Might cost less than trying to get rid of all the CO2 tho.
The biggest single disaters have been caused by other things.
Earthquake in Iran, 30,000 dead. Smilar erahquake in San francisco with
modern building regs, 3 dead.
How many died at Bhopal. Non nuclear accident.
How many die in coal mines. Non nuclear accidents.
How many did Saddam Husseing gas and kil. Non nuclear accident, and, if
he had no oil to sell, because we wre all nuclear, how many would he
have been ABLE to kill?
How many die on oil platforms every year. Non nuclear.
How many die when monsoons fail, or bangladesh gets flooded (again)
Strong evidnce to link with fossil fuel burning.
In short, the Nuclear power scenario stacks up to one or two accidents -
five mile island and chernobyl. Chernobyl was probably no more expensive
than an oil tanker sinking in terms of clean up. Fve mile island - I
forget, but it hasn't ruined the country.
I don't think so. The fisson products would all be relatively short
lived isoptopes, and teh main product is helieum. Non radioactve helieum
Its only the vast amounts of radiation intereacting with the shielding
that would cause some radioactive compounds to be generated.
Yes, I tend to agree with you.
I would not be surprised.
That is certainly true.
Yes, the arguments are kind of curious:-
"We mustn't use nuclear power because the waste it generates might after
a few hundred years cause a little environmental change in certain deep
caves or the bottom of the ocean, so we had better stick to natural gas
and oil and coal, which are running out, are absolutely known TO BE
causing MAJOR environmental impact, and WILL DEFINITELY affect the WHOLE
HUMAN RACE in a few years, extremely adversely".
The real reason is probably to limit the suppies of enriched uranium in
case some gets into the wrong hands...
It is obvious that you have never given a moments intelligent thought to
this question. You are just following the flock. The waste from a nuclear
power station is in fact a great deal easier to dispose of safely than the
waste from a fossil fuel plant. The trouble lies entirely in the fact that
the shepherds who persistently lead the sheep astray on this matter have not
even the faintest understanding of the issues involved in comparing methods
of disposing of waste from power stations.
Makes you wonder why the controllers aren't set up to face Mecca at their
stations? At least they would be in the right orientation when they get up
again. (I have seen similar but luckily only in computer operations rooms
and similar - nothing that critical.)
The tower didn't face Mecca, they have to turn around. Even if it did face
Mecca no one paying attention makes no difference. I have seen civilian
planes nearly hit hawk arrestors because of these dickheads.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004
I have now had a quick look with Google, using the search terms - Rubbia
radioactive waste - and found a fair selection of papers.
Researh on this process is going on in Holland and in Russia. (And probably
elsewhere as well)
The main motivation for it was originally that it would be a way of getting
rid of the plutomium, and hence eliminate the possibility of that material
getting into the hands of potential troublemakers.
Tritium isn't all that bad. Its half life of about 12 years is short
compared to millenia for fission waste. Tritium is a beta emitter with
18keV electron decay and there is quite a market in tritiated plastics
for permanent glow in the dark (and still some requirement for H-bomb
initiators). Emergency lighting in some applications is based on it.
You have to get the whole life cycle right though. And they still
haven't an adequate solution for long term storage of high level waste.
It is also very much lighter than air and so as a gas is rapidly off up
into the stratosphere and can escape. You need to worry when it reacts
with oxygen to form tritiated water - then it can get into the food
chain and do real damage.
To put this radioactivity into perspective 18keV electrons are only a
little bit more energetic than the electron beam inside a colour TV
My 30 year old triumph spitfire in stock form at leagal speeds would do
better than 40mpg. It didnt after I had tuned it up to 110bhp,
admittedly :-) BMC A and B series engines were also capable of well in
excess of 40mpg.
Ford 1600 engines were alwasy carp its true, but at least you coudl
tweak em up to ridiculous power easily. Fuel injection has been the
And elecric fans, to redice power loss on cooling fans.
However, we now use fatter tyres (more rolling resistance) and travel
fatser, and in general spend so much time in congestion that average
fuel consumption is in fact worse.
I totally agree on that one. Catalytic convertors work extremely well in
places like califirnia, where temperatures are higher and the big
problem was unburnt hydrocarbons producing smog.
They arer wuite good in countries where average jorneys are long enough
for them to get up to temp as well.
Not so here, and the stuff in fuel now to repalce lead, is highly toxic
and carcinogenic ...diesels are disgusting. They nee filters and
No, ther are more issues at stake than lung irritation. On the global
warming front, you are still using fossil fuels with fuel cells.
I attended a 'clean energy' conference some years back attended by
represntatives from teh finacial, oil, and automotive industries.
The oil men want fuel cells, because it menas they still get to sell oil.
The automotive men wanted hydrigen, because it meant they could still
The financial lot, shook their heads and walked out early. "If its sll
tio be enfirced by legistlation, the government will ensure its barely
I asked the one question - "what is the most energy efficient way of
transporting a ton overland" "Railways" muttered someone from the
back...and that was it.
Not one preson in that room was actually interested in what was the
ultimately sanest transport policy. "Not my problem".
All these latrenatives are being touted by groupps with vested interests
in preserving their installed base of manufacturing capability.
Ther IS no installed base of electric ras manufactures: Up till a couple
of years ago there wasn't a suitable battery. There is now.
No argument there.
And windmills, and tide power and hydroelectric and burning biomass and
burning rubbish - especially paper, and CHP and and and...a million ways
to make power that cannot be put in a car.
As you may know, I have a little hobby. Flying electric model aircraft.
Up to tow years ago there was no way to even approach the power and
energy densities of a tank of fuel. There is now. And its tipped the
balance so that applied to cars, it comes out damn near equal overall in
terms of power and range to weight of a tank of petrol and what is
needed to make it turn the wheels..
I can buy all I need to use this technology NOW.
I can't buy a fuel cell.
I am sure that I weill be able to buy both in a few years time, BUT with
fuel cells still using FUEL I am convinced teh electric will win ot,
because you can generate electricity inso many more ways than "burning"
So, electric cars are "equal" to petrol right now in range and performance.
Apart from the zero emissions at point of use (brilliant as cities are
cleaned right up), what else is there to tip the balance? Generating more
electricity (very dirty procedure at present) at power stations is going to
produce more emissions. Cleaning this up is an expensive nightmare, not to
mention the electrical distribution system for re-charging vehicles.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
Yes, but the alternatives are worse. At least the potential to generate
electricty from non fossil sources exists: hydrogen cars still need
hydrogen, and have neither the range, nor indeed the possibility to
generate the hydrogen cheaply except by electricity. The battery wins
over the hydrogen car. Period.
Whatever is dirty in a power statin is dirtier in a car. If you can go
froim fuel to power in a car at a certain level ofeffciency, then
certainly you can go from fuel to power, and electricity at least as
efficiently and at least at same level of pollution in a power station.
In fact its possible to do better when the weight limitations of car
engines are removed.
Otherwise we would have to look at biofuels - methanol, biodiesl etc. -
and hope that the economics of production make more sense.
I don;t think they do.
I have been reading about the immense progress being made in fuel cell
technology for more than twenty years now. Why are they not yet in daily
use in every household?
I have read a report one experimental fuel cell unit installed in Holland,
where it was mentioned that "At the point of shutdown, the unit was also
sustaining a power generating efficiency of more than 46 percent, well above
a conventional combustion-based power plant that typically generates
electricity at efficiencies of 33 to 35 percent".
That does not sit well with whoever it was who recently said something about
conventional power stations operating at 60%.
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.