Connect with us

six extra months of oil

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by [email protected], Aug 6, 2008.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Guest

  2. MooseFET

    MooseFET Guest

    Nuclear power plants sound OK until they get near the end of their
    lives. When it is time to scrap it out, it is very big trouble.

    We have to get the various political types to stop working at cross
    purposes. Carter put solar panels on the White House. Reagan took
    them down. What each party does, the other wants to undo.
     
  3. Ross Herbert

    Ross Herbert Guest

    :>> Dont worry, we will use it all up ! I think that
    :>> finds like this all over the USA will keep us
    :>> minimally going for the next 10 to 20 years. Who
    :>> knows what 2030 will be like though ? Maybe all
    :>> cars electric and a nuclear power plant on each
    :>> street corner.
    :>
    :> Nuclear power plants sound OK until they get near the end of their
    :> lives. When it is time to scrap it out, it is very big trouble.
    :
    :So never shut them down.
    :
    :Lynn


    Now, who is living in cloud cuckoo land...?

    All nuclear power plants have a use-by-date when they must be decommissioned -
    around 50 years max. The cost of dismantling makes it economically unviable to
    tkae this final step so they generally just get mothballed and fenced off. In
    the final wash-up the cost of opting for nuclear in the first instance doesn't
    work out to be so attractive. Unless the cost of all phases in the life of any
    energy generating plant, ie. construction, operation, de-commissioning and
    dismantling are included in the budget, it is not accurate to say that going
    nuclear is more cost effective than other options.
     
  4. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    When the oil runs out, wind and solar are proven woefully inadequate,
    and hydro is maxed out, it might be the only viable option.

    Maybe we should swallow our false pride and just ask Japan and France
    how they're doing it.

    Cheers!
    Rich
     
  5. Guest


    Yep. I wonder how the French handle their spent fuel rods...

    On the other hand... some really cool catalysts might be available in
    spent fuel rods... Technetium-99 is a great catalyst for dehydrating
    alcohols... Cobalt-60 shows some promise in catalyzing the
    polymerization of methane to higher hydrocarbons.

    References:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium (better catalyst than rhenium
    or palladium)
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/144/3621/991 -- How
    High is High? 0.06% :(

    No need to rely on America, if Americans are afraid of nuclear
    power...

    Cheers,

    Michael
     
  6. Guest


    "Ironically, the French nuclear program is based on American
    technology. After experimenting with their own gas-cooled reactors in
    the 1960s, the French gave up and purchased American Pressurized Water
    Reactors designed by Westinghouse. Sticking to just one design meant
    the 56 plants were much cheaper to build than in the US. Moreover,
    management of safety issues was much easier: the lessons from any
    incident at one plant could be quickly learned by managers of the
    other 55 plants. The "return of experience" says Mandil is much
    greater in a standardized system than in a free for all, with many
    different designs managed by many different utilities as we have in
    America."

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html


    It may come to that.

    Thanks,

    Michael
     
  7. Ross Herbert

    Ross Herbert Guest

    :When the oil runs out, wind and solar are proven woefully inadequate,
    :and hydro is maxed out, it might be the only viable option.
    :
    :Maybe we should swallow our false pride and just ask Japan and France
    :how they're doing it.
    :
    :Cheers!
    :Rich


    The vested interests associated with the nuclear industry keep pushing,pushing,
    all the time to encourage greater use of nuclear power as an energy source
    (which I admit is very efficient in operation). They know that once this option
    is adopted, the huge costs involved in building and running power plants will
    virtually guarantee that no future government will close them down, so they try
    to sell prospective clients only the "good" aspects of the technology. It takes
    many years of operation in a densely populated area to recoup the costs of
    building, operating and maintaining a nuclear plant so closing one before around
    30 years of operation could result in huge losses - not to mention the cost of
    building an alternative source to replace it.

    Radioactive waste is a huge problem, particularly in small, densely populated
    countries. Despite the fact that glassification of nuclear waste (synroc) has
    been around for 30 years, There has only recently been one proposal to adopt it
    because of the high cost involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc

    The UK, for example, has been pressuring successive Australian governments for
    at least 10 years to accede to requests to accept and store nuclear waste from
    their nuclear plants. Because we have large unpopulated areas in the outback
    with stable geomorphology, we are seen as a pushover for this function. Once we
    had agreed to take the UK waste (the foot in the door) we would then be
    pressured to accept waste from other European countries. Australia will not be
    used as a waste dumping ground for other nuclear nations....
    http://www.anawa.org.au/waste/pangea.html
     
  8. Join the Amish ;-) They can!
     
  9. The barriers to tossing chunks of synroc into salt domes where they will
    be safe for many millions of years are political.

    Chunks of synroc can also be dumped into depleted uranium mines.
    Security requirement to prevent terrorists building a "dirty bomb" are
    greater for exhausted uranium mines than for salt domes however, since a
    salt dome merely requires plugging a roughly-mile-deep borehole and
    concrete is cheap. Monitoring against terrorists drilling down a mile
    should be cheap.

    - Don Klipstein ()
     
  10. krw

    krw Guest

    You obviously know nothing about the Amish. The place we bought our
    furniture from was off-grid, but had a pair of huge Cummins diesels
    in the back to power their workshop and salesroom. Others had
    natural gas piped through the showroom for lights. They also have
    cell phones and computers, just not for personal use.
     
  11. Standards are clearly falling! I am fairly certain that the Amish considered
    any technology later than about 1870 as the work of Satan. Maybe they have
    found a way out like (some of) the Jews in Antwerp that used the electric
    ring main around the city as the "Fenced Area" they must stick to during the
    Sabbath; some rabbi always phoned my ex-boss to ask ;-)
     
  12. Tim Williams

    Tim Williams Guest

    Like all beliefs, it's a variable thing... some are moderately Amish and
    into the business side, so they make exceptions for stuff like that. Not
    strictly right, but they do it anyway. Hey, it makes money and they still
    get to wear the cool beard and black clothes and hat. ;-)

    Tim
     
  13. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    Hey, if it works for you, go for it!

    Do they provide enough energy to charge up your electric car for a trip
    to, say, work, or maybe to the store?

    Thanks,
    Rich
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-