Hoping for Good Gas News....

On Fri, 26 May 2006 22:04:24 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:

>My Names Nobody wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> My Names Nobody wrote:
>>>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>>>>> I would have expected to have your expectations as well. I was more
>>>>>> then a tad surprised. It has always been presented as a really BIG
>>>>>> problem by those in the anti-nuke camp.
>>>>> If that is all the waste ever generated by ALL civilian nuclear power
>>>>> plants then I say lets fire up more of these puppies. I don't see where
>>>>> storing that amount of waste underground is that big of an issue. The
>>>>> tectonic plates don't move so fast that it is a concern, IMHO. I would
>>>>> rather spend the money here than ship it by the tanker load to the
>>>>> Middle East to fund their next wave of attacks. Thanks for the good
>>>>> information. BTW, is that 40k-mt figure just for the USA?
>>>> That's not even close, that is just the actual spent fuel rods, not all
>>>> the tons of contaminated other parts, pieces, pipes, vessels, & thousands
>>>> of gallons of contaminated liquids...
>>> I guess the old saying still holds, "There's no such thing as a free
>>> lunch" but there is a lot of waste byproducts from coal and petroleum
>>> fired plants. The ones with the least impacts might be natural gas but
>>> they are the most expensive to operate.
>>
>> Absolutely, but it is imperative on all of us to see that we aren't killing
>> the whole heard just to eat one animal. :-) With the impending demise of
>> hydro power, wind and solar sure do seem a lot more planet friendly than the
>> current remaining options...
>
>I think one very promising method is using tidal activity. Just think
>of the amount of energy it takes to raise and lower sea levels globally
>everyday by several feet. If we can tap into that energy in a
>meaningful way it would be a huge resource.
>
Hey, if ya think that is something imagine harnessing the energy of
PMSing women. Talk about rising with the tide.
--
For choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly
death.

For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and
possibly death.

Choose your fights carefully.

Zombywoof wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 22:04:24 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote:
>
>> My Names Nobody wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> My Names Nobody wrote:
>>>>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>>>>>> I would have expected to have your expectations as well. I was more
>>>>>>> then a tad surprised. It has always been presented as a really BIG
>>>>>>> problem by those in the anti-nuke camp.
>>>>>> If that is all the waste ever generated by ALL civilian nuclear power
>>>>>> plants then I say lets fire up more of these puppies. I don't see where
>>>>>> storing that amount of waste underground is that big of an issue. The
>>>>>> tectonic plates don't move so fast that it is a concern, IMHO. I would
>>>>>> rather spend the money here than ship it by the tanker load to the
>>>>>> Middle East to fund their next wave of attacks. Thanks for the good
>>>>>> information. BTW, is that 40k-mt figure just for the USA?
>>>>> That's not even close, that is just the actual spent fuel rods, not all
>>>>> the tons of contaminated other parts, pieces, pipes, vessels, & thousands
>>>>> of gallons of contaminated liquids...
>>>> I guess the old saying still holds, "There's no such thing as a free
>>>> lunch" but there is a lot of waste byproducts from coal and petroleum
>>>> fired plants. The ones with the least impacts might be natural gas but
>>>> they are the most expensive to operate.
>>> Absolutely, but it is imperative on all of us to see that we aren't killing
>>> the whole heard just to eat one animal. :-) With the impending demise of
>>> hydro power, wind and solar sure do seem a lot more planet friendly than the
>>> current remaining options...
>> I think one very promising method is using tidal activity. Just think
>> of the amount of energy it takes to raise and lower sea levels globally
>> everyday by several feet. If we can tap into that energy in a
>> meaningful way it would be a huge resource.
>>
> Hey, if ya think that is something imagine harnessing the energy of
> PMSing women. Talk about rising with the tide.

Ewwwwww!!!

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 10:47:01 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 May 2006 08:34:29 -0400, Zombywoof >
>>puked:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 May 2006 12:25:16 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 18 May 2006 23:30:17 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> puked:
>>>>
>>>>>> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement:
>>>>>
>>>>>Speaking of erroneous, your statement of "Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!!"
>>>>>needs corrected. Actually electricity is clean and when generated
>>>>>using
>>>>>solar, tides, hydro, wind etc. it is extremely environmentally
>>>>>friendly.
>>>>
>>>>Don't forget nuclear...
>>>>
>>>Don't forget nuclear waste.
>>
>>True, but it IS clean nonetheless. And there are ways to dispose of
>>nuclear waste that haven't been exploited. I wonder if there are any
>>recycling potentials there...
>>
> That would be the U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Fuel Cycle
> Initiative (AFCI). However, all it does is change the waste from one
> form to another to make the amount required to store smaller.
>
> The Advanced Recycle Facility (ARF) would remove uranium and plutonium
> from spent fuel along with the long-lived reactor wastes, such as
> americium and neptunium, which take thousands of years to decay, and
> recycle them into new fuel.
>
> Burning the recycled fuel to make electricity destroys the long-lived
> wastes. With that gone, only the short-lived wastes will need to be
> stored in a repository. The total amount of waste in the repository is
> reduced and in less than 1,000 years, the short-lived wastes decay
> until they are safer than the natural ore the original fuel came from.
>
> According to the U.S. Department of Energy, civilian nuclear reactors
> have produced more than 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel, about enough
> to cover one football field four yards deep. By 2010, DOE expects this
> figure to exceed 60,000 metric tons.
>
> Even if the recycling does prove effective and the nuclear waste
> stream is reduced in size by half, that is still and awful lot of
> really nasty ass **** out there for at least 1,000 years.
>
> Perhaps we can turn the moon into a nuclear landfill.
>
>
> --
> For choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly
> death.
>
> For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and
> possibly death.
>
> Choose your fights carefully


Thought those of you with an interust in this topic might like to take a
look at this site....

Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 9
February 2006

http://www.uic.com.au/nip09.htm