On Jul 9, 7:17 pm, "Bill Bonde { ''Soylent Diesel is People'')"
<tributyltinpa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Scott Erb wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 9:55 pm, "Bill Bonde { ''Soylent Diesel is People'')"
> > <tributyltinpa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> > > > We'd have to build hundreds of nuclear reactors, and there isn't
enough
> > > > fuel for them. Nor all the coolant necessary. And no place to
put the
> > > > waste.
>
> > > This has been explained to you over and over and over again. You
> > > are wrong. There is plenty of fuel. Water is the coolant. And the
> > > waste gets buried in a mountain. End of problem.
>
> > You're contradicting the literature out there on nuclear energy and
> > uranium. You need to back up your claim or else there is no reason
> > for Jeffrey or anyone else to accept it.
>
> You don't say what the claim is that are taking issue with. The
> last time we discussed nuclear power, I suggested your read
> "Megawatts and Megatons: A Turning Point in the Nuclear Age?".
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0375403949/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=sear...
> #begin quote
> . on Page 151:
> "... all the more so, since it may be possible to adopt a nuclear
> chain reaction based on thorium rather than uranium, which would
> avoid the production of most of the long-lived heavy metals under
> operating conditions that promise ..."
It "may be possible..." A lot may be possible. You seemed far more
certain that nuclear was the answer. This is speculative, and doesn't
address the fuel issue.
> 4. on Page 154:
> "... The Rubbia system is to burn thorium, whose terrestrial
> reserves are three times more abundant than those of uranium. ..."
Not much info here on it, though three times uranium isn't a long term
solution. And we don't even know if it is possible.
> 5. on Page 155:
> "... A Glimpse o f the Future o f Nuclear Power breeder with the
> thorium-232/uranium-233 cycle than with the uranium-238/
> plutonium-239 approach. There are barely enough neutrons liberated
> per fission in uranium-233 to use one ..."
The dream of breeder reactors...but nothing substantive.
> 6. on Page 157:
> "... When thorium is added as fertile material, so that the fissile
> uranium-233 constitutes only about io% of the core and thorium 9o%,
> ..."
Again, nothing about this being truly possible (again it 'may be') and
if it's only three times the fuel...
> 7. on Page 159:
> "... the radioactivity of the waste is less than that of coal ash
> (coal always contains a bit of uranium and thorium). ..."
> 8. on Page 162:
> "... a light-water reactor. Besides, there is no need to separate
> the fissionable material (that is, the uranium -233) from the
> thorium; the heavy elements can be kept together. ..."
> 9. on Page 164:
> "... This might be uranium-233 plus thorium; or plutonium -239 plus
> uranium-238 could maintain criticality without using the
> accelerator. One could consider mixed-oxide fuel of plutonium and
> ..."
> 10. on Page 165:
> "... with fuel for only ten years. The solution commonly considered
> would be "breeding," using as fuel either uranium-238 or natural
> thorium, thorium-232. But it is im****tant to realize that, in
> general, resources far exceed the quoted "reserves. ..."
> #end quote
This suggests to me you don't really have anything to base your faith
in nuclear power on other than HOPE that some new technology will
allow use of a different fuel, which might increase the life span of
nuclear energy awhile longer. One can hope, but that's not really
enough for someone to simply proclaim nuclear as THE solution!
http://scotterb.wordpress.com
|
