nuclear powered homes

[grassfarmer]

"

Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb."

This company called Hyperion is supposed to build a solar parts plant in our happy town as compensation for loosing out to a gambling casino.
I wonder if the greens will ever let this proposal of nuclear powered homes get off the ground.
One other thing, why should we save this current auto industry? What have they done for us the taxpayer? Even if they get a loan it will only be for 2-3 % interest. Way less than you would pay for a new car today.

[AK_Gandy]

I would be a lot more gung-ho about nuclear if someone could please tell me;

1. What will happen with the spent fuel?

2. What will be the long term costs for transportation and storage?

3. Who will pay for it and how?

When people talk about the "low cost" of nuclear power, they always seem to avoid these very important questions.

[THEBUNDO]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

I would be a lot more gung-ho about nuclear if someone could please tell me;

1. What will happen with the spent fuel?

2. What will be the long term costs for transportation and storage?

3. Who will pay for it and how?

When people talk about the "low cost" of nuclear power, they always seem to avoid these very important questions.

1. drop it down empty oil wells

2. Send it by UPS to the empty oil well, wrapped well in lead of course

3. Won't cost that much (see 1 & 2)

[macmaniac1]

well if it is designed after the new french design. It should be way more efficient and safer. i believe the waste is 100 times less toxic than the old style of nuclear reactors. I know the new large reactors that the bush admin. was proposing was calling for on site storage of the waste.(blocked by dems as well as the rest of multi-approach solution of solving our energy crisis with a combination of old and new tech.) Well i guess what ever we do about our future energy needs now it will have to be an dem idea to be ok in our nation today. Even if it was orginally thought of by the republicans first.

[Super_Dave]

Originally Posted by grassfarmer

"
One other thing, why should we save this current auto industry? What have they done for us the taxpayer? Even if they get a loan it will only be for 2-3 % interest. Way less than you would pay for a new car today.

Interesting questions. I guess I have to ask why a company should do something for a taxpayer? If it is a loan, it is a loan. Money to be made by the lender, right? Jobs continuing for workers that buy things, things from where we work. Workers that pay taxes to local schools, state funds, federal programs, all of which are terrible at real management of money and benefits.

A consumer/customer is another story.

I don't have a terrible problem getting parts. They seem to be readily available to me across the nation, regardless of my neglect.

My parents regularly sold cars with 40 to 70k on the odometer on them as they felt they were "worn out". If bought cars with a lot more miles and used them for years and years and years of reliable service.

For decades we used the auto industry to "drive" ourselves to work, vacation, business building, and other prosperity. I don't see another alternative that would do those things.

[grassfarmer]

Car makers would likely use federal money to subsidize these job cuts, buying out older workers to make room for new, lower paid replacements.
I saw this within an article on Drudge this a.m. and don't want my tax money being used for this. Besides, the auto companies make new models every year which is a huge waste of resources. Can't we reuse our older cars as you indicate you have instead of something new every year. Yes, I know the economy is dependent upon foolishness but do we need to beat our heads against the wall to cure a headache?

[Super_Dave]

Originally Posted by grassfarmer

Car makers would likely use federal money to subsidize these job cuts, buying out older workers to make room for new, lower paid replacements.
I saw this within an article on Drudge this a.m. and don't want my tax money being used for this. Besides, the auto companies make new models every year which is a huge waste of resources. Can't we reuse our older cars as you indicate you have instead of something new every year. Yes, I know the economy is dependent upon foolishness but do we need to beat our heads against the wall to cure a headache?

I do used because I don't want to afford new.

Social Security money invested in the government is a giant public waste of resources.

New models still produce jobs for designers, engineers developing new products for seat material out of soy, etc. I liked my Jeepster Commando, but keeping it running all this time would have been a waste of resources too. Don't used cars get, well, used by others that need them?

As for buying out older workers...

If it goes for anything in the auto system, it will eventually support buying out old workers even if you ear mark it for new, more fuel efficient engines or whatever.

I don't know if there is a good answer. But from auto building to farming, from coal mining to liberal & conservative book making, it's all about being dependent upon economic foolishness. It's what makes the world go 'round.

[roofeditor]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

I would be a lot more gung-ho about nuclear if someone could please tell me;

1. What will happen with the spent fuel?

2. What will be the long term costs for transportation and storage?

3. Who will pay for it and how?

When people talk about the "low cost" of nuclear power, they always seem to avoid these very important questions.

Because thats how long it will take to get a permit to install one of these....Pipe dreams!

BTW:

Plan C (reprocessing) might be the most efficient, intelligent and best way to handle nuclear waste in the U.S. Using electro-metallurgical reprocessing, this plan reuses the uranium and elements that can be put into mixed oxide fuel. Reprocessing burns very long-lived waste products in a fast burner reactor, reducing the duration of storage to 300 years and waste volume by 95 percent. Most importantly, the residual waste cannot be made into a nuclear bomb and is substantially cooler than non-reprocessed waste. It also emits less radiation than the wastes planned for Yucca Mountain.

Plan C, however, doesn’t come without its own byproduct. Reprocessing creates low weapons grade plutonium. Fortunately, the plutonium could immediately be put into new fuel rods and sent back to thermal plants to create new electricity. The remaining long-lived wastes would be incinerated in a fast burner reactor. To facilitate the plan, we need to build one or two sites, each with three separate structures: one to reprocess, one to fabricate new fuel rods, and a fast burner reactor to burn up the long-lived elements so the remains have a shorter half life of 30 years.

[The-washer]

Sounds like a good answer to me, but some people would rather argue about stuff than know what the facts are.

[AK_Gandy]

Originally Posted by roofeditor

Because thats how long it will take to get a permit to install one of these....Pipe dreams!

BTW:

Plan C (reprocessing) might be the most efficient, intelligent and best way to handle nuclear waste in the U.S. Using electro-metallurgical reprocessing, this plan reuses the uranium and elements that can be put into mixed oxide fuel. Reprocessing burns very long-lived waste products in a fast burner reactor, reducing the duration of storage to 300 years and waste volume by 95 percent. Most importantly, the residual waste cannot be made into a nuclear bomb and is substantially cooler than non-reprocessed waste. It also emits less radiation than the wastes planned for Yucca Mountain.

Plan C, however, doesn’t come without its own byproduct. Reprocessing creates low weapons grade plutonium. Fortunately, the plutonium could immediately be put into new fuel rods and sent back to thermal plants to create new electricity. The remaining long-lived wastes would be incinerated in a fast burner reactor. To facilitate the plan, we need to build one or two sites, each with three separate structures: one to reprocess, one to fabricate new fuel rods, and a fast burner reactor to burn up the long-lived elements so the remains have a shorter half life of 30 years.

You copied that straight from www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080511/OPINION/609419942/-1/rss01 . The fact that they don't want Yucca Mountain used as a depository makes them just a tad bit biased in my opinion.

Here's a link that gives a little more in-depth pros/cons of reprocessing.

Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing

"But we almost certainly won't achieve these improvements without first doing a comprehensive systems analysis. Technology decisions for reprocessing must take into account technology and policy decisions for the entire fuel cycle. For example, we need to know if the reprocessing technologies under discussion here today are compatible with designs for the next generation nuclear plant (NGNP). Through modeling that incorporates the relevant technical, economic, and policy considerations, this ''systems approach'' will allow us to optimize the fuel cycle and make an informed decision about reprocessing.

Finally, how much could all this cost? That's a good and important question, which is why it will be the subject of another hearing at a later date.

This is a complex topic, and one that involves many interrelated technical and policy issues."



Enough facts for you Scooter?




.

[roofeditor]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

You copied that straight from www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080511/OPINION/609419942/-1/rss01 . The fact that they don't want Yucca Mountain used as a depository makes them just a tad bit biased in my opinion.

Here's a link that gives a little more in-depth pros/cons of reprocessing.

Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing

"But we almost certainly won't achieve these improvements without first doing a comprehensive systems analysis. Technology decisions for reprocessing must take into account technology and policy decisions for the entire fuel cycle. For example, we need to know if the reprocessing technologies under discussion here today are compatible with designs for the next generation nuclear plant (NGNP). Through modeling that incorporates the relevant technical, economic, and policy considerations, this ''systems approach'' will allow us to optimize the fuel cycle and make an informed decision about reprocessing.

Finally, how much could all this cost? That's a good and important question, which is why it will be the subject of another hearing at a later date.

This is a complex topic, and one that involves many interrelated technical and policy issues."



Enough facts for you Scooter?




.

And that adds what to the discussion?

I think I know enough about fuel re-processing to put every person on this forum to sleep. It does exist and like many things is not a perfect science but is a viable solution.

But hey, do some google searches and get back to me on Nuclear/Mechanical engineering theory.

BTW

In November 2005 the American Nuclear Society released a position statement saying that it "believes that the development and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors based on fast-neutron fission technology is important to the sustainability, reliability and security of the world's long-term energy supply." This will enable "extending by a hundred-fold the amount of energy extracted from the same amount of mined uranium". The statement envisages on-site reprocessing of used fuel from fast reactors and says that "virtually all long-lived heavy elements are eliminated during fast reactor operation, leaving a small amount of fission product waste which requires assured isolation from the environment for less than 500 years."

All commercial reprocessing plants use the well-proven hydrometallurgical PUREX * process. This involves dissolving the fuel elements in concentrated nitric acid. Chemical separation of uranium and plutonium is then undertaken by solvent extraction steps (neptunium** can also be recovered if required). The Pu and U can be returned to the input side of the fuel cycle - the uranium to the conversion plant prior to re-enrichment and the plutonium straight to MOX fuel fabrication.

Google the PUREX process! AND leave the wikipedia one out....way too simple!

Have fun!

[AK_Gandy]

Originally Posted by roofeditor

And that adds what to the discussion?

Ummmm.........let's see..........Balance?

I think I know enough about fuel re-processing to put every person on this forum to sleep.

I guess I missed seeing your name on any of the links as being the resident expert.

It does exist and like many things is not a perfect science but is a viable solution.

About 1/2 of scientists tend to agree. Now about that pesky other half.

Have fun!

I always do.



PS. When you copy someone else's statements, you really should give them credit.



.

[RDG]

Name calling and insults to other members.....This one is closed!