Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- From: "Robert Peffers" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:14:41 -0000
"RadgeGadge" <jcmullennospam1000@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3v45onF13q2kmU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Robert Peffers" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dmilm7$5ka$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>> After all, we, and our potential descendants for n generations will be
>>> carrying the burden of the isotopes they are adding and will add to the
>>> world we live in.
>>
>> Hang on though, did I not explain what an isotope actually was? An
>> isotope occupies the same place on the periodic table as the element it
>> belongs with.
>
> The periodic table is not really relevant here, as it refers to the
> chemical properties of elements which are largely governed by their
> electrons. Nuclear reactions depend on the properties of the *nucleus*
> (hence the name!).
Stop digging you are deep enough.
>
> What you need to refer to is the Binding Energy Curve, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_defect for a graphic.
>
> Here's a beautiful interactive Periodic Table to play with as you (like
> me) like them.
>
> http://chemsoc.org/viselements/pages/periodic_table.html
Stop wriggling. The point remains to be answered. It's not that complicated
either.
>
>>> We have almost limitless and free hydro and wind power here in
>>> Scotland.
>>>
>>> As other posters have pointed out, these alternatives are not without
>>> their drawbacks, individually, environmentally. However I believe that
>>> a coordinated energy strategy comprising non-nuclear sustainables would
>>> still be the best and the safest for Scotland.
>>
>> The whole debate, though, has shown that on a World wide scale the facts
>> prove there is more danger from wind and hydro power than from nuclear
>> power. I've been making that point all through this debate. There have
>> been more deaths caused per terawatt of power than by amlost every other
>> fuel including wind and water than by nuclear.
>
> I grant you that, indeed I have never disputed it. For nuclear though, you
> have to add in all the potential deaths tens or even hundreds of thousands
> of years into the future. You are into statistical models, with all their
> inherent uncertainties.
>
>>Then we have the red herrings one of which is that the extrction of
>>uranium is not carbon free as it needs power to refine. This only applies
>>if he power used generated by a fossil fuel generator but this need not be
>>the case if we have carbon free generators.
Not true. The fact is that we are not adding anything, overall, to the World
supply of radioactivity. We have, though, fetched it to the surface and
mucked around with it. The increase at the power plants is equalled by the
decrease at the mines. The total will be the stuff still down there; plus
the stuff we took elsewhere on the surface; minus the power we extracted
from the whole. If we stick the residue back down there then there really is
no problem than the one you wrongly perceive to exist.
>
> Well, sure. At present though the bulk of our power is still produced by
> nuclear (the subject of this debate) and fossils, which I share your
> distaste for.
>
>>Don't get me wrong, I'm not against wind and water but they will not fill
>>the gap without something else and the thought of more fossil fueled
>>stations fills me with dread. The fact is the World's power use just now
>>is around 14 terawatts but is expected to exceed 35 terawatts around 2020.
>>That's getting on for three times as much and the old nuclear stations are
>>on their last legs. I worry more about World wars for electric power as
>>the fossil fuels run out and there are signs the fuel prices are steadily
>>climbing as we speak. The gas is running out, the coal is not being
>>produced, and the oil is going up in price too.
>
> This worries me too. I just don't think nuclear (at the present state of
> knowledge and demonstrated technological expertise) is up to the job. See
> below.
Perhaps not but it is the very best we can do.
>
>>> Nuclear has to:
>>>
>>> Demonstrate an ability not to blow up and contaminate continents like
>>> at Chernobyl and Windscale. So far the UK industry has failed to
>>> convince me. Their recent record is poor.
>>
>> It is far better than coal, oil, gas and water from a safety point of
>> view as they have all killed more people annually on a terawatt/million
>> basis.
>>
>>> Demonstrate an ability to dispose safely of nuclear waste and to
>>> decommission former nuclear plant. World wide the record is poor.
>>
>> Your claim is false on all counts. (a), If we bury the waste we actually
>> put back less than we dug up.
>
> No! This is a false and dangerous claim. The waste can be and is more
> radioactive and more dangerous than the ore it was made from. It's
> important that you recognise this inherent reality of fission reactions if
> you want me to take your other arguments seriously.
Has it occurred to you that what you are attempting to claim just is not
possible? It is impossible you know. You make several wrong conclusions in
your whole way of thinking and you really should know better. The fact is
the overall strength of the total radiation can not go up as you seem to
think. What can be done, and is done, we can concentrate more of it into a
smaller lump. I'll try and make it simple. If you buy a bottle of whiskey
you get a quantity of alcohol. That's fine but what you really have is
quantity of alcohol in a volume of water. So if you take a dram and put ice
and water in it you have more in your glass but you do not have any more
alcohol. If you were to take the remainder of the whiskey and distil it
further you would still have the same alcohol but in a smaller volume.
This is what we are doing with the various elements we much about with and
call nuclear science. We dig up tones of ore and extract a few grams of
stuff we want from it. There are also daft claims made about the tailings
but that's another story. Those few grams get further treated but overall we
are not making a change to the overall radioactive quantity contained in the
whole.
This shoots you claims all to hell and the point is that the basic laws of
physics are all that have been applied. Fact you cannot get more out than
you put in. So what if you have a small lump of very active matter it came
from a large lump of less active stuff to start with and the total, minus
loses, is the same. You cam hum and haw, make me out to be an uneducated
clod who never went to Uni but what does that say about you and the
education you got at Uni?
Just remember this - I started my training way back in 1952 and the
pioneering establishment of Dounreay came into being in 1954. I ended up
with security clearance and there was no-one in the UK with a higher
clearance than I had. I was constantly on courses until the year I retired
and was in places like Risley, Institute of Naval Medicine, Aldermaston and
many, many others. I,' no academic, I'm no professor, I'm no scientist and
I'm no academic but I've been there done that and I was very, very good at
my job. You don't work with that stuff for that long and rub shoulders with
people of that ilk without getting a good idea of what's going on. My
explanations may well not be the way expected and may use my own words but I
do know what I'm talking about and what goes on with the stuff.
>>(b), The nuclear safety is better than the others and the new stations are
>>easier to decommission.
>
> Well, they claim they are going to be. So far what I've seen totally fails
> to convince me of this.
Not surprising as you seem not to really know just what's going on.
>
>> The fear of terrorism is no greater that from any other power sourse and
>> it is much harder to gain entry or get at nuclear stations.
>
> Are you serious here? I think the two parts of your sentence contradict
> each other if you think about it.
I did think about it - did you?
>
>>> Show that the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons is finally
>>> broken. WMDs were a mistake; it is a disgrace that the UK is planning
>>> to upgrade the 'deterrent'. Whether you like it or not, the UK (and
>>> most other countries) nuke programme was largely set up to produce
>>> fissile for city busters. Worldwide, this record is also poor.
>
>> Strawman again. There is no longer any link between power generation and
>> military production.
>
> So when do you reckon that happened then? The link I posted from the MOD
> website doesn't clearly state this to be the case and you would think they
> would know. If you have 'inside information' on this, please share it with
> us.
>
>>In any case why would they need to with all those submarine reactors?
>
> This doesn't make sense to me. The submarine reactors power the
> submarines. Are you suggesting they could get all the fissiles they would
> need from reprocessing spent fuel from submarine PWRs? What about the
> tritium, the most-needed isotope to replenish and refurbish old
> city-busters? Historically the entire UK supply was made at Chapelcross. I
> genuinely don't know their plans and again their own site is not very
> clear about it. Do you know the answer?
No, and if I did I would not tell you or anyone else. I did sight the act
and I'm not about to break it now. You know that not so long ago I would not
even have said I worked in the MOD.
>
>>> Nuclear timescales are so long.
>
>> Aye! They have been around since long before we came along and they will
>> be around long after we have all gone as they are a natural part of the
>> overall scheme of things.
>> We muck about with all sorts of elements in all sorts of ways and we
>> always have. What if some of them are radioactive? They were decaying
>> before we came across them and the worse we can do to them is add or
>> subtract a particle or so and make a different isotope. Whatever we do we
>> will not make the overall total greater or less and that is a basic law
>> of nature and physics.
>
> Read the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission and see
> if you can see why this central point in your argument is so wrong.
> Extract below.
>
> " Because of the short range of the strong binding force, large nuclei
> contain proportionally more neutrons than do light elements, which are
> most stable with a 1-1 ratio of protons and neutrons.
Nope! Nothing there.
> Fission products have, on average, the same ratio of neutrons and protons
> as their parent nucleus, and are therefore usually very unstable because
> they have too many neutrons compared to stable isotopes of similar mass.
Nope! Nothing there either.
> This is the fundamental cause of the problem of radioactive high level
> waste from nuclear reactors. Fission products tend to be beta emitters,
> emitting fast-moving electrons to conserve electric charge as neutrons
> convert to protons inside the nucleus."
Nope! Nothing there either - What is your point please.
I learned all that in about my first hour lecture.
BTW: Did you not notice my little reference by name to that, "Strong Binding
Force", way back up the thread? It was ment to drop you a hint I knew what I
was talking about.
>
> RadgeGadge
>
Really all the above says is this stuff is dangerous - but we know that
don't we?
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Next by Date: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Previous by thread: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Next by thread: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
