> > spent fuel along with that which will be discharged annually. ]
Once again, at any cost?
Regards,
Tim O
- Next message: Tim O'Flaherty: "Re: Can hydrogen deliver?"
- Previous message: Alex Terrell: "Disruptive Plug in Hybrids (Was nuclear power to produce hydrogen"
- Maybe in reply to: Tim O'Flaherty: "Re: Can hydrogen deliver?"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: Can hydrogen deliver?"
- Reply: Franz Heymann: "Re: Can hydrogen deliver?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
