Re: Powering Oahu from Lanai


On Jun 16, 11:05 am, "Lawrence Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Niu-boy" <kenb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1181969100-sch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





I don't know why I've chosen to style myself as a solitary
spokesperson slash advocate for nuclear power in Hawaii, but so be
it... Certainly, safe disposal of nuclear waste is a very important
concern, however, reactor designs commonly implemented in the past
have been quite "dirty" with much waste being left over after the
fuel
is spent. More efficient reactors, which were also designed many
years
ago, were not widely implemented, in my opinion, because of political
and popular fears that they would be used to create weapons grade
fissile materials. So it was deemed "safer" to build dirty reactors.
However, it is these same "safer" dirty reactors that caught the
attention and well deserved ire of the environmentalists. For
decades
now we have been subjected to media hype and general disinformation
about the state of nuclear technology and the benefits of the more
efficient reactor designs which produce much smaller quantities of
waste. Most waste is now stored in situ at power plants, at or near
ground level, and will have to be removed, processed and safely
stored for hundreds of years while the radioactive isotopes decay
into
more inert elements. This is a major challenge facing the Nuclear
Power Industry in the future. Firstly, we need to get over our fears
and start building efficient reactors. Secondly, my suggestion for
dealing with waste is simple: drill very deep bore holes near or on
power plant grounds then place containerized nuclear waste down at
the
bottom of the bores thousands of feet below ground and out of
reach of
aquifers, etc. Thus entombed in solid crustal rock the waste could
safely wait out its half-life far removed from any living thing.
Existing drilling technology, borrowed from the petroleum industry,
could be used to drill the bores. Once a power plant's useful life is
over the bores, permanently sealed, would pose no threat to the
community above ground. Your question, "For what value of 'deal
with'," itself begs the question. It's going to cost whatever it
costs. We got ourselves into this mess and we will have to pay to get
out of it. The bottom line is that petroleum is a precious non-
renewable resource and should not be squandered in the mere
production
of electricity. Bio-fuels, while an attractive alternative, use up
arable land that should otherwise be used to grow food for the
starving billions. So far, to my knowledge, solar and wind power are
the only truly renewable natural power resources we have and they are
far from consistent sources. One advantage of solar and wind,
however,
is that they are technologies that are accessible to individuals. It
is this accessibility to technology that I believe will ultimately
lead to centralized power generation becoming obsolete giving way
to a
de-centralized, two tiered power generation model. In this model,
first-tier technologies such as wind and solar power generation will
be augmented by second-tier technologies based on hydrogen. That
said, nuclear energy, in my opinion, stands as the last bastion of
centralized power production as we know it and if not encouraged now
will only serve to hasten the decentralization process. For me, the
jury is still out regarding which power generation model is the
better
one for humanity in the long run; centralized or de-centralized power
generation.

Nice discussion, but still does not address on which of the eight
islands
the spent nuclear waste - in however "much smaller quantities" -
will be
stored. And - please - refernces/citations/links to substantiate
statement
that storage need concern only "hundreds of years". All net queries
I've
made talk about thousands, tens of thousands, even hundred thousand
years,
as per http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/EZRA/

I concede that my statement of "hundreds of years" is an extreme
understatement, scientifically, however as it relates to our ability
as a nation slash political entity to maintain the containment
facilities where nuclear waste is stored, it seems plausible. Do we
really expect to be able to extend our control over these wastes past
a few hundred years into the future? My suggestion of burying the
wastes in permanently sealed bore holes drilled deep into crustal rock
down near the earth's mantle would be as safe a place on earth as
possible to wait out the half-life without need of ongoing human
oversight. Unless, of course, our planet suffers a total cataclysmic
geological upheaval in which case it won't matter anyway.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Oil-pipeline shutdown in Alaska to choke flow
    ... It's what Yucca Mountain is studing to store. ... It's all the hign level waste ... But we don't build anymore nuclear power plants, ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)
  • Re: Powering Oahu from Lanai
    ... spokesperson slash advocate for nuclear power in Hawaii, ... safe disposal of nuclear waste is a very ... concern, however, reactor designs commonly implemented in the past ...
    (soc.culture.hawaii)
  • Re: When even a Republican can see it....
    ... Al Gore is against nuclear power. ... nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal -- which is the real issue: ... weapons grade' (using electricity from any source, nuclear, fossil fuel, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • A New Vision for Nuclear Waste
    ... A New Vision for Nuclear Waste ... Without that cooling water, the fuel cladding might overheat, melt, ... about two dozen operating reactors have them already. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Thorium Power Ltd. nearing goal of commercial reactor that doesnt produce bomb fuel
    ... Thorium Power Ltd. says it's nearing its goal-a commercial reactor that ... is that its waste can be made into bomb fuel. ... Current nuclear reactors are powered by a mix of two isotopes of uranium ... In about three years we'll have larger-scale development of reactors. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)