PDA

View Full Version : O/T pollution



motorworks
08-30-2004, 10:06 PM
A good read:
"...The Americans dumped tens of thousands of drums containing contaminants such as DDT, jet fuel, diesel, paint solvents and antifreeze..."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/08/30/nfld_pollution040830.html

[This message has been edited by motorworks (edited 08-30-2004).]

jfsmith
08-30-2004, 10:14 PM
I agree with the farmers and the towns people. In the states, everyone has this not in my backyard concept, except they don't care about whose backyard it goes to.

The DEW Line is a ecological distaster after all of these years.

I am not going to say any more, because I know I will get flamed royally.


Jerry

Paul F
08-30-2004, 10:24 PM
jfsmith;

I agree.. We (the US) should take responsibility and clean it up...

I should also point out that it's unfortuate that the U.S. has taken the "not in my back yard" syndrome to a ridiculous level..
God help anyone who actually tries to find a way to store or destory this kind of waste..

Look at Yucca Mountain...
30 years and counting, and they haven't broke ground yet. Meanwhile, old reactors (like the one 2 miles from my house) just sit... slowly decomposing.. with no place to take the waste.

Paul F.

jfsmith
08-30-2004, 10:36 PM
Paul,

I live both in the states and Canada, so I am in a can't win situation.

Has anyone seen the tribesmen in Africa who go fishing with Coke bottles? Thats pesticide they are pouring in the water, the stuff that the U.S. and the rest of the "first world" band years ago. Then they eat the fish.

It's was bad enough to find out Charlie the Tuna died of mercury posioning 30 year ago, but the rest of the stuff we don't hear about worries me.

Jerry

BillH
08-30-2004, 10:51 PM
Go take a look at China.

Flash319
08-31-2004, 06:35 AM
It's funny how no one can find a place to put nuclear waste?? Funny that, yet we still want to build more plants. There are tons of ways to make power and yet (Bush) wants to dig for more oil and build more nuclear plants. He's a smarty!!

Rustybolt
08-31-2004, 07:42 AM
Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your POV when it comes to energy everything is a trade off. While you might not like nuke power, it takes a lot less uranium to make a kilowatt of electricity than a comparable unit of wind or solar power. The only other way to make it as cheaply is hydro power. it really does depend on what a society is willing to put up with or sacrifice in order to have reliable(not cheap) electricity.
My personal opinion is that nuclear power is a viable alternative to damming rivers or building more coal or turbine power plants. While wind and solar power may seem like viable alternatives they too have a long term impact on the environment.
So it come s down to what trade off you want to make.

J Tiers
08-31-2004, 08:24 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BillH:
Go take a look at China.</font>

Or even Taiwan.

The river in Kaosiung smells like a bad mix of Mr Clean and ****.

Sewers from apartment houses run right into it.

Every building has a tank on top for drinkable water, all the other water can make you sick.

China is the same or worse, except that being bigger, there is more of it, but there are also still areas not particularly polluted.

The "brown cloud" is a large area of air polution over the Southeast Asian industrial areas.

wierdscience
08-31-2004, 08:35 AM
I am sure that the Canadian air bases are perfectly spotless thou,right?

Yes it maybe a mess,it maybe that people are over reacting and it maybe that its time to screw the US again.

Reason it costs so much,is it has to be dug up,sealed up,transported to and buried to pollute somewhere else,stupid policy.

Funny thing is all of the above mentioned pollutants can be scrubbed from the soil on site for far less than the $100 mill we already paid.

Its called a rotary kiln,seen them in action,scoop the dirt up and dump on one side of the site,feed the soil through the 2900* kiln,the ddt goes inert,the av gas,diesil and anit-freeze burns off and the soil is sterilized in one swoop.Truck in organic material to mix with the end result,spread it and plant grass.

But no,lets wrap it up in plastic so it will be around for the next 1,000 years,plus its more of a problem and we can worry people from now on and remain in power,typical eco-wack BS.

speedy
08-31-2004, 09:16 AM
And once again the nuclear power plant issue is raising it`s filthy head down here. We generate from hydro,thermal and geothermal. At one time the power was produced and distributed by our govt agency (us). there was a 100% rolling reserve, guarentee of supply + or - 5% ( I recall) and the hydro was balanced with the thermal to prevent low lake levels and so maintain smooth supply. It was privatised (stolen). They did away with the rolling reserve buffer and removed the guarantee of supply. they now generate almost exclusively hydro (coal fired is the new evil),the power co`s market electricity as a commodity (not a resource to be protected). "THE PROFITS MUST CONTINUE". Anyway the upshot is power shortage from excess consumption brought about by poor planning and unnecessary demand.
Ken

[This message has been edited by speedy (edited 08-31-2004).]

Rustybolt
08-31-2004, 09:39 AM
It IS a commodity. There is a demand and someone is going to supply it. Just like corn, soybeans, and pork bellies.
Not everyplace has rivers that can be dammed or geothermal vents that can be exploited.
(As an aside aluminum smelters use a prodigeous amount of electricity. Hence the location near hydro sources)
Nule plants are a viable solution. Here in the midwest they take up little room and provide the required electricty for our big cities.
(Another aside. The Dresden powerplant on the Rock River was built solely to supply electricity to Fermi Lab. The particle accelerator)

Flash319
08-31-2004, 10:45 AM
I believe that nuclear is far from a viable method. It produces waste that is very long lasting and very dangerous for every living thing on earth. I say they triple the price of hydro. That way it won't get waisted like it does. Also I can't wait until the oil runs out. The only reason we use oil is because it is profitable. Instead of spending the money to build more nuclear plants and bombing other countries for their oil, we should invest in other ways to make power. Solar sails, wind, hydrogen fuel cells. The only thing that powers change is money. If it is profitable it will happen. This is a very sick way to look at this small planet we live on. EVERYONE has to change this mentality. Money isn't everything.

retep
08-31-2004, 12:30 PM
Flash319: One thing a lot of people don't realise about nuclear is that regular coal power plants actually put tonnes of nuclear waste into the atmosphere. The problem is that most types of coal contain trace amounts of naturally occuring uranium and thorium. Given the amounts of coal we burn when you do the math the quantity of that uranium and thorium becomes very large. Basically *per* plant each coal power plant releases around 1000x more radiation into the environment then a nuclear plant. Multiply this by the thousands of coal plants in the world and you've got a major release of waste, the order of multiple Chernobles per year.

That said... Even at those levels the health effects this causes are basically undetectable.

References: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Evan
08-31-2004, 12:36 PM
Nuclear energy has no future at all until the problem of disposing of spent fuel is dealt with. We've had this discussion before. IF Yucca Mtn. goes online sometime before the end of this decade which is very unlikely AND someone can convince every state that it is safe to transport high level nuclear waste through the centers of large cities on rail AND someone can convince people it is safe to transport high level waste on the national highway system by truck then it will only take 25 to 30 years to deal with the waste already in storage. Including the time to actually put Yucca Mtn. online make that 40 years.

BTW, can you think of a more attractive terrorist target then a container of high level waste traveling down the track near a major city?

Rustybolt
08-31-2004, 01:57 PM
Evan. That is why there are trade offs. The cost of pristine free flowing rivers is nuclear power plants. The cost of not having to deal with nuclear waste is having vast tracts of land tied up in either wind or solar power, with the inherent unreliability of each. The key word here is reliability. Not to have neuclear power is to have more dammed rivers and more strip mining for coal and the attendant pollution coal fired plants emit.
Nuclear makes sense in this part of the country since there is no more cheap low sulfer coal to mine anymore and no large rivers to dam. The land that wind farmers or solar power advocates would like to use is more valuable growing crops or developed for houses.

Evan
08-31-2004, 02:05 PM
Nuclear does not make sense no matter how you look at it until the waste problem is dealt with. There is no way that the construction of another nuke plant can be justified until a safe and reliable way of dealing with high level waste is implemented. Period.

Flash319
08-31-2004, 02:20 PM
I'm with Even. I see your point Rusty but there are alway alternatives. Producing radioactive material that lasts for for 100's of years is wrong. If you are going to make it then you must be able to do something with it. Turn the waist into something else or send it into space. I like what hydrogen can do for us. Once their is an economical way to produce hydrogen then we are all free from oil and nuclear waste. That is where money should be spent. I am not sure what it is like in the US but in Canada we have nuclear plants that have not been running for some time because of the cost to maintain. Therfore why spend anymore money on them. Come up with something better. Check out Hydrogenics.com. They are producing hydrogen products and if the government gave them 100million instead of build nuclear plants we would probebly be running on hydrogen right now.

Evan
08-31-2004, 02:27 PM
For more info on high level waste disposal (NOT from Greenpeace) have a look at what the state of Nevada has to say.

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/trans/trfact03.htm

"An estimate of the number of accidents likely to occur during spent fuel shipments to a repository can be obtained by multiplying the anticipated accident rates by the anticipated cumulative shipment miles. If all spent fuel were to be shipped to the repository by truck in larger-capacity casks, requiring about 46,000 shipments and over 100 million shipment miles, between 70 and 310 accidents and over 1,000 incidents would be expected over the operating life of the repository. Under the DOE base case scenario (88% rail, 12% truck), about 50 to 260 accidents and 250 to 590 incidents would be expected."

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 08-31-2004).]

BillH
08-31-2004, 02:44 PM
Nuclear Power is the futre if one wants to tackle Hydrogen Fuel Cells.
Need the Nuke plants to make tons of hydrogen.
Except for the nuclear waste, there is no cleaner way to boil some water.

thistle
08-31-2004, 03:46 PM
sounds familiar -base leaves town - pollution was never a problem before is now spreading threatening to destroy everything unless Uncle Sam coughs up millions for a clean up- years go by and nothing happens .

motorworks
08-31-2004, 04:42 PM
"Its called a rotary kiln,seen them in action,scoop the dirt up and dump on one side of the site,feed the soil through the 2900* kiln,the ddt goes inert,the av gas,diesil and anit-freeze burns off and the soil is sterilized in one swoop.Truck in organic material to mix with the end result,spread it and plant grass."

wierdscience
More info if you have it!

As well
I put up this post not to down the Americans,
but to point out what is wrong and hopefully learn from the mistakes and most importantly hope that someone will make a start in cleaning it up.It is all our back yards.
Nfld is not that far from Mississppi !!

Evan
08-31-2004, 04:47 PM
MW,

See here:

http://www.aesinc.com/revamp/prod/hazcase5.htm

and here:

http://www.enviroklean.com/Klean_Machine.htm

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 08-31-2004).]

jfsmith
08-31-2004, 05:44 PM
After the fall of Soviet Empire, the west found that the Soviets had the perfect nuclear disposal system.

They have an island in the far north near the artic or in the artic, they just place their spent nuclear fuel there and forget it. The last picture I saw had a old nuke sub run aground on the island.

Using nuclear energy to generate Hydrogen is really a great idea. I was just wondering with all of the possible uses with hydrogen as a replacement fuel, are we going to get more rain? The by product of hydrogen usage is water in vapor form.

Jerry

Evan
08-31-2004, 06:19 PM
"After the fall of Soviet Empire, the west found that the Soviets had the perfect nuclear disposal system"


Surely you jest. The Russians currently have 60,000 spent fuel assemblies totaling 99 tonnes of high level waste uranium just from nuclear subs sitting around various ports and bases of the northern fleet with nowhere to put it. The have also dumped many tons of high level waste directly into the Barents Sea with no encapsulation in many cases. They have dumped old reactors in great numbers. They also have ten million liters of high level liquid waste stored on land without proper containment.

The Russians are currently pumping the ballast tanks of many of their nuclear submarines full of polystyrene foam to prevent them from sinking. That is, when they can afford the foam.

wierdscience
08-31-2004, 07:58 PM
Several things the government here has done are idiotic at best.

During Carter they signed into law several pieces of legislation that make no sense what so ever.

The first was the ban on nuclear re-processing,we currently have a huge waste problem because the fuel cycle is not being completed.Rod assemblies give off usable quanities of heat for generations,this waste heat is used in other countries as a marketable resource to industry in the form of heated process water and even residential home heat.Coarse you also then have the problem of the negative image that has been created in this country.Like Evan once said its the "we don't want no atoms round here" attitude.

Another idiotic law was the incenerator ban,we used to burn garbage and use it to generate power,but this was frowned upon mostly by the niby's because of the stack emissions and the haze it sometimes produced.So what we have now is an encreased dependence on oil,coal,hydro and nuclear.

Now,I have also recently seen the newer "clean coal" and "clean incenerator" systems that are being developed.Its a really neat solution to some age old problems.

The idea is simple,trap the stack emmissions and either filter them trough a medium like a water filled lagoon,or trap them and use a gas compressor to pressurize them and then inject them back into the earth through deep wells.

Since the two biggest offenders are co2 and so2 and since the originated in the earth to begin with the net effect is clean effecient power at a slightly higher cost than a traditional coal fired boiler.Plus you can burn nearly everything,garbage,tires,plastics you name it.
You also have the option of reducing the costs of some routine maintainence jobs like mowing the interstate right of ways.Any idea of how many tons of fuel a mile of grass right of way produces?Here in the summer its an average of 2-1/2 tons per mile of interstate in the form of grass and tires,trash etc.Reason I know this is becasue the studies have already been done.The ground up grass and etc are added to coal and ground tires used for boiler fuel,sold by the btu's produced paid for the state employee's salary,the tractor and mower and the transportation cost.

Solar and wind are to un-reliable and also very expensive,not to mention bad for the inviroment,nobody points out the materials and heavy metals used in their construction,the numbers of birds that get killed,or the shear numbers needed to produce usable amounts of power.

As for the hydrogen fuel thing,unless you have either hydro,nuclear,or geo-thermal,the only other viable source is oil plain as that.The only thing that will change when hydrogen comes on line is there will be fewer emissions and fuel prices will go through the roof and the big"multinational corporations" will be bigger than ever,and the eco-wacks are making it happen.

Amother thing with hydrogen is the fuel transfer problem.I have a friend who owns a stop and rob better known as a gas station.Its and average sized operation with 8-10 pumps and sees about 1500 or so customers a day.He tells me he averages six to ten pump drive off a month,by pump drive off I mean people forgetting that the nozzle is in the tank,could any of you see this happening on a hydrogen pump?

No,people say the internal combustion engine is outdated,they say it was concocted by the oil industry and the Rockefellers.But looking at the lesson of history and the number of other ideas that were dicarded before we went with liquid fueled engines you must come to the realization that gasoline and diesil are the most effecient.After all,you don't see amny Stanly Steamers running around do you?

L Webb
08-31-2004, 08:20 PM
And I guess all the waste products and pollution wasn't a problem as long as the good ol' US dollars were flowing into the local and national government's pockets while the base was in operation?

The problem should have been dealt with while the base was in operation.

Les

jfsmith
08-31-2004, 11:32 PM
Evan,
Yes I jest about the Soviet/Russian solution.

Speaking of Stanley Steamers, not the carpet people, there was one running up and down a side street last week, the guy owns a Carter Car, a Crosly and a few other seldom seen classics. He says he thanks God his" steamer" has died. He runs every thing a low levels and doesn't push it at all.

His family had the Jag repair shop back in the 50s and 60s in the area, as well as some hi end car like Rolls. He required that his people have Metric tools back when you couldn't find them at Sears. So I didn't go to work for him, big mistake.


Many fuels have been tried over the last 50 years, some the technology was abandoned 30, 40 years ago because they couldn't handle the problems, today we could probably solve those problems.

In the early 90s I saw a Saab or a Volvo that was belt driven, no traditional transmission. They couldn't take it on the road because it was never tested by the government for safety. Another good idea shelved.

We can make piston engines run almost anything for fuel, We can make turbines that run perfume or Jack Daniels (such a waste) for fuel. It's a matter of what is plentiful and easy to produce.

Which brings me to a political situation. The U.S. and other allied countries saved Kuwait from vanishing into Iraq as a reclaimed province. So where is the gratitude? They should be saying "pull your tankers up, complimentary petrol for the next 20 years."

Nuclear has it's place, the U.S. Navy has proven that. The people in California have the wind mill farms, like many other place now do. Solar works, but in a limited fashion.

How about if we harness all of the hot air coming from politicians? We could fuel trips to other planets with that much energy.


Jerry

J Tiers
08-31-2004, 11:57 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Flash319:
I believe that nuclear is far from a viable method. It produces waste that is very long lasting and very dangerous for every living thing on earth. I say they triple the price of hydro. That way it won't get waisted like it does. Also I can't wait until the oil runs out. The only reason we use oil is because it is profitable. Instead of spending the money to build more nuclear plants and bombing other countries for their oil, we should invest in other ways to make power. Solar sails, wind, hydrogen fuel cells. The only thing that powers change is money. If it is profitable it will happen. This is a very sick way to look at this small planet we live on. EVERYONE has to change this mentality. Money isn't everything. </font>


Nope, you can't do any of those things.

Hydro power destroys ecosystems and grinds up fish.

Wind power plants whack millions of migrating birds right out of the air. You have to sweep up around them with a front loader every day. Thats horrible, can't do that.

Solar cells are Ok, but the pollution from making them is the very worst of poisonous stuff. Obviously can't do that.

Guess you'll have to freeze in the dark!

Ok, maybe I don't believe all that.

And the only way to really waste hydro power is not to use it at all.........

There exist viable nuclear plant designs that have very few drawbacks. They burn the fuel down and use most of the usual "byproducts" for actual power generation. The leftover is much less bad than what we get now, and the fuel is no good for bombs.

Trouble is, Clinton killed the funding for the pilot plant.

Somewhere in old threads is the link to info on it. More links go from there.

mpbush
09-01-2004, 12:38 AM
The trick with solar isn't to put them over farmlands but to put them over parking lots, provides power AND shade.

Power companies in Southern California finally did the right math and are installing solar on various buildings and parking lots. They looked at when power was most expensive - hot sunny days, the same time solar is most productive and realized solar was not just competitive but cheap.

My bitch with nuclear power is it only takes ONE accident to destroy a region. We had a plant right here in California's central valley, a region that feeds much of the WORLD. Imagine if it was poisoned? Worse yet, the corn and wheat fields of the midwest.

The waste is terrifying, the DOE plan talks about the mountain slowly melting, this is something they think they can control? Sounds like a bad science fiction movie to me.

I love the idea of nuclear power but so far the reality sucks.

Rich Carlstedt
09-01-2004, 01:26 AM
Evan
You said
"46,000 shipments and over 100 million shipment miles, between 70 and 310 accidents and over 1,000 incidents would be expected over the operating life of the repository. Under the DOE base case scenario (88% rail, 12% truck), about 50 to 260 accidents and 250 to 590 incidents would be expected."

I think the incdents are way overblown here..
If the senario is corrrect..we would not be getting gasoline tankers delivering fuel to our local stations...we would be having gas explosions everywhere...seems that such hauling is really safe when you consider the volume/miles..

Mr MPBush..
Come now ! I think you also are under exageration mode..You said ...
My bitch with nuclear power is it only takes ONE accident to destroy a region. We had a plant right here in California's central valley, a region that feeds much of the WORLD

Do you honestly think any Nuclear incident would destroy the 'Valley" or a "Region'
Man!.. talk about overblown..You should research the past incidents like Hiroshama and you will see that the land repairs itself.
Hurricane Charlie was about 8 miles wide in its main destructive path..your comment would make it sound like the whole state of Florida was shot..

Hysteria...Hysteria sounds like a CNN report !

Evan
09-01-2004, 01:49 AM
Rich, I didn't say that. That is a quote from the government of Nevada and they took those numbers from the DOE, not CNN. Did you read the actual link? It is not overblown, it uses standard statistics accumulated from experience with everyday heavy trucking and rail travel including prior nuclear accidents and incidents. The problem is worse than you can imagine. The amount of waste that will have to be transported is enormous.

BTW, do you remember the horrific gasoline tanker crash in the Caldecott tunnel just east of Berkeley in the 1982? It killed "only" seven people and injured many more. Or the much worse one in the St. Moritz tunnel? If that had been a waste nuclear fuel transport the tunnels would still be closed.

The problem is that the consequences from a bad gasoline tanker crash simply do not compare to having to abandon a city forever.

Just how much plutonium in your drinking water is an acceptable amount?


[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-01-2004).]

speedy
09-01-2004, 04:18 AM
Rustybolt, the question as to wether elctricity is a commodity or a resource probably rests with those who control the generation system. Pre- privatization we owned the generation and distribution of power in this country.It was managed in the best interests of continuaty and reliability of supply, it was treated as a resource as it was and is.
At one time this beautifull country of mine was a debt free nation, then our governments(begining with Piggy Muldoon and his National political party began borrowing heavily from the World Bank to finance the grand grwth plans for our economy; it was called at the time "Think Big"). We became a debtor nation, I can still remember "Piggy" telling us at every anouncement of yet another huge loan, "we`re good for it, or credit is good" etc etc.Sound familiar? Come the new order down here and any number of foreign concerns came and bought up at the firesale that was our gov owned enterprises ( payed for and owned by all New Zealand citizens) Electricity became a commodity to trade at whatever price the market would stand;There is no longer any imperative to look after the resource,the imperative is to maximise use and therefore profit: the foreign concerns bleed us dry , then move on to other places. Look at how Wisconson Rail and partners mangled our rail they brought.
So now we have the same lunatics advocating nuclear who were attempting to introduce it here back in the 70`s.
The TRUE COST of anything is THE TOTAL COST. ie all production costs,all disposal costs and the future damage that expediancy/complacency may reek on our future generations.
Down here there is a saying that pretty much sums it up "you don`t **** in the bed at night and expect to wake up in the morning smelling of roses"
Ken

John Stevenson
09-01-2004, 04:33 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:

BTW, do you remember the horrific gasoline tanker crash in the Caldecott tunnel just east of Berkeley in the 1982? It killed "only" seven people and injured many more. Or the much worse one in the St. Moritz tunnel? If that had been a waste nuclear fuel transport the tunnels would still be closed.

</font>

Not true.
They did test over here some while ago and crashed a train into a flask sat on the rail track.
The flask had a test amount of radioactive material so they could test for leaks.
They hit this flask at just under 100 mph, totaled the train and threw the flask a long distance.
Result, no leaks.



------------------
John S.
Nottingham, England

Flash319
09-01-2004, 07:10 AM
Some of you think that nuclear is a good idea even though you produce very harmful waist. Also it is not sustainable like oil. Uranium will run out too. I like ot think that people on here are inovative but some of the comments "none of those things will work" "Just store the waste somewhere else" are the reason we are in this situation. We have been burning fossil fuel way to long and have the same mentality as we did 50 years ago. Do we not learn anything? Why do we still use the internal combustion engine? Computer speeds double every 6 months but we still love our combustion engines. The technology is there to do other things besides nuclear and fossil fuel but the governments don't make as much money with the alternatives. Like if you put a couple small wind turbines in you back yard with a few solar pannels and produce hydrogen for yourself. You can then make electricity for yourself with fuel cells whenever you need it. The government, halliburton oil, and all the other people who make way to much money as it is on power will be out there money. This is why money is not spent on alternatives. No offense to the elders out there but this old way of thinking has to go. If you are going to destroy the planet for all our children then what is the point in doing anything? Take a look at the planet from space, that is all we have, thats it. So if you go buy an SUV that gets 15mi/gal because you have to, think about what you are doing. Don't just try and justify it.

That is my preaching for today!! This stuff really bothers me.

wierdscience
09-01-2004, 08:06 AM
Flash,don't go off on a pyscho rant,its embarassing.
No oil companies are not blocking new technology,they are using the greens to push it for them.The hydrogen economy for the most part will be dependant on oil simple as that because not everybody will have the benifit of geo-thermal or hydro power to break hydrogen down from water.There are no black helicopters on the horizon either.
The idea that people have pushed about using solar or wind power to brew your own in the backyard is non-sense,not that you can't do it,but because it is entirely impracticle.
For starters gaseuos hydrogen is dangerous,remember the Hindenberg?Plus to produce a usable amount it would take days even weeks to manufacture enough for one trip into work.So no its not going to happen.

Finally,everyone should realise that the hysteria over the inviroment,fuel consumption and other issues is hype generated by the media and goverment to be used as a tool to control the actions of the population,that tool is fear.I am 33 going on 34 this month,unless it is artificially generated there will be no fuel shortage in my lifetime.I will be dead and gone long before we "run out".
Which brings me to this final point,the inviromentalist are being used as tools for government and industry and they are being led like sheep and don't even know it.

J Tiers
09-01-2004, 08:53 AM
For EVERY viable solution, there are a crowd of screaming idiots who will howl it down. We are in very strong danger of becoming a democracy in the US, which would really suck.

The politicians give in because they are in the business of being elected, and the screaming mobs are voters. So they try to please all the different howling mobs.

The result is absolutely nothing gets done.

IT IS YOUR FAULT, assuming you are a US citizen.

Get off your fa'tass and MAKE the SOBS in teh government do something practical. The sh$%heads are our employees. We don't need to fire them, the pool of potential employees are all about the same.
Nope, training and force are the only answers to bad employees.

We fired king George, these Dem and 'pub bastards are our own. Lets roast them until they do our work.

Flash319
09-01-2004, 09:14 AM
Weird, my point is that saying something can't be done is not the right way to solve a problem. Saying that it is impractical is no way to get anywhere. What if tomorrow they creat a polymer that will separate hydrogen from oxygen from simply pushing the water through it. Then you fill your car up with water and drive away. No storage no nothing. Just like flying into space. If you don't first build an airplane how are you going to fly into space. I just think humans are very smart creatures and we don't know everything. By giving into ignorance you acomplish nothing except adding to the problem. I don't want to seem like I am "going off" but the ignorance of some people gets to me. If people would worry about other things then what there next car is going to be I think we would be getting somewhere. I think there are some great ideas on this board and some cool designs. It is people like us that make useful things. Maybe we will be driving steam cars again some day powered by dark matter!!

Rustybolt
09-01-2004, 09:21 AM
The key word here is reliability. Nuclear power is reliable. hydro power is reliable. Coal and gas generated power are reliable. We put up with the inherent dangers of each for their reliability.
While a HSM can put up with power interruptions for the sake of their hobby, Corporations and municipalities have to have reliable sources of power.
Alternative sources have not been proven to be reliable. What do you do on a day when the wind doesn't blow or at night when the sun quits shining? Is there any industrial plant that runs solely on solar power or wind power?
Right now, nuclear power has the smallest footprint, produces the least pollution, and provides the most consistant source of power for the least amount of money.(Well. Maybe old hydro is better) Until an alternative can be PROVEN to do better, we will stay with what we have and live with the trade offs.

Flash319
09-01-2004, 09:38 AM
You are very right Rusty. We have a Huge demand for Reliable power. I think we need to limit the amount of money spent on "current" technology and spend more on new stuff. There is no point waiting till something bad happends or we run out of oil. Because you know that when we run out of oil there will be something else to replace it. That is a slow way to make progress.

Evan
09-01-2004, 11:22 AM
John,

Quote from British Energy fact files re transport of spent nuclear fuel in reenforced containment flasks:

"A flask must survive a fire of 800 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes without leaking. Practical tests in the USA have shown that this requirement can easily be met with tests subjecting a flask to 1,400 degrees Celsius for 90 minutes - nearly twice the temperature for thrice the time."

If a such a class B flask had been in either of those tunnel fires the specified time and temperature limits would have been far, far exceeded. It would have certainly failed and the consequences would have been horrendous. The radiation release would resemble Chernobyl as those flasks contain up to five tonnes of "spent" fuel.

Making such a flask withstand any possible impact isn't the problem. Making it withstand any possible fire is. The temperatures in the Gotthard tunnel fire were estimated at over 1000C for 24 hours since a fully loaded lorry carring tires fueled the fire. The Mt. Blanc tunnel fire also exceeded 1000C for a long period and the Caldecott tunnel fire was even higher as it was fueled by a fully loaded gasoline tanker. The containment flasks fail as the lead gamma shielding melts after the insulation jacket fails.

The US DOE admits that in such a worst case scenario the flasks would likely fail.

What isn't appreciated is the amount of material that needs to be moved in the US. Defense program waste alone is estimated at between 300,000 to 400,000 cubic meters. No one actually knows how much waste there is but Yucca Mtn., if it is comissioned is currently limited by law to 70,000 tonnes of waste. It will need to hold 100,000 tonnes of waste and even that isn't enough capacity for what will need to be stored by 2030.

mpbush
09-01-2004, 12:33 PM
Rich,

There is a VAST difference between the types of fallout from a nuclear weapon, even a dirty one as used on Hiroshima and the fallout from a nuke plant. The majority of radio activity from a weapon has half lives of days and weeks. The half lives of the isotopes from a nuclear plant have half lives measured in tens of thousands of years.

Just ask the Russians, huge expanses around Chernoble will be poisoned for a time longer than we have recorded history. The most ancient Egyptian pyramids are only about 5,000 years old.

I did hear today about a South African company working with German technology on what is called a pebble reactor that sounded pretty cool. I am not against nuclear power, but I am certainly cautious. Science is great but scientists often dismiss anything they cannot measure out of hand.

Rustybolt
09-01-2004, 03:54 PM
It should also be mentioned that spent fuel won't produce a Chernoble like disaster. Spent fuel can no longer sustain a reaction which is why it's removed.
Chernoble was a runaway hot reactor.It wasn't a lot different than the graphite reactor that fermi used at the University of Chicago. The cooling water went from a liqiud to a gas instantaneouly causing the reactor cover to flip like a coin and releasing very radioactive gases and particles into the air.The core is still melting its way into the subbasement floor of the reactor room.
Any accident with spent fuel will not be as spectacular, but still very bad for whoever is around.

Evan
09-01-2004, 05:17 PM
Rusty,

"Spent" fuel isn't anywhere near spent. They remove it while it is still very happily fissionable, just not producing at full power. It contains exactly the same radionucleotides that an operating reactor contains like Chernobyl. Also, in a fire accident the uranium will likely ignite if the containment is breached.


The discussion of nuclear power as a clean and reliable source of power consistently ignores the waste disposal issue. IF you ignore the waste issue then nuclear is a very attractive solution. Unfortunately the ostrich approach won't work. In an incident in a nuclear power station in Australia they were moving around some fuel rods. They had pulled it from the pool and when they did it fell apart on the floor because of corrosion of the fuel tube. The hoist operator quickly dropped the fuel handling container on top of it before he and co-workers were killed by the radiation and it is still sitting there because they can't figure out how to clean it up.

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-01-2004).]

jfsmith
09-01-2004, 05:36 PM
Lets leave the nuke issue for another day and a round of good beer (Sleemans).

We have an issue at hand, we save the butts of many other countries in the world, I mean the allies, not just the Americans. This is during wartime and after wars.

So these oil rich countries that owe a major debt, should repay their debts with oil. The other countries that owe such debts, should pay up in raw materials and finished goods.

This would allow for research to happen not in an emergency status as we seem to be doing now.

The unique thing about this concept is that we could send the NYC security force right after the convention to collect on these debts, they are the 5th largest military force in the world. This would keep them trained and employed.


Jerry

Evan
09-01-2004, 06:13 PM
Or at least amused...

wierdscience
09-01-2004, 08:28 PM
The tunnel fire issue is a non starter,simply because most tunnels will no longer allow truck traffic and the simple solution is to not route though tunnels in the first place.
The stuff gets moved all the time between facilities anyway already,you know what uncompleted atom mills are being used for?Thats right storage for waste from operating plants.You know how it gets there,on the backs of common motor carriers in mini-flasks.Secrecy is mantained by not telling anyone in the public and just moving the s--- without fan fare,reason I know this is my brother has done it,a 53'van trailer will hold one mini-flask and 16 pallets of Kellogs corn flakes(reason for this is Kellogs cereal plant is mid-way between Oak Ridge and Rocky Flats and something needs to pay for the back hual)
My plan for getting rid of it would be an injection well over a mid-ocean subduction zone in deep water(10,000+)the Navy has found that radiation in the deep ocean doesn't migrate up to the surface currents,take it out to the well and put it back where it came from.

Flash,it is good to look for and experiment with new ideas,but you must obey the laws of physics.

[This message has been edited by wierdscience (edited 09-01-2004).]

Evan
09-02-2004, 12:24 AM
Trains still go through tunnels and can't be easily rerouted. Lots of diesel in those locos.

The amount of material being moved now is negligble compared to what will be moved. For the number of ton/miles involved a serious accident is just about unavoidable. Previous history confirms that. I'm glad I don't live near any of the likely routes.

NAMPeters
09-02-2004, 01:07 AM
Nuclear is an infant industry and has a long way to go to maturity and as a result the waste issue will be resolved. The world didn’t go from atmospheric engines to triple expansion engines overnight so the same will happen with nuclear. It will be with us for a long time as will oil. The two will marry by way of hydrogen. Coal and hydrocarbons will become too valuable to be wasted just generating electricity and here is where nuclear enters the picture. It will generate the electricity and the surplus will be used to make hydrogen, which will then be used to convert coal into hydrocarbon products to fuel industrial processes and transportation. The IC engine is going to be around for a long time. Just my take on things and belief in the free-market’s ability to solve our problems given time and noninterference by politicians.

------------------
Neil Peters

Rich Carlstedt
09-02-2004, 01:20 AM
Evan
The argument is with the statistics....that you provided..
Analyse them...typical HYPE !
You said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich, I didn't say that. That is a quote from the government of Nevada and they took those numbers from the DOE, not CNN.
(Want to bet ?)
Did you read the actual link? ( NO, but i did apply some common sense )It is not overblown, it uses standard statistics accumulated from experience with everyday heavy trucking and rail travel including prior nuclear accidents and incidents.
( OK ..Then tell me why...If I use "Their Numbers"
It works out to a Accident for every 500 truckloads...that is "BS" ! sorry, and the average distance traveled is 2173 miles, again "BS"...The average distance to Nevada is not 2,173....but again its just "HYPE)
And you said
"The problem is worse than you can imagine. The amount of waste that will have to be transported is enormous."
(They got the fuel there without incident...or is that a NO Brainer and doesn't count ?...seems the Raw radioactive rods are not laying around the streets with all those accidents they claim!)
and you said
"BTW, do you remember the horrific gasoline tanker crash in the Caldecott tunnel just east of Berkeley in the 1982? It killed "only" seven people and injured many more.
(Yes I do....I lived only 30 miles away....it was caused by a bus..not a gas truck..and is most unfortunite..but if that is the only recent crash, and we know that gasoline is moved by the Thousands of trucks every day...maybe, just maybe you can see why the figures tossed out by your source is not only false...but adds to the Histeria !!

Don't mean to get on your case Evan, you usually have some good info..
But you are following the "Party Line"

Evan
09-02-2004, 01:55 AM
You need to check the facts Rich. (BTW, I grew up in Berkeley)

NTSB quote:

SYNOPSIS
About 12:12 a.m. P.s.t., on April 7, 1982, several vehicles on westbound California State Route 24 entered the north, No. 3 Bore of the Caldecott Tunnel near Oakland, California. A Honda car driven by an intoxicated driver struck the raised curbs inside the tunnel and came to rest at the left edge of the roadway about one-third of the way through the tunnel. It was struck soon afterward by a following gasoline tank truck and tank trailer and then by an AC Transit bus which subsequently struck the tank trailer."

According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration about 100 gasoline tanker trucks crash and burn every year in the US. An average of 203 per year occur including gasoline, propane and other hazmat materials.

The number of fatal heavy truck accidents per year is around 5000.

Uranium fuel in new unused fuel rods is not particularly radioactive or dangerous. It is composed of uranium 238 enriched with U235 and does not pose a significant hazard. It is only after it has been used in a reactor that it becomes high level waste with numerous long and sort lifetime radionucleotides that is is a serious problem. It then is extremely radioactive and the more "spent" it is the more radioactive and dangerous it becomes. Long term storage in cooling ponds only serves to allow the short lived isotopes to decay while having no effect on the hazard posed by the longer half life isotopes.

Think of it this way: You can hang around a unexploded nuclear weapon for a long time and it won't hurt you, there is almost nil radiation. A reactor is like a nuclear weapon that goes off in extremely slow motion. It's the fission reaction that generates all the nasty transuranic elements that are the problem.

This is not hysteria at all, it is reality. I think you really should start by reading the links I provided.


References:

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/trans/trfact03.htm

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/factsfigs/fmcsa_ri_04_024.htm

mochinist
09-02-2004, 07:58 PM
I dont care to get involved with this discussion, but I saw this aarticle and thought it minght be of some interest to this thread.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html?tw=wn_tophead_7

John Stevenson
09-02-2004, 08:25 PM
Evan,

http://www.typetwo.fsnet.co.uk/od1a.htm

John S.