Nuclear Power

many houses in Klamath Falls Oregon are on geothermal heat. It really brings the bills down, but having those big radiators is annoying.

 

bullshit did a great episode on this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usg7-xbQOcM

 

First of all, why is it that these days, new technology is considered a "bad" thing? I mean seriously- back in the 1800's most industrial equipment and transport ran on coal and steam. Then came the gas engine. Whoa! running an engine on something besides coal?! Those crazy hippies!!! Its called new technology folks. Its cool.

Secondly, This issue is not just about pollution, which like or not, we do in fact create ourselves along with volcanoes and everything else, but also about national security and costs. China at this very minute is making deals with other oil producers. Once the dollar becomes worth a lot less- which trust me- will happen sooner than later- we are SCREWED because China will have more leverage for oil, thus we will be paying out the ass for the stuff, and we got just a tiny little nip of what that was like this last summer. In addition, that is bound to cause international tensions.

So like it or not, we HAVE to do something besides use oil to fuel our power plants or cars. Calling alternative technology "hippie" technology is the wrong attitude. Sorry.

 

So where is the electric truck?

Givem that little nugget of radiactive material in a marble and put some water on it and make steam to power my new " Nuclear Tacoma" All you engineers get on it!!

 

I'm in school studying nuclear engineering to do exactly that!

 

Unless you're releasing stored energy. I'm not saying you're creating new energy like in a perpetual motion machine. For example, with gasoline, you introduce a small spark that ignites the gasoline, releasing the energy stored in the gasoline. It's an economic winner because the power you get out is greater than the power to create the reaction (I'm not creating new energy, just releasing what's already there).

With fusion reactors, you have to use huge magnetic fields to control and shape the plasma. The power required to control the field and start the reaction is currently greater than the power output of the fusion reactor so it doesn't make economic sense. Instead of trying to make a fusion reactor, you could just power homes with the energy you're using to make the reaction happen and you'll come out ahead. Until that problem gets solved, fusion reactors won't work as an energy source.
See the section on "Break-Even"
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/physics/sobel/Nucphys/fusion.html

 

I'm not saying there are no fusion reactors. I took a tour the Tokomak D-III reactor at General Atomics in San Diego. I'm saying that they're not currently economically viable as a source of energy. According to this article, the Haldron collider currently uses about 200-300 megawatts of power, over twice what the city of Geneva uses.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep08/6690

 

so if you have any questions relating to nuclear power.. i might know some

 

Your statements are misleading.

Longer half life means it is more stable, but that does not mean that it is safer. Granite, itself, is not radioactive. It contains some radio active elements. But so does all living material, due to the carbon in it. Carbon 14 has a half life or 5700 years, but it is of little concern in day to day life because the daughter product is inert nitrogen.

Your comment on containment is also misleading. If you are referring to the containment of uranium munitions, then your simple mitigation measure of covering with soil is a little more difficult than covering a mining operation.

 

How much water do Nuclear plants require? Do they recycle their water? What's this heavy water stuff I've heard of? Fresh water is a very valuable resource, can the water put through nuclear power plants be made drinkable again?

 

It doesn't require fresh water. Here's an IAEA factsheet on using nuclear power for desalination:
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Downloads/NETCFactSheets/ne_tc_fs_06.pdf

 

Admiral Hyman Rickover drank a cup of primary coolant..... it didnt to anything to him... he lived pretty long... heavy water i believe has more Hydrogen? correct me if im worng... but we reuse our water... i would not recommend drinking the water though...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/21/feinstein-dont-spoil-desert-solar-panels/

 

Heavy water is a water molecule (h2 o) that contains one or more of deuterium or tritium (isotopes of hydrogen with atomic weights of 2 and 3 respectively). They weight more because of one or two neutrons being attached to the proton that makes up a hydrogen atom.

Hydrogen, has an atomic weight of 1 and oxygen has an atomic weight of 16. Together, water has a molecular weight of 18. Heavy water has a weight of 17, 18, 19, or 20, depending on the type of hydrogen isotope attached to the oxygen.

 

Not a tree hugger, not slinging shit either... I just want to clarify some of what you have said. Why would you think that we do not have influence on the atmosphere? I am curious as to where your numbers come from. I have not ever seen a reliable source that says more pollutants come out of a single volcanic event than we have produced in 1000 years.

I have seen stats that show that huge amounts of particulates come out of very large volcanic events, but those are typically boosts to the albedo of the atmosphere. But the amounts of sulfer dioxide, CO2 and other compounds are not any where near the total output of humans. And those events can cause measurable change in the atmosphere in the short term. Why would our continual imbalance not have an effect in the long run?

As for the methane in the ocean, there are huge amounts of methane in the ocean and wetlands, no doubt about that. But even though the natural numbers are large, they are in balance. Think of a huge teetertotter. Even though two fat kids are on either side of it, you put a small guy on one end and you can knock it out of balance.

 

Any source for that 50 mile number? About 30,000 feet != 50 miles, and that is the deepest I have been able to source.

 

To confirm, this article on an MIT study suggests the current limit of drilling technology is 10km (32K feet) and that it's not enough to simply drill down.
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/01/8684.ars

 

They have been saying this for years. There are just as many if not more independent Scientist saying that Global warming isn't due to humans. Where are my sources? Well quite honestly I am not going to try to dig through my past to find them for ya. Also, it's Global warming not U.S. warming. What is the point of even getting our dander up if the entire world doesn't follow suit. Global warming studies that say it is our fault is basing it off of man made computer programs models based off of a little over a hundred years of data. Who can say their program models are correct. No one can truly know. Also, we are going to use 100 or so yrs to base our studies off of when the planet has existed for MILLIONS of yrs? How do we know it doesn't go through a 1000 yr cycle... we don't. We can guess through soil samples but it is still just a guess.

When Gore was challenged during a presentation of Global warming, his response was basically ... at the risk of yelling at you I will not respond. Really? that's your answer? Good answer.

Do I think we should find alternative fuel sources, maybe more renewable? Sure I think it is the responsible thing to do. We don't have a limitless supply. But do I think we should put it on the front burner to contribute to a 9 trillion dollar deficit? HELL NO! We can keep going with the way we are and do responsible research and change over time... not within 4 -10 yrs. Also, it should be left to the private industry to champion and be rewarded through tax cuts if they show progress.

Does anyone realize that Cap in Trade is going to raise your taxes, raise your energy bill, and raise the price of every single consumer goods product you buy? Does that sound like an economy booster?

 

I have not said anything about economic impacts, nor have I mentioned any political backing for my statements. My only concern at this point in this debate is the statistics that have been mentioned. The science behind the debate is what is important to me. But you have good points. Perhaps after the mystery stats have been founded, we can get into a more political type discussion.

And quite frankly, I am not a Gore fan.

I think you will be hard pressed to find more than a few reputable scientific studies that do anything but support the theory of global warming. And yes, it is a theory. There are very few absolute certainties in science. The question more often isn't whether or not it is certain, but rather what is the most likely outcome.