If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Hoping for Good Gas News....
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!!! |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Hoping for Good Gas News.... FYI
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jeep news from Chrysler | Scott in Baltimore | Jeep | 20 | June 28th 06 01:15 AM |
Automotive Industry News, Research and Information | [email protected] | Technology | 0 | February 28th 06 02:37 PM |
Automotive Industry News, Research and Information | [email protected] | Corvette | 0 | February 23rd 06 03:10 PM |
Automotive Industry News, Research and Information | [email protected] | BMW | 0 | February 22nd 06 06:54 PM |
Automotive Industry News, Research and Information | [email protected] | Alfa Romeo | 0 | February 16th 06 03:27 PM |