02-25-2003, 06:18 PM
Hi,
A lot of this has been covered in other posts on the thread. You should really read a thread in its entirety before answering. However, I'll reiterate some points here.
There is actually not enough uranium in nature usefull for nuclear plants, to fuel all our energy needs.
This is not true. There is not enough uranium in the places where it has already been found to supply our energy needs if we continue the "use once and throw away" practice. However, no one has been exploring for uranium for about forty years, so no one can say how much uranium is out there that has not been found. But as you point out, uranium can be used to generate more fuel.
So an other type of uranium, wich is more abundant, needs to be transformed into the type that can be used to fuel power plants.
Since the first nuclear pile was made before the process for separating uranium isotopes was developed, I believe any naturally occurring uranium is sufficient for powering a reactor. I am not sure about depleted uranium (uranium where the 235 mass isotope has been removed), but I suspect that it is not sufficiently active.
The Plants who do this are called (uhm, unfortunately i don't know the name in english) and they house very complex technology and these plants are essential for creating A-bomb's.
Well, they are called "breeder reactors". They do not transform one type of uranium to another. Mostly they transform U-238 to Pu-239 (plutonium) which is another very good nuclear fuel. And the *existing* supplies of uranium if used in a breeder first, will generate enough nuclear fuel to take us well into the future. Some of the numbers I've seen is 1000 years at ten times the present usage, replacing *all* other sources including hydro.
The technology is only complex if compared to, say, making fire by rubbing two sticks together. Compared to a cracking plant, or many other chemical or mechanical plants, it is about average, maybe a bit simpler. Don't confuse the total complexity of a generating plant with the relatively small part that is the power source. And there are a number of types of breeders, some simpler, some safer, etc.
As to being "essential for creating A-bomb's", so what? The piss of cows is essential for creating black powder (it was from manure piles that the potassium nitrate used in making black powder was extracted). Should we then ban cows? This is a red herring, a typical tactic used by the anti-nuclear power people to substitute fear and doubt for fact.
They also preduce radio active waste that needs to be safely stored away somewhere, and although it may not seem much, it takes a very long time before this waste can be considered "safe" so it will eventually build up into huge amounts! Witch can't be dumped just anywhere, but need to be protected by expensive guards etc. etc.
Again, pure crap. I addressed the question of waste elsewhere. It is true that radioactive waste straight from a reactor is very active ("hot"). It is equally true that that waste will be radioactive above background level for a long time. But it is a fallacy, spread by either ignorance or malice, that there is waste that is both very active and lasts a long time. Radioactive waste is a mixture. A relative small part of it is very active. This means that it has a short half life. That, in turn, means that it will not last long. So, even if it were to all be stored, it would mean relative short term storage of a small amount. And even that amount is greatly reduced since much of this material is reusable as fuel or has other radiological uses. The bulk of the material is low activity long half life. While this stuff does need to be stored somewhere, there are a lot of simple solutions. One developed mostly by the French is to make ceramic bricks of the material and dump them either in deserts or in the ocean. Since the bricks are almost totally inert and have reasonably low activity (about the same as naturally occurring uranium), they don't need to extensive care.
The "it's gonna fry you forever" lie is, again, mostly just the propaganda of the anti-nukes. As is the "you gotta have guards". Why do you need guards if you've removed and are reusing the usable fuel? It is just this fuel that is the weapons grade material. and it will be in the power plants which already have security. The small amounts of "hot" material might be a threat, so put them on some remote corner of a military base -- plenty of security at no extra cost. The low activity stuff isn't worth stealing, not even a terrorist can do much damage with it.
So the whole nuclear issue isn't as easy as you guys make it seem like!
The only thing making the nuclear issue not easy is the ignorance and stupidity of the majority of the population and the propaganda of a few loud liars. The technical and safety issues are pretty damned simple, and mostly solved.
But why build our own nuclear plants if mother earth alreaddy has one! In the core of our planet! There is enough energy out there to fill all our needs for at least 10.000.000. years! Deep down, rock melts! so it certainly can heat up some steam to drive a steamturbine! All that needs to be done is finding out a way to make this energy useable. is any research being done here? I don't know about any.
Your ignorance is no indication that no research is done. If you had spent the time to do a simple search on "geothermal energy" you would have found hundreds of hits, many of them from organizations that either are using this type of energy or are researching it. If you had gone to just one of those sites, say http://www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/ and looked around, you would have found many examples of people doing what you are proposing. You would also have found an answer to the question of why this cannot be *the* primary source of energy, at least for the foreseeable future. For now, geothermal energy is only feasible in areas where there is geo heat close to the surface. Both the regions of that heat and the amount of flow of that heat are limited. And the technology to drill deep enough to make geothermal available anywhere is in the research phase with no guarantee that it will ever work.
So, once again, your argument is "let's wait for this fantastic potential form of energy". Sorry, but first it is a gamble for the future and people need clean energy *now*. Second, *all* technology looks like it is perfect before it is developed. The problems aren't discovered until it gets out of the lab and into the real world. And, third, a large percentage of development programs fail. To depend on the success of one for something as important as energy is optimistically stupid.
On the war issue:
Since you said nothing, I have nothing to reply.
--Pete
A lot of this has been covered in other posts on the thread. You should really read a thread in its entirety before answering. However, I'll reiterate some points here.
There is actually not enough uranium in nature usefull for nuclear plants, to fuel all our energy needs.
This is not true. There is not enough uranium in the places where it has already been found to supply our energy needs if we continue the "use once and throw away" practice. However, no one has been exploring for uranium for about forty years, so no one can say how much uranium is out there that has not been found. But as you point out, uranium can be used to generate more fuel.
So an other type of uranium, wich is more abundant, needs to be transformed into the type that can be used to fuel power plants.
Since the first nuclear pile was made before the process for separating uranium isotopes was developed, I believe any naturally occurring uranium is sufficient for powering a reactor. I am not sure about depleted uranium (uranium where the 235 mass isotope has been removed), but I suspect that it is not sufficiently active.
The Plants who do this are called (uhm, unfortunately i don't know the name in english) and they house very complex technology and these plants are essential for creating A-bomb's.
Well, they are called "breeder reactors". They do not transform one type of uranium to another. Mostly they transform U-238 to Pu-239 (plutonium) which is another very good nuclear fuel. And the *existing* supplies of uranium if used in a breeder first, will generate enough nuclear fuel to take us well into the future. Some of the numbers I've seen is 1000 years at ten times the present usage, replacing *all* other sources including hydro.
The technology is only complex if compared to, say, making fire by rubbing two sticks together. Compared to a cracking plant, or many other chemical or mechanical plants, it is about average, maybe a bit simpler. Don't confuse the total complexity of a generating plant with the relatively small part that is the power source. And there are a number of types of breeders, some simpler, some safer, etc.
As to being "essential for creating A-bomb's", so what? The piss of cows is essential for creating black powder (it was from manure piles that the potassium nitrate used in making black powder was extracted). Should we then ban cows? This is a red herring, a typical tactic used by the anti-nuclear power people to substitute fear and doubt for fact.
They also preduce radio active waste that needs to be safely stored away somewhere, and although it may not seem much, it takes a very long time before this waste can be considered "safe" so it will eventually build up into huge amounts! Witch can't be dumped just anywhere, but need to be protected by expensive guards etc. etc.
Again, pure crap. I addressed the question of waste elsewhere. It is true that radioactive waste straight from a reactor is very active ("hot"). It is equally true that that waste will be radioactive above background level for a long time. But it is a fallacy, spread by either ignorance or malice, that there is waste that is both very active and lasts a long time. Radioactive waste is a mixture. A relative small part of it is very active. This means that it has a short half life. That, in turn, means that it will not last long. So, even if it were to all be stored, it would mean relative short term storage of a small amount. And even that amount is greatly reduced since much of this material is reusable as fuel or has other radiological uses. The bulk of the material is low activity long half life. While this stuff does need to be stored somewhere, there are a lot of simple solutions. One developed mostly by the French is to make ceramic bricks of the material and dump them either in deserts or in the ocean. Since the bricks are almost totally inert and have reasonably low activity (about the same as naturally occurring uranium), they don't need to extensive care.
The "it's gonna fry you forever" lie is, again, mostly just the propaganda of the anti-nukes. As is the "you gotta have guards". Why do you need guards if you've removed and are reusing the usable fuel? It is just this fuel that is the weapons grade material. and it will be in the power plants which already have security. The small amounts of "hot" material might be a threat, so put them on some remote corner of a military base -- plenty of security at no extra cost. The low activity stuff isn't worth stealing, not even a terrorist can do much damage with it.
So the whole nuclear issue isn't as easy as you guys make it seem like!
The only thing making the nuclear issue not easy is the ignorance and stupidity of the majority of the population and the propaganda of a few loud liars. The technical and safety issues are pretty damned simple, and mostly solved.
But why build our own nuclear plants if mother earth alreaddy has one! In the core of our planet! There is enough energy out there to fill all our needs for at least 10.000.000. years! Deep down, rock melts! so it certainly can heat up some steam to drive a steamturbine! All that needs to be done is finding out a way to make this energy useable. is any research being done here? I don't know about any.
Your ignorance is no indication that no research is done. If you had spent the time to do a simple search on "geothermal energy" you would have found hundreds of hits, many of them from organizations that either are using this type of energy or are researching it. If you had gone to just one of those sites, say http://www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/ and looked around, you would have found many examples of people doing what you are proposing. You would also have found an answer to the question of why this cannot be *the* primary source of energy, at least for the foreseeable future. For now, geothermal energy is only feasible in areas where there is geo heat close to the surface. Both the regions of that heat and the amount of flow of that heat are limited. And the technology to drill deep enough to make geothermal available anywhere is in the research phase with no guarantee that it will ever work.
So, once again, your argument is "let's wait for this fantastic potential form of energy". Sorry, but first it is a gamble for the future and people need clean energy *now*. Second, *all* technology looks like it is perfect before it is developed. The problems aren't discovered until it gets out of the lab and into the real world. And, third, a large percentage of development programs fail. To depend on the success of one for something as important as energy is optimistically stupid.
On the war issue:
Since you said nothing, I have nothing to reply.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?