Cheap Power
-
I completely agree with the first person who said the true cost was much higher if you consider the 4.5 bllion years half life; that means that after 4.5 billion years there will be half of that waste left. I know that man is not going to take care of that waste for the the rest of the time the earth is here so you can power your light bulb.
I looked up the half-life of the waste that comes out of Nuclear Fission on Google:
Half-life
The time required for half of the atoms in any given quantity of a radioactive isotope to decay is the half-life of that isotope. Each particular isotope has its own half-life. For example, the half-life of 238U is 4.5 billion years. That is, in 4.5 billion years, half of the 238U on Earth will have decayed into other elements. In another 4.5 billion years, half of the remaining 238U will have decayed. One fourth of the original material will remain on Earth after 9 billion years. The half-life of 14C is 5730 years, thus it is useful for dating archaeological material. Nuclear half-lives range from tiny fractions of a second to many, many times the age of the universe.
The age of our solar system is only about 10 billion years, while the age of the earth is only about 4.57 million years.
Now Fussion is different. It will decay in time that we can comprehend.
To me that is all that matters.
-
Jay,
I don't understand how you can say radioactive waste is a "manageable problem", unless what you mean is "drop it in a hole in the ground and let someone else worry about it later".
I haven't heard any practical plan for the long-term storage or disposal of waste. The problem has been around for half a century with a lot of people working on it, and there is still no practical solution.
-
If the FBI starts watching me, they're in for a long boring ride.
Waste is an issue and I don't have a solution. My kids wonder why we don't send it into space. Maybe we'll figure something out in the long term.
In the near term, I think newer pebble reactors are a good idea.
-
We don't send nuclear waste into space because the possiblity of a rocket accident which essentially ends up being a dirty bomb on the whole planet, is a risk we can't afford to take.
I think nuclear energy is a good solution for developed countries, but I don't think it's viable in poor areas. It takes a lot of money to run a plant safely, and safety is really the only issue people actually worry about. There are issues with running nuclear power, but if it can be done safely, I think it should be done. I do not have confidence that a poor country could do it safely... The richest superpowers in the world both had serious nuclear accidents very recently... I remember that, and I'm not eager to repeat that situation in some poor country that won't be able to deal with it and ends up poisoning all of us. I realize that new technology can help make things safer, but the effect of an accident is too great to take that risk in most situations.
-
No one has brought up Hydrogen as the next real source of power. The oceans are full of it. But it takes power to break it down and produce the two main products; hydrogen and oxygen. Nuclear power could be used and it might also be able to produce desalinized water, which is also in short supply. Maybe the waste can be buried under the road about 10 feet deep to keep them ice free in the winter!
A remote village in Alaska is looking at using nuclear power. Somewhat ironic seeing we are sitting on so much untapped energy. In the proposed natural gas line, one of the take off points is at the Yukon river where it is thought a propane plant could be built to supply the villages and west coast residents. Remember, Alaska is about 1/3 the size of the lower 48 states and transportation infrastructure is severely lacking.
Here is a link about Galena: <http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html>
I have been there and those tanks of fuel are along side the Yukon river.
These are not the first nuclear related reactors or "product" used in Alaska. A few years ago, it was discovered that the Army had tested two small reactors outside of Fairbanks in the 50's. The area is still off limits and details are not clear.
And Markus, there are 49 other states
-
Personally I think we all should learn to say 'nuclear' instead of 'nu-cu-lar'.
If we can't accomplish that then perhaps the technology is too advanced.
One nice thing about the free market is that once the price of gasoline hits $3 per gallon.. oops it already has... how about that... once it reaches $5 per gallon ... do I hear $6? .. how about $8? -- there will suddenly be gigantic strides made in bringing alternative energy sources to market - and fast. .
-
And part of this solution is changing the way we all live and that's an endeavor that will unfortunately have to be forced upon us.
One idea I had was micro-offices. Take a large city like Houston where I live. Houston is a nightmare because of the commute times and general sprawl of the city.
I truly think an entrepreneural way around this is the creation of 'micro-offices.' The idea I had was larger companies would pay into share of office buildings around a metropolitan area. Workers would then spend 60-80% of their time working from their closest micro-office. They could come into central offices for meetings, planning sessions, etc.
Of course, this doesn't remove the complete necessity of commuting, but for some workers this might be a way to go. I'm basing this on the fact that many companies still have a hard time letting the majority of their personnel work from home for extended periods of time past a few days a month.
That's one idea I could see to alleviate some of the waste of our society.
The other thing to do is look for work as close to your house. I set out last year to do this, and I did find a job local to my house. Though less pay than a previous position, I'm now commuting 10 minutes a day in Houston and saving a lot of money in gas/wear and tear on my vehicle. Is it the perfect solution, no..but every little bit helps.
The other idea is add a high tax to gasoline and force us to change the way we live. Draconian; however, maybe the short term pain of a generation would have benefits for several generations that follow us.
-
Let's take that extra gas tax, and use it to fund R&D into alternative energy resources. And nuclear is NOT clean or environmentally friendly. Waste is a big issue, but also you have to expend energy to dig the uranium-bearing ore out of the ground, and then refine it (a hazardous process involving nasty chemicals), then store it until it is needed in the reactor...
Each form of energy generation, be it wind, solar, oil/gas, bio-fuel, nuclear, whatever needs to be evaluated on the entire production cycle. Just like it takes money to make money, it takes energy to create energy.
Want to save energy fast? Require solar hot water heaters on every roof. Put some R&D into LEDs that can replace not only incandescents, but fluorescents in commercial buildings - we should be almost there, since I can buy LED christmas lights for about $15 that consume 90% less electricity than the old ones (and those flashlights with LED lights that can be seen a mile away...)
Longer-term: Build electric cars (or hybrid or dual-fuel) en masse to gain economies of scale and get some competition going to bring the prices down. Re-design new developments so people can walk to the grocery store (it'll help with that obesity problem too). Design bicycle-friendly transportation systems. And yes, drop some of these electric products like tooth brushes and go back to the manual way of doing things!
Or my other favorite - wire up those exercise bicycles, stair climbers and treadmills in the gyms so that they run a generator, and pump all that wasted energy back into the grid (or at least run the gym air-conditioners with it!)
Here there be dragons...,Steph Brown
Viewing 8 posts - 16 through 22 (of 22 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply