[Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221

[douglas.sharp at gmx.de (Douglas Sharp)]

The technologiy is clean enough, and close to being as safe as it can be 
- the problem is still nuclear waste. As a production and exploration 
geophysicist I've worked on nuclear waste storage sites, working and 
prospective, in Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and a few other places. 
For the long-term storage of nuclear waste there is NO really safe 
solution, that stuff stays highly radioactive on a geological time scale.
Salt dome caverns  are no good - salt moves and migrates so you've never 
got a constant thickness shielding your waste, the Swiss solution of 
putting it in caverns blasted out of native impervious (supposedly) 
rocks is better but radiactive gases (Radon for example) always manage 
to find a way to the surface. The Belgian method of hiding it under a 
thin layer of impervious clay isn't a long term solution either.
So what do we do with it?  Shooting it into the sun is the only real way 
of getting rid of it, there's been enough dropped into the sea and more 
than enough buried already, these "fly-dumps" will take their revenge on 
the environment one of theses days.
You say that  present day technologies are safe, I agree - problem is, 
even the most recent reactors just haven't been built with these new 
technologies, Temsvar in the Czech Republic is one of the newest NPSs
and is just not safe, the same applies to the latest French reactors, 
Germany's reactors have been plagued with problems and Sellafield in the 
UK is a dirty word already. No need to mention reactors in the former 
soviet block countries.......

Fusion power is pie-in-the-sky (unless the billions for defence are 
re-channeled), you might just as well try a further development of 
Nikolaus Tesla's idea by building orbiting spaceborne solar power 
stations transmitting power as high energy microwave frequencies back to 
earth, though I dread to think what would happen if a plane flew through 
one of those tight banded transmissions.
The only clean options are  terrestrial solar energy farms, wind and 
tidal energy and geothermal energy - these are the only future I can see 
in power production.

Some of the latest developments reek of science fiction but could be 
effective - half mile high chimneys set up in desert regions, the 
temperature differential between ground level and the top creates winds 
of incredible velocities, all you have to do is put aturbine in the way 
of it. Using waste energy (off peak production is always too high and 
just gets wasted) from conventional power stations to pump water into 
high level reservoirs
to run hydroelectric turbines at peak demand times, storing energy as 
compressed air in salt domes is another option, use it to supply the 
energy needed to get gas turbines running.

None of these, however give us any kind of solution for automotive 
transport - when the oil runs out we're going to back with sailing ships 
and steam engines again, individual or personal transportation will be 
the rich man's game.

In spite of the doomy-gloomy diatribe above, the figures quoted for how 
long our hydrocarbons will last are always wrong, they're based on 
proven reserves. There are billions and billions of barrels of oil (and 
cubic meters of gas) in untried or uneconomical reservoirs, tar sands, 
hydrates, deep reservoirs and the like, and so far only about  8% of the 
globe has even been explored for energy reserves. By the time they run 
out the planet will be a ball of ice anyway.
Douglas

Mattheis, William G CIV wrote:

>On 30 Jan Adam Bridge wrote:
>
>
>"I don't believe I'll see even scientific break-even in fusion plant in
>my life-time let alone a full-scale fusion plant. I'm still a friend
>of fission plants - the new technologies are vastly safer than designs
>of 30-40 years ago - but I think nuclear in the United States is dead.
>People are afraid of anything technical and the anti-nuclear forces
>shout LOUDLY even if they are shouting FUD most of the time (at best.)"
>
>
>Adam you may well be correct about fusion, but we have made enormous 
>strides in my short lifetime so I continue to beleive.  I agree about 
>fission power.  It is clear, the required resources are abundant and safe.  
>New reprocessing technologies not only make this resource more valuable, 
>but also help deal with the spent fuel issues.  Unfortunately, I also agree 
>with your sense of difficulty in winning public acceptance.  I guess the 
>huge volumes of acid rain and other pollutants from coal fired power plants 
>are less frightening than nuclear issue, but they should not be.
>
>I think small turbines in cars would make a nice hybrid without any 
>superconductor requirements.  Use the turbine to drive a generator to power 
>electric drive with high efficiency batteries as a "buffer" between the 
>generator and electric drive.  Batteries provide levels of current required 
>for acceleration and other high demand situations [steep grades, etc.] and 
>direct drive from generator for sustaining velocity as when cruising the 
>freeway at speed.
>
>Anyway, great exchanging thoughts.  I think that in our capitalist economy, 
>dollars will dictate the power source we will use in the future, i.e., the 
>cheapest alternative will prevail.  Now, if we find a way to charge the 
>full cost of systems to include cleaning up environmental impact, then the 
>"cheapest alternative" may not be hydorcarbon based.
>
>Bill
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>  
>