***
Speaking of science, I shamelessly pull this out of a thread:
"And wouldn't you know it, he (Al Gore) is against nuclear power. Really, he is just for renewable energy that he can personally profit off of. And anybody who looks critically at renewable energy (solar/wind) you will find that anywhere it is installed doesn't cause for the reduction of fossil fuel use or CO2 emissions. It usually has the opposite effect due to the unreliable nature requiring constant spinning backup systems. These systems run in incredibly inefficient states so as to be always ready to backup the unreliable nature of wind and solar."
And:
"It is really physically impossible for windmills to get much
more efficient, if one obeys the laws of thermodynamics. If someone
wants to build them on their own dime, go for it, but they will
only cause more problems than solve, while increasing the cost of
electricity to rate payers.
Solar really doesn't have much left either. And they will never work at night or during cloudy days. We have a relatively inexhaustible supply of heavy metals which want to fission. We have reached about the highest efficiency we can get out of the combustion cycle, we haven't even begun to truly tap the efficiency of the fission process.
The fission of U-235 provides an energy density of 83,140,000 MJ/kg. Coal provides us with 24 MJ/kg. That is why the fuel core of a Navy submarine, smaller than the size of an oil barrel, can power the entire submarine for decades. You could hold in your hand the amount of U-235 (golf ball size sphere) you would need to power every part of your life, when fissioned efficiently."
And:
Nuclear waste isn't waste at all. It still contains over 90% of the accessible energy (plus other useful isotopes). Even ignoring that, the waste is solid ceramic rods sealed in zirconium tubes. After being in reactor and than cooling in cooling pools, they are sealed in steel/cement casks what are virtually indistructible. Not to mention the relatively small amount of waste that a reactor produces. All of the U.S.'s nuclear waste could be piled up end-to-end in a football field at a depth of 7 yards. That is a very small amount. Fast reactors can burn that waste to get much more energy from it.
The terrorist threat doesn't really make sense to me. What is the threat? Used fuel is very radioactive and does not contain bomb suitable material.. unless you are thinking dirty bomb. A terrorist would be better off just using conventional weapons than trying to make a dirty bomb from spent fuel. The plutonium in reactor spent fuel is littered with Pu isotopes that ruin the bomb.
I'm too ignorant to know what's up here, but it sure strikes me as, you know, correct.
Solar really doesn't have much left either. And they will never work at night or during cloudy days. We have a relatively inexhaustible supply of heavy metals which want to fission. We have reached about the highest efficiency we can get out of the combustion cycle, we haven't even begun to truly tap the efficiency of the fission process.
The fission of U-235 provides an energy density of 83,140,000 MJ/kg. Coal provides us with 24 MJ/kg. That is why the fuel core of a Navy submarine, smaller than the size of an oil barrel, can power the entire submarine for decades. You could hold in your hand the amount of U-235 (golf ball size sphere) you would need to power every part of your life, when fissioned efficiently."
And:
Nuclear waste isn't waste at all. It still contains over 90% of the accessible energy (plus other useful isotopes). Even ignoring that, the waste is solid ceramic rods sealed in zirconium tubes. After being in reactor and than cooling in cooling pools, they are sealed in steel/cement casks what are virtually indistructible. Not to mention the relatively small amount of waste that a reactor produces. All of the U.S.'s nuclear waste could be piled up end-to-end in a football field at a depth of 7 yards. That is a very small amount. Fast reactors can burn that waste to get much more energy from it.
The terrorist threat doesn't really make sense to me. What is the threat? Used fuel is very radioactive and does not contain bomb suitable material.. unless you are thinking dirty bomb. A terrorist would be better off just using conventional weapons than trying to make a dirty bomb from spent fuel. The plutonium in reactor spent fuel is littered with Pu isotopes that ruin the bomb.
I'm too ignorant to know what's up here, but it sure strikes me as, you know, correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.