Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]God I feel better already. Seriously thanks, Douglas. It is always enlightening to read someone who truly knows what he is writing about. On disposing of nukular waste, ;-) I've heard of shooting the moon before but never shooting the sun. Canada is doing it with tar sands and there are billions of barrels in Colorado's oil shale. Green won't let producers go there. Did not Exxon close down its oil shale facility after investing $1 1/2 billion in it? S. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Sharp" <douglas.sharp@gmx.de> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221 > 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 >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >