|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
nuclear energy
#5243493 - 01/30/06 06:54 PM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
i like it. i think we should be using more of it. i think that we would be using more of it if we didn't have policies improperly encouraging fossil fuel use and improperly discouraging nuclear energy (though i have no sources for that.) what do you think?
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 12 days
|
Re: nuclear energy [Re: wilshire]
#5243523 - 01/30/06 07:00 PM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I agree with you 100%.
|
bit_slice
A. Renee

Registered: 12/12/05
Posts: 187
Loc: america, fuck yeah
Last seen: 16 years, 11 months
|
Re: nuclear energy [Re: wilshire]
#5244961 - 01/31/06 12:20 AM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
oil = $$ for dubya nuclear energy = no $$ for dubya
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 23 days, 5 hours
|
Re: nuclear energy [Re: bit_slice]
#5245350 - 01/31/06 03:02 AM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> what do you think?
I don't like fission based nuclear energy at all. The one thing that fission based nuclear energy does have going for it... we don't have to worry about the pollution... of course, I hate to see what we leave for our descendent's for the next 30,000 years or so.
Everybody likes to pretend that nuclear fission is clean and produces no pollution. This could not be further from the truth. The only difference is that pollution from nuclear fission lasts much longer than traditional pollution, is much more toxic, and is mostly invisible... I guess if we can't see it, it must not really be there. 
First we have to mine uranium. This is like any other mining operation and requires energy to produce ore.
Next we have to refine the uranium ore into something usable. The enrichment process is a bit dirty and requires a lot of energy and the use of many nasty chemicals.
Now we have to build a reactor... of course, the lifetime of a reactor is pretty short... Most have an operating life of around 50 years... after which, the site is unusable for the next 30,000 years or more... the reactors are also insanely expensive... especially for something that only lasts 50 years...
Now we load all the fuel into the reactor and start producing energy. After about a year, we have to swap out the fuel. Of course, the spent fuel is much too radioactive (hot) to get close to without getting a lethal dose of radiation. So we dump the spent fuel rods in a deep pool of water to let them cool off for a few years until they are safe enough to handle.
The spent fuel rods contain all kinds of nasty radioactive elements that have been bred in the reactor. One of these is plutonium which is extremely toxic and can be used in a nuclear bomb. So now we also have to guard the spent fuel rods to keep terrorists from getting ahold of them.
After the spent fuel rods cool, we send them off to be reprocessed. (Actually, we don't... we don't know what to do with them, so we just keep collecting them at the bottom of the pools... no worry, in a few million years they will be safe to handle...) We like to pretend that we send the spent fuel rods to be reprocessed. This task is extremely dirty... which is why we don't bother doing it in the US. Basically the uranium is removed chemically from the fuel rods and all the other radioactive elements. The uranium is repacked into new fuel rods and all of the other stuff, called pollution, which is extremely radioactive and highly toxic, has to be stored somewhere... safe... for 30,000 years or so...
Back in the 80's the Soviet Union tried to drill holes into a mountain and pump the ground full of their radioactive waste. Can't see it, it must not be there... details are slim, but from what I understand, ground water got into the super hot system causing an explosion as steam built up pressure underground. The result is a nice part of Russia that is too toxic for anybody to visit... a million years or so and it should be safe.
Back in the 80's the Soviet Union and the US both lost reactors. The US got very lucky, the SU didn't. The reactor at three mile island should be safe to work with again in 30,000 years... same goes for Chernobyl and the several hundred square miles of land around it... 30,000 years at least...
Back in the late 60's early 70's the US almost lost the city of Detroit in a nuclear accident at an experimental breeder reactor that went super critical. We also almost lost another large city when an experimental navy reactor melted.
Finally, for those that really think nuclear fission is the way to go... simply look at the number of EPA superfund sites that are contaminated with nuclear pollution and the BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars needed to clean the sites. At Rocky-flats near Denver, they decided it was too hazardous to clean and simply buried the site. Don't worry about your drinking water... it is still mostly safe... and will be 100% safe in 30,000 years or so...
But who cares... I certainly won't be around to worry about this crap for the next 30,000 years... so what do I care, pollute away... it is, after all, clean energy...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Sorted
Monkee
Registered: 12/26/98
Posts: 301
Loc: UK
|
Re: nuclear energy [Re: Seuss]
#5245576 - 01/31/06 06:28 AM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:same goes for Chernobyl and the several hundred square miles of land around it... 30,000 years at least...
At least the wildlife doesn't seem to mind.. it's thriving all around Chernobyl just 20 years on, seemingly resistant to the effects of radiation. Not even a three eyed fish in sight in the highly contaminated cooling ponds
|
|