On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 01:24:27PM -0700, Bob Axtell wrote:
> No, uranium 235 does NOT occur naturally, and must be intensely refined 
> by centrifuge and/or filtering. 

Which is why one of the most successfull nuke designs used today, the
CANDU reactor, doesn't bother with it. It runs off unenriched uranium
straight from the ground, much more efficient, and there is far more
unenriched uranium around, to the point where the current stockpiles of
it, let alone stuff in the ground, is enough to last us for at least a
decade or two.

Also you can burn thorium in CANDU reactors as well, and thorium is
extremely common. India is currently pursueing an ambition project to
figure out how to do this on a large scale, as they have the second
highest reserves of thorium in the world. (tied with the US, just after
australia)

Source: wikipedia-candu

> No, more misconceptions. This energy was trapped when the original 
> star-stuff was created after the "Big Bang". When
> we tinker with it and generate electricity, we release enormous amounts 
> of heat. And more heat we DO NOT
> need. Remember the one about global warming?
> 
> > Or keep breathing poisoned air and deal with the storms, rising oceans, and
> > OPEC.
> >   
> Again, a short list of serious problems with nuclear power generation:
> 
> 1. The fuel is costly to acquire and concentrate enough to be made 
> useable. Sources of yellow cake are becoming
> harder and harder (Do ya think maybe that "harder to find"  = higher 
> costs?) to locate. The best source now is
> Nigeria... an ISLAMIC country. Sounds like costly oil all over again, 
> doesn't it?  We just CAN'T catch a break, can
> we?



> 2. Despite a lot of interesting ideas, storing spent fuel long enough 
> for it to be rendered inert still seems to be insolvable.
> Hasn't been solved in 60 years. well, maybe we will get lucky somehow.

Politically we haven't found a solution, scientificly we have. There are
*lots* of geologically stable places. As mentioned below, we've already
had to deal with this issue before with even more toxic things.

> 4. There is absolutely NOTHING about solar energy used in this way that 
> is complex or leading edge. Nothing tricky
> in any way, except MAYBE making sure the mirrors don't accidentally 
> point toward an airplane flying over...

Or more importantly, making it cheap and economical. Good luck on that
one.

If it were easy, people would be doing it already.

Fundementally the problem is that coal and oil are just too cheap. End
of story. No amount of well-wishing will make things different until the
economy is forced to take into account the externalities involved from
CO2 production.

> My philosophy of life is that I must NOT leave a big mess for my 
> children to forced to deal with. And nuclear power
> is about the biggest mess POSSIBLE.
 
Nah, a really concentrated mess, which, with some unfortunately
expensive reprocessing, can be made no more radioactive as the stuff was
when it came out of the ground in the first place.

The entierty of the high-level radioactive waste in the whole world from
*all* sources, including the massive amounts of waste developed to
support the nuclear weapons programs, would fit in an office building.

Up in Yellowknife where my parents live, there is that much volumn of
highly toxic arsenic-trioxide sitting underground from a *single* gold
mine. Did I mention the damn stuff is water-soluable too?

Source: http://nwt-tno.inac-ainc.gc.ca/giant/atg_e.html

Not to imagine the huge amounts of other far more deadly stuff than
arsnic that get dumped... Nuclear waste is the least of our concerns.
>From a waste handlers perspective, it's really easy to work with because
it's trival to detect, if it's dangerous, a gieger counter will start
beeping. Done. Seal it off. If it's really dangerous, IE hot, it must
have a short half-life, so soon (IE decades) it'll be a whole lot safer
than it was.

That arsnic mentioned above has to be sealed for eternity, it will
*never* become safe. Ever. The same is true for anything containing
heavy metals, like lead. Nuclear waste is pretty tame stuff by
comparison.

Heck, ever wondered why Hiroshima and Nagasaki are now thriving cities?

> Wow, I am getting too old for this...

Well, I guess at 21, I'm just young enough... :)

-- 
pete@petertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist