SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Share
SelectSmart.com Your dialect reveals where you live.
What do you call this small freshwater lobster-like crustacean?
Crawdad
Crawfish
Crayfish
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France

Posted by Anonymous User 
Cascade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Public resistance to nuclear power in France:

> Recent developments
>
> In 2005, thousands of anti-nuclear demonstrators
> marched to commemorate the 1986 Chernobyl disaster
> and demand an end to government plans to build a
> nuclear plant in western France.[8]
>
> On March 17 2007, simultaneous protests, organised
> by Sortir du nucléaire (Get Out of Nuclear
> Power), were staged in 5 French towns to protest
> construction of EPR plants; Rennes, Lyon,
> Toulouse, Lille, and Strasbourg. [9][10]
>
> On April 26, 2007 (the 21st anniversary of the
> Chernobyl disaster) around 30 protesters blocked
> entrances and chained themselves to cranes at the
> EPR site in Flamanville, some remaining on the
> site for 24 hours. A truck was also parked in
> front of the entrance to block its access.[11]

And your point is?

Any fool can demonstrate against a good idea!

Their actions require absolutely no thought or any common sense; only a silly, misguided cardboard placard!

It was Winston Churchill who wisely said, "If you are young and not a liberal, you have no social conscience; if you are older and not a conservative, you have no common sense!


It's a good idea to poison our lands and waters for hundreds of thousands of years?

Gotcha'.
Cascade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a good idea to poison our lands and waters
> for hundreds of thousands of years?
>
> Gotcha'.

Wrong!

Check this out!

When processed properly, nuclear fuel is much less toxic to the environment that huge offshore oil spills!

The new reactor will be more powerful than any currently in commercial use. It will consume 15 percent less uranium while producing 30 percent less nuclear waste. The waste, however, will be considerably more radioactive than that produced by older reactors.However, this waste can be easily recycled and reused at half the expense of producing and storing conventional fuel for natural gas or coal-fired electric power plants.
So?

It's still a really bad idea to have radioactive wast that leaks into groundwater and contaminates soil regardles of it's half-life.

100,000 years as opposed to 300,000 years doesn't make much of a difference.

And, when it's recycled (whether that stuff is used for weapons like DU or DIME munitions or as fuel for other reactors) it still needs to be disposed of after it's reused.

This is not an argument for coal fired plants... I am arguing against both coal and nuclear. We need to use Thorium if we're going to insist on nuclear and we need to use many more renewables and alternative energy sources.
Cascade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So?
>
> It's still a really bad idea to have radioactive
> wast that leaks into groundwater and contaminates
> soil regardles of it's half-life.
>
> 100,000 years as opposed to 300,000 years doesn't
> make much of a difference.
>
> And, when it's recycled (whether that stuff is
> used for weapons like DU or DIME munitions or as
> fuel for other reactors) it still needs to be
> disposed of after it's reused.
>
> This is not an argument for coal fired plants... I
> am arguing against both coal and nuclear. We need
> to use Thorium if we're going to insist on nuclear
> and we need to use many more renewables and
> alternative energy sources.


This problem with nuclear waste has a very simple and reliable solution. Instead of finding a decent and safe place to bury the stuff, place the waste in a sealed cargo device, set the cargo device atop a three stage booster rocket and send the device with the stuff in it into the sun where it will be vaporized and completely destroyed.

Case close, problem solved!




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2011 07:01PM by James Cessna.
And what happens when that three stager explodes in the atmosphere?

You do realize that the cost to haul tons and tons of highly radioactive waste into space is so exceedingly expensive that you would be paying a year's salary for a few days electricity if that plan were enacted don't you?

We don't even have the tech to develop strong enough storage facilities for nuclear waste and we'd have to spend a hell of a lot in R&D to try to develop canisters to survive an atmospheric explosion, reentry and metoric impact should the capsule fall back to earth...

It's simply not feasible to "launch it into the sun". Economically or scientifically.

It's a stupid idea.
Cascade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And what happens when that three stager explodes
> in the atmosphere?
>
> You do realize that the cost to haul tons and tons
> of highly radioactive waste into space is so
> exceedingly expensive that you would be paying a
> year's salary for a few days electricity if that
> plan were enacted don't you?
>
> We don't even have the tech to develop strong
> enough storage facilities for nuclear waste and
> we'd have to spend a hell of a lot in R&D to try
> to develop canisters to survive an atmospheric
> explosion, reentry and metoric impact should the
> capsule fall back to earth...
>
> It's simply not feasible to "launch it into the
> sun". Economically or scientifically.

Wrong!

It is not a problem.

The sealed cargo device can be designed to survive a sub-orbital explosion not break apart on surface impact. The device would be large enough to deliever at least three years of radioactive waste into space on one single space launch thus making the safe removal costs for this waste very reasonable.

Even today, NASA uses special sealed devices to deliver radioactive materials into space all the time. These devices are power generators and are called RTGs. They provide reliable electrical power for NASAs deep space satellites.

Can you imagine what the anti-nuclear protestors would say and do if they actually knew these secret launches actually occur in the southern part of densely-populated Florida all the time?

By the way, a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG, RITEG) is a nuclear electrical generator that obtains its power from radioactive decay. In such a device, the heat released by the decay of a suitable radioactive material is converted into electricity by the “Seebeck” effect using an array of special thermal power convertors.

They are much more efficient than "fuel cells". Fuel cells, in turn, are much more efficient than solar energy panels. Solar panels don't produce electricity at night or during overcast days. They also don't produce electricity when their glass cover slides are dirty! Their cover glasses get dirty on a regular basis and must be cleaned very often. Are you ready to get a ladder out every day and climb high on your roof to clean them?

The people who sell solar panels don't tell you this when you buy them!
Where are these "indestructible" cargo containers?

What evidence do you have that supports your claim that "at least three years" worth of radioactive waste can be taken up in a single launch?

What would prevent catastrophic explosions from happening?

Answer these questions reasonably and you've got my attention.

Currently these are the standards for spent nuclear fuel casks:

* A 9 meter (30 ft) free fall on to an unyielding surface
* A puncture test allowing the container to free-fall 1 meter (about 39 inches) onto a steel rod 15 centimeters (about 6 inches) in diameter
* A 30-minute, all-engulfing fire at 800 degrees Celsius (1475 degrees Fahrenheit)
* An 8-hour immersion under 0.9 meter (3 ft) of water.
* Further, an undamaged package must be subjected to a one-hour immersion under 200 meters (655 ft) of water.


How are we going to design and create in an economically viable way casks that will withstand reentry, a fall of miles and impact at terminal velocity and also the ability to resist crush depths at the bottom of the ocean?

WHat kind of rocket will take the kind of weight necessary in an economically viable fashion?

What about "legacy waste" ? In the United States alone, the Department of Energy states there are "millions of gallons of radioactive waste" as well as "thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material" and also "huge quantities of contaminated soil and water."

Who's going to pay to launch that when launch costs are so prohibitive?

See: [www.thespacereview.com]

Costs range $4,500 to $11,000 USD per pound.
[www.wisegeek.com]

The largest potential payload (development has failed but still might pan out) is on the Ariane 5 and it can carry a maximum of 26400 lbs. or approx 11 tonnes.

At a cost of over 20 million a launch with development costs already over 6 to 8 billion.

Where is the economic reality here when uranium is so cheep? What incentive does anyone have to pay these outlandish prices when they don't have to?

Again, it's a stupid idea.

Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
February 01, 2011 09:21PM
An astoundingly stupid idea.

Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
February 01, 2011 09:54PM
"Mr Cessna" must have seen that idea demonstrated on The Simpsons or something.
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
February 01, 2011 10:07PM
The astronomical cost of such an unworkable endeavor would never end either and would continue to rise. Forget about the logistics, the safety, and the workablility... the mere cost of this would knock it out of any sane consideration.

"The sealed cargo device can be designed to survive a sub-orbital explosion not break apart on surface impact. The device would be large enough to deliever at least three years of radioactive waste into space on one single space launch thus making the safe removal costs for this waste very reasonable."
-Jim

That is plain nonsense. Your figures are laughably incomplete. You have absolutely no idea just what constitutes radioactive waste if you think that's all there is in three years.

"Even today, NASA uses special sealed devices to deliver radioactive materials into space all the time. These devices are power generators and are called RTGs. They provide reliable electrical power for NASAs deep space satellites." -Jim

And for the importance and cost of these devices, the astronomical expense of getting them into space is justifiable. But just to throw something away??? Are you out of your mind? You can't see the blithering insanity of such a notion?

Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
February 01, 2011 10:54PM
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you out of your mind? You can't see
> the blithering insanity of such a notion?


You need to ask?
HHH
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
February 02, 2011 12:39AM
Do conservatives really support this blast nuclear waste into the sun program? I thought they were the cautious ones.

____________________________________________
What kind of genius loses a billion dollars in a year?
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
February 02, 2011 01:03AM
They are the conservatives.*




*Except when it comes to incredibly stupid ideas like blasting nuclear waste into space or invading foreign countries for no reason.
Cascade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where are these "indestructible" cargo
> containers?

> Again, it's a stupid idea.
>
> [www.showbizgossips.com]
> 010/01/Space-Shuttle-Challenger-Explosion.jpeg

You are funny!

These satellite launches into space with radioactive sources happen all the time. The special containers are desiged to easily survive an accident like the Challenge disaster. Are you aware the crew compartment with the crewpersons inside was uncovered completely in tact after the Challenger explosion? Most people outside of NASA are unaware of this.

The radioactive RTG's are the only power sources the NASA deep space probes can use. They can’t use solar power because the space vehicles are too far away from the sun, and the sunlight at these very large distances is too faint to produce electrical power.

The idea works very well!

It is only a stupid idea if indeed you are a very stupid person!






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2011 01:23AM by James Cessna.
Anonymous User
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
February 02, 2011 10:25AM
If nuclear power plants are so safe, why is the government the only agency willing to insured them against liability?


Mac
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
February 02, 2011 04:37PM
James, it's an incredibly stupid idea. It's that simple. Your apples/oranges comparison between the countless gigantic receptacles required to eliminate nuclear waste by shooting it into the sun and the high-tech nuclear engines that power satellites is inane.

You have no idea of the immensity of shear stuff you are talking about launching into space. Here's an excerpt from an article about the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Facility...

The repository has a statutory limit of 77,000 metric tons (85,000 short tons).[14] To store this amount of waste requires 40 miles of tunnels.[1] The Nuclear Waste Policy Act further limits the capacity of the repository to 63,000 metric tons (62,000 LT; 69,000 ST) of initial heavy metal in commercial spent fuel. The 104 U.S. commercial reactors currently operating will produce this quantity of spent fuel by 2014,[15] assuming that the spent fuel rods are not reprocessed. Currently, the US has no civil reprocessing plant. wiki

The notion of instead launching all that mass, ignoring its danger potential, along with the containment casks required is ludicrous from any angle it is observed from. To give you some idea of what you are talking about, the entire International Space Station weighs a tiny fraction of the amounts mentioned above or just a couple hundred tons (412,000 pounds).

Give it up, James. The idea is literally worthless. It's a pipe-dream of gargantuan proportions. If you are such a moderate, stop thinking like a Republican.

Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James, it's an incredibly stupid idea. It's that
> simple. Your apples/oranges comparison between the
> countless gigantic receptacles required to
> eliminate nuclear waste by shooting it into the
> sun and the high-tech nuclear engines that power
> satellites is inane.
>
> You have no idea of the immensity of shear stuff
> you are talking about launching into space. Here's
> an excerpt from an article about the Yucca
> Mountain Nuclear Waste Facility...
>
> The repository has a statutory limit of 77,000
> metric tons (85,000 short tons).[14] To store this
> amount of waste requires 40 miles of tunnels.[1]
> The Nuclear Waste Policy Act further limits the
> capacity of the repository to 63,000 metric tons
> (62,000 LT; 69,000 ST) of initial heavy metal in
> commercial spent fuel. The 104 U.S. commercial
> reactors currently operating will produce this
> quantity of spent fuel by 2014,[15] assuming that
> the spent fuel rods are not reprocessed.

> Currently, the US has no civil reprocessing plant.
> wiki
>
> Give it up, James. The idea is literally
> worthless. It's a pipe-dream of gargantuan
> proportions. If you are such a moderate, stop
> thinking like a Republican.

Wrong, Ponderer.

There are several major fallacies and significant errors with the objections you have included in your response to my wonderful idea to eliminate nuclear waste by using a space booster to shoot it into the sun.

Your first problem is you are talking about the capacity of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Facility. You are not talking about the actual amount of nuclear waste we have produced so for with the existing nuclear reactors.

To further explain your obvious discrepancy, you must admit there is a big difference between the capacity of your fuel tank (40 gallons) and the amount of fuel (2.0 gallons) that is actually in the tank!

Also, the new reactors today do not produce near as much nuclear waste as the reactors that were on line when the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Facility was first designed and came on line. Moreover, when processed properly, nuclear fuel is much less toxic to the environment that huge offshore oil spills!

The new reactors will be more powerful than any currently in commercial use. They will consume 15 percent less uranium while producing 30 percent less nuclear waste. The waste, however, will be considerably more radioactive than that produced by older reactors.However, this waste can be easily recycled and reused at half the expense of producing and storing conventional fuel for natural gas or coal-fired electric power plants.

Case closed, problem solved!

It is a good idea after all to use a space booster to shoot our spent nuclear fuel into to the sun!



Reason for edits: format corrctions.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2011 06:09PM by James Cessna.
Re: Public acceptance of safe and reliable nuclear power in France
February 02, 2011 09:45PM
"Your first problem is you are talking about the capacity of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Facility. You are not talking about the actual amount of nuclear waste we have produced so for with the existing nuclear reactors." -James

Wow... you are so wrong. "Metric tons" is a measure of weight, not volume. The article I posted is quite clear in what it is talking about:

"The Nuclear Waste Policy Act further limits the capacity of the repository to 63,000 metric tons (62,000 LT; 69,000 ST) of initial heavy metal in commercial spent fuel. The 104 U.S. commercial reactors currently operating will produce this quantity of spent fuel by 2014"

Again, it is as clear as it could be what it is referring to. It is talking about the nuclear waste specifically irrespective of the containment vessels or any other logistical hardware. So yes I was talking, specifically and without doubt, about the actual amount of nuclear waste.

And you are still flabbergastingly unclear on the amount of mass that you are talking about chucking up into space at over $625 per ounce. You are talking about spending over $20,000,000 per ton multiplied by tens of thousands of tons of material. You are actually getting into the realm of many hundreds of billions of dollars. Just to dispose of the waste generated by a supposedly efficient and economical energy technology. Gimme a freaking break. Even if new technologies reduce the amount of waste produced by 30% as you claim it would, it would still cost hundreds of billions of dollars for solar disposal.

Launching nuclear waste into the sun is simply a ludicrous, nitwit idea.



The "hand gun" in the cartoon represents fair and honest competition between two U.S. corporations. May the corporation with the best consumer satisfaction win the prize! (Capitalist corporations are blue; government-run corporations are red!)
Let's not forget about the dangers of transportation of this highly radioactive waste from all parts of the country. Talk about prime terrorism targets.
Cascade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's not forget about the dangers of
> transportation of this highly radioactive waste
> from all parts of the country. Talk about prime
> terrorism targets.


Good point!

But the security precautions are now very good and very reliable. We transport highly radioactive waste from hospitals and many cancer treatment centers all the time.
You have a problem with quantity.

Yes we transport small (very small) amounts of radioactive isotopes and about 50lbs of plutonium oxide for satellites.

That pales in comparison to the massive amounts of nuclear waste generated by the US alone and becomes minuscule when compared to the amount generated worldwide.

You seem to think that just because there is a small amount of radio isotope transported to a hospital that large-scale transportation of highly-radioactive waste by rail or truck is somehow related. It's not. THey are two very different animals.
Cascade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have a problem with quantity.
>
> Yes we transport small (very small) amounts of
> radioactive isotopes and about 50lbs of plutonium
> oxide for satellites.
>
> That pales in comparison to the massive amounts of
> nuclear waste generated by the US alone and
> becomes minuscule when compared to the amount
> generated worldwide.
>
> You seem to think that just because there is a
> small amount of radio isotope transported to a
> hospital that large-scale transportation of
> highly-radioactive waste by rail or truck is
> somehow related. It's not. THey are two very
> different animals.

Cascade, I can't believe you are really this dense!

What you do is take the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and you divide it up into much smaller packages and transport it in the safer quantities you use for radioactive waste from hospitals and cancer treatment centers.


Solution accepted; problem solved!

Not a solution. It would cost WAY too much to break up tonnes of material into ounces and ship it by private conveyance.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login



Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!