Green Guru supports nuclear power

Originally posted by hgc:

It's just that sticky problem that the inevitable incompetence and corner-cutting in using it will lead to a whole mess of Chernobyls. And that's not your father's oil spill.
Click to expand...

Lest we forget Chernobyl happened under the watch of the same political system that engineered famine in one of Europe's richest agricultural regions. I honestly don't see that incompetence or corner cutting has the inevitabilty in a free society it would have under communism.


Originally posted by Silicon:
Take your pick:

a lot more farming....or

a lot more railroad containers with dirty-bomb fuel(call em al-queida magnets) rolling past your backyard on the way to nevada.
Click to expand...

Well a lot more farming means a lot more fertiliser, pesticide and herbicide, things you mightn't want rolling past your backyard either.
 
Tmy said:
Whats the big beef with nuke power??? The waste? If youve ever driven through Nevada you know there is plenty of room to dump our nuke poop.
Click to expand...

Okay, that statement really irritates me. The pros and cons of the Yucca Mountain repository can be debated endlessly, but your attittude of "oh, let's just dump all our garbage in Nevada" (which is not confined to you alone, sadly) is more responsible for my opposition to the repository than any problems with the repository itself.

Why don't we just bury the cr@p wherever it is that you live?
 
Fertilizer is something we have to use anyway as long as we're eating.



And a fertilizer spill doesn't make a city unihabitable for 100+ years.


Don't get me wrong, I know nuclear is cleaner. It's the waste that's still a problem. I wish it weren't so, but it seems to be.


Pebble-bed reactors have a great promise for safety. I'm in favor of a lot of solutions.

We just need to come up with smart ways to deal with our waste.


PS: That waste includes the CO2 from biomass. I'm not oblivious to the need for better solutions on all sides.
 
Originally posted by Silicon:
Fertilizer is something we have to use anyway as long as we're eating.
Click to expand...

Yes, but "a lot more" farming would entail "a lot more" fertiliser, pesticide and herbicide use.

And a fertilizer spill doesn't make a city unihabitable for 100+ years.


Don't get me wrong, I know nuclear is cleaner. It's the waste that's still a problem. I wish it weren't so, but it seems to be.
Click to expand...

On the first point, I would imagine that is dependant on the size of the spill and the chemicals involved.

On the second point, I think you'll find that the potential ecological problems associated with increased agricutural activity using present methods are considerable.
 
Shane Costello said:

On the second point, I think you'll find that the potential ecological problems associated with increased agricutural activity using present methods are considerable.
Click to expand...

Indeed, just as an anecdote, one of the biggest problems facing Lake Tahoe right now is that fertilizer is washing into the lake and feeding the algae. Increased growth of algae is decreasing the clarity of the lake, both decreasing its value as a tourist attraction and messing up the ecosystem within the lake itself.

There are no easy answers, it seems.
 
On the car avenue:

Diesels tend to be pretty dirty. Good milage, but if you look at the emissions they don't look so hot. Hybrid civic's gas engine is a very clean burning engine, and then through in the electric motor/generator at you get effiicient and clean power.

The other problem that exists when it comes to vehicles as compared to power generation is the speed at which changes can be implemented. If we really wanted to, and were willing to pay the price a new electric infrastructure could be brought in by the government in a short period. However, when new technologies are brought in for vehicles it still many years before the old vehicles are off the roads. If we want clean cars, the government would have to use draconian meausres to force people to get old cars off the road, ... or we could start salting roads in all countries (even tropical ones) in order to get all those "classic cars" off the road. :)
 
Silicon said:


Take your pick:

a lot more farming....or

a lot more railroad containers with dirty-bomb fuel(call em al-queida magnets) rolling past your backyard on the way to nevada.
Click to expand...

MOre like.. A LOT more farming or a lot more waste (which can be fairly compact for the power output).
 
Walter Wayne said:
On the car avenue:

Diesels tend to be pretty dirty. Good milage, but if you look at the emissions they don't look so hot. Hybrid civic's gas engine is a very clean burning engine, and then through in the electric motor/generator at you get effiicient and clean power.
Click to expand...

I don't know the numbers, but does diesel put out more pollutants per mile than gasoline? That is the real measure of pollution, despite the fact that all emissions requirements are straight ppm or something similar.
 
RCNelson said:
There is a type of nuclear reactor design which recycles its own waste, is impossible to meltdown, and is politically dead.

You can read about it in these links:
ANL-W History - Reactors (IFR)
INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR
FRONTLINE: nuclear reaction: Dr. Charles Till
National Policy Analysis #378: Integral Fast Reactors: Source of Safe, Abundant, Non-Polluting Power - December 2001
The Unofficial IFR Home Page
Click to expand...

I'll have to dig through my notes and see if I actually took some on Fast Reactors. I remember there being some major downside to them (off the top of my head, it had to do with cross section for fission of fast neutrons being really bad compared to thermal neutrons, and the problems that causes).
 
"Have no fear for atomic energy, cause none of them can stop the time."
---"Redemption Song" Bob Marley
 
DaveW said:


I don't know the numbers, but does diesel put out more pollutants per mile than gasoline? That is the real measure of pollution, despite the fact that all emissions requirements are straight ppm or something similar.
Click to expand...
From this site.

Volkswagon New Bug (Diesel gas)
Mileage: 38/46 mpg
Greenhouse gas: 5.1 tons/year
EPA Air Polution Score: 6 (12 lbs of smog forming polutants/ 15 000 miles)

Volkswagon Golf (Diesel gas)
Mileage: 38/46 mpg
Greenhouse gas: 5.1 tons/year
EPA Air Polution Score: 4 (21 - 25 lbs of smog forming polutants/ 15 000 miles)

Honda Civic (Regular gas)
Mileage: 36/44 mpg
Greenhouse gas: 4.9 tons/year
EPA Air Polution Score: 6 (12 lbs of smog forming polutants/ 15 000 miles)

Edited: because the new model year (2004) the diesel got a hell of a lot better (put more the 40 lbs of smog ... last year) and the civic got worse. The ratings used to be 1 for the diesel, and 7 for the civc. Wonder what happened.
The hybrid version of the Civic comes in various versions with availability depending on region. The SULEV version produces less than 1 lb of smog forming polutants / 15 0000 miles)

Walt
 
DaveW, I think perhaps you should read a little deeper into NAT than a few quick reviews of the book before blowing it off based on the two examples involving nuclear plants.

Regarding the Hybrids, I read recently that the mileage people are actually seeing is varying greatly in the real world. http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,63541,00.html Of course, I understand that you can say this about any car out there.

I can't wait for a Sterling-cycle powered Segway that will do 40mph!

As for motorcycles, they can be very dependable commuting transportation. Cleon's bike is a 1000cc beast compared to something like a Honda Nighthawk 250. (and I think he's exagerrating his gas mileage... most of the modern R-series engines are supposed to get around 45mpg) For $3400 you get a brand new motorcycle that weighs 290lbs and gets around 70 miles to the gallon. My '92 Seca II 600cc bike got 55 consistently. The problem with this is that if you are commuting anywhere other than Florida or Southern California, it takes quite a good deal of commitment to commute year-round on a bike. I did it for many years, and even in nothern Florida there were days when I froze my butt off. I'm in Calgary now, and a bike is basically a toy you can use 3-4 months out of the year here.
 
JSFolk said:
DaveW, I think perhaps you should read a little deeper into NAT than a few quick reviews of the book before blowing it off based on the two examples involving nuclear plants.
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say I have more experience with nuclear plants and accident analysis of them than the writer of that book, but I hardly blew him off completely either. My point was that the two major accidents that are frequently brought up as evidence against nuclear power are, for the most part, largely overblown.

---Edited to add:
I don't necessarily disagree with his conclusions, either, though. Operator training can only do so much. The newer designs of reactor plants (the newer PWR reactors, pebble bed reactors) are designed with much more inherent safety built in than TMI had (Chernobyl had always been less safe than any PWR power reactor designed), which largely addresses his concerns for that aspect.
 
Silicon said:
Nuclear is a stop-gap. There just isn't enough Uranium.




Biodiesel is the answer.

We need to grow our own fuel, and burn it cleanly.
Click to expand...


Soylent Green?
 
Could nuclear power stations be fortified against, eg, the impact of a hijacked passenger jet?
 
BillyTK said:
Could nuclear power stations be fortified against, eg, the impact of a hijacked passenger jet?
Click to expand...

Could new reactors be built underground? I don't suppose you'd need to put the whole station in a hold, just the reactor bit.

But where will the nuclear waste go? We can't send it all to Nevada ;)
 
richardm said:


Could new reactors be built underground? I don't suppose you'd need to put the whole station in a hold, just the reactor bit.
Click to expand...
As long as it's not built anywhere near the notorious Dudley faultline.

But where will the nuclear waste go? We can't send it all to Nevada ;)
Click to expand...
Well what's wrong with <del>dumping</del> storing it where we've always <del>dumped</del> stored it - the Irish Sea? :p
 
richardm said:


Could new reactors be built underground? I don't suppose you'd need to put the whole station in a hold, just the reactor bit.

But where will the nuclear waste go? We can't send it all to Nevada ;)
Click to expand...

Good questions. I imagine it would be extremely dificult to actually hit a reactor containment building with a passenger jet. Putting it underground would be a good idea, but the cost of such an endeavor would be quite high.

We could send quite a bit of it to Nevada for several years (estimate of 2036 for political limit). If nothing else, it would be safer in Yucca Mountain than it is dispersed all over the country in what are supposed to be temporary storage pools.
 
RCNelson said:
There is a type of nuclear reactor design which recycles its own waste, is impossible to meltdown, and is politically dead.

You can read about it in these links:
ANL-W History - Reactors (IFR)
INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR
FRONTLINE: nuclear reaction: Dr. Charles Till
National Policy Analysis #378: Integral Fast Reactors: Source of Safe, Abundant, Non-Polluting Power - December 2001
The Unofficial IFR Home Page
Click to expand...

Just got done reading all these. Nothing technical in them, but it seems that the possible concern I mentioned was not a factor. Overall, the articles make the IFR type reactors seem a very reasonable investment. My guess is the best explanation that there is no support for them is the general fear and ignorance of the public with regards to nuclear power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom