Folks, the demands on nuclear saftey are still paramount. While
accidents are few and far between, when they happen they can be really
bad. So stewardship of safety cannot be surrendered to technological
advances. Yet, it does not need to take 10 years for a design review or
environmental impact statement either. One of the main issues is what
to do with the waste by streams. Yeah, there is tryin to be a Yucca Mt
here ont he weapons range. But that was for 77000 metric tonnes of junk
and that did not include the power reactor stuff. All of those water
storage pools are being filled up and when full, then what? And of
course in today's environment, the storage facility must be secure to
keep the bad guys from obtaining the junk for dirty bombs. In a sane
world that would not be an issue, but today is not sane...
So nuclear has some issues still to overcome. Fusion may or may not make
it to power production. And it is not a non waste producer, lol... Power
comes from all those nuetrons being slowed down toheat water nd those do
indeed cause some radioactivity to be imparted. Just not as severe as
fission. Please note also the Sandia Labs in Albequerque have actually
gotten cold fusion to work, at least to the point of finding helkium by
products produced from fusion reactions. So maybe somethin will
eventually come thrpugh that portal. But what we gonna do tomorrow? we
will use alternative fuels that can be run in our existing vehicles. Bio
diesel, alcohol, natural gass, and maybe some electrical systems will be
used all in suppor tof each other. I don't think the use of petroleum
will ever get to the op[oint where the gov say we cannot use it, it will
just get so expensive that the common man cannot afford it. It will
still be available for special needs just at a high price.
mayf
Stephen Waybright wrote:
>I don't understand why the neclear option doesn't surface more often in the
>energy dialog. Technology has come a long long way since the last Nuc plant
>design and I don't hear a bunch of issues about the existing plants.
>
>I'm also excited by the potential of Algea based bio-deisel fuel. That seems
>extremely promising.
>
>- Stephen Waybright
>
>--- On Mon, 6/16/08, Rense, Mark (GE Indust, ConsInd) <mark.rense@ge.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>From: Rense, Mark (GE Indust, ConsInd) <mark.rense@ge.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Tigers] BMW gas (not gasoline)
>>To: tigers@autox.team.net
>>Date: Monday, June 16, 2008, 3:29 PM
>>You are correct, it is not a smart thing to do from an
>>energy balance
>>point of view...today. However, if you had a large amount
>>of cheap and
>>clean electrical power from solar, wind or..dare I
>>say...nuclear to
>>convert, process and compress hydrogen, then using H2 as an
>>energy
>>transfer medium makes sense.
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
>
>You are subscribed as drmayf@mayfco.com
>
>Tigers@autox.team.net
>http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
>
>http://www.team.net/archive
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Tigers@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
http://www.team.net/archive
|