Alternative Power Sources?

[geeslaka]

The reason why nuclear waste is a problem is because the US government was pulling the rods out every year or two to harvest any plutonium that might be in them to build bombs. The plutonium harvesting process makes the rods unusable afterwards. Diss, do you know (read: substantiate) how long the plants were designed to have the fuel rods left in for? My brother researched it several years ago and he remembers that they were supposed to be left in for 25-30 years.

[Dis]

that sounds about right.

Back in the 50's and 60's the technology and science just wasn't there to design long lasting rods. The Enterprise's first core only lasted about 5 years. Despite the fact our new core has the same physical dimensions, our new core is rated for about 20 years.

It all depends on how you disperse the uranium and boron? (I can barely remember now- it's a material used to absorb neutrons) to get a good even and efficient power distribution throughout the entire core.

Even though Yucca mountain has seismic activity, it isn't much. It's not like we live in California. I do believe the waste will be okay there. The main concern is that the waste will decay enough so that when it eventually does reach the ground water (and it eventually will), the radiactivity is almost nill. As of now not many people use the groundwater. But all the rural communities and small towns use groundwater. Armagosa valley and such. Las Vegas uses river/lake water from the Colorado river/Lake Mead. No one cares about the hicks out there in the boonies

But the main problem with Yucca mountain, is we already have enough waste to fill the designed capability of it Yucca hasn't even opened yet, but we still need another facility.

All I know is I'm sure the Enterprises fuel rods are still stored in Newport News shipbuilding in a pool of water. I'd rather they be stored even in my state than be there. I always wondered what would happen if a plane crashed into the exact building where the Enterpriese's fuel rods are stored.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

. . . and lizards can't vote.

You mean lizards are disenfranchised?

[geeslaka]

I always wondered what would happen if a plane crashed into the exact building where the Enterpriese's fuel rods are stored.

Something a lot worse than what would happen if they were properly stored. We need to stop dithering and blathering and put the waste in the facilities we have before something like that happens.

[The Mad Monk]

I really like the idea of being electrically self-sufficient.

If I buy a house, I definately plan on setting up a few rotary bird blenders in the backyard.

[Dis]

I agree

but my state is still fighting it

actually many people are saying we should stop wasting money and concede, and that we should instead concentrate on getting financial compensation from the federal goverment.

But even without further state interference, it will still take many years before any high level waste starts moving.

[The Mad Monk]

You like rotary bird blenders too?

[geeslaka]

My state is fighting it too. Stupid mormons.

[Dis]

me?

It seems like wind power should be more efficient, but I'll have to take MTG's word on it

I saw many of them along the straights of Gibralter. I imagine they get a ton of wind out there.

[The Mad Monk]

They don't work very well as giant wind farms, because of the factors already noted. I've had lots of good reports for single home / small farm use.

[The Mad Monk]

http://www.wind-power.com/

[The Mad Monk]

This is pretty damn cool, too:

http://www.bergey.com/

[Spiffor]

Oerdin:

- Re nuclear recycling: that's what is done in France. We have a specialized factory that works on nuclear waste, so that 90% of it can be reused (of course, this still leaves 10% pure waste), and so that the real waste gives less immediate dangers IIUC. If you are interested, you may check for more precise info about the "treatment factory of La Hague" (not to be confused with the Dutch capitol)

- Re clean coal: according to what I've read in the document I linked to earlier (EDF is France's public energy company), "clean coal" reduces emissions of many nasty things (spectacular reduction of sulfur emissions), but has not such a huge effect on CO₂. This means 'clean' coal continues to spill greenhouse gases big time, even though I've read somewhere else it was now cleaner than fuel.

- About how much coal should be burnt to get the output of the 3 gorges dam... If you know the performance, would it be possible for you to calculate the amount, just for fun ?

Well, according to the chart I posted earlier in the thread, the 3 Gorges Dam would produce 336,000 tons of CO₂ a year. To match this output with coal would produce 82,320,000 tons of CO₂ a year
Wow, if there's a market for CO₂, I'm sure the coal factories would have very much to sell. 82 megatons, sigh.

[The Mad Monk]

The problem is, when you burn coal you're mainly burning carbon, and the safest product of carbon combustion is CO₂. There's not much you can do to get around that.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
The problem is, when you burn coal you're mainly burning carbon, and the safest product of carbon combustion is CO₂. There's not much you can do to get around that.

What about stop burning coal ?
Or maybe there could be ways to capture and to recycle the emissions, so that the process becomes at least more productive for the same amount of greenhouse pollution. I've read there has been an attempt similar to this in Italy, where the emissions of a high chimney were converted for very significant energy production (something like 5,000 gWh a year)