Stupid - Yucca Mountain Officially 'Terminated'

[rocketman]

Hi Rocket Man watch this it aired on BBC a few months back' date=' it's not in the I player anymore but I found it on You Tube.

Nuclear Fusion, BBC Horizon programme.

 

Thanks Roger. It's progressing along nicely. Hopefully they'll make it viable...

[rocketman]

How about wave energy? I know it's not a new idea. It has been around for decades but there are new ways to do it. In fact' date=' in a project funded by the Navy there is going to be a test done in the Detroit river which uses water currents and the vortices produced to drive, I don't know what they're called, fins mounted on springs ... that will convert mechanical energy into electricity.[/quote']

 

This technology is advancing. Here is a nice article on it. Also, here are a whole bunch of articles on alternative energies...

[NeoConMan]

May 14, 2009

Associated Press

 

Gregory B. Jaczko has been elevated to chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by President Obama, the Associated Press reported today.

 

Jaczko, who was named to the commission in January 2005, is a former advisor to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The selection, the AP wrote, would give "opponents of a nuclear waste repository in Mr. Reid's home state of Nevada another well-placed ally."

 

The appointment was "sure to discomfort the nuclear industry," wrote The Energy Daily, which reported that Jaczko has been an aggressive advocate of tougher safety standards and is likely to push for stronger oversight of the industry.

 

 

More nuclear stupidity.

This guy spoke at a meeting I attended last year, and I was very impressed with his ability to say the things he did with a straight face. I have NEVER heard such polito-babble and circular logic presented in such a slick and professional manner.

 

Jaczko is truly a phenomenal political animal, and his past association with Harry (Gimme the money for nothin') Reid cements his modus operandi. All this Yucca Mountain stuff is just as dishonest and harmful as any of the other stupid sh!t Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats are doing - but nobody understands it.

 

I blame the Republicans as well for not stomping a mud hole in their collective *** and blowing the whistle on them.

 

It just gets worse every day.

[DaHooomie]

What about a guitar that's covered by solarpanels? Who wants one?

[TommyK]

...Nuclear has a PR problem due to 3 mile Island' date=' Winscale and Chernobyl, when it goes wrong the **** really hits the fan. ...[/quote']

 

That is part of the problem. TMI was advertised, by the Big Three, as a disaster! The amount of material that burped out of TMI... well I fart more than that. Chernobyl... yes a disaster. Why? The Ruskies thought the safety devices, we in this country install which keep radioactive burps to a burp, were unnecessary and expensive. Because of that THEY had a disaster. WE didn't.

 

Wish I could speak to Winscale, but... the Big Three let me down on that. Guess I'll have to look it up on Wikipedia.

 

Just as a point of reference The Big Three told us the H1N1, Mexican flu of 2009 was a pandemic... Doctors and scientiests are saying, "Pandemic? what pandemic?" Don't believe everything the Big Three tell you.

[FirstMeasure]

Reprocess all you want, there's still going to be Build Up of Nuclear Waste over the years.

 

Batter Technology (Power Storage Technology) is advancing in leaps and bounds.

 

Solar Power stores energy in Battery Cells (Thats what about the night, Just Saying).

 

This part has a little Faith In Human Nature. If we concentrate on developing ALL or Most clean energy options, you will see the advancements in those fields. Get the inventors inventing in that field, instead of trying to figure a way to make Radioactive Material Safe, lets make safe options viable. Can Happen, Is Happening.

 

Wind here in the Southern California deserts and Foothills has advanced over the last 5 years, let alone 10. One windmill can make the same amount of electricity that 5 windmill could make 10 years ago. One Nuclear Facility can only power half of Little Rock.

 

It's not for Green Tree Huggin' we need real clean power, it's for our Pocket Books.

 

On Topic - Nevada Doesn't use Nuclear Power, so keep the waste out of that state....PERIOD. If your state uses Nuclear power, your state should Keester the Waste.

[NeoConMan]

FM, you and the rest of the guys with lotsa knee-jerk ideas but no real knowledge have some fact-gathering to do.

 

Nevada has been reaping hundreds of millions of nuclear dollars every year since WWII.

NOW they don't want to play the game after thousands of people from the Other 49 have moved there.

 

If they don't want the waste, they need to refund the money.

Fat chance....

 

 

As far as the individual sites keeping their waste - that's exactly what they're doing.

That's where my first post came from at the top of this thread.

 

The Department Of Energy has custody of ALL commercial nuclear fuel, that was the agreement from day one and the premise for the entire industry to operate on. Plants purchase the fuel and run it, then the DOE would handle disposal with the cost paid by electrical producers.

30 years into the game they let sh!t head politicians change the rules.

 

Now, they have all spent hundreds of millions of dollars to store fuel onsite and the cost is passed on to the consumer. Funny how EVERYBODY has great ideas as long as they think THEY aren't paying for it.

 

 

 

 

Batteries?

Mining, refining, smelting, processing and then final disposal ever cross your mind?

Heavy metals last a long time too ya know.

Want some lead for YOUR water?

... and where will you get the initial charge for those batteries, let alone recharges?

 

Solar?

More heavy metals, only without some of the nasty acids and chemicals used in batteries.

Spend YOUR money on a solar system and wait for the pay off.....................................................................

 

 

 

To pick on First Measure a little, I'll wait for an explanation on a couple points here;

 

"instead of trying to figure a way to make Radioactive Material Safe"

You mean they haven't done that yet?

Golly, I work around it every day. Is there something you aren't telling me?

 

"Wind here in the Southern California deserts and Foothills has advanced over the last 5 years, let alone 10. One windmill can make the same amount of electricity that 5 windmill could make 10 years ago."

3 megawatts is the production of the biggest GE units now, wanna guess what they cost?

Also, I've driven past those wind farms and counted how many units are feathered out of the wind and not producing.

 

"One Nuclear Facility can only power half of Little Rock."

The site I'm at produces over 4,000 megawatts rain or shine, day or night, hot or cold.

How many mW does Little Rock need?

 

"it's for our Pocket Books"

This is where your biggest surprise lies in wait.

California has a unique way of dealing with power issues, something from a fantasy land.

Reminds me of Alice In Wonderland meets the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

 

If you believe ANYTHING the state gov't tells you (including Ahnold) you're being played for a fool.

 

 

What do I know?

Heck, it's only my business....

[heymisterk]

Mark your calendar: Neo and I actually agree on something. This radioactive waste HAS to go somewhere. Right now it is piling up makeshift in the back yards of various nuclear power plants. This creates security threats as well as environmental threats. I've seen the proposed Yucca Mountain site; the closest to civilization it gets is a brothel. No, I didn't go inside, that you know of...

[FirstMeasure]

They were Feathered because they didn't need those ones right now. They would overload the grid if they were all on. And while It safer to work with Radioactive material than it was in the 70's, how long are the conatiners you put the waste in designed to last. That's the generation I'm concerned with. And you missed a very important point that you may disagree with, but is the corner stone of my "Wind Where Its Feasible" stance is....."If we concentrate on developing ALL or Most clean energy options, you will see the advancements in those fields"

 

Solar works Great in deserts. Why on earth would you want to put a Nuclear Plant in the desert when water is so necessary for its operation? Wind works Great in the Deserts and Low Lying Hills, same question, why bring something that requires lots of water to operate into an area without a lot of water. We have enough Water Trouble in the more Arid Regions of our Nation. all those places that use Coal in the Northwest may need something besides Wind or Solar, then we should; look at Nuclear while trying to advance energy technology for the future.

[FirstMeasure]

Mark your calendar: Neo and I actually agree on something. This radioactive waste HAS to go somewhere. Right now it is piling up makeshift in the back yards of various nuclear power plants. This creates security threats as well as environmental threats. I've seen the proposed Yucca Mountain site; the closest to civilization it gets is a brothel. No' date=' I didn't go inside, that you know of...[/quote']

There a city where the Brothel is. :-

[rocketman]

Neo is absolutely right on his points. I should note that I know a lot of scientists and engineers that are getting a lot of funding for alternative energy approaches. They all agree that right now we should be building more nuclear plants. That of course doesn't mean we should be looking at all these alternatives. BTW, Chernobyl will NEVER happen here. People do need to get more informed.

 

No need to mark a calendar for me. I always agree with Neo...

[NeoConMan]

They were Feathered because they didn't need those ones right now. They would overload the grid if they were all on.

Doubtful. They take all those windmills can generate - all the time.

If excess power is on the grid' date=' the first thing they do is throttle back the most expensive producers (natural gas or fuel oil) and save as much as they can.

 

As a crane operator I put up my first windmill in 1983, and took down about 3 for each one installed.

They are much more reliable now than then, but still are far from maintenance and trouble free.

 

 

And while It safer to work with Radioactive material than it was in the 70's' date=' [/quote']Hasn't changed one bit.

3 Mile Island was a watershed event in the industry as far as safety procedures are concerned but the equipment is still largely the same. It was well-proven then, and 30 years since has reinforced that quite clearly.

 

 

how long are the conatiners you put the waste in designed to last.

Hundreds of years.

If it starts to fail' date=' simply pull out the spent fuel or waste and stick it in a new cask.

Sort of like putting on a new pair of shoes, eh?

 

Our casks sit out in the sunshine, in wide view of the whole world.

No place else to keep them without creating more hazards than can be avoided.

Politicians screwed YOU on this one, along with every other citizen of the world.

 

 

"If we concentrate on developing ALL or Most clean energy options' date=' you will see the advancements in those fields[/b']"

Do it!!! Just don't piss away billions and billions of tax dollars chasing Liberal pipe dreams.

 

 

Solar works Great in deserts. Why on earth would you want to put a Nuclear Plant in the desert when water is so necessary for its operation?

Gray water from Phoenix. All the water is re-utilized.

Otherwise it would have been treated and returned to the Gila River instead of being utilized for good.

 

 

Wind works Great in the Deserts and Low Lying Hills' date=' same question' date=' why bring something that requires lots of water to operate into an area without a lot of water.[/quote'']Myth busted - see above.

 

 

We have enough Water Trouble in the more Arid Regions of our Nation. all those places that use Coal in the Northwest may need something besides Wind or Solar' date=' then we should; look at Nuclear while trying to advance energy technology for the future.[/quote']DO IT ALL, without the attendant bullsh!t and stupidity of the gov't.

 

 

Look into this stuff, I think you'll find there's alot to learn before you can say you know it all - even for me.

[heymisterk]

"Principle — particularly moral principle — can never be a weathervane, spinning around this way and that with the shifting winds of expediency. Moral principle is a compass forever fixed and forever true."

 

...except when you are brutally, deadly, all-encompassingly wrong, as our last president was.

Neo, how much time do you spend dissecting each post? Honestly, imagine if you were to spend that time volunteering at your church? Or writing your senators? Or running for the school board? Don't you think you'd be more effective? Or is it just SAFER on a guitar forum??

[Homz]

I'll admit I didn't read much of the posts on this thread. What I did pull out is a discussion of energy sources. IMHO there is only 2 current options, Coal and Nuclear. Wind may be fine for small applications, but the required land would take up entire states to power the entire country. The same is true of solar baring some new tech solar panels. The only real options for the power requirements we currently have other then those already mentioned is Hydrogen. This option is problematic given current technologies to separate the H2O molecule. The problems with coal is pollution. Nuclear can make the necessary power, but its waste product is and will be a problem for the rest of human existence. Yes our sun will probably extinguish itself before the nuclear fuel now in storage is harmless to humans.

 

Considering the reprocessing of nuclear fuel and perhaps using weapons grade for energy applications (if this is possible) seems to be the best option. I say this mostly because we have already dug the ore and process the fuel. This process from raw ore is one of the most inefficient process in any form of energy production. It takes literally mountains of ore to produce small quantities of U235. But as stated, with reprocessing, that inefficient process has already left us with a product that we can either use to our benefit or waste. Use it.

[NeoConMan]

...except when you are brutally' date=' deadly, all-encompassingly wrong, as our last president was. [/quote']About what?

Never mind.

This thread was NOT started for political posturing, I'm posting cold hard facts.

 

 

Neo' date=' how much time do you spend dissecting each post? [/quote']Not much. I'm very efficient.

:-)

 

 

Honestly, imagine if you were to spend that time volunteering at your church? Or writing your senators? Or running for the school board? Don't you think you'd be more effective? Or is it just SAFER on a guitar forum??

What makes you think I don't do those things already?

Those things mean alot to me, and I do put forth some efforts in that regard.

Don't need a safety net, sorry you don't want to believe that.

 

We could meet in person some day, sniff each other's butts and determine who the Alpha is once and for all, eh?

 

 

Keep it on topic and steer clear of the personal attacks, okay Sport?

[NeoConMan]

current technologies to separate the H2O molecule.

Separation' date=' cracking, or splitting consumes more energy than the resultant hydrogen will yield.

Net loss of energy, not a good thing from any perspective.

 

There's some confusion between hydrogen being clean (it is) and efficient - it is NOT if you need to make it.

It's by far the best fossil fuel around if you can produce, ship, store and use it cheaply enough.

 

 

Considering the reprocessing of nuclear fuel and perhaps using weapons grade for energy applications (if this is possible)

Not really, and not needed.

 

 

It takes literally mountains of ore to produce small quantities of U235. But as stated' date=' with reprocessing, that inefficient process has already left us with a product that we can either use to our benefit or waste. Use it.[/quote']Smart move.

The U235 used is not that great in quantity, and requires very little enrichment to be replaced.

There have been experiments using the plutonium created in the fission process by running it back into the fuel process, but the results were not that great from what I understand.

I believe the results were more to simply tie up "weapons material" in a fuel core instead of storing someplace where a cat burglar might steal it while nobody was looking. Ya know, stick it in their pocket and walk out.....

[Homz]

Smart move.

The U235 used is not that great in quantity' date=' and requires very little enrichment to be replaced.

There have been experiments using the plutonium created in the fission process by running it back into the fuel process, but the results were not that great from what I understand.

I believe the results were more to simply tie up "weapons material" in a fuel core instead of storing someplace where a cat burglar might steal it while nobody was looking. Ya know, stick it in their pocket and walk out.....

 

[/quote']

 

Neo I know how to make it. I don't know if you posted that for me or for general info. I was a Navy Nuclear Power school graduate. Correct me if I'm wrong (using my brain not Google), but U235 is present in ore at a .07 % and they use breeder reactors for the conversion from Uranium to plutonium.

 

I think you missed my point on Hydrogen. I understand with current technologies that use electricity to separate the water molecule it is very inefficient.

[Homz]

Or was it:

I always get the % of U235 to U238 mixed up with the % of naturally occurring Deuterium present in water.

 

One of them is .07% and the other is 1.4%

 

Regardless you can see how expensive that would be to extract the usable parts of either.

 

just saying. fuxk Google.

[NeoConMan]

Oh yeah, I forgot.

Navy boy.

:-)

 

Besides, who needs Google when ya gots Neo and an ex-Navy cat on board, eh?

 

 

Yeah, U-238 is the common one and U-235 is the rare fissile one.

Enrichment separates the two by any of several methods so the valuable 235 can be formed into whatever shape and percentage is desired. You Navy cats had enrichment on the order of 95% and greater for those tiny reactors.

Huge amounts of energy in those cores with a 20 year life span....

 

In the commercial world, we average around 4.5% 235 with the rest being 238.

That's all we need due to the size of the reactors (TONS of fuel) and short core life.

We use fuel 3 times in different areas of the reactor.

First run fuel goes 18 months, gets shuffled to a different spot and run another 18 months, then finishes off its last 18 month run in a final position due to its lower energy potential.

After that it goes into a refueling/spent fuel storage pool and remains there for at least 7 years.

 

After 7 years it has decayed enough to be removed from the water and placed into a dry cask for storage.

Massive stainless steel vessel is filled with about 16 fuel assemblies, inerted with helium gas and welded shut.

Then the vessel is slipped inside a concrete cask for shielding and it is sealed shut.

The complete assembly is then transported to a secure storage area and hooked up to remote temperature monitoring equipment so it can be observed from afar.

 

We make regular visits to the area for visual checks on them as well as independent surveys for temp and activity.

It would take a lucky hit from a badass missile to stand a chance of cracking a cask open.

 

 

We don't use control rods when operating, boron is diluted into the reactor cooling water in the form of granular boric acid and the level is adjusted daily for ppm concentration by either further water dilution or boric acid addition.

Our control rods are used to stop the reaction completely with plenty of margin beyond what full strength boron already provides when needed. I know the Navy used control rods for everything - small core helps in that regard.

[FirstMeasure]

Damn It Neo! Stop Making Sense! I still don't think Nuclear is the best option in Every situation, but it's definitely better than Coal if Re-Utilization works like it seems to in France (you realize I'm not jumping on the obvious "Oh look who's using France and an example" argument, as this is a real issue, no wedges involved).

 

And it's nice to have you back.

[Homz]

We don't use control rods when operating' date=' boron is diluted into the reactor cooling water in the form of granular boric acid and the level is adjusted daily for ppm concentration by either further water dilution or boric acid addition.

Our control rods are used to stop the reaction completely with plenty of margin beyond what full strength boron already provides when needed. I know the Navy used control rods for everything - small core helps in that regard.

 

[/quote']

 

You actually taught me something I didn't know.

 

You don't use control rods for temp adjustments and you only enrich to 4.5%. I didn't know that. So if I may ask and assuming it's not classified what is the pressurization of the primary loop?