Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Renewable energy alternative

V

Voice of freedom

Jan 1, 1970
0
6-20-04: On cable news, an expert says that the Saudi kingdom is now in a
state of civil war, and that if we lose Saudi oil, we could be facing $5 a
gallon gas prices and rationing here in the U.S.

This group is for discussion of how we can make it a national goal in the
United States to replace fossil fuel power generation...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Safe_Clean_Nuclear_Power/
 
G

G. R. L. Cowan

Jan 1, 1970
0
Voice said:
6-20-04: On cable news, an expert says that the Saudi kingdom is now in a
state of civil war, and that if we lose Saudi oil, we could be facing $5 a
gallon gas prices and rationing here in the U.S.

This group is for discussion of how we can make it a national goal in the
United States to replace fossil fuel power generation...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Safe_Clean_Nuclear_Power/

Educate people on the pernicious effects of high fuel taxation.
It makes the vast majority of civil servants think like
fossil-fuel coupon-clippers, and slip money to antinuclear
groups that otherwise would not exist, or anyway
not to any greater extent than antifluoridationist groups
or saucer cults.


--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet.
Link if you want it to happen
 
Q

quibbler

Jan 1, 1970
0
Educate people on the pernicious effects of high fuel taxation.

Why is that pernicious? It absorbs some of the costs that fossil fuel
use would otherwise externalize upon society. Taxes on the fuel
encourage some of level of conservation, while simultaneously
recapturing some of the money that would otherwise end up in the pockets
of Al Quaeda assholes in Saudi Arabia.

It makes the vast majority of civil servants think like
fossil-fuel coupon-clippers, and slip money to antinuclear
groups that otherwise would not exist, or anyway
not to any greater extent than antifluoridationist groups

High level nuclear waste is a real, serious potential threat, whereas
fluorinated water is a good thing. Many people working in nuclear
facilities or uranium mines get exposed to higher than anticipated does
of radiation/radioactive material. Until you have the honesty to deal
with these issues then you will be dismissed as a crank.

--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
 
M

Michael Baugh

Jan 1, 1970
0
At no time has Pres. Bush asked us to be fuel-conservative. Mentioned
hydrogen powered vehicles, but that's a long way away, and certainly not set
for the Humvees and Expeditions.
 
G

Gun Woman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Steve Spence said:
Oh, sure, replace one nightmare with another.

If being anti-nuke is a religion to you, you won't listen to reasoning.

--
GunWoman - Armed and Safer
9-1-1: Government sponsored Dial a Prayer.
Waiting for help from 9-1-1 could take the rest of your life.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish
the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

Vote libertarian, for the principles of liberty!

I'm interested in a really good deal on a like-new Kel-Tec P32
 
G

Glenn

Jan 1, 1970
0
So how do you plan to reason with eternally toxic waste?

And better question ... Why would you when you could develop renewable
energy that does not burden a thousand generations with your waste?

Glenn
 
K

Karl Johanson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Glenn said:
So how do you plan to reason with eternally toxic waste?

Spent nuclear fuel gets less dangerous over time. In around a day it loses
around 60% of it's level of radioactivity. In around 10 years, it loses
around 99.99% of it's level of radioactivity. In around 1,000 years, it
tends to be less dangerous than some of the ores the Uranium was mined from.

Cadmium & Arsenic, used in some solar cells, are toxic forever. The Lead
used for load levelling batteries for solar or wind power, is toxic and
mutagenic forever. The lead in one households worth of batteries can
contaminate around 10 billion litres of water to above EPA standards. (All
energy types have dangers and environmental consequences.)

How to deal with spent nuclear fuel? Assuming you don't reprocess: allow it
to cool for around 10 years. Put it in multilined containers & bury it in
solid rock, with low ground water speeds. Surround it with bentonite clay.

Natural nuclear reactors at Gabon Africa went critical around 1.8 billion
years ago, and fissioned for around half a million years. The reactors
produced around 4,000 pounds of Plutonium. The Plutonium didn't migrate
significantly through the rock it was formed in, in spite of it being
uncontained, unvitrified, in spite of a lack of a bentonite surrounding, and
in spite of significant amounts of boiling water flowing over it for around
half a million years.

Karl Johanson
 
B

Baby Elian

Jan 1, 1970
0
Karl Johanson said:
Spent nuclear fuel gets less dangerous over time. In around a day it loses
around 60% of it's level of radioactivity. In around 10 years, it loses
around 99.99% of it's level of radioactivity. In around 1,000 years, it
tends to be less dangerous than some of the ores the Uranium was mined from.

Cadmium & Arsenic, used in some solar cells, are toxic forever.

And what about cells'silicon?
The Lead
used for load levelling batteries for solar or wind power, is toxic and
mutagenic forever.

Mutagenic?Really?Have you got any web reference about that?
But uranium becomes lead at last,doesn't it?
How to deal with spent nuclear fuel? Assuming you don't reprocess: allow it
to cool for around 10 years.

How many years you have to stay the spent fuel in the cooling pool of the
nuclear plants,before store them in a final store?
 
K

Karl Johanson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Baby Elian said:
And what about cells'silicon?


Mutagenic?Really?Have you got any web reference about that?
But uranium becomes lead at last,doesn't it?

Yes. My point isn't that nuclear energy has no environmental or human
consequences (or potential consequences). My point is that all energy types
have environmental & human consequences.
How many years you have to stay the spent fuel in the cooling pool of the
nuclear plants,before store them in a final store?

10 years should be sufficient.

Karl Johanson
 
G

Gordon Richmond

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dump it Saudi Arabia; that'd solve their civil war problems. :>)
 
F

Fred B. McGalliard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Voice of freedom said:
6-20-04: On cable news, an expert says that the Saudi kingdom is now in a
state of civil war, and that if we lose Saudi oil, we could be facing $5 a
gallon gas prices and rationing here in the U.S.

I will believe it when George Bush says he has finally gotten enlightened
and is ready to spend some of the money he is taking away from our children
by spending without taxes on a large scale coal to oil plant, cutting into
the profits of some of his largest supporters.
 
F

Fred B. McGalliard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Glenn said:
So how do you plan to reason with eternally toxic waste?

eternally toxic waste? You are speaking of the heavy metal pollution from
mining copper, coal, perhaps gold? There are a lot of eternally toxic
wastes, including the cadmium in your rechargeable batteries. You are just
unreasonably terrified of some short term radioactive, for reasons no one
quite grasps. If you are going to be terrified, it behooves you to be afraid
of the things that can actually harm you. Mankind's greatest danger.
Stupidity!
 
F

Fred B. McGalliard

Jan 1, 1970
0
I wouldn't use this as justification for imagining that reactors could be
run safely, or that the waste can be disposed of safely by just putting it
any old place. It would be very interesting if this reactor lived at the
same time as the (was it precambrian?) explosion where many of new
evolutionary forms evolved rather suddenly. Unlikely but interesting. This
is probably helpful if one it overterrified of reactors, but it could also
tend to merge with the "if it's natural it must be good" mantra to form a
really bad idea. Lazie fair radioisotope storage is a very bad idea.
 
F

Fred B. McGalliard

Jan 1, 1970
0
....
And what about cells'silicon?

Silicon is very rapidly oxidized and SiO2 is just sand. Pretty safe except
under very unusual conditions. BTB. The poisons used to dope silicon are
disolved in it, so it is a major task to break the protective layers and
suck the stuff out to do any damage. This is almost like the glassification
process proposed for radioisotope storage. Shy of deliberatly grinding it up
and extracting the materials you can't get at it and it would be easier to
just mine the pitchblend, radium, etc.

....
But uranium becomes lead at last,doesn't it?

Nope. It sort of trends toward iron, but makes a bunch of stable isotopes of
different things on the way. Anyhow, the worst thing here is not the tiny
bit of plutonium or U235, or the even tinier bit of ordinary uranium that
may give us an alpha ray or two, but the nasty and I think mutagenic effects
of the U238 itself. That stuff is a nasty poison. Best use is to burn it in
a breeder and be rid of it once and for all.
 
F

Fred B. McGalliard

Jan 1, 1970
0
wrote:

||At no time has Pres. Bush asked us to be fuel-conservative. Mentioned
||hydrogen powered vehicles, but that's a long way away, and certainly not set
||for the Humvees and Expeditions.

As if anyone would change their lifestyles at the request of the president.
I think he knows better than to waste his breath. Supply/demand/price is the
only thing that modifies our consumptive behavior.
Texas Parts Guy

Asids, this good old boy know, we all hear "conserve" we know it some bad
assed Dem, tryente spoil our fun shootn pijuns fram back of meh good buddies
pickup truck.
 
F

Fred B. McGalliard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rex B said:
||> Educate people on the pernicious effects of high fuel taxation.
||
||Why is that pernicious? It absorbs some of the costs that fossil fuel
||use would otherwise externalize upon society. Taxes on the fuel
||encourage some of level of conservation, while simultaneously
||recapturing some of the money that would otherwise end up in the pockets
||of Al Quaeda assholes in Saudi Arabia.

Adding taxation is never a good answer to any legitimate question.
A federal mandate to raise the CAFE standards and make them apply to all cars
and trucks through 1 ton would be much more effective. Write your president,
congressmen and senators.
Texas Parts Guy

The difference between taxation of gas, to cost the consumer in proportion
to his consumption, and forcing manufacturers to offer said consumer a
limited range of vehicles with higher efficiency is what? Frankly I vote for
the tax and the freedom to decide, versus no tax but a caretaker fed trying
to force our choices.
 
F

Fred B. McGalliard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Voice of freedom wrote: ....
* once the entire middle east was occupied by others, terrorists would have
no place to hide

Mc Vey. USA. ???
 
Top