Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Well, to address the 'what if something goes wrong' issue, really it can be said that there is a 50/50 chance of just about anything. But while there is a 50/50 chance of being dealt a royal flush, the odds against it are astronomical. This must be considered.
To get an accurate picture of the odds we need a couple of pieces of information. How many nuclear plants are there in the world, and how many have failed catastrophically ? Factor that in with the cost/benefit analysis and you can get a somewhat accurate picture of the stakes involved.
First of all think about France, they are not a large country comparitively, and a nuclear breach could make them alot smaller in a hurry, yet they did it anyway. While we have heard of no incidents there, that does not mean it has not happened, but a meltdown is a bit hard to conceal from the world, to say the least. Either the need was so great they threw caution to the wind, or they have confidence in their technology. So far so good.
Isreal has a plant out in the Negev desert. There is good reason to put it out in the desert. All of the possible calamities described are minimized in effect because of the geography. Which brings us to the NIMBY factor (Not In My Back Yard). If it applies to anything it applies to this. Rightly so I might add.
All of these dangers are real, of that there is no doubt, but one must put them in perspective. I have said before that we must take steps to insure future prosperity, and really the crux of the matter is to do it right and minimize these risks.
First and foremost is the selection of the location for a nuclear plant, to keep it away from populated areas and arable land. Isreal put the Dimora plant out in the Negev desert, we should do something similar. That way IF something happens it is not as catastrophic. Dimora also enriches fuel, which makes it a bit more important. I doubt it is the only one they have, but if they have them closer to populated areas or arable land I would bet they are not using weapons grade fuel, and not producing it.
With the proper precautions I think it would be a good time to move forward. However there is another point that people are missing. How much usable fuel for these fission reactors is mined in the US ? Are we just trading one foreign dependence for another ? What do you suppose a birdcage of fuel costs ? And how much refining needs to be done before it is usable ? If we get more heavily into the market, wouldn't that increase demand and result in the same problems we have with foreign oil ? I think it could. What if some African country which produces yellowcake decided to switch to euros, would we have to do to them what we did to Iraq ? Half dozen of one, six of another.
Then there is the problem of waste, should we decide to take this path, err, if THEY decide to take this path. Sealing it up forever is not the solution. We need to find a way to use it for something. A hundred years ago gasoline, petrol, benzine, whatever you want to call it was a waste product. Until certain innovators came along they used to burn it out in the fields. It was too volitile to have in the house, so it was no good for heating or lanterns, but along cam Ransom Eli Olds and a few other innovators across the world and all of the sudden this waste product was worth something. If, 100 years ago someone could have known that it would approach four bucks a gallon, a fortune could have been made, just for their descendants.
So the solution to nuclear waste is obvious, use the waste, just like a farmer uses manure. Now a few things have happened, we have depleted uranium weapons which are a projectile which starts burning at a very high temperature and pierces armor without a problem. Depleted uranium (DU) is also now used in the alloys that make up the armor plating. It strengthens the alloy quite a bit. Scientists did us a favor finding a use for DU, but our meglomaniacs did not by using it in weapons. We are dogshit for using it, it is defined as a war crime and we did it.
That doesn't change the fact that in certain applications it is very useful. With more technology it could become more useful. I fully agree that we can't just keep bottling it up so to speak. This would be like pumping your car exhaust into a tank and just burying it when it's full. There is alot more chance of finding a use for spent nuclear fuel than for car exhaust. Someone has to find it.
Radiation affects electronics, chemistry and therefore biology, and probably a few other things. Somehow these effects must be exploited, if we want prosperity. Do you see France bombing for oil ?
Alot of the electricity in this country is still produced with coal. Some coal is high in sulfur, as is some oil. This produces acid rain when burned. At a high temperature S03+H2O=H2S04. Cracking high sulfur oil poses a similar problem. The Germans figured out a way to turn coal into fuel for transportation needs, but they were not worried about pollution in the least. We need to learn to extract the sulfur.
Sulfur is an element, which means no matter how many afterburners there are, or for that matter catatlytic convertors on a car, it is still there. The atmoshphere in densley populated areas here is acidic enough, believe me.
So we trade one set of problems for another. Make the trade for future prosperity ?Yes. Expect a return in our lifetime ? No. It will take a long time to amortize the cost of the new plants, and it will not be cheap. In Cleveland there are almost two grids, one Cleveland Public Power buys almost all their power from PASNY. Cleveland Electric Illuminating gets some power from the Perry nuclear plant. CEI's rates are consistently higher than CPP's.
And safety, my cousin worked building the Perry plant, and a very interesting discussion ensued. He was having a problem with supervisors making changes to the plan. The olman told him "Make them initial the print". When they make changes, they are then responsible. Thing is, was it designed wrong in the first place or were they trying to save money ? You can't trust anyone anymore, and I think that is the greatest impetus for the vote of non-confidence when it comes to building a nuclear plant.
I wish it wasn't so, but it is. Maybe we are better off doing things the old fashioned way and paying more for it, because that is all we can handle.
T
|
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread