On Sun, 2001-11-25 at 22:21, Dexter Graphic wrote: > Here are some questions for all you energy optimists to consider: > > Nuclear energy > --------------- > > Where are you going to put the radioactive waste and who is going to watch over it >for the next 100,000 years? > 100,000 years is a long time. Most of the isotopes from fission are way less than that. And since only 20% of the uranium fuel is actually used during the life of a fuel rod, refining the fuel, which is not now economically feasible due to the abundance of fuel presently available, would mean less to store. And I favor delivering the long-term stuff to the sun once we figure out how to do so cheaply (and safely). At present, there is a new approved site called Yucca Mountain that will provide storage for spent fuel for many decades. While we figure out how to sustain fusion reactions.
> How much will storage and long term security cost? And what about the inevitable >accidents and cleanup? Hmmm. Jobs=money=economic growth. Nuclear accidents are few and far between, and usually not very significant even when termed "severe". > > How will you mine, process, and transport the Uranium when oil costs over $150 per >barrel? We have lots of refined uranium. There is no market for it right now since there is way more than will be needed in the next several decades. Remember, it doesn't take very much to produce a reactor that will generate many megawatts of energy. Older nuclear subs had something like 30 ro 40 pounds of U235. That would power the boat for over 5 years. > > Will it still be possible to build a nuclear power plant then? And who will be >willing to invest all that money? > Yes. > How will the end of cheap oil effect the overall operating expenses and final cost >per megawatt from nuclear energy? > Less demand for oil will result in lower prices. Lubricating oil and diesel fuel for emergency generators (which I think ought to be converted to Propane or Natural Gas) is all that will be needed. > How long will our supply of uranium last? (It's a very rare element and hard to >extract without modern technology.) > An awfully long time. It is not particularly rare. Breeder reactors can produce U235 which is used for fuel, but there are also U238 reactors, and that stuff is rather abundant. > How would you like to go work in a uranium mine with a pick and a shovel? (I figure >that's what they'll do with criminals > instead of executing them.) Like I said before, without oil our entire industrial >society stops dead in its tracks. Time to change to Nuclear, wouldn't you think? Like also said earlier, lubricants have a VERY long life, and can be reused ad nauseum with proper filtration and purification. There is really no need to discard lubricating oil in machinery unless it is exposed to VERY high temperatures. The problem with oil is that we BURN most of it one way or the other as fuel. Lubrication does not consume oil. No thanks. I'd need to have a good geiger counter. The gamma rays from naturally occurring uranium are very low evergy and hard to detect. Some neutron activity occurs. The real hazard from uranium mining is from decay products like Radon and Radium (which are in the natural decay chain for Uranium). It is not particularly difficult to guard against exposure. > > Renewable energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, hydrogen, etc.) I would love to see us explore these alternative sources. If we could capture all the energy from sunlight on just one square mile, during one day, we would have way more energy than we could use in a century. But right now, the conversion is very low in efficiency. Although newer photocells are being designed every day, they still don't produce enough current, and they sure as heck don't work at night (grin). Batteries are also getting better by leaps and bounds, which will help with solar power that is directly converted to electricity. And whether or not this is specific to euglug, I will say that I am enjoying the discourse, and have heard from others who seem interested. If someone else complains, I will be happy to stop. Regards, Jim > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > These are fine on a very limited scale but they don't even come close to matching >the millions of years of solar energy > collected and stored in fossil fuels. Most of these technologies are energy sinks >that will never come close to producing the > amount of energy we currently consume to run our industrial society. They might come >in handy after the crash, if anyone > survives the petroleum wars. The other 5.5 billion people are not going to sit there >and die quietly while the US and Europe > finishes off what's left of the oil. > > Another question: how are you going to build fuel cells, photovoltaic panels, wind >turbines, electric cars, etc. without the > cheap energy and massive industrial capabilities we now enjoy? It's going to be >blacksmiths and mules all over again. > > > If you want to explore this topic further please start with the web site I >recommended and do a little research from there. > http://www.dieoff.com/synopsis.htm > > You are welcome to e-mail me privately about this, but I thing we are getting too >far a field for the EUGLUG list. > > Dexter Graphic > > What's the difference between ignorance and apathy? > ...I don't know and I don't care! > > > >
