LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
What airborne chemicals? What gas that will explode? Radiation? Please explain what you think is involved.Originally Posted by Darth Bane
WHAT will cause this strangely put “reckoning on thier people” in France?
Do you actually understandwhat fissile and fissionable materials are? How they are used in a nuclear reactor? How the reactor is then used in the generation of electricity?
Strange.
Very strange.
kallistē
Neither nor as a double negative? Bear,
Here is a listing of my reasons why I think nuclear is not the affective solution for future energy consumption because it will not only affect our economies, reliable energy supplies, enviornments and our health but also future inavations to affective solutions. However, I must digress on not allowing coal power to be the future solution either. There isn’t really a good solution at this point but perhaps leaning towards hydrogen and solar power might be the solution we are all looking for. However, I will agree that coal power is 100% more dangerous for the enviornment as well and it has it’s faults. I am just merely stating that neither option are worth a damn!
Reasons
1. nuclear proliferation
a. terrorist getting a hold of nuclear materials and using them for deviant means
a. it’s easily seen throughout the world that security is a serious concern
b. dual technologies that have allowed India to have nuclear weapons disguising them in commercial applications
c. Russia is well known to have in the past nuclear factory workers try to sell nuclear products on the Black Market even as recent as in the ninties.
2. nuclear waste
a. it takes about 10,000 years til unrecycled nuclear energies can be safe, however, you can recycle the energy to reduce that to three hundred years and there isn’t an affective way of disposing of the nuclear waste not even in densely populated France said to be the best at recycling nuclear wastes. In America, we are using the Yucki Mountains hopefully for ours but for how long? What inplications will this have?
3. Economically
a. It costs 15/30% more than coal or gas plants do in their respected lifetimes
b. reliability is very slim since how every eighteen months they must shutdown for repairs leaving only a mere 15% to cover the back log
4. Enviornment
a. Nuclear power reactor factories use two-thirds of their massive water supplies that usually round in the millions of gallons to waste water that is then changed into either gas by changing of energies or back as normal supplies. The former being more common and the ladder at least not contaminated as far as scientists can discern right now. The inplications are in countries where there are droughts like Australia for one whole century is that it’s not an affective means because you must have the nuclear reactor near a large body of water without affecting the ecosystem like their near by Pacific Ocean can easily show us. So, with global warming that causes droughts one can discern that it’s not futuristic in our reality on Earth as we all know it. Debating whether or not Global Warming is an reality is absurd and mute at this point.
b. it takes ten thousand years like I have said up above until waste products are safe for humans but also what if in the process of underground storage that we do inrecreckable damage to the geotropic enviornment or rather the positive taproot to our world?
c. uranium mining is a serious concern as well as the indirect and direct causes of further global warming, but also too water shifts like droughts to further depricate our homo sapien existence on Earth
d. Only a few companies like the Japan Steel Works produce three-four coverings to hopefully decrease contamination, but others are slowly developing. However, these companies are not reaching demands nor is it projected too either.
5. Health
a. There is a study released in 2007 in regards to Germany’s youth that lived near nuclear factories were more likely to have cancer.
This point is true also in leukemia as in France and Germany
b. accidendents like:
1. Three Mile Island (1979)
2. Chernobyl Disaster (1986)
c. radioactive leaks that could happen by a nuclear meltdown like I mentioned above but further technologies could increase danger such as radioactive commercial aeroplanes, commercial cars, commercial ships and hell even radioactive houses
The following countries don’t have nuclear reactors
a. Ireland
b. Poland
c. New Zealand
The following countries are thinking or are in the process of phasing out nuclear power as a viable option for energy consumption
a. Italy
b. Sweden
c. Australia
Comprehensive listing of all countries that have nuclear weapons or thought to have by recent intelligence:
1. United States
2. United Kingdom
3. China
4. Russia
5. India
6. North Korea
7. Israel
8. France
9. Pakistan
Note: not including the nuclear trade offs that are in direct control by America and respected foreign countries. However, the true scope of nuclear technologies in my opinion is limited. We all should look at this short listing without including South Africa that dismantled their nuclear factories and a few others as well to be a high presidence for why nuclear power is not a viable option!
Err, where does the hydrogen come from? And what form of solar energy conversion did you have in mind? It matters.
The genie is out of the bottle already. Having more nuclear power plants will not make one iota of difference regarding nuclear weapon proliferation.
There is nuclear waste … and nuclear waste.
Nuclear waste is too loose a term. There is the low level stuff such as slightly contaminated materials and the really nasty stuff and a whole lot of stuff in between.
Most of the nuclear waste is medium to low level waste. There is very little “turns the water a pretty shade of blue” material involved.
Then there is the 10,000 years story. Again not quite what it seems to be.
The 10,000 years propaganda is the time for the materials with the longest half life to reach background count levels.
In reality even the hottest reactor today would be safe to enter in around 100 years providing that protection from any residual alpha and beta emitters was employed but since most beta emitters have a half life ranging from a few hours to a few days, no big deal.
Not in whole life environmental calculations. Not by a long chalk.
You describe availability, not reliability. In any case not repairs, routine maintenance and even then most is preventive maintenance and routine safety inspections. The reliability of nuclear plant is exceptionally high (as is the availability BTW.)
What on earth are you on about? Sorry old son, you honestly don’t know the first thing about nuclear power generation or power stations.
Do what? What the mustard and cress is the “positive taproot to our world”? In any case we've addressed the 10,000 year story.
Uranium mining causes global warming? Pray tell!
Huh?
There are indications of cancer “clumps” where the numbers are slightly higher than might e expected but the actual numbers are very low.
There are also cancer clumps around coal burning power stations due to the much greater release of radioactive isotopes being released from burning fossil fuel.
The accidents that have taken place including one or two of our own that you don’t mention are all down to the deployment of early life technology. A bit like the bursting boilers on the first high pressure steam engines.
Today we are past that stage with the technology. Well past it.
As for radioactive aircraft, I presume you mean aircraft driven by direct atomic power, get real. Been tried, didn’t prove viable.
So what?
Better keep up to date mate!
So what? In any case you've missed more than a couple!
Nuclear power generation not only IS viable, it is HIGHLY viable and most important is least polluting on a “dust to rust” budget analysis of any fossil fuel burning power plant.
A serious question. What is your first language?
kallistē
Nuclear power could help mitigate the effects of expensive oil, so might coal. However you can't run a 44 ton truck on electricity nor can you turn it into fertilizer to grow food or make plastics or any of the vast number of chemical products made from oil.
Plus it seems the era of cheap oil has ended now, not at some distant point in the future. It would take a minimum of ten years to get nuclear stations up and running and we would need far more of them than are currently planned. The same is true of coal, which incidentally could be far less polluting if carbon sequestration technology was employed.
There is also an argument that both nuclear and coal require such an enormous oil inputs in terms of extraction, processing, logistics and servicing as to be more or less merely oil by another name.
Maybe its possible, but just as likely the economic and social consequences of 100 dollar plus oil while mean that the resources and time to implement such a pharaonic project are just not available.
I tend to take talk of "crash nuclear programs" in much the same way as the advice to stick your head between your legs in the event of your 737 charging off the end of the runway full of high octane fuel. There is nothing wrong with it, just don't expect it to have much effect on your pension plan. My advice is to stop thinking about nuclear and start thinking about chickens.
Incidentally solar power is a net loser of power since it costs twice as much energy to build a photo voltaic cell as it is likely to recover over its life. Thermodynamics, its a ******* isn't it?
This was in yesterdays torygraph could be a winner all we need is for the government to spend a bit of the taxes leeched from the motorist and we're away
PURE Project
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
TANSTAAFL TANJ
Posting Permissions 
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks