my new hero

[eppie]

Bah those crazy Europeans!
Thanks for the avatar  :D
[right][snapback]101625[/snapback][/right]

Apart from the fact that ammonium is just NH4+.
NH4+OH- is ammoniumhydroxide......

[kandrathe]

Apart from the fact that ammonium is just NH4+.
NH4+OH- is ammoniumhydroxide......
[right][snapback]101649[/snapback][/right]

I had guessed that his preferred handle was NH4OH from his Sig, and that Ammonium was a compromise for limited characters.

[Occhidiangela]

Don't forget about nuclear waste  :P .  Utah will eventually be full, so we'll need something to do with the stuff.
[right][snapback]101621[/snapback][/right]

Already covered by the ceramic brick method: dump them far out at sea where the water is miles deep. Hint: what is material is used to absord/shield in nuclear reactions?

Lateral thinking required, sometimes.

The oversite to ensure the bricks well away from the Littorals, so the life giving 200 fathom curve is not at risk for contamination, will cost some money to ensure the dumpers go an approved GPS coordinate for dumping. It is achievable by using rational processes. Of course, the irrational anti nukes will try to gum up the works by their usual obstructionism. :angry:

Occhi

[SwissMercenary]

Great as the potential energy from uranium is, continued use of it at its current consumption rate will get us, what, 280 years or so?

And considering that the aformentioned consumption rate is... miniscule, compared to the rest of the stuff that we burn for energy, any sort of heavy switch to it will mean that it won't be long before we'll be out. I think I've read something along the lines of "If all the energy humans consume on the Earth were powered by nuclear reactors, we'd be out of uranium in 10 years, while coal'd last us 700"

Now, if only we could get that cold fusion thing going...

[Occhidiangela]

Great as the potential energy from uranium is, continued use of it at its current consumption rate will get us, what, 280 years or so?

And considering that the aformentioned consumption rate is... miniscule, compared to the rest of the stuff that we burn for energy, any sort of heavy switch to it will mean that it won't be long before we'll be out. I think I've read something along the lines of "If all the energy humans consume on the Earth were powered by nuclear reactors, we'd be out of uranium in 10 years, while coal'd last us 700"

Now, if only we could get that cold fusion thing going...
[right][snapback]101695[/snapback][/right]

Breeder reactors. The Uranium supply issue isn't as dire if you use breeder reactors.

There is also the question on reserves versus reserve expansion based on better methods to extract ore. Two hundred and eighty years allows for a lot of growth in how to synthesize better insulation, thermoefficient design, and renewable fuel sources.

I'd like us to be on that path before I die.

Occhi

[Rhydderch Hael]

...Now, if only we could get that cold fusion thing going...
[right][snapback]101695[/snapback][/right]

Metastabilized metallic deuterium. I get the keys to the first battlecruiser that comes off the line.

[kandrathe]

Great as the potential energy from uranium is, continued use of it at its current consumption rate will get us, what, 280 years or so?

And considering that the aformentioned consumption rate is... miniscule, compared to the rest of the stuff that we burn for energy, any sort of heavy switch to it will mean that it won't be long before we'll be out. I think I've read something along the lines of "If all the energy humans consume on the Earth were powered by nuclear reactors, we'd be out of uranium in 10 years, while coal'd last us 700"

Now, if only we could get that cold fusion thing going...
[right][snapback]101695[/snapback][/right]

Uranium is not as rare as you might think. The US has actively worked to limit research and implementation of fast breeder reactors (using abundant U238), since they produce weapons grade plutonium. So, all the tons of U238 are processed to extract the fissionable U235.

World Supply of Uranium

[eppie]

Already covered by the ceramic brick method: dump them far out at sea where the water is miles deep.  Hint: what is material is used to absord/shield in nuclear reactions?

[right][snapback]101669[/snapback][/right]

Yes let's just destroy a piece of nature before we even discovered it....at least it saves us the time of documenting it.......

Bad Idea, the stuff needs to be stable for 10s of thousands of years. And we have never performed such longtime stability measurements of e.g. the glass (ceramic) that you are talking about.
I think we should not take these kind of risks.

[kandrathe]

Yes let's just destroy a piece of nature before we even discovered it....at least it saves us the time of documenting it.......

Bad Idea, the stuff needs to be stable for 10s of thousands of years. And we have never performed such longtime stability measurements of e.g. the glass (ceramic) that you are talking about.
I think we should not take these kind of risks.
[right][snapback]101752[/snapback][/right]

Actually, I agree with eppie on this one. :) I'd rather we keep it in a geologically stable deep dry place where we can keep an eye on it. Also, our spent fuel is not really "waste" and some day we might want to reuse some of it for other purposes.

"In March 1977, fear of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Jimmy Carter to issue a Presidential Directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. Other nations, have not followed suit and continued to reprocess spent nuclear fuel." source

The mountains of U238 we mine and don't use should be restored below ground until we decide we want to use it in breeder reactors.

[Occhidiangela]

Yes let's just destroy a piece of nature before we even discovered it....at least it saves us the time of documenting it.......

Bad Idea, the stuff needs to be stable for 10s of thousands of years. And we have never performed such longtime stability measurements of e.g. the glass (ceramic) that you are talking about.
I think we should not take these kind of risks.
[right][snapback]101752[/snapback][/right]

eppie

How about you educate yourself on how the ceramic bricks work, and the life forms miles deep on the ocean floor before you make that sort of argument. Every decision made involves risk, there are no risk free decisions.

It would be nice if folks would stop playing Chicken Little. "Something bad might happen." Yes, and well intentioned morons could try to bubble wrap the planet . . . which would also have an unintended consequence.

Anything you do can get you killed, any decision you make can get you killed, including doing nothing.

Occhi