How can the US be labeled a polluter if we don't make anything anymore?

[Lancer]

Sava, I've been pro environment all along. It's you baby killers and anti military wimps that keep me firmly on the right.

Spiffor, Defiant, people should not be free to harm other people by their actions. Consider the anti smoking laws... I'm all for em. I should be free of some idiot poluting the air I breath. Also, the people living in those South Pacific islands that are going under water would still have a home if it weren't for polluters. Are those people free? I'm for personal responsability. We need to clean up our act and quit whining about it.

Defiant, I don't expect you to willingly give up your 4x4. I just expect you to give it up.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Lancer
Sava, I've been pro environment all along. It's you baby killers and anti military wimps that keep me firmly on the right.

anti-military? dude I'm for nuking Mecca and Medina... I want to kill our enemies... the ones that REALLY threaten us. I won't support sideshows like in Iraq.

Spiffor, Defiant, people should not be free to harm other people by their actions. Consider the anti smoking laws... I'm all for em. I should be free of some idiot poluting the air I breath. Also, the people living in those South Pacific islands that are going under water would still have a home if it weren't for polluters. Are those people free? I'm for personal responsability. We need to clean up our act and quit whining about it.

I'm also for public smoking bans... but not the fascist ones that the government is imposing on PRIVATE businesses.

Defiant, I don't expect you to willingly give up your 4x4. I just expect you to give it up.

he doesn't have to give it up... government policy would encourage (or force) companies to design better trucks and SUV's that are more fuel efficient (perhaps hybrids), or possible run from alternative fuels (I want my hydrogen cars dammit).

[Spiffor]

Lancer t you in this thread.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dissident
You think I want to drive my gas guzzlign Dodge Ram? Not with gas prices at $2 a gallon.

And now imagine 6$ a gallon, the equivalent of Britain's prices.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The problem with nuclear reactors is the waste. That stuff is going to be hot for a very long time.

I have a question about that, actually - I read in an article in Chemistry over the summer that the fuel rods are "depleted" when they are down to something like 90% (or was it 97%). Wouldn't it be possible to, instead of using rods, dissolve it into the water in the reactor, and periodically purify it? It would seem that would reduce waste a lot and make the fuel last a lot longer.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Dissident
edit: I was wrong. That has never happened before

I did not think the halflife was that long. But it is (700 billion years for U-235- the element used primarily (over 99% pure I believe) in navy nuclear reactors). Why then are they only designing the nuke waste dump in Nevada to only last 10,000 years?

perhaps we should not be using nuclear power- or at least fission. Excpet for military purposes.

There has to be a better way.

I believe U-235 half life is alot shorter than U-238 half live. U-238 form one isope of lead which only form from U-238 which they use to detime how old the earth by the ratio of the lead found with U-238.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by skywalker


I have a question about that, actually - I read in an article in Chemistry over the summer that the fuel rods are "depleted" when they are down to something like 90% (or was it 97%). Wouldn't it be possible to, instead of using rods, dissolve it into the water in the reactor, and periodically purify it? It would seem that would reduce waste a lot and make the fuel last a lot longer.

What they mean is the rod have too many impureity than need to be reprodust at than plant which extact the impure out of it like weapon grade Pu-239.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
You think I want to drive my gas guzzlign Dodge Ram? Not with gas prices at $2 a gallon.

Yup. As Adam Smith (the Poly poster) suggested, charge petrol at a price that reflects actual costs, and you'll get a lot of people switch to something much more effecient.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
I believe U-235 half life is alot shorter than U-238 half live. U-238 form one isope of lead which only form from U-238 which they use to detime how old the earth by the ratio of the lead found with U-238.

Google is your friend

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff


What they mean is the rod have too many impureity than need to be reprodust at than plant which extact the impure out of it like weapon grade Pu-239.

I know what they mean - the density of nuclear fuel to waste products is too low for a self-sustaining reaction - I was wondering about a possible solution.

[JohnT]

UR: $4.00 of taxes on a gallon of gasoline is not actual cost. It's $4.00 of taxes added on to actual cost.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
I have a question about that, actually - I read in an article in Chemistry over the summer that the fuel rods are "depleted" when they are down to something like 90% (or was it 97%). Wouldn't it be possible to, instead of using rods, dissolve it into the water in the reactor, and periodically purify it? It would seem that would reduce waste a lot and make the fuel last a lot longer.

IIRC, U238 is also called "depleted uranium." So what that means is after a while, the fuel rod runs out of U235, thus unable to sustain nuclear reactions. So as Charles pointed out, you need to reprocess the fuel rods at this point.

Just like most metal, uranium does not dissolve very well in water.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by JohnT
UR: $4.00 of taxes on a gallon of gasoline is not actual cost. It's $4.00 of taxes added on to actual cost.

Actual cost means the total cost, including $$$ to clean up the pollution.

[Kuciwalker]

Huh, I thought it did. I figured that the weight difference between the two would make it simple to sift out the U235.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by skywalker
Huh, I thought it did. I figured that the weight difference between the two would make it simple to sift out the U235.

The weight different isnot really that big to allow easy seperation of the two. The chemical prop of the Isop are the same as the some of the phyical prop are also. It than long involute worked to seperate then. Pu is very flameable and can inite itself on fire very easy. Pu is than very toxic metal which it you cut your finger on it they need to right way cut your entire arm off to save your life. Pu give off gamma radiation also.