Re: Nuclear power
Y.Porat
> “Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight -
> vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to
> the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the
> expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing
> plants.”http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear
>
> Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, had this to say,
> “In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that
> nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of
> my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first
> voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing
> of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on,
> my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement
> needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the
> energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster:
> catastrophic climate change.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR200...
>
> Wind power and solar generation can’t hack it. So what are the
> alternatives to nuclear/hydrocarbon power plants?
> Brownouts and blackouts on a regular basis
> The surest way to a low standard of living is energy poverty
>
> Let us examine the waste balance sheet of a coal-fired vs. a nuclear
> power plant.
>
> A 1,000 Megawatt coal-fired power plant produces
> solid wastes at a rate of 1,800 pounds per minute that includes
> 19 toxic metals such as arsenic
> carcinogens such as benzopyrene
> 30 pounds of sulfur dioxide per second
> As much nitrous oxide as 200,000 automobiles
> 50 times the radioactive emissions of an average nuclear power plant
> Each (short) ton of coal contains
> 50 grams of Uranium
> 129 grams of Thorium
>
> According to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from
> the operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts
> to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for
> nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from
> coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
>
> Highly radioactive daughter particles amount to 3% (by volume) or
> about .2 cubic meters from a year’s production from a 1,000 Megawatt
> Light Water Reactor (LWR) power plant.
>
> In that 3% you have the following significant radionuclides with their
> half lives.
> Gases
> Kypton-85 10.7 years
> Xenon-133 5.3 days
> Solids
> Strontium-90 28.1 years
> Molybdenum-99 66.7 hours
> Iodine-131 8.1 days
> Cesium-137 30.2 years
> Cerium-144 285.0 days
>
> After 30 half lives a radioactive material is deemed safe. Picking
> the longest lived, Cesium-137 at 30.2 years, 30x30.2=906 years.
>
> We are not talking about Yucca Mountain here; that is for wastes from
> nuclear weapons production.
>
> What about the remaining 97%? They can be immediately reused as
> nuclear fuel. We recycle paper and not nuclear fuel?
>
> In 1977, that gem of a president Jimmy Carter canceled the Barnwell,
> South Carolina, reprocessing plant then nearing completion because of
> an exaggerated danger of terrorists stealing our nuclear fuel and
> chemically separating the plutonium from the uranium in order to build
> nuclear weapons with it. They should live so long trying.
>
> France, Germany, Japan, and Russia continued with their reprocessing
> facilities and have assured themselves sources of readily available
> nuclear fuel for the foreseeable future. I am sure that the terrorist
> would never consider stealing from them.~
>
> [Footnote .~ is the emoticon for irony]
>
> My point? Start building nuclear reactors as fast as you can.
>
> --Mike Jr
--------------------
why is no one talking about fusion ???!!!
Y.Porat
----------------------------------
Mike Jr.
Fission gets us out of the current oil crunch. Fusion is a longer
range solution.
"Current status
Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale
harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers
standing between current scientific understanding and technological
capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy
source.[citation needed] Research, while making steady progress, has
also continually thrown up new difficulties.[citation needed]
Therefore it remains unclear that an economically viable fusion plant
is even possible.[16] An editorial in New Scientist magazine opined
that "if commercial fusion is viable, it may well be a century
away."[16] Ironically, a pamphlet printed by General Atomics in 1970's
stated that "By the year 2000, several commercial fusion reactors are
expected to be on-line."
Several fusion reactors have been built, but as yet none has produced
more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed. Despite research
having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected
before 2050. The ITER project is currently leading the effort to
commercialize fusion power."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
--Mike Jr.
>
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------------------
Y.Porat
i cantell you right now
that ITER is leading nowhere
it is a huge waist of mony
and worse waIst of PRECIOUS TIME !!
so now we come to my next point
since you are right that it will take a lot of time
(depends on investments in it )
therefore and just because of that
we must start right now
before later might be too late!
technically
and worse than that - international socially !! (social disaster )
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
Benj
> --------------------
> why is no one talking about fusion ???!!!
>
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------------------
Well that's an easy one. Mostly because it doesn't work. No reason
not to try though! The latest as I understand it is to spend huge
amounts on money on a gigantic tokamak. The "physics theory" behind
this is that if you build a fusion device that has never worked large
enough it will eventually work. A true theory, although the "working
size"appears to be more than a little larger than current plans (star-
sized) . The same theory has been applied to laser induced fusion as
well. Good thing there is no shortage of tax money to build these
things.
As for "Cold Fusion" or "low energy transmutations" those subjects are
currently "politically incorrect" and any mention of them will result
in violent denigrations of your mental heath, loss of your employment,
and expulsion from "science".
Mike Jr.
Funding research is a little like betting on race horses. There is an
algorithm for dividing a $100 stake across the horses in a race based
purely on their odds. You reserve about 8% of your stake for the long
shot because occasionally they win and win big.
Fusion is a long shot and 8% of total research is (IMHO) optimistic.
Better to focus your money on horses with better odds.
--Cheers,
--Mike Jr
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike Jr.
Ah, the trick is to get it to work before you open your mouth. :-)
--Mike Jr
Puppet_Sock
> why is no one talking about fusion ???!!!
Well... Lots of people are *talking* about it. You for example.
Also, lots of people are doing research of one kind or another.
If you think it's easy, do tell us how. Oh, wait. I asked you that
several times already and all I ever get in response is abuse.
Nevermind.
Socks
Y.Porat
sorry i take it much seriously!!
it i snot a matter of choice
it is a matter of vital importance
not of my generation but our childrens
(so please dont be as Luis 15 king of of France (!!)
who said
'after me --- the flood ' .............
oil is going to dry one day
the same will coal and the same will be with uranium etc
so actually we have no better choice for the long run
and lpeas re,ember
even a good theoretic solution will be found
it will take many decades to implement it practically
so
the sooner - the better once you really care for future
if you dont we dont have a common language ...
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------------
Y.Porat
--------------
i responded to that yet i wonder why it didnt get in
so again shortly:
i am much more serious than you about it
oil coal and even Uranium will drain off
so fusion is the only long term possobility
beside all the ;green sources
now please note that
even if the technological process will be found
its IMPLEMENTATION will take at least decades
so
if you think like Luis 14 king of France that said:
'after me the flood'
i am not with you !!
(after him there was the Gillotin ........)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Chris
--
Chris
http://www.chrisspages.co.uk
"Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b3b3ca2-c457-4307...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
Chris
a tuned circuit and a tube of low pressure hydrogen. According to Tesla
(that is what he used to generate 'free electricity) the power generated
goes up as the pressure goes down until a certain pressure when the power
falls of again. Hydrogen generated the most power by nitrogen and oxygen
also did it but not neon or xenon.
A torus is a better configuration and produces more power.
Comments Welcome.
Christopher(at)chrisspages(dot)co(dot)uk
--
Chris
http://www.chrisspages.co.uk
"Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b3b3ca2-c457-4307...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
Androcles
"Chris" <an...@noserver.com> wrote in message
news:NKQck.100643$Kb.6...@newsfe29.ams2...
| Try a tesla coil with a tube of low pressure hydrogen inside it.
Putting a tube inside a Tesla coil could prove difficult.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, that's why we've telling the physics idiots for years to
bet on Adaptive A.I., PV Cells, Fiber Optics, CD, Turbines.
GPS. Cruise Missiles, Microcomputers, DVD+RW, Laser Pointers,
and Robots.
Since there is no difference between Nuclear Power, Solar Power,
Wind Energy, Fission, and Fusion with idiots like Scientists and
Politicians. They're all just numbers in a book.
>
> --Cheers,
> --Mike Jr
>
>
>
>
>
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
> > ---------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Charlie Gibbs
y.y....@gmail.com (Y.Porat) writes:
> i am much more serious than you about it
>
> oil coal and even Uranium will drain off
>
> so fusion is the only long term possobility
> beside all the ;green sources
> now please note that
> even if the technological process will be found
> its IMPLEMENTATION will take at least decades
Still, no amount of conservation or alternate energy
will overcome the problems of our ever-increasing population.
Maybe we should worry less about our carbon footprint
and consider that there are simply too many feet.
> so
> if you think like Luis 14 king of France that said:
> 'after me the flood'
ObNit: That was Louis XV, not XIV.
> i am not with you !!
> (after him there was the Gillotin ........)
...and the guillotine got Louis XVI.
All together now, to the tune of Allan Sherman
(starting off vaguely like the Marseillaise):
Louis the Sixteenth was the king of France in 1789.
He was worse than Louis the Fifteenth.
He was worse than Louis the Fourteenth.
He was worse than Louis the Thirteenth.
He was the worst since Louis the First.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Y.Porat
----------------
i told you many times
it i s not by say the ITER system
it is by counter acceleration
and i even suggested that linear acclelerators will start
experiments
2
my dialogue is not only with you
after all you are not the words biggest expert for fusion...
not even close to that .....and not even a little autority for
that ..
not Chris that i stalking about Tesla coil.....
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Y.Porat
> "Chris" <a...@noserver.com> wrote in message
>
> news:NKQck.100643$Kb.6...@newsfe29.ams2...
> | Try a tesla coil with a tube of low pressure hydrogen inside it.
>
> Putting a tube inside a Tesla coil could prove difficult.
---------------
put better a mouse that will run after its tail ....
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------------
Y.Porat
wrote:
it seems you are right (:-)
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
>
Chris
--
Chris
http://www.chrisspages.co.uk
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:sITck.229277$NN3....@newsfe08.ams2...
Y.y.Porat
--------------------
and what about that
all you do is always
just open your mouth ???
Y.P
--------------------------
Androcles
"Chris" <an...@noserver.com> wrote in message
news:0G4dk.173750$8k.8...@newsfe18.ams2...
Androcles
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
news:1439.147T5...@kltpzyxm.invalid...
| /~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
| \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
| X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
| / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
*plonk*
Bernd Felsche
>y.y....@gmail.com (Y.Porat) writes:
>> i am much more serious than you about it
>> oil coal and even Uranium will drain off
>> so fusion is the only long term possobility
>> beside all the ;green sources
>> now please note that
>> even if the technological process will be found
>> its IMPLEMENTATION will take at least decades
>Still, no amount of conservation or alternate energy
>will overcome the problems of our ever-increasing population.
Populations in developed nations tend to decrease gradually; without
immigration.
Encouraging the development of nations to such a degree that the
natural population growth is near zero to slightly negative is a
desirable objective.
But that doesn't make the anti-development greens very happy.
Perhaps their solution is ritual culling for the sake of Gaia.
The "lack" of fissible materials is not an urgent problem. There is
quite a lot more thorium than uranium around. Both fuels will take
centuries to consume. By which time the global population should be
in natural decline as the fast-breeder nations become fast-food
nations.
Managing fusion or something else as a long-term source of
affordable, abundant energy for civilisation is a worthwhile
objective. Practical realization can only be done safely a step at a
time, while keeping our eyes on the horizon.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Science is the belief in
X against HTML mail | the ignorance of the experts.
/ \ and postings | -- Richard Feynman
Y.Porat
> In article <700b61ab-a8b8-4985-9bf8-2d36bcfee...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> y.y.po...@gmail.com (Y.Porat) writes:
> > i am much more serious than you about it
>
> > oil coal and even Uranium will drain off
>
> > so fusion is the only long term possobility
> > beside all the ;green sources
> > now please note that
> > even if the technological process will be found
> > its IMPLEMENTATION will take at least decades
>
> Still, no amount of conservation or alternate energy
> will overcome the problems of our ever-increasing population.
> Maybe we should worry less about our carbon footprint
> and consider that there are simply too many feet.
you are absolutely right about too' many feet'
yet since you corrected me about Luis 15
i will correct you about 'too many feel credits (:-)
the credit for that insight was of ...
Maltos (i dont knoe the right spelling of his name
an English thinker )
and that is really a major problem of society
yet does not all in opposition to the energy future needs
----------------------
>
> > so
> > if you think like Luis 14 king of France that said:
> > 'after me the flood'
>
> ObNit: That was Louis XV, not XIV.
yes i recalled that myself a minute after pressing 'enter send'
but i thought it will not bother anyone since the main idea
was sent
---------------
>
> > i am not with you !!
> > (after him there was the Gillotin ........)
>
> ...and the guillotine got Louis XVI.
i learned some French about 60 yeas ago .......(:-)
----------------
>
> All together now, to the tune of Allan Sherman
> (starting off vaguely like the Marseillaise):
and do you expect me now to remember how to spell
marseillaise
(those French are driving me crazy with all their
excessive letters (:-)
and now
how about some fusion ???
---------------------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------
DB
>
> Still, no amount of conservation or alternate energy
> will overcome the problems of our ever-increasing population.
Duh!!!!!!
DB
>
> *plonk*
And, out of the woodwork comes one of the greatest cranks.....
Talked with Spaceman lately??????
DB
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> y.y....@gmail.com (Y.Porat) writes:
>
>>> i am much more serious than you about it
>
>>> oil coal and even Uranium will drain off
>
>>> so fusion is the only long term possobility
>>> beside all the ;green sources
>>> now please note that
>>> even if the technological process will be found
>>> its IMPLEMENTATION will take at least decades
>
>> Still, no amount of conservation or alternate energy
>> will overcome the problems of our ever-increasing population.
>
> Populations in developed nations tend to decrease gradually; without
> immigration.
Goodness. What about the real world?
Charlie Gibbs
ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> y.y....@gmail.com (Y.Porat) writes:
>>
>>> i am much more serious than you about it
>>>
>>> oil coal and even Uranium will drain off
>>>
>>> so fusion is the only long term possobility
>>> beside all the ;green sources
>>> now please note that
>>> even if the technological process will be found
>>> its IMPLEMENTATION will take at least decades
>>
>> Still, no amount of conservation or alternate energy
>> will overcome the problems of our ever-increasing population.
>
> Populations in developed nations tend to decrease gradually; without
> immigration.
>
> Encouraging the development of nations to such a degree that the
> natural population growth is near zero to slightly negative is a
> desirable objective.
To us, at least. A number of governments (Canada and Japan,
to name two) have expressed alarm that population growth is
slowing. The Canadian government sees immigration as the
solution to the "problem" of us unco-operative citizens
refusing to breed like flies and increase their tax base
(and consumers for their corporate sponsors). And even
though the emphasis is being placed on attracting skilled
immigrants (so they don't have to fund our own education
system), it's reached the point where they're starting to
get rather lax. Last I heard, there were about 45,000
people who have vanished shortly after they got here.
> But that doesn't make the anti-development greens very happy.
> Perhaps their solution is ritual culling for the sake of Gaia.
Perhaps. The right-wingers' version of this replaces "culling"
with "cannon fodder".
> The "lack" of fissible materials is not an urgent problem. There is
> quite a lot more thorium than uranium around. Both fuels will take
> centuries to consume.
True. Now we just have to overcome the widespread resistance to
anything "nook-yu-lur".
> By which time the global population should be in natural decline
> as the fast-breeder nations become fast-food nations.
Let's hope so. Again, though, there's a lot of resistance to
overcome - and many of these resisters are in positions of power.
> Managing fusion or something else as a long-term source of
> affordable, abundant energy for civilisation is a worthwhile
> objective. Practical realization can only be done safely a step
> at a time, while keeping our eyes on the horizon.
Agreed.
Charlie Gibbs
y.y....@gmail.com (Y.Porat) writes:
> On Jul 9, 8:06 pm, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Still, no amount of conservation or alternate energy
>> will overcome the problems of our ever-increasing population.
>> Maybe we should worry less about our carbon footprint
>> and consider that there are simply too many feet.
>------------------------------
> you are absolutely right about too' many feet'
> yet since you corrected me about Luis 15
> i will correct you about 'too many feel credits (:-)
???
> the credit for that insight was of ...
> Maltos (i dont knoe the right spelling of his name
> an English thinker )
Malthus
DB
>
> To us, at least. A number of governments (Canada and Japan,
> to name two) have expressed alarm that population growth is
And, you don't know why? How do you uphold the dependency? Yet in the
real world we are still on an exponential incline...
Energy is fungible. Means you starve, kill, a third world for all your
self important needs...
Head, ass. Self removal is optional till you die......
Puppet_Sock
> In article <c57gk5xk63....@innovative.iinet.net.au>,
> ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:
[snip]
> > "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
[snippers]
> > The "lack" of fissible materials is not an urgent problem. There is
> > quite a lot more thorium than uranium around. Both fuels will take
> > centuries to consume.
>
> True. Now we just have to overcome the widespread resistance to
> anything "nook-yu-lur".
>
> > By which time the global population should be in natural decline
> > as the fast-breeder nations become fast-food nations.
>
> Let's hope so. Again, though, there's a lot of resistance to
> overcome - and many of these resisters are in positions of power.
This resistance is melting in some places. Some people are
finding their campaign promises pretty difficult to keep.
- We will cut carbon emissions.
- We will shut down the coal fired power plants.
- We won't raise electricity rates.
- Electric power will remain abundant and reliable.
Hard to accomplish that these days if you are anti-nuke
and don't happen to have a very large river flowing through
a deep gorge that nobody cares if you dam up.
Ontario has just announced a new nuclear reactor will be
built at Darlington. They are now deciding on the design.
> > Managing fusion or something else as a long-term source of
> > affordable, abundant energy for civilisation is a worthwhile
> > objective. Practical realization can only be done safely a step
> > at a time, while keeping our eyes on the horizon.
>
> Agreed.
While I agree, safety is not one of the big problems with fusion.
So far, nothing anybody has built has any particular problems
managing the plasma safely. It's keeping the stuff in there and
keeping it hot and high pressure that are the chalenges.
Socks
Y.Porat
> In article <614f2010-97dd-4d35-b9ee-e578286ed...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> y.y.po...@gmail.com (Y.Porat) writes:
> > On Jul 9, 8:06 pm, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Still, no amount of conservation or alternate energy
> >> will overcome the problems of our ever-increasing population.
> >> Maybe we should worry less about our carbon footprint
> >> and consider that there are simply too many feet.
> >------------------------------
> > you are absolutely right about too' many feet'
> > yet since you corrected me about Luis 15
> > i will correct you about 'too many feel credits (:-)
>
> ???
>
> > the credit for that insight was of ...
> > Maltos (i dont knoe the right spelling of his name
> > an English thinker )
>
> Malthus
>
thanks
now how about some fusion ?? (:-)..........
----------------------
Y.Porat
------------------------------------------
>
Chris
paxolin tube that is about 8 cm in diameter. There is nothing inside only
air. You could easily put a tube of low pressure hydrogen inside.
--
Chris
http://www.chrisspages.co.uk
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:DR4dk.267808$M63....@newsfe13.ams2...
Androcles
| You've never seen one have you?
Yeah, Pittsburgh Science Center. Big sparks. Whoopee... <yawn>
Or maybe it was the Science Museum in South Kensington... I forget.
Even wound one back in my apprenticeship days, used it to light up
a fluorescent tube just by holding it.
<zzzzzz>
| The coil is a single layer wound on to a
| paxolin tube that is about 8 cm in diameter.
Paxolin... You are giving away your age now, I haven't heard that name in
40 years.
| There is nothing inside only
| air. You could easily put a tube of low pressure hydrogen inside.
You can't put a tube of low pressure hydrogen inside air.
What you could do is wind some wire around a glass fluorescent tube
then you wouldn't need any paxolin.
Hey! I've just had an idea! You could put the windings around an iron
core, then connect the ends of the wire to a spark plug and fire some
petrol vapour in a cylinder and push a piston down.... I wonder why
nobody ever thought of that?
Here's an engine it might work in:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Engine.gif
You've never seen one have you?
|