What Do We Think About Climate Change

Yes, we are on the same side here. That is very refreshing. As a Nuke proponent, do not think for one second that I don't like wind and residential rooftop solar power.

But continuing the points....

First, reprocessing does not create high level waste, nor does it require transport. The only reason the material is being transported is political. In any case, transporting nuclear fuel should be done only by water. Underwater, two meters away from fuel grade material will completely protect you from radiation. The new methods/forms of nuclear fuel pellets and rods are very easy to safely transport. "Cleaning out" nuclear weapons by using them for fuel is the best (actually only) way to downgrade the material.

Second, I am glad you are not trying to alienate me with argument, but telling me I don't know what I am talking about instead of making point counterpoint kind of friks me off. I did my thesis on dispersion of radioactinides in groundwater, and I have visited the Yucca mountain site etc... or I would not have stonger opinions on it than what a railroad worker in Maine might have, despite you seeing the political ballyhoo associated with rail transport of radioactive material. Would you like some links to my students online lectures? Or is that wasting my time?

As far as the science takes us, Nuclear IS the lowest impact means. Do I support other forms of power? If I can't get the rednecks to stop lighting up their Wal-Marts like a roman candle, hell yes I do. Do I have paranoia of nuclear turbines born of hearing unreferencable sensationable media reports and watching rail transports? No. Do I know that damming rivers and other "clean" forms of energy productions also have their downsides? Yes. All aside, I wish that the coal-burner plant near my marina were nuclear. I wake up to a soot covered landscape every morning, despite it being a "clean" plant. I use a Four Winds generator for most of my juice, and I have a hideous set of panels set out on deck that are running the computer I am typing to you with (actually, I am probalby mostly on house battery, as it is rather overcast). Things like cars however take a lot of juice. I don't want cars in our society. I bet you do not. I could certainly go for using hydrocarbons in rail system if we were mature enough to shift to using trains and barge instead of SUV. We are going to be forced into a societal change, and that is that.

Wanna get into safety of nuclear power? A disaster involving the most ill-conceived power plant ever constructed, using no fuel packaging safety measures, using the crudest form of a nuclear pile, operating with no budget to speak of, guided by a closed and corrupt government melted down. One newspaper reported "over 20,000 dead:" although the number of known deaths had reached only 34 by 1995. An antinuclear activist has said that one pound of plutonium could kill eight billion people, although 10,000 pounds have been released into the atmosphere from weapons tests in the last 50 years enough by his estimate to kill everyone on earth several thousand times. Deaths from coal plant caused asthma (the most direct inarguable way to evaluate the mortality rate) was 3641 reported in the US last year. More people have been killed falling off the Hoover dam (NOTE: gratuitus meaningless strawman statistic for humour) or have had their lives shortened than have been killed by nuclear power. A modern bebblebed helium-cooled reactor powering a locomotive (as can be developed) would be perfectly safe. There is more danger in a gasoline-fueled vehicle. If you don't agree, fine, but at least let me invite you to investigate. If you want to use wind power to create a hydrogen society, you will not be running large locomotives on fuel cells in the near future, and cryofuels are inarguably the most dangerous thing you can pack into a moving vehicle. I would not want to be in the same county as a hydrogen plant....period. I love messing with my bi-propellant amature rockets, but I would not want to fly to work in one.

Want to see a society that uses nuclear power in the ways it should? Visit Europe. If it was not a good thing, it would never fly there. Facts are, Chernobyl ( a real accident) and 3-mile ( a non-event where containment functioned as designed and no danger was ever present) bolstered design practices and science greatly, improving the designs so significantly that modern facilities bear little resemblance to those plants.

 

Climate change is here it exists. We can say it is god's will or nature's will or my fault. Can we do anything about it? Will we do anything about the population problem? I don't think so.


Tag me as you will, remember my words or don't. I hope you really are aware of the 59th minute. I hope that you prosper and that the most optimistic of us is correct. I will continue to use my own eyes. I will continue believing my eyes and other senses, as you may or may not do (as realist perceive myself to be). I would rather you be right than I (as an honest man).

A deal is a deal, what tag(s) would you have me wear?

Party up,
Aristophanes

 

The oil companies support that assessment of hydrogen, that strait hydrogen used in an internal combustion engine (as opposed to the impracticality of fuel cells) is far too dangerous. Though, our current fuel tanks are far less safe than the current hydrogen tanks. I accept that nuke is a better option than fossil. However, I would not tread down the road of safety with fossil, nuke or hydrogen. Fear-mongering can start pointless wars, and the truth is that we can see how box knives can be as weapons of mass destruction. Low pressure hydrogen tanks are being used now. The fact is we need nuke and fossil, we can't function without it; we don't need hydrogen ... yet. It is the most abundant fuel in the universe: it can work as an economic base.

I am willing to listen to any ideas you have, and even buy into them prior to investigation, regarding a nuke economy. I am not being cleaver, I am really curious as I have simply never thought of it.


Seriously,
Aristophanes

 

How pray tell is hydrogen an abundant fuel? You must crack it out to get any here on earth. As for "low pressure" hydrogen tanks, what are you talking about? Hydrogen is either a cryofuel (liquid at a very very low temperature in tanks that must be kept heavily insulated but constantly gas off as they warm) or is a very very non-dense gas that cannot be contained in any sort of reasonable sized fuel container (unless you are in a blimp). It is a storage medium, not an energy source. Period. As for fuel cells, they are not impractical at all, they are simply costly.
As far as other factors, a typical nuclear plant produces about 18gwh. That is equal to the annual output of 1184 wind turbines in location such as Wichita or Corpus Christi. It is equal to the output of 2617 large turbines in Chicago. Some areas, you just can't use them.
The average wind farm right now is under 20 turbines.

 

Ya gotta admit, Jim, that was funny as hell.

As soon as I have all the answers, I'll let you guys know. Until then, I'm glad to have such a diverse group to learn from. Personally, I think nuclear is the way to go - it's too bad uninformed (or blatantly antisocial) "activists" are taken at face value. Yeah, it's nasty stuff. Yeah, we can deal with that. Hell, electricity can be nasty, too, if you touch it, but my home is FULL of wires. Gasoline is dangerous as hell, but every day clueless teenyboppers handle thousands of gallons of it.

Regarding birds vs. windmills - it was decided on another forum that only the slow and dullwitted ones would fall victim, so overall, it's good for the species to cull the dullards.

 

first,,,doesnt the water ONLY protect for the short term?,, and i didnt say you didnt know,,what i said was there are no facts behind it,, only opinion,,,,and i am not a rail worker,,,it would be a "half owner" of the calias branch railroad.
and ya,,since ya put it that way,,a link would be just a waste of time,,,,and i think i would look more towards facts,, not a students thesis or their opinion in lecture form,,,,,like i said,,,there is no difference in how the #'s are thrown out there except 1 side is on the + side by far,, and the other on the - side,,,,now for put downs since thats seems to be the way you wanna go,,,
and i have no "political" mess goin on in my head,,,trust me,,,,im so far from political its funny,,,,i dont do politics,,,never have never will,, and i dont do propaganda from ANYONE,,,so get the usual " oh the politics have got ya scared" crap comeback,,,,it doesnt work with me.
and i know all bout Chernobyl ,,and how it was so exaggerated,,and ive seen the "today" reality,,,and i never once brought them up,,or 3 mile,,,i brought up the statistics,,and there isnt any arguing with the math,, you can do it on paper,,or get 1 of ya students too . its like all things,,,once the #'s start multiplying,,then theres a problem.,,,,and why you so stuck on an energy source that we all know ,,,even ya students,, could potentially kill thousands,, when theres a safer way??
and you keep on this ,,"new technology" kick,,,,well,,,,look at the stealth bomber,,look at a WW1 vintage plane,,,,big difference huh?,,look hard,,,,,now tell me which 1 is safer when ya computer bluescreens and IT no longer flies the plane.
i still think the only way to progress,, is to do it in a way that it doesnt harm people or the earth,,,,and when your talking about dangerous material,,,there is ALWAYS a chance for a very bad "killoff" ,,,,its funny that a person that shouts the loudest about how smart he is,,,,thinks in such simple manners,,to even think that you can bury anything,, and it will always be safe there,,is too simple to be a person of your high status,,,,,,,now because you know a little bout nuclear energy,, you think its the "way to go" ,,, well,,,,,i dont want my kids having to figure out what to do with our "dumps" because its making them all have 3 legs and 1 eye.,,,there are multitudes of SAFE ways,,( ask ya students,,they can look it up fer ya) to produce energy,,,,to do it any other way is just puttin off the burden to our grandchildren.,,,,and thats why i think nuclear energy suks< see you did change my mind,,now i dont even think it should be used at all.


although 10,000 pounds have been released into the atmosphere from weapons tests in the last 50 years enough by his estimate to kill everyone on earth several thousand times.<<<<< now how are you so SURE that all that crap up there hasnt harmed us,,,,,it seems theres alot of bad diseases out there that growing faster then our population,,,,,,,but i bet ya got a doc in that class room that says all this cancer or others are caused by smoking or whatever,,,,,,,,( even though we all know most are genetic passed down to us,,,,hmmmm)
see your # is 1 sided,,,your quoting a dude that was to the FAR side,,,,,the last thing i saw on the discovery channel<<gotta watch cause i aint to smat on reedin,,,,showed ALOT of problems caused by the fallout from that testing,,,in fact,,,aint the tax payers paying the families of them poor dudes that were there?
see,,,its easy to pick apart crap,,,,,but to be open minded, and FACTUAL in your "opinion" takes a more smartah person den me
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, next time you put down a maine railworker,,,,,,,think bout how many stupid@ss teachers would die if it wasnt for them "dumb workers",,,,,,,,im true yankee dude,,,so we'll end this now,,,i actually thought youd have more of a head on ya shoulders then you've shown,,,but then again,, im usually way wrong
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,wowz,,,look at all those red squiggly lines,,,,id fix it,,but then that would be like cheating from my students papers,,and i just cant figure out how this spillchecka werx,,,hehe

 

and ya tinz,,,that was funny,,,,even funnier,,,,i only got to 2cnd grade

 

I was hoping for a discussion on a nuke economy. I will gladly accept (for the sake of finding out what I want to know) that nuke is the only option(THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, I KNOW). I do not ask you this question as an insult or with any intention of a jab. I really think that you may have considered this and may have an answer: How do we create a nuke economy? Do you have a plan that I can sell to the other nonbelievers? Is this us just spending time jawing? The last I checked this was an oligarchy, we better find a way of making everyone a little money and the rich a lot. If this is not your thing, cool. Finding and spinning stats and research is more fun to most and I will be the first to admit that I am as guilty as the rest of having bias (I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU ARE SPINNING). If we were committed to making nuke work and I was as invested as you are in it, where to we start?


To save time I have typed in upper case after your comments. again my only interest is your take on a nuke economy.


How pray tell is hydrogen an abundant fuel? ...... WATER
You must crack it out to get any here on earth. ..TIDAL, SOLAR, NUKE & WIND

As for "low pressure" hydrogen tanks, what are you talking about?

Hydrogen is either a cryofuel (liquid at a very very low temperature in tanks that must be kept heavily insulated but constantly gas off as they warm) or is a very very non-dense gas that cannot be contained in any sort of reasonable sized fuel container (unless you are in a blimp).... HYDROGEN (NON FUEL CELL CARS APPEAR IN CALIFORNIA & ARIZONA SHELL HAS HYDROGEN FUEL STATION IN BOTH PLACES

It is a storage medium, not an energy source.... AGREED, AS IS OIL COAL, WIND AND (AND PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME ARGUE IT) NUKE


Period. As for fuel cells, they are not impractical at all, they are simply costly....
(CURRENTLY) HUGE CARBON FOOTPRINT IN MANUFACTURING, HENCE DEFEATS PURPOSE

As far as other factors, a typical nuclear plant produces about 18gwh. That is equal to the annual output of 1184 wind turbines in location such as Wichita or Corpus Christi. It is equal to the output of 2617 large turbines in Chicago. Some areas, you just can't use them.
The average wind farm right now is under 20 turbines. I AM FINE WITH THOSE STATS, NOW TURN IT INTO AN ECONOMY. I BELIEVE IT CAN BE DONE BUT I DON'T SEE HOW. CREATE JOBS FOR ME.

Aristophanes

 

the1much,

I didn't invite you to view my thesis...which is a scientific paper by the way, and one that was quite harshly reviewed. I invited you to view lesson plans on the science as it is currently understood.
Next, I have not made mention of new technology in the light of making future developments, only of the CURRENT state of technology. With your statements that you only look at "facts" you allude to the assumption that I do not, and that any data that I cite (and as a scientist I cite my sources) cannot be use to form educated opinions and is not based on observed phenomenon and interperted data. Since you do not present any data for me, and you do not look or even consider looking at the data I present, then we are not conducting a forum...you are just preaching. I do not go for the preaching thing, I engage in this so that I can have my own opinions challenged by the presentation of data for me to consider in light of the data I present in a debate. That is not happening with you, so I will refrain to bother reading your posts.

 

hahaha,,,,ya..o.k. thank-you,,,,and i still might send ya a x-mas card

 

No, no spin, just making the argument that Nuke is not what some folks think it is.
We have an infrastructure that supports nuclear as an option right now. We are using it as a mainstream power source right now. Some countries it is the primary source. As far as the politics, they must change obviously. We can't be treating material that can be 95% recycled into cladded reprocessed fuel as waste and hauling it around. That is dumb. We need better political options for using the PUREX process that allow transparency for all nations to see that the process isn't used for enrichment, and to allow all to benefit from the reprocessing.
Using Nuclear on the road? If you go all nuclear, you have a direct step for EPRI batteries on the road. Obviously, a social plan would require a shift from sprawl to centralization, and the obvious requirement for rail to be the ultimate primary transport. This is most difficult here in the US. This is something that has to be pushed with a social program of zoning and the like. It will happen eventually anyway.
"
How pray tell is hydrogen an abundant fuel? ...... WATER"

Water is a fuel? No. Water is a solvent, but not a fuel. To elements as you know make up a water molecule. This is an extremely well bonded little molecule. It releases a lot of power when it is made, and takes an equally great amount of power to break it apart. Methane, where we get almost all of our hydrogen, only takes about 1/3 of the energy to crack. Hydrogen from natural gas isn't where we want to be though, is it? We need to crack water right? Well that has an efficiency of about 64% to do. Doing a simpler reaction to store electricity (using electrolyte acid in a battery) is more efficient. Total power plant masses, not to mention road safety currently leans more to the "plug in" car crowds ideas than anything else.


"You must crack it out to get any here on earth. ..TIDAL, SOLAR, NUKE & WIND"
Agreed. But you need not crack it twice. I am saying as a storage medium it IS less efficient. We use it in rockets because of how energetic the reaction is, and it's fuel density. This lets us get a LOT of thrust very quickly in a rocket, even though it isn't all that efficient. In that situation, rapid acceleration is the key to efficiency. Quite different reason for using LOX/LH.

As for "low pressure" hydrogen tanks, what are you talking about?

"Hydrogen is either a cryofuel (liquid at a very very low temperature in tanks that must be kept heavily insulated but constantly gas off as they warm) or is a very very non-dense gas that cannot be contained in any sort of reasonable sized fuel container (unless you are in a blimp).... HYDROGEN (NON FUEL CELL CARS APPEAR IN CALIFORNIA & ARIZONA SHELL HAS HYDROGEN FUEL STATION IN BOTH PLACES"

I know this well. That does not mean that it is a particularly great storage medium compared to the current generation of batteries.

"It is a storage medium, not an energy source.... AGREED, AS IS OIL COAL, WIND AND (AND PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME ARGUE IT) NUKE"

True, but we have enough radioactinides here on Earth in easy reach to last about 5 billion years. This equates to the life expectancy of the sun.


"Period. As for fuel cells, they are not impractical at all, they are simply costly....
(CURRENTLY) HUGE CARBON FOOTPRINT IN MANUFACTURING, HENCE DEFEATS PURPOSE" excellent point. I don't know about defeats, but certainly a concern

As far as other factors, a typical nuclear plant produces about 18gwh. That is equal to the annual output of 1184 wind turbines in location such as Wichita or Corpus Christi. It is equal to the output of 2617 large turbines in Chicago. Some areas, you just can't use them.
The average wind farm right now is under 20 turbines. I AM FINE WITH THOSE STATS, NOW TURN IT INTO AN ECONOMY. I BELIEVE IT CAN BE DONE BUT I DON'T SEE HOW. CREATE JOBS FOR ME.

Nuke economy? As I said, it is already part of the economy. You could regulate it into being the energy monopoly. There are plenty of Nuke associations that have plans and contingencies that you could read up on online, but none of it is much of a stretch. Infrastructure supports it much better than it does wind or solar. If all we had was wind and solar, and we were each alloted 1kw a day energy, I could deal with that. Nuke will be there however. Science does not support stopping it's use. I am pretty sure it will be used and it will grow ever more important.

Thanks for your feedback.

 

here comes "hydrogen is the most abundant element on earth,,therefore, the most abundant fuel which partially sustains itself by producing water" spiel ,,,foolish greenies,,,hehe

 

Nuclear has been demonised and is widely misunderstood. I think that we will come to realise that radioactivity is not all bad, believe it or not. I have read of one study that suggests populations living in areas of higher background radio activity are healthier... not an expected find. We live on a radioactive planet and to a degree it is a part of our environment, it seems that, like most things, a little is good, alot is bad. Some where around 55 people died from Chernobyl, that is all in what was a really bad event. Animals are living in the dead zone quite well, scientists are studying them and finding higher levels of radio activity but they seem to be finding less damage than they expected. Oddly the event might yet turn out to be net positive, by that I mean the lessons learned could be very constructive.

Nuclear has had allot of bad press, I would suggest mostly born of competitive pressure. Under these circumstances its hard to form an objective view of the real risks.... the French seem to have managed quite well.

Do you know that coal power stations pump out more radio active material than Nuclear... or so I am told.

There are greater evils than nuclear, I think the area is also ripe for technical advances in shall we say `materials handling`... it would not surprise me if we advance in this area somehow.

I'm not pro, not anti and mostly uninformed like most people I suspect... after all this one "is rocket science"!

If hot Russian chicks on motor bikes do it for you; Kid of Speed - Riding the Dead Zone. A look at the Chernobyl area.

 

As I understand it and simply, the trouble with hydrogen is that it takes energy to make it, its effectively a storage medium, a battery, not a source.... we still need a source.

 

i think we need to look into this "sausage" energy,,hehe