Properly designed you use the outgoing tide to flush it clear every so often. Just like they used to flush Bristols Floating Harbour partly by tide and partly by letting more of the Rivers Frome and Avon flow that way instead of along the New Cut.
That would present far greater flushing problems.
Many thanks. Just ordered McKay's book on sustainable energy.
As a complete aside we took the monthly boat trip operated by Bristol ferry boats up and back the New Cut last month, interesting trip for people who like going along unusual waterways. Exeter Canal next month.
G.Harman
That article was an excellent treatise on the madness of anti-nuclear and pro "renewable" energy policies currently being pursued in the UK, Europe and America.
I've downloaded it for future reference, it was _that_ good. My thanks to you for providing that link.
That treats the energy density issues very well, but stops short of the intermittency issues.
Try also
and
Quote from above.:- For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be to convert the waste into a glass - a technology that is well in hand - and simply drop it into the ocean at random locations.5 No one can claim that we don't know how to do that! With this disposal, the waste produced by one power plant in one year would eventually cause an average total of 0.6 fatalities, spread out over many millions of years, by contaminating seafood. Incidentally, this disposal technique would do no harm to ocean ecology. In fact, if all the world's electricity were produced by nuclear power and all the waste generated for the next hundred years were dumped in the ocean, the radiation dose to sea animals would never be increased by as much as 1% above its present level from natural radioactivity.
So another one who has no answers to the disposal od nuclear waste. Everything is simple to the simpleminded.
The rest is nothing new.
On the first line of the first page.
Introduction This paper is a response to what the author considers are not opinions, but near facts, with respect to the ongoing use of fossil fuels: namely that, irrespective of any climate change implications, the world is, if not running out of fossil fuels, running into an area characterised by high costs of fossil fuels, and that a transition to alternatives to fossil fuels, as the alternatives become cost competitive, is inevitable.
What is a "near fact"?
The text quoted by you is an answer to the disposal of nuclear waste. Perhaps I'm being simpleminded, but it is much preferable to being a complete idiot.
harry, what *would* you accept as an answer to your perceived problem with nuclear waste? You seem to reject every solution that is linked to, so you must presumably have a better idea.
While you're at it, maybe you could come up with a solution for the environmental damage and excess CO2 emissions caused by your favoured intermittent power generating solutions.
harry is in la-la land, with his fingers in his ears. He's been told that glassification has been being done in the UK for 20 years but pretends he's never heard of it.
As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be left to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench, where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the other radioactive material that's already there.
I often wondered why not drop it into volcano ?
:-)
Harry thinks that no one actually follows the links he posts..
That's how much of a complete idiot he is.
If it were actually that dangerous.
The more studies are done, the more the answer seems to be that radiation is 100 to 1000 times less dangerous at low levels, than the regulations imply.
Stands a good chance of being belched out again.
yes they will as the cost of using fossil fuel's increase. i.e coal and oil will get so expensive it will be just as expensive as renewable energy then the answer is obvious don;t use either use nuclear as that will be the cheapest, and as we build more nukes effecincy is likely to increase bringing the costs down, unlike renewable or rare fossil fuel.
I assume in near fact is one where they claim the cost of fossil fuels will rise, because or scarcity because fossil fuels get mined and mines DO run out of coal or it gets more difficult to mine it, that was true 50 years ago.
That once coal gets as 'rare' as gold the cost of buying it goes up, just like the cost of a gold ingot. But remmeber once coals burnt it's gone as a source of possible power.
====snip====
Fixed your post for you. :-)
Btw, +1
Wrong end of the geological process.
Because you have to get past a Balrog, a giant spider, and thousands of Orcs. And you get your finger bitten off.
-- Richard
aka Harry and the Green lobby?
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.