Byron Jeff wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:31:53PM -0500, Bob Axtell wrote:
>   
>> Byron Jeff wrote:
>>     
>>> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:21:59AM -0500, wouter van ooijen wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>>> The difference between naturally occurring radioactive
>>>>> materials and nuke waste is ONLY in terms of the level of
>>>>> radiation coming out of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Dunno what 'nuke waste' is (waste after an exploding nuke?), I was
>>>> talkinmg about what's left of the fuel rods after their lifetime. That
>>>> stuff is *very* different from natural uranium ore, for a starter it is
>>>> chemically different: there is a significant amount of plutonium in it.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Actually there isn't going to be. All fuel rods would be reprocessed and
>>> all of the useful fuel would be put back into new fuel rods.
>>>
>>> According to this site:
>>>
>>> http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm
>>>
>>> Only 3% of the rod is actual waste and the other 97% (depleted uranium
>>> mixed with plutonium) would be extracted and reused.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>>> It actually has less total radiation over time. Some of the
>>>>> materials are producing a higher RATE of radiation, but they
>>>>> have a shorter half life, so over all, they will produce less
>>>>> total energy than the original substance.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Again I doubt if this is true, but for the sake of argument let's accept
>>>> it for now. So the radiation which would otherwise occur over a very
>>>> long time is now concentrated in let's say a few 100 years. I don't
>>>> think the people living in those few 100 years will like that.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I would agree with you if the waste were made into a statue that was placed
>>> in a open public park. But when buried under hundreds of meters of solid
>>> rock, the residual radiation effect is minimal. That's why the EPA's
>>> estimate for Yucca Mountain for the first 10,000 years was so important,
>>> because virtually all of the highly radioactive waste products would have
>>> decayed by then.
>>>
>>> BAJ
>>>
>>>       
>> My main objection to nuclear power is simply that it seems obvious to me
>> and many others that capturing
>> solar energy to generate electricity would result in minimal damage to
>> anything. And we wouldn't even NEED
>> a Yucca Mtn.
>>     
>
> Unfortunately that's a very narrow view. Two major points:
>
> 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity, it takes 
> more energy to create solar panels than they produce.
>
> 2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in both
> production and waste.
>
>   
er.. I didn't think I said PV arrays, I said solar energy. Concentrating 
the sunlight into a heat source
to run a turbine or stirling engine is more efficient, and for a large 
generating system would be more
practical. A nuclear generation plant and a concentrated solar 
generation plant have two main
differences: (1) during the night, no electricity can be generated at 
the solar plant; and (2) no hazardous
waste is generated, EVER. Aside from that, the very same workers are 
needed by both types of plants.
The solar plant would cost much less initially than the nuke plant, its 
fuel costs are almost zero; and
maintanence would be much less.

I have a client who builds steel buildings. He uses tracking solar PV 
arrays and batteries to run his entire
business- even some spot welding machines. He's been in business for 
several years, and never bought
a dime's worth of power from the local utility; in fact, no power lines 
are even routed to his yard.
Yes, we are in Tucson, AZ- and we have a LOT of sun. 

OK, I'll bite. I have heard that PV array yarn before. I'd sure like to 
find out where that comes from.
Fill me in. From what I have seen, your statements are unsupportable.

--Bob A

>> But I am one of a few persons spitting against a hurricane, and its
>> pretty obvious that nuclear will win in the end.
>>     
>
> It's not a done deal, though I wish that it could happen.
>
> BAJ
>   

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