Re: Europe is a lousy world citizen ??? Not so sure

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 16:46:02 -0800, "Jerry Steiger"
<jerrys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

><jjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:43c2e417.7197515@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 13:12:12 -0800, "Jerry Steiger"
>> <jerrys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>><jjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:43bed906.42364890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Nuclear fission is just plain mad - Fissionable
>>>> material is a finite reasource, just the same as oil - and the waste
>>>> is around for a long long long ........... long time.
>>>
>>>I hate to participate in such off-topic discussions, but I feel compelled
>>>to
>>>react to this part. Read the article about reactor design in a recent
>>>Scientific American (probably the last two or three months, certainly
>>>within
>>>the last year). Fission resources can last much longer, proliferation of
>>>weapons grade material will be much less, and waste will be a smaller
>>>problem for much less time with the right reactor and fuel cycle design.
>>
>> Was this an article on Thorium based reactors that 'eat' plutonium.
>
>I don't remember Thorium being mentioned. It is a type of breeder reactor.
>
>> It is an interesting idea and has many advantages - however
>> with nuclear power it is still difficult to divorce the civil from the
>> military, no matter what scientist say and I am just sceptical about
>> the 'know how' in the nuclear field spreading around the world. Don't
>> for one moment imagine that this know how will always remain in the
>> hands of people that will just have peacefull intents.
>
>One of the advantages cited in the article is that it severely reduces the
>amount of fuel processing required. There are lots less chances of people
>getting their hands on material that can be easily processed into weapons
>grade fuel. (This is my shaky recall, so get your hands on the article.)

I'll try and see if its online. I'm afraid I let my sub to
scientific American subside a few years ago - only because of poverty
on my part.
>
>> As an aside if the Thorium cycle works then it looks good for Oz,
>> India and the US, because that is, I think, 80% of the world's Thorium
>> split evenly, but even Thorium is a finite reasource. So places like
>> China and Europe will still be Uranium / plutonium based and
>> scrabbling around for the limited supplies there are, even if nuclear
>> scientist like to promote the idea that these various fuel cycles
>> 'magically' create fuel that can be used in other typre of reactor.
>
>In essence, the technology ends up converting the non-fissionable isotopes
>into fissionable isotopes. No magic, just clever engineering. Since the
>fissionable isotopes are only a few percent of the total, the amount of
>usable fuel increases tremendously. Limited supplies wouldn't be a problem
>for a long, long time.

mmm . I just get a little skeptical about these resource figures and
how easy resources are to get hold of .
>
>> My nuclear physics is a bit rusty but I suppose in pure energy terms
>> one can always use 'future' technology that will use radiactive
>> fissional material until it is all converted to lead ! Its just the
>> consequetional wastemanagement that will be the problem. ;-)
>
>Since the cyle uses the fuel so much more efficiently, there is very little
>waste left to handle and it has much shorter half-lives. Sounds like a
>win-win situation to me.

On the surface it does and perhaps it is if you are prepared to let
future generations do the handling ;-) - I just am not convinced
that the best and brightest minds could not be better utilised
elsewhere on other technologies.
>
>> Is it just not easier to use less energy?
>
>Quite possibly not. I'm all for efficiency, but I also believe that
>solutions need to make economic sense. Most of the proposed methods for
>reducing greenhouse gases have huge negative economic impacts.
In standard 'Return On Investment' economics I think the jury is out
but tat the start of the process, you're probably correct - -
however at the the core of Economics is investor confidance. The
world economy is dependant on the people of this world being confident
that the future is going to be better than the past. This has been at
the core of all western capitalism since Adam Smith first documented
capitalism and how money is raised and invested. Now if a significant
section of the population begin to loose faith in the future I am
afraid it is is a bit like a 'run on' the banks we all see in
Westerns. So if ,as a global community, we can agree to certain
polution rectifying technologies and standards (and on the coal issue
with China I could not agree with you more) then the the ROI economics
of companies can still be calculated and maintained.

>Meanwhile,
>the third world (and large parts of the first) are burning massive amounts
>of coal, putting more radioactive waste into the atmosphere every year than
>all of the nuclear power plants ever did. (I got that from a scientifically
>literate talk show host, Dr. Bill Wattenburg, so I don't have a citation.)

I am sure your correct - so are you suggesting it means nothing is
done? I know the Chinese are a dictatorship and it can be galling to
realise that they have managed to gain a a mutal wrestling lock on the
US (and world economy) where they have so much hold over US $ reserves
that theoretically they could pull the plug on the US - but
correspondingly it would of course be mutal descruction as their US$
would become worthless. However I think it is really a question of
handing over clean coal technology or if you dare hand over nuclear
technology , but just make sure you don't dismantle all your nukes.
Not a pleasant thought but I am afraid its probably the way things
will go.

Anyway

TTFN

Jonathan
>
>
>Jerry Steiger
>Tripod Data Systems
>"take the garbage out, dear"
>
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Integral Fast Reactor: Gen IV reactor ready for prime time???
    ... An Introduction to Argonne National Laboratory's INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR ... The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program was the nation's premier ... and testing the next generation nuclear power plant. ... for which the fuel is so plentiful that fuel costs cannot reasonably ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: CANDU reactor questions
    ... plutonium from elsewhere (such as dismantled nuclear weapons) they ... energy needs using various fuel sources in which a U-235-only fuel cycle ... These aren't *all* uranium reserves, because they consider, as usual, only ... doesn't happen in reactors using fast neutron reactor ...
    (sci.energy)
  • `Fast breeder reactor projects put on fast track
    ... `Fast breeder reactor projects put on fast track' ... INDIANS are now the world masters of the Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor ... in a nuclear project's implementation, ... nuclear fuel. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Exploiting space; the Man IN the moon
    ... they were necessary to create a profit motive for space travel. ... :I guess I don't see that getting an He-3 reactor working is going to ... given the technology of the 15th century. ... :> and hydrodynamic power there is available right now. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Will Hydrogen be the fuel of the future?
    ... unused in "spent fuel" can be used. ... "burner reactor", a reactor designed to fission some isotopes and transmute others ... Accelerator-based actinide burning has also received a LOT of attention from the ... high power semiconductor and very high power microwave sources for years. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
Loading