OT: More bad news for harry...

In which case it's not very radioactive and doesn't need storing.

Reply to
Tim Streater
Loading thread data ...

While it may be true that there are fewer hours of daylight in winter, and the angle of the sun is lower, apparently solar panels are more efficient when its "cold"; to use the technical term.

Although not being a trained physicist myself, unlike some, I wouldn't pretend to understand why this should be.

michael adams

...

Reply to
michael adams

The planet Earth has stored radioactive materials for very much longer than that.

Wrong again Harry. There are several methods and a lot of ongoing research into improving them. We have been recycling nuclear waste since the 1940s, when it was to get weapons grade plutonium. Today the emphasis is the other way around - to use the plutonium in the waste, to prevent it being recoverable for illicit purposes. Sellafield has been reprocessing fuels for the past half century. To date, around 16,000 tonnes of used uranium fuel from Magnox reactors has been converted into enriched uranium, suitable as a fuel for for AGR reactors.

Reply to
Nightjar

In article , michael adams writes

Even if it were true 100% of f*ck all is f*ck all.

Reply to
bert

Your usual drivel

A 1Kwp array will get you 1000Kwh/year if in a good position on the average year. I have 8Kwp and over the last year it generated 7980Kwh. My elecricity imported is around 1500Kwh/year. Lost track of my total usage and have no means of measuring it. But it includes charging electric car by day in Summer and by economy seven in Winter.

Reply to
harry

A cold wind makes a difference. But only around 10% extra. The problem in Winter is day length, cloud/snow and incidence of the light.

Reply to
harry

If its going to take that long to decay you can carry around in your pocket.

You keep it until the highly radioactive stuff has decayed, days for iodine, months for most of the stuff, a few decades for the problematic stuff and the rest doesn't matter as its not highly radioactive.

Reply to
dennis

Burying it after it has been dug up is a very major problem. It's not possible to put it back as it was. Only a shit-fer-brains would not be able to see that.

Recycling and reprocessing is not the same as disposing of the unwanted waste component. No-one has yet done that successfully. They have tried and failed. So they just store it temporarily.

And recycling/reprocessing is now not cost effective.

formatting link

It'r going to take a hundred years to clean up Sellafield alone.

formatting link

Reply to
harry

You really are brain dead aren't you?

formatting link

Reply to
harry

That article is three and a half years old (7 November 2012). Sellafield is a mess because of the lax approach to nuclear waste from the weapons industry in the past. It's being cleared up.

Won't load for me.

Also three and a half years old (16 November 2012). See my comment to your first item from the archives. Are you stuck in the past? No wonder you have such out-dated attitudes!

Yet another article from the archives? (2012?) It shows that in France, as everywhere, disposal of nuclear waste it's a political/social problem, not a technical one. This quote caught my eye: "The volume of the ultimate high-level waste was indeed very small: the contribution of a family of four using electricity for 20 years is a glass cylinder the size of a cigarette lighter", which puts the scale of the problem into perspective. The article goes on the talk about the stocking of wastes in anticipation of re-processing and re-using them at some time in the future, rather than abandoning them for millions of years as you keep suggesting will happen.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

You are brain dead for posting stuff you don't read or don't understand.

EG it states

"Radioactive decay follows the half-life rule, which means that the rate of decay is inversely proportional to the duration of decay. In other words, the radiation from a long-lived isotope like iodine-129 will be much less intense than that of short-lived isotope like iodine-131."

So like I said long half life stuff isn't a problem.

Reply to
dennis

Because I understood you also got paid for what you generated, even if you consumed it yourself (or are you saying that has now changed)?

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

Winter days do provide solar energy, but the current technologies are able to harvest bugger all of it.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

The issue of course is that I shouldn't *have* to make either work.

Not that any Linux Geek would ever be able to comprehend that. 'Making stuff work' is about all they have in their (sad) lives.

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

The vast majority of radioactive waste (90% by volume) is low level waste, which can safely be disposed of in shallow land fill sites. Only high level waste presents any real problems in burying it and that is primarily because it generates heat. That means it has to be cooled for a number of years before it can safely be buried deep underground.

It is possible to store it in much the same conditions though.

Recycling can reduce the waste to around 5% of the original volume. The rest, after it has cooled, can safely be buried.

..

As I said bpreviously, it is stored only because that is the cheapest option.

That is mainly waiting for radiation levels to drop, which cannot be hurried.

Reply to
Nightjar

Why? You just tilt the panels a bit more.

You still seem to be overlooking that days in winter are short and are likely to be cloudy or foggy.

Now, why is it so difficult for you to understand that in winter, when it's dark and cold, you have bugger-all solar energy?

Reply to
Tim Streater

Because it's less radioactive than ash from coal-fired power stations, you mean? Which is stuff that no one seems concerned about.

This is just harry whistling in the dark again (because in winter he gets sod-all from his solar panels).

Reply to
Tim Streater

In simple terms, a cold solar panel will convert more of the energy in a photon into electricity than a hot panel. But that benefit is small compared with the reduced number of photons hitting the panel in winter, for reasons you describe. If you're really interested (and I doubt that you are :-) ) then there's more here

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Hogg

widows is far more unreliable than linux of course. One of the big reasons people go linux is to avoid some of the problems that come with windows.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

Of course without people 'making stuff work' Harry wouldn't have his sad little life at all.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

HomeOwnersHub website 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.