Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- From: "Robert Peffers" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:49:33 -0000
"Custos Custodum" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1gbro192sd5o8e4m8ve2d0sat61ccosean@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:59:33 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
> <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Custos Custodum" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:hd4po118a2ol7n4dp7h1bor17b5vhpnat2@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:49:51 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
>>> <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes I know but it is great fun to, (eventually), ask them to explain how
>>>>we
>>>>can end up with a bigger quantity of fuel after withdrawing power from
>>>>it.
>>>
>>> You've never heard of 'fast breeder' reactors, then?
>>>
>>>>It is also funny to see the results of then asking why putting the now
>>>>depleted fuel back underground has increased either the overall natural
>>>>radioactive stock or the risks thereof.
>>>
>>> I don't think that was quite what was claimed.
>>>
>>>
>>Where did you learn your physics.
>
> At university. Four years of it, plus all the associated 'hard sums'.
> TBH, I've forgotten most of it now.
>
>>Fast breeder or not it is not possible to
>>create anything.
>
> Out of nothing?
> No one has claimed otherwise.
Oh! but they have. If they claim we are making the World mire radioactive
that is exactly what they are claiming.
>
>>If a nucleus gains a neutron the neutron comes from
>>somewhere else. If you enrich something you deplete something else. You
>>make
>>nothing - you only shift it around.
>>
> I can see that you have an urgent need to disabuse yourself of some
> serious, fundamental misconceptions you have about the nature of
> radioactivity and nuclear power generation. Here are some pointers for
> further study:
>
> 1. When an atom decays, the decay product is not necessarily less
> radioactive than the parent was. Likewise for fission products.
Never said it was.
> 2. While the overall trend of a decay chain is down the periodic table
> towards lighter, stable elements, in practice there is considerable
> zig-zagging about. Beta emitters decay *up* the periodic table.
Makes no real difference in the overall scheme of things. The principle that
any change in state can only be obtained by either losing or gaining from or
to elsewhere. The total cannot be changed if you increase one you decrease
another.
> 3. Only a minuscule amount of the power from a nuclear reactor comes
> from radioactive decay. The bulk of it comes from fission - a
> completely different process.
It still does not change the simple fact that the total cannot be greater
than the sum of the products
> 4. Spent nuclear fuel is far from inert and contains many 'hot'
> isotopes. Furthermore, the plutonium it now contains is capable of
> yielding much more energy than the original uranium mix.
Indeed but that is not the point. Again I say if you increase one part you
must decrease another. Those bits don't come from nowhere. You are standing
too close to the trees and you are not seeing the wood.
>
>
>>This also is the longer term solution for we will, in time, learn to shift
>>things around to end up with stable resultants. In the meantime if we bury
>>it the fact remains the overall total
>
> The overall total _what_?
See - told you you are lost in the woods and can't see the trees.
I will say it agai. - In no way can any process add or decrese the overall
quantity of matter for the very simple reason that to change any substance
you must take something from another substance which is then decreased. Four
tears and you still believe in magic?
>
>>remains the same on a World wide
>>scale. Thus the disposal question is not due to the total radioactive
>>quantity getting bigger, (that's not possible)
>
> Oh yes it is!
>
>>but the gathering of it in
>>local places away from its original un-mined area to where the plant that
>>uses it as a fuel are situated. So the disposal question is just another
>>red
>>herring.
>>Don't worry about radiation; worry about contamination.
>
> AIUI, the real worry about burying waste is that no one can guarantee
> the geological stability of the sites for the next 10000 years or
> more.
Not the point though, is it? If we dig the stuff up and do something with it
that cannot possibly add to the overall quantity of radioactive matter in
the World then the problem is no different than the place where the stuff
originated - What of the geological stability of the origins of the stuff?
Who guaruntees it?
>
>>Now tell me the
>>proportion of members of the public who have been contaminated by nuclear
>>power generation and also the numbers contaminated by oil and coal
>>pollutants?
>
> I have no idea - I'm not in the numbers game. I believe the main
> concern of the 'anti' lobby is the potential for widespread disaster
> in the event of a major incident such as a melt-down. The probability
> of that happening may well diminish with each new generation of
> reactor, but it can never be zero.
I never claimed it was not a hazard nor did I claim no one has been killed
or injured by it. The facts cannot be ignored that the nuclear power
industry is far safer than any other major fuel for producing electic power.
On an annual basis of people per million killed per terawatt of power
produced by each fuel nuclear is the safest by far.
Let me put it this way - if you think that any nuclear process can make the
overall total of matter in the World greater or less then those four years
were a total waste. Furthermore if you think a fuel that kills less people
per terawatt generated than another is more dangerous you have also wasted
your education.
Do you actually understand what that safety record is telling you? Nuclear
power is safer than other power generation and that includes hydroelectric.
For any educated person to claim any kind of reaction of any kind can gain
or lose the overall quantities of that reaction is a disgrace to the modern
education system and may account for the reason the general public have lost
a great deal of trust in today's scientists. BTW: may I remind you that this
use of the term particle is really not the only way to consider reactions.
We are still searching for the Quark you know.
--
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: SCOTS STARS & POLITICIANS CALL FOR INDEPENDENCE AS CONVENTION LAUNCHES
- Next by Date: Re: A UK woman is murdered by her current or ex-partner every three days.
- Previous by thread: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Next by thread: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
