<
[email protected]> wrote in message
You should investigate how much diesel goes into producing the uranium
to fuel the reactor. Uranium is very plentiful, but the yield is very
low. Eventually you make back the energy in producing the fuel, but
it's not like the fuel is free. Now if we had reprocessing plants, the
math would be more favorable, but reprocessing is very messy.
I used to be pro-nuclear until I read Dr. Helen Caldicot's "Nuclear
Power is not the Answer.". One thing I hadn't realized is nuclear
plants have to release gas periodically. The amount of radiation
released is very small, probably less than that of a coal plant, but
it isn't the closed loop system everyone makes it out to be.
OMG did you manage to read the whole thing?
You might want to read a few other books before you abandon
"pro-nuclear"
Yes, I read the whole book. Not sure when you went to college, but "in
the day" the BSEE required a class in thermodynamics. I got the
Babcock and Wilcox indoctrination. I was around for the claim of
nuclear power being so cheap they wouldn't meter it. I was also near
TMI when the accident occurred.. As time passed, much of the cover-up
of the event was declassified. [Shocker: the government lies!] I was
went from pro to neutral to probably negative. There is no solution
for the nuclear waste. Worse yet, there is plenty of nuclear waste
stored at the reactor sites that is not in any containment vessel.
They let the rods cool a bit before even considering transferring them
offsite, and we now know Yucca Mountain will not be opened.
Get the book and read the other side's opinion. Calecott's book is
well documented. It considers the entire "food chain" of nuclear
power. I didn't even bring up the power needed to enrich the fuel. It
is hard to get a number on this since over the years the centrifuge
technology has become more efficient. As you probably know, the
uranium for the WWII nukes was enriched at Oakridge due to the
availability of cheap coal power.
Basically, nuclear power isn't nearly all that it is cracked up to be.
I rather have more wind and solar, plus conservation. Sure, it chops
up little birdies, but hey, you need to break some eggs to make an
omlet.
Oh I have the book, I just haven't finished reading it. But I do have a
"issues" with some of what I have read so far. I also have "the new
nuclear
danger" and have a few problems with that as well, although I haven't
finished writing down the problems I have with it.
Umm, reprocessing would eliminate 90% of the "waste", including the
water-soluble Actinides and Lanthanides. Using the the Integral Fast
Reactor, (or an updated version thereof), that was designed
specifically to meet President Carter's request/order for a
proliferation-proof reactor design would perform the reprocessing on-
site. If I'm not mistaken, the "spent" fuel transfer could be
performed almost entirely by remote control.
But, of course, a Presidential Executive Order forbids reprocessing.
Why? Precisely because it is so cheap already that the United State
uranium mining industry is shutdown. Fuel in the Integral Fast
Reactor, (solid rods in a design that cannot cause a core meltdown, by
the way), can be reprocessed until 90% of their initial radioactivity
has been "burned up" in the generation of power instead the 9% that is
used in "conventional" light water reactors that throw away the
remaining 91% of the available radioactivity as (only very slightly
considering it very small volume) problematic "waste".
Well Helen seems a little short on numbers when it doesnt suit her. But
then, she also writes "facts" from unnamed dead people, which makes some of
her "facts" a little hard to check up on. She talks about Depleted uranium
in bombs... I've never heard of a bomb with DU in it (which doesnt mean
there isnt one of course. anyone?). And "Contrary to accepted norms of
wartime behavior, the U.S. attacked colums of retreating Iraqi soldiers-"
accepted?. by who? when? which war was that?
Nuclear power plants do occasionally have to release a tiny amount of
radioactive gas, (usually tritium IIRC), - one day I spent 10 minutes
getting some cleaned off of my new and statically-charged plastic
"bump" cap. But you're right, it is infinitesimal when compared to
the constant radioactive releases in the smoke from from coal-burning
power plants.
I like hydro-electric and wind power solutions, too. I especially
like smaller, individual-sized options. But I agree that those
massive dams could provide equally massive amounts of electricity for
many decades while causing less environmental damage that the coal,
oil, or gas-fired power plants required to provide an equal amount of
electricity.
