Uranium clean/dirty energy source....

[The Boston Dangler]

clean coal? are you serious? there is no such thing.

 

[judasmachine]

I am all for nuclear energy so long as it's strictly controlled, and the spent rods are responsibly disposed of.

 

[iGas]

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: iGas

As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

I agree with Coal, NG, hydroelectric as the primary sources for energy. Sorry to use OPEC/oil to draw attention to the poll.

However, NG is at its peak capacity, and clean coal is inconclusive.

ng is not at its peak. not even close. our business is down a lot because ng is so cheap right now. ( i log ng wells in wyoming)

I'm not sure as to the US or Mexico NG capability, but Canadian NG sources are getting too expensive extract. And, new NG drill holes in Canada aren't delivering anywhere near the volume that we use to get in the 80-90s, beside the fact that pipelines are at max capacity from Canada to the US, and there are no plan of building new pipelines to run south of the border.

The only pipe line proposal that I have heard have been shelved for the moment, is the northern AB to BC coast so that we can sell compressed NG to Asia for higher price than the US.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Imp

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: herm0016
you are calling people idiots and claiming that nuclear will kill " tens of millions within weeks"?

pot.. meet kettle...

btw: i am licensed by the NRC to handle radioactive sources ie.. i have lots of training.

Nuclear power will also steal your children, and call your mother lewd names.

LOL

That came out of nowhere.

It's what I do.

Well look at techs' post. Kill tens of millions? It might as well steal your children and call your mother lewd names - either one is just loony. Except mine was intentionally so.

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I always had the impression nuclear was very dirty but I keep hearing it's very clean, at least while it's being produced. The issue is the waste. If they can figure out a way to properly get rid of the waste or turn it into a non dangerous waste, then I'm all for it.

Nuclear disasters can be really nasty and wipe out a few cities, but when you think about it, so can gas disasters, all it takes is for an explosion to chain react with the main pipe line or something. Although rare, disasters can happen with almost anything.

I say they just hire people that peddle a generator bike for half an hour, then they take turns, and have thousands of these bikes and lot of workers on different shifts.

No, really, that would be cool.

Bottom line is, it would rock to totally break loose of oil/opec regulated products. Same with cars. Screw opec.

Problem is though, I can see it happen where opec will just end up regulating whatever new source of energy we end up using, so we may win the pollution war, but we wont win the money war.

There already exists the technology to drastically reduce the volume of waste generated: Reprocessing. But there were concerns about weapons proliferation, as reprocessing can also give better material for nuclear weapons. My take on it: If the government wants to make weapons, they'll find a way. Banning reprocessing just means more waste for the industry to deal with, kind of like throwing away a half-eaten sandwich because it might be used to feed a homeless guy who might also have homicidal tendencies.

A disaster like Chernobyl could make a sizable region uninhabitable, but not "wipe out." Nuclear reactors don't explode in an atomic fireball. And US reactors aren't designed like Chernobyl, and they are maintained better. They shut off lots of safety systems to get Chernobyl to do what it did. And we don't use control rods that can burn at high temperatures, like the graphite moderators they used. And we have containment vessels for our reactors, constructed out of concrete. THICK concrete - a few feet of it.

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
clean coal? are you serious? there is no such thing.

Sure. Coal can be made quite clean at all levels, from mining to burning.
But of course, doing so would make solar power look quite inexpensive.
Always the balance, cost vs feasibility vs marketability.

 

[Regs]

The real question is, will the cost of building such plants make up for the costs of energy? You add the tons of regulations that the NRC will sure to impose as well as homeland security and the rates will hopefully in the end be cheaper than coal.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Actually how viable is solar power? Is there lot of room for improvement of effeciency? (more power per square inch) or have we pretty much hit the limit of what a panel can give us? To me this is as free as energy gets, same with wind, but solar is better as it has very little impact on the environment, other then taking up lot of room (which is less of an issue of you put them on top of objects already taking up room)

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: techs
As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

And as for the idiotic (yes, IDIOTIC) statement that France is energy independent, they are 100 percent NOT. They only use nuclear for electricity. And they have to import uranium to run their nuke plants. Plus import oil and gas for their cars and heating (no, they don't heat with electricity). So as opposed to Germany which mines it own coal for its electricity and imports oil and gas for cars and heating, France is in exactly the same position. OR rather Germany is in a better position. They use their own coal while France imports uranium.

And would I rather put up with the health effects of burning coal and natural gas which can cause some illnesses as I get older, than risk contaminating a very large portion of America and killing possibly tens of millions within weeks, I will have to go with continued burning of coal and natural gas. Though I would like to spend just a little more money to clean up coal emissions as much as is cost effective.

you are calling people idiots and claiming that nuclear will kill " tens of millions within weeks"?

a Chernobyl in new reactors is very nearly impossible. new reactors have containment buildings, water systems that are gravity fed and do not conduct military experiments in them like Chernobyl. we also train the people who run them, unlike russia.

pot.. meet kettle...

btw: i am licensed by the NRC to handle radioactive sources ie.. i have lots of training.

Worst case scenarios using Indian Point Nuclear Power plant just north of New York City. And the tens of millions are the actual deaths within a year.

And a new Chernobyl type accident is not "very nearly impossible". Geez, every day bridges fail, computer networks crash, pipes burst, etc. It is the height of hubris to think that it is very nearly impossible for a nuke plant to fail and fail spectactulary.
Heck, try Engineering Disasters on the History Channel for the barest fraction of how completely unforseen events cause spectacular disasters in some of the most well understood engineering practices. Then remember a nuke plant is like a 100 times more complicated.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
clean coal? are you serious? there is no such thing.

Sure. Coal can be made quite clean at all levels, from mining to burning.
But of course, doing so would make solar power look quite inexpensive.
Always the balance, cost vs feasibility vs marketability.

so what do you do about unregulated coal dams wiping out entire communities?

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Actually how viable is solar power? Is there lot of room for improvement of effeciency? (more power per square inch) or have we pretty much hit the limit of what a panel can give us? To me this is as free as energy gets, same with wind, but solar is better as it has very little impact on the environment, other then taking up lot of room (which is less of an issue of you put them on top of objects already taking up room)

the best solar panels in the world go on satellites, and they're good for 25% tops. the best you and i could purchase are good for less than 20%. like hybrid cars, there is a ton of energy and nasty chemicals involved in manufacture. vapor deposition and electroplating doesn't run on applesauce, or even whale shit.

 

[RESmonkey]

Uranium is radioactive. It's not stable. If some "earth" contains uranium, obviously the uranium inside the mix is radioactive.

edit = Oh, and yes. I am all for radioactive energy sources.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: Hacp
Isn't most uranium non radioactive? So mining won't really affect anybody.

Uranium earth isn't radioactive but the majority of the treehuggers doesn't know that.

Dumbass


Edit: To expand: WTF is uranium earth? All uranium is radioactive. Natural uranium, enriched uranium, depleted uranium, it's all radioactive.

Maybe I'm a dumbass and same go for the University of British Columbia. UBC is where I worked with "uranium earth" during my study there.

Uranium earth is unprocessed mining earth or lightly processed. Raw uranium earth can have 1-10 lbs of uranium per metric ton of earth.

I have a really hard time believing you went to any kind of school.

How did you ever get through English classes?

I've seen you write "a way" as "away", "Maybe I'm a dumbass and same go..." and these are just two of the myriad of errors you have made.

Plus you didn't know that uranium was radioactive?

Lie more?

 

[herm0016]

techs: do you purposely avoid driving over bridges or under electric lines, or near tall buildings because there is a non-zero chance of them killing you?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: techs
As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

And as for the idiotic (yes, IDIOTIC) statement that France is energy independent, they are 100 percent NOT. They only use nuclear for electricity. And they have to import uranium to run their nuke plants. Plus import oil and gas for their cars and heating (no, they don't heat with electricity). So as opposed to Germany which mines it own coal for its electricity and imports oil and gas for cars and heating, France is in exactly the same position. OR rather Germany is in a better position. They use their own coal while France imports uranium.

And would I rather put up with the health effects of burning coal and natural gas which can cause some illnesses as I get older, than risk contaminating a very large portion of America and killing possibly tens of millions within weeks, I will have to go with continued burning of coal and natural gas. Though I would like to spend just a little more money to clean up coal emissions as much as is cost effective.

you are calling people idiots and claiming that nuclear will kill " tens of millions within weeks"?

a Chernobyl in new reactors is very nearly impossible. new reactors have containment buildings, water systems that are gravity fed and do not conduct military experiments in them like Chernobyl. we also train the people who run them, unlike russia.

pot.. meet kettle...

btw: i am licensed by the NRC to handle radioactive sources ie.. i have lots of training.

Worst case scenarios using Indian Point Nuclear Power plant just north of New York City. And the tens of millions are the actual deaths within a year.

And a new Chernobyl type accident is not "very nearly impossible". Geez, every day bridges fail, computer networks crash, pipes burst, etc. It is the height of hubris to think that it is very nearly impossible for a nuke plant to fail and fail spectactulary.
Heck, try Engineering Disasters on the History Channel for the barest fraction of how completely unforseen events cause spectacular disasters in some of the most well understood engineering practices. Then remember a nuke plant is like a 100 times more complicated.

What are you talking about techs? Yes, with some designs it is, for all intents and purposes, IMPOSSIBLE to have a nuclear melt-down.

Japanese built pebble bed reactors have passive safety systems instead of active safety systems. In case of cooling issues due to accidents it can cool itself through circulation means, even as the reactor temperature raises to it's peak around ~1600 degrees Celsius.

I could say more but it is all in here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

You couldn't cause a meltdown if you tried!

 

[RESmonkey]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: techs
As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

And as for the idiotic (yes, IDIOTIC) statement that France is energy independent, they are 100 percent NOT. They only use nuclear for electricity. And they have to import uranium to run their nuke plants. Plus import oil and gas for their cars and heating (no, they don't heat with electricity). So as opposed to Germany which mines it own coal for its electricity and imports oil and gas for cars and heating, France is in exactly the same position. OR rather Germany is in a better position. They use their own coal while France imports uranium.

And would I rather put up with the health effects of burning coal and natural gas which can cause some illnesses as I get older, than risk contaminating a very large portion of America and killing possibly tens of millions within weeks, I will have to go with continued burning of coal and natural gas. Though I would like to spend just a little more money to clean up coal emissions as much as is cost effective.

you are calling people idiots and claiming that nuclear will kill " tens of millions within weeks"?

a Chernobyl in new reactors is very nearly impossible. new reactors have containment buildings, water systems that are gravity fed and do not conduct military experiments in them like Chernobyl. we also train the people who run them, unlike russia.

pot.. meet kettle...

btw: i am licensed by the NRC to handle radioactive sources ie.. i have lots of training.

Worst case scenarios using Indian Point Nuclear Power plant just north of New York City. And the tens of millions are the actual deaths within a year.

And a new Chernobyl type accident is not "very nearly impossible". Geez, every day bridges fail, computer networks crash, pipes burst, etc. It is the height of hubris to think that it is very nearly impossible for a nuke plant to fail and fail spectactulary.
Heck, try Engineering Disasters on the History Channel for the barest fraction of how completely unforseen events cause spectacular disasters in some of the most well understood engineering practices. Then remember a nuke plant is like a 100 times more complicated.

I'm sorry, but you're a dumbass.

 

[HomerSapien]

lol...so much misinformation. For starters, try the department of energy's web page to get some clarification. Check out the links on the right hand side of the page under learn more.

DOE

Some have fallen to the concept that if you dont understand it, it must be bad and needs to be stopped. These people are a little slower to learn or accept the facts, however the skepticism is necessary to develop a safety culture.

Now on the other side, to those who say it is impossible, that is what was said before each nuclear accident, TMI and at numerous criticality accident locations. A safety culture will ensure that the accident remains highly unlikely and this occurs by learning from mistakes in order to present future ones. In addition, the nuclear industry is the most regulated field. The NRCs directive is to ensure that the public remains safe. This is done through relentless scrutiny of design, operations, and maintenance, i.e. every aspect of the facility.

In the end, the skeptics are part of the reason we still maintain the highest safety margin of any industry.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
You are..13, aren't you?

I want to see ATOT position on the subject as away to gauge the market before I invest in US uranium mining companies.

Thank you for playing.

So you are 13 then.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
You are..13, aren't you?

I want to see ATOT position on the subject as away to gauge the market before I invest in US uranium mining companies.

Thank you for playing.

So you are 13 then.

I don't think he is, but I'm at a loss when it comes to understanding his position.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
You are..13, aren't you?

I want to see ATOT position on the subject as away to gauge the market before I invest in US uranium mining companies.

Thank you for playing.

So you are 13 then.

I don't think he is, but I'm at a loss when it comes to understanding his position.

I figured I'd give him the benefit of a doubt.

Instead of looking at something a lot more tangible than the personal feelings of about a few dozen random people on an internet messaging board like a prospectus for the building of future nuclear power plants or predictions on the exportation of US mined uranium. I mean, it's not like uranium has a very specific set of uses that really does not change unless you have a large increase in building multi-billion dollar power plants or requires the exportation of material that many in the government would be rather leery about. Hell, it's 2009, I can go down to my corner drug store and get plutonium.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/b...re/cornerdrugstore.jpg

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
You are..13, aren't you?

I want to see ATOT position on the subject as away to gauge the market before I invest in US uranium mining companies.

Thank you for playing.

you should stop right there

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: Hacp
Isn't most uranium non radioactive? So mining won't really affect anybody.

Uranium earth isn't radioactive but the majority of the treehuggers doesn't know that.

Dumbass


Edit: To expand: WTF is uranium earth? All uranium is radioactive. Natural uranium, enriched uranium, depleted uranium, it's all radioactive.

Maybe I'm a dumbass and same go for the University of British Columbia. UBC is where I worked with "uranium earth" during my study there.

Uranium earth is unprocessed mining earth or lightly processed. Raw uranium earth can have 1-10 lbs of uranium per metric ton of earth.

You worked with uranium ore and you are under the impression that it isn't radioactive? Your nuts are going to fall off.

well, it's not heavily radioactive.

as long as you're not basking in it for awhile, you can work with yellowcake without any real issue.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Anyway, fission for now, but for the future, goooooo fusion!

gooooo fusion!

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: techs
As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

The US generated 66512000000 kWh of electricity from petroleum in 2007 according to the EIA. While only a fraction of the total, it is hardly "almost no oil" (depending on efficiency its between 80-100 million barrels, or about 4-5 days worth of total US consumption @ ~20 million barrels a day).

Also natural gas prices are tied to oil prices - when oil is high, natural gas is high too. So if oil prices start to heading to >$100/barrel expect natural gas prices to triple (based on historical evidence).

Originally posted by: techs
And would I rather put up with the health effects of burning coal and natural gas which can cause some illnesses as I get older, than risk contaminating a very large portion of America and killing possibly tens of millions within weeks, I will have to go with continued burning of coal and natural gas. Though I would like to spend just a little more money to clean up coal emissions as much as is cost effective.

:roll:

A 1982 study by Sandia National Laboratories found that a core meltdown and radiological release at one of the two operating Indian Point reactors could cause 50,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation syndrome and 14,000 long-term deaths from cancer.

* The number of near-term deaths within 50 miles, due to lethal radiation exposures received within seven days after the attack, is approximately 3,500 for 95th percentile weather conditions, and approximately 44,000 for the worst case evaluated. Although we assumed that the ten-mile emergency planning zone was entirely evacuated in these cases, this effort was inadequate because (according to Entergy's own estimate) it would take nearly nine and one half hours to fully evacuate the ten-mile zone, whereas in our model the first radiological release occurs about two hours after the attack.
* Near-term deaths can occur among individuals living as far as 18 miles from Indian Point for the 95th percentile case, and as far as 60 miles away in the worst case evaluated. Timely sheltering could be effective in reducing the number of near-term deaths among people residing outside of the ten-mile emergency planning zone, but currently no formal emergency plan is required for these individuals.
* The number of long-term cancer deaths within 50 miles, due to non-acutely lethal radiation exposures within seven days after the attack, is almost 100,000 for 95th percentile weather conditions and more than 500,000 for the worst weather case evaluated. The peak value corresponds to an attack timed to coincide with weather conditions that maximize radioactive fallout over New York City.
* Based on the 95th percentile case, Food and Drug Administration guidance would recommend that many New York City residents under 40, and children in particular, take potassium iodide (KI) to block absorption for radioactive iodine in the thyroid. However, there is no requirement that KI be stockpiled for use in New York City.
* The economic damages within 100 miles would exceed $1.1 trillion for the 95th percentile case, and could be as great as $2.1 trillion for the worst case evaluated, based on Environmental Protection Agency guidance for population relocation and cleanup. Millions of people would require permanent relocation.

 

[Locut0s]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Anyway, fission for now, but for the future, goooooo fusion!

gooooo fusion!

English dubbed DBZ ftl.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Locut0s

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Anyway, fission for now, but for the future, goooooo fusion!

gooooo fusion!

English dubbed DBZ ftl.

Just for you

 

[Acanthus]

Uranium is an order of magnitude cleaner than coal... even clean coal.

A coal plant actually puts out a ton of heavy metals (including uranium and other deadly isotopes) directly into the air. The long-term effects of this must be horrendous.

So my thinking on the matter is "possibly having an accident that will kill some poeple", or "defiantely killing tons of people slowly"...

More people die every year working in coal plants than the entire history of commercial nuclear energy.

I am very pro nuclear for this reason. I think funding should be boosted to the DOE for fusion research grants, the construction of breeder reactors, waste container research, storage facilities, and new plants.

Right now Uranium is cheaper than Copper.

 

[techs]

Let's make a pro's and cons list:

Cons:
1) Nuclear won't affect the cost of gas or oil.
2) Nuclear costs more than coal, gas and hydroelectric.
3) There is no permanent place to store the highly dangerous waste products.
4) And accident or natural disaster that affects a nuke plant could potentially be the most devastingly destructive event in US history.
5) Nuclear plants could be a prime target for terrorists.
6) Nuclear plants do produce some thermal pollution into the rivers they are sited near to provide cooling water.
7) Nuclear plants do occasionaly emit some radioactivity, though very little.
8) Nuclear planst have more downtime than conventional plants of gas or coal.


Pros:
1) Nuclear plants produce no immeditate air emissions.
2) Nuclear plants have more uptime than wind plants.

Even or unknown:
1) Nuclear plants may or may not have more uptime than hydro plants, which can be affected by droughts.
2) Nuclear plants rely on imported uranium, while gas plants rely on imported gas.

Did I miss anything?