🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:56:21 +1000, "ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote:

>
>none (Quarks like a duck) wrote in message
><8h3kjd$h2l$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>>greige@bigpond.com (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>>
>>>Nuclear waste disposal is not a technical problem, the same and
>>>similar techniques have been researched, tested and have been in
>>>production on toxic chemical wastes for nearly 2 decades.
>>
>>
>>There is an enormous difference which is what has not been solved  -
>>the energy of radioactive waste. That is the crux of the matter and
>>has not been resolved. You may say what you want, but you have not
>>asnwered my questions and are just repeating yourselves.
>>
>>Whoever accused me of not having a rational discussion is missing the
>>point that no one has answered my rational questions.
>>
>
>lets see, the industry started by dumping the stuff in trenches in the
>ground, as that was "safe", then it turns out that radioactive materials
>are much more dangerous then the industry would have liked us to believe,
>it is telling that the research into radiation and health was mostly _not_
>done by the nuclear industry.

Certainly in the heady days of the Cold War, the imperatives of
victory at all costs affected the attitude of the military toward
safety practices in nuclear waste management.  The world has
thankfully learned from that, and moved on, to our great benefit.
However ant's implication that such lax safety standards apply to the
commercial nuclear power industry are quite wrong.

>so then they propose deeper burial and vitrification, turns out that
>vitrification does not work as the radiation and heat produced by the waste
>produce micro fissures in the vitrified mass, allowing water in and
>radioactive waste out. 

That is a gross generalisation, and essentially not true of properly
processed nuclear waste.  And even if it were a problem, nobody
intends buring nuclear waste in a location where water migration is a
likely prospect.  If ant doesn't like borosilicate vitrification, then
what are his objections to Synroc?

>now its even deeper burial, still with unresolved
>questions and site selection problems, 

There are many available and suitable sites.  South Australia pangea,
and the massive granite plutons in Western Europe to name two
potential geologies.

>also there is the inevitable
>pollution from the waste reprocessing plants and fuel refining and mining
>facilities, the more nuclear power reactors the more reprocessing
>facilities and so on.

And these have what no significant effect on the environment.  Wish to
prove otherwise, ant, show me a study.  Any study.

And the alternative.  Coal.  Need I say more?

>we already have several yucca mountains worth of high level waste piled up
>around the world. sure the problems of waste disposal have been solved,
>that is why so much of it has been disposed of in such responsible ways.

As I have said many times, the problems have been solved TECHNICALLY.
But they have not been solved POLITICALLY.  Too many ignorant,
short-sighted greenies, and weak-willed politicians.  That is why the
waste has not been buried yet.  But the political problem must be
solved sometime, and ant's persistent repetition of popular myths and
ignorant nonsense is not helping.

>decentralized power generation is the obvious choice for reliability and
>cost.

Reliability and cost are the exact reasons why decentralised power
generation, based on solar and wind sources, will not work.

>why build huge centralized power plants when you can cover each house with
>solar cells, pop a redox storage battery on the corner and bob's your
>auntie, cellular power grid. 

Except it costs a fortune to build and manage the infrastrucure.

>with a very high reliability as all the cells
>are still connected together by the grid so if one generating or storage
>cell fails the power can be imported from other cells with a negligible
>loss of total generating capacity. 

The problem arises when an area does not receive sun for long periods
of time due to cloud cover.

>both solar cells and redox storage
>batteries are very low maintenance with few moving parts. the technology
>exists now to build a clean power grid, no need for dirty fossil or nuclear
>power at all, and no more expensive then the all nuclear power option.

Completely wrong.  It is MUCH more expensive, even assuming economy of
scale, to build and maintain decentralised power generation systems. 

1. ant forgets that backup infrastructure is required in case of
lengthy cloudy periods.  This essentially doubles the cost of
implementation.

2. ant forgets that solar cell and battery manufacture is energy
intensive, they are devices with a long energy pay-back.

3. The cost of building the systems assumes that the manufacturing is
done with conventional power.  If there is no conventional power, and
only expensive decentralised power, what will be the cost of the the
cells and batteries?

4.  ant's solution assumes that the only power that is consumed is
domestic power, but this represents less than 1/3 of all electricity
used.  What about industry?  Can they afford the much higher prices
and much lower reliability of solar and wind power?

5.  How exactly does ant intend to get everyone to fork out the
$10,000s to deck out their house with solar panels and batteries?
Where is the return on investment?

Don't believe me?  See the green industry propaganda at
www.greenpower.com.au:

"It is quite likely that future government regulation will drive the
focus into new renewables. It is proposed that an additional 2% of
Australia�s energy needs will need to be derived by new renewables by
2008, with incremental targets to commence from 2001."

So even the most optimistic projection is for ALL renewables (solar,
wind, biomass, etc) to supply 2% or Australia's energy by 2008.  Where
is the other 98% coming from?  Answer: Coal.  Millions of tons of ash,
and acid rain, and greenhouse gases.  Do you like that ant?  Because
that is what your stubborn refusal to contemplate nuclear power is
doing to our environment.

And Australia increased energy consumption by 8% in the last 2 years!

>ignore greigs rantings, he is seriously out of touch with the current state
>of the art in energy generation  

It is a source of constant amusement to me that idiots like ant
actually think they understand this issue, whilst displaying such
breathtaking ignorance of the basic technical concepts of power
production and distribution.

>and the increasing public opposition to
>the use of nuclear power, funny, the more educated and technically literate
>the public becomes the less popular nuclear power becomes.

In Australia the number of people in favour of nuclear power is
increasing.  One poll puts the approval at over 60% in favour of
Australia developing nuclear power.  Ant is the one who is seriously
out of touch.  He is not the one to comment on education and technical
literacy - he clearly understands nothing about this issue.

>with such a huge liability(the invisible nature of radiation and its often
>delayed effects) to counter and no cold war to drive the propaganda mills
>it really is inevitable that nuclear power technology will become less
>important in our future.

In the next 50-100 years, nuclear power will slowly build on the
current 17% of world's electricity capacity, restricted mostly by
political resistance sympathetic with the ignorance which ant
illustrates for us here.  The bulk of new energy capacity will be
determined by energy conservation (which will moderate the rise in
demand) and will be met by increased fossil fuel usage (coal and gas).
As fossil fuels become more expensive, nuclear fission will become
more desirable, and (barring significant breakthrough in renewable
energy technology) will still be cheaper than renewables in 9 out of
10 situations.

Nuclear power will be around for a while yet.


...Greig