17-08-2003 12:31									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The reason why nuclear waste is a problem is because the US government was pulling the rods out every year or two to harvest any plutonium that might be in them to build bombs. The plutonium harvesting process makes the rods unusable afterwards. Diss, do you know (read: substantiate) how long the plants were designed to have the fuel rods left in for? My brother researched it several years ago and he remembers that they were supposed to be left in for 25-30 years.

	17-08-2003 12:39									#62
	Support Apolyton

that sounds about right.

Back in the 50's and 60's the technology and science just wasn't there to design long lasting rods. The Enterprise's first core only lasted about 5 years. Despite the fact our new core has the same physical dimensions, our new core is rated for about 20 years.

It all depends on how you disperse the uranium and boron? (I can barely remember now- it's a material used to absorb neutrons) to get a good even and efficient power distribution throughout the entire core.

Even though Yucca mountain has seismic activity, it isn't much. It's not like we live in California. I do believe the waste will be okay there. The main concern is that the waste will decay enough so that when it eventually does reach the ground water (and it eventually will), the radiactivity is almost nill. As of now not many people use the groundwater. But all the rural communities and small towns use groundwater. Armagosa valley and such. Las Vegas uses river/lake water from the Colorado river/Lake Mead. No one cares about the hicks out there in the boonies

But the main problem with Yucca mountain, is we already have enough waste to fill the designed capability of it Yucca hasn't even opened yet, but we still need another facility.

All I know is I'm sure the Enterprises fuel rods are still stored in Newport News shipbuilding in a pool of water. I'd rather they be stored even in my state than be there. I always wondered what would happen if a plane crashed into the exact building where the Enterpriese's fuel rods are stored.

	17-08-2003 12:47									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler . . . and lizards can't vote.

You mean lizards are disenfranchised?

	17-08-2003 12:55									#64
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I always wondered what would happen if a plane crashed into the exact building where the Enterpriese's fuel rods are stored.

Something a lot worse than what would happen if they were properly stored. We need to stop dithering and blathering and put the waste in the facilities we have before something like that happens.

	17-08-2003 13:00									#65
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I really like the idea of being electrically self-sufficient.

If I buy a house, I definately plan on setting up a few rotary bird blenders in the backyard.

	17-08-2003 13:00									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I agree

but my state is still fighting it

actually many people are saying we should stop wasting money and concede, and that we should instead concentrate on getting financial compensation from the federal goverment.

But even without further state interference, it will still take many years before any high level waste starts moving.

	17-08-2003 13:03									#67
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

You like rotary bird blenders too?

	17-08-2003 13:05									#68
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

My state is fighting it too. Stupid mormons.

	17-08-2003 13:06									#69
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

me?

It seems like wind power should be more efficient, but I'll have to take MTG's word on it

I saw many of them along the straights of Gibralter. I imagine they get a ton of wind out there.

	17-08-2003 13:18									#70
	Increase the size of your Attachments

They don't work very well as giant wind farms, because of the factors already noted. I've had lots of good reports for single home / small farm use.

	17-08-2003 13:22									#71
	Suffering from ads?

http://www.wind-power.com/

	17-08-2003 13:25									#72
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

This is pretty damn cool, too:

http://www.bergey.com/

	17-08-2003 13:29									#73
	Tired of ads?

Oerdin:

- Re nuclear recycling: that's what is done in France. We have a specialized factory that works on nuclear waste, so that 90% of it can be reused (of course, this still leaves 10% pure waste), and so that the real waste gives less immediate dangers IIUC. If you are interested, you may check for more precise info about the "treatment factory of La Hague" (not to be confused with the Dutch capitol)

- Re clean coal: according to what I've read in the document I linked to earlier (EDF is France's public energy company), "clean coal" reduces emissions of many nasty things (spectacular reduction of sulfur emissions), but has not such a huge effect on CO₂. This means 'clean' coal continues to spill greenhouse gases big time, even though I've read somewhere else it was now cleaner than fuel.

- About how much coal should be burnt to get the output of the 3 gorges dam... If you know the performance, would it be possible for you to calculate the amount, just for fun ?

Well, according to the chart I posted earlier in the thread, the 3 Gorges Dam would produce 336,000 tons of CO₂ a year. To match this output with coal would produce 82,320,000 tons of CO₂ a year
Wow, if there's a market for CO₂, I'm sure the coal factories would have very much to sell. 82 megatons, sigh.

	17-08-2003 13:33									#74
	Increase the size of your Attachments

The problem is, when you burn coal you're mainly burning carbon, and the safest product of carbon combustion is CO₂. There's not much you can do to get around that.

	17-08-2003 13:48									#75
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk The problem is, when you burn coal you're mainly burning carbon, and the safest product of carbon combustion is CO2. There's not much you can do to get around that.

What about stop burning coal ?
Or maybe there could be ways to capture and to recycle the emissions, so that the process becomes at least more productive for the same amount of greenhouse pollution. I've read there has been an attempt similar to this in Italy, where the emissions of a high chimney were converted for very significant energy production (something like 5,000 gWh a year)

	17-08-2003 13:59									#76
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Ok, you take care of the arabs for us, and we'll spend the money on something else.

"something else" is a tad vague, don't you think?

	17-08-2003 14:13									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor What about stop burning coal ? Or maybe there could be ways to capture and to recycle the emissions, so that the process becomes at least more productive for the same amount of greenhouse pollution. I've read there has been an attempt similar to this in Italy, where the emissions of a high chimney were converted for very significant energy production (something like 5,000 gWh a year)

The problem is, it applies whenever you burn hydrocarbons (hence the name). The lighter hydrocarbons produce less CO₂ until you hit methane, but that's still producing 33% CO₂ by molar fraction, and a lot more than that if you're going by weight.

	17-08-2003 22:54									#78
	Increase the size of your Attachments

yep, there's no way around that.

By the way we do burn coal for about 25% of the U.S. electricity needs. Bush did approve more money into clean coal research last year.

Coal is something the U.S. has a lot of. I believe we have one of the biggest coal reserves in the world.

I really don't have too much problem with coal use for now. If we're going to burn hyrdocarbons, might as well use coal too.

But it would be so much better if we could find clean energy sources.

Dammit! we need dilithium crystals

	17-08-2003 23:56									#79
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

how about dumping the CO2 deep in the ocean? I am not sure of the effects of rising CO2 levels in the water on deep currents or fish populations. I think it'd help algae, though, and this could be good.

	18-08-2003 13:39									#80
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Az: Dumping Co2 in the ocean is not a great trick. First you have to dump it very very deep or it will rise and pollute the air. Then it is very hard to keep it stick to a certain place because it will start to wander around and then its very hard to control. Also I suspect the fish wouldnt appreciate it that much

	18-08-2003 16:28									#81
	Increase Your PM Length

Of course it should be dumped very deep. Otherwise, we just might pump it into the air!

Btw, when calculating future CO2 levels, and searching for the carbon sink which currently is thought to be in the world's jungles, has anyone considered the possibility of the CO2 partially dissolved in the oceans?