Go to SCIENCE 101 - CHICKEN LITTLE'S JOURNAL
- Add a comment
- Go to SOLAR POWER OR ETHANOL AS ALTERNATIVES? I DON'T THINK SO!
Thanks, Majroj...
...for your insightful comments here and at my other posts. I will consolidate my response here and refer to this comment in the other posts comment sections.
Remember that the definition for nuclear waste is what is giving us the problem. Were it not for this Jimmy Carter generated foolishness, we would not be generating any waste. It would all be reprocessed. In effect, we artificially created nuclear waste, and then block-head (but very good) engineers developed a way to contain the stuff. Nuclear waste so processed for "disposal" is now nearly impossible to reprocess into useable substances, at least economically. Far cheaper just to mine new material. Because of their reliance on breeders, the French don't produce any significant amounts of waste. I was amused by your characterization of how they handle other toxic materials.
I have not read much Brin - I'm not entirely sure why, since I devoured Heinlein in my youth and early adulthood (and still occasionally reread one of his books), love Hogan, Clark, Benford, Vinge, Niven, Robinson, Anderson, (and others that don't come to mind right now) - basically ALL the hard science SF writers. BUT (and this seems to matter to me), I developed my thoughts about disposal entirely on my own. Since my material has been around in various forms for the better part of fifteen years now, it is entirely possible that Brin got his ideas from me; although I suspect he got there just like I did, by following the basic information to the obvious conclusion.
I think people are afraid of hydrogen because of the live broadcast by that emotional reporter (I forget his name at the moment) from the Hindenburg disaster site. His words have been rebroadcast more than just about any single live report in the history of radio journalism. When I explain to people that I did a lot of saturation diving to significant depths (over 1,000 feet) using a sophisticated mix of helium, nitrogen, argon, and oxygen, and that the French and Swedish groups researching in this area had experimented with using hydrogen for even greater depths since it was significantly less "viscous" at these great pressures than helium, and that several divers actually dove to 5,000 feet on a hydrogen gas mix, they are incredulous. People simply don't understand, which is why I started writing about all this in the first place, trying to enlighten while entertaining.
My new book The Other Shoe (as in the other shoe falls) will be out early next year. It will be an entire book of this kind of material. I'll announce its publication here on BN so you and others who enjoy reading my stuff can get it.
Again, thanks for your reading, comments, and inputs.
posted by
arGee
on November 30, 2003 at 9:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Nope, the favor was all mine, thanks. I dropped some comments.
Too bad there isn't a way to just load the byproducts into a chamber and pound them with neutrons until there's nothing left but lead.
I suggested, in response to your sugestion and in accordance with author David Brin's ideas as well, that radioactive wastes could be vitrified, then encased in huge (I mean really, really big) concrete slugs or spheres and placed in subduction zones. Too big to conveniently raise, devilishly hard to open for little yield. Plus you station a task force there to keep bad guys' subs and remote vehicles out.
What are the French and others doing with their hot wastes? If the French solution to disposing of old chemical munitions is indicative (i.e., setting them on fire on wooden pallets at low tide, so the waxing tide removed the waste...!!!) they probably label it "Infectious Waste" and toss it into a landfill somewhere close to a border, or into the Channel.
Site regeneration, conversion from petrochemicals to hydrogen for portable engines, and the developement, THEN employment, of rational nuclear energy along with renewable resources...sounds like a winner to me. Hope the poltiticians don't screw it up.
posted by
majroj
on November 27, 2003 at 11:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Do me a favor Majroj...
...Go back in this blog and read my posts on Nuclear Power and Nuclear Waste. I suspect you will find them enlightening.
A New Look at the Nuclear Energy Option
Chernobyl: Reality and Myth
Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors - Myth and Promise
Three Mile Island—The System that Worked!
RADIATION—OHMYGOSH! I'M GONNA DIE!
Energy Sources: Solar Power Satellites & Hydrogen
posted by
arGee
on November 26, 2003 at 6:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, Sassy...
...If you go to my
website you will discover that I am a scientist (of sorts), although I don't do much science any more. I got too tied up in chasing adventure, and the world of science passed me by. At this stage, it is sufficient to keep abreast of what is happening, to enjoy, and to share with my readers.
posted by
arGee
on November 26, 2003 at 6:12 AM
| link to this | reply
Argee, you should have been a scientist
I just read all of your posts in this blog, and I can tell that you are genuine in your affection for science. I must assume that you are highly intelligent, and probably also good at math. I'm the other side of the brain when it comes to thinking and reasoning with this stuff. It is beyond me. I'm intelligent about other things, but science really scared me. I'm glad that we have an informative person on here as I like to read it, but wouldn't have a clue on how to put it into words.
posted by
Sherri_G
on November 25, 2003 at 9:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Hey, you could heat your house with a charcoal brazier
(I'm making a point, not a death threat).
People in Asia heat their homes with charcoal braziers. But their homes are so air-porous, the carbon monoxide is lost, along with any convective heating. They rely on heavy clothes and radiant heat (and sake and kimchee) to keep them warm.
The Earth is not like a leaky house, but a tightly closed one. Nuclear power is a real possibility if we every figure out how to build the proverbial smokestack to get rid of the wastes, not to mention the contaminated real estate after they are done with a plant, the heightened possibility of radioactive materials finding their way into the community or the food chain, and how to respond when things go wrong.
Nuclear power is like amphetamines; energy now, and hell to pay later.
Gasahol bites in internal combustion cars, we used it in Nebraska in the Seventies and early Eighties and it damages engines due to adsorbed water. (ARCO/AmPm service stations use it for winter formulations in California, I believe). Maybe in turbines? And you are burning food on a planet where food is at a premium, so you are undercutting a big market. You could use trash and municipal yard wastes to generate methanol....
Incorporating co-generation into every place imagineable, and keeping it as foolproof as possible, can have an impact, even if it is to help that site defray its own energy consumption.
Where I live, we use scads of juice for air conditioning, when, if you have photovltaic cells on your rooftop, you help cool the house through shade, and make a donation back to the grid. Parking lots with photovoltaic shades are really, really nice compared to those without.
There should be no such thing as waste heat. If you depend on convection to eliminate your wastes out a stack, you are not only wasting heat, you are also probably a net pollutor. It could help, at least, to power stack scrubbers.
We need to smarten up!
posted by
majroj
on November 25, 2003 at 9:05 PM
| link to this | reply