Re: Powering Oahu from Lanai
- From: Maren at google <m.purves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:40:04 -0000
On Jun 16, 8:05 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
hate to say it, but most likely the one you're on ;-)
Of course the French claimed to be able to deal with the stuff 30 or
so years ago, so maybe France is the way to go. As long as we still
have squabbles (to put it mildly) about even depleted uranium going on
here, with radioactivity below natural background radiation, there
will be more fossil fuel burned to generate electricity. There's a
fear
of the unknown (and that which you can't see) that's hard to
overcome.
There's still wind, there's still geothermal, there's still even solar
water
heating and building to site for the place where you're building
that could be used (never mind a lot of public buildings capturing
extra heat just for the color of the roofs they're mandated to be
painted
and requiring extra air conditioning as a consequence, or students
in schools being extra uncomfortable) more than it is.
Quite honestly, I see water as more of a problem than electric
energy right here right now. - we may have more of an electric
energy transmission challenge, which also holds true for water
on the Big Island than most of you on the smaller islands see,
but we probably also still have a lower population density and
larger aquifers. We also have a lot more people relying on water
from roof catchments. -
After going through a month or so of drought we got an inch or so
of rain (OK, so maybe more like 3 inches). Right now I'm more
concerned about water (and about the hundreds of earthquakes
on Kilauea - the next 1868 isn't an if, it's a when) than about
how to e.g. generate the power to provide air conditioning to people
who live in buildings that haven't been built right to begin
with.
Maren
.
- References:
- Powering Oahu from Lanai
- From: Alvin E. Toda
- Re: Powering Oahu from Lanai
- From: Lawrence Akutagawa
- Powering Oahu from Lanai
- Prev by Date: Re: Powering Oahu from Lanai
- Next by Date: Re: Powering Oahu from Lanai
- Previous by thread: Re: Powering Oahu from Lanai
- Next by thread: Re: Powering Oahu from Lanai
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
