Range clock - Disconnect it!

Page 11 of 12  
Rod Speed wrote:
...
I didn't see all this bs earlier so final comments...

That we don't currently is only owing to the shortsightedness of a former administration that decreed the NRC would not process the licensing application for the reprocessing facility GE was planning to build in Barnwell, SC, area.
The same administration followed that gem w/ the cancellation of the CRBRP demonstration project outside Oak Ridge, TN.
At my former employer, we were designing for Pu and Th reload fuel cycles in conventional PWRs in the early to mid-'70s. Needless to say, the above two actions precluded going further.
So, that we don't currently use breeders in commercial power generation in the US is only a political decision, not a technical one. Also note I didn't say we currently were breeding only that it is feasible; hence renewable.

The discussion is of power generation, not population control so the comparison is of no value.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It aint bullshit, its fact.

Nope, breeders arent used for power nukes anywhere in the world.

Irrelevant to the rest of the world.

Pity about the rest of the world.

Wrong, as always. We were discussing what constitutes green.
You havent got a clue about what that means.
Nukes are nothing like green.
They are however the best way to generate power if you care about CO2 emissions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod Speed wrote: ...

...in the context of power generation

I know very well how it is used by certain advocates. Whether it is a working definition is another matter. I choose to look at an entire system rather than whether or not some label is or isn't meaningful.
You'll also note I've used "green", not green if you've been watching carefully... :)
As for breeders, again I have only expounded on what is feasible (even more so than relying on your acceptance of the conventional green definition) as being a renewable source, not that it is presently being used. You really need to read what is actually said rather than what you think is said.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROCKY_FLATS_LAWSUIT?SITE 10WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATEFAULT>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote

<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROCKY_FLATS_LAWSUIT?SITE 10WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATEFAULT>
Thats not nuke electricity generation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That doesn't make a BIT of difference.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

It makes a HUGE difference.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No it does not. Storage and handling issues are virtually identical. What happened in Rocky Flats could just as easily happen any where radioactive nuclear material is present for any purpose.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote

Yes it does.

Wrong, as always.

Wrong. Some countrys have enough of a clue to not allow that sort of terminal stupidity with their nuke power systems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote

Wrong, as always.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is that your new sig? It's PERFECT!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote

Cant even manage its own lines, or even bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Yes, if you're looking at it strictly in terms of CO2 emissions, that's true.
No matter how much we can reduce electricity use, no matter how much we generate on-site at home with photo-voltaics, it still makes more sense to generate the remainder using something other than oil, natural gas, or coal.
It's rather ironic that the suburban life style of individual houses, and low density population, actually lends itself well to distributed generation. In my area, you can lease solar panels for $70 per month, including installation, and the monthly savings off your electric bill will be more than that (or your meter will run backwards and you'll be selling power back to the utility).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SMS wrote:

In virtually any manner you wish to compare it has less total impact than any alternative technology on a per MWe basis.
...

I'd be interest to know where that is and what/who is doing this...doesn't sound economically viable to me based on what data I know of on cost/kwh from solar generation...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That doesnt make it a green source.

It does happen in some places where legislation artificially skews the economics. Most obviously in Germany where the price the power companys are forced to pay for electricity does skew the economics enough to make it economically viable for the consumer.
Thats just a hidden subsidy tho, industry pays a significantly higher price for the electricity it uses to pay for that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod Speed wrote:

In any rational definition of "green" as being the minimal _TOTAL_ impact it does. (See other response)

That is the only way I know of it being so, yes. I was curious if there were something other than that model although I suspect I know the answer.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong. Thats not what green is about.

See my comments on that.

Yeah, it someone had fixed the economics, there would be plenty yapping about it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No it doesnt. These are never economic if the grid is available.

That only happens when the economics is artificially skewed by legislation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pipedown wrote:

I think we will see continuous adjustments of lifestyle towards efficiency. A lot of it is right in front of our noses such as driving normal cars instead of big, piggy fluffed up trucks for personal transportation. I good example of that is todays GM announcement that they will be closing their gas guzzler "car" plants.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

And possibly discontinuing the Hummer.
Can you imagine the pain this market driven force is causing GM? And for that matter the workforce.
But rational analysis should have told all the car manufacturers that the ramp up in sales (propped along by all kinds of gimmicks) was unsustainable. Now, there's a word for the future, "unsustainable".
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.