Nuclear option!! [Archive] - Fly Fishing Forum

: Nuclear option!!


Moonlight
04-09-2005, 10:56 AM
A number of years ago Ted Turner told me that because dams were so detremental to the enviroment we should be looking more seriously at Nukes for electricity.
This is being brought up more frequently as of late more in line with curbing the Green House emmissions associated with burning hydrocarbons. Personally I have an open mind to many of the options that are available to us from conservation to other alternative methods.
It is widely reported that the world consumption of energy based on "third world" modernization will grow by a minimum of 60% over the next decade this will cause a much larger spike in the green house effect and maybe it is time to at least start a dialouge as to the safety and utilization of Nukes.
I read that in China they have a promising new technology that allows safe and much smaller plants to produce electricity at a fraction of what it cost to subsidise and operate dams and there construction. An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.

juro
04-09-2005, 12:06 PM
In the US we read less than 2% of the printed material we produce. Just look at the Sunday paper. The problem is the economic structure of businesses putting ads into the paper, who cares if we only read the funnies.

I wonder how many megawatt hours we could save by converting all of our incandescent bulbs to flourescent screw-ins, which BTW are more cost-effective because they last so damn long while using only a minute fraction of the energy?

Let's say there are 350 towns in MA each with 1000 homes (conservative avg) with 25 light bulbs (even more conservative).

Since:
13 watt CFL is equivalent to a 60 watt incandescent
18 watt CFL is equivalent to a 75 watt incandescent
27 watt CFL is equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent
30 watt CFL is equivalent to a 150 watt incandescent

We could save 498,750,000 watts of electricity by using compact "75w (18w)" flourescents instead of incandescents in Massachusetts alone, actually I believe since these estimates are low the figure would far exceed that.

Now apply this one metric to the continent, and add the 100 or so other things we could do at home, the car and the office that would provide a similar return on simple investment.

Like they say, we throw away more than other countries consume. :(

DEERHAAWK
04-09-2005, 12:33 PM
Fastest Growing energy Source Worldwide!
Wind Power
Germany now produces 15+% of it's Electricity from Windpower
(Worldwatch)
The wind in North Dakota alone could supply up to 1/3 of the U.S. Electricity needs.
Solar Energy instalations increased 35% in the past 5 years.

Aisa is the only region in the world where Electrical Generating capacity, in particular Nuclear, is growing at a high rate.
Aisa has 100 Power Reactors in 6 countries generating now, with 20 under construction, and another 40 on the books.
Japan leads with 56 in operation, next is S. Korea with 18, India with 14 and China rounds out the top 4.
There was a Nuclear Conference in Washington this past Feb. sponsered by Platts, a subsid of McGraw/ Hill, but I could not get the stats from it, only that it was U.S./Canada "Agressive" movement and renewed intrest in newer more efficent reactors

Deerhawk

Moonlight
04-09-2005, 04:32 PM
We switched over to the Pig Tail lights last year, they have made a difference on the light bill and thats a good thing, enviromentaly and economicaly.
I saw a blurb on the Nukes in China they are supposedly smaller and more cost effective to operate.
The big problem coming down the track at the speed of light isn't as much about our ability to conserve (although we should) its about the explosion in the middle class in Asia and India and South America they are all about to launch into the same cycle of consumer driven economic expansion that we have been on for some time.
I heard a report that radio active waste from a nuke in France was encased in Glass and stored under a school building how is that possible ? Are there different kinds of radioactive "debris".
I could have driven the 2 hours to go fishing today and fished some very marginal conditions but with the price of gas as high as it is I elected to work in the yard and watch the Mariner's with my wife (the #1 Fan). This high price of gas is similar to the idea of putting a heavy tax on gasoline to get people to consereve. Painful medicine and I'm sure it will hurt some segment of the economy but will create a boom in some other part where an idea person says hey what if!!!!

flytyer
04-09-2005, 06:15 PM
Moonlight,

Surely you are not suggesting that we in the US and other industrialized countries with large economic middle classes ought to be responsible for what Asian, India, and South American countries do? Who has the duty to pay for pollution control technoligies? I submit that it is the responsibility of those countries to do so, not the taxpayers of the developed countries.

I also submit the hodgepodge of local gasoline formulation requirements is also helping to drive the price of gasoline and diesel up. Why can't we have a single formulation for each octane level of gasoline for summer and a single one for winter instead of the 60 or so for summer and the additonal 60 or so for winter we have now in the US?

Moonlight
04-09-2005, 09:51 PM
Hey FT I wasn't suggesting any such thing just pointing out that the inevitable creation of the new emerging middle classes is going to be running the economic engine of the planet and will be using more than we are in just a few short years. I doubt that you or I will have much to do or say in this endevor but it could make interesting enviro policy to watch develop.
As to the myriad of fuel mixtures I know its pretty complex my advice buy stock in both Tesoro and Valero they will cover your backside, :D
More rain tomorrow it just might be over on this side of the Sound already. (Re, Winter runs)

soloflyfisher
04-10-2005, 08:59 AM
Nuclear has a lot of advantages, but one nasty problem . . . what to do with the waste, which is highly toxic and doesn't leave the environment for centuries. It may be part of the solution, but what we really need to focus on first is how to reduce our use of energy (any by "our" I mean that of all of us around the world . . . we in the US are by far the biggest per-captia consumers of energy and need to show far more leadership in conservation and efficiency - - - but energy consumption is growing very fast all around the world, so this needs to be addressed with global cooperation --- and there too the US needs to show more leadership).

rico.29
04-10-2005, 09:36 AM
Hello,
i just want to tell you my "french" opinion.
perhaps you know that France has already choose the nuclear option...no comment.
My country has also choose to treat nuclear **** that are produce by nuclear central all over the world, it's a big businness for a group called Areva ( it has sponsored the french boat at the last Americas cup.
You also certainly know that USA is the country that produce the biggest quantity of green house effect gaz, far from all other countries (excepted China).
You also perhaps know that USA ( George BUSH) has refused to sign the KYOTO Protocol which goal is to decrease the quantity of green house effect gaz produced in the country who has signed the protoco.
For example China has signed this protocol, so USA is the only one industrial country to not have signed this protocol.
At KYOTO, BUSH said that "american way of life is not negociable".
So USA, continu to send **** in the atmospher, that causing "un réchauffement climatique" .
If we consider the atitude of USA facing the problem of global warwing ( that also affect the us: more and more cyclone, warming up in Alaska...) if i were you i won't bother care about the nuclear option in your country, the nuclear **** produced will be send in other country like France.
So keep it up, keep going driving with big 4wd or Humer, keep your american way of life till you will have stolen all the gazoline of Irak, and don't keep in mind the global warming ....keep your president that is so involved with petrol industry...
keep polluing the word...
it is time that amecican people act as ecological responsable person.
Rico.

rico.29
04-10-2005, 11:29 AM
**** is for
S like sos
H like ...help
I like intelligence
T like too late???

carbon1986
04-10-2005, 11:52 AM
Simplest answer? Breeder reactors. The breeder reactor is an excellent way to produce electricity by nuclear fission because it has a process that changes the waste into fuels that can be fissionable. This would make energy almost limitless from a fuel standpoint. The problem lies in that they are illegal in the US. The second fissionable byproduct is very concentrated and considered "weapons grade", meaning it could be used in a bomb if it falls into the wrong hands. Now I for one am confident that if we put a little thought into this, that we can figure out how to make this work. BUT, there are too many people on both sides who just complain too much without having the propper education. Fusion is a promising alternative with no waste, but it needs work and research, which needs funding and so far nobody is gung-ho about fitting the bill. There is an experimental reactor that has been mathimatically proven to work scheduled to be done by 2015, but I think we need to move a little faster on this.

flytyer
04-10-2005, 10:07 PM
Moonlight,

I agree that the emerging middle class in Asia, India, and South America is going to increase energy consumption exponentially and that the countries found therein are going to be forced to enact some control on emissions as a result. China is now importing so much crude that it is in large part responsible for the $58.00/barrel price on the world market.

I am also of the opinion that the future of transportation energy is going to be a combination of hydrogen internal combustion engines and fuel cells because both have zero emissions (unless you want to call water vapor a pollutant). I also see the rising gasoline prices in the US helping to push along and accelerate the development of these technologies.

Rico,

French vehicles cannot be sold in the US unless they are modified to meet the more stringent US emissions standards for vehicles. In fact, the same is true for all other European countries as well. Also, keep in mind that the US is about 4,000 miles from the southwest corner of California to the northeast corner of Maine, and about 3,000 miles from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Then you need to add to this the state of Alaska, which about the size of 7 Frances.

juro
04-10-2005, 10:34 PM
More on consumption (to add to good points being made here).

Let's just take a slice of the automobiles built in North America since January 1st = 4,106,330, and assume they were all hybrids instead of gas engines. Assuming cars burn 20 gals per week on average, and get 20 mph if they are lucky, then that would get them 400 miles in a week. To get the same mileage as a hybrid engine from the same 20 gallons, that car would burn almost 27 more gallons of gas.

Multiply that by 4,106,330 and you get 110.8 million gallons of gas wasted by just the cars built in N.A. to date that could have been preserved via hybrid technology which already exists today, not to mention pollutants on a single fill-up. If we then extrapolated that to all vehicles around the world, week after week...

I can't say that I can point any fingers - I drive a pickup truck, getting only 17 mpg. However I actually use 4x4 and the truck config actively running oversand up to 28 times in a year on Nauset and bayside beaches. I haul a lot of cargo, and pull family members out of snowbanks in blizzards. By no means is it a trophy truck, she is worked very hard. Even still I would like nothing better than to have hybrid capabilities available for highway travel in between those times when I really need a truck.

The other two vehicles in the family are very high-efficiency 4 cylinder cars that are smaller (and easier to pull out of snowbanks). Once we get our kids thru school we plan to move out of the remote burbs and find a place where a hybrid is enough. Hopefully by then there will be a bigger variety of vehicle configs with the technology.

Moonlight
04-11-2005, 12:21 AM
Alot can be heard about Market Forces in between the lines in this thread. In the real world of Wall Street the stock prices of GM, Ford, and Daimler Chrysler compared to Toyota and especially Honda (with there leading position in Hybrids) is incredible and the division is increasing every Quarter. People are choosing to boycott by economic default. Real market forces at work here. Oil Shale in Canada is getting very close to being an economicaly viable alternative with Crude Oil as high as it is.
However the Consumption of Oil Shale will do nothing to curb Green House Emissions, or lower the price to the consumer!

JDJones
04-11-2005, 06:31 PM
to weed through all the retoric,,,,pro's & cons about the different technologies for producing energy. So I'll just cut to the chase and throw out a few of my own thoughts.....For what they are worth.

First of all burning fossil fuels to run generators to create electricity seems to me to be absurd in this day and age. Coal, for one, is a bitch to extract. A dirty job that has killed a lot of workers. If not in the mines directly, an early death due to black lung disease. Oil and natural gas we don't hear that much about. I doubt it is the safest occupatiion in the world. Extracting and burning any of these fossil fuels causes pollution. Tranporting it is a problem. And may become more of a problem, due to terrorist activities. So any efferts to lessen our dependancy on fossil fuels should be considered.

Wind power is certainly a viable option in some areas.

Geo Thermal has been kicked around. But the technology doesn;t seem to be developed to the point of giving it serious consideration.

Nukes have been around for quite awhile. The problems, besides the protestors, are what to do with the waste, and the potential for catastrophy, due to either accidental or terrorist activity.

I can't speak for other countries, but here in the U.S. the nukes have a much bettter safety record than do the mines or the refineries. As for the waste problem, my rather simplistic view is just to blast it out into space. And maybe China is onto something with the mini-nukes. Smaller nuclear plant, smaller chance of mega catastrophy. Maybe even too small to atttract the attention of the bad guys,,,,or make it worth their effort.

Now the big question is,,,,,if a simple steelheader like myself can come up with solutions, why can't the greatest minds in the country? I don't think I want to know. :whoa:

Eddie
04-11-2005, 11:23 PM
Hmmm...imagine a space shuttle full of nuke waist exploding over Florida :whoa:

rico.29
04-12-2005, 02:56 PM
None of you speek about USA choice not to sign the Kyoto trade, you speek too much about the emergency middle classe, most of gas causing green house effect has been produced many, many years ago, USA don't want to assume his responsability facing warming up and pointing at the finger "the emergency of middle class" , one word consternant...
just curious about the gazoline consumed by an average car in USA, a normal consommation here is about 5 to 6 litres for 100km.
last thing, in France the price of 1 liter of gazoline is 1,30 usd what about this??

chromer
04-12-2005, 03:13 PM
Rico,

Just as we can't lump all French people into one group you can't group all 'mericans as against Kyoto, in fact many of us would be proud to be part of it but didn't have a lot to say about it. Especially those in this community, who are very concerned about degreading our environment.

In fact if I recall there were some rather unpopular decisions made by the French government lately that impacted many American lives, but I am sure it wasn't you specifically and it does us no good to point you out either.

Anyway, our gas is pretty high right now...

2.20 USD in United States Dollars = 11.1695 FRF or 1.703 EUR

That's why we use high technology to telecommute over high speed internet connections to avoid driving in to the office, holding netmeetings and reading flyfishing forums... :cool:

rico.29
04-12-2005, 03:28 PM
Totally agree with you.
i suppose you're talking about mururoa in the pacific, am i right?
It ' s because we have a stupid president ( for 5 more years) we had no choice but to vote for him, because at the second part of the vote he was against a facist, racist, candidat . the result 82% of the vaote for your actual president: Chirac, he is involved in many politic affair, and money affair too, but till he is president he can't be judged.
2,20 usd is for 1 gallon(=5 liters) that's right?
so here 1 gallon cost 5 euros(=6,5 usd).

Eddie
04-12-2005, 03:28 PM
rico, maybe the US should join Kyoto, but that is a little off topic. Maybe you could start a new one.
With regards to nuclear energy: how well is it working for France? What solutions to the issue of radioactive waist have the French come up with? Have there been any accidents or problems? It would seem that nuclear energy could be part of the solution to decreasing the need for fossil fuels.
What has been the French experience?

rico.29
04-12-2005, 03:31 PM
oh 1 euro is for 1 liter of diesel
1,3 euro is for 1 liter of what we call "super".
so 1 gallon of super is 8,45 USD...

rico.29
04-12-2005, 03:58 PM
Dear Eddie,
here it's been a long time that nuclear had be choosen to produce your energy
msot of time there is no "transparence" (= transparency?) about incident in nuclear central, there is a scale with 5 value graduing the damage caused by an incident, recently we had inondation that affected a nuclear central and in 2003 we had a peak of temperature in the summer (so the refrigiration was not enough effective) each time the nuclear autority said it was only a class 2 incident many time after it, but an independant autority affected a class 3 to those incident!!!
there is a site controlled by COGEMA where nuclear S...H...I...T coming from France and other countries are treated. the site is called "la Hague" near from the Channel sea, radioactive water coming from "la Hague" is rejected in the sea very far from the cost, years ago greenpeace decided the take crab that lived near to where the "water" arrived in the sea, greepeace wanted to analyse those crabs.
When they came back to the harbour, the police and the nuclear autority was waiting them.
Autority took the crabs and said they could go to any laboritory because those crabs should be considered as contamined by radioactivity...what do you think of that?
Somebody in this post write about a french school that was built on radioactive place, in fact "la Cogema" was extracted uranium from a place, and let people use the rubble to make embankment for their house or even a school saying there was no problem....many years later there are many case of cancer in that village and leucemia.
here we are very bad at producing green energy German, sweden danemark, norway are the best.

rico.29
04-12-2005, 04:03 PM
Autority took the crabs and said they could NOT go to any laboritory because those crabs .....

rico.29
04-12-2005, 04:18 PM
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/photos/diver-sampling-cogema-nuclear

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear/reprocessing/cogema-france

OC
04-12-2005, 04:18 PM
Thanks Rico for your posts. You should come over sometime and fish with some of us. You will find that most here would agree with your concerns.

You will find that most Americans know little about what happens in other countries unless it involves our country. Our news coverage here is pretty shallow or maybe so much happens here that they have no time but for our news. Even I and I try and read about what's going on in other countries didn't know about your waste problems and the goverment being fascist about it. I agree that good things are happening in the Scandanavian countries, Germany and Denmark in green energy and in such things as water and wasterwater alternatives. Those countries have been leaders in those types of things for a long time.

My concern is that many throughout the 1st world have become complacent. Sometimes that scene in the movie the Matrix where a door was opened and there were all these people on hooks with tubes coming out every where. Someone explained that all those people were being fed dreams that they were happy, had nice homes, big cars and wonderful families, something like that anyway. I think that is what is happening in a round about way. A lot of people here think goverment got too much power I think international big business has too much power and that goverment works for them. Same thing in your country?

Like in your country those of us who care keep trying to get the changes we just need more people to get off that hook and wake up to reality sooner than later.

Come over and fish with us some time. :smile:

rico.29
04-12-2005, 04:36 PM
I appreciate a lot, thank you OC.
try the link very intesting.
There is so much to say about pollution do to nuclear, industry, agriculture that i don't know what to begin with.
i think our government and president has a very nice internationale talk and position regarding environment, but here...hugh it seems that politics forget what they say once their back in France, because here agriculture lobby is very strong and most of time know how to be heard by our politics...

see that picture took in Bretagne
http://www.delaplanete.org/articles/no_2/mayo.html
tons of seaweed proliferate because of pigs faeces in intensive farming

OC
04-12-2005, 05:04 PM
Rico,

That surprises me that you even have intensive farming. I think we call it industrial farming here. We always hear that you Frenchmen and Italians take great pride in local farm economy and produce from the small farmer, you know real fresh produce. Thought you had strict rules against industrial farming. Just goes to show you we are all in the same boat and we seem to be sinking just about as fast. Our industrial farming and industrial aquaculture is goverment encouraged even though the pollution is great.

Well on a good note I'm headed out tomorrow to my daughters ranch in the big state of Wyoming to help pull a few calves out of cows, fix fence and do a litttle fishing with the grandkids. By the way the cattle ranch is an organic operation so I feel good about what goes on there and it's encouraging that my daughter loves the land and takes care of it dearly. It is good to see young people concerned about the environment world wide.

Moonlight
04-12-2005, 07:00 PM
A Federal Goverment report claims that there are missing spent fuel rods from several of our nations reactors and calls for action!!!! Reading the article in this regard was a real eye opener for me. Did you know that 90% of the funding for the Regulation of the Nukes come from the Nukes themselves this has some observers claiming that the Nukes get to have some pressure on the reporting of the facts that are certified by the inspection program. Sounds a bit cynical to me but hell I'm a cynic what do I know! :lildevl:
Theres that darn Liberal hijacking this Nuclear disscussion going on about his kids cattle ranch being "Organic" what the hell does that mean do they feed the cows Tofu? :hihi:

OC
04-12-2005, 07:32 PM
Sorry Moonlight about the hijacking the thread. The way I look at it, it is all the same thing. Industry has just got too big and too powerful what you described about the missing fuel rods is the same with so much. I would love to see that report on the missing fuel rods. I would love to see more on what is really happening out there throughout the world.

So much BS out there, coorprations spending huge amounts of money on organizations that have favorable catchy environmental names and yet preach anti environmental messages loaded with fear and distrust. The nuke industry being one ! And it appears so many in the first world are buying into it. Yet look closely at the third world and there is growing anger as these huge companies paying off third world officials. I see it in my trade,(water) where water rights are being bought up world wide, India, pakistan, everywhere and then charging farmers for the water something they have had for free for the last 10,000 years. Why? So these same industies can come in take over the land and plant indsurial farms. Does not matter , nuke, chemical, water and on and on we are seeing big business grab every last bit of what is left with little or no regaurd for the environment. Hopefully some day the whole world will scream enough to all of it.

No they feed the cattle organic jelly beans left over from the 80's, it's the sugar content ya know.

rico.29
04-13-2005, 03:37 AM
For those who speak french or italian or deutch, sorry i didn't find any link in english about it,
it explain the behaviour of the Cogema(=Areva) in other countries like Niger where Cogema extract Uranium

http://switzerland.indymedia.org/demix/2005/02/30524.shtml

that the way cogema produce necessary uranium to make fuel rod,
but i'm sure Cogema is not the only group to act as this, thinking they give job, risquy job, to people who won't have one without uranium extraction.

finally i find an article in english

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/602/5570.php

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/501/4942.html

have a good read

Moonlight
09-01-2005, 01:24 AM
I hpoe you bought stock in Tesoro and Valero when I told you!!!

juro
09-01-2005, 06:09 AM
For years now I've been dreaming about a hybrid Tundra 4x4... :D

bd12345678
09-03-2005, 12:01 PM
I'm not sure how many are familiar with this concept, but i just wanted to throw it out there. Of course, it's far more theoretical.
Black matter, also known as Dark or Anti-Matter was first discovered by astronomers. Essentially, it is thought to be identical to "normal" matter, with one exception; the charges on all the sub-atomic particals are reversed. So electrons are instead posative and protons retain a negative charge.
So, the next question is "What happens when we combine an atom of 'normal' matter with an atom of anti-matter?" From what has been observed, a tremendous amount of energy is released, while each form of atom cancels each others' charge out. And then there is nothing. No waste, no leftovers or by-products.

flytyer
09-03-2005, 06:40 PM
bd12345678,

However, the little I've read on the productin of energy from the anti-matter-matter reaction (which is a huge, nearly unfathomable amount that is produced in an extreamely short time, like a few nanoseconds producing enough energy to power a large US city for a few days) says the reaction must be contained and suspended in a "magnetic bottle" because the amount of energy produced would burn through any other container in less than a nanosecond and thus end the reaction. This is a huge problem at the present time because the amount of magnetic energy needed to produce the very powerful and strong "magnetic bottle" must be made with the most powerful electro-magnets now in existence. In other words, it takes a very large amount of electricity to made the "magnetic bottle". And as soon as the "magnetic bottle" no longer exists, the reaction stops because the matter and anti-matter cannot be kept in close enough proximity to continue the reaction.

Also, although the amount of energy released by the matter-anti-matter reaction is so huge, so much is produced in such a short amount of time, even "magnetic bottles" we are able to produce at this time cannot contain it more than a few nanoseconds. Thus, despite producing enough energy in a few nanoseconds to power a US city for a few days, there is currently no way to store such a vast amount of energy so it can be expended over hours or days.

Perhaps, these technical difficulties will be overcome in time (no one knows how much time will be needed, but it is certainly several decades if not a century or more) to overcome them. Therefore, despite it having been included in Einsteen's Theory of Relativity, and thus theoretically possible, it has only been recently found to actually work as theorized by Einstein and at our current level of technology, it is not possible to store the energy produced or sustain the reaction so part of the energy produced can be used to keep the "magnetic bottle" extant, nor is it possible with our current level of technology to even send such a massive amount of energy produced in such a short time over any power grid without frying the grid.

Perhaps, sometime in the future these rather substancial technical difficulties will be overcome and humankind will be producing energy just like the Starship Enterprise by having a matter/anti-matter reactor.

salmo
09-06-2005, 02:36 PM
In light of the recent disaster, where most likely more people died then during 9/11 attack Bush is faced with second chance to fixed energy solution .
Ask congress( mainly opponents Republicans) to approved the proposal by McCain, Liberman and Kerry for new efficiency standards for Tracks and SUVs which would reduced Gas consumption by 10-15% by 2010-12. Car and primary tracks are 5-10 % less afficient then 10years ago ( recent EPA report, released after enery bill was passed!!!!!!)
Ask Congress for new amendment to Energy Bill which would substitute 11 billions in subsidy to oil companies ( EXXON made 37 billions of profit in last 4 quarters and don’t need taxpayer money) for subsidy to Ford, GM to accelerate new factory construction.
Scrap 25-28 billion of waste ( McCain report) from highway bill and direct it to New Orleans.


Now it is time to act for US , but I guess it will not happen until we will have steward of the Nation in the White House . So far we have steward of the oil and mining business.

Moonlight
09-10-2005, 02:12 AM
Dark matter and anti matter! Wow I am aware of the "possible exisitence of such things but I am more certain of the physical propertys of Bamboo! :cool: :smokin:
The latest edition of Astronomy has a discussion about the creation of all the various "Universe's" that occured simultaneous to the "Big Bang" great Theorys and I wonder if Dubya would allow them to be taught in his personal perfect world?
"I digress" mea culpa from an old Altar Boy. :lildevl: