Re: Powering Oahu from Lanai


On Jun 16, 11:35 pm, "Lawrence Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1182037800-sch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





"Lawrence Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1182017100-sch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"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 do not think that should be a primary issue. "If" for
instance, you
believe that global warming theory is correct, then you are
faced with
doing
what is necessary to prevent the event from happening, which means a
reduction of greenhouses gases. One way to dramatically reduce the
contribution that the generation of electricity contributes to
gloabl
warming, is to generate electricity, without using fuel that
contributes
to
global warming. On the other hand, "if" the global warming
theory is not
correct, then you don't have to do anything about preventing an
event
from
happening, that will not happen. "If' you believe that oil will
run out,
then any effort to dramatically reduce the use of oil, has got to
be a
positive not a negative move, it would seem to me. In both of these
cases,
there can be no debate, that nuclear power does not contribute to
global
warming, and does not use a finite resource, that may be depleted.

Still dodges the key issue of which island all the spent nuclear
waste will
be stored on. Regardless of what you think or don't think, this is
an issue
that island folks need to confront if in fact nuclear energy is to
be viable
there. It's kinda like if you decide upon a chicken farm, you need to
decide upfront what to do with all that chicken manure. Or do you
as a
prospective chicken farmer really think that chicken manure
disposal is not
a primary issue to be considered?

My suggestion is that waste storage be provided at or near the reactor
site to minimize handling and transport of the waste. So, whatever
island the reactor is on is the island the waste will be stored on.
My suggestion is to drill bore holes deep into crustal rock. In the
case of Hawaii, this could occur offshore. Then, properly
containerized waste would be lowered into the bores and permanently
sealed into them. Buried down that far the waste would not be near
aquifers or any living thing. Also, barring our tectonic plate
turning over like a flapjack, the waste could be expected to be safely
entombed for a time period measurable in geologic time.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading