> Sounds like a good idea, but its been thought of before. I > wonder why they have never done it before... > or will they actually do it now? Sounds pretty expensive to > me....Store it at a cost of billions, or spread it around at > the cost of billions. Nuke plants in operation since 1950 > still store their offal in tanks under the plants. So the > REAL costs of operating nuke plants hasn't even begun, has it? The problem is political not real. The cost is high because people have been scared into excessive regulation, safety measures that are unnecessary and away from solutions that are obvious, cheap and effective. > > It needs to be chopped up and spread out over the area > where it was > > originally mined. Or dropped in the ocean. For pete sake, its > > radiation, we get it from the sun, from the earth, from the water, > > everywhere. It just isn't that big a deal. Manage it, deal with it, > > get over it. > > > No, uranium 235 does NOT occur naturally, and must be > intensely refined by centrifuge and/or filtering. Err... Could you please check your facts on that one? I'm pretty darn sure it does. But in very small amounts and well spread out. Again, disposal of radio-active waste, 235 or any other, could easily and safely be accomplished by just spreading it thin. > 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? Bob, you are smarter than that. Global warming couldn't begin to be caused by our tiny release of heat into the world. It is caused by the release of green house gasses which trap more heat in the air, preventing its radiation into space. If we were not polluting with fossil fuels, any additional heat we polluted with would self correct very quickly. > 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? Many other sources of non-traditional nuke fuel are available. > 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. It HAS been solved, but the solution is politically unacceptable because our people are stupid, our leaders are gutless, and the oil cartels are effective mind washers. > 3. Nuclear power plants are costly to operate and costly to maintain. > The pressure vessels become damaged (made > brittle) by the radiation and must be periodically > replaced... and the old ones cut up and buried. There is some truth in this, but a lot of the cost is in unnecessary regulation and safety equipment required by a frightened public. > Now, I have rained on your parade. I do so because there is a > viable alternative. > > I (and many others) have had the solution since I was a kid. > Solar energy. Not with photovoltaic's; they presently use up > more energy to make than they generate. No, just raw solar > heat energy. Oh! Bob.. Please... Think about that for 3 seconds and then try again. I know you are much more intelligent than that statement makes you seem. As an example, I have a system on my roof right this moment that generated $1,400 of electricity last year. It cost $21,000 installed (before the rebates) so it will pay for itself in 15 of its 25 year lifespan. Actually it will pay for itself in 10 years because of the federal and state incentives. If the panels generated less power than it took to make them, how could that ever be possible? See: http://www.massmind.org/other/solar/case1.htm > Imagine a 10 square mile area of the Arizona desert - > probably Indian land, since there is so much unused. Rainfall > here is less than 5 inches a year, and the sun shines with > incredible intensity here all year long. Concentrate sunlight > with simple parabolic mirrors made of stainless steel, and > heat water into steam, and spin turbines. Just like a nuke > plant, but no nuclear material, no containment vessel, no > spent fuel. Disadvantages? Well, the sun goes down every day, > but there is a simple solution for that too. Here's MY list: > > 1. We have calculated that a solar plant that can capture 5 > square miles of desert sunlight will generate enough > electricity to meet the electrical needs of the USA even as > the needs expand for the next 50 years. > > 2. Excessive capacity will be used to breakdown water into > oxygen and hydrogen, which will be first stored to generate > heat for running some turbines at night, providing the grid > with energy during the night. Excess hydrogen will be shipped > to special "gas stations" that will provide fuel for the > thing that will power cars. AND this hydrogen will be CHEAP. > The burning of hydrogen and oxygen produces ONLY water, NO > carbon dioxide. > > 3. No extra heat is created when using solar energy, as it > would have fallen on the desert anyway. Its OUR sunlight, not > imported from Saudi Arabia. > > 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... > > No, instead of doing it right, the American public is being > "forced" to use nuclear power because "its our best hope". > I sure hope people wise up. This isn't being pushed much > because it is just too simple for words... I can only hope you are right. That all sounds good. The only concern I can think of is transmission losses to other areas, but that is probably not a big deal. But the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Big oil is stopping your solar plant just as surly as it stopped my nuke plant. And for the same reasons. Rather than fight about which is better, lets pool our resources and make big oil go away. What can we do to show people how truly and really horrible fossil fuels are? I've mentioned a few ways, but we should expand on them, investigate and get the word out. Should we not? > 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. Oil is bigger. Can we agree on that? > > Wow, I am getting too old for this... > > --Bob > > --- > > James. > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist