Re: Nuclear energy can't solve global warming

the original plant they used to make the material for the first bombs was
cooled with mercury, it still leaches out of the ground in oak ridge tn.
spiritrising

"foote" <tjfoote@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:AXQKe.17904$vb3.10836@xxxxxxxxxxx
> so......... your saying that ALLl 8,000 degrees
> of heat are used in the conversion of
> nucler heat (8k degrees) into steam???
>
> it definetly does not sound like they use
> all 8k heat here..to generates the elecricity...
>
>
> some nuke plants use coolants other than
> water to absorb the heat...like liquid sodium...
>
>
> also if you read the article... there is no needed
> for high gas taxes...
>
> the goverment has pumped $160 billion into nuke power in
> the last 60 years... and has spent very little
> on other power sources in the same time
> frame... heck were blowing 5 billion a week
> in Iraq and $1 billion/mo in Afghan...
>
> a small tax on gas like a nickle or dime
> would be ok to most people but higher than
> that there will be massive resistence...
>
> on my links page there are many other
> ideas about envergy ....that are here already
> and don't need to be RESEARCHED but
> implemented...
>
> http://www.mydr2.com/fav_links.html
>
> fffffffffff
>
>
>
>
>
> ffffffff
>
> "That Guy" <7@xxxxx> wrote in message
> news:XbednU1ioZS4S2bfRVn-iQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "foote" <tjfoote@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:6HLKe.4033$vb3.3661@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> plus its a very wasterful energy process...
>>>
>>> nuke plants generate about 8 thousand degrees heat..water boils at 212
>>> degress to make steam... about 99.999 percent waste of
>>> energy here...
>>
>>
>> No, you're thinking about it wrong. First off, all the heat radiates or
>> convects, meaning that if I take say one cubic inch of steel heated to
>> 800 degrees and drop it in five gallons of water, the water absorbs ALL
>> the heat energy of the cube. Water touching the cube turns to steam and
>> the bubble floats up and condenses before it reaches the surface,
>> especially if it's in a sealed, pressurized container. One 800-degree
>> cubic inch of steel does not have enough heat energy to boil five gallons
>> of water, but the water will absorb all its heat energy. The five
>> gallons of water will raise in temperature a few degrees because the heat
>> energy is spread out over five gallons of water. So for a nuclear power
>> plant, you could heat a relatively small area to 8000 degrees, and
>> transfer all that heat energy to a large amount of water, which would be
>> fairly efficient. Secondly, 212 is only the boiling point at sea-level
>> atmospheric pressure. Steam tanks are pressurized, raising the boiling
>> point of water significantly.
>>
>>> fusion is worst ...about 1 million degrees of
>>> heat is generated during fusion...thats why
>>> the sun is so bright...
>>
>> Again, this is not necessarily ineficient.
>>
>>
>>> plus every step of the nuclear fuel cycle releases radioactivity...
>>
>> Much less radioactive waste results from fusion than from fission plants.
>> I'm not advocating nuclear power, but lets know what we are up against.
>>
>>> rather than build hundreds of nuke plants
>>> as Bush wants to do at $2billion a crack
>>> it would be cheaper to invest in energy
>>> conservation..
>>
>> I agree. Also, improving solar, wind and environmentally-friendly
>> hydroelectric. I'd propose adding a seven cents a gallon gas (and other
>> petroleum fuels) tax, and raising that tax seven cents a month for the
>> next 30 years. After the first year, this gas tax would be up to 84
>> cents. After ten years, eight dollars and forty cents, and so on.
>> However, my condition would be to use 100% of the gas tax to subsidize
>> whole-process environmentally friendly power alternatives. By "whole
>> process" I mean as opposed to hydrogen power, which does not create power
>> but simply stores power from existing power sources, like a battery. A
>> fuel cell is basically a battery. The power you put into it has to come
>> from somewhere. Solar, on the other hand, is basically free energy, and
>> so is wind, more or less, hydroelectric is great when it can be harnessed
>> without serious environmental disruption.
>>
>> Nuclear is stupid. You can't get rid of the waste, as getting it off the
>> planet is cost-prohibitive and no matter where you bury it, it will come
>> back up sooner or later.
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Defining Chi with Judo Terms thread
    ... contraceptives in the drinking water or in the food supply? ... The real long pole in the tent is energy. ... Pilot plants of Ocean Thermal power systems have been built and ... the technology for Ocean Thermal Plants is there. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: The Future Navy Will Be Nuclear
    ... when it comes down to it the sun is the only reliable power ... With catalysts created by an MIT chemist, sunlight can turn water into ... dominant source of energy. ... would yield fresh water as well as electricity. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Turning Power Plant Challenges into Clean Technology Opportunities
    ... Turning Power Plant Challenges into Clean Technology Opportunities ... Looks at Water and Renewable Energy ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: Obliterating the Rocket Equation with a Torusail
    ... > If we're talking about a future where fusion power ... Most of the proposed energy comes from He3 and 3H ... > conversion is the same as a traditional heat engine. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Obliterating the Rocket Equation with a Torusail
    ... >>to tritium which instantly fuses with deuterium (producing ... assumptions that D-D fusion is a viable power source. ... >as a fuel deuterium has the highest energy per unit mass ... >>conversion is the same as a traditional heat engine. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
Loading