|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: nuclear, power |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
July 7th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear power
On Jul 6, 11:20 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Jul 5, 6:21 pm, "Mike Jr." wrote: “Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.”http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...paigns/nuclear Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, had this to say, “In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...06/04/14/AR200... Wind power and solar generation can’t hack it. So what are the alternatives to nuclear/hydrocarbon power plants? Brownouts and blackouts on a regular basis The surest way to a low standard of living is energy poverty Let us examine the waste balance sheet of a coal-fired vs. a nuclear power plant. A 1,000 Megawatt coal-fired power plant produces solid wastes at a rate of 1,800 pounds per minute that includes 19 toxic metals such as arsenic carcinogens such as benzopyrene 30 pounds of sulfur dioxide per second As much nitrous oxide as 200,000 automobiles 50 times the radioactive emissions of an average nuclear power plant Each (short) ton of coal contains 50 grams of Uranium 129 grams of Thorium According to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from the operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. Highly radioactive daughter particles amount to 3% (by volume) or about .2 cubic meters from a year’s production from a 1,000 Megawatt Light Water Reactor (LWR) power plant. In that 3% you have the following significant radionuclides with their half lives. Gases Kypton-85 10.7 years Xenon-133 5.3 days Solids Strontium-90 28.1 years Molybdenum-99 66.7 hours Iodine-131 8.1 days Cesium-137 30.2 years Cerium-144 285.0 days After 30 half lives a radioactive material is deemed safe. Picking the longest lived, Cesium-137 at 30.2 years, 30x30.2=906 years. We are not talking about Yucca Mountain here; that is for wastes from nuclear weapons production. What about the remaining 97%? They can be immediately reused as nuclear fuel. We recycle paper and not nuclear fuel? In 1977, that gem of a president Jimmy Carter canceled the Barnwell, South Carolina, reprocessing plant then nearing completion because of an exaggerated danger of terrorists stealing our nuclear fuel and chemically separating the plutonium from the uranium in order to build nuclear weapons with it. They should live so long trying. France, Germany, Japan, and Russia continued with their reprocessing facilities and have assured themselves sources of readily available nuclear fuel for the foreseeable future. I am sure that the terrorist would never consider stealing from them.~ [Footnote .~ is the emoticon for irony] My point? Start building nuclear reactors as fast as you can. --Mike Jr -------------------- why is no one talking about fusion ???!!! Fission gets us out of the current oil crunch. Fusion is a longer range solution. "Current status Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source.[citation needed] Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties.[citation needed] Therefore it remains unclear that an economically viable fusion plant is even possible.[16] An editorial in New Scientist magazine opined that "if commercial fusion is viable, it may well be a century away."[16] Ironically, a pamphlet printed by General Atomics in 1970's stated that "By the year 2000, several commercial fusion reactors are expected to be on-line." Several fusion reactors have been built, but as yet none has produced more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050. The ITER project is currently leading the effort to commercialize fusion power." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power --Mike Jr. Y.Porat ---------------------------------- 
|
| Ads |
|
#2
July 7th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power
On Jul 7, 1:31*pm, "Mike Jr." wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:20 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote: On Jul 5, 6:21 pm, "Mike Jr." wrote: “Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.”http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...paigns/nuclear Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, had this to say, “In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...06/04/14/AR200... Wind power and solar generation can’t hack it. *So what are the alternatives to nuclear/hydrocarbon power plants? * * * * Brownouts and blackouts on a regular basis * * * * The surest way to a low standard of living is energy poverty Let us examine the waste balance sheet of a coal-fired vs. a nuclear power plant. A 1,000 Megawatt coal-fired power plant produces solid wastes at a rate of 1,800 pounds per minute that includes * * * * * * * * 19 toxic metals such as arsenic * * * * * * * * carcinogens such as benzopyrene * * * * 30 pounds of sulfur dioxide per second * * * * As much nitrous oxide as 200,000 automobiles * * * * 50 times the radioactive emissions of an average nuclear power plant * * * * * * * * Each (short) ton of coal contains * * * * * * * * * * * * 50 grams of Uranium * * * * * * * * * * * * 129 grams of Thorium According to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from the operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. Highly radioactive daughter particles amount to 3% (by volume) or about .2 cubic meters from a year’s production from a 1,000 Megawatt Light Water Reactor (LWR) power plant. In that 3% you have the following significant radionuclides with their half lives. Gases * Kypton-85 * * * * * * 10.7 years * Xenon-133 * * * * * * *5.3 days Solids * Strontium-90 * * * * 28.1 years * Molybdenum-99 * *66.7 hours * Iodine-131 * * * * * * *8.1 days * Cesium-137 * * * * *30.2 years * Cerium-144 * * * * 285.0 days After 30 half lives a radioactive material is deemed safe. *Picking the longest lived, Cesium-137 at 30.2 years, 30x30.2=906 years. We are not talking about Yucca Mountain here; that is for wastes from nuclear weapons production. What about the remaining 97%? They can be immediately reused as nuclear fuel. *We recycle paper and not nuclear fuel? In 1977, that gem of a president Jimmy Carter canceled the Barnwell, South Carolina, reprocessing plant then nearing completion because of an exaggerated danger of terrorists stealing our nuclear fuel and chemically separating the plutonium from the uranium in order to build nuclear weapons with it. *They should live so long trying. France, Germany, Japan, and Russia continued with their reprocessing facilities and have assured themselves sources of readily available nuclear fuel for the foreseeable future. I am sure that the terrorist would never consider stealing from them.~ [Footnote .~ is the emoticon for irony] My point? *Start building nuclear reactors as fast as you can. --Mike Jr -------------------- why is no one talking about fusion ???!!! Fission gets us out of the current oil crunch. *Fusion is a longer range solution. "Current status Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source.[citation needed] Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties.[citation needed] Therefore it remains unclear that an economically viable fusion plant is even possible.[16] An editorial in New Scientist magazine opined that "if commercial fusion is viable, it may well be a century away."[16] Ironically, a pamphlet printed by General Atomics in 1970's stated that "By the year 2000, several commercial fusion reactors are expected to be on-line." Several fusion reactors have been built, but as yet none has produced more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050. The ITER project is currently leading the effort to commercialize fusion power." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power --Mike Jr. Y.Porat ---------------------------------- i cantell you right now that ITER is leading nowhere it is a huge waist of mony and worse waIst of PRECIOUS TIME !! so now we come to my next point since you are right that it will take a lot of time (depends on investments in it ) therefore and just because of that we must start right now before later might be too late! technically and worse than that - international socially !! (social disaster ) ATB Y.Porat ---------------------
|
|
#3
July 7th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power
On Jul 7, 10:40*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:31*pm, "Mike Jr." wrote: On Jul 6, 11:20 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote: On Jul 5, 6:21 pm, "Mike Jr." wrote: “Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.”http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...paigns/nuclear Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, had this to say, “In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...06/04/14/AR200... Wind power and solar generation can’t hack it. *So what are the alternatives to nuclear/hydrocarbon power plants? * * * * Brownouts and blackouts on a regular basis * * * * The surest way to a low standard of living is energy poverty Let us examine the waste balance sheet of a coal-fired vs. a nuclear power plant. A 1,000 Megawatt coal-fired power plant produces solid wastes at a rate of 1,800 pounds per minute that includes * * * * * * * * 19 toxic metals such as arsenic * * * * * * * * carcinogens such as benzopyrene * * * * 30 pounds of sulfur dioxide per second * * * * As much nitrous oxide as 200,000 automobiles * * * * 50 times the radioactive emissions of an average nuclear power plant * * * * * * * * Each (short) ton of coal contains * * * * * * * * * * * * 50 grams of Uranium * * * * * * * * * * * * 129 grams of Thorium According to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from the operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. Highly radioactive daughter particles amount to 3% (by volume) or about .2 cubic meters from a year’s production from a 1,000 Megawatt Light Water Reactor (LWR) power plant. In that 3% you have the following significant radionuclides with their half lives. Gases * Kypton-85 * * * * * * 10.7 years * Xenon-133 * * * * * * *5.3 days Solids * Strontium-90 * * * * 28.1 years * Molybdenum-99 * *66.7 hours * Iodine-131 * * * * * * *8.1 days * Cesium-137 * * * * *30.2 years * Cerium-144 * * * * 285.0 days After 30 half lives a radioactive material is deemed safe. *Picking the longest lived, Cesium-137 at 30.2 years, 30x30.2=906 years. We are not talking about Yucca Mountain here; that is for wastes from nuclear weapons production. What about the remaining 97%? They can be immediately reused as nuclear fuel. *We recycle paper and not nuclear fuel? In 1977, that gem of a president Jimmy Carter canceled the Barnwell, South Carolina, reprocessing plant then nearing completion because of an exaggerated danger of terrorists stealing our nuclear fuel and chemically separating the plutonium from the uranium in order to build nuclear weapons with it. *They should live so long trying. France, Germany, Japan, and Russia continued with their reprocessing facilities and have assured themselves sources of readily available nuclear fuel for the foreseeable future. I am sure that the terrorist would never consider stealing from them.~ [Footnote .~ is the emoticon for irony] My point? *Start building nuclear reactors as fast as you can. --Mike Jr -------------------- why is no one talking about fusion ???!!! Fission gets us out of the current oil crunch. *Fusion is a longer range solution. "Current status Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source.[citation needed] Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties.[citation needed] Therefore it remains unclear that an economically viable fusion plant is even possible.[16] An editorial in New Scientist magazine opined that "if commercial fusion is viable, it may well be a century away."[16] Ironically, a pamphlet printed by General Atomics in 1970's stated that "By the year 2000, several commercial fusion reactors are expected to be on-line." Several fusion reactors have been built, but as yet none has produced more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050. The ITER project is currently leading the effort to commercialize fusion power." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power --Mike Jr. Y.Porat ---------------------------------- i cantell you right now that ITER *is leading nowhere it is a huge waist of mony and worse *waIst of PRECIOUS TIME *!! so now we come to my next point since you are right that it will take a lot of time (depends on investments in it ) therefore and just because of that we must start right now before later might be too late! technically and worse than that - international *socially !! (social disaster ) Funding research is a little like betting on race horses. There is an algorithm for dividing a $100 stake across the horses in a race based purely on their odds. You reserve about 8% of your stake for the long shot because occasionally they win and win big. Fusion is a long shot and 8% of total research is (IMHO) optimistic. Better to focus your money on horses with better odds. --Cheers, --Mike Jr ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -
|
|
#4
July 8th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power
On Jul 7, 9:53*pm, "Mike Jr." wrote:
On Jul 7, 10:40*am, "Y.Porat" wrote: On Jul 7, 1:31*pm, "Mike Jr." wrote: On Jul 6, 11:20 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote: On Jul 5, 6:21 pm, "Mike Jr." wrote: “Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.”http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...paigns/nuclear Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, had this to say, “In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...06/04/14/AR200... Wind power and solar generation can’t hack it. *So what are the alternatives to nuclear/hydrocarbon power plants? * * * * Brownouts and blackouts on a regular basis * * * * The surest way to a low standard of living is energy poverty Let us examine the waste balance sheet of a coal-fired vs. a nuclear power plant. A 1,000 Megawatt coal-fired power plant produces solid wastes at a rate of 1,800 pounds per minute that includes * * * * * * * * 19 toxic metals such as arsenic * * * * * * * * carcinogens such as benzopyrene * * * * 30 pounds of sulfur dioxide per second * * * * As much nitrous oxide as 200,000 automobiles * * * * 50 times the radioactive emissions of an average nuclear power plant * * * * * * * * Each (short) ton of coal contains * * * * * * * * * * * * 50 grams of Uranium * * * * * * * * * * * * 129 grams of Thorium According to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from the operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. Highly radioactive daughter particles amount to 3% (by volume) or about .2 cubic meters from a year’s production from a 1,000 Megawatt Light Water Reactor (LWR) power plant. In that 3% you have the following significant radionuclides with their half lives. Gases * Kypton-85 * * * * * * 10.7 years * Xenon-133 * * * * * * *5.3 days Solids * Strontium-90 * * * * 28.1 years * Molybdenum-99 * *66.7 hours * Iodine-131 * * * * * * *8.1 days * Cesium-137 * * * * *30.2 years * Cerium-144 * * * * 285.0 days After 30 half lives a radioactive material is deemed safe. *Picking the longest lived, Cesium-137 at 30.2 years, 30x30.2=906 years. We are not talking about Yucca Mountain here; that is for wastes from nuclear weapons production. What about the remaining 97%? They can be immediately reused as nuclear fuel. *We recycle paper and not nuclear fuel? In 1977, that gem of a president Jimmy Carter canceled the Barnwell, South Carolina, reprocessing plant then nearing completion because of an exaggerated danger of terrorists stealing our nuclear fuel and chemically separating the plutonium from the uranium in order to build nuclear weapons with it. *They should live so long trying. France, Germany, Japan, and Russia continued with their reprocessing facilities and have assured themselves sources of readily available nuclear fuel for the foreseeable future. I am sure that the terrorist would never consider stealing from them.~ [Footnote .~ is the emoticon for irony] My point? *Start building nuclear reactors as fast as you can. --Mike Jr -------------------- why is no one talking about fusion ???!!! Fission gets us out of the current oil crunch. *Fusion is a longer range solution. "Current status Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source.[citation needed] Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties.[citation needed] Therefore it remains unclear that an economically viable fusion plant is even possible.[16] An editorial in New Scientist magazine opined that "if commercial fusion is viable, it may well be a century away."[16] Ironically, a pamphlet printed by General Atomics in 1970's stated that "By the year 2000, several commercial fusion reactors are expected to be on-line." Several fusion reactors have been built, but as yet none has produced more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050. The ITER project is currently leading the effort to commercialize fusion power." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power --Mike Jr. Y.Porat ---------------------------------- i cantell you right now that ITER *is leading nowhere it is a huge waist of mony and worse *waIst of PRECIOUS TIME *!! so now we come to my next point since you are right that it will take a lot of time (depends on investments in it ) therefore and just because of that we must start right now before later might be too late! technically and worse than that - international *socially !! (social disaster ) Funding research is a little like betting on race horses. *There is an algorithm for dividing a $100 stake across the horses in a race based purely on their odds. *You reserve about 8% of your stake for the long shot because occasionally they win and win big. Fusion is a long shot and 8% of total research is (IMHO) optimistic. Better to focus your money on horses with better odds. --Cheers, --Mike Jr ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - sorry i take it much seriously!! it i snot a matter of choice it is a matter of vital importance not of my generation but our childrens (so please dont be as Luis 15 king of of France (!!) who said 'after me --- the flood ' ............. oil is going to dry one day the same will coal and the same will be with uranium etc so actually we have no better choice for the long run and lpeas re,ember even a good theoretic solution will be found it will take many decades to implement it practically so the sooner - the better once you really care for future if you dont we dont have a common language ... ATB Y.Porat -------------------------------------------
|
|
#5
July 8th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power
On Jul 7, 9:53 pm, "Mike Jr." wrote:
On Jul 7, 10:40 am, "Y.Porat" wrote: On Jul 7, 1:31 pm, "Mike Jr." wrote: On Jul 6, 11:20 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote: On Jul 5, 6:21 pm, "Mike Jr." wrote: “Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.”http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...paigns/nuclear Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, had this to say, “In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...06/04/14/AR200... Wind power and solar generation can’t hack it. So what are the alternatives to nuclear/hydrocarbon power plants? Brownouts and blackouts on a regular basis The surest way to a low standard of living is energy poverty Let us examine the waste balance sheet of a coal-fired vs. a nuclear power plant. A 1,000 Megawatt coal-fired power plant produces solid wastes at a rate of 1,800 pounds per minute that includes 19 toxic metals such as arsenic carcinogens such as benzopyrene 30 pounds of sulfur dioxide per second As much nitrous oxide as 200,000 automobiles 50 times the radioactive emissions of an average nuclear power plant Each (short) ton of coal contains 50 grams of Uranium 129 grams of Thorium According to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from the operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. Highly radioactive daughter particles amount to 3% (by volume) or about .2 cubic meters from a year’s production from a 1,000 Megawatt Light Water Reactor (LWR) power plant. In that 3% you have the following significant radionuclides with their half lives. Gases Kypton-85 10.7 years Xenon-133 5.3 days Solids Strontium-90 28.1 years Molybdenum-99 66.7 hours Iodine-131 8.1 days Cesium-137 30.2 years Cerium-144 285.0 days After 30 half lives a radioactive material is deemed safe. Picking the longest lived, Cesium-137 at 30.2 years, 30x30.2=906 years. We are not talking about Yucca Mountain here; that is for wastes from nuclear weapons production. What about the remaining 97%? They can be immediately reused as nuclear fuel. We recycle paper and not nuclear fuel? In 1977, that gem of a president Jimmy Carter canceled the Barnwell, South Carolina, reprocessing plant then nearing completion because of an exaggerated danger of terrorists stealing our nuclear fuel and chemically separating the plutonium from the uranium in order to build nuclear weapons with it. They should live so long trying. France, Germany, Japan, and Russia continued with their reprocessing facilities and have assured themselves sources of readily available nuclear fuel for the foreseeable future. I am sure that the terrorist would never consider stealing from them.~ [Footnote .~ is the emoticon for irony] My point? Start building nuclear reactors as fast as you can. --Mike Jr -------------------- why is no one talking about fusion ???!!! Fission gets us out of the current oil crunch. Fusion is a longer range solution. "Current status Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source.[citation needed] Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties.[citation needed] Therefore it remains unclear that an economically viable fusion plant is even possible.[16] An editorial in New Scientist magazine opined that "if commercial fusion is viable, it may well be a century away."[16] Ironically, a pamphlet printed by General Atomics in 1970's stated that "By the year 2000, several commercial fusion reactors are expected to be on-line." Several fusion reactors have been built, but as yet none has produced more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050. The ITER project is currently leading the effort to commercialize fusion power." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power --Mike Jr. Y.Porat ---------------------------------- i cantell you right now that ITER is leading nowhere it is a huge waist of mony and worse waIst of PRECIOUS TIME !! so now we come to my next point since you are right that it will take a lot of time (depends on investments in it ) therefore and just because of that we must start right now before later might be too late! technically and worse than that - international socially !! (social disaster ) Funding research is a little like betting on race horses. There is an algorithm for dividing a $100 stake across the horses in a race based purely on their odds. You reserve about 8% of your stake for the long shot because occasionally they win and win big. Fusion is a long shot and 8% of total research is (IMHO) optimistic. Better to focus your money on horses with better odds. --Cheers, --Mike Jr ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -------------- i responded to that yet i wonder why it didnt get in so again shortly: i am much more serious than you about it oil coal and even Uranium will drain off so fusion is the only long term possobility beside all the ;green sources now please note that even if the technological process will be found its IMPLEMENTATION will take at least decades so if you think like Luis 14 king of France that said: 'after me the flood' i am not with you !! (after him there was the Gillotin ........) ATB Y.Porat -----------------------------
|
|
#6
July 9th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power
On Jul 7, 2:53*pm, "Mike Jr." wrote:
On Jul 7, 10:40*am, "Y.Porat" wrote: On Jul 7, 1:31*pm, "Mike Jr." wrote: On Jul 6, 11:20 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote: On Jul 5, 6:21 pm, "Mike Jr." wrote: “Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.”http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...paigns/nuclear Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, had this to say, “In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...06/04/14/AR200... Wind power and solar generation can’t hack it. *So what are the alternatives to nuclear/hydrocarbon power plants? * * * * Brownouts and blackouts on a regular basis * * * * The surest way to a low standard of living is energy poverty Let us examine the waste balance sheet of a coal-fired vs. a nuclear power plant. A 1,000 Megawatt coal-fired power plant produces solid wastes at a rate of 1,800 pounds per minute that includes * * * * * * * * 19 toxic metals such as arsenic * * * * * * * * carcinogens such as benzopyrene * * * * 30 pounds of sulfur dioxide per second * * * * As much nitrous oxide as 200,000 automobiles * * * * 50 times the radioactive emissions of an average nuclear power plant * * * * * * * * Each (short) ton of coal contains * * * * * * * * * * * * 50 grams of Uranium * * * * * * * * * * * * 129 grams of Thorium According to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from the operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. Highly radioactive daughter particles amount to 3% (by volume) or about .2 cubic meters from a year’s production from a 1,000 Megawatt Light Water Reactor (LWR) power plant. In that 3% you have the following significant radionuclides with their half lives. Gases * Kypton-85 * * * * * * 10.7 years * Xenon-133 * * * * * * *5.3 days Solids * Strontium-90 * * * * 28.1 years * Molybdenum-99 * *66.7 hours * Iodine-131 * * * * * * *8.1 days * Cesium-137 * * * * *30.2 years * Cerium-144 * * * * 285.0 days After 30 half lives a radioactive material is deemed safe. *Picking the longest lived, Cesium-137 at 30.2 years, 30x30.2=906 years. We are not talking about Yucca Mountain here; that is for wastes from nuclear weapons production. What about the remaining 97%? They can be immediately reused as nuclear fuel. *We recycle paper and not nuclear fuel? In 1977, that gem of a president Jimmy Carter canceled the Barnwell, South Carolina, reprocessing plant then nearing completion because of an exaggerated danger of terrorists stealing our nuclear fuel and chemically separating the plutonium from the uranium in order to build nuclear weapons with it. *They should live so long trying. France, Germany, Japan, and Russia continued with their reprocessing facilities and have assured themselves sources of readily available nuclear fuel for the foreseeable future. I am sure that the terrorist would never consider stealing from them.~ [Footnote .~ is the emoticon for irony] My point? *Start building nuclear reactors as fast as you can. --Mike Jr -------------------- why is no one talking about fusion ???!!! Fission gets us out of the current oil crunch. *Fusion is a longer range solution. "Current status Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source.[citation needed] Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties.[citation needed] Therefore it remains unclear that an economically viable fusion plant is even possible.[16] An editorial in New Scientist magazine opined that "if commercial fusion is viable, it may well be a century away."[16] Ironically, a pamphlet printed by General Atomics in 1970's stated that "By the year 2000, several commercial fusion reactors are expected to be on-line." Several fusion reactors have been built, but as yet none has produced more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050. The ITER project is currently leading the effort to commercialize fusion power." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power --Mike Jr. Y.Porat ---------------------------------- i cantell you right now that ITER *is leading nowhere it is a huge waist of mony and worse *waIst of PRECIOUS TIME *!! so now we come to my next point since you are right that it will take a lot of time (depends on investments in it ) therefore and just because of that we must start right now before later might be too late! technically and worse than that - international *socially !! (social disaster ) Funding research is a little like betting on race horses. *There is an algorithm for dividing a $100 stake across the horses in a race based purely on their odds. *You reserve about 8% of your stake for the long shot because occasionally they win and win big. Fusion is a long shot and 8% of total research is (IMHO) optimistic. Better to focus your money on horses with better odds. Well, that's why we've telling the physics idiots for years to bet on Adaptive A.I., PV Cells, Fiber Optics, CD, Turbines. GPS. Cruise Missiles, Microcomputers, DVD+RW, Laser Pointers, and Robots. Since there is no difference between Nuclear Power, Solar Power, Wind Energy, Fission, and Fusion with idiots like Scientists and Politicians. They're all just numbers in a book. --Cheers, --Mike Jr ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -
|
|
#7
July 9th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power
On Jul 9, 4:28*am, "
wrote: On Jul 7, 2:53*pm, "Mike Jr." wrote: On Jul 7, 10:40*am, "Y.Porat" wrote: On Jul 7, 1:31*pm, "Mike Jr." wrote: On Jul 6, 11:20 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote: On Jul 5, 6:21 pm, "Mike Jr." wrote: “Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.”http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...paigns/nuclear Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, had this to say, “In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...06/04/14/AR200... Wind power and solar generation can’t hack it. *So what are the alternatives to nuclear/hydrocarbon power plants? * * * * Brownouts and blackouts on a regular basis * * * * The surest way to a low standard of living is energy poverty Let us examine the waste balance sheet of a coal-fired vs. a nuclear power plant. A 1,000 Megawatt coal-fired power plant produces solid wastes at a rate of 1,800 pounds per minute that includes * * * * * * * * 19 toxic metals such as arsenic * * * * * * * * carcinogens such as benzopyrene * * * * 30 pounds of sulfur dioxide per second * * * * As much nitrous oxide as 200,000 automobiles * * * * 50 times the radioactive emissions of an average nuclear power plant * * * * * * * * Each (short) ton of coal contains * * * * * * * * * * * * 50 grams of Uranium * * * * * * * * * * * * 129 grams of Thorium According to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from the operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. Highly radioactive daughter particles amount to 3% (by volume) or about .2 cubic meters from a year’s production from a 1,000 Megawatt Light Water Reactor (LWR) power plant. In that 3% you have the following significant radionuclides with their half lives. Gases * Kypton-85 * * * * * * 10.7 years * Xenon-133 * * * * * * *5.3 days Solids * Strontium-90 * * * * 28.1 years * Molybdenum-99 * *66.7 hours * Iodine-131 * * * * * * *8.1 days * Cesium-137 * * * * *30.2 years * Cerium-144 * * * * 285.0 days After 30 half lives a radioactive material is deemed safe. *Picking the longest lived, Cesium-137 at 30.2 years, 30x30.2=906 years. We are not talking about Yucca Mountain here; that is for wastes from nuclear weapons production. What about the remaining 97%? They can be immediately reused as nuclear fuel. *We recycle paper and not nuclear fuel? In 1977, that gem of a president Jimmy Carter canceled the Barnwell, South Carolina, reprocessing plant then nearing completion because of an exaggerated danger of terrorists stealing our nuclear fuel and chemically separating the plutonium from the uranium in order to build nuclear weapons with it. *They should live so long trying. France, Germany, Japan, and Russia continued with their reprocessing facilities and have assured themselves sources of readily available nuclear fuel for the foreseeable future. I am sure that the terrorist would never consider stealing from them.~ [Footnote .~ is the emoticon for irony] My point? *Start building nuclear reactors as fast as you can.. --Mike Jr -------------------- why is no one talking about fusion ???!!! Fission gets us out of the current oil crunch. *Fusion is a longer range solution. "Current status Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source.[citation needed] Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties.[citation needed] Therefore it remains unclear that an economically viable fusion plant is even possible.[16] An editorial in New Scientist magazine opined that "if commercial fusion is viable, it may well be a century away."[16] Ironically, a pamphlet printed by General Atomics in 1970's stated that "By the year 2000, several commercial fusion reactors are expected to be on-line." Several fusion reactors have been built, but as yet none has produced more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050. The ITER project is currently leading the effort to commercialize fusion power." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power --Mike Jr. Y.Porat ---------------------------------- i cantell you right now that ITER *is leading nowhere it is a huge waist of mony and worse *waIst of PRECIOUS TIME *!! so now we come to my next point since you are right that it will take a lot of time (depends on investments in it ) therefore and just because of that we must start right now before later might be too late! technically and worse than that - international *socially !! (social disaster ) Funding research is a little like betting on race horses. *There is an algorithm for dividing a $100 stake across the horses in a race based purely on their odds. *You reserve about 8% of your stake for the long shot because occasionally they win and win big. Fusion is a long shot and 8% of total research is (IMHO) optimistic. Better to focus your money on horses with better odds. * Well, that's why we've telling the physics idiots for years to * bet on *Adaptive A.I., *PV Cells, Fiber Optics, CD, Turbines. * GPS. Cruise Missiles, Microcomputers, DVD+RW, *Laser Pointers, * and Robots. * Since there is no difference between Nuclear Power, Solar Power, * Wind Energy, Fission, and Fusion with idiots like Scientists and * Politicians. They're all just numbers in a book. ----------------- it seems you are right (:-) Y.Porat -----------------------------------
|
|
#9
July 9th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power
"Charlie Gibbs" wrote in message ... | /~\ lid (Charlie Gibbs) | \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. | X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. | / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! *plonk*
|
|
#10
July 10th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power
"Charlie Gibbs" wrote:
(Y.Porat) writes: i am much more serious than you about it oil coal and even Uranium will drain off so fusion is the only long term possobility beside all the ;green sources now please note that even if the technological process will be found its IMPLEMENTATION will take at least decades Still, no amount of conservation or alternate energy will overcome the problems of our ever-increasing population. Populations in developed nations tend to decrease gradually; without immigration. Encouraging the development of nations to such a degree that the natural population growth is near zero to slightly negative is a desirable objective. But that doesn't make the anti-development greens very happy. Perhaps their solution is ritual culling for the sake of Gaia. The "lack" of fissible materials is not an urgent problem. There is quite a lot more thorium than uranium around. Both fuels will take centuries to consume. By which time the global population should be in natural decline as the fast-breeder nations become fast-food nations. Managing fusion or something else as a long-term source of affordable, abundant energy for civilisation is a worthwhile objective. Practical realization can only be done safely a step at a time, while keeping our eyes on the horizon. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Science is the belief in X against HTML mail | the ignorance of the experts. / \ and postings | -- Richard Feynman
|
