Re: Windscaling


Michael O'Neill wrote:
kevinmccabe@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

<snip>

I don't think its simple. I don't think its 'nice.' (Restricting
breeder technologies to stable regimes will be difficult. Security in a
West that has made itself a target of hatred will not be easy). I do
think nuclear electrical production is every bit as imperative as
development of renewables.

McCabe

The implication of what you're saying is that the West/Developed
Countries will use Nuclear Power but deny its use to 3rd World Countries,
which will burn up all their fossil fuels and forests and change the
world weather anyway.

Sorry, I'm being too abbreviated (but, given the scurilous slurs on my
good name by dems wimmins for what I did say, how can I be blamed).
Back on point, I would definitely NOT deny nuclear power to the third
world. I would distinguish between types of reactor architectures based
on threats of production of plutionium or enriched uranium for weapons.
There are sevral reactor architectures that will accept unenriched
uranium and/or uranium enriched below weapons grade. Candu is one that
is used in Canada and has been marketed by that country abroad. It uses
unenriched uranium. (Si has pointed out that this architecture presents
greater dangers than (at least some) others because of the
pressurization required. But, its a neat type of reactor both from the
non-proliferation standpoint and because it can used a lot of the spent
(waste) fuels from architectures requiring enriched uranium. See, the
enriched stuff becomes waste below a certain threshold, but its still
usable in the Candu. Gets rid of or reduces the potency of a ton of
waste. The answer may well be to stick these things out in a desert,
like say one in Iran. The PBMRs don't have the same pressure problems
that Si is attributing to the Candu. They require uranium below the
weapons grade enrichment level. I don't know if the level is low enough
for them to recycle. I do know they are releatively cheap to build and
very safe. I also know that surplus heat from these reactors can be
used to run desalination plants. I don't want the Third World left out.
Indeed, getting people off an energy system that uses wood and dung
fires should be at the top of our list of priorities, both from a
humanitarian and a global warming perspective.


Whether its the Yellowstone Caldera, an Atlantic tsunami, the ceasing of
the Conveyor current or the flipping of the Magnetic Poles, high energy
dependent countries will suffer most, nuclear or no nuclear, if the
remperatures drop 10 degress globally.

We've had our first warm day in Ireland yesterday at a peak 14 degress -
with 9 degrees C tops in most of the country.

A suddent change from 5 degree weather.

In September last year we had 18-22 degree weather before suddenly
getting cold.

I cannot recall such sudden late seasonal changes happenning before
although perhaps someone might enlighten me here.

Felling the rainforests in Brazil might have something to do with it.

Deforestation is a big problem, as is desrtification, as is depletion
of fresh water aquifers and the disappearanc eof many of the worlds
lakes.

And we can wee what removal of forests without re-plantation has done all
across North Africa. There they don't burn it for heat, but they sell the
wood to buy food according to one documentary I have seen.

The trees, the binders of water and creators of mini-climates, are going
and leavin desert in their passing for the next generation.

Yup, and the mangroves and swamp forests on the coasts are giving way
as well, leaving zero breeding grounds for many species of fish.


Whatever we do to get heat [and why haven't we reflectors in orbit
beaming solar power in a tight microwave back to earth?] we need to give
Mother Earth her hair back.

M.

Couldn't agree more. I just know my country. We are hedonists and
workaholics. The combination makes for a society that doesn't think
much beyond "well, thats sure enough a problem, but Christ I'm tired,
and I've got to take the Kids to soccer in the SUV, so could we discuss
it later? I mean, like, I'm really interested and all, I'm just shy of
time right now, you know?"
So what do we get? This past Superbowl, the most expensive image
advertising available, the ads were huge fucking SUVs, real monsters.
But, so we can feel good about ourselves, biodiesel capable proudly
part of the logo. While the switch to Biodiesel and Ethanol is great
news in one respect (zero carbon gain burning this product, as it is
produced by photosynthesis thateat Co2). But, it places food production
in direct competition with fuel production. People will starve.
Its this kind of lack of thought, this reactive model of analysis,
that is the real danger. America will turn to nuclear power (we already
produce more than anyone else, but less of a percentage of consumption
than many), but too late to eliminate signicant thermal pollution from
coal fire plants. And, when we do, it will be at breakneck speed. Not
the right mode for implementing things safe.

McCabe

.

Loading