Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"

On 29 Mar, 17:35, "nada" <dwalters...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 29, 8:54 am, deza...@xxxxxxx wrote:



On Mar 28, 11:57 pm, "Alex Terrell" <alexterr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 28 Mar, 19:54, deza...@xxxxxxx wrote:> On Mar 28, 11:16 am, xnich...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Nuclear waste disposal over the half-life of transuranics is a lot
more than sticking it in a concrete barrel.

No its not.

You have to calculate the consquences for up to millions of years.

You certainly do not. We dont for chemical wastes which lasts forever.
You just revisit the issue every century or two, and I'm positive in
that time or less we'll be pulling apart spent fuel casks for the
uranium, transuranics, and valuable fission products (such as platinum
group metals)

It'll probably be buried too deep by then.

I doubt it. No one is buying geologic repositories with their own
money. When the day comes to pay people stop to think what they're
really getting for their money.

It just isnt worth it.

This is a good discussion with no nutters on either side. Amazing for
a usenet forum...

Obviously, Ireland is doing what Denmark and other countries are
doing, they even admit it: lot's wind, subsidized by coal and nuclear
on the other side of the 'border'. Part of the proposals the Irish
energy folks are talking about...and a very cheap one, is an other
upgrade of the DC cables running across the Irish sea to British
nuclear and gas fired plants. They really will never get "80%" from
wind, they will never get about 25% probably, as the grid becomes
totally unstable trying to compensate for the ups and downs of wind
power, as it's the most unreliable, no only when the wind is not
blowing, but when it does blow. You need a strong on demand (who
attached 'on demand' to wind here? That is idiotic) supported grid to
support wind.

If you are going to guarantee wind at a certain generation, you need
to produced about 70% more turbines and rate the total as about half
of that to maintain anything dispatchable. This is not going to happen
as it is way too expensive.

I don't think Ireland will build nuclear, they will import it from
Britain. They will have lots of wind, and cheap nuclear to back it up.

david

Denmark has an even better advantage, being connected to Norwegian
hydro facilities. Hydro is the perfect partner to wind, and as such
Denmark could build wind capacity to > 100% of demand.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So what exactly do scientists know about global warming?
    ... wind and coal all have the ... >>problem that they cannot easily be tuned to demand - nuclear not at all. ... Charles Francis ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Rapid Chinese Econ Development Could Cause Prevailing Paradigm Shift
    ... Every day, the newspaper headlines in China are about energy shortages, ... I think china will go for nuclear in a big way. ... Wind has potential I guess. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Nuclear Power
    ... wind, since you will not be able to site nuclear power plants ... Vogtle site it was originally set up for two more plants. ... fact that so many nuclear plants failed to block simulated terrorist ... Things like this make me doubt the feasibility of nuclear power, ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: So what exactly do scientists know about global warming?
    ... >>> wind only. ... >>so what do you back it up with, this is where I see nuclear being the ... problem that they cannot easily be tuned to demand - nuclear not at all. ... This is not true of hydro. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Can hydrogen deliver?
    ... Us Nuclear Energy Industry reserves the right to change the terms, ... The issue of waste disposal has not been ... >> Wind energy doesn't require an evacuation plan, ... If you want to attack nuclear power on its economic merits, ...
    (sci.energy)
Quantcast