25-05-2004 02:19									#61
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Nuke plants create steam, which is a greenhouse gas. Sorry to burst your nuclear bubble.

	25-05-2004 02:28									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin You don't move the equilibrium, you only change the short term variables. To put it another way, its not a cumulative or persistant effect.

I am sure you're referring to th radiating that heat out. Is it really that negligble?

	25-05-2004 03:11									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by DanS Vastly overblown. Coal-fired plants put out a lot more radioactivity than nuke plants. And you can put the radioactive waste in the Nevada desert. Eventually, we will be able to launch it in to space and give it a heave-ho toward the sun.

Or repeal the law that doesn't let us reprocess it.

Btw, nuclear energy isn't nonrenewable either, and it's not like the stuff is exactly common... couldn't that be a problem?

	25-05-2004 03:12									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Yes, it could.

FUSION FUSION FUSION FUSION FUSION!

	25-05-2004 03:13									#65
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Nuke plants create steam, which is a greenhouse gas. Sorry to burst your nuclear bubble.

EVERY power plant except wind and solar using photovoltaic cells (which require a bunch of nasty chemicals to produce) makes steam.

	25-05-2004 03:32									#66
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Btw, nuclear energy isn't nonrenewable either, and it's not like the stuff is exactly common... couldn't that be a problem?

Reprocessing leaves some waste though. In La Haye, only 90% of the waste is reprocessed, the remaining 10% are fubar.

Sure it dramatically increases the life expectancy of nuclear power, but it doesn't make it eternal.

	25-05-2004 03:37									#67
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sava I'm for nuclear power. Our goal should be to develop as much clean energy as possible. And even though there is toxic waste from nuclear power, it can be managed effectively.

Nuclear powerplant arenot design right. The safter nuclear powerplant design is than Helium cool Graphite core reactor. Water cool reactor only make sence on nuclear sub where you are surround by billion of ton of seawater, on land the water cooled reactor are have record number of accidences. That why they have so many complex back up fail saft for those reactor. The graphite core reactor shut itself off by it nature it anything go wrong and the helium even it is turn radiacted willnot react chemical with the evirorent at all an will float up into outer space quickly.

	25-05-2004 03:42									#68
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Azazel I am sure you're referring to th radiating that heat out. Is it really that negligble?

Considering the size of the oceans and the amount of water vapour it generates I would have to say yes.

	25-05-2004 03:47									#69
	Support Apolyton

Can reprocessed waste be reprocessed again, ad infinitum, until it's all (save 0.000001%) FUBAR?

	25-05-2004 03:52									#70
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Sava Nuclear power could be used to produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell cars. One of the drawbacks to hydrogen fuel cells is that current manufacturing processes are powered by mostly dirty power.

The hydrogen ecomony is still pie in the sky as there are many problem with hydrogen power car. What type of storage system will be use to storage the hydrogen gas, liquid hydrogen, compress hydrogen gas, formalky than chemical storage at room temp ( can release toxic fume into the car easies)metal hydrorate( room temp chemical storage of H2 gas(cost of metal and the metal must be replace very so often).

	25-05-2004 03:53									#71
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

CBH said something I understood and agreed with!

	25-05-2004 04:13									#72
	Put an end to popups!

The hydrogen economy isn't pie-in-the-sky. There are hydrogen fueling stations and hydrogen-powered cars, for instance. We just haven't figured out a way to make it work optimally.

	25-05-2004 04:19									#73
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin Considering the size of the oceans and the amount of water vapour it generates I would have to say yes.

Yes, but you see, that's the point. It's very very small, but it shifts that massive equilibrium a little bit towards the gas. That little contribution. But the nature of these contributions is to build up. OTOH, it'll probably just rain a bit more somewhere, so.. well, it's a complex question, like it's always is in those matters.

	25-05-2004 04:26									#74
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

No more nuclear fission power plants will be built in the US, here is why.

1. There is already large outcry agains them. All of westchester NY wants to Indian Point nuclear power plant shut down. And I am sure other places want nuclear plants shut down in their area. If people do not want them, why would power companies build something that is not as profitable as oil/gas/coal.

2. There is no place to put the nuclear waste, there would need to be a permenatn place to put the waste before more plants are made. No state wants to "volunteer" for this duty.

3. Estimates show that at current consummption rates, there is only enough nuclear fission fuel for about 100 years. So it really is not a long term solution as many think. Solution for us, but not for our children.

4. Just because the actually process of fission does not pollute the air, nuclear fission creates a lot of other pollution. Such as waste created when mining it or the nuclear waste mentioned above.

Really any and all money for energy research should be concentrated on Fusion as that looks like it could be our long term goal.

	25-05-2004 04:42									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

We've already spent several tens of billions of dollars on fusion research and don't have a reactor to show for our efforts. We don't know when or if it would work and don't know how much it would cost once we got there. We know roughly how much a fission reactor will cost and the associated drawbacks.

Therefore, it seems obvious that we should keep our research efforts diversified. It also seems like a strong case could be made that we should build more nuke plants.

quote: 1. There is already large outcry agains them. All of westchester NY wants to Indian Point nuclear power plant shut down. And I am sure other places want nuclear plants shut down in their area. If people do not want them, why would power companies build something that is not as profitable as oil/gas/coal.

A plant might not be politically palatable in Westchester, but it might be politically palatable in other parts of the country.

quote: 2. There is no place to put the nuclear waste, there would need to be a permenatn place to put the waste before more plants are made. No state wants to "volunteer" for this duty.

That's why Nevada has been "volunteered" for this duty, no matter if we build another nuke plant or not.

quote: 3. Estimates show that at current consummption rates, there is only enough nuclear fission fuel for about 100 years. So it really is not a long term solution as many think. Solution for us, but not for our children.

Uranium is all around us. At some point, it becomes economically viable to extract it from seawater.

quote: 4. Just because the actually process of fission does not pollute the air, nuclear fission creates a lot of other pollution. Such as waste created when mining it or the nuclear waste mentioned above.

This is very true, although I don't know the general magnitude of this pollution.

	25-05-2004 04:45									#76
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Umm, DanS, diversify it to what? Fusion, and fairy dust?

	25-05-2004 04:50									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

It's already diversified. Fusion, solar, clean coal, etc. Better to keep it that way.

	25-05-2004 04:52									#78
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Solar is, well, you know. Clean coal is still coal, still the same greenhouse problem.

Besides, I think it's quite clear that our energy economy, in the long range, will have to be based on subatomic particles.

	25-05-2004 04:53									#79
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

and not just the electrons, for all of you smartasses.

	25-05-2004 04:55									#80
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Besides, I think it's quite clear that our energy economy, in the long range, will have to be based on subatomic particles.

We don't know when that will be and in what form it will take. Because of this, it's foolish to put all of your eggs in one basket. Even among the fusion research (reactor, solar cells), you need to stay diversified.

	25-05-2004 05:40									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I agree that you need that. I just think that pouring money into "happy flower" projects, ala solar power is, well, a waste.

	25-05-2004 05:54									#82
	Suffering from ads?

Everyone buy more "My words are backed with nuclear power" license plate frames!

	25-05-2004 07:13									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Nuclear is probably the appropriate transition to fusion, since the ability of the environment to recieve all the coal (and oil we're using for that matter) is impossible to predict, especially for the long periods we're looking at--will we have the Nuclear & Hydrogen system in 30 years or two hundred?

The question of nuclear waste isn't anything easy to answer, but honestly, it's easier to handle a couple of tons of toxic goo than to handle thousands of times that much air pollutants plus water pollutants plus the environmental impact of coal mining (not that uranium mining is much better, I guess, but we know coal mining is bad--look at West Virginia. )

	25-05-2004 08:00									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

West Virginia is inbreeding's fault, not coal mining's.

	25-05-2004 08:02									#85
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS The hydrogen economy isn't pie-in-the-sky. There are hydrogen fueling stations and hydrogen-powered cars, for instance. We just haven't figured out a way to make it work optimally.

In the same way that, say, solar-powered cars aren't a "pie in the sky". Yes, there are examples, no, they aren't feasible. And it's the "making it work optimally" (read: making it actually better in any possible way than gasoline-powered cars) that's the difficult part, not creating an example.

	25-05-2004 08:54									#86
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hell, all hydrogen powered cars would have to do to beat gasoline powered vehicles would be match them in performance.

	25-05-2004 09:16									#87
	Put an end to popups!

didnt chernobyl have graphite controlled reactors?

	25-05-2004 12:17									#88
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Sava water vapor a greenhouse gas? and don't coal power plants generate steam on top of the pollutants?

yes, and not all nuke power plants create water vapor.

Navy one's certainly don't . It depends if they need a cooling tower.

	25-05-2004 12:20									#89
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Who are the risk assessment experts? Insurance companies. And they refused to cover nuclear power. I find that to be a compelling argument against nuclear power, for the moment.

Did any of you see the thread a couple of months ago about the woman who motorcycles through Chernobyl? You can find the thread by searching on Chernobyl and motorcycle; the thread links to this site: http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

The site leads me to the same conclusion anecdotally, emotionally, as the logic of the insurance companies does.

	25-05-2004 12:20									#90
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by CharlesBHoff Nuclear powerplant arenot design right. The safter nuclear powerplant design is than Helium cool Graphite core reactor. Water cool reactor only make sence on nuclear sub where you are surround by billion of ton of seawater, on land the water cooled reactor are have record number of accidences. That why they have so many complex back up fail saft for those reactor. The graphite core reactor shut itself off by it nature it anything go wrong and the helium even it is turn radiacted willnot react chemical with the evirorent at all an will float up into outer space quickly.

yeah graphite worked so well for chernobyl

yes I know my list a few posts down has a generation IV design using graphite as a moderator.

But after chernobyl, you can understand why I'm a bit wary.